HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 07/09/1996 PUBLIC NOTICE
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
ADDENDUM TO AGENDA
THE FOLLOWING ITEM IS HEREBY ADDED TO THE ATASCADERO CITY
COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION AGENDA FOR JULY 9, 1996:
6:30 P.M. - CLOSED SESSION
3) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ,
Title: Police Chief
Posted: 7/5/96
LEE PRICE, CIVIC
City Clerk
" PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
Pl
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL tt�
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 9, 1996
CiTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
6500 PALMA AVENUE, 4 " FLOOR ROTUNDA FIC OM
7:00 P.M.
I
George Ray George Harold Davitl
Luna Johnson Highland Carden Bewley
This agenda is prepared and posted pursuant to the requirements of Govemment
node Section 54954.2. By listing a topic on this agenda, the City Council h is expressed its
intent to discuss and act on each item.' In addition to any action identified in the brief general
description of each item, the action that may be taken shall include A referal to staff with
specific requests for information;continuance;;specificdirection to staff concerning the policy
or mission of the item; discontinuance of consideration; authorization to enter into
negotiations and execute agreements pertaining to the item; adoption or approval; and,
disapproval.
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each ftem of business
referred to on the agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk (Room 081 and in the
Information Office,(Room 103), available for public inspection during City Hall business hours.
The City Clerk will answer any questions regarding the agenda.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,if you need sf ecial assistance
to participate in a City meeting or other services offered by_this City,please ontact the City
Manager's Office, (805)461-5010, or the City Clerk's Office, (805) 461-5074. Notification
at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed wil assist the City
staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide acc9ssibility to the
meeting or service.
6:30 P.M. - CLOSED SESSION
1) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNCIL- ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation: One (1) case
2) CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATIOR
Agency negotiator: City Manager
Employee organizations: Management; Mid-Management/Professional; Fire
Captains; Firefighters; Atascadero Sergeants Service Orgn.; Ata cadero Police
Officers Assoc.; Atascadero Public Safety Technicians Orgn.; Service Employees
Intl. Union; Confidential Employees
7:00 P.M. - REGULAR SESSION: (Please see Rules of Public Part in. back page)
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
COMMUNITY FORUM:
• Millhollin Mine Update
PRESENTATIONS:
• Recognition to Gregg Cobarr for his service on the Atascadero Community Services
Foundation Board of Directors
A. CONSENT CALENDAR: 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 on these items. A member of the Council or
public may, by request, have any item removed from the Consent Calendar, which
shall then be reviewed and acted upon separately after the adoption of the Consent
Calendar:
1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - May28, 1996
City Clark's recommendation: Approve)
2. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 10, 1996 (Special Meeting)
City Clerk's recommendation: Approve)
3. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 11, <1996
City Clerk's recommendation: Approve)
4._ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- June 25, 1996
(City Clerk's recommendation: Approve)
5. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 96001, 4055 EL CAMINO REAL - Proposed division of a
0.55 acre parcel into three (3) lots of 10,500, 6,850 and 6,850 square feet
(Planning Commission/staff recommendation: Approve)
6. RESOLUTION NO. 34-96 - Urging the Commission on State Mandates to;approve
Test Claim CSM 4500, sponsored by the City of Atascadero
(City Clerk's recommendation: Revise)
7. RESOLUTION NO. 63-96 - Making findings and upholding the appeal of Business
License application (American Classics)
8:' RESOLUTION NO. 58-96 - Authorizing an agreement with K1QO-Pure Gold Oldies
104 FM and Knights of Columbus for lease of the Atascadero Lake Pavilion
basement
g ESTABLISHING ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR STREET MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS:
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
A. Resolution No. 47-96 - Aguila Avenue
B. Resolution No. 48-96 -Cayucos Ave.
C. Resolution No. 49-96 - Falda Ave.
D. Resolution No. 50-96 Lobos Ave.
E. Resolution No. 51-96 -'Maleza Ave.
F. Resolution No. 52-96 - Pinal Ave.
G. Resolution No. 53-96 - San Fernando Rd.;
H. Resolution No. 54-96 Sonora/Pinal Ave.
2 •
10. PLACEMENT OF ANNUAL SEWER ASSESSMENTS ON PROPERTY TAXES FOR
1996-97 FISCAL YEAR
(Staff recommendation: Adopt) ,
A. Resolution No. 55-96 - Sewer Assessment Dist. #3 (Marc ant Way)
B. Resolution No. 56-96 - Sewer Assessment Dist. #8 (San tabriel Rd.)
C. Resolution No. 60-96 - Sewer Assessment Dist. #10 (Sana Rosa Rd.)
D. Resolution No. 61-96 - Sewer Assessment Dist. #9 (San Gabriel Rd.)
E. Resolution No. 62-96 - Sewer Assessment Dist. #7 (Santa Rosa Rd.)
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 95001, 11750 SAN MARCOS RD. - ppeal of Planning
Commission inaction (3:3 vote) on proposed division of two lots f 7.50 acres and
10.42 acres into three (3)parcels of 5.96, 5.96 and 5.60 acres Lindsay/Wilson
Surveys)
(Staff recommendation: Approve per City Council action of 511 96)
2. ZONE CHANGE 96002, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 96001 AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 96004, 4700 TRAFFIC WAY - Appeal of Planning Commission inaction on
proposed 19-lot planned residential development
(Staff recommendation: Uphold appeal and approve project with conditions of
approval revised during Planning Commission hearing)
3. RESOLUTION NO. 57-96 - Authorizing placement of sewer service fees on property
tax rolls
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
4. ORDINANCE NO. 307 - Adding Section 4-2.1009 to the Atascadero Municipal Code,
prohibiting skating and skateboarding on public sidewalks and property
(Staff recommendation: Motion to waive reading in full and introduce on first
reading by title only)
C. REGULAR BUSINESS:
1. RECONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 21-96 - Authorizing t e retirement and
transfer of ownership of police canine Rommel (addressed 3/26/ 6)
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
2. NOVEMBER 5, 1996 MUNICIPAL ELECTION
A. RESOLUTION NO. 64-96 - Calling and giving notice of thE holding of_a
General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 5, 199 5 for the election of
certain officers as required by the provisions of the laws f the State of
California relating to General Law cities and for the submi sion to the voters
a question relating to the ratification of the City of Atasc dero,s Transient
Occupancy Tax
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
B. RESOLUTION NO. 65-96 - Requesting the Board of Super isors of the
County of San Luis Obispo to consolidate a General Muni ipal Election with
the General Statewide Election on Tuesday, November 5, 1996 and to render
specified election services to conduct said election
(Staff recommendation: Adopt) 3
D. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent standing committees. Informative
status reports will be given, as felt necessary.)
1. S.L.O. Council of Governments/S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority
2. City/School Committee
3. County Water Advisory Board/Nacimiento Water Purveyors Advisory Group
4. Economic Round Table
5. Finance Committee
6. Air Pollution Control District
7. North County Council
8. Ad Hoc Regional Water Management Committee
9. Integrated Waste Management Authority
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
1. City Council
2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk
4. City Treasurer
5. City Manager
4
RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
The City Council welcomes and encourages you ideas and
comments as a citizen. To increase the effectiveness of your
participation, please familiarize yourseff with the follows g rules of
decorum:
O Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda, in the order
the item(s) are addressed by the Council, as directed by the Mayor. Items not
on the agenda should be submitted during the Community Forum period (see
below).
O Persons wishing to speak should step to the podium and state their name and
address, for the official record.
O All remarks shall be addressed to Council, as a whole, and not to any individual
member thereof.
O No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or personal remarks
against any elected official, commissions and staff.
0 A person may speak for five (5),minutes.
O No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had
an opportunity to do so, and no one may speak more than twice on any item.
O Council Members may question any speaker; the speaker may" respond but,
after the allotted time has expired, may not initiate further di cussion.
O The floor will then be closed to public participation and open for Council
discussion.
COMMUNITY FORUM:
0 The Community Forum period is provided to receive comme is from the public
on matters other than scheduled agenda items.
O A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Commun ty, Forum, unless
Council authorizes an extension,
O State law does not allow the Council to take action on issues not on the
agenda;staff may be asked to follow up on such items,
I
I
I
��II
I
I
II
•
RESOLUTION NO. 68-96
• RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY'OF
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, URGING THE GOVERNOR
TO SUPPORT FUNDING IN THE STATE BUDGET
FOR A SATELLITE CAMPUS FOR CUESTA COMMUNITY
COLLEGE IN NORTHERN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
WHEREAS, there is a need and the desire for access to higher education in
Northern San Luis Obispo County; and
WHEREAS, Cuesta Community College has been serving hundreds of students
through make-shift facilities in Northern San Luis Obispo County for some time; and
WHEREAS, a satellite campus of Cuesta Community College would be a much-
needed investment in the future of the area's economy and the education of its
children; and
WHEREAS, the campus would create enormous economic benefits for the
entire San Luis Obispo area; and
WHEREAS, San Luis Obispo County communities are poised to take advantage
iof the remarkable opportunities thata. satellite campus could offer; and
WHEREAS, through the efforts of Senator Jack O'Connell, the State Budget
Conference Committee has taken action to allocate $1 million dollars for the 1996-97
fiscal year to Cuesta Community College for the purchase of land-.and for initial plans
for a full-service community college campus in Northern San Luis Obispo County.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero does hereby
urge the Governor to support and approve funding in the State's Budget for Fiscal
Year 1996-97 for the purpose of securing a satellite campus for Cuesta Community
College in Northern San Luis Obispo County.
SECTION 1. The City Clerk is hereby directed to certify a copy of this
resolution and forward it immediately to the Honorable Pete Wilson, Governor of the
State of California.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk is further directed to certify a copy of this
resolution and forward it immediately to Senator Jack O'Connell in iappreciation of his
efforts and diligence in pursuing this worthy and vital cause.
On motion by Councilperson and seconded by
Councilperson , the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted
• in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
i
Resolution No. 88 -96 i
Page Two
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO
By:
LEE PRICE, City Clerk GEORGE P. HIGHLAND, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney
i
i
Agenda Item: A-1
Meeting Date: 07/09/96
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
MAY 28, 1996
MINUTES
6:00 P.M. - YEAR-TO-DATE FISCAL REVIEW MP Floor Club Rm.)
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by the Mayor. The flag salute and
roll call were deferred to regular session. All members of the City Council were
present. The City Clerk, City Manager and Finance Director were also present.
Brad Whitty provided the staff report and responded to questions regarding
Recreation Division and Pavilion use revenues, Certificates of Participation (COP)
debts, fire impact fees and funds recovered from the Orange County Investment
Pool.
Councilmember Luna suggested that a strategy be developed for pay back from
the General Fund for monies borrowed from the Wastewater Enterprise Fund.
Andy Takata proposed that a formula be developed for paying bank the
Wastewater Fund and the COP, as well as for building back up a contingency of
five percent. There was consensus to study in more detail this recommendation
once the Economic Recovery Task Force (ERTF) has submitted their final report
and the City Council has taken a look at proposals for re-organizing the City
structure.
Councilmember Johnson requested that staff do all that it can to ensure that the
City Council has the ability to adopt a budget for the 1996-97 fiscal year in a
timely manner. He asserted that it is imperative that the budget Ile adopted by
July 1'. The Finance Director indicated that copies of the proposed budget
schedule would be made immediately available to members of the City Council
Public Comments:
Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, requested clarification on line items relating to the Tree
Planting Fund and Safe Routes-to-School Program.
---end of public testimony---
The Mayor announced that formal approval of the year-to-date budget adjustments
CC 05/28/96
Page 1
i
would be taken up under Item #C-1 of the Regular Business agenda.
At 6:29 p.m., the City Council adjourned to Closed Session.
CLOSED SESSION:
The City Council met in Closed Session at 6:30 p.m. for purposes of discussions
pertaining to:
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation: One (1) potential case
2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR:
Agency negotiator: City Manager
Employee organizations: Management; Mid-Management/Professional; Fire
Captains; Firefighters; Atascadero Sergeants Service Orgn.; Atascadero
Police Officers Assoc.; Atascadero Public Safety Technicians Orgn.; Service
Employees Intl. Union; Confidential Employees
Closed Session was adjourned at 6:53 p.m. The Mayor announced that the Council
gave direction to staff.
REGULAR SESSION:
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilperson Bewley led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Councilmembers Bewley, Carden, Johnson, Luna and
Mayor Highland
Absent: None
Also Present: Rudy Hernandez, City Treasurer, and Lee Price, City Clerk
Staff Present: Andy Takata, City Manager; Steve DeCamp, City Planner;
Art Montandon, City Attorney; Brady Cherry, Director of
Community Services; Brad Whitty, Finance Director; Sgt.
Jeff Fredericks, Police Department and Capt. Fred Motlo,
Fire Department
CC 05/28/96
Page 2
PRESENTATIONS:
1. ECONOMIC RECOVERY TASK FORCEERTF REPORT &
f )
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Staff recommendation: Receive report)
Brad Whitty introduced Kathy Pierson, Chairperson of the ERTF, who provided a
summary of the committee's report and recommendations. She noted that
included in the packet are some individual minority reports and indicated that the
Task Force is requesting that the City Council agree to a joint workshop at which
time the committee can expand on the recommendations and respond to
questions.
Councilmember Bewley asked why there was more than one report in the packet
and commented that he was under the impression that the various community
groups represented would provide their input through their representative.
Councilmember Luna remarked that he appreciates the additional;; public comment
and spoke in support of the joint workshop, as suggested by the,Task Force.
Councilmember Carden pointed out that he and Councilmember Johnson,
appointed as Council delegates to the Task Force, had been asked by the Task
Force to not participate once it broke into sub-committees. Because of this, he
explained, he was recommending that he and Councilmember Johnson be given
the opportunity to meet and provide input to the whole Council. Brief discussion
ensued
Public Comments:
Rush Kolemaine, 4850 Potrero Road, spoke in favor of the concept of citizens
involved in the process of reviewing the City's budget on an annual basis. He
submitted his own minority report (see Exhibit A) and summarized some of his
recommendations.
William Zimmerman, 6225 Lomitas Road, commented that it is important for the
whole City Council to meet with the Task Force so that a full exchange can be
achieved.
---end of public testimony---
Councilmember Carden clarified that his recommendation does not mean to
circumvent a full City Council meeting and emphasized that he is requesting
approval for Councilmember Johnson and himself to meet and provide input to the
full Council. Following discussion, the City Council agreed to sanction a meeting
of the Council sub-committee (Councilmembers Carden and Johnson) to be held
before the workshop. In addition, the date of Monday, June 1014 at 7:00 p.m.
was selected as the date for which the City Council will meet in a joint workshop
with the ERTF.
CC 05/28/96
Page 3
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - May 14, 1996
(City Clerk's recommendation: Approve)
2. CITY TREASURER'S REPORT - April, 1996
(City Treasurer's recommendation: Review & Accept)
3. RESOLUTION NO. 37-96 - Authorizing the execution of an agreement with
Jack R. Bridwell for weed abatement services
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
4. RESOLUTION NO. 39-96 - Authorizing application for a multi-agency traffic
safety/enforcement grant
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
By mutual consent, the City Council continued the Minutes of May 14t' (Item #A-
1) to the next meeting.
MOTION: By Councilmember Johnson seconded by Councilmember Luna
to approve the Consent Calendar, Items #A-2 through 4;
motion passed 5:0 by roll call vote.
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION THAT AUTO
REPAIR IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE USE IN THE DOWNTOWN (Cont'd from
5/14/96)
(Planning Commission/Staff recommendation: Deny)
Steve DeCamp provided the staff report and recommendation to deny the appeal.
He emphasized that the recommendation is based upon the fact that the proposed
use (auto repair) is not an allowable use under the General Plan (specifically the
Downtown Master Plan) and is the same or similar to the existing use of auto
sales. The City Attorney advised that the Council, acting in a quasi-judicial
capacity, shall hear the evidence and, based upon the facts, uphold or deny the
appeal. He added that the burden of proof is on the appellant and advised that,
should the Council act to deny the appeal, it direct staff to bring back a resolution
for the Consent Calendar in two weeks establishing the findings for denial.
Council questions followed regarding past uses of the site. Steve DeCamp
reported that although a pole sign application was approved for AAMCO
Transmission in 1991 , staff research of records has revealed that no Conditional
Use Permit for the business or business license was ever issued.
Councilmember Johnson commented that it appears that there was some intent to
CC 05/28/96
Page 4
do auto repairs at the site and pondered whether or not the City, because it did
not require AAMCO to discontinue business, gave defacto approval. The City
Attorney explained that, in the view of the courts, if a business is operated
illegally, it cannot claim a legal right. In addition, he added, no right to use the
property for a use different than the established legal use can beclaimed.
Public Comments:
Bruce Berger, representing American Classics, spoke in support of the appeal and
emphasized that the owners are not requesting a change in the Downtown Master
Plan. He asserted that the building has always been used for a auto sales and
repair. He contended that AAMCO Transmission operated its repair business for
2'h years before American Classics acquired the property and explained that auto
repairs were done in addition to sales. He stated that if the appeal is upheld, the
owners will be denied all economic use of the property. Councilmember Luna
asked Mr. Berger if he had any evidence that AAMCO Transmission had a
Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Berger indicated that although he does not have hard
evidence to prove that it did, but all the information that he has gathered, they
did. Councilmember Bewley asked the speaker how long AAMCO was in
business. Mr. Berger commented that the business's grand opening was in 1986
and recalled that the business had ceased to operate in November of 1988.
Ken Craig, co-owner American Classics, noted that when he acquired the building,
there was a valid business license hanging on the wall. He testified that American
Classics has, since they acquired the property, repaired automobiles for re-sale.
Councilmember Johnson asked staff if they had researched the records to
determine if AAMCO Transmission had a business license. Steve DeCamp
reported that the records search revealed only one business license at the site for
that time period. The license was in the name of Gayle Sharp for a used car lot,
he stated. Mr. DeCamp, responding to inquiry from the Mayor, also reported that
staff, after researching Planning Commission agendas and minutes, have
determined that no Conditional Use Permit application was ever approved.
Michael LeSage, attorney for the appellants, spoke in support of the appeal and
argued that his clients acquired the property assuming that the ex, isting repair
business was a legal, allowable use. He questioned why the City+,would issue a
sign permit to a business conducting its operations illegally and concluded that his
clients have a vested right because of the fact that the chain of use has not been
broken. Mr. LeSage to clarify passed out some photos representing some
business uses in the downtown area of the City of Pasadena and contended that
different types of business uses in the downtown can successfully be blended
without conflict.
Councilmember Johnson noted that there appears to be arguments: 1) change the
zoning for the Downtown Master Plan or, 2) the auto repair use has operated
perpetually; he asked the speaker to clarify which argument he was supporting.
CC 05/28/96
Page 5
Mr. LeSage stated that he is not asserting that the Downtown Master Plan be
changed, but rather that there was either a use permit for the AAMCO repair
business that was passed, on, or that there was justifiable reliance on the part of
his clients upon that use.
Councilmember Luna asked why it was that the owners of American Classics
applied for a auto/mobilehome and vehicle dealers/suppliers business license,
instead of a auto repair license. Mr. LeSage explained that repairs are an essential
part of selling classic cars and asserted that after the business license was applied
for, the Zoning Ordinance was changed. From that point forward, he concluded,
his clients had a right to continue with the same repair business into the future.
He added that the chain had not been broken because auto repairs conducted by
American Classics was consistent with what AAMCO Transmission had been
doing. Councilmember Luna remarked that the owner did not make it clear to the
City that he would be doing auto repairs, based upon his application to do
business.
Responding to inquiry from Council, Steve DeCamp reported that the land use
definition has not changed since the time American Classics took over the site. He
pointed out that the business license application filed was for classic car sales.
Mr. LeSage reiterated that the City issued a permit for a sign and the issue of the
use permit was never raised.
Sherry Nunes, Nunes Auto Body (potential buyer), presented an overview of the
project that is being proposed for the site. She exhibited an architectural
rendering of the building improvements and reported that the body shop, highly
regulated by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Air Pollution Control
District (APCD), is a clean, professional operation.
Nick Gilman, architect, reported that he has looked at the property to determine if
there are alternative uses for the site and suggested that there are few.
Richard Summers, local real estate broker, spoke in support of the proposed
project. He encouraged the City Council to work together with the owners and
avoid allowing another commercial building in the downtown to sit empty.
Gene Humphrey, resident, urged the City Council to let the building be used as it
has been used since the 1920's.
---end of public testimony---
Councilmember Johnson commented that he suspects the building does have
limited use and pointed out that it could be argued that the City gave defacto
approval for auto repair. He shared concern that the City may be subject to an
inverse condemnation suit and suggested that the matter be sent back to staff for
additional research.
