HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 05/27/1980 • 0
AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
May 27, 1980 7 ; 30 p.m.
Atascadero Administration Building
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Invocation
Roll Call
Public Comment
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are con-
sidered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion in the form
listed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items .
If discussion is required, that item will be removed from the Con-
sent Calendar and will be considered separately. Vote may be by
roll call.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of the regular meeting of May 12 , 1980 (RECOMMEND
APPROVAL)
2. Treasurer' s Report, 4-23-80 to 5-20-80 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL)
3. Request for funds from Santa Lucia Area Council, Inc. ,
Boy Scouts of America (RECOMMEND ITEM BE DEFERRED FOR CON-
SIDERATION DURING BUDGET HEARINGS)
4. Parcel Map AT 79-43 - Pahler (RECOMMEND ACCEPTANCE)
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS
1. Report by Public Works Director on Administration Building
renovation
2 . City Clerk' s certification of sufficiency for "Voters ' Fee
Approval Ordinance" petition and City Attorney' s report
concerning same
3. City Attorney' s review of significant pending Federal and
State court actions
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Ordinance No. 22 amending the Zoning Map by placing certain
properties in the C-2-D zone
D. NEW BUSINESS
1. Ordinance No. 23 establishing a Police Department and
creating the office of Chief of Police - first reading
2. Possible Atascadero/Paso Robles combined recreation programs
3. Consideration of Agreement for Animal Control Services
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
1. City Council
2. City Attorney 1
3. City Manager
4
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
May 12 , 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. Donald Curtis of St. Williams
Parish gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Highland, Mackey, Nelson, Stover and Mayor
Wilkins
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC COMMENT
1. Kenneth Waage requested that Item A-6 be removed from the
Consent Calendar and considered separately so that he
could comment on it. Council agreed.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of the regular meeting of April 28 , 1980
(RECOMMEND APPROVAL)
2. Correspondence (RECOMMEND ITEM BE RECEIVED AND FILED)
3. Request from Senior Citizens United, Inc. for funding
(RECOMMEND LETTER BE DEFERRED FOR CONSIDERATION DURING
BUDGET HEARINGS)
4. Parcel Map AT78-46 - Unger (RECOMMEND ACCEPTANCE)
5. Lot line adjustment 80-1 - City of Atascadero (RECOMMEND
APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS 1-3)
6. CO 69-031, lot division - Renton (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS)
A correction on the minutes was noted on page three , E. 1. (c) ,
the budget hearing would be on June 14th instead of July 14th.
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved for the approval of the
Consent Calendar as amended with the exception of
Item A-6. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Nelson and unanimously carried by roll call vote.
A-6 CO 79-031, lot division - Renton (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS)
Larry Stevens reviewed the project and the Planning Commission's
recommendation for a finding of consistency with the General Plan;
V
v
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting May 12 , 1980
Page Two
compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, and the zoning and sub-
division ordinances of the Atascadero Municipal Code. They also
adopted Conditions 1-15 0£ the Subdivision Review Board Meeting
minutes of April 2 , 1980 and added a condition concerning improve-
ment of private driveways.
Mr. Waage was concerned that the lost of 4. 5 and 5. 6 acres
each could be split at some future time. He stated that the project
was turned down by the County in 1978 and also by the Subdivision
Review Board.
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council adopt the
recommendation of the Planning Commission. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried.
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS
1. Public hearing for proposed rezoning from A-1-1� to C-2 of
a 1. 45 acre site on the west side of E1 Camino Real north
of San Benito Road - Hiers/Joseph
Larry Stevens reviewed the Planning Commission' s approval of
this project and their adoption of Findings A-C as listed in the
County Staff Report dated April 21, 1980.
There were no comments from the public.
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Staff be directed to
prepare an ordinance and ordinance map to include the
recommendations of the Staff report. The motion was
seconded by Mackey and unanimously carried.
2. Public hearing on appeal of Planning Commission denial of
Tract 871, proposed division located along E1 Dorado,
Santa Fe and E1 Corte Roads - Peterson
Mr. Stevens reviewed the basis for the appeal and the Planning
Commission denial of the subdivision which was based on General Plan
inconsistency.
Bob Garing, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the
appeal.
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council concur with the
Planning Commission ' s findings and deny the appeal.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unani-
mously carried.
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting May 12 , 1980
Page Three
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Consideration of conditions for July 4th celebration and
Resolution No. 8-80 closing certain roads
"Bud" McHale, Police Chief, reviewed the proposed conditions
which included traffic control and clean-up. The resolution specified
roads to be closed during the celebration.
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved for the adoption of Resolution
No. 8-80 . The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson
and unanimously carried by roll call vote.
D. NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution No. 7-80 opposing elimination of LEAA
Mr. Warden reviewed the proposed resolution.
MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved for the adoption of Resolution
No. 7-80 . The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover
and carried on the following roll call vote :
AYES : Councilmen Mackey, Nelson Stover and Mayor Wilkins
NOES : Councilman Highland
2. Award of Bid No. 80-4 for miscellaneous police equipment
Mr. Warden reviewed the bid. His only concern with regard to
the bid, which totalled $12 , 149 . 76 , was the Chief ' s recommendation
for purchase of a hand held radar unit for $1,023. 75. He asked the
Council whether or not they favored using radar as a method of speed
control. He noted that the unit could be used to conduct traffic
surveys. There was considerable discussion regarding this matter.
MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved that Council award Bid No. 8-04
as recommended in the Chief' s memo with the exception
of the radar unit. The motion was seconded by Council-
man Mackey and carried with Councilman Stover voting no.
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
1. City Council
(a) Several Councilmembers commented on the informative
New Mayors and Councilmen' s conference held by the
League of California Cities.
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting May 12, 1980
Page Four
2. City Attorney
(a) Mr. Grimes requested an executive session to discuss
pending litigation regarding the Daly matter and
personnel.
3. City Manager
(a) Mr. Warden asked Council members if they would like
to have the City partcipate in the County Water
Advisory Committee and, if so, to appoint one of their members as
the delegate to those meetings with a City Staff member as alternate.
MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved that a Councilman be designated
as a primary representative to the County Water Advisory
Committee and the Public Works Director or the City
Manager as alternate. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried.
Mayor Wilkins stated that he would announce his appointment at
the next meeting.
(b) Mr. Warden advised that Monday, May 26th is Memorial
Day and also a City Council meeting day. The
second meeting in May, therefore, will be held on Tuesday, May 27th
in accordance with provisions of Atascadero' s Municipal Code.
(c) Mr. Warden advised that he was in receipt of petitions
calling for adoption of a Voters ' Fee Approval
Ordinance as advocated by Kathleen Daly. He said he will be pro-
cessing the petition in accordance with the provisions of the elections
code.
The meeting adjourned at 8 : 44 p.m.
Recorded by:
MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk
By: Ardith Davis
Deputy City Clerk
• • �a
CITY OF ATASCADERO
TREASURER' S REPORT
April 23, 1980 through May 20, 1980
Balance as of 4/22/80 $ 15 , 361. 75
Receivables :
Per attached deposit listing 159 ,217. 92
Payroll :
4/18 $5 , 422. 72
5/2 $5 , 140. 67 ( 10 ,563. 39)
Payables:
Per attached Expenditure List ( 147 ,902. 96)
Balance as of 5/20/80 $ 16 ,113 . 32
Other Funds:
Petty Cash $ 22. 15
Local Agency Investment Fund,
State of California 525,000 . 00
Time Deposit, Mid-State Bank
15. 15% interest, matures 4/24/81 100 ,000 . 00
Time Deposit, Mid-State Bank
14. 0% interest, matures 8/20/80 100 ,000 . 00
Time Deposit, Mid-State Bank
15. 875% interest, matures 9/9/80 100 , 000 . 00
Total 841,135.47
• r
DEPOSIT LISTING
April 23, 1980 through May 20 , 1980
Date Source Amount
4/23 Mid-State Bank - Time Deposit Interest $ 6 , 854 . 79
4/30 State - Alcoholic Beverage Tax 187 . 48
4/30 Planning Dept. - Permits 234 . 80
5/1 P G & E - Ad Refund 111 . 93
5/6 SLO Co. - Revenue (4/80) 38 ,167. 71
5/6 Pacific Telephone - Ad Refund 8. 68
5/6 SLO Co. - Fire District Sandbag Refund 306 . 00
5/6 Planning Dept. - Permits 431 . 00
5/7 Planning Dept. - Permits 170 . 35
5/13 Planning Dept. - Permits 154 . 06
5/14 State - Motor Vehicle "In Lieu" (4/80) 34 , 645. 10
5/14 Planning Dept. - Permits 674 . 13
5/16 Planning Dept. - Permits 504 . 00
5/20 State - Cigarette Tax (4/80) 4 , 616 . 41
5/20 State - Sales Tax (4/80) 55 , 000 . 00
5/20 State - Hwy Carriers Tax 509 . 41
5/20 State - Hwy & Users Tax 15 , 891. 05
5/20 Planning Dept. - Permits 751. 02
Total $ 159 ,217 . 92
EXPENDITURE LIST
April 23, 1980 through May 20 , 1980
Payroll:
4/18 Checks 2008, 2009 , 2010, 2011, 2012 ,
2013, 2014 , 2015, 2016 , 2017 $ 5,422 . 72
5/2 Checks 1063, 1064 , 1065, 1066 , 1067
1068 , 1069 , 1070 , 1071, 1072 $ 5 ,140. 67
Total $ 10,563. 39
Payables:
Dated Check No. Vendor Amount
4/23 1419 Western Office Prod. - Supplies $ 251. 83
4/23 1420 B & B Blueprinting 96 . 46
4/23 1421 San Francisco News Agency - Ad 68 . 90 �
4/23 1422 The Fresno Bee - Ad 50 . 85 "
4/23 1423 Los Angeles Times - Ad 84 . 37)
4/23 1424 Atascadero News - Ads 10 . 08
4/23 1425 Sandi Bartelt - Mileage 23 . 12
4/23 1426 Int.Assoc.of Chiefs of Police - Dues 35 . 00
4/23 1427 Larry Stevens - Mileage 75 . 85
4/23 1428 Tri-Ex Tower Corp. - Supplies ,Freight 704 . 57
4/23 1429 Peterson' s Welding Shop 5. 38
4/23 1430 IBM Corp. - Supplies 44 . 10
4/23 1431 IBM Corp. - Typewriter Rental 77 . 48
4/23 1432 Atascadero News - Ad 26 . 90
4/23 1433 Western Office Prod. - Supplies 53. 84
4/23 1434 VOID -----
4/23 1435 Mid-State FWH 4/5 - 4/18 1,184 . 09
4/23 1436 EDD SIT 3/22-4/4 , 4/5-4/18 424 . 59_?
4/23 1437 U S Post Office - Postage 44 . 50
4/23 1438 U S Post Office - Postage 75 . 00
4/23 1439 League of CA Cities - Conference 350. 00
4/30 1440 City of SLO - JPA Medical (5/80) 607 . 97
5/1 1441 City Treasurer - Petty Cash 46. 33
5/1 1442 Larry McPherson - Mileage 58 . 99
5/1 1443 0. D. Smith - Mileage 39 . 95
5/2 1444 PG&E - Street Lights (4/80) 1, 752 . 62
5/2 1445 League of CA Cities - Service Chg. 1, 568 . 00
5/2 1446 CA Law Enforcemnt Assoc. - Dues 15. 00
5/2 1447 Atascadero News - Ads 225 . 54
5/2 1448 Western Office Prod. - Supplies 1,250 . 93
5/2 1449 Bay Typewriter Co. - Calculator 174 . 90
5/2 1450 B & B Blueprinting 15. 45
5/2 1451 F. Morton Pitt Co. - Police Equipmnt. 28 . 02
5/2 1452 Day-Timers - Office Calendar 16 . 70
5/2 1453 The Daily Press - Ad 70. 40
5/2 1454 IBM Corp. - Typewriter Rental 77 . 48
5/2 1455 IBM Corp. - Supplies 100 . 66
5/2 1456 K & F Leasing - Dictaphones 105 . 80
. d
Expenditure List
4/23 - 5/20/80
Page Two
Payables: (Continued)
Dated Check No. Vendor Amount
5/2 1457 A.H. Stephenson - Architect $ 2 , 000 . 00
5/2 1458 Pacific Telephone 403 . 82
5/2 1459 Jobs Available - Ad 19 . 80
5/6 1460 Conf. on Growth - Oglesby & Summers 10 . 00
5/7 1461 Mid-State FWH 4/19 - 5/2 1,213. 59
5/8 1462 Mid-State - LAIF Deposit 30 , 000 . 00
5/14 1463 City Treasurer - Petty Cash 45. 79
5/16 1464 U S Post Office - Postage 75 . 00
5/19 1465 Mid-State - LAIF Deposit 30 ,000. 00
5/20 1466 Mid-State - LAIF Deposit 60 , 000. 00
5/16 2039 Arrowhead Water 32 . 36
5/16 2040 Atascadero News - Ads 112 . 33
5/16 2041 B & B Blueprinting 30. 05
5/16 2042 Daily Press - Ad 50 . 40
5/16 2043 A. Grimes - Legal Services 1 , 520 . 79
5/16 2044 G. P. Highland - Conf. Expenses 99. 77
5/16 2045 IBM Corp. - Typewriter Lease/Supplies 186. 03
5/16 2046 Jobs Available - Ads 59 . 40
5/16 2047 Kudla Enterprises - Police Equip. 1, 893 . 59
5/16 2048 A. F. Nibecker - Mech. Engineer 965 . 00
5/16 2049 Patroline, Inc. - Conf. Airfare 135 . 47
5/16 2050 Paper Works - Copies (4/80) 603. 80
5/16 2051 Phelps Dodge Comm.Co. -Police Equip. 3 ,234 . 06
5/16 2052 City of SLO - Worker' s Comp. 1, 341. 71
5/16 2053 Tri-Ex Tower Corp. - Tower Install. 3 , 700. 00
5/16 2054 Western Office Prod. - Supplies 143. 45
5/16 2055 R. J. Wilkins , Jr. - Conf./Film Exp. 180. 10
5/16 2056 Washington Local Gov. - Publication 5 . 00
Total 147 , 902 . 96
�rS... , �:1 Y��I�.V" 5 � i��� �✓ �'q/,.Y✓Gr� �:�vf����91Y`J� VW /
6 -56
1123 MILL STREET TELEPHONE 18051 5A3 5766
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALiEOHNIA, 93401
May 19, 1980
City of AtascaderoRECEIVED MAY 2 D 996
P.O. Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93422
Attn: Honorable Mayor Bob Wilkins
and Members of the City Council
Subject: 1980 National Explorer Olympics
Dear Mayor Wilkins:
On June 28, 1980 and extending through July 5, 1980, Santa Lucia Area
Council , representing the Boy Scouts of America in San Luis Obispo
County, will send a contingent of Explorer Scouts to Fort Collins,
Colorado to represent San Luis Obispo County in the 1980 National
Explorer Olympics.
Our young men and women have worked hard to earn a place on this team
and the biggest job still lies ahead, namely to put San Luis Obispo
County "on the map" at the competition as we recently did when a San
Luis Obispo Explorer Scout won the 1980 National Speech Championship
in Washington D.C.
The trip to Colorado and the cost of the week at the Olympics is no
small financial burden and we respectfully request your consideration
for assistance in funding this venture as our team is YOUR team!
Representatives of our provisional Explorer Post will be pleased to
make a formal presentation to your City Council if you so desire.
We feel certain that our team will bring both pride and recognition
to our County and we deeply appreciate any support you can provide.
ank you for your consideration and interest.
Respect ully,
d—J. Kahn, Sr.
Chairman , Explorer Olympics Committee
DJK/dl
..w G:A NDE • A'ASCADLRO v AVILA 3E--CH r BAIACOD PAT'A CAIR6A PLAINS iA I'KCS r �RCVER CLTi r MJ2PO SAY r NIP3M0
G110 W9 _> r 75110 EF11H r SAN LUIS OB.SF"` p ,: M:G . '>N'A .An,,ARI A -HAHDC4 . SI-LL BEACH . 'EIPLETON
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council DATE: May 20, 1980
FROM: Planning Director
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF PARCEL MAP AT 79-43 - Pahler
The Planning Commission recommends acceptance of the subject parcel
map.
LAWRENCE STE NS M00R Y L WARDEN
Planning Di ctor Ci Ma ager
SH LUIS OBIS PO GOU11TY COUNTY
ENGINEERING
� �� DEPARTMENT
ROOM A101 + COURTHOUSE ANNEX + SAN LUIS OBISPO r CALIFORNIA ®�=`-`--Y� 93408 r (805) 549-5252
GEORGE C. PROTOPAPAS ROADS
County Engineer TRANSPORTATION
OLIN TON MILNE FLOOD CONTROL
DEPUTY COUNTY ENGINEER
WATER CONSERVATION
GUY PREWITT SURVEYOR
SPECIAL DISTRICTS ADMINISTRATOR SPECIAL DISTRICTS
April 28 , 1980
City of Atascadero
Veterans Memorial Building, Room 106
P. O. Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93422
Attention Mr. Murray Warden,
City Administrator
Subject: Acceptance of Parcel Map AT 79-43
Gentlemen:
Your consideration of the approval of Parcel Map AT 79-43 , a
proposed subdivision by Francis and Tom Pahler, is re-
quested. It is our
RECOMMENDATION
that your Honorable Council act upon the attached resolu-
tion, and authorize the Clerk to sign the map.
Discussion:
A finding of consistency with the General Plan in accordance
with Section 66473 . 5 of the Subdivision Map Act was made by
the City Council of the City of Atascadero.
San Gabriel Road is maintained at the present time and water
service will be from Atascadero Mutual Water Company.