CC 05/28/96
Page 6
Art Montandon, responding to inquiry from Council, advised that',the standard for
success in a claim of inverse condemnation is one where there is!an improper
regulation by a governmental entity against private property and it results in
removing all economic viability of the property. He commented that there is, in his
opinion, economically viable use for the property and that such &suit would not be
successful. Mr. Montandon also explained the legal concepts of restoppel,
entitlement and detrimental reliance.
Councilmember Luna asked if Nunes Auto Body were to apply for a business
license for vehicle dealer and supplier if it would be allowable. Steve DeCamp
replied that vehicle dealer and supplier use is a legally established non-conforming
use and clarified that the request for auto repair is a shift from one land use
category to another.
Councilmember Carden asked staff if the Volvo dealership, once at the intersection
of EI Camino Real and West Mail, was forced to move out of the downtown.
Steve DeCamp indicated that the use had been illegally established and never
licensed. After several years and court action, the use was moved further south
on El Camino Real, he reported.
Councilmember Johnson requested clarification of staff's position,. Steve DeCamp
replied that staff would recommend, if Council chooses to approve the use, that
the General Plan be modified. He added that staff is having a difficult time making
the chaining argument and do not see the facts as the appellants.do.
Mayor Highland remarked that while there are not many uses for the building, he
does not want to continue a use that is not considered compatible with the
Downtown Master Plan.
Councilmember Bewley commented that when a business wants to come in to the
downtown and renovate a building so that it can become a viable business, the
City should work with the applicants to ensure success. If the downtown dies, he
said, so does the downtown plan.
Councilmember Johnson asked the City Attorney if Council can uphold the appeal
without changing the zoning. Art Montandon advised that the Council would have
to make findings that AAMCO was legal when it operated on the';site, that the use
for automobile repair continued through the use by American Cla$sics and that the
new project would be a legal non-conforming use. He recommended that the City
Council continue the hearing and direct staff to go back through the record.
Mayor Highland pointed out that if the Council moves to deny the appeal, the
same findings would have to be made based upon the same record. The City
Attorney reported that the court, if litigation ensues, will look at whether or not
there is enough substantial evidence to support the findings.
MOTION: By Councilmember Johnson, seconded by Councilmember
Bewley to continue the public hearing until the next council
CC 05/28/96
Page 7
meeting; motion passed 5:0 by roll call vote.
Recess called at 9:12 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m.
Andy Takata reported that during the break the appellants agreed to continue the
hearing until June 2V to allow adequate time for research. The Mayor so ordered
the hearing continued until said date.
2. WEED ABATEMENT PUBLIC HEARING
(Staff recommendation: Hear protests, and authorize Fire Chief to abate
weeds)
Capt. Motlo provided the brief staff report. There were no questions or comments
from the City Council.
Public Comments:
Rush Kolemaine commented that there remains a conflict between the City's
ordinance and State law as it relates to brush removal in and near the riparian
zone. He suggested that staff address this matter and seek some compromise.
---end of public testimony---
Councilmember Luna inquired whether there were any areas in the City that have
been declared very high hazard severity zones. Capt. Motlo reported that the
former Fire Marshal, Mark Latham, in conjunction with the California Department
of Forestry (CDF), had conducted a survey identifying those areas that are high
hazard areas. Three classifications (or levels of hazard) were identified, he
reported. Councilmember Luna said that, according to new State law, the State
Fire Marshal shall identify areas as very high hazard severity zones and the
information shall be transmitted to all local agencies with identified high hazard
severity zones. That information, he continued, shall be made available for public
review and be presented in a format understandable and accessible to the general
public, including maps. Councilmember Luna concluded that this information
would be best disseminated at a public hearing and remarked that he has not yet
seen any of the relating documents. The City Manager indicated that he would
check with the Fire Chief to determine how the information will be distributed and
whether or not a public hearing is required.
Brief discussion following regarding the abatement of properties within the City
that are owned by the County of San Luis Obispo and Southern Pacific Railroad.
Mayor Highland asserted that the weed abatement contractor should be instructed
to go ahead and clear the properties and, further, that the City should bill those
entities for the work. Councilmember Luna suggested that CalTrans property also
be handled in this way. Capt. Motlo Fred reported that last year the department
put CalTrans on notice that they are not only responsible for abatement, but are
responsible for any necessary fire suppression costs as well.
CC 05/28/96
Page 8
i
MOTION: By Councilmember Carden seconded by Councilmember Luna
to authorize the Fire Chief to abate weeds; motion passed
unanimously.
3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95004 (Lanini/Messer)
A. Resolution No. 29-96 - Re-designating certain real property between
Old Santa Rosa Rd., West Frontage Rd., Atascadero Ave. and Portola
Rd. from Moderate Density Single Family to High Density Single
Family (GPA #95004: Lanini)
(Planning Commission recommendation: Adopt)
B. Ordinance No. 305 - Amending Official Zoning Map 'i19 by rezoning all
that real property located between Old Santa Rosa Rd., West
Frontage Rd., AtascaderoAve. and Portola Rd. presently zoned
Residential Single Family with a one acre minimum lot size (RSF-Y) to
Residential Single Family with a one-half acre minimum lot size (RSF-
X) (ZC #95007: Lanini)
(Planning Commission recommendation: Motion to waive reading in
full and introduce on first reading, by title only)
Steve DeCamp provided the staff report and recommendations to approve.
Responding to brief Council questions, Mr. DeCamp reported that staff's
preliminary review, while based upon planning principals and not'a specific project,
reveals that any subsequent subdivision could be served by a City street. He
added that the property owner has not indicated any plans to subdivide at this
time.
There was no public testimony.
MOTION: By Councilmember Carden, seconded by Councilmember
Johnson to approve Resolution No. 29-96; motion passed
unanimously.
MOTION: By Councilmember Carden, seconded by Councilmember
Johnson to waive reading in full and introduce on first reading
by title Ordinance No. 305; motion passed 5.0 by roll call vote.
C. REGULAR BUSINESS:
1. RESOLUTION NO. 41-96 - Approving amendments to the 1995/96 adopted
budget (Staff recommendation: Adopt)
Brad Whitty reported that the Council had met in an open study session at 6:00
p.m. to review the budget. The resolution, he added, was formal approval for
CC 05/28/96
Page 9
budget adjustments outlined in the staff report.
Public Comments:
Rush Kolemaine proclaimed that the public had been given no opportunity to
review the budget amendments. Councilmember Luna pointed out that there had
been two meetings properly noticed regarding this matter: Tonight's session and
the previously-held Finance Committee meeting.
MOTION: By Councilmember Luna, seconded by Councilmember Bewley
to adopt Resolution No. 41-96; motion passed 5:0 by roll call
vote.
2. RESOLUTION NO. 40-96 - Adopting a City of Atascadero Mission Statement
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
Andy Takata provided the staff report and recommendation to adopt. Mayor
Highland suggested that the word, "friendly" be incorporated into the fourth
"employee value" outlined in the mission statement.
MOTION: By Councilmember Luna, seconded by Councilmember Johnson
to adopt Resolution No. 46-96, as amended; motion passed
unanimously.
D. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent standing committees.
Informative status reports were given, as follows.):
1. S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority - Councilmember Carden reported that
SLORTA and two members of the Board of Supervisors are scheduled to
meet on June 10' regarding CCAT's Route 9.
2. City/School Committee- Councilmember Johnson announced that the
committee will meet on May 30" at 1 :30 p.m. at the School District office.
3. Economic Round Table - Councilmember Johnson reported on the meeting
of May the 15th, at which time presentations by Ed Weaterhby and the
Economic Vitality Corporation were received.
4. Air Pollution Control District - The Mayor reported that the district had met
on May 22"d.
5. North County Council - Mayor Highland indicated that the next Executive
Committee meeting was scheduled for Thursday, June 201h at the Lake Park
Pavilion (Note: meeting later rescheduled for June 27th). The Mayor
mentioned that it has been suggested that the NCC meet quarterly, rather
than monthly.
CC 05/28/96
Page 10
6. Ad Hoc Regional Water Management Committee - Mayor Highland
commented that the next meeting will be June Stn
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
1. City Council
Councilmember Bewley requested a status report on revisions to!the skateboard
ordinance. The City Manager indicated that staff hopes to bring the ordinance to
the Council on June 11 to
Mayor Highland reported that negotiations have begun with mobilehome park
residents and owners in Rancho Del Bordo and Hilltop Manor mobilehome parks.
He noted that the proposed rent stabilization ordinance is on hold for thirty days
while negotiations continue.
2. City Clerk: Schedule interviews for Board of Directors, Community Services
Foundation
Lee Price reported that three applications had been received and :requested that
the Council consider meeting at 6:00 p.m. on June 111h to interview the
candidates. The City Council agreed to conduct the interviews an that date.
At 9:58 p.m. the meeting was adjourned. The next meeting of the Atascadero
City Council will be Tuesday, June 11, 1996 at 6:00 p.m.
MINUTES E O ED A SPARED BY:
LEE PRICE, C.M.0
CITY CLERK
Attachment: Exhibit A (Kolemaine)
CC 05/28/96
Page 11
1
a
-- - ----- _ . _-CC5/28/96 -_
EXHIBIT A
R. S. Kolemaine/P.o.sox 1990 i Amo icA s3423-1990 (W5)466-8200
t
TO: Atascadero City Council
4 DATE: 28 May 1996
SUBJ: ERTF Report, omissions
Gentlemen: >,
Attached FYI is'a copy of a m, i sent.to Mr..Brad:Witty on 15 Aug. 96, in wh A as a,member'
of the ERTF, I asked Mr ,W to provrde'better information regarding potential fimding sources foi�
il �; City of Atascadero�as`these have been�,�denttfied by the League of Cahfonna Cittes in 1h�eir yCahfo `x
h
'� j" Murucxpal Revenue S�o.�urces'Handbo$olc"published w 1995"'
I Mu
1tS A'
Pt` a""� .i �,
9
k� In this handbook, theie'are over O, egular sources,'of revenue listed, lusan ditto 0
"uinovattve" revenue sources #fewof anygfwlnch appear to have.been"reviewed and/o con'sid
�'
the ERTF �¢ � r � :
r,
k" �s Notv�nthstanding Mr �Wittys� lureto responds to :this memorandum ;requestuigbetter
identification of`' r that`mi t iaurentl be used as ci at revenue sources forem' rt o 1cctus
'10 ,V
that the ERTF:could have better,spent;;some;tune in examining,at least°some of these proven y5
sources of revenue during it's term of service I would like to call your attention'`especW to the:items
listed on the third page of this memo;=which refers to`fuller explanations described on pp 92-:112 of the
above document.
In viewofthe ERTF:decision(or failure)to not make recommendations for any meaningfiil:new
revenues for the City, I hope.the City Council will obtain the.information requested fromi l 'Witty`and4 }:
conduct a careful review of these in°aneffort to,Tpossible;'enhance current City revenues�inthe future ,. F
In addition, I would like to recommend the City Council give careful consideration of the lack o£
., any reliable long term forecasting effort as'regards to tracking anticipated revenues and budget priorities X
At the least, an on-going five year planning program covering the City's fiscal affairs would appear,to be
necessary to bring order-.out of chaos and provide the Co'ncil and citizens with reassurance regarding
these matters. 4,
Respectfully, ,
_
Rush Kolemaine
r
e
d
ENCL �5
L
' R. S. Kolemaine/P.O.Box 1990 Atascad /CA 93423-1990 (805)466-8200
TO: Brad Witty
DATE: 15 Aug 95
SUBJ: Identification of City revenue sources
Brad:
s In reviewing the current(FY 95/96)proposed City budget along with the various(materials you have collected for
4 the benefit of the Economic Recovery Task Force I have been struck by the difficulty in identifying which sources of
Atascadero revenues relate to those identified in the League of California Cities"Califom i Municipal Revenue Sources
Handbook".
Specifically,the sources and authority for the 41 funds identified in the City budget,however obvious to those
who normally deal with City financing,are unclear or uncertain.Likewise,specific dollar amounts currently obtained
through these various sources is also unclear in the materials provided task force members;to date.
As a means to clarify this information,in order to make more rational judgments regarding other potential
revenue sources and to better evaluate current City expenditures,it would be helpful to have these tied together with some
better clarity. As a simple means of accomplishing this with the least impact on staff time,i,could you identify revenue
sources(as listed in the"handbook")from which the City derives/does not derive revenues at this time and the dollar
amounts anticipated or budgeted in the FY 95/96 City budget,and some indication as which of these are dedicated funds?
4 To assist in this,I have listed those in the handbook most possibly relevant to Atmcadero in the attached,with
space for filling in the necessary data I am enclosing a floppy of this to(hopefully)chimiiate hand copying and
photocopying for distribution to all other task force members who may find this useful.
Rush Kolemaine
cc: Pearson Q�
Bewley v
Carden
e Highland
4
Johnson
Luna
i
,
7 -
15 Aug 95
Page 3/3
City Fund
SOURCES #(s) Title $(FY 95/96) Notes
Publia2 vatoDevelopmentFees
lRedevelopment Agency Business/City Grants........................ ............ ................... ................................... .........
Public/Private/SBA Grants.....................
................................. ............ ................... .................................... .........
UrbanStructure Program...................................................... ............. ................... .................................... ..........
Multi-source Development Funding....................................... ............. ................... .................................... ..........
RedevelopmentAgency Bonding........................................... ............ ................... .................................... .........
Innovative Developer/ImpactFees
ParkingDeficiency Fee.......................................................... ............. ................... .................................... ........
TransitImpact Fee................................................................. ............ ................... .................................... ........
ChildCare....... .................................................................................. ................... .................................... ..........
PublicArt.............................................................................. ............. ................... .................................... ..........
Marketing ofAssets
Saleof Memorabilia.............................................................. ............ ................... .................................... .........
"Rental"of Services............................................................... ............. ................... .................................... ..........
MarketingCity Heritage........................................................ ............ ................... ................................... .........
Commercial Use of Public Facilities....................................... ............ .................... .................................... .........
Film/TV Rental of Facilities.................................................. ............ ................... .................................... .........
SharedMunicipal Services.................................................... ............ ................... .................................... .........
ComputerSoftware Sales....................................................... ............. ................... .................................... .........
TrainingMaterials Sales........................................................ . ......... ................ ................................ .......
Lease/Sale Real Estate........................................................... ............ ................... ................................... .........
I Recovery ofService Cost
VINInformation Fee............................................................. ............ .................... ................................... .........
UnauthorizedSign Removal Fee............................................ ............. ................... .................................... ..........
VoluntaryCat Licensing..................................................................... ................... .................................... ..........
MedicalDispatch Fees........................................................... ............. ................... .................................... ..........
DisturbanceService Fee......................................................... ............ ................... .................................... .........
Police and Fire Special Benefit Districts................................ ............ .................... .................................... .........
Non-resident Service Charges................................................ ............. ................... .................................... ..........
FeeReview........................................................................... ......... ................ ................................ .......
Recovery of Bond Issue Administration Charges.................... ............ ................... .................................... .........
Cost Recovery for Police,Fire and Public Works.................... ............ ................... .................................... .........
Cost recovery for DUI Accidents and Arrests......................... ................................ ................................... ..........
CostRecovery for Accident Clean-up..................................... ............ ................... .................................... .........
Cost Recovery for Arson Fires................................................ ............ .................... .................................... .........
MapCheck fee....................................................................... ............ ................... .................................... ..........
OtherFees(see p. 108).......................................................... ............ ................... .................................... .........
Revenue from otber Sources
In-Lieu Taxes and Franchise Fees.......................................... ............ ................... .................................... ..........
CostAvoidance Reserve......................................................... ............ .................... .................................... .........
Revenues for Park Concerts,Events/Concessions................. .
............ ................... .................................... ..........
Matching Funds for Cultural Arts Programs.......................... .
........... ................... ................................... .........
Adopt-a-Wall Graffiti Removal.............................................. ............ ................... .................................... .........
BusinessLicense Tax Equity.................................................. ............ .................... .................................... .........
GrantApplications................................................................ ............ .................... .................................... .........
UtilityPayment Station.......................................................... ............. ................... .................................... ..........
"Gift"Catalog ................................................................... ............ .................... .................................... ......... 0
J
SURVEY OF ATASCADERO 15 Aug 95
REVENUE SOURCES o Page 2/3
City Fund
SOURCES #(s) Title $(FY 95196) Notes
GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES
General Taxes
Sales&Use Tax.................................................................. ........... ................. .. ................................... .........
BusinessLicenseTax............................................................... ........... ................. . .................................... .........
UtilityUser's Tax................................................................... ........... ................... .................................... .........
Transient Occupancy(Bed)Tax............................................. .
Documentary Transfer(Real Property Transfer)Tax.........................I ................ .. .................................... .........
AdmissionsTax...................................................................... ........... ................. . ................................... ..........
ParkingTax.......................................................................... ................................ ................................ .......
Special Taxes
Mello Roos Community Facilities Tax................................... ........... ................... ................................... .........
SpecialTax for Library Services............................................. ........... ................. .. ................................... .........
ParcelTaxes........................................................................... ........... ................. •• ••••••............................. .........
Special Tax for Police and Fire Services............................................. •................... .................................... .........
STATE-ADMINISTERED REVENUE SOURCES
Motor Vehicle License Fee.................................................... ....... ............. ......
Off-Highway Motor Vehicle License Fee................................. ........... ................. .. .................................... .........
GasolineTax......................................................................... ....... ............. ................................ ......
` Reimbursement for State-mandated Costs............................................
4 Homeowners'Property Tax Relief........................................... ........... ................. . ................................... .........
Williamson Act and Open Space Subvention.......................... ........... .................1.. .................................... .........
iTideland Revenue................................................................... ........... ................... ................................... ..........
OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE
Federal................................................................................:.. ........... .................... .................................... .........
State...................................................................................... ....... ............. ................................ .......
County.................................................................................. ................................ ............................... .......
Other.................................................................................... ........ ........................................................ .......
LOCALLY RAISED REVENUE
BenefitAssessments................................................................ ........... .................... ..............................•-•--- .........
Licencesand Permits.............................................................. ........... ................ ... ................................... .........
Franchises............................................................................. ....... ............. ............................... ......
CurrentService Charges......................................................... ............ ........................................................ ..........
InvestmentEarnings............................................................... ............ ................ .. ................................... ..........
Development Impact Fees....................................................... ........... ................ .. ..........................
Rents,Royalties and Concessions............................................ ........... .................... .................................... .........
Fines,Forfeitures and Penalties............................................... ........... .................... .................................... .........
INNOVATIVE REVENUE SOURCES
Aggressive COIleC On Programs
TaxAudits.............................................................................. ........ ............. ............................... .......
Using Small Claims Courts.................................................
Collecting from Habitual Offenders......................................... ........... ...........•........ .................................... .........
Increased Business License Collections.................
Mergers Signal Property Tax Reassessments......................... ................................ ....
.. .. .... .. .........
Collection Referral and Interest Fees....................
Treble Damages on NSF Checks............................................. ............ ................... ................................... ..........
AmnestyPrograms.................................................................. ... ....... ... ..........:... .................................... .........
I
Agenda Item: A-2
M4eting Date: 7/9/96
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
JUNE 10, 1996
MINUTES
PURPOSE OF THE MEETING:
The City Council met to conduct a workshop with the members of the City's
Economic Recovery Task Force relative to their findings and reicommendations as
submitted to the City Council at their meeting of May 28, 1996.; Said findings and
recommendations are attached as Exhibit A.
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Councilmembers Bewley, Carden, Johnson, Luna and
Mayor Highland
Absent: None
Also Present: Rudy Hernandez, City Treasurer and LeePrice, City Clerk
Staff Present: Andy Takata, City Manager; Steve Degamp, City Planner;
Art Montandon, City Attorney; Brady (,herry, Director of
Community Services; Brad Whitty, Finance Director; Bud
McHale, Police Chief and Lt. Bill Watton
Task Force Members
Present: Kathy Pierson, Bob Johnson, Jon Lovgren, Lindsay
Hampton, Leo Korba (for Micki Korba) Dwight Huffman,
Joan O'Keefe, James Patterson and Shirley Moore
Task Force Members
Absent: Joanne Peters, Joni Roberts, Mike Hicks, Ralph Dowell,
Douglas Byles, Jay DeCou and Joe Grisajnti
Special 6/10/96
Page 1
i
1
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, urged the City Council to make no further commitments •
to expansion of the City's urban services line or future sewer service (unless
forced to by the Regional Water Quality Control Board), given the fact that
Wastewater funds have been loaned to the General Fund.