Respectfully,
C� 1
GEORGE C. PROTO�AS
County Engineer
GCP/JAG/nt
Z� _ NO ASF Na .PECcae`O ACrEJ�iSa'J
rr� a iii
0
/zY' PROP-V✓..f �'SE.>' � 4
4
105: EL A
r>
i c�Eo �.sc-T .Cry r 7
e a
ei
�� � rr�,v=i-�i-✓cis �'o
,B•esi.5 C7F,B.E-4(�/NG3 Foe T,.,,s p.
tU �P cG%�i4CGEPTEO i'hR
iH
3 f 3r�Y�.NJ:.YG 1
'Lor 2Z
0
s i
M E M O R A N D U M 1J0
TO: City Manager DATE: June 4 , 1980
FROM: Planning Director
SUBJECT: CO 79-91, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF LOT 27 , BLOCK 47 ,
ATASCADERO COLONY, SAN FERNANDO ROAD - Aggson/Vreeken
At their meeting of June 2, 1980, the Atascadero Planning Commission
reviewed this road exception request rejecting the recommendations
for denial of the County Subdivision Review Board and County Engineer
and recommended that it be granted subject to the following findings
and revised conditions :
Findings
1. Modification of the road improvements as recommended would
not be detrimental to the traffic circulation, public utility
and storm drainage systems since a joint effort will provide
the most effective approach for the improvement and eventual
maintenance of roads serving the subject and adjacent lots
on San Fernando.
2. The use of an assessment district or similar approach is a
more equitable way to provide road improvements .
3. Adequate access can be provided to the subject lots at the
time of their development by minor grading and surface treat-
ment pending development of full road improvements .
Conditions
Delete Conditions 6 , 7, 8 and 9 and substitute the following condi-
tions in lieu thereof:
1. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicants shall,
in a form acceptable to the City, agree to participate in an
assessment district or similar cooperative effort at an undet-
ermined future date to provide road improvements in conformance
with City standards on San Fernando Road. Said agreement shall
be noted on the Final Map and/or otherwise recorded and said
road improvements shall be provided within three _years from
the date of recordation of the Final Map. An extension of
time to a longer term may be granted by the Planning Commission
and/or City Council.
2. In conjunction with the issuance of a building permit on either
lot, provision shall he made for adequate access from the nearest
paved road. Adequate access shall include grading as deemed
Memorandum to Cito-ouncil
June 4 , 1980
Page Two
necessary in the road right-of-way and on the site (s) and
shall include all-weather surfacing with the design and
materials subject to prior review and approval b_y the Citv
Planning and Public Works Departments. Maintenance of said
adequate access shall be the responsibility of the property
owners.
In considering this recommendation, the Planning Commission discussed
at length the various alternatives outlined in my memo (which was
prepared in close consultation with the Public Works Director) and
concluded that the assessment district/joint effort approach was
the fairest way to obtain desirable road improvements .
A couple of area residents spoke in support of the assessment
district/joint effort approach. One area resident, while not opposed
to the road exception, pointed out problems associated with parking
on the paved portion of San Fernando during the wet weather season.
The applicants are in agreement with the recommendation of the
Planning Commission.
4VVtlY O/U�Zf "g-'9_�_
LP.W _ENCE S YENS M Y L. 9A .DEN
Planning Director Cit Man ger
kp
Attach.
Planning Department
County of San Luis Obispo
May 12, 1980
Honorable Atascadero Planning Commission
and City Council
City of Atascadero, California
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: CO 79-91, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF LOT 27, BLOCK 47, ATASCADERO
COLONY, SAN FERNANDO ROAD, CITY OF ATASCADERO.
(A-1-BV-3-D(508) : LOW DENSITY URBAN RESIDENTIAL) (AGGSON - LENGER)
SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #1 (884: 5/3/79)
RECOMMfENDATION AGAINST ROAD EXCEPTION
RECON24ENDATION ON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
At a regular meeting of the County Subdivision Review Board, the attached
subdivision was considered and is being referred to you for required
action.
Respectfully submitted,
LARRY J. RED, Supervisor
Subdivision Review Section
ca
Attachment
cc: County Engineer
County Health Department
ROOM 102,COURTHOUSE ANNEX•SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408•TELEPHONE(805)549-5600
REPORT OF THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD MEETING MAY 7, 1980
RE: CO 79-91, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF LOT 27, BLOCK 47, ATASCADERO
COLONY, SAN FERNANDO ROAD, CITY OF ATASCADERO.
(A-1-BV-3-D508: LOW DENSITY URBAN RESIDENTIAL) (AGGSON - LENGER)
SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #1 (884: 5/3/79)
RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OF ROAD EXCEPTION REQUEST
EIR: CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
SRB Members in Attendance: Chairman, Colonel Sorenson, Larry Red, John Wallace,
John Hofschroer, Bill MacDonald, Jerry Erickson
Planning Commissioner in Attendance: Blair Shurtleff
Legal Counsel Present: None
Specific Request
This application has been returned to the Subdivision Review Board for
consideration of an adjustment to standard road improvement require-
ments. Previous review was on November 7, 1979, with subsequent consider-
ation by the Atascadero Planning Commission on December 3, 1979, and
approval by the City Council on December 12, 1979.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This application proposes a subdivision of a 5 acre site into two parcels
of 2.5 acres each. The site is located on the northerly side of San
Fernando Road in the Las Encinas area of Atascadero.
Zoning: A-1-BV-3-D508: "Light Agriculture" with a slope related
density and a 2 acre minimum.
General Plan: 1978 Atascadero Area General Plan: "Low Density Urban
Residential" (21-,-10 acres in areas without sewer service)
COMMENTS
Environmental Determination
A Conditional Negative Declaration was issued by the Environmental
Coordinator on October 5, 1979, stating that the project will not have
a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, subject to the
following condition:
"A preliminary Soils Report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer
in accordance with Sections 17953, 17954, 17955 of the California
Health $ Safety Code must be submitted to the County Engineer's
Office prior to the filing of the Parcel Map with the County
Engineer's Office. Soil report should emphasize soils stability
for residential development.
CO 79-91 • .
Page 2
Site and Area Considerations
The site is characterized by moderately sloping terrain that is for the
most part covered by annual grasses, mature oaks and brush. The County
Seismic Safety Element indicates that the area may be subject to a
moderately high risk from landslide. The County Fire Hazards map
indicates that the area is designated as being subject to extreme fire
hazard. The Soil Conservation Service makes note that the area may be
subject to a high potential for erosion.
The character of the area is primarily single family, rural residential
in nature, with the surrounding parcels ranging in size from 1.5 acres
to 10 acres. The physical characteristic of much of the surrounding
area is basically similar, consisting of moderately to steeply sloping
hillsides with moderate to heavy vegetation cover. San Fernando Road
in this area is an unimproved road in a 40 foot right-of-way.
Zoning and General Plan Considerations
The site and adjacent properties are zoned A-1-BV-3-DS08, a Light
Agricultural classification with a slope related combining designation
and a two acre minimum. The B-V-3 combining district would allow 2.5
acre parcels providing the average slope does not exceed 200. The average
slope on Parcel A is approximately 15' and that on Parcel B is 14%.
The 1978 Atascadero Area General Plan designates the area as Low Density
Single Family Residential. The site is outside the Urban Services
Boundary, and San Fernando Road is designated as a Local Street. The
General Plan contains the following comments pertinent to this project.
"Land Use Policy Proposals
2. The type and extent of services provided within the Urban
Reserve Area will depend on whether land is in the Urban or
the Suburban Services Area. Properties outside the Urban
Services Line should be evaluated for lot size based on the
Suburban Residential range (21-, to 10 acres) until sewers are
available. (p. 42)
Low Density
Minimum lot sizes within the Urban Services Area should range from
12 to 21�2 acres. Determination of appropriate lot sizes should be
based upon such factors as the availability of services, especially
sewers; slope of access road to building site; distance from the
center of the community; general character of neighboring lands;
soil percolation; and the area needed for access roads to the
building sites. (p. 44)
CO- 79-91 • •
Page 3
Residential Policy Proposals
S. Residential density should decrease as one moves outward from
the core, in order to maintain the rural atmosphere of the
community. This can be accomplished by a graded increase in
lot size and a graded decrease in the permitted density of
population.
10. Lot splits should be thoroughly evaluated and be in accordance
with community plans and principles. Strict adherence to the
lot sizes defined in this plan is essential in order to retain
the desired character of the community. Creation of lots
smaller than those recommended must not be permitted if the
maximum population of approximately 30,000 is to be maintained.
11. Attention should be paid to the aesthetic result of land division.
Building sites should be encouraged on natural slopes, with
minimal disruption of native vegetation and watersheds, and
efficient layout of access and utilities.
12. A program should be developed to encourage the preservation of
trees, watersheds and natural slopes and other natural amenities
from abuse and destruction resulting from poor design and develop-
ment practices. (p. 45 & 46)
The Suburban Residential section also contains the following guidance:
Lot sizes should be 2q acres or more. Determination of appropriate
lot sizes should be based upon such factors as slope of the access
road to the building site, availability of services, distance from
the center of the community, general character of neighboring lands,
percolation and the area needed for access road to building site."
(p. 44)
The Circulation Element of the plan contains the following recommendation:
115. Local Streets
Further studies of local street patterns are needed. Every
effort should be made to improve Atascadero's streets to the
criteria defined in this section, while retaining the rural
character. At the present time street conditions in many
areas of Atascadero are below the level expected by the
people." (p. 89)
Ordinance Considerations
Section 21.48.090(c) of the Real Property Division Ordinance states:
CO 79-91 • •
Page 4
"(c) Variation from standard improvement specifications and
drawings and/or required offers of dedication may be requested by
the applicant upon written application to the County Engineer
setting forth facts to support the following criteria:
(1) That there are special circumstances or conditions
affecting the property;
(2) That the exception is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner;
(3) That the granting of the exception will not be
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in
the vicinity in which the property is situated, and that it will
not:
(i) Be detrimental to the traffic circulation
system, the public utility and storm drainage systems;
(ii) Result in any increase in the County's mainten-
ance costs;
(iii) Be detrimental to, nor degrade, any portion of
the improvement work involved in the project."
The applicant has indicated that the improvements required are unreasonable
with respect to the division of land proposed. No objection is raised
to improving the road fronting the property, but constructing the
connecting link to Monterey Road is felt to be excessive and an undue
expense.
The County Engineer has responded with a recommendation against granting
the road exception request. The purpose of requiring construction of roads
in accordance with uniform standards is to provide appropriate access for
the increased density resulting from the division of land. No distinction
can be made between immediate and future use. Construction of the road
fronting the site without the connection to Monterey would also result in
additional maintenance expense for the city if excepted into the city street
system. Without proper maintenance and connection to the existing system,
an island type of improvement would also be subject to a higher deterioration
rate.
Additional review indicates creation of 211 acre parcels is not rural
residential in character. Suburban densities create traffic and service
demands which require improved roads. The expense involved for a single
division of land indicates other alternative means of completing the
road should be attempted.- It may also be an indication that the parcel
map may be pre-mature relative to a proper sequence of development
extending outward from the more developed portions of the community.
CO 79-91 •
Page S •
RECODMIENDATION
Although the City Planning Commission and the City Council will take
final action on this project, the Subdivision Review Board may still
act on this matter. Any action taken will likely constitute an
informal recommendation to the City Council. It should be noted this
staff report and the recommendations are based on County adopted policy,
procedure, plans and ordinances.
The submission of an exception request technically allows a reconsider-
ation of project approval and general plan consistency. However, since
the project was unanimously approved by the City Council, the concerns
expressed in the original Subdivision Review Board report will not be
reiterated, and action should be limited to the road exception request.
However, appropriate road improvements must be carefully considered
relative to General Plan consistency.
After review of available information, the Subdivision Review Board
recommends denial of the road exception request. This recommendation is
based on the findings that the improvements are necessary for future
development of the area, are necessary for the public welfare, that
there are no special circumstances or conditions which would warrant
approval, and that granting the exception would not be consistent with
the policies and principles of the General Plan.
DISCUSSION
Applicant attended the meeting and discussed the road exception request.
The applicant requested a roll call vote: John Wallace made motion to
accetpt the preliminary report as written and John Hofschroer seconded the
motion.
Roll call vote:
John Wallace Aye
John Hofschroer Aye
Jerry Erickson Aye
Blair Shurtleff Aye
Adopted as written.
l
J . �- r,'yo �'��-� � \ ��•°� �, � �d� Farr ,'
te
46
� I r �.�/ ',�� ��/Its✓ � � � ; �� ///�/�{ - _ ._
� ��� \ ! 1'� idyl LamA � � cNir m111 � � � �• �
6
rtyOA/
/�;_ •� �-� \ 960 TERM Y, r
g �� �.�< /262 CCA /
9p,- ` ir ��..- _ �' �'�- -•� X417. • //
I s
d qs \ 'y , 12, N-ua
N�se
O i8: �353� 1plp � oji >. h�hy
Il. Q Z <09."•.� W F k W aa �W V 2` 0 t d � W�Q� !
Q e � O 2eWeo 2voho � Q � tQW4 �
J
y 1 4
'r��
\ r
tC 1
7 NYS - f4%
r (
2021 Alturas Road
Atascadero, CA 93422
April 8, 1980
San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervis RFn- trCn
Courthouse Annex "n 10 1�co
San Luis Obispo , CA 93401
Re: ADJUSTMENT TO ROAD I34PROVEMEPiTS
CO 79-91 Proposed Lot Division of Lot , Bloc Atascadero
Colony, San Fernando Road , City of Ata ad €� l' �
Gentlemen:
On December' 10, 1979 , at a public hearing the Atascadero City Council
approved a subdivision of a five ( 5) acre site on San Fernando Road
in the city of Atascadero into two 271 acre parcels with certain re-
commendations from the San Luis Obispo County Subdivision Review Board.
We, Barry & Rose Aggson and Carl & Alice Vreeken are in accord with these
recommendations with two exceptions:
Item 6: "That San Fernando Road fronting said property be
improved in the following manner:
2/3 of an A-5 rural section fronting the property
and extending to INbnterey Road. "
Item 7: Wherein it pertains to the road improvement ex-
tending to Monterey Road.
We are aware of the Subdivision Map Act as amended January 1, 1979 ,
Article 1, (Amended, Chapter 938, Statutes of 1976) Section 666411.1:
Whenever a local ordinance rec_uires improvements for a
division of land which is not a subdivision of five or more
lots, such regulations shall be limited to the dedication of
rights-of-way, easements , and the construction of reasonable
offsite and onsite improvements for the parcels being created .
Also of Title 12, San Luis Obispo County Real Property Division Ordinance ,
Section 21. 48.080 Factors to be considered :
The subdivision review board report shall consider and make recommen-
dations as- to whether the following conditions are met:
( c) Access and circulation. The following standards shall be
applicable to property proposed for division to promote
adequate access and circulation.
4 •SL6 County Board of Supervisors/Aggson & Vreeken ( cont. ) -2-
April 8, 1980
(1) Any existing or new street, intended or necessary for or
serving as the principal means of vehicular access to the
property shown on the tentative map, shall have a minimum
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . improvement of said street shall be pursuant
to Section 21.48.130 (When improvements are required to be
made as a condition of approval of a map, the standard of
improvements required shall be reasonable for the parcels
being created and shall not exceed those prescribed by the
"Standard Improvement Specifications and Drawings" . . . . . . . . .
.. . .. . . . . . . . . . .
( 2) The division should provide for the opening or extension of
streets for traffic circulation for the convenience , safety
and welfare of the lot owners within the division and the
local neighborhood ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
We are requesting an adjustment to the above road improvements for
the following:
San Fernando Road presently measures close to one mile from the inter-
section of San Fernando Road and Monterey Road to the intersection of
San Fernando Road and Balboa Road. San Fernando Road at present is
asphalted (not as a 2/3 of an A-5 rural road) . 3 mile from the inter-
section of Monterey Road and San Fernando Road. The property owners
fronting on this portion of San Fernando Road do not wish to have the
road improved (we are presently obtaining written verification from
the property owners) because they feel it would create too much traffic,
and they want to retain the rural atmosphere. Larry Stephens ' property
fronts on the next . 2 mile of San Fernando Road. Our property fronts
on the next . 2 mile of San Fernando Road . We are willing to improve
that portion of the. 2 mile that fronts on our property to the 2/3 of an
A- 5 rural road. Since that . 2 mile involves the major portion of San
Fernando Road that will have to be carefully engineered because of the
terrain and will also be the most costly to build , we feel that it is
unreasonable that we have to improve the whole . 6 mileto the intersection
of Monterey Road and San Fernando Road .
In asking us to put ; in a 2/3 of an A-5 rural road to the existing inter-
section of Monterey Road and San Fernando Road , the county subdivision
review board has fulfilled their obligation to the map act and the county
ordinance but has also lumped us in with the land owners and realtors who
have and are subdividing land in the community for a profit. We bought
the property in October, 1978, in good faith and with the understanding
that it could be split for our own homes. No one at that time said any-
things about the extensive road improvements we would be compelled to do
to build our homes. We are not asking that this property be divided to
make a profit; just to build our two homes. We are willing to improve
` SLO County Board of Supervisors/Aggson & Vreeken ( cont. ) -3-
April 8, 1980
as requested fronting our property but the review board ' s recommendation
is prohibitive to the tune of at least 70 ,000 to us. This in essence
is an unreasonable offsite improvement, and we ask that this portion of
the recommendation "extending to Monterey Road" be deleted.