Bill Zimmerman, 6225 Lomitas, commented that he appreciates this joint meeting
and hopes that the exchange will include the reasons behind some of the
recommendations made by the Task Force.
MEETING HIGHLIGHTS:
Using the four-page recommendation plan submitted to the City Council by the
Task Force (see Exhibit A), the discussion followed loosely the order outlined in
the plan. The following is a summary of the discussion:
• Councilmember Carden requested clarification of "No new projects". Kathy
Pierson explained that the committee realizes that emergencies come up and
that it is difficult to anticipate costs, but emphasized that this recommendation
would apply to capital expenditures like the recent purchase of Stadium Park.
• The recommendation to reduce department head salaries was discussed. The
City Attorney reported that compensation for department heads is a negotiated
matter and that their salaries are considered contractual agreements confirmed
by Council by resolution on an annual basis.
• The concept of privatizing the Charles Paddock Zoo was discussed. Shirley
Moore reported that the sub-committee considered only a proposal by which
the San Luis Obispo County Zoological Society would take over the Zoo. It
was determined that it would not be feasible for the Zoo Society to do it, she
said, but explained that no other option was reviewed.
• Councilmember Johnson asked if there has been any discussion with the
County about a subsidy from the County funds, recognizing the fact that the
Zoo draws visitors county-wide. Shirley Moore reported that David Blakely has
made a discretionary donation, but was pessimistic about County participation
in funding the Zoo. Brady Cherry mentioned that some informal discussions
with County staff have taken place but noted that it is not likely that the
County will make any contribution in light of proposed cuts to other regional
programs like the library system. He added that staff has requested that a
formal inquiry be made regardless.
• Discussion ensued regarding departmental budgets. There was consensus on
the part of the committee that certain departments (Zoo, Police & Fire
specifically) that consistently go over budget. It was felt that some
Special 6/10/96
Page 2
departments were not being appropriated enough money to cover their costs in
an effort to balance the overall budget. It was concluded that departmental
budgets should be more realistic.
• Regarding the recommendation to create no new or additional! positions, Kathy
Pierson clarified that the committee did not intend by this recommendation to
propose that vacancies presently funded or positions created by possible
restructuring should not be filled.
• Kathy Pierson reported that there is no correlation between columns 3 and 4 on
page four of the plan. Departments were rated by the job they do given the
funding available, she said. The committee recommends that:any cuts be in
those departments that rate "more than adequate" under the column entitled,
"Adequacy of Funding from General Fund".
• The committee concludes that Pavilion fees are not high enough to recover the
costs. Councilmember Carden reported that the Finance Committee proposes
that the Pavilion be set up as an enterprise fund instead of a special revenue
fund, which is subsidized by the General Fund.
• James Patterson reported that the committee agreed that continued deferred.
maintenance of streets, parks and public buildings will result its higher costs in
the long run and that maintenance should, therefore, be givern a higher funding
priority.
• There was mutual agreement amongst the committee members that until the
City gains control over its monetary problems, the public as a whole will not
accept any major changes (i.e.: new assessment districts, taxes, etc.).
• Staff reported that voluntary employee furloughs in lieu of raises and furloughs
to voluntarily reduce hours have been taken by employees for the past three to
four years.
• Regarding business licenses, staff reported that they are already looking into
the possibility of requiring business licenses for all sub-contractors doing work
in the City.
• The Fire Chief reported on new trends and issues relative to emergency
dispatching. Small dispatchers may want to go to a regional dispatch approach
similar to what the California Department of Forestry and the County Sheriffs
Department use. Lt. Watton cautioned Council to consider hidden costs (like
hardware support and others) associated with regional dispatch services to
ensure that a change would be cost-effective.
• Lt. Watton responded to questions regarding the Police Department jail. He
explained that, with the exception of felony arrests, the facility's holding cells
Special 6/10/96
Page 3
i
are used on a regular basis for misdemeanor violators.
• The City Attorney pointed out that changing bi-monthly payroll to monthly
payroll was not permitted by fair labor laws.
• The committee chairperson emphasized that the recommendation to increase
any fees that are not recovering all costs was not to be taken literally. She
noted that the committee recognized that some programs cannot recover all
costs but emphasized that the statement's intent was to be a common sense
guide to the Council as it relates to fees.
• Shirley Moore suggested that home occupation business licenses be made
easier to get and proposed that the public be educated about the process.
• Art Montandon reported that law set forth in the Public Utilities Code allows
municipalities to charge franchise fees for certain utilities that transport their
product through the community via pipelines. He noted that the difficulty lies
with the fact that the City must prove that the utility is using municipal
property. He reported that utility companies often acquire legal easements
and/or title, and that the City would have to conduct an in-depth records
search before it could be determined whether or not a franchise fee could be
collected. The fee, he added, is set by State law and represents a certain
percentage of the product that is put through the pipeline.
Public Comments:
Rush Kolemaine, 4850 Potrero Road, commented that the function of the Task
Force is one that could serve the City on an on-going, annual basis. He suggested
that a long-range fiscal plan be clearly defined and that the Council consider re-
development. He also stated that line item amounts within departmental budgets
had not been given enough attention by members of the Task Force.
Rudy Hernandez, City Treasurer, asserted that borrowing from the Wastewater
Fund was unjustifiable and should not have happened. He remarked that the
financial crisis must be addressed through revenue enhancements and budget
reductions.
Sandi Ford, representative for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU),
thanked the members of the Task Force for their work. She commented that it
was time for city councils countywide to take some responsibility for the fiscal
climates of their communities and urged the Council to take action.
---end of public testimony---
Individual members of the City Council expressed gratitude to the members of the
Task Force. Kathy Pierson indicated that the committee hopes to remain involved
Special 6/10/96
Page 4
in the process and would like to have the opportunity to do some, follow-up.
AT 9:53 P.M. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED.
MINUTES PREPARED BY:
LEE PRICE, C.M.0
CITY CLERK
Attachment: Exhibit A (ERTF Recommendations)
Special 6/10/96
Page 5
1 Iii
AT 9:53 P.M. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED.
MINUTES PREPARED BY-
LEE PRIC C.M.0
CITY CLERK
Attachment: Exhibit A (ERTF Recommendations)
i
Special 6/10/96
Page 5
ECONOMIC RECOVERY TASK FORCE (ERTF)
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
I. SHORT TERM RECOMMENDATIONS:
These are actions with an immediate effect. These recommendations
are to remain in effect until the budget incorporates the pay-back to the
Wastewater Fund, budgets realistic amounts for the Zoo:and
incorporates a minimum General Fund Reserve as recommended by the
auditors.
A. SHORT TERM STEPS TO KEEP FROM ADDING NEW DEBT TO
THE GENERAL FUND
1. No new projects.
2. Create no new or additional positions.
3. No wage or salary increases.
4. Each department will not exceed its annual budget.
B. SHORT TERM COST CUTTING TO COVER EXISTING DEBT,
ANNUAL EXPENSES & MINIMUM GENERAL FUND RESERVE
1. City Manager to be held accountable for control of the
budget.
2. Reduction of department head salaries.
3. Reduction of certain employee benefits such,as health pay-
back for employees without dependents.
4. Department budget reductions based on ERTF rating of
individual departments. (See ratings on page 4.)
S. Consider voluntary employee furloughs.
C_ SHORT TERM REVENUE ENHANCEMENTS
I. Enforce a requirement that all those doing business in the
City of Atascadero, including all contractors, subcontractors
and suppliers, have an Atascadero business'ticense.
1
UUU00�
II. LONG TERM RECOMMENDATIONS: �-
These are actions that may take some time before the effects will be
realized.
A. LONG TERM COST REDUCTIONS
1. Consider contracting for dispatch services.
2. Adopt enroachment and sidewalk ordinances.
3. Consider monthly payroll or consider contracting out
payroll.
4. Centralize purchasing.
3. Enact PG&E recommendations to reduce utility costs at the
Pavilion and other City buildings.
B. LONG TERM REVENUE ENHANCEMENTS
I. Increase any fees that aren't recovering all costs to the City.
This includes the cost of deferred maintenance and
administration.
2. Enforce code, permit and license requirements.
3. Charge a hazardous materials franchise fee on pipelines.
4. Before the ERTF could consider a tax increase or city-wide
assessment it is deemed necessary that all the short term
recommendations be implemented .
000006
C. LONG TERM INCREASE IN SERVICE LEVELS
These are to be enacted after the short term recommendations
have been implemented.
I. Overlay roads according to the priority established by the
City Engineer.
2. Increase road maintenance staff to previouslevel.
3. Repair buildings owned by the City .
4. Replace worn out equipment.
5. Hire a Community Development Director and a Public
Works Director.
D. OTHER
I. A record of the City's financial status should be current and
available at all times and should include cash flow
projections. The report should also reflect the annual
amount budgeted for each department, expected revenues
for each department and balances remaining as the fiscal
year progresses.
2. Utilize computer for self-service in the Planning
Department.
3. Streamline permitting process without reducing standards.
4. Implement a Fixed Asset program and update it annually.
5. Improve collections. Turn delinquent accounts over to
collection agency.
6. Implement an incentive program for employee's suggestions
that save money.
7. Implement a reward system for departments that come in
under budget at the end of the fiscal year.
8. Allow departments to carry over unexpended funds to the
next fiscal year.
NOTE: The preceding recommendations are not listed in'order of priority.
J
€;0000'7
ECONOMIC RECOVERY TASK FORCE (ERTF)
RATINGS OF DEPARTMENTS BY
SERVICE LEVEL AND ADEQUACY OF FUNDING '
DEPARTMENT SERVICE LEVELS ADEQUACY OF
FUNDING FROM
GENERAL FUND
Police Adequate More than adequate
Fire More than adequate Adequate
Finance Less than adequate Less than adequate
Community Services
Administration Less than adequate Less than adequate
Recreation More than adequate More than adequate
Parks/Buildings Less than adequate Less than adequate
Zoo Less than adequate Less than adequate
Street Division Less than adequate Less than adequate
Pavilion Less than adequate More than adequate
Community Development Less than adequate Less than adequate
Administration More than adequate Adequate.
Wastewater Adequate Not applicable
(Enterprise fund)
* Refer to individual sub-committee reports for each department to gain a
better understanding of the ratings.
4
000009
I
Agenda Item: A-3
M6eting Date: 7/9/96
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 11, 1996
MINUTES
6:00 P.M. - INTERVIEW SESSION:
A. Interview (3) candidates for Atascadero Community Servicesl Foundation Board
B. Resolution No. 42-96 - Appointing ( _ ) members to the ACSFF Board
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
The meeting was called to order by the Mayor at 6:00 p.rh. Present were
Councilmembers Johnson and Luna, Mayor Highland, Lee Priced City Clerk, Andy
Takata, City Manager and Brady Cherry, Director of Community Services.
Councilmembers Carden and Bewley were absent.
The City Council interviewed Elizabeth Schneider and Robert Roichek. Candidate
Gregg Cobarr was not present due to a previous commitment . Following the
interviews, the City Council cast their ballots and selected Elizabjeth Schneider and
Robert Reichek to serve terms of three years each. Resolution Nol 42-96 formalizing
the appointments was adopted as follows:
MOTION: By Councilmember Johnson, seconded by Cour�cilmember Luna to
adopt Resolution No. 42-96 appointing Elizabeth Schneider and
Robert Reichek to the Board of Directors for the Community
Services Foundation; motion passed 3:0.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session at 6:35 p.m.
6:30 P.M. - CLOSED SESSION:
The City Council met in Closed Session for purposes of discussions Pertaining to:
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation: One (1) potential case
2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR:
Agency negotiator: City Manager
Employee organizations: Management; Mid-Management/Professional; Fire
CC 6/11/96
Page 1
Captains; Firefighters; Atascadero Sergeants Service Orgn.; Atascadero Police
Officers Assoc.; Atascadero Public Safety Technicians Orgn.; Service
Employees Intl. Union; Confidential Employees
Closed Session adjourned at 7.00 p.m. Council direction was given to the labor
negotiator and to legal counsel.
7:00 P.M. - REGULAR SESSION:
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and led the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Councilmembers Bewley, Johnson, Luna and Mayor
Highland
Absent: Carden
Also Present: Lee Price, City Clerk
Staff Present: Andy Takata, City Manager; Steve DeCamp, City Planner;
Art Montandon, City Attorney; Brady Cherry, Director of
Community Services; Brad Whitty, Finance Director; Bud
McHale, Police Chief and John Neil, Assistant City Engineer
PROCLAMATION:
The Mayor read the proclamation for "National Dairy Goat Awareness Week", June 9-
22, 1996 and presented it to members of the Rio Rancheros 4-H Dairy Goat Group.
COMMUNITY FORUM
Millhollin Mine Update:
Steve DeCamp reported that revisions to the draft operations agreement are in
progress and noted that it, together with the amended reclamation plan, will be
presented to Council shortly.
Public Comments:
Dixie Ridge, 2353 Monterey Road, spoke in opposition to the recently proposed
mobilehome rent control ordinance.
Marcia Torgerson, 6200 Llano Road, asked for a status report from staff on the
progress of the amended reclamation plan for the Millhollin Mine. Steve DeCamp
reported that work is proceeding and reiterated that the package will be before the
City Council very soon. Ms. Torgerson urged the City Council to not let the matter be
delayed.
CC 6/11/96
Page 2
Bob Beach, Atascadero Fire Department, invited all to the Firemen$' Muster June 22-
23 and explained that this will be the last year Atascadero will host'the event.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
The Mayor read the Consent Calendar, as follows:
1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - May 14, 1996
(City Clerk's recommendation: Approve)
2. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - May 28, 1996
(City Clerk's recommendation: Approve)
3. RESOLUTION NO. 35-96 - Establishing the annual spending limit for Fiscal Year
1996-97
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
4. RESOLUTION NO. 38-96 - Implementing approval of GPA 195-011, extending
urban services line to Commercial Tourist (CT) zone on east side of U.S. 101 at
Del Rio Rd.
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
5. RESOLUTION NO. 43-96 - Authorizing a 5-year contract with San Luis
Ambulance, Inc., for ambulance services
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
6. ACCEPTANCE OF THE EL CAMINO REAL AND STATE HOSPITAL ENTRANCE
SIGNAL AND LIGHTING PROJECT
(Staff recommendation: Accept as complete and authorize payment of
retentions)
Mayor Highland noted that Item #A-2 will be continued until ',June 25, 1996.
Councilmember Luna pulled Items #A-1, 4, 5.
MOTION: By Councilmember Bewley, seconded by Councilmember Luna to
approve items #A-3 and 6; motion passed 4:0.
Re: Item #A-1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - May 14, 1996
Councilmember Luna clarified comments he made at the meeting of May 1'Vh
regarding the Lindsay appeal and asked that revisions submitted by the City Clerk at
his request prior to the meeting be approved.
MOTION: By Councilmember Luna, Councilmember Johnson to approve the
revised Minutes of May 14, 1996; motion passed unanimously.
CC 6/11/96
Page 3
I
Re: Item #A-4. RESOLUTION NO. 38-96 - Implementing approval of GPA 95-011,
extending urban services line to Commercial Tourist (CT) zone on east side of
U.S. 101 at Del Rio Rd.
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
Councilmember Luna noted that he had pulled this item so that he could register his
"No" vote.
Public Comments:
Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, shared concern about the borrowing for the General Fund
monies from the Wastewater Enterprise Fund and cautioned the City Council about
expanding the Urban Services Line at this time.
MOTION: By Councilmember, seconded by Johnson Councilmember Bewley
to approve Item #A-4; motion passed 3.1 (Councilmember Luna).
Re: Item #A-5. RESOLUTION NO. 43-96 - Authorizing a 5-year contract with San
Luis Ambulance, Inc., for ambulance services
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
Councilmember Luna commended the Fire Chief for having implemented some of the
recommendations made by the Economic Recovery Task Force and commended him
for his efforts. Mike McCain noted that negotiations resulting in this agreement began
a number of years ago with the former city manager and fire chief (Ray Windsor and
Mike Hicks).
Public Comments:
Rush Kolemaine, 4850 Potrero Road, voiced concerns with the proposed agreement
because it was negotiated by the County and, further, because the ambulance
company does the billing. He warned the Council that the City may not be privy to all
the information about the amount of money that is billed to victims assisted in
Atascadero and shared equal concern about the contract period.
Mayor Highland pointed out that there is an early termination clause in the contract
and the City Manager provided additional information relating to the contract. Mr.
Kolemaine suggested that the agreement be reviewed annually.
---end of public testimony---
MOTION: By Councilmember Luna, seconded by Councilmember Johnson to
approve Resolution No. 43-96; motion passed 4:0 by roll call
vote.
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None scheduled.
CC 6/11/96
Page 4
C. REGULAR BUSINESS:
1. ORDINANCE NO. 305 - Amending Official Zoning Map 19 by rezoning all that
real property located between Old Santa Rosa Rd., West Frontage Rd.,
Atascadero Ave. and Portola Rd. presently zoned Residential'Single Family with
a one acre minimum lot size (RSF-Y) to Residential Single Family with a one-half
acre minimum lot size (RSF-X) (ZC #95007: Lanini)
(Staff recommendation: Motion to waive reading in full and adopt second
reading, by title only)
MOTION: By Councilmember Luna, seconded by Councilmnember Bewley to
waive the reading in full and adopt Ordinance No. 304; motion
passed 4:0 by roll call vote.
D. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent standing committees.
Informative status reports were given, as follows.):
1. City/School Committee - Councilmember Johnson reported on the May meeting
and noted that a status report was received regarding Peer Cpurt.
2. County Water Advisory Board/Nacimiento Water Purveyors: Advisory Group -
Mayor Highland reported that that both committees met on June 5th.
. 3. Economic Round Table - Councilmember Johnson reported that the next
meeting will be June 191
.
4. Air Pollution Control District - The Mayor reported that the district met on June
5th but added that he was unable to be present because he attended water
related meetings on the same date (see #2, above).
5. North County Council - Mayor Highland announced that the Executive
Committee meeting originally scheduled for the 20th of June had been moved to
the 27th.
6. Ad Hoc Regional Water Management Committee - Mayor Highland reported on
the meeting of June 6th
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
1. City Council
Mayor Highland reported that negotiations are continuing with i mobilehome park
owners in the community. He will keep the Council apprised.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m. The next meeting will be Tuesday, June 25,
1996 at 7:00 p.m.
CC 6/11/96
Page 5
Agenda item: A-4
Meeting Date: 07/09/96
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
'JUNE 25, 1996
MINUTES
CLOSED SESSION:
The City Council met in Closed Session at 6:30 p.m. for purposes of discussions
pertaining to:
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNCIL ANTICIPATED. LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation: One (1) case
2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR:
Agency negotiator: City Manager
Employee organizations: Management; Mid-Management/Professional; Fire
Captains; Firefighters; Atascadero Sergeants Service Orgn. Atascadero
Police Officers Assoc.; Atascadero Public Safety Technicians_Orgn.; Service
• Employees Intl. Union; Confidential Employees
3. CONFERENCE WITH PROPERTY NEGOTIATIOR:
Properties (2): 1) 9085 Morro Rd.; 2) Access lot to Stadium Park
Negotiating parties: 1) Brown/City of Atascadero; 2) Kennody/City of
Atascadero
Under negotiation: 1) Terms and/or price of payment; 2) Tierms and/or price
of payment
Closed Session was adjourned at 7.06 p.m. Items #1 and 2 were discussed. Item #3
was postponed until after regular session. See page 9).
7:00 P.M. - REGULAR SESSION:
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. Couricilperson Luna led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Councilmembers Bewley, Carden, Johnson, Luna and
Mayor Highland
Absent: None
Also Present: Rudy Hernandez, City Treasurer and Lee Price, City Clerk
I
Staff Present: Andy Takata, City Manager; Steve, DeCalmp, City Planner;
Art Montandon, City Attorney; Brady Cherry, Director of
Community Services Brad Whitty, Finance Director; Bud
McHale, Police Chief and John Neil, Assistant City Engineer
• PRESENTATIONS
• Donation of $5,000 from Atascadero Land Preservation Society (ALPS) for
Stadium Park
Marj Mackey and Lindsay Hampton, on behalf of ALPS, presented•a check in the
amount of $5,000 to the Mayor as a donation towards the purchase price of
Stadium Park.
• Recognition to Carol.Nelson-Selby, Volunteer Peer Court Coordinator
The Mayor presented a plaque and expressed appreciation to Carol Nelson-Selby for
her hard work and efforts associated with coordinating Peer Court. Ms. Nelson-Selby,
noted that Atascadero is the only community in the county that has rallied behind
the concept and announced to, the public that the City donates the use of the
Rotunda for Peer Court. There are a lot of young people who volunteer their time
and energy, she added.