Sinrely,
rry. & s Agg n
Carl & Alice Vreeken
Enclosures: MaDS
Report of the Subdivision Review Board Meeting ( Pgs. 1 & 5)
Fee ( $135)
cc: San Luis Obispo County Planning Department
San Luis Obispo Engineering Department
Larry Stephens, Atascadero City Planning Director
{ b�
, SRH LUIS OBISPO COU1119 ENCUNTY
ATMNG
ria' DEPPARRTMEENT
b
ROOM A101 . COURTHOUSE ANNEX . SAN LUIS OBISPO . CALIFORNIA -- / 93408 . (805) 548-5252
GEORGE C. PROTOPAPAS ROADS
County Engineer TRANSPORTATION
FLOOD CONTROL
CLINTON MILNE
DEPUTY COUNTY ENGINEER WATER CONSERVATION
SURVEYOR
GUY PREWITT
SPECIAL DISTRICTS ADMINISTRATOR - SPECIAL DISTRICTS
April 22 , 1980
Mr. Barry Aggson et al ,
2021 Alturas Road
Atascadero, CA 93422
Subject: Exception to Section 21.48 . 080 of the County Code
for Parcel Map CO 79-91
Dear Mr. . Aggson:
We have received your letter regarding the subject exception
and will transmit your request along with a copy of our
response to the Subdivision Review Board for their recom-
mendation and submittal to the City Council of Atascadero.
We are unable to recommend the granting of an exception to
the ordinance based on your desire to divide your common
interest in the property to enable the construction of an
additional residence rather than the dividing of your prop-
erty for the purpose of sale. The resulting increase in
density is the same and the cummulative increase in the
density is the basic reason for the road improvement re-
quirement.
The construction of the portion of the roadway fronting your
property without the improvement of San Fernando Road to
Monterey Road will not allow the City to accept for main-
tenance that section of the right of way into the street
system without causing additional cost to the City for
maintenance . We therefore, recommend against your request
for an exception to the requirements for offsite improvements .
Sincerely,
GEORGE C. PROTOPAPAS
County Engineer
JAMES A. GRANFLATEN la as
Assistant Office Engineer t
A')R 2 1) 1980
JAG/nt
S.L.O. COUNTY
PLANNING DEPT.
� • �a
C_E_R_T_I F_I_C A_T_I_® N_
I, MURRAY L. WARDEN, Clerk of the City of Atascadero,
do hereby certify that:
1. The County Clerk of San Luis Gkispe County has
certified that the last report of voter registration sub-
mitted to the Secretary of State, Dated April 14 , 1930 ,
reporte& 7 ,729 registered voters within the City of Atascadero.
2 . The "Voters ' Fee Approval ordinance" petition
6eliveree1 to me on May 7 , 1989 , requesting that a special
election Le held, contained sufficient signatures, pursuant
to Elections Code Section 4919 , to qualify the proposed
ordinance for consideration at a special election.
3. The provisions of Elections Code Sections 41$8
and 4909 have been complied with.
Dated: May 22 , 1930
MUFF Y L. WARDEN, City Cle k
C ' ty of tascadero, California
alien grimes attorney at law
7360 EL CAM INO REAL, SUITE B • P. O. BOX 749 ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93422
PHONES (805) 466-5578 OR 466.1405
I
MEMORANDUM
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council May 20, 1980
From: Allen Grimes, City Attorney p+�
Subject: Petition for Initiative Ordinance
I am advised by the City Manager/Clerk that the "Initiative Petition for Voters
Fee Approval Ordinance" has been examined and found qualified pursuant to the
initiative provisions for cities in the Elections Code, having more than 15
percent of the signatures of the voters.
Elections Code Section 4010 gives the Council these choices:
1) Introduce the ordinance;
2) Call a special election at which the proposed ordinance shall be
submitted to the voters of the City;
3) Submit the proposed ordinance to a vote of the people at an
advisory election pursuant to Elections Code Section 5353; or
4) Direct the City Clerk to hold the petition until the Appellate
Court has rendered its opinion on the appeal of the case of
City of Atascadero v. K. Daly, et al. , now pending.
The Superior Court of thisCountyin a judgment entered on March 19, 1980, in
the case of City of Atascadero v. K. Daly, et al. , declared:
1) That the initiative ordinance proposed by the Defendants (set'
forth in different form in both Exhibits A and C to Plaintiff's
complaint) is hereby declared invalid as not constituting a
proper local initiative measure.
2) That the said ordinance proposed by Defendants ' initiative„
even if it achieved a majority vote of the electors of the
City of Atascadero, would be of no legal effect and would be
declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Therefore, I recommend that the Council take no further action in this matter
at this time, but await the decision of the Appellate Court so that the matter
may be handled in an orderly and lawful manner, and avoid the possible illegal
waste of public funds that otherwise may ensue at this time.
AG:fr
cc: City Manager/Clerk
• 63
I
4 alien grimes attorney at law
7360 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE B • P. O.BOX 749 • ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93422
PHONES (805) 466-567B OR 466-I4O8
REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
For the
Council Meeting of May 27, 1980
No. 4
1. REPORT OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES LEGAL ADVOCACY COMMITTEE
The Legal Advocacy Committee Report of April 28, 1980 indicates that the
Committee reviewed approximately 35 cases of significance to cities now
pending in both the federal and state courts, at the trial and appellate
levels. In three of these cases, the Committee and the League Board of
Directors have taken action to approve amicus participation by consenting
cities. These cases are:
a. Music Plus Four v. Baker and Brown v. Pitchess, which involve the same
issues relating to the validity of narcotics paraphernalia ordinances
as involved in Music Plus Four v. City of Westminster which I reviewed
in the prior City Attorney Report. We have implemented the Committee's
decision to participate as an amicus in the Westminster case, and I do
not feel that participation in the Baker and Pitchess cases warrants
the time required.
The validity of narcotics paraphernalia ordinances is also involved
in Licorice Pizza Records V. Nash and U.S. Poster Stores, Inc. v.
Schatz. The Licorice case is an action pending in the trial court
challenging the validity of the narcotics paraphernalia ordinance of
the City of Torrance. The Schatz case involving the validity of the
City of Mountain View paraphernalia ordinance held it valid and denied
the injunctive relief sought. There is no indication whether an appeal
will be taken in this case.
b. City of Barstow, et al. v. Superior Court is pending before the Dis-
trict Court of Appeal on a petition for writ of mandate following the
issuance of a writ of mandate by the Superior Court directing that the
City Clerk and City Council process a referendum petition which had
been circulated and presented for filing in an attempt to halt the
construction of a $3 million swimming pool pending an election. The
trial court's order was based upon its conclusion that the award of
AG:fr
5/20/80
a
REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY .
No. 4 - Page 2
the construction contract was a legislative act, and thus the case
squarely presents the question of the applicability of the referendum
to the award of a public works contract.
The contract for the construction of the swimming pool, as a part of
a multipurpose building, had been awarded to the lowest responsible
bidder by the City acting under a joint powers agreement between the
City, the Barstow Redevelopment Agency, and the Barstow Park and Rec-
reation District. The Committee recognizes that an affirming appellate
court ruling could have serious adverse impact on all public agencies
and has, together with the League Board of Directors, recommended that
consenting cities participate as amicus curiae in the case. Because
the case is of direct importance to the City of Atascadero, I recommend
that we participate.
The following cases of interest are reviewed in the Legal Advocacy Committee
Report:
a. Taxpayers Association v. Wilds, et al. is pending on appeal following
a ruling of the trial court on pretrial motions for partial summary
judgment that salary payments made to members of the Lake County Board
of Supervisors were without authority of law, having been authorized
by resolution rather than ordinance as specified in Government Code
Section 26525, and that therefore the Supervisors were liable for the
illegal raises. The trial court ruled that none of the Supervisors
has any equitable defenses to the action, even though four of them
were not on the Board when the raises were enacted and they ran for
office, spending money, on reliance upon the salaries. Evidence that
the passage of the raises in the form of a resolution instead of the
required ordinance came about through inadvertence on the County Ad-
ministrator's Office was ruled irrelevant by the trial court, holding
the liability to be absolute.
b. Davis v. City of Newport Beach is one of several actions pending in
the Orange County Superior Court raising the issue of whether a city
has a duty to provide low/moderate income housing. In this case, the
developer-landowner upon application for a rezoning included within
the proposed project 25 percent for low/moderate housing development,
but in approving the project the City Council deleted same. Plain-
tiffs brought this action seeking to enjoin the City from approving
any further subdivisions without including provision for low/moderate
housing, alleging that the failure to do so violates the constitutional
right to travel, is racially discriminatory, and violates equal pro-
tection.
c. In the Advocacy Report, the review of the case of City of Atascadero
v. Daly, et al. indicated that the Committee will continue to monitor
the case in the event an appeal is filed. The area chairman for the
Legal Advocacy Committee as well as the League staff have been advised
that an appeal has been filed.
AN • •
REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
No. 4 - Page 3
d. Plaintiff has noticed an appeal in Geist v. City of Corona, following
a denial of the trial court of mandate sought to set aside his termi-
nation as a permanent employee of the City Police Department until
such time as the City has established by a preponderance of evidence
offered at a full, fair and impartial hearing, with findings, good
cause therefor. The findings and conclusions filed by the court
support the City's argument that its administrative procedure did
not violate due process even though it does not require the City to
assume the burden of proving its charges, does not require witnesses
to be sworn and cross-examined, and permits hearsay evidence in dis-
ciplinary proceedings. Thus, on appeal the principal issue is whether
due process requires a full trial type evidentiary hearing before ter-
minating an employee for cause. (I am inclined to believe that the
former police officer will eventually be successful in this case.)
e. Domnick v. City of Los Alamitos is an action for writ of mandate to
compel the City to set aside its decision terminating the employment
of plaintiff police officer in which, by an unpublished opinion, the
Fourth District Court of Appeal has concluded that "In the exercise
of its independent judgment on the evidence, the trial court found
that the misconduct as charged and found by the City Council was sup-
ported by the weight of the evidence (and) having so found, the court
erred in determining that the City Council abused its discretion in
fixing the penalty." In so ruling, the court applied the rule of
prior cases that it may not interfere with a penalty imposed, except
in cases where there has been an arbitrary, capricious, or patent
abuse of discretion. Plaintiff has filed an appeal.
f. In City of Rialto v. County of San Bernardino, et al. , an action in
mandamus is pending in the Superior Court by which the City of Rialto
seeks to compel the LAFCO to set aside its decision placing 268 acres
of land within "the sphere of influence" of the City of Fontana.
Among the issues in the case are whether LAFCO was acting in a legis-
lative or quasi-judicial capacity when it made the sphere of influence
decision, whether LAFCO is required to make findings to support such
a determination, and whether a member of the LAFCO who was also a
Fontana Council Member should have disqualified himself from voting
on the decision.
g. Bock, et al. v. City of Lompoc is now pending in the Second District
Court of Appeal following a ruling in favor of the City in a mandate
action to compel the City Council to either adopt a proposed initia-
tive ordinance or to submit it to a vote. The initiative would re-
quire the City to henceforth bill its domestic electric customers
according to PG&E's domestic rate schedule and to maintain residential
rates identical to that rate schedule as it is subsequently changed
by the State PUC. The City had declined to process the ordinance on
the ground that it was an improper subject for the initiative. While
the trial court ruled in favor of the City in its memorandum of deci-
sion, the reason given for the inapplicability of the initiative to
REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
No. 4 - Page 4
the utility fees was that they constituted "tax" levies to the extent
that such utility rates generated excess revenues for the City's gen-
eral fund. As a result of the lower court ruling, the petitioners on
appeal are now claiming that by reason of the Proposition 13 "special
taxes" provision, utility rates may he adopted through the initiative
process. The City and amici contend, inter alia, that the proposed
measure is an improper subject for the initiative process because it
involves the administrative function of setting rates to generate
revenues to meet utility operational expenses, and in that it hinders
the utility's ability to meet its operational costs and expenses.
2. OTHER RECENT DECISIONS OF INTEREST
a. City May Prohibit Off-Site Billboards
In a landmark opinion rendered by the California Supreme Court on re-
hearing, the court upheld the ordinance of the City of San Diego com-
prehensively regulating billboards. However, it concluded that the
City must reimburse the sign companies for all signs removed under the
jurisdiction of the Federal Highway Act. This is the most comprehen-
sive decision to date on signs and billboards and it's the first major
case by the California Supreme Court to hold that aesthetics may be .
the sole basis for the exercise of the police power. (Metromedia, Inc. ,
et al. v. City of San Diego, et al. , Supreme Court, April 14, 1980.)
b. Developer's Campaign Contributions Do Not Bar Council Members From
Voting on Projects
In another landmark decision, the California Supreme Court has held
that City Council Members who received campaign contributions from the
developer of a Woodland Hills subdivision may still vote on the pro-
ject and are not disqualified. You've probably read.where the members
of the State Environmental Commission have adopted regulations in their
code of ethics to preclude members from being eligible to consider a
project if they have received political contributions. Notwithstanding
the Supreme Court's decision, the issue will probably remain active.
(Woodland Hills, et al. v. Los Angeles City Council, et al. , Supreme
Court, April 24, 1980.)
c. General Law Cities At Large Electoral System Doesn't Violate Fourteenth
or Fifteenth Amendments
The United States Supreme Court has recently ruled that a city's prac-
tice of electing its council members at large does not violate the
Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution. (City
of Mobile v. Bolden, U.S. Supreme Court, April 22, 1980.) -
d. Cities Not Immune From Civil Rights Suits
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a city has no immunity
from liability from suits for damages flowing from its constitutional
violations and may not assert in good faith of its officers as a defense
REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
No. 4 - Page 5
to such liability. The court had previously held that officers of
cities are subject to liability for civil rights cases. The biggest
difficulty with this decision is not the principle involved, but
knowing exactly what constitutes a civil rights violation. This is
an area that is going to give the cities problems in the future.
(Owen v. City of Independence, U.S. Supreme Court, April 16, 1980.)
e. Governmental Agency May Limit the Number of Hours All Its Employees
Work on Outside Jobs
The Court of Appeal has ruled that a regulation of the county limiting
the number of hours all its employees could work on outside jobs was _
valid. The opinion sustained the dismissal of an employee by reason
of his willful refusal to comply with valid work rules directly appli-
cable to him. (Baity v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission,
Court of Appeal, March 6, 1980.)
f. ordinance May Not Prohibit Door-to-Door Solicitation of Financial
Support for Salaries
In this case, the United States Supreme Court struck down a municipal
ordinance prohibiting door-to-door solicitation of contributions by
charitable organizations that do not use at least 75 percent of the
receipts for "charitable purposes". The court reasoned that charitable
appeals for funds, in themselves, involve a variety of speech interest,
including communication of information and dissemination and propaga-
tion of views and ideas, which are protected by the First Amendment.
Thus, the court held that the 75 percent limitation is a direct and
substantial limitation on protected activity, unjustified by the vil-
lage's concern about preventing fraud and protecting public safety
and residential privacy. (Schaunberg v. Citizens for Better Environ,
U.S. Supreme Court, February 20, 1980.)
3. CITY ATTORNEYS DEPARTMENT SPRING MEETING
I attended the City Attorneys Department Spring Meeting in Newport Beach
April 30 to May 2, 1980. The program was of excellent scope with high
level presentations. The opening session dealt with Skelly (warning)
update and personnel layoff procedures, energy conservation regulations
and solar easements, regulation of time-sharing uses, and rent control
and relief.
Thursday's morning session was entirely devoted to new concepts in munic-
ipal finance. Matters discussed were problems arising from Jarvis and
Gann and some solutions; special taxes - restrictions, authorization, and
exemptions; police protection and fire prevention charges; improvement
acts and maintenance districts; contract services; financing new con-
struction and rehabilitation of commercialfacilities; and tax increment
financing.
REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
No. 4 - Page 6
Thursday afternoon was devoted to affirmative action and quotas, the Furey
Fallout, municipal liability for slope failure and earthquake damage,
recent tort developments, and legislation and litigation pertaining to
narcotics paraphernalia.
Friday morning's session was devoted to a report of recent cases relating
to municipal law, a legislative review by the League staff, density bonuses,
inclusionary housing, implementing the "vested rights" legislation - property
developmen agreements, and worker's compensation and disability retirement
problems. I have tapes of most of these sessions, and if any Council Member
desires to is ten to them, please let me know.
Respectfully s tted,
Ki
a
ALLEN GRIMES
City Attorney
AG:fr 1
ORDINANCE NO. 22.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING SECTION
MAP 12-N-32 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO BY PLACING CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE C-2-D ZONE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ORDAIN as follows :
Section 1. Council Findings
After conducting a public hearing, the City Council finds and
determines that:
(a) With the recommended "D" overlay, the proposed rezoning
from A-1-2'h to C-2-D would be consistent with the Com-
mercial Park designation of the 1980 Atascadero General
Plan.
(b) Approval of the recommended "D" overlay will insure
that resulting development will be consistent with the
general Plan and be an attractive and compatible visual
neighbor from neighboring properties and Public roads .
(c) The rezoning would be consistent with the C-2-D zoning
on the adjacent parcel to the north.
Based upon these findings , a change of zone from A-1-2k to C-2-D
with the "D" to mean "Department Review" is required for all uses
to evaluate the following:
A. Consistency of the proposed uses with the Commercial Park
designation of the General Plan.
B. Scope of the proposed use and the building site area
required.
C. Design review of development proposals with particular
attention given to insuring an attractive appearance
from both Highwav 101 and E1 Camino Real by means of
architectural design, landscaping, screening of outdoor
storage and larae paved areas , building and use setbacks ,
and signing limitations . "
Section 2. Zoning Change
Map 12-N-32 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero
on file in the Citv Planning Department is hereby amended to reclass-
ifv the following described property from A-1-21- to C-2-Da
A portion of Lots 2 and 3 in Block 23 of Atascadero
Colon as shown on attached Exhibit "A" .