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
The Mayor reported that the flags in front of the City Administration Building had
• been stolen, but later returned. He explained that the young person responsible
for the act had.written a letter of formal apology to the Mayor for his behavior.
COMMUNITY FORUM
Donald Jones, 4585 Viscano Avenue, reported that the Planning Department has
not provided him with pertinent information regarding new development. He
added that the information, required to be provided by State law, its being
intentionally withheld and will result in approval of a public works;project in the
amount of a half-million dollars under the guise of a consent calendar item. Mr.
Jones claimed that variances are being granted to developers without benefit of
public review and stated that special*treatment is being given to some developers
while none. is given to others. In closing, the speaker asked that a.copy of the
Brown Act be made available to the public at public meetings. (Note: the City
Clerk carries with her a copy at all meetings).
Councilmember Luna commented that he finds the accusation that variances are
beingr approved behind closed doors surprising, having served on the Planning-
Commission himself. He clarified that whatever is being granted should and must
be done-in public. The Mayor suggested that Mr. Jones make anIappointment
with the City Manager. He added that if there are improprieties, ;they will be
stopped.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. CITY TREASURER'S REPORT - May, 1996
• (City Treasurer's recommendation Approve)
2. APPROVAL OF WARRANTS - May, 1996
(Staff recommendation: Approve)
3. RESOLUTION NO. 59-96 - Approving an interim budget for ithe 1996-97
Fiscal Year and appropriating funds thereof
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 95003, 4530 SAN ANSELMO AVE. - Finalize
approved division of a 4.18-ac. lot into two (2) parcels of 1 .5 and 2.68
acres
(Planning Commission/staff recommendation: Accept/direct staff to record)
5. RESOLUTION NO. 44-96 - Approving a Cooperation Agreement between the
City and County of San Luis-Obispo to continue joint participation in the
Community Development Block Grant Program
(Staff recommendation Adopt)
Rush Kolemaine, citizen., pulled Items #A-3 and 5 for comment.
MOTION: By Councilmember Johnson, seconded by Councilmember
. Bewley to approve Items #A-1, 2 and 4; motion passed 5:0 by roll call vote.
Re: Item #A-3. RESOLUTION NO. 59-96 - Approving an interim budget for the
1996-97 Fiscal Year and appropriating funds thereof
(Staff recommendation:. Adopt)
Mr. Kolemaine stated that his concern is that there are no specific dollar amount
limitations. Brad Whitty reported that the resolution states how much money will
be appropriated and added that the interim budget restricts expenditures for capital
projects. Responding to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry, he clarified that
budget allocations are in the same amounts as approved for the 1995/96 budget.
MOTION: By Councilmember Luna, seconded by Councilmember Johnson
to adopt Resolution No. 59-96, motion passed 5:0 by roll_ca# vote.
Re: Item #5. RESOLUTION NO. 44-96 - Approving a Cooperation Agreement
between the City and County of San Luis Obispo to continue joint
participationin the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
(Staff recommendation Adopt)
Rush Kolemaine indicated that his concern regarding this item was that there is no
approved plan for the use of the funds. Doug Davidson reported'that there is an
approved consolidated plan that includes all the CDBG projects countywide,
• including those for Atascadero. Mr. Kolemaine commented that 4�1 county plan is
not necessarily the City's plan and asserted that there may be misinterpretation.
He encouraged the City Council to make a better effort of defining what the City'.s
program will be and ensure that the City's priorities remain paramount.
MOTION: By Councilmember Luna, seconded by Councilmember Carden
to adopt Resolution No. 44-96; motion passed 5.0 by roll call vote.
• H
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
GS
1. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION THAT AUTO
REPAIR` IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE USE IN THE DOWNTOWN (cont'd from
5/28/96)-
(Planning
/28/96)(Planning Commission recommendation: Deny)
Steve Decamp summarized the facts of the appeal as outlined in the staff report.
He reported that although AAMCO Transmission did conduct business at the
subject location, it did so without a business license and conditional use permit.
He added that auto repair is not an allowable use and concluded that there is no
legal right to do auto repair at that site. Staff responded to questions from the
Council.-
Councilmember
ouncil:Councilmember Johnson asked if approval would have been given to ARMCO
Transmission if they had applied for a conditional use permit (CUP). Steve
DeCamp confirmed that there was no CUP filed and therefore no opportunity to
hold a public hearing to present the facts that would have supported the issuance
of the CUP. To the City Attorney, Councilmember Johnson asked whether or not
AAMCO Transmission had a-legal vested right to conduct auto repair. Art
Montandon indicated that the City Council would have to make that determination,
based upon the facts. If a vested right exists, it could be concluded that there
was no need for a CUP; the use would be considered a legal, non-conforming use
until abandoned. If, on the other hand, the City Council finds that there is no
vested right, the applicants (AAMCO) would have had been requited to submit an
application for a CUP, but reiterated that according to staff,.the application was
not applied for.
Councilmember Johnson asked the City Attorney how a court would look at the
evidence. Art Montandon explained that the court would look at the City's
ordinance in effect at the time to see if the user of the property acquired a`real
property right to continue that use. If the ordinance. states that auto repair may
only be conducted in conjunction with a new,auto dealership, the;:court would find
,that the use to repair transmissions expires at the time the new car sales use
expires.
Mayor Highland asserted that there is no vested right because Gayle Sharp's
application was for new auto sales. Councilmember Luna commented that what
remains crucial is what Mr. Jim Berger (American Classics) put down on his -
business license application.. He asked staff what he was allowed to "do based
upon what his application requested. Steve DeCamp indicated that the request
was for used auto sales. Councilmember Johnson inquired if there was any
discussion about the kind of activity the applicant had planned, including any
• accessory work that would go along with the sale of classic cars_ Steve DeCamp
reported that there had been considerable discussion between himself, Mr. Berger
and Henry Engen and he recalled that Mr. Berger had likened the (business to that
i
of a museum. There was mutual agreement on the part of staff alt the time that
the sale and. display of antique and classic autos in the downtown area would be
quite fitting,to the historic nature of the downtown. Discussion regarding work on
the cars was limited primarily to detailing and preparing them for sale, but not
• heavy repairs, he concluded:
Public Comments:.
Bruce Berger, appellant, distributed copies of related documentation in support of
the appeal, including 1986 newspaper clippings regarding the grand opening of
AAMCO Transmission and Planning Commission approval for the freeway pole
sign, a fictitious business name statement which indicates AAMCO Transmission
was conducted by a limited partnership and a declaration signed by Mrs. Gayle
Sharp who personally recalls that AAMCO Transmission had a business license.
He remarked that if Gayle Sharp didn't apply for a business license it was probably
because he didn't believe he needed one. Mr. Berger emphasized that his father
and partner, Mr. Craig, never considered themselves to be engaged in the primary
business of auto repair, but contended that restoration was a significant part of
the classic car business. He asserted that it was enough repair that the AAMCO
Transmission repair use right was not abandoned. Councilmember Johnson asked
what kind of use was conducted in the back of the showroom. Mr. Berger
indicated that cars would be acquired that did not run and that a repairman
worked on cars to get them ready to sell.
.Thomas Parks, 8251 Tolosa Road, commented that repair is inherent with any new
or used auto sales dealership. He reported that used cars have been repaired at
• that location for many years and declared that repairs were conducted at American
Classics
Michael LeSage, attorney representing the appellant, commented that the building
was built for.the single use of auto repair and argued that there is a vested right to
do repair at the sight given the long history of use.
Richard Summers, 5340 Magnolia, spoke in support of the appeal and stressed
that the proposed auto body repair business would be an asset to the,community.
---end of public testimony--
Council comments followed. Councilmember Johnson remarked that'he is not
interested in changing the zoning and that it.appears there is a vested right to
conduct auto repair. Councilmember Bewley agreed and spoke in support of
allowing the use of auto repair to continue. Councilmember Carden concurred.
Councilmember Luna argued that the chain of use was broken when Gayle Sharp
Ford and AAMCO Transmission went out of business. American±Classics made a
direct decision, he said,: by putting down on their application that the business
would be an auto supplier.
. Mayor Highland reiterated that auto repair was allowed when Gayle Sharp's
business was there because it was associated with new car sales. He reported
that he had reviewed the Planning Commission minutes from Julys 1985 to July
1987 and found no evidence that a CUP for AAMCO Transmission was ever
applied for, considered or approved. He emphasized that regardless of how the
business existed it was an illegal use and argued that the period of two years it
operated constituted a break in the chain of use. The Mayor spoke in support of
• upholding the Downtown Master Plan which changed the zoning and disallowed,
auto dealerships and.repair.
MOTION: By Councilmember Johnson Body, seconded by Councilmember
Bewley to uphold the appeal and grant the continuing use to Nunes Auto;
motion passed 3:2 (Luna and Highland opposing).
ArtMontandon reported that staff will bring back a resolution setting forth findings
for upholding the appeal. Councilmember Carden asked if conditions can be
imposed that. would prohibit the parking or storing of vehicles on the street. The
City Attorney advised that the Council cannot unilaterally condition the use as a
part of this appeal process. Mrs. Nunes stood and asserted that vehicles would
not be placed on the street.
C. REGULAR BUSINESS:
1. RESOLUTION NO. 58-96 - Authorizing agreement with the Los Padres
Council Boy Scouts of America for lease of the Atascadero Lake Pavilion
Basement
(Parks & Rec. Commission recommendation: Approve)
Brady Cherry provided the staff report and recommended approval. He explained
• that the twenty-year term of the lease was considered by staff.to be too long.
The term was-proposed, he added, to allow the Scouts to get a satisfactory return-
on their investment, but noted that representatives are amenable to a ten year
lease. Mr. Cherry also presented relevant cost analyses and explained that the
Scouts will pay their share of the utilities and janitorial services, and require no
staff support for set-up. In addition, he outlined the hours of use proposed by the
Scouts and noted that off-hours would allow the room to be rented to other
groups for a fee to paid to the City.
Council comments followed. Councilmember Johnson voiced general support of
the concept but expressed concern about having youth involved in activities that
may conflict with concurrent use in the Pavilion. Brady Cherry indicated that staff
does not foresee any problems because of the times planned for use by the Scouts
and because the youth will be sufficiently supervised.
Councilmember Luna expressed support for amending the lease to reduce the term
from twenty to ten years and suggested a provision by which the City could buy
out the Scouts or renew at ten years. He suggested that the agreement be
amended and brought back for final approval by the Council on the next Consent
Calendar.
•
Public Comments:
Donald Lewis, committee chairman for the Los Padres Council of the Boy Scouts
• of America and Larry Adams, District Representative, spoke in support-of the
agreement. It was reported that once the legal agreement has been entered into,
the next task will be to organize the construction, which is anticipated to be nearly
completed by September or October of 1996. All code requirements will be met
and work complete before the room is inhabited; Mr. Lewis assured the Council.
In addition, a suspended ceiling with insulation will be installed to!provide a
sufficient noise barrier. Mr. Adams clarified that the Scouts would accept a ten
year lease.
Leo Korba, 10905 Santa Ana Road, expressed concern regarding the need for
added parking and resulting traffic impacts. In addition, he asked how costs will
be met if they excel what is predicted.
-Mr. Lewis, responding to Mr. Korba's questions, indicated that because most boy
scouts are not of driving. age and will be dropped off and picked up, parking and
increased traffic is not considered to be an issue. Regarding the estimate for
renovation costs, Mr. Lewis reported the Scouts anticipate signifipant volunteer
labor and donations for materials costs. Brady Cherry reported that the estimate
of $21 ,000 was provided by a local contractor estimating what it;would cost for
the City to have the improvements constructed, including labor.
Roy McKee, 7150 Carmelita, spoke in 'support of agreement on behalf'of two
• organizations of Scouts and commented that by bringing a. facility like this to the
North County, it will afford opportunities for many scouting activities to be based
here in Atascadero.
Tom Parks, speaking for the Knights of Columbus, reported that the group had
voted unanimously to sponsor the Scouts and encouraged the Council to approve
the agreement.
---end of public testimony---
Councilmember Johnson commented that this concept is a perfect example of a
public-private partnership.
MOTION: By Co.uncilmember Luna, seconded by Councilmember Johnson
to direct staff to come back at the next meeting on the Consent Calendar a
revised resolution amending the term of the lease; motion passed 5:4.
D. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent standing committees.
Informative status reports were given, as follows.):
1. S.L.O. Council of Governments (COG)/S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority
(SLORTA) - Councilmember Carden reported that there wound be no
• meetings during the month of August, that he has been elected President of
the COG and Chairman of SLORTA. He will be attending the West Coast
COG meeting in the State of Washington, July 24-26`h, he added.
i
i
2. ' County Water Advisory Board/Nacimiento Water Purveyors Advisory Group
Mayor Highland reported that the County Water Advisory Board would not
meet during the Summer and explained that the Nacimiento;Water Purveyors
SAdvisory Group's next meeting was scheduled for July 3`d.
3. North County Council - Mayor Highland reported that the executive
committee would meet on June 27" at the Pavilion.
4 Ad Hoc Regional Water Management Committee Mayor Highland reported
that the committee would not meet until September.
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
1. City Council
Mayor Highland requested that staff develop a policy that automatically refers to
the City Council any Planning Commission item that results in a tie vote after two
consecutive meetings. In addition, he summarized on-going negotiations between
mobilehome park representatives regarding mobilehome rents and;',,.added that he
will continue to monitor meetings between park owners and residents. There is
hope that there will soon be long and short-term leases approved by all parties and
concluded that there may be no need to address rent stabilization by City
ordinance after all.
Councilmember Johnson suggested that Council take another look at the way
advisory body members are recruited and appointed.
Councilmember Bewley announced that tickets are on sale for the Wine Festival to
be held at the Lake Park to benefit the Zoo.
Councilmembers Johnson and Carden reported that they would be absent from the
second meeting-in August. The City Attorney requested that the ,City Council
approve Councilmember Carden's absence for a period of approximately thirty
days. Approval was so given.
2. City Clerk
Lee Price reported that Chuck Bishop had resigned from the.Traffic Committee and
requested authorization.to open a recruitment. She indicated that there is now _
two vacancies on the committee. Two citizens-at-large will be sought to serve a
two-year term each.
The City Clerk also provided an update relating to the Test Claim;sponsored by the
City and seeking reimbursement for costs associated with notifyi fig voters of the
change in election date: She explained that the hearing before the Commission on
State Mandates will be July 25`'
• 3. City Manager
Andy Takata noted that staff will bring back for Council consideration an item
relating to voter ratification of the 1992 adjustment to the transient occupancy tax
(TOT)
At 9:00 p.m., the City Council adjourned to Closed Session for purposes of
discussion Item #3 continued due to time constraints. At 9:18 p.m., Closed
Session was adjourned. Direction was given to staff.
THE NEXT MEETING OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL WILL BE TUESDAY,
JULY 9T" AT 9:00 P.M.
MINUTES RECORDED AND PREPARED BY:
LEE PRICE, C.M.0
CITY CLERK
j
CITY OF ATASCADERO
. STAFF REPORT Agenda Iltem: A-5
Through: Andrew Takata, City Manager Date: 67/09/96
Via: Steven L. Decamp, City Planner File No:! TPM #96001
From: Doug Davidson, Senior Planner
i
SUBJECT:
Consideration of a tentative parcel map application to divide a
0 .55 acre parcel into three lots of 10,500 square feet, 6,850
square feet, and 6,850 square feet each. This action would return
the parcel to its original Colony lot configuration +_ Lots 62, 62A,
and 62B which were merged into one in 1983. S 'bject site is
located at 4055 El Camino Real. (David and J4net Grummitt/
Volbrecht Surveys) .
RECOMMENDATION•
Per the Planning Commission' s recommendation, approval of Tenta-
tive Parcel Map #96001 based on the Findings of Approval contained
in the staff report, dated June 18, 1996, and subject to the
Revised Conditions of Approval.
BACKGROUND:
On June 18, 1996, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the above-referenced map. After discussion (see
attached Minutes Excerpts) , the Commission recommended approval of
Tentative Parcel Map 96001.
/ph
Attachments : Planning Commission Staff Report - June 18, 1996
Minutes Excerpts June 18, 1996
Revised Conditions of Approval - Ju4e 18, 1996
i
cc: David and Janet Grummitt
Volbrecht Surveys
a
0000-01 1
CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B. 3
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 18, 1996
BY• ,,, oug Davidson, Senior Planner File No: TPM #96001
SUBJECT:
Consideration of a tentative parcel map application to divide a
0. 55 acre parcel into three lots of 10, 500 square feet, 6, 850
square feet, and 6,850 square feet each. This action would return
the parcel to its original Colony lot configuration - Lots 62,
62A, and 62B which were merged into one in 1983.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the following actions:
1 . That the Negative Declaration prepared for the project be
found adequate under the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ; and
2 . That Tentative Parcel Map #96001 be approved based on the
Findings for Approval contained in Attachment E and the
Conditions of Approval contained in Attachment F.
A. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1 . Applicant-------------------------------David Grummitt
2 . Representative-----------------------Volbrecht Surveys
3 . Project Address-------------------4055 El Camino Real
4 . Site Area----------------------------------0 . 55 acres
6. Zoning-------------------------Commercial Retail (CR)
7 . General Plan Designation------------Retail Commercial
8 . Existing Use-Proposed Parcel 1 - Satellite TV service
Proposed Parcels 2 and 3 - vacant
9. Environmental Status-------------Negative Declaration
June 6, 1996
1
000002
B. ANALYSIS•
As stated above, the request is to divide a 0.55 acre parcel into
three lots of 10, 500, 6, 850, and 6, 850 square feet Bach. This
action would return the lot configuration to its original Colony
lot layout of Lots 62, 62A, and 62 B. These three lots were
merged as one in 1983.
There is no minimum lot size in the CR zone - appropriate lot
sizes are determined by such things as intended uses, market
factors, and site considerations. In this case, the intended use
of the two proposed new parcels is residential single family.
After "re-creating" the three parcels, the applicant intends to
submit a General Plan Amendment/Zone Change application. This
application would maintain the CR designation for the existing
Satellite/TV service (Parcel 1) and change Parcels 2 and 3 to
High Density Single Family Residential. Staff can support this
approach. It will limit commercial intrusion into the
residential neighborhood and create a consistent land use
pattern. The two parcels directly across the street on Valdez
are identical in size to proposed Parcels 2 and 3 and are
designated for and developed with single family residential uses .
Thus, staff is recommending that the required road improvements
reflect this intended action. Proposed Parcel 1 should be fully
improved to the City standard for commercial corner lots as a
condition of recording the map. Proper paveout widening of
Valdez Ave. , including any necessary drainage control, should
also be completed prior to recording the map. Curb, gutter, and
sidewalk on Valdez, however, should be required if and when
commercial development occurs on proposed Parcels 2 and 3.
Hence, if single family homes are developed as anticipated, the
frontage improvements will respect the residential nature of the
neighborhood.
CONCLUSIONS:
The project is consistent with the City' s General Plan and, with
conditions of approval recommended herein, satisfies applicable
Zoning/Subdivision requirements. Upon review of the site and its
surroundings, staff has found no indication that potentially
significant environmental effects could result from project
approval and has found the project consistent with the character
of the neighborhood in which it is located.
2
00`(3003
ATTACHMENTS :
Attachment A -- General Plan Land Use Map
Attachment B - Zoning Map
Attachment C -- Tentative Parcel Map
Attachment D -- Negative Declaration
Attachment E -- Findings for Approval
Attachment F -- Conditions of Approval
3
000,004
�
�I
LIMo°a ,
Lim jg zkv WL
MAW
His
caw,
•
w
ATTACHMENT B
.. '` ` CITY OF _RTAS CAD EiO
ZONING MAP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TPM 96001
DEPARTMENT
woman
� \
W
\'SON \ A v
r
10
f 1L
oid
cni
41,
R' s -
IT-L
s -L f
AYUC
OLM I
�I ! C
s Nwv 101
�.
R°q0RS
t
7
�• Z
4 I ao
,ENAOO
1
— aa1COpA,.
OF ATTACHMENT C
AlASCADER0 '
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
�� COMMUNtTY DEVELOPMENT i
TPM 96001
.. DEPARTMENT
1
S S/ •air q
• 4
,per � •�$, �+
VICINITY MAP
Mor ro xA<t
y \/4 OMWER
It, / VVV S swR�AdLn C4C41008"sa, i�.aia
NOTES
T;. 6 �� / Ia=eorA«w svawv a ArAsraonxo AraAa
p C..Sl.Mdrs ro Q1CWY CL'KVrMA/1pv![n!I!-COS-.ps
AM ro -wlW
tloAl
A -04t Ap SINlA/Ap,GYIIK'r IQ/NJ-PIMJI� y �� '� 9 //�6 A'C'MW
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. AT 96-022
MW A SMP9W Pr Con r;r7A Aro r CR/CCor M-C or
4 J ArA3CA0EMQ«Ol G7/r ArASIA M Cll"N Or SAM CI$
b
65 i
Vd)LBRECHT
u X lo ro SURVEYS
rAII(as);w G 0,
,3.
i �?!!!r-�nl
L .
E ..
' ► E
R
C r
R_
1
• � r
ATTACHMENT 'D
CITY OF ATASCADERO
"" E�ONMENTAL COORDINATOR
1iu N
NEGATIVE DECL�TiON
COMMM=DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO, CA 93422 (805) 461-5035
APPLICANT: DA v dD G-/Z&it4M i.,4/ !J 0 L AR EC#-" S L1/?v 1->/ r
<,4n/ RFDRo I?L> . 202 t/lAefc
5Xliv R. F,4ELJ 6 0 San! /S E 6/S
PROJECT TITLE: 't'En'TA-t lv PAR t EL NNS► P 9 60o f
PROJECT LOCATION: `fC < EL GR M W V RF-,4Z,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: D I V)S PC A: &'F / 0. S:; 14 2 E PA R C F L 1til-7-o
�- R C � � Lof_S E p /oj ,;C o- 6� Z.s 0 �.AV-D �� 8 0
FINDINGS:
1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment.
2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited. but comulatively considerable.
4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly.
DETERN E NATION:
Based on the above findings, and the information contained in the initial study(made a part hereof by refer-
ence and on file in the Community Development Department, it has been determined that the above project
will not have an adverse impact on the environment.
STEVEN L. DECAMP
CITY PLANNER
Date Posted: /�A A y 2- 161 9 <o
Date Adopted: -jrv/v E /19J 19 t
CDD 11-89
0000; S
i
ATTACHMENT E - Findings for Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 96001
4055 El Camino Real (Grummitt/Volbrecht)
June 18, 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING:
The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the
environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project
is adequate.
MAP FINDINGS•
1 . The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable
General and Specific Plans.
2 . The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is
consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed.
4 . The site is physically suitable for the density of the
development proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision, and/or the proposed
improvements, will not cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and
wildlife or their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision, and the type ofthe
improvements, will not conflict with easement& acquired by
the public at large for access through or the use of
property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially
equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7 . The proposed subdivision design, and/or the type of
improvements proposed, will not cause serious public health
problems.
000009
i
ATTACHMENT E -- Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map #96001
4055 El Camino Real (Grummitt/Volbrecht)
June 18, 1996
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Fire Department Conditions
1 . The applicant shall upgrade the existing wharf hydrant at
the corner of Valdez and El Camino Real as approved by the
Fire Department prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map.
Engineering Division Conditions
2 . Ail public improvements shall be constructed in
conformance with the City of Atascadero Engineering
Department Standard Specifications and Drawings or as
directed by the City Engineer.
3. The applicant shall enter into an Plan Check/Inspection
agreement with the City. Prior to recordation of the
parcel map, all outstanding plan check/inspection fees
shall be paid.
4 . An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City
Engineering Department prior to the start of construction.
5. A preliminary soils report shall be prepared for the
property to determine the presence of expansive soil or
other soil problems and shall make recommendations
regarding grading of the proposed site.
A separate document shall be recorded in conjunction with
the parcel map or a separate note shall be placed on the
parcel map stating that a soils report has been prepared.
The document shall state the date of the report along with
the name and address of the soils engineer or geologist
who prepared the report. The document shall indicate any
soils problems which may exist on the newly created lots.
6. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space,
scenic or other easements shall be shown on the parcel
map. If there are building or other restrictions related
to the easements, they shall be noted on the parcel map.
7 . The relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities
shall be the responsibility of the developer.
8 . The applicant shall install all new utilities (water, gas,
1
000,010
electric, cable TV and telephone) underground.
9. Any utility trenching in existing streets shall be
overlayed to restore a smooth riding surface;; as required
by the City Engineer.
10. A black line clear Mylar (0.4 mil) copy and a blue line
print of the parcel map shall be provided to the City upon
recordation.
11 . A parcel map in substantial conformance withthe approved
tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set
forth in the City of Atascadero Subdivision ordinance and
the Subdivision Map Act shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for approval. The parcel map shallbe signed by
the City Engineer prior to it being placed oh' the agenda
for City Council approval .
12 . The applicant shall submit road improvement plans prepared
by a registered civil engineer for review and approval by
the City Engineer prior to recordation of the parcel map.
Road improvement plans shall conform to the requirements
of the City Standard Specifications, Section' 2 -
Preparation of Plans. R-value testing shall ,be done, and
the pavement section designed by a registered civil
engineer to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Road
improvements shall include, but not be limited to the
following:
a. The applicant shall improve El Camino Real shall from
the centerline to the property frontage in
conformance with City Standard 407 (Arterial)
contiguous to the entire property frontage, or as
approved by the City Engineer. The improvements shall
exclude construction of the raised median.
Transitions shall be constructed where required to
achieve a smooth join with existing improvements.
b. The applicant shall construct a sidewalk ramp at the
intersection of Valdez Avenue and E1 Camino Real in
conformance with City Standard 420.
C. The minimum property line radius at the intersection
of Valdez Avenue and El Camino Real shad be 20 feet
in conformance with City Standard 4 . 02.D. 3. Offers
of dedication shall be provided for all °;proposed and
existing public improvements which are constructed
outside of the existing right-of-way on :,both El
Camino Real and Valdez Avenue. Offers of dedication
shall be recorded prior to, or in conjunction with,
the parcel map.
d. The applicant shall improve Valdez Avenue from the
2
00
00,11
centerline to the property frontage in conformance
with City Standard 405 (Local) contiguous to the
entire property frontage, or as approved by the City
Engineer. The improvements may require the
overlaying of the existing pavement to remedy an
inadequate structural section or to remedy a
deteriorated paving surface. Transitions shall be
constructed where required to achieve a smooth join
with existing improvements.
e. The applicant shall provide a 5 foot wide offer of
dedication on Valdez Avenue contiguous to the entire
property frontage.
13 . The applicant shall secure all improvements within the
right-of-way with a 100% Performance Guarantee and a 50%
Labor and Materials Guarantee until the improvements are
deemed substantially complete by the City Engineer. Prior
to the final inspection of the improvements, and before
the other guarantees mentioned in this condition are
released, a 10% Maintenance Guarantee shall be posted to
cover the improvements for a period of l year from the
date of the final inspection. The guarantee amounts shall
be based on an engineer's estimate submitted by the
project engineer and approved by the City Engineer. The
estimate shall be based on City standard unit prices. The
Guarantees posted for this project shall be approved by
the City Attorney.
14 . The applicant shall pay all sewer connection fees prior to
issuance of building permits.
15. The applicant shall provided a six (6) foot Public Utility
Easement (PUE) contiguous to all street frontages .
16. The applicant shall submit a grading and drainage plan,
prepared by a registered civil engineer, for review and
approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of
building permits. The applicant shall submit a written
statement from a registered civil engineer stating that
all work has been completed and is in full compliance with
the approved plans and the Uniform Building Code (UBC) .
17 . The applicant shall construct all drainage facilities in
conformance with City of Atascadero Standards . Each
improvement shall be designed so as to not increase the
rate of flow of water onto adjacent properties . Drainage
shall cross lot lines only where a private drainage
easement has been provided. Drainage from off-site areas
shall be conveyed across the project site in private
drainage easements.
18 . The applicant shall monument all property corners for
3
000012
construction control and shall be promptly replace
monuments if disturbed. The applicant shall install, or
bond for, all final property corners and street monuments
prior to the final inspection.
19. The applicant shall acquire title or interest in any off-
site land that may be required to allow for the
construction of the improvements. The applicant shall
bear all costs associated with the necessaryacquisitions.
The applicant shall also gain concurrence from all
adjacent property owners whose ingress or egress is
affected by these improvements .
20. The applicant shall pay all sewer annexationfees prior to
recordation of the parcel map.
21 . The applicant shall provide notice either on the parcel
map or by a separate instrument recorded on, concurrently
with, or prior to the recordation of the parcel map that
there are requirements for off-site and on-site
improvements and that construction of the improvements
shall be required prior to issuance of building permits or
other grants of approval for development of the parcels .
Planning Division Conditions
22 . The required road improvements on Valdez Ave. in Condition
#12d shall be implemented as follows: Paveout widening
and any necessary drainage control measures along the
frontages of proposed Parcels 2 and 3 shall be completed
in conjunction with City standard improvements along the
total street frontage of proposed Parcel 1 prior to
recording the map. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk on Valdez
Ave. along the frontages of proposed Parcels ' 2 and 3 shall
be completed in conjunction with commercial development on
these parcels.
23 . This tentative map approval shall expire two ;, (2) years
from the date of final approval unless an extension of
time is granted pursuant to a written request received
prior to the expiration date.
4
00(001
a
ATTACHMENT E -- Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map #96001
4055 El Camino Real (Grummitt/Volbrecht)
Revised by the Planning Commission June 18, 1996
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Fire Department Conditions
1 . The applicant shall upgrade the existing wharf hydrant at
the corner of Valdez and E1 Camino Real as approved by the
Fire Department prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map.
Engineering Division Conditions
2. All puniic improvements shall be constructed in
conformance with the City of Atascadero Engineering
Department Standard Specifications and Drawings or as
directed by the City Engineer.
3 . The applicant shall enter into an Plan Check/Inspection
agreement with the City. Prior to recordation of the
parcel map, all outstanding plan check/inspection fees
shall be paid.
4 . An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City
Engineering Department prior to the start of construction.
5. A preliminary soils report shall be prepared for the
property to determine the presence of expansive soil or
other soil problems and shall make recommendations
regarding grading of the proposed site. The document
shall indicate any soils problems which may exist on the
newly created lots. Soils report shall be submitted in
conjunction with the building permit application for
parcel 42 and/or parcel #3.
6. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space,
scenic or other easements shall be shown on the parcel
map. If there are building or other restrictions related
to the easements, they shall be noted on the parcel map.
7 . The relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities
shall be the responsibility of the developer.
8 . The applicant shall install all new utilities (water, gas,
electric, cable TV and telephone) underground.
1
000014
9. Any utility trenching in existing streets shall be
overlayed to restore a smooth riding surface ';as required
by the City Engineer.
10 . A black line clear Mylar (0.4 mil) copy and a blue line
print of the parcel map shall be provided to 'the City upon
recordation.
11 . A parcel map in substantial conformance with ,the approved
tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set
forth in the City of Atascadero Subdivision Ordinance and
the Subdivision Map Act shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for approval. The parcel map shall 'be signed by
the City Engineer prior to it being placed or the agenda
for City Council approval.
12 . The applicant shall submit road improvement plans prepared
by a registered civil engineer for review and approval by
the City Engineer prior to recordation of the parcel map.
Road improvement plans shall conform to the requirements
of the City Standard Specifications, Section"!2 -
Preparation of Plans. R-value testing shall be done, and
the pavement section designed by a registered civil
engineer to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Road
improvements shall include, but not be limited to the
following:
a. The applicant shall improve El Camino Real shall from
the centerline to the property frontage in
conformance with City Standard 407 (Arterial)
contiguous to the entire property frontage, or as
approved by the City Engineer. The improvements shall
exclude construction of the raised median.
Transitions shall be constructed where required to
achieve a smooth join with existing improvements .
b. The applicant shall construct a sidewalk ramp at the
intersection of Valdez Avenue and El Camino Real in
conformance with City Standard 420.
C. The minimum property line radius at the "'intersection
of Valdez Avenue and El Camino Real shall be 20 feet
in conformance with City Standard 4 .02 .]].3. Offers
of dedication shall be provided for all ;,,proposed and
existing public improvements which are constructed
outside of the existing right-of-way on '',both El
Camino Real and Valdez Avenue. Offers of dedication
shall be recorded prior to, or in conjunction with,
the parcel map.
2
00001r
5
i
d. The applicant shall improve Valdez Avenue from the
centerline to the property frontage in conformance
with City Standard 405 (Local) contiguous to the
entire property frontage, or as approved by the City
Engineer. The improvements may require the
overlaying of the existing pavement to remedy an
inadequate structural section or to remedy a
deteriorated paving surface. Transitions shall be
constructed where required to achieve a smooth join
with existing improvements.
e. The applicant shall provide a 5 foot wide offer of
dedication on Valdez Avenue contiguous to the entire
property frontage.
13. The applicant shall secure all improvements within the
right-of-way with a 100% Performance Guarantee and a 50%
Labor and Materials Guarantee until the improvements are
deemed substantially complete by the City Engineer. Prior
to the final inspection of the improvements, and before
the other guarantees mentioned in this condition are
released, a 10% Maintenance Guarantee shall be posted to
cover the improvements for a period of 1 year from the
date of the final inspection. The guarantee amounts shall
be based on an engineer' s estimate submitted by the
project engineer and approved by the City Engineer. The
estimate shall be based on City standard unit prices . The
Guarantees posted for this project shall be approved by
the City Attorney.
14 . The applicant shall pay all sewer connection fees prior to
issuance of building permits.
15. The applicant shall provided a six (6) foot Public Utility
Easement (PUE) contiguous to all street frontages .
16. The applicant shall submit a grading and drainage plan,
prepared by a registered civil engineer, for review and
approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of
building permits. The applicant shall submit a written
statement from a registered civil engineer stating that
all work has been completed and is in full compliance with
the approved plans and the Uniform Building Code (UBC) .
17 . The applicant shall construct all drainage facilities in
conformance with City of Atascadero Standards . Each
improvement shall be designed so as to not increase the
rate of flow of water onto adjacent properties . Drainage
shall cross lot lines only where a private drainage
easement has been provided. Drainage from off-site areas
shall be conveyed across the project site in private
drainage easements .
3
000016
18 . The applicant shall monument all property corners for
construction control and shall be promptly replace
monuments if disturbed. The applicant shall install, or
bond for, all final property corners and street monuments
prior to the final inspection.
19. The applicant shall acquire title or interest in any off-
site land that may be required to allow for the
construction of the improvements. The applicant shall
bear all costs associated with the necessary acquisitions.
The applicant shall also gain concurrence from all
adjacent property owners whose ingress or egress is
affected by these improvements..
20. The applicant shall pay all sewer annexation fees prior to
recordation of the parcel map.
21. The applicant shall provide notice either on , the parcel
map or by a separate instrument recorded on„,concurrently
with, or prior to the recordation of the parcel map that
there are requirements for off-site and on-site
improvements and that construction of the improvements
shall be required prior to issuance of building permits or
other grants of approval for development of the parcels .
Planning Division Conditions
22 . The required road improvements on Valdez Ave, in Condition
#12d shall be implemented as follows: PaveoUt widening
and any necessary drainage control measures along the
frontages of proposed Parcels 2 and 3 shall be completed
in conjunction with City standard improvements along the
total street frontage of proposed Parcel 1 prior to
recording the map. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk on Valdez
Ave. along the frontages of proposed Parcels ''2 and 3 shall
be completed in conjunction with commercial development on
these parcels .
23. This tentative map approval shall expire two , (2) years
from the date of final approval unless an extension of
time is granted pursuant to a written request received
prior to the expiration date.
4
a
00001*7
MINUTES EXCERPTS - JUNE 18, 1J9
B. 3. TENTATIVE PARCEV-HAP #96001::
Consider the application of David Grummitt (Volbrecht.
Surveys) for the division of .a 0.55 acre parcel into three
(3) lots of 10,500 square feet, 6,850 square feet, and 6,850
square feet each. The proposed action would restore the
three Colony lots that were merged into one in 1983.
Subject site is, located at 4055 E1 Camino Real.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (Davidson)
Staff recommends the following actions:
1. That the Negative Declaration prepared for the project be
found adequate under , the provisions of the California
Environmental -Quality Act; and
2. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 196001 based- 6n Findings
for Approval in Attachment E and the Conditions of Approval
in Attachment F.
TESTIMONY:
Allen Volbrecht, agent for the applicant, offered to answer questions
from the Planning Commission.
ACTION: Find that the•Negative Declaration prepared for the project
be found adequate under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Motion: Wallace
Second: Bowen
AYES: Wallace, Bowen, Hageman, Johnson, Zimmerman, Edwards
NOES : None
ABSENT: Sauter
MOTION PASSED: 6:0
ACTION: Approval of Tentative Parcel Map ,#96001 based on Findings
for Approval in Attachment E and the Conditions of Approval,
as amended, in Attachment F.
Motion: Wallace
Second: Bowen
AYES: Wallace, Bowen, Hageman, Johnson, Zimmerman, Edwards
NOES: None
ABSENT: Sauter
MOTION PASSED: 6:0
i
i
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meleting Date: 7/9/96
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda item : A-6
Through: Andy Takata, City Manager
From: Lee Price, City Clerk
/T
r
SUBJECT:
Amendment to Resolution No. 34-96 supporting Test Claim;CSM4500 relating
to Elections.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve minor amendments as submitted.
BACKGROUND:
On May 14, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4-96 in support of
the test claim filed with the Commission on State Mandates and urging reimbursement
• for expenses associated with notifying voters that the City's municipal election date
had changed.
On May 31s' the City Clerk attended a pre-hearing conference in Sacramento
regarding the test claim, which the City of Atascadero is sponsooling. The meeting
was requested after the Clerk received a copy of the State Department of Finance's
recommendation for denial. It was arranged in an effort to clear uji confusion on the
part of State staff and provide for a more informal round-table disjcussion. The pre-
hearing conference was successful in that issues were clarified.
To emphasize the direct link between the new law that changed the election
date and the mandate requiring cities to notify voters if a new ordinance is adopted to
comply with the new law, the test claim is being amended to add Section 2552 of the
Elections Code. For continuity, Resolution No. 34-96 has also j been modified to
include the additional code section and a copy of the revised resolution is attached for
your review.
DISCUSSION:
A formal hearing before the Commission on State Mandates, originally
scheduled for June 27t", has been postponed until July 25'. An article seeking
support from other cities was published in the Official Word (City ;Clerks Association
of California monthly newsletter). Letters were written to cities who reported in a
recent survey that they had changed their election date as a direct result of AB2196.
000'019
Response, so far, has been positive.
Report to City Council
Page 2
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
The claim seeks full recovery of costs in, the amount of $4,250. If the
Commission approves the test claim, the City will not only be reimbursed for the direct
costs of notifying voters, but for costs associated with filing the test claim as well.
Additionally, other cities in the State that incurred costs because of the new mandate
will be able to submit claims for reimbursement.
Attachment: Revised Resolution No. 34-96
00002,110
RESOLUTION NO. 34-96
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, URGING
THE COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES TO APPROVE
TEST CLAIM CSM 4500 SPONSORED BY THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
AND REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
THE CITY'S COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION:::; & 2641(e) OF
.....................
THE CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE
WHEREAS, AB 2196, signed by the Governor on October 5, 1993, amended
the California Elections Code by requiring that the statewide presidential primary be
held on the 4`h Tuesday in March in any year which is evenly divisible by the number
four; and
WHEREAS, Section 1 of AB 2196 states, in part, that the intent of the bill, as
declared by the California State Legislature, is to "maximize voter participation in the
electoral process" by "holding both the presidential primary and the idirect primary
elections the same day"; and
WHEREAS, AB 2196 amended Section 2500 of the Elections Code by
; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2-14.01 of the Atascadero Municipal Code, the
City of Atascadero has held its general municipal elections in conjunction with the
statewide primary in June of even numbered years since 1981 and has lawfully
consolidated said elections with the County of San Luis Obispo; and.
WHEREAS, in order to comply with the change in law, the County of San Luis
Obispo did move the statewide primary to March rather than June; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero was therefore compelled
to study the impact of the new law on the City and, as a result, considered the
options left available. The City Council found the City's municipal code to no longer in
be in compliance with State law and determined it necessary to adopt a new
ordinance amending the election date. Public hearings were held on June 13' and
June 27' 1996 at which time the City Council introduced and adopted an ordinance
changing the date of the City's general election; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2601(e) of the California Elections Code, as
added by AB 2196, the Atascadero City Clerk did notify by mail all registered voters in
the City of the change in election date and the change in officeholder terms; and
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero did incur increased costs in excess of $200
as a result of complying with the State mandate imposed in Section 2601(e) of the
i
00021
Resolution No. 34-96
Page 2
California Elections Code and has filed a test claim with the Commission on State
Mandates; and
WHEREAS, Government Code §17561(a) provides that, "the State shall
reimburse each local agency and school district for all costs mandated by the
State". Further, Government Code §17514 defines "all costs mandated by the
State" as "any increased costs which a local agency or school district is required
to incur after July 1, 1980, as a result of any statute enacted on or after January
1, 1975..., which mandates a new program or higher level of service in an existing
program within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California
Constitution."