Section 3. Zoning Map
Map 12-N-32 of the Official Zoning Mans of the Citv of Atascadero
on file in the City Planning Denartment is hereby amended as shown
on attached Exhibit "A" which is hereby made a part of this ordinance
by reference.
Section 4 . Publication
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once
within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News ,
a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated
in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code;
shall certifv the adoption and posting of this ordinance and shall
cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of
posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City.
- i
Section 5. Effective Date
This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and
effect at 12 : 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced on
and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council held on
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ROBERT J. WILNINS, Mavor
ATTEST:
MURRAY L. WARDEN, C }tv Clerk
i
Approved as to form "
ALLEN GRIMES , Citv Attorney
o
�60o F�
0
z �
Ro e
G
FRA C.
k\
c-z - D
,`y SERVICE COMMERCIAL-
0' 6)
o DESIGNED DEVELOPMENT &�
C 4R
? G
n0 c
ti
Y o FRAC. o b
r6 C
A
0'
2�3y aM
A-1-22 to C-2-D with the "D" to
mean:
"Departmental Review is required for
all uses to evaluate the following:
A. Consistency of the proposed uses with
the Commercial Park designation of the
General Plan.
B. Scope of the proposed use and the building
site area required.
C. Design review of E�N1B1T
development pro- ORDNANCE .Va. 2z
posals with Parti-
cular attention given Z 79 1109 : J
to insuring an attrac-
tive appearance from both Highway 101 and
El Camino Real by means of architectural design,
landscaping, screening of outdoor storage and large paved areas , building use set-
backs, and signing limitations. "
• • QI
ORDINANCE NO. 23
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A POLICE DEPARTMENT
AND CREATING THE OFFICE OF CHIEF OF POLICE
T H E C I T Y C O U N C I L
City of Atascadero, California
The Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows :
Section 1. Office created.
The Police Department and the office of Chief of Police is
hereby created and established. The Chief of Police shall be appointed
or removed by the City Manager with the concurrence and confirmation
of the City Council.
Section 2 . Powers and duties of the Chief of Police.
The Chief of Police shall be responsible for enforcing appli-
cable state and local laws and ordinances and shall direct the
administration and operations of the Police Department.
Section 3. Supervision of the Chief of Police.
The City Manager shall be the immediate supervisor of the Chief
of Police and all policies , directives, and orders to the Chief of
Police shall be made by or transmitted through the City Manager.
Section 4. Publication.
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once
within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News,
a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated
in the City in accordance wtih Section 36933 of the Government Code;
shall certify the adoption and posting of this ordinance and shall
cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of
posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City.
Ordinance No. 23
Page Two
Section 5. Effective date.
This ordinace shall go into effect and be in full force and
effect at 12 : 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced on
and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council held on
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ROBERT J. WILKINS, JR. , Mayor
ATTEST:
MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FO
1
ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney
M E M ® R A N ]1 U M
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Atascadero/Paso Robles shared recreation program
During the past several weeks , I have discussed with the Paso
Robles City Manager and Director of Parks and Recreation the possi-
bility of sharing the costs and administration of joint recreation
programs. The preliminary conversations have indicated potentials
for implementing a joint recreation program utilizing the existing
Paso Robles structure supplemented by resources offered by the City
of Atascadero. It should be noted that relatively large numbers of
Atascadero residents now participate on a fee basis in the recrea-
tion programs of Paso Robles.
As a preliminary approach, we have been thinking in terms of
the City of Atascadero providing a recreation supervisor who would
act as an coordinator on site with the Paso Robles Director of Parks
and Recreation in implementing a coordinated program and who would
act as the local focal point for recreational activities . Facilities
could be shared such as baseball diamonds , the Atascadero Lake Park
Pavilion and any other available resources. The programs should be
largely self-supporting. Any revenues and expenditures would have
to be budgeted through each cities ' normal process.
From our initial effort, it appears that several benefits could
accrue : (1) Atascadero could benefit from existing structure and pro-
grams under the supervision of an existing staff; (2) both cities
could share the costs of that staff proportionate to usage; (3) the
larger combined anticipated participants would be more likely to
financially support the larger program.
The foregoing are only preliminary observations, but if the
Council would like to explore this further, I will make provisions
to do so and come back with a more definitive approach. Estimated
costs of such a program can be added to the proposed budget presently
being developed. The Paso Robles City Council has not yet considered
this program, but will do so after having some indication from us
as to our desire to pursue the concept further.
RA L. WARDEN
MLW:ad
5-22-80
_M_E M_O_R A_N_D_U M_
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Agreement for Animal Control Services
Attached is the animal control agreement between the
City and the County. The agreement is a standard one, as
adopted by the other cities in the County, which evolved
about four years ago in an effort to provide a better
animal control program than then existing. This program
has been relatively successful and certainly provides
animal control services at a less cost than the City could
provide.
Other city managers in the County have reviewed this
and find no reason for not continuing the program. The
City Attorney has also reviewed the agreement and concurs in
its provisions .
Recommend your motion to approve.
II- RR;AY . WARDEN
MLw:ad
5-22-80
•
AGREEMENT FOR
ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
This Agreement is made and entered into this day of
1980 , by and between the County of San Luis
Obispo , hereinafter referred to as "County" , and the City of
hereinafter referred to as "City" ,
WITNE`3SETH :
THAT WHEREAS , the City is desirous of contracting with the
County for the performance of the hereinafter described animal
control services within its boundaries by the County of San
Luis Obispo through the Department of Animal Regulation ; and
WHEREAS , the County is agreeable to providing such services
in accordance with the provisions of the San Luis Obispo County
Code Title 9 which provides for the licensing of dogs , the
establishment of a public pound , and for the collection and
care of stray , diseased and vicious animals ; and
WHEREAS , the County of San Luis Obispo has established the
Department of Animal Regulation to enforce the ordinances of
the County Code Title 9 within the unincorporated areas of the
County ; and
WHEREAS , the interests of all Courty residents would be
served by implementation of Animal Control Services in the
incorporated communities of the County ; and
WHEREAS , the City is desirous of contracting for said
Animal Control Services .
NOW, THEREFORE , IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS :
1 . Definitions •
a. "Animal " as used in this Agreement means any
species of vertebrate creature .
b. "Animal transaction for City" as used in this
Agreement means any of the following actions taken by County on
City ' s behalf, singularly or in aggregate , as they relate toia
single animal or animal owner within a 24-hour period :
(1 ) Search ;
(2 ) Seizure ;
(3 ) Capture or attempted capture ;
(4 ) Bite investigations ;
( 5 ) Issue of written warning or citation ;
(6 ) Pick-up and disposal of dead animal ;
(7 ) Nuisance investigation ;
(8 ) Care of injured animal .
C . "Animals sheltered for City" as used in this
Agreement shall mean any animal delivered to the animal shelter
from. within City' s corporate limits .
d . "Man-hour" as used in this Agreement shall refer
to the services of any single County officer , agent , or employee
for one hour . Man-hours shall be recorded to the nearest one-
half (1 /2 ) hour.
e . "Overall Program Costs " as used in this Agreement
shall mean total operating costs incurred in providing services
of any single component, as hereinafter described , to all
unincorporated areas of County together with the total operating
-2-
costs incurred in providing services of any single component to
all incorporated communities within County contracting for said
component . Such costs shall include the cost of any leased
premises , equipment , and those subcontracted services as
hereinafter described .
f. " Emergency Services " as used in this Agreement
shall mean those services provided by one or more animal control
officers during hours other than regular business hours in
response to a call concerning animal bites , stray vicious
animals or situations in which animals are constituting a
threat to public safety. Emergency services do not include
responses to animal nuisances such as barking or stray dogs .
2 . Services Components The County agrees to provide
all necessary labor, facilities , and equipment to supply the
following animal control service components :
a . General Administration - County agrees to pro-
vide management and supervision of the animal control program,
to keep records and provide statements as hereinafter specified ,
to operate an animal release annex , to maintain a headquarters
with communication center and dispatcher service . These
services shall hereinafter be referred to as the " general
administration component" .
b . Ordinance Review - County shall review City and
County animal control ordinances , prepare and propose amend-
ments , additions , and deletions- to those ordinances so as to
improve the quality of animal control . These services shall
hereinafter be referred to as the "ordinance review component" .
-3-
C . Animal Control Enforcement - County shall enforce
all City Animal Control ordinances and State laws within City ' s
corporate limits , investigate complaints , including complaints
involving animal bites , and issue citations . These services
shall hereinafter be referred to as the "animal control enforce-
ment component" , but services under this component shall not
include enforcer?ent of City animal licensing ordinances , which
is covered under the "licensing component" , nor shall it include
enforcement of zoningordinances dealing with animals . I
9
d . Animal Shelter - The County shall maintain an
adequate pound and provide for the care, housing , and disposal
of animals seized within City ' s corporate limits or delivered
by City ' s residents . It is understood and agreed that the
County may subcontract the obligations of this paragraph to an
independent contractor or at its option undertake to perform
these duties itself. If the County chooses to undertake these
services itself, it agrees to maintain its kennels , cages , and
corrals so as to produce a humane environment . These services
shall hereinafter be referred to as the "animal shelter component" .
e. Public Education - County shall provide infor-
mation to the public on the necessity of animal control as
recommended by the Animal Regulation and Control Advisory
Committee . This service shall hereinafter be referred to as
the "public education component " .
f. Licensing - County shall collect license fees ,
issue licenses and receipts for licenses , enforce City licensing
ordinances , and enforce state and local rabies control laws . -
-4-
0
County may choose to conduct an animal vaccination clinic .
These services shall hereinafter be referred to as the " licens-
ing component" .
g . Animal Population Control - County may choose to
conduct a spay and neuter clinic . If County so chooses , County
shall provide low-cost spay and neuter operations , including
all necessary care and treatment accompanying seAd operations .
3 . Animal Regulation and Control Advisory Committee -
There shall be an Animal Regulation and Control Advisory Com-
mittee whose responsibility it will be to review and recommend
on all matters of Departmental Policy regarding overall program
administration , level and quality of service , budget , and
ordinance development and amendments . This Advisory Committee
shall be made up of: one representative from each City con-
tracting with the County, one representative from the County
Veterinarians ' Association , one representative from an Animal
Welfare Society , one representative from the County Health
Department , one representative from the" Department of Animal
Regulation , and one representative from the County Sheriff ' s
Department . The Committee shall receive staff support from the
County Administrative Office .
4 . Supervision - The rendition of the services specified
in paragraph 2 of this Agreement , and matters incidental to the
performances of said services , and the control of personnel so
employed , shall remain in the County.
5 . Cooperation - To facilitate the performance of the
foregoing functions , it is hereby agreed that the County shall
-5-
• 0
have the full cooperation and assistance from the City , its
officers , agents , and employees .
6. Special Supplies - Notwithstanding anything in this
Agreement to the contrary , it is agreed that in all instances
wherein special supplies , stationery , notices , forms , and the
like must be issued in the name of City , the same shall be
supplied by City at its own cost and expense .
7 . Employee Status - All persons employed in the per-
formance of the services and functions specified in paragraph 2
o.f this Agreement shall be County employees : no present City
employee shall become a County employee by reason of this
agreement ; and no person employed hereunder shall have any City
pension , Civil Service , or any similar status or right . For
this Agreement, and for the sole purpose of giving legal status
to the performance of the duties and responsibilities herein ,
every County officer and employee engaged in the performance of
any service hereunder shall , where necessary , be deemed an
officer or employee of City while performing the services for
City.
8. Employee Compensation and Liability - City shall not
be called upon to assume any liability for the direct payment
of any salaries , wages , or other compensation to any County
personnel performing services hereunder, or any liability other
than that provided in this Agreement . The City shall not be
liable for compensation or indemnity to any County employee for
injury or sickness arising out of his employment .
-6-
i
{
9. Indemnification - Notwithstanding the provisions of
paragraph 7 , County will hold City, its officers , agents , and
employees harmless from any and all calims for damage resulting
from the performance of this Agreement except that the above
shall not apply to the active negligence or wilful misconduct
of City or City ' s agents or employees .
101 Prosecution - It shall be the duty of the City Attorney ,
exercising the discretion vested in his office , to prosecute
violations of the City Animal Ordinance , and take appropriate
legal action with respect to the abatement of any public nuisance
involving animals occurring within City ' s corporate limits .
11 . Term and Renewal - This Agreement shall be effective
on the 1st day of July , 198_, and shall terminate on the 30th
day of June , 198_, or the 30th day of June any year thereafter,
provided that not later than March 15th next preceding said
expiration date , either party shall notify the other in writing
that it does not wish to renew same . Otherwise , this Agreement
will continue from year to year . 1
12 . Ordinance Conformity - Notwithstanding anything to
the contrary contained in this Agreement , City shall enact and
maintain in full force and effect , including the amount of fees
provided , an ordinance comparable in terms with the provisions
of the County Animal Control Ordinance , San Luis Obispo County
Code Title 9 ; provided , however, that modifications or amend-
ments to the
ral ne
9 eprovisions-of Title 9 may be developed
which are warranted by the unique circumstances of the City .
Any such amendments which modify the present language of Title
-7-
9 are subject to review by the Advisory Committee , and the
approval of the Board of Supervisors , as well as the City
councils of any Cities which may be affected by such amend-
ments .
13 . Capital Expenditures - County shall pay the cost of t '
acquiring, constructing , and equipping any County-owned facility
needed for the performance of the animallshelter component .
14 . Allocation of Operating Costs - Charges to City for
`k
the services provided by County shall be computed on the follow-
ing basis : k
a . Charges for general administration and ordinance
review shall be $2 . 50 for each aniaml transaction for City (as
defined in subparagraph 1 (b ) of this Agreement . A $2 . 50 charge
shall also be applied for each animal delivered to the control
facility by a resident of City. The charges allocated to City
IIS pursuant to this subparagraph 14 (a ) shall be added to the
charges made pursuant to subparagraphs 14(b) and (c ) below when
those charges are applicable .
b. Charges for the animal control enforcement
service component shall be $7 . 50 for each animal transaction
(as defined in paragraph 1 (b ) of this Agreement ) in which the
service of an Animal Control Officer is involved , but excluding
those services where charges are made pursuant to subparagraph
14 (f) below. The charges allocated pursuant to this subpara-
graph 14 (b) shall be added to the charges described in para-
graph 14 ( a ) above , and where applicable they may also be added
to the charges described in paragraph 14 ( c ) below.
-8-
C . Charges for the animal shelter services component
shall be $3 . 50 for each animal sheltered for City ( as defined
in paragraph 1 (c ) of this Agreement ) . The charges allocated
pursuant to this subparagraph 14 ( c ) shall be added to the
charges described in subparagraph 14 (a ) above and where appli -
cable they may also be added to the charges described in
subparagraphs 14 ( b ) and ( f) .
d . Overall program costs ( as defined in paragraph
l ( e ) of this Agreement ) for the public education component
services shall be multiplied by the City ' s population percent ,
and that sum shall be charged to City. In no event shall
City ' s allocated costs for the public education component
exceed 13d per capita .
e. Charges for the licensing component services
shall be $1 . 75 for each animal licensed for City . Should
County chose to conduct a County-wide animal vaccination
clinic , the costs for conducting such a clinic shall be multi -
plied by the ratio created by dividing the number of animals
vaccinated for City animal owners by the total number of animals
vaccinated during the clinic .
f. In payment for those emergency services ( as
defined in paragraph 1 ( f) of this Agreement ) provided to City
when only standby animal control officers are on duty , City
shall be charged $14. 00 per man per hour. This charge shall be
on a portal -to-portal basis , and- when applicable , may be added
to the charges imposed pursuant to subparagraphs 14 (a ) and ( c )
above .
-g-
• +Ii
15 . Revenue from Fees and Impounds - Revenue from impound
charges collected on animals taken from within City ' s corporate
limits will be credited against City ' s allocated costs .
16. Revenue from Licensing - Revenue collected in licensing
animals owned or adopted by residents of City shall be credited
to City ' s allocated costs .
17 . Revenue from Court Fines - Animal control violation
fine monies which are imposed and collected as a result of
citations issued or arrests made within the City , and are
thereafter distributed to City pursuant to the provisions of
Penal Code Section 1463 , shall , upon receipt by City , be for-
warded to the County.
18 . Deficits - City shall pay County any deficits between
total revenue credited to City and City ' s allocated costs , as
those sums are hereinabove described , and this computation
shall be made a fiscal year basis , provided that the maximum
amount so payable by City for the services hereunder shall not
exceed $18 , 000 . 00 . Said payments shall be made on or before
the 31st day of August of each year of this Agreement ' s existence .
19 . Books and Records - County agrees to keep such books
and records and in such form and manner as County Auditor-
Controller shall specify . Said books shall be open for examina-
tion by City at all reasonable times . County shall provide a
statement to City showing City ' s revenue credits and allocated
costs . Said statements shall b-€ presented within 30 days after
the close of each quarter of this Agreement ' s existence .
-10-
20 Modification - This Agreement constitutes the entire
understanding of the parties hereto and no modification of the
terms of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing
and signed by the parties .
IN WITNESS THEREOF, City of
' by resolution duly adopted by its City Council causes this
Agreement to be signed by its mayor and attested by its clerk ,
and County of San Luis Obispo by order of the Board of Super-
visors causes these presents to be subscribed by Chairman of
said Board and seal of said Board to be affixed thereto attested
by clerk of said Board on the day and year first above-written .
CITY OF COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By : By :
Mayor Chairman , Board cf Supervisors
ATTEST : ATTEST :
MISBETH WOLLAM , Clerk
Board of Supervisors
City Clerk
By :
Deputy Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT
JAMES B . LINDHOLM , JR .
County Counsel
By •
Deputy County Counsel
_11 _