NOW, THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Atascadero does hereby urge
the Commission on State Mandates to approve Test Claim CSM 4500 for the
following reasons:
SECTION 1 . Section 2601(e) of the California Elections Code contains a
mandate that left the City with no option but to incur increased costs.
SECTION 2. The City Council acted in a reasonable and prudent fashion by
choosing the least costly alternative that supports the intent of the AB 2196.
On motion by Councilperson Luna and seconded by Councilperson Bewley, the
foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Bewley, Carden, Johnson, Luna and Mayor Highland
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ADOPTED: May 14, 1996
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO
By:
LEE PRICE, C.M.C. GEORGE P. HIGHLAND, Mayor
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney
00'02
i
aAgenda Item: A-7
Meoting Date: 7/9/96
* .NOTICE: THE STAFF REPORT FOR THIS ITEM WILL BE
DISTRIBUTED SEPARATELY.
•
000023
i'
1
i
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: A-8
CITY OF ATASCADERO DATE: 07-09-96
TO: City Council
THROUGII: Andrew J. Takata, City Manager
FROM: Brady Cherry, Director
Department of Community Services
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 5i-96 AUTHORIZING
AN A G R F;EN I ENT WITH THE KNIGHTS.OF COLUMBVI S AND KIQO PURE
GOLD OLDIES FOR THE LEASE OF THE PAVILION BASEMENT FOR
THE LOS PADRES COUNCIL BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA.
RECOMMENDATION•
j
It is recommended that the City Council approve City Council Resolution No. 58-96 authorizing
a lease agreement for the Pavilion basement for use by the Los Padres Coulncil of the Boy Scouts
during specific hours.
DISCUSSION:
At the City Co,!ncil of June 25 1996 the Cit Council
ydirected staff to amend the
proposed lease agreement for the Pavilion basement to reduce the terml from 20 years to 10
years. There will be an option for the City of Atascadero to extend the 1jease for an additional
10 year term. If the City chooses not to extend the lease for an additional ten years, the City
will agree to compensate The Boy Scouts for the improvement costs of tlpe upgrade (excluding
labor) in an annotint not to exceed $12,000. The lease agreement attached to this report has been
so amended.
C:\CFrYCOUNU ULY996.RPT
l
{
000024
i
I
1
RESOLUTION NUMBER 58-96
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH
CO-TENANTS: KIQO-PURE GOLD-OLDIES 104 FM AND KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS
FOR
LEASE OF THE ATASCADERO LAKE PAVILION BASEMENT
The City Council of the City of Atascadero, California, hereby
resolves as follows:
1. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute an agreement
with the Co-tenants KIQO Pure Gold-Oldies 104 FM and
Knights of Columbus (KOC) for lease of the Atascadero
Lake Pavilion.
2 . The City Manager is hereby authorized to make minor
corrections or modifications of a mathematical clerical
nature.
3 . The Finance Director is hereby authorized to appropriate
funds, if necessary; release and expend funds; and issue
warrants to comply with the terms of this agreement.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of .
the City of Atascadero, held on the _9th_ of _July_, 1996.
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO
LEE PRICE, City Clerk GEORGE P. HIGHLAND, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney
> ?E?ti 1
LEASE AGREEMENT
This Lease Agreement is made and entered into this date by
and between the City of Atascadero, a Municipal Corporation, organized and existing under
the general laws of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "Landlord", and Charter
Organizations (Sponsors) for Boy Scouts Units/Troops) of America. Non-,*profit
Organizations in California. hereafter are referred to as "Tenant(s) or Co-Tenants".
1. PARTIES
1.1 Landlord
1.1.1 The Landlord is the City of Atascadero, California, whose mailing
address and physical address for notice under the terms of this Agreements as follows:
City of Atascadero
Attn: Director of Community Services
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, California 93422
1.2 Tenant
1.2.1 The tenant(s) hereafter shall be referred to as "Co-tenants" of this lease
agreement. The Co-tenants are Chartering Organizations (Sponsors) for sgiect Boy Scouts
(Units/Troops/Posts) of America (BSA). within the Los Padres BSA Coungil, which are
Non-Profit Organizations of Atascadero, California whose mailing address's and physical
address's for notice under the terms of this Agreement are as follows:
1.2.1.2 Co-tenant: KIQO-Pure Gold-Oldies 104 FM
Attention: Troop 104, BSA
P.O. Box 6028
Atascadero, CA 03423
1.2.1.3 Co-Tenant: Knights of Columbus (KOC)
Santa Lucia Council #3648
Attention: Troop 155, BSA
P.O. Box 810
Atascadero, CA 93423
1
0000"t;
2. LEASE PREMISES
2.1 Description of Premises
2.1.1 As used herein, the terms "premises" or "leased premises" shall mean
the building and real property described in "Exhibit A" attached hereto, and which is hereby
incorporated herein. Unless the context otherwise requires, such terms shall include the
building and other improvements presently existing or to be constructed in which the
premises are or will be situated, and all fixtures heretofore or hereafter to be installed by
Landlord therein.
2.1.2 As long as Tenant is not in default under this Lease, Tenant shall have
the non-exclusive right to use the premise, together with such easements for ingress and
egress as are necessary for Tenant's use and occupancy of the leased premises.
2.2 Parking Facilities
Tenant acknowledges and agrees that any parking spaces provided by Landlord
in and around the building or the leased premises are solely for the convenience of the clients
of Tenant or its members, unless otherwise specifically designated by the Landlord in
writing. Landlord shall have the right to establish and enforce reasonable rules and
regulations concerning the use of the parking area.
3. TERM OF LEASE
The term of this Lease shall begin on August 1, 1996 . Subject to extension or
sooner termination as hereinafter provided, this Lease shall continue for the term of ten 10
y—ears.
4. RENTAL
4.1 Minimum Annual Rent
4.1.1 Tenant agrees to pay to Landlord a minimum annual rent of 1.00
during each year of the term of this Lease. The annual rent shall be due and payable on the
January 15th of each year. All rents shall be paid in lawful money of the United States at
the location designated in Section 1.1.1 and at such place as Landlord shall designate to
Tenant from time to time in writing.
4.1.2 If so provided in "Exhibit C" attached hereto and which is hereby
incorporated herein, the minimum annual rent shall be adjusted at the times and in the
2
OOOOti7
manner specified in "Exhibit C", and Tenant agrees to pay Landlord the minimum annual
rent, as so adjusted, at the times and in the manner provided by this Lease.
4.1.3 Should Tenant fail to make any payment of rent within ten (10) calendar days
of the date when such payment first becomes due, or should any check Wndered in payment
of rent be returned to Landlord by Tenant's bank for any reason, then Tenant shall pay to
Landlord, in addition to such rental payment, a late charge in the amount of ten percent
(10%) of the annual rent, which the parties agree is a reasonable estimate of the amount
necessary to reimburse Landlord damages and additional costs not contemplated by this Lease
that Landlord will incur as a result of the delinquent payment or returned check, including
processing and accounting charges and late charges that may be imposed on Landlord by its
lender. Upon notice of nonpayment given by Landlord to Tenant, the entire amount then
due, including such late charge, shall thereafter bear interest at the rate of fifteen percent
(15%) until paid in full.
5. INTENTION OF PARTIES: NEGATION OF PARTNERSHIP
Nothing in this Lease is intended and no provision of this Lease shall be construed to
make Landlord a partner of or a joint venturer with Tenant, or associated in any other way
with Tenant in the operation of the leased premises, or to subject Landlord to any obligation,
loss, charge or expense resulting from or attributable to Tenant's operation or use of the
premises.
0 6. PROPERTY TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS
6.1 Personal Property Taxes
Tenant shall pay, before delinquency, all taxes assessed against any personal
property of Tenant installed or located in or upon the ]eased premises and that become
payable during the term of this Lease.
6.2 Real Property Taxes
6.2.1 In addition to all other rent payable by Tenant hereunder, Tenant agrees
to pay as additional rent its proportionate share of real property taxes, if any, or any
increases in real property taxes over taxes paid in the first year of this Lease, levied or
assessed against the land and the building in which the leased premises are situated. Real
property taxes for any fractional portion of a fiscal year included in the lease shall be
prorated on the basis of a 360-day year.
6.2.2 Each year, Landlord shall notify Tenant of its proportionate share of
the real property taxes payable by Tenant hereunder and Tenant shall pay Landlord the
amount payable by Tenant at the time and in the manner provided for the payment of rent.
3
OOOUA:S
6.2.3 This Lease may create a taxable possessory interest. Tenant shall pay
any possessory Aerest tax which may be levied as a result of Tenant's possessory interest in
this leasehold. Possessory interest means any interest described in Section 107 of the
California Revenue and Taxation Code, or successor statute, and includes any interest
described in Section 107.4 of the same Code, or its successor statute. This section is deemed
to comply with Section 107.6 of the same code.
6.3 Taxes Defined; Special Assessments
The term "real property taxes", as used in this Section, shall mean and include
all taxes, assessments, and other governmental charges, general and special, ordinary and
extraordinary, of any kind and nature whatsoever, levied or assessed against all or any part
of the building and other improvements and the land of which the leased premises are a part,
including but not limited to assessment for public improvements, benefits or facilities
(including parking district assessments) which shall be levied or assessed against the land
and/or building or any part thereof, but excluding franchise, estate, inheritance, succession,
capital levy, transfer, income or excess profits tax imposed upon Landlord. If at any time
during the term of this Lease, under the laws of California, or any political subdivision
thereof in which the leased premises are situated, a tax or excise or rents or other tax,
however described, is levied or assessed against Landlord on account of the rent expressly
reserved hereunder, in addition to or as a substitute in whole or in part for taxes assessed or
imposed by California or such political subdivision on land and/or buildings, such tax or
excise shall be included within the definition of "real property taxes, but only to the extent
of the amount thereof which is lawfully assessed or imposed as a direct result of Landlord's
ownership of this Lease or of the rental accruing under this Lease. With respect to any
assessment which may be levied against or upon the building, land or improvements of which
the leased premises are a part, and which under the laws then in force may be evidenced by
improvement or other bonds, or may be paid in annual installments, Tenant shall be required
to pay each year only the amount of such annual installment or portion thereof as Landlord
shall be required to pay during such year (with appropriate proration for any partial year)
and shall have no obligation to continue such payments after the termination of this Lease.
7. LANDLORD'S MANAGEMENT OF BUILDING
7.1 Management of Building
Landlord shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to:
7. 1. 1 Close the premises when and to the extent necessary for maintenance or
renovation purposes; and
7. 1.2 To change the plan of the-building to the extent necessary for its
expansion, or the remodeling or renovation thereof, so long as the changes do not
substantially interfere with ingress to and egress from or the location of the leased premises.
4 0
00'00,29
7.2 Rules and Regulations
Landlord shall have the right from time to time to promulgate, amend and
enforce against Tenant and all persons upon the leased premises, reasonable rules and
regulations for the safety, care and cleanliness of the premises and the building or for the
preservation of good order; provided, however, that all such rules and regulations shall apply
substantially equally and without discrimination, and no such rule or regulation shall require
Tenant to pay additional rent. Tenant agrees to conform to and abide by such rules and
regulations, and a violation of any of them shall constitute a default by Tenant under this
Lease.
8. USE; LIMITATIONS ON USE
8.1 Tenant's Use of Premises
Tenant agrees that the leased premises shall be used and occupied only for the
purpose specified herein which is: to maintain a meeting location and traiDing center for local
Boy Scout Trools, and for no other purpose or purposes without Landlord's prior written
consent. Tenant agrees diligently to conduct its business operations in alt of the leased
premises regularly and continuously during the term hereof.
8.2 Limitations on Use
Tenant's use of the leased premises shall be in accordance with the following
requirements:
8.2.1 Days and Hours of Tenancy. The Day and Hours;of Tenancy will be
limited to:
Monday through Friday 2:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Thursday 6:45 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Saturdays 7:00 a.in. to 5:00 p.m.
Requests for additional hours of use for the Pavilion Basement will be subject to availability
and will be allowed at no additional cost. Requests for additional hours must be submitted in
advance in writing to the Department of Community Services.
8.2.2 Insurance Hazards. Tenant shall neither engage in nor permit others
to engage in any activity or conduct that will cause the cancellation of or,an increase in the
premium for any fire insurance maintained by Landlord, and will pay any increase in the fire
insurance premiums attributable to Tenant's particular use of the leased premises. Tenant
shall, at Tenant's sole cost, comply with all requirements of any insurance organization or
company pertaining to the use of the premises necessary for the maintenance of reasonable
fire and public liability insurance covering the building.
000030
8.2.3 Compliance with Law. Tenant shall, at Tenant's sole cost and
expense, comply with all of the requirements, ordinances and statutes of all municipal, state
and federal authorities now in force, or which may hereafter be in force, pertaining to the
leased premises and the use and occupancy thereof by Tenant. The judgment of any court of
competent jurisdiction, or the admission of Tenant in any action or proceeding against
Tenant, whether Landlord be a party thereto or not, that Tenant has violated any such
ordinances or statutes in the use of the premises shall be conclusive of that fact as between
Landlord and Tenant.
8.2.4 Waste: Nuisance. Tenant shall not commit, or suffer to be committed,
any waste of the leased premises, or any nuisance or other unreasonable annoyance which
may disturb the quiet enjoyment of the owners or occupants of adjacent areas, buildings or
properties.
9. ALTERATIONS
9.1 Change by Tenant
9.1.l Required improvements tenant agrees to pay for all materials and labor
to make improvements to the leased premises described in "Exhibit B" attached hereto and
which is hereby incorporated herein. Tenant also agrees to secure all appropriate building
permits and comply with all relevant state and local requirements prior to occupancy.
9. 1.2 Any alterations, additions, improvements or changes, including any
remodeling or redecorating, that Tenant may desire to make in, to or upon the leased
premises, shall be made at Tenant's sole cost and expense and in compliance with all
applicable governmental requirements. All such alterations and improvements shall be made
only after first submitting the plans and specifications therefor to Landlord and obtaining the
consent of Landlord thereto in writing. Any such alterations or improvements shall at once
become a part of the leased premises and, unless Landlord exercises its right to require
Tenant to remove any alterations that Tenant has made to the premises, shall be surrendered
to Landlord upon the expiration or sooner termination of this Lease.
9.2 Mechanics' Liens
Tenant agrees to keep the leased premises and any improvements thereon at all
times free of mechanics' liens and other liens for labor, services, supplies, equipment or
material purchased by or directly or indirectly furnished to Tenant.
6
000031
10. UTILITIES
10.1 Tenant shall make all arrangements for and shall pay metered amount or a pro-
rated portion of the utilities including gas and electricity supplied to the lensed premises
during the entire term of this Lease, and shall promptly pay all connection and termination
charges therefor.
10.2 The suspension or interruption in utility services to the leased premises for
reasons beyond the ability of Landlord to control shall not constitute a default by Landlord or
entitle Tenant to any reduction or abatement of rent.
11. TENANT'S PERSONAL PROPERTY
11.1 Installation of Propei-ty
Landlord shall have no interest in any removable equipment, furniture or trade
fixtures owned by Tenant or installed in or upon the leased premises solely at the cost and
expense of Tenant, other than heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment installed in
or affixed to the leased premises or the building in which they are situated. Prior to creating
or permitting the creation of any lien or security or reversionary interest in any removal
personal property to be placed in or upon the leased premises, Tenant shall obtain the written
agreement of the party holding such interest to make such repairs necessitated by the removal
of such property and any damage resulting therefrom as may be necessary, to restore the
leased premises to good condition and repair, excepting only reasonable wear and tear, in the
event said property is thereafter removed from the leased premises by said party, or by any
agent or representative thereof or purchaser therefrom, pursuant to the exercise or
enforcement of any rights incident to the interest so created, without any Bost or expense to
Landlord.
11.2 Removal of Personal Property
Provided that Tenant is not then in default, at the expiration of this Lease,
Tenant shall have the right to remove at its own cost and expense all removable equipment,
furniture or trade fixtures owned by or installed at the expense of Tenant on the leased
premises during the term of this Lease, other than any heating, ventilating; or air conditioning
equipment installed by Tenant. All such personal property shall be removed prior to the
close of business on the last day of the lease term, and Tenant shall make such repairs
necessitated by the removal of said property and any damage resulting therefrom as may be
necessary to restore the leased premises to good condition and repair, excepting only
reasonable wear and tear. Any such property not so removed shall be deemed to have been
abandoned or, at the option of Landlord, shall be removed and placed in storage for the
account and at the cost and expense of Tenant.
7
000032
12. CARE AND MAINTENANCE
12.1 Landlord's Maintenance
Except as otherwise provided in this Lease, Landlord agrees to maintain in
good condition and repair, at the sole cost and expense of Landlord, (1) the structural
components of the building and improvements in which the leased premises are located,
which structural components are limited to the foundations, bearing and exterior walls (and
any plumbing or wiring encased therein), sub-flooring and roof; and (2) common areas and
the exterior of the leased premises; and (3) any heating, ventilating and air conditioning
systems furnished by Landlord to the leased premises.
12.2. Tenant's Maintenance
12.2.1 Except as otherwise provided in this Lease, Tenant at its own
cost and expense, agrees:
A. To maintain throughout the lease term in good and sanitary order,
condition, and repair, all portions of the leased premises, including, without limitation, (a)
the interior of the leased premises, including flooring, exposed plumbing, lighting lamps and
wiring, paint and finish; (b) any windows or skylights; (c) the storefront; (d) any personal
property of Tenant situated in or upon the leased premises; and (e) any heating, ventilating
or air conditioning equipment installed by Tenant in or upon the leased premises.
B. To notify Landlord promptly of any damage to the leased premises or i
the building in which they are situated resulting from or attributable to the acts or omissions
of Tenant, its invitees or its authorized representatives, and thereafter promptly to repair all
such damage at Tenant's sole cost and expense.
C. To provide janitorial services for the interior of the leased premises.
12.2.2 Tenant waives the provisions of Section 1941 and 1942 of the
California Civil Code with respect to Tenant's right to make repairs and to deduct the
expenses thereof from the rent payable by Tenant.
12.2.3 Landlord shall provide janitorial and trash collection services to
the common and exterior areas of leased premises. Tenant shall provide janitorial and trash.
collection services to the interior areas of the leased premises.
8
000033
13. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE
13.1 Indemnification Agreement.
This Lease is made upon the express condition that Landlord is to be free from
all liability and claims for damages by reason of any injury to any person ';and damage to any
property (including Tenant's), resulting from any cause whatsoever while, in, upon, about,
or in any way connected with the leased premises are located during the term of this Lease,
including without limitation, damage or injury caused by the elements or from breakage,
leakage, obstruction or other defects of pipes, sprinklers, wires, plumbing, air conditioning,
or other electrical or mechanical fixtures or equipment, excluding only any damage or injury
caused by the breach by Landlord of a duty imposed by law or under thisLease. Tenant
hereby waives all claims against Landlord for, and agrees to indemnify and hold Landlord
harmless from any liability, damage, loss, cost or expense, including attorneys fees, for any
injury or damage to persons or property resulting from or attributable to the fault or neglect
of Tenant.
13.2 Public Liability and Property Damage
13.2.1 Insurance Coverage. Tenant agrees to maintain in force
throughout the term hereof, at Tenant's sole cost and expense, such insurance, including
liability insurance against any liability to the public incident to the use of or resulting from
any accident occurring in or about the leased premises, of the types and initially with the
limits of liability specified in the Basic Provisions. Such policies shall insure the contingent
liability of Landlord and the performance by Tenant of its indemnity obligations under this
Lease. Landlord shall be named as an additional insured in each policy, and each policy
shall contain cross-liability endorsements. The initial amount of coverage shall be
$1.000.000.
1.3.2.2 Adjustment to Coverage. Tenant further agrees to review the
amount of its insurance coverage with Landlord every three (3) years to the end that the
protection coverage afforded thereby shall be in proportion to the protection coverage
afforded at the commencement of this Lease. if the parties are unable to agree upon the
amount of said coverage prior to the expiration of each such three (3) year period, then the
amount of coverage to be provided by Tenant's carrier shall be adjusted to the amounts of
coverage recommended in writing by an insurance broker selected by Landlord.
9
000034
13.3 Proof of Insurance
Each policy of insurance required of Tenant by this Lease shall be a primary
policy, issued by an insurance company reasonably satisfactory to Landlord, and shall
contain an endorsement requiring thirty (30) days written notice from the insurer to Landlord
before cancellation or changes in the nature, scope or amount of coverage. Each policy, or a
certificate of the policy, together with evidence of the payment of premiums, shall be
deposited with Landlord at the commencement of the initial term of this Lease, and at the
commencement of any renewal term.
13.4 Landlord's Insurance
13.4.1 Landlord shall maintain a program of insurance on the building
in which the leased premises are situated, insuring against loss by fire and the perils covered
by an extended coverage endorsement, and public liability insurance insuring against personal
injury and property damage in the amounts not less than the fair market value of the
building.
10
000035
i
14. DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION
14.1 Landlord to Repah
Should the leased premises or the building and other improvements in which
the premises are situated be totally or partially damaged or destroyed, Landlord shall
promptly repair the same, except that Landlord shall have the option to terminate this Lease
if (a) the leased premises or the building and improvements in which the premises are
situated cannot reasonably be expected to be restored under existing law to substantially the
same condition as existed prior to such damage or destruction within ninety (90) days from
the date that the insurance proceeds become available to Landlord; or (b) of the costs of such
restoration would exceed one-half (1/2) of the full insured value of the building and other
improvements in which the leased premises are situated; or (c) if the damage or destruction
results from a casualty not customarily insured against by a policy of standard fire and
extended coverage insurance having vandalism and malicious mischief endorsements. Any
notice of termination given hereunder shall be given to Tenant within fifteen (15) days after
Landlord determines the period of time required for and the estimated cos its of such repair or
restoration.
14.2 Termination; Abatement of Rent
14.2.1 This Lease shall not be terminated by any damage to or
destruction of the leased premises or the building and other improvements; of which the
premises are a part unless notice of termination is given by Landlord to Tenant, or by Tenant
to Landlord as provided by this Section 14, and Tenant hereby waives the provisions of
Sections 1932(2) and 1933(4) of the California Civil Code with respect toy any such damage
or destruction.
14.2.2 Should the leased premises be damaged or destroyed at any time
during the term of this Lease, there shall be an abatement or reduction of the minimum
monthly rent between the date of destruction and the date of completion of restoration, based
on the extent to which the destruction interferes with Tenant's use of the leased premises. In
the event that any repairs or restoration of the leased premises permitted or required by
Landlord are of such a nature that they cannot reasonably be expected to be substantially
completed within 270 days from the date any insurance proceeds first become available to
Landlord, then Tenant shall have the right to terminate this Lease by giving notice of
termination to Landlord, specifying the effective date thereof, within ten (10) days after the
period required to restore the premises has been determined.
14.2.3 Should then-applicable laws or zoning ordinances preclude the
restoration or replacement of the leased premises in the manner hereinbefore provided, then
Landlord shall have the right to terminate this Lease immediately by giving written notice of
termination to Tenant.
11
000036
15. ASSIGNING, SUBLETTING AND HYPOTHECATING
15.1 Voluntary Transfers
Tenant shall not sell, transfer or assign this Lease or any part thereof, or
interest therein, or hypothecate or grant any rights hereunder, or create or permit any
subleases for the leased premises.
16. DEFAULT BY TENANT; LANDLORD'S REMEDIES
16.1 Insolvency of Tenant.
If during the term of this Lease (a) the Tenant shall make an assignment for
the benefit of creditors; or (b) a voluntary or involuntary petition shall be filed by or against
the Tenant under the law having for its purpose the adjudication of the Tenant as bankrupt,
or the extension of time of payment, composition, adjustment, modification, settlement or
satisfaction of the liabilities of the Tenant, or to which any property of the Tenant may be
subject and, if the petition be involuntary, if said petition be granted; or (c) a receiver be
appointed for the leased premises by reason of the insolvency or alleged insolvency of the
Tenant and said receiver is not discharged within ten (10) days, or upon the hearing of a
timely filed petition to dismiss, absolve or otherwise terminate the receivership, whichever
shall later occur; or (d) any department of the state or federal government, or any officer
thereof duly authorized shall take possession of the leased premises and the improvements
thereon by reason of the insolvency of the Tenant and the taking of possession shall be
followed by a legal adjudication of the insolvency, or bankruptcy, or receivership of Tenant,
then upon the occurrence of any such contingency, Landlord shall be entitled to terminate
this Lease for breach thereof by Tenant by giving written notice of termination and the same
shall expire as fully and completely as if the day of such notice were the date herein
specifically fixed for the expiration of the term of this Lease, and the Tenant will then quit
and surrender the leased premises and the improvements thereon to Landlord, but the Tenant
shall remain liable as hereinafter provided.
16.2 Breach of Covenant; Abandonment, Etc.
If during the term of this Lease, Tenant (a) shall make default in fulfilling any
of the covenants or conditions of this Lease (other than the covenants for the payment of rent
or other charges payable by the Tenant hereunder); or (b) shall abandon the leased premises,
then the Landlord may give the Tenant notice of such default or of the happening of any
contingency in this paragraph referred to, and if at the expiration of ten (10) days after the
service of such notice the default or contingency upon which said notice was based shall
continue to exist, or in the case of a default or contingency which cannot with due diligence
be cured within a period of ten (10) days, if the Tenant fails to proceed promptly after the
service of such notice to prosecute the curing of such default with all due diligence within a
reasonable period of time, the Landlord may terminate this Lease and upon such termination,
12
00003'7
the Tenant shall quit and surrender the leased premises and the improvements thereon to the
Landlord, but the Tenant shall remain liable as hereinafter provided.
16.3 Failure to Pay Rent., Etc.
If the Tenant shall make default in the payment of the rent expressly reserved
hereunder, or any part of the same, or shall make default in the payment of any other rent or
charge required to be paid by the Tenant hereunder or any part of the same, and such default
shall continue for three (3) days after notice thereof by the Landlord, the Landlord may
terminate this Lease and upon such termination, the Tenant shall quit and surrender the
leased premises and the improvements thereon to the Landlord, but the Tenant shall remain
liable as hereinafter provided.
16.4 Termination of Lease
It is understood and agreed that all the covenants and conditions of this Lease
herein contained are covenants by Tenant and that in default of Tenant's;fulfilling any of the
same, Landlord may at any time thereafter at Landlord's option, forfeit this Lease and any
holding over thereafter by Tenant shall be construed to be a tenancy from month to month
only, for the same rental payable in the same manner as provided elsewhere in this Lease. It
is further agreed that in the event of any breach of this Lease by Tenant, then Landlord,
besides any other rights or remedies Landlord may have, shall have the immediate right of
re-entry and may remove all persons and property from the premises.
16.4. 1 The Landlord reserves the right to extend this agreement, at the end of
ten (10) years, for an additional ten (10) year term. The landlord, at it's sole discretion,
may elect not to extend the lease agreement at the end of the first ten year term with or
without cause.
16.4.2 If the Landlord elects not to extend the agreement",`, for an additional ten
(10) years, the Landlord shall pay the Los Padres Boy Scouts' Council compensation for the
direct costs of materials and equipment to convert the leased space to public use. Records
and receipts shall be required for reimbursement not to exceed $12,000.00.
16.5 Landlord's Damages
If Tenant breaches this Lease and abandons the premises before the end of the
term, or if Tenant's right of possession is terminated by Landlord because of breach of this
Lease pursuant to any of the foregoing provisions of this section, or otherwise, then in any
such case, Landlord may recover from Tenant all damages suffered by Landlord as a result
of Tenant's failure to perform Tenant's obligations hereunder, including but not restricted to,
the worth at the time of the award (computed in accordance with paragraph (b) of Section
1951.2 of the California Civil Code) of the amount by which the rent then unpaid hereunder
for the balance of' the Lease term exceeds the amount of such rental loss; for the same period
13
000038
which the Tenant proves could be reasonably avoided by Landlord. It is further agreed that
even though Tenant has breached this Lease and abandoned the property, the Lease may
continue in effect for so long as Landlord does not terminate the Tenant's right to possession,
and the Landlord may enforce all of the rights and remedies under this Lease, including the
right to recover the rent as it becomes due under the Lease (in accordance with paragraph (b)
of Section 1951.4 of the California Civil Code). Nothing contained herein shall diminish or
take away the right of the Landlord to seek and obtain such equitable relief against Tenant as
may be appropriate.
16.6 Remedies Not. Exclusive
The Landlord, in addition to the rights hereinbefore given in case of Tenant's
breach or default, may pursue any other remedy available to Landlord at law or in equity.
17. POWER OF RECEIVER
Upon a default by Tenant, Landlord shall have the right to obtain the appointment of
a receiver to take possession of the leased premises and/or to collect the rents or profits
derived therefrom, and Tenant irrevocably agrees that any such receiver may, if it be
necessary or convenient in order to collect such rents and profits, conduct the business then
being carried on by Tenant on said premises and that said receiver may take possession of
any personal property belonging to Tenant and used in the
conduct of such business, and may use the same in conducting such business on the premises
without compensation to Tenant for such use. Neither the application for nor the
appointment of such a receiver shall be construed as an election on Landlord's part to
terminate this Lease unless a written notice of such intention is given by Landlord.
18. LANDLORD'S RIGHT TO CURE DEFAULTS
Landlord, at any time after Tenant commits a default in the performance of any of
Tenant's obligations under this Lease, shall be entitled to cure such default, or to cause such
default to be cured, at the sole cost and expense of Tenant. If, by reason of any default by
Tenant, Landlord incurs any expense or pays any sum, or performs any act requiring
Landlord to incur any expense or pays any sum, including reasonable fees and expenses paid
or incurred by Landlord in order to prepare and post or deliver any notice permitted or
required by the provisions of this Lease or otherwise permitted or contemplated by law, then
the amount so paid or incurred by Landlord shall be immediately due and payable to
Landlord by Tenant as additional rent.
19. WAIVER OF BREACH
Any waiver, express or implied, by any party hereto, of any breach by any party of
any covenant or provision of this Lease, shall not be, nor be construed to be, a waiver of any
subsequent breach of the same or any other term or provision hereof. The acceptance by
14
000039
Landlord of delinquent rent shall not constitute a waiver of any other default and shall
constitute only a waiver of timely payment of the amount so received.
20. SIGNS ADVERTISING
Tenant shall be entitled to place and maintain any sign or signs, if legally permitted,
at a location on the exterior of the leased premises. No other signs, adx+ertisements, notices
or other exterior decoration or personal property of Tenant shall be placed upon or displayed
by Tenant on any part of the building or the windows of the leased premises, or upon or
about the exterior of the leased premises.
21. LANDLORD'S ENTRY ON PREMISES
21.1 Right. of EntrX
Landlord and its authorized representatives shall have the fight to enter the
premises at all reasonable times with 24 hours notice for any of the following purposes:
21.1.1 To determine whether the premises are in good condition and
whether Tenant is complying with its obligations under this Lease;
21.1.2 To do any necessary maintenance, repairs, restoration or
remodeling to the building or the premises that Landlord has the right or obligation to
perform;
21.1.3 To serve, post, or keep posted any notices required or allowed
under the provisions of this Lease, including "for rent" or "for lease" notices during the last
three months of this Lease, or during any period while Tenant is in default, and any notices
provided by law for the protection of Landlord's interest in the leased premises; and
21.1.4 To shore the foundations, footings, and wars of the building and
to erect scaffolding and protective barricades around and about the building, but not so as to
prevent entry to the premises, and to do any other act or thing necessary for the safety or
preservation of the premises and the building if any excavation or other construction is
undertaken or is about to be undertaken on any adjacent property or area;
21.1.5 To gather information including measurement, prepare floor
plans, etc., for the purpose of performing architectural design work for the remodeling
and/or rehabilitation of the building and premises.
15
000040
21.2 Exercise of Right
Landlord shall exercise its rights under this Section in a manner that will not
interfere unreasonably with Tenant's use and occupancy of the leased premises; provided that
Landlord's entry and activities do not result from Tenant's default, Tenant shall be entitled to
an abatement or reduction of minimum monthly rent to the extent that Landlord's entry and
activities interfere with Tenant's occupancy of the leased premises. Landlord shall not be
liable in any other manner for any inconvenience, disturbance, loss of business, nuisance, or
other damage arising out of Landlord's entry on the premises as provided herein, except
damage resulting from the acts or omissions of Landlord or its authorized representatives.
22. SALE OR TRANSFER OF PREMISES
If Landlord sells or transfers all or any portion of the premises, or the building,
improvements and land of which the leased premises are a part, then Landlord, on
consummation of the sale or transfer, shall be released from any liability thereafter accruing
under this Lease.
23. SURRENDER ON TERMINATION• HOLDING OVER
23.1 Surrender of Premises
Tenant agrees to return the leased premises (except removable trade fixtures,
furniture and equipment owned or installed by Tenant), to Landlord at the expiration or
sooner termination of the lease term, in good condition and repair, reasonable wear and tear
excepted. Should the Tenant hold the leased premises with the consent of Landlord after the
expiration of the term of this Lease, then such holding over shall be construed to be only a
tenancy from month-to-month and subject to all of the conditions and agreements herein
contained.
23.2 Removal of Alterations
Landlord, by giving written notice to Tenant within ten (10) days before the
expiration or termination of the Lease, may elect to require Tenant to remove any alterations
that Tenant has made to the premises, and if Landlord so elects, Tenant, at its sole cost and
expense, shall remove the alterations specified by Landlord in its notice, and shall make such
repairs necessitated by the removal of said alterations, and any damage resulting therefrom,
as may be necessary to restore the leased premises to good condition and repair, excepting
only reasonable wear and tear, before the last day of the Lease term or within thirty (30)
days of Landlord's notice, whichever is later.
16
000049.
I
24. NOTICES
All notices hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given upon
personal delivery or on the second (2nd) business day following the date{on which sent by
mail, postage prepaid, addressed, to the addresses set forth in Section 1.1 and 1.2 above
unless changed in writing effective upon written notice to each party to this Lease.
25. JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY
Each person or entity named as a Tenant in this Lease, or who hereafter becomes a
Party to this Lease as a tenant in the leased premises, or as an assignee of Tenant, shall be
jointly and severally liable for the full and faithful performance of each and every covenant
and obligation required to be performed by Tenant under the provisions -of this Lease.
25. BINDING ON SUCCESSORS ETC
Landlord and Tenant agree that each of the terms, conditions, ano obligations of this
Lease shall extend to and bind, or inure to the benefit of (as the case may require), the
respective parties hereto, and each and every one of their respective heirs, executors,
administrators, representatives, successors and assigns.
27. ATTORNEYS' FEES
. In the event that any legal action is instituted by either of the parties hereto to enforce
or construe any of the terms, conditions or covenants of this Lease, or the validity thereof,
the party prevailing in any such action shall be entitled to recover from the other party all
court costs and a reasonable attorneys' fee to be set by the court, and the costs and fees
incurred in enforcing any judgment entered therein.
28. PARTIAL INVALIDITY
If any term or provision of this Lease or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease or
the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those to
which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each term and
provision of this Lease shall be valid and be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by
law.
29. COMPLETE AGREEMENT
This Lease, and the attachments and exhibits hereto, constitute the entire agreement
between the parties and may not be altered, amended, modified or extended except by an
instrument in writing signed by the parties hereto. The parties respectively acknowledge and
17
0000,12
I
3
agree that neither has made any representations or warranties to the other not expressly set
forth herein.
30. CO-TENANT REPRESENTATION TO LANDLORD
By entering into the lease agreement, the Co-tenants acknowledge and agree that they
will communicate with the landlord through a representative of the Los Padres Council, Boy
Scouts of America.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties (Co-tenants) hereto have executed this Lease
on the date set forth opposite their respective names.
Date: By:
Co-tenant (Sponsor) for Troop 104, BSA
Mrs. Virginia Brill, Charter Organization Rep.
KIQO - Pure Gold Oldies 10417M, Atascadero
Date: By:
Co-tenant (Sponsor) for Troop 155, BSA
Thomas Parks, Charter Organization Rep.
Knights of Columbus, Atascadero
Attest: LANDLORD, CITY OF ATASCADERO
By:
LEE PRICE GEORGE P. HIGHLAND,
City Clerk Mayor
Approved as to form:
ARTHER R. MONTANDON,
City Attorney
18
000043
EXHIBrr A
DESCRIPTION OF LEASED PREMISES:
A portion of The Basement of the Atascadero Lake Pavilion Building.
ADDRESS: 9:3 15 Pismo Street
Atascadero, California 93422
SQUARE FEET: 1620 Square Feet
19
000044
EXHIBIT B
Tenancy to begin: August 1, 1996
Tenant improvements to be completed by: on or about October 1, 1996.
Tenant improvements to include:
Flooring: 1,620 sq. ft. of carpet
Ceiling: 1,620 sq. ft. acoustic ceiling installed
Fire Sprinkler modification
Insulation
Divider Wall: Materials including drywall wall and 2x4's
Electrical: Additional wall outlet
Lighting: Minimum of eight (8) suspended fluorescent lighting fixtures
Installation by Electrician
Heating/Air Conditioning: Design, purchase, and installation of heating and air
conditioning units
Storage Cabinets: Lockable closet style
Architectural Drawings: Complete set of drawings per Permit requirements
Room Partition: Sliding panels to divide room for meetings.
20 !
0000,15
EXHIBIT °C11
1. RENT ADJUSTMENTS:
Adjustments to rent will be reviewed on an annual basis. Any adjustments to rent
will be made on JANUARY of each year. Minimum annual rent for the term of this
Lease Agreement shall be $1.00.
2. LATE CHARGE:
Ten percent (10%) of annual rent (see Section 4.1.3).
3. PROPORTIONATE SHARES:
A. Building Expense/Real Property Taxes:
Not applicable.
B. Insurance:
Not applicable.
C. Utilities/Services.
Reasonable cost of electricity, water, gas, building maintenance and trash
collection to be paid to the City by the Co-tenant(s). Cost of telephone and
interior janitorial service to be provided and paid directly by the Co-tenant(s).
is 21
0000,16
EXHIBIT "D"
BUILDING RULES AND REGULATIONS
The leased premises and the building shall be used and occupied by Tenant and its agents and
invitees in accordance with the following rules and regulations, as they may be amended
from time to time by Landlord:
1. Tenant and its agents and invitees shall not obstruct the sidewalks, common halls,
passageways, driveways, entrances and exits of the building; such facilities shall be
used only for ingress to and egress from the leased premises.
2. All trash and refuse shall be stored in adequate containers and regularly removed
from the premises. No trash or refuse of any kind shall be burned in or about the
leased premises.
3. Tenant shall not alter any lock or install any new or additional lock or bolt on any
door of the premises without Landlord's approval, and shall furnish Landlord with a
duplicate key for any such lock installed with Landlord's approval.
4. Tenant shall not mark, drive nails or screws, or drill into the partitions, woodwork or
plaster, or in any way deface the premises.
5. All moving of furniture, freight or equipment of any kind shall be done at the times
and in the manner prescribed by Landlord and through entrances prescribed for such
purposes by Landlord.
6. Upon request of Landlord, Tenant shall furnish to Landlord a current list of the
names, vehicle descriptions and vehicle license numbers of each of Tenant's agents
who utilize the parking facilities of the building.
7. Landlord shall direct electricians as to the location and method of installation of
telephone wires and no boring or cutting for wires shall be done without Landlord's
consent. The location of telephones and other office equipment affixed to the
premises shall be subject to Landlord's approval, which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld.
0000 }'7
8. Tenant, upon termination of its tenancy, shall deliver to Landlord all keys to office
space that were furnished to Tenant or that Tenant has had made. Tenant shall pay
Landlord the cost of replacing any lost keys and, at the option of the Landlord, the
costs of changing locks necessitated by the loss or theft of keys furnished to Tenant.
9. Tenant shall not affix or attach linoleum, tile, carpet or other floor coverings to the
floor of the premises without Landlord's approval.
10. Landlord reserves the right to close and keep locked all entrance and exit doors of the
building at night and on Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays for the adequate
protection of the building and the property of.its tenants, but shall make adequate
provision for access to the building by Tenant at all such times. If Tenant uses the
premises when the building is closed and locked, Tenant shall assure that the doors of
the premises and. the entry doors are closed and securely locked before leaving the
building. Tenant shall assure that all water faucets or water apparatus and all
electricity have been shut off before Tenant or its agents or inviteesleave the building
so as to prevent waste or damage.
11. Landlord shall use its best efforts to enforce the Building Rules and Regulations on a
uniform basis as to all tenants in the building, but Landlord shall not be responsible to
Tenant or to any persons for the nonobservance or violation of these rules and
regulations by any other tenant or other person. Tenant shall be deemed to have read
these rules and to have agreed to abide by them as a condition to its occupancy of the
leased premises.
C:\CNTRCTS\130Y surs.LFA
0000,18
e I
1
j
i
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: A-9 (A-H)
CITY OF ATASCADERO MEETING DATE: 7-9-96
Through: Andrew J. Takata, City Manager
Via: Brady Cherry, Director of Community Services
From: Valerie Humphrey, Staff Assistant
l
SUBJECT:
Annual Assessment charges for Street Maintenance Districts.
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolutions
authorizing the annual assessment rate for the f llowing Street
Maintenance Districts:
83-1 Lobos Lane 86-1 Falda A*enue
83-2 Sonora/Pinal 86-2 Pinal/E$carpa
83-3 Maleza Avenue 86-3 Aguila Avenue
84-1 San Fernando 86-4 Cayucos ,Avenue
BACKGROUND:
Street surfacing was done in all of these districts under the
provisions of the Streets and Highways Code. The estimate of
$20. 00 per parcel is based upon accomplishing minor maintenance
work during the 1996-97 fiscal year.
It is required that this special tax rate be 'established by
resolution in order to appear on next year's property tax roll.
FISCAL IMPACT•
Pursuant to the provisions of these resolutions, all funds
received by the City Treasurer from the Tax Collector shall be
deposited into funds established for each specific maintenance
district.
Enclosures:
Resolution 47-96 Aguila Avenue
Resolution 48-96 Cayucos Avenue
Resolution 49-96 Falda Avenue
Resolution 50-96 Lobos Lane
Resolution 51-96 Maleza Avenue
Resolution 52-96 Pinal Avenue
. Resolution 53-96 San Fernando Rd
Resolution 54-96 Sonora/Pinal
i
0000,19
RESOLUTION NO. 47-96
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
ESTABLISHING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF
CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 (STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION
5830) FOR MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 86-3 AGUILA AVENUE
WHEREAS, The Council has previously approved the formation of
Maintenance District 86-3 ; and
WHEREAS, certain street improvements were constructed under
the provisions of the Improvement Act of 1911; and
WHEREAS, it may be necessary for the City to perform routine
maintenance of the improvements constructed within Maintenance
District 86-3 ; and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of Section 5830 of the Streets
and Highways Code it is the responsibility of the Council to
estimate the cost of maintenance in the district during the ensuing
year and to fix a special tax rate for the real property within
said maintenance district to raise an amount of money to cover the
expense of maintaining said improvements:
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE Council of the
City of Atascadero as follows:
Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct.
Section 2 . Based on an estimate of the Public Works Director,
the Council sets a special tax rate of Twenty Dollars ($20. 00) per
parcel as identified in the assessment diagram for Maintenance
District 86-3 , said special tax to cover the expense of maintaining
the road and drainage improvements within said district during the
ensuing year.
Section 3 . The adoption of this resolution constitutes a levy
of the assessment for the fiscal year commencing the lst day of
July, 1996, and ending the 30th day of June, 1997 .
Section 4 . The works of improvement and maintenance performed
within Maintenance District 86-3 shall be performed pursuant to law
and the County Auditor shall enter on the County Assessment Roll,
the amount of the assessment, and said assessment shall then be
collected at he same time and in the same manner as the County
taxes are collected. After collection by said County, the net
amount of the assessment shall be paid to the City Treasurer of the
City.
000050
Section 5. The City Treasurer shall place all monies
collected by the Tax Collector into the special fund known as "City
of Atascadero Maintenance District 86-3 Aguila Avenue" pursuant to
the provisions of this resolution and law, and said transfer shall
be made and accomplished as soon as said monies ;have been made
available to the City Treasurer.
Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to
file a certified copy of this resolution with the : County Auditor
upon its adoption.
Section 7. The City Clerk is hereby further ordered and
directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the
County Tax Collector upon its adoption.
Section 8 . Any parcels or lots of land known as public
property, as the same is defined in Section 22663 of Division 15,
Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code, which are ;included within
the boundaries of the District shall be omitted and 3,exempt from any
assessment made under these proceedings.
On motion by Councilmember and seconded
by Councilmember , the foregoing Resollution is hereby
adopted in its entirety on the following roll call, vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST: CITY OF ATA$CADERO
LEE PRICE, City Clerk GEORGE P. HIGHLAND, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney
000051
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR ROLL YEAR 1995/96
FUND: 1802 ATAS AGUILA AV M/D
ASSESSMENT NO. ASSESSMENT AMOUNT
030,321, 010 20. 00
031, 012, 016 20.00
0311012, 020 20.00
031,012, 004 20.00
031, 012, 017 20.00
000052
I
RESOLUTION NO. 48-96
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF -ATASCADERO
ESTABLISHING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF
CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 (STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION
5830) FOR MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 86-4 CAYUCO$ AVENUE
WHEREAS, The Council has previously approved the formation of
Maintenance District 86-4; and
WHEREAS, certain street improvements were constructed under
the provisions of the Improvement Act of 1911; and
WHEREAS, it may be necessary for the City to perform routine
maintenance of the improvements constructed within Maintenance
District 86-4; and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of Section 5830of the Streets
and Highways Code it is the responsibility of the Council to
estimate the cost of maintenance in the district during the ensuing
year and to fix a special tax rate for the real property within
said maintenance district to raise an amount of money to cover the
expense of maintaining said improvements:
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE Council of the
City of Atascadero as follows:
Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct.
Section 2 . Based on an estimate of the Public "Works Director,
the Council sets a special tax rate of Twenty Dollars ($20. 00) per
parcel as identified in the assessment diagram for Maintenance
District 86-4, said special tax to cover the expense of maintaining
the road and drainage improvements within said district during the
ensuing year.
Section 3 . The adoption of this resolution constitutes a levy
of the assessment for the fiscal year commencing the 1st day of
July, 1996, and ending the 30th day of June, 1997 .
Section 4 . The works of improvement and maintenance performed
within Maintenance District 86-4 shall be per formed pursuant to law
and the County Auditor shall enter on the County Assessment Roll,
the amount of the assessment, and said assessment shall then be
collected at he same time and in the same manner, as the County
taxes are collected. After collection by said County, the net
amount of the assessment shall be paid to the City Treasurer of the
City.
Section 5. The City Treasurer shall place all monies
collected by the Tax Collector into the special fund known as "City
of Atascadero Maintenance District 86-4 Cayucos Avenue" pursuant
0000; 3
i
i
to the provisions of this resolution and law, and said transfer
shall be made and accomplished as soon as said monies have been
made available to the City Treasurer.
Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to
file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor
upon its adoption.
Section 7. The City Clerk is hereby further ordered and
directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the
County Tax Collector upon its adoption.
Section 8. Any parcels or lots of land known as public
property, as the same is defined in Section 22663 of Division 15,
Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code, which are included within
the boundaries of the District shall be omitted and exempt from any
assessment made under these proceedings.
On motion by Councilmember and seconded
by Councilmember , the foregoing Resolution is hereby
adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES•
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO
LEE PRICE, City Clerk GEORGE P. HIGHLAND, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney
00005(1
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR ROLL YEAR 1996 '97
FUND: 1084 - ATAS CAYUCOS M/D
ASSESSMENT NO. ASSESSMENT'' AMOUNT
029,212, 011 20. 00
029, 212,013 20.001
029,212,023 20.00!
029,261, 007 20. 00'
029, 261,014 20.00`,
029, 261, 019 20. 00.
029, 212 ,012 20. 00
029, 212, 015 20.00+
029, 261,001 20. 06
029, 261, 012 20. 00'
029, 261,017 20.00'
0000bS
RESOLUTION NO. 49-96
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
ESTABLISHING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF
CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 (STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION
5830) FOR MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 86-1 FALDA AVENUE
WHEREAS, The Council has previously approved the formation of
Maintenance District 86-1; and
WHEREAS, certain street improvements were constructed under
the provisions of the Improvement Act of 1911; and
WHEREAS, it may be necessary for the City to perform routine
maintenance of the improvements constructed within Maintenance
District 86-1; and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of Section 5830 of the Streets
and Highways Code it is the responsibility of the Council to
estimate the cost of maintenance in the district during the ensuing
year and to fix a special tax rate for the real property within
said maintenance district to raise an amount of money to cover the
expense of maintaining said improvements:
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE Council of the
City of Atascadero as follows:
Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct.
Section 2 . Based on an estimate of the Public Works Director,
the Council sets a special tax rate of Twenty Dollars ($20.00) per
parcel as identified in the assessment diagram for Maintenance
District 86-1, said special tax to cover the expense of maintaining
the road and drainage improvements within said district during the
ensuing year.
Section 3 . The adoption of this resolution constitutes a levy
of the assessment for the fiscal year commencing the lst day of
July, 1996 and ending the 30th day of June, 1997.
Section 4 . The works of improvement and maintenance performed
within Maintenance District 86-1 shall be performed pursuant to law
and the County Auditor shall enter on the County Assessment Roll,
the amount of the assessment, and said assessment shall then be
collected at he same time and in the same manner as the County
taxes are collected. After collection by said County, the net
amount of the assessment shall be paid to the City Treasurer of the
City.
000056
Section 5. The City Treasurer shall place all monies
collected by the Tax Collector into the special fund known as "City
of Atascadero Maintenance District 86-1 Falda Avenue" pursuant to
the provisions of this resolution and law, and said transfer shall
be made and accomplished as soon as said monies have been made
available to the City Treasurer.
Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to
file a certified copy of this resolution with the'''' County Auditor
upon its adoption.
Section 7. The City Clerk is hereby further ordered and
directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the
County Tax Collector upon its adoption.
Section 8. Any parcels or lots of land known as public
property, as the same is defined in Section 22663 of Division 151
Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code, which are ;included within
the boundaries of the District shall be omitted and exempt from any
assessment made under these proceedings.
On motion by Councilmember and seconded
by Councilmember , the foregoing Resolution is hereby
adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO
LEE PRICE, City Clerk GEORGE P. HIGHLAND, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney
000057
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR ROLL YEAR 1996/97
FUND: 1805 - ATAS FALDA RD M/D
ASSESSMENT NO. ASSESSMENT AMOUNT
049, 301, 004 20. 00
049, 301, 007 20. 00
049, 301, 008 20. 00
049, 301, 017 20. 00
049, 301, 020 20.00
049, 301, 021 20.00
049 , 302 , 001 20.00
049, 302 , 006 20. 00
049 , 302 , 007 20. 00
049, 302 , 010 20. 00
049, 302,034 20.00
049, 302 , 035 20.00
00008
RESOLUTION NO. 50-96
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF: ATASCADERO
ESTABLISHING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF
CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 (STREETS AND HIGHWAYS BODE SECTION
5830) FOR MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 83-1 LOBOS'' AVENUE
WHEREAS, The Council has previously approved the formation of
Maintenance District 83-1; and
WHEREAS, certain street improvements were constructed under
the provisions of the Improvement Act of 1911; and
WHEREAS, it may be necessary for the City toperform routine
maintenance of the improvements constructed within Maintenance
District 83-1; and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of Section 58301 of the Streets
and Highways Code it is the responsibility of the Council to
estimate the cost of maintenance in the district duting the ensuing
year and to fix a special tax rate for the real property within
said maintenance district to raise an amount of money to cover the
expense of maintaining said improvements:
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE Council of the
City of Atascadero as follows:
Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct.
Section 2 . Based on an estimate of the Public ;Works Director,
the Council sets a special tax rate of Twenty Dollars ($20. 00) per
parcel as identified in the assessment diagram for Maintenance
District 83-1, said special tax to cover the expense of maintaining
the road and drainage improvements within said district during the
ensuing year.
Section 3 . The adoption of this resolution constitutes a levy
of the assessment for the fiscal year commencing „the lst day of
July, 1996, and ending the 30th day of June, 1997 .'
Section 4 . The works of improvement and maintenance performed
within Maintenance District 83-1 shall be per formed,pursuant to law
and the County Auditor shall enter on the County Ajssessment Roll,
the amount of the assessment, and said assessment shall then be
collected at he same time and in the same manner, as the County
taxes are collected. After collection by said County, the net
amount of the assessment shall be paid to the City Treasurer of the
City.
•
000059
I
Section 5. The City Treasurer shall place all monies
collected by the Tax Collector into the special fund known as "City
of Atascadero Maintenance District 83-1 Lobos Avenue" pursuant to
the provisions of this resolution and law, and said transfer shall
be made and accomplished as soon as said monies have been made
available to the City Treasurer.
Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to
file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor
upon its adoption.
Section 7. The City Clerk is hereby further ordered and
directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the
County Tax Collector upon its adoption.
Section 8. Any parcels or lots of land known as public
property, as the same is defined in Section 22663 of Division 15,
Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code, which are included within
the boundaries of the District shall be omitted and exempt from any
assessment made under these proceedings.
On motion by Councilmember and seconded
by Councilmember , the foregoing Resolution is hereby
adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO
LEE PRICE, City Clerk GEORGE P. HIGHLAND, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney
0
000060
i
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR ROLL YEAR 1996/97
FUND: 1704 - ATAS LOBOS LN M/D
ASSESSMENT NO. ASSESSMENT� AMOUNT
029,222,018 20.00'
029,222, 019 20. 00
029,222,020 20.00
029,222, 021 20.00'
029,222, 026 20. 00;
029,222, 037 20.00'''
029,231, 001 20. 00
029, 231, 013 20. 00'
029,231, 015 20.00',
029,231,016 20.00'
029,272, 013 20. 00''
029, 272 , 016 20.00''
029, 272, 023 20. 00'
029,272 , 024 20. 00"
RESOLUTION NO. 51-96
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
ESTABLISHING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF
CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 (STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION
5830) FOR MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 83-3 MALEZA AVENUE
WHEREAS, The Council has previously approved the formation of
Maintenance District 83-3; and
WHEREAS, certain street improvements were constructed under
the provisions of the Improvement Act of 1911; and
WHEREAS, it may be necessary for the City to perform routine
maintenance of the improvements constructed within Maintenance
District 83-3; and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of Section 5830 of the Streets
and Highways Code it is the responsibility of the Council to
estimate the cost of maintenance in the district during the ensuing
year and to fix a special tax rate for the real property within
said maintenance district to raise an amount of money to cover the
expense of maintaining said improvements:
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE Council of the
City of Atascadero as follows:
Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct.
Section 2 . Based on an estimate of the Public Works Director,
the Council sets a special tax rate of Twenty Dollars ($20. 00) per
parcel as identified in the assessment diagram for Maintenance
District 83-3, said special tax to cover the expense of maintaining
the road and drainage improvements within said district during the
ensuing year.
Section 3 . The adoption of this resolution constitutes a levy
of the assessment for the fiscal year commencing the lst day of
July, 1996, and ending the 30th day of June, 1997 .
Section 4 . The works of improvement and maintenance performed
within Maintenance District 83-3 shall be performed pursuant to law
and the County Auditor shall enter on the County Assessment Roll,
the amount of the assessment, and said assessment shall then be
collected at he same time and in the same manner as the County
taxes are collected. After collection by said County, the net
amount of the assessment shall be paid to the City Treasurer of the
City.
000062
Section 5. The City Treasurer shall place all monies
collected by the Tax Collector into the special fund known as "City
of Atascadero Maintenance District 83-3 Maleza Avenue" pursuant to
the provisions of this resolution and law, and said transfer shall
be made and accomplished as soon as said monies have been made
available to the City Treasurer.
Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to
file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor
upon its adoption.
Section 7. The City Clerk is hereby further ordered and
directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the
County Tax Collector upon its adoption.
Section 8 . Any parcels or lots of land known as public
property, as the same is defined in Section 22663 of Division 15,
Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code, which are included within
the boundaries of the District shall be omitted and exempt from any
assessment made under these proceedings.
On motion by Councilmember and seconded
by Councilmember , the foregoing Resolution is hereby
adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST: CITY OF ATAISCADERO
LEE PRICE, City Clerk GEORGE P. HIGHLAND, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney
000063
l
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR ROLL YEAR 1996/97
FUND: 1790 - ATAS MALEZA M/D
ASSESSMENT NO. ASSESSMENT AMOUNT
029, 121, 005 20. 00
029, 121, 006 20. 00
029, 121, 007 20. 00
029, 121, 019 20.00
029, 121,020 20. 00
029, 131, 002 20.00
029, 131, 023 20.00
029, 131, 025 20. 00
029, 131, 026 20. 00
000064
RESOLUTION NO. 52-96
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF !'ATASCADERO
ESTABLISHING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF
CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 (STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION
5830) FOR MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 86-2 FINAL-ESCARPA AVENUES
WHEREAS, The Council has previously approved the formation of
Maintenance District 86-2 ; and
WHEREAS, certain street improvements were constructed under
the provisions of the Improvement Act of 1911; and
WHEREAS, it may be necessary for the City to perform routine
maintenance of the improvements constructed within Maintenance
District 86-2 ; and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of Section 5830iof the Streets
and Highways Code it is the responsibility of the Council to
estimate the cost of maintenance in the district during the ensuing
year and to fix a special tax rate for the real property within
said maintenance district to raise an amount of money to cover the
expense of maintaining said improvements:
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE Council of the
City of Atascadero as follows:
Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct.
Section 2 . Based on an estimate of the Public Works Director,
the Council sets a special tax rate of Twenty Dollars ($20. 00) per
parcel as identified in the assessment diagram for Maintenance
District 86-2 , said special tax to cover the expense of maintaining
the road and drainage improvements within said district during the
ensuing year.
Section 3 . The adoption of this resolution constitutes a levy
of the assessment for the fiscal year commencing y,,the 1st day of
July, 1996, and ending the 30th day of June, 1997. '
Section 4 . The works of improvement and maintenance performed
within Maintenance District 86-2 shall be performed jpursuant to law
and the County Auditor shall enter on the County Assessment Roll,
the amount of the assessment, and said assessment shall then be
collected at he same time and in the same manner as the County
taxes are collected. After collection by said County, the net
amount of the assessment shall be paid to the City Treasurer of the
City.
000065
Section 5. The City Treasurer shall place all monies
collected by the Tax Collector into the special fund known as "City
of Atascadero Maintenance District 86-2 Pinal-Escarpa Avenues"
pursuant to the provisions of this resolution and law, and said
transfer shall be made and accomplished as soon as said monies have
been made available to the City Treasurer.
Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to
file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor
upon its adoption.
Section 7. The City Clerk is hereby further ordered and
directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the
County Tax Collector upon its adoption.
Section 8. Any parcels or lots of land known as public
property, as the same is defined in Section 22663 of Division 15,
Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code, which are included within
the boundaries of the District shall be omitted and exempt from any
assessment made under these proceedings.
On motion by Councilmember and seconded
by Councilmember , the foregoing Resolution is hereby
adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO
LEE PRICE, City Clerk GEORGE P. HIGHLAND, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney
000066
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR ROLL YEAR 1996#97
FUND: 1083 - ATAS PINAL/ESCARPA
ASSESSMENT NO. ASSESSMENT� AMOUNT
029, 111,002 20.00;
029, 111,003 20.00'
029, 111,004 20.00
029, 111,005 20. 00'
029, 111,006 20. 00"
029, 111, 007 20.00
029, 111,008 20. 00!
000067
!
RESOLUTION NO. 53-96
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
ESTABLISHING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF
CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 (STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION
5830) FOR MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 84-1 SAN FERNANDO ROAD
WHEREAS, The Council has previously approved the formation of
Maintenance District 84-1; and
WHEREAS, certain street improvements were constructed under
the provisions of the Improvement Act of 1911; and
WHEREAS, it may be necessary for the City to perform routine
maintenance of the improvements constructed within Maintenance
District 84-1; and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of Section 5830 of the Streets
and Highways Code it is the responsibility of the Council to
estimate the cost of maintenance in the district during the ensuing
year and to fix a special tax rate for the real property within
said maintenance district to raise an amount of money to cover the
expense of maintaining said improvements:
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE Council of the
City of Atascadero as follows:
Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct.
Section 2 . Based on an estimate of the Public Works Director,
the Council sets a special tax rate of Twenty Dollars ($20. 00) per
parcel as identified in the assessment diagram for Maintenance
District 84-1, said special tax to cover the expense of maintaining
the road and drainage improvements within said district during the
ensuing year.
Section 3 . The adoption of this resolution constitutes a levy
of the assessment for the fiscal year commencing the lst day of
July, 1996, and ending the 30th day of June, 1997 .
Section 4 . The works of improvement and maintenance performed
within Maintenance District 84-1 shall be performed pursuant to law
and the County Auditor shall enter on the County Assessment Roll,
the amount of the assessment, and said assessment shall then be
collected at he same time and in the same manner as the County
taxes are collected. After collection by said County, the net
amount of the assessment shall be paid to the City Treasurer of the
City.
000068
Section 5. The City Treasurer shall place all monies
collected by the Tax Collector into the special fund known as "City
of Atascadero Maintenance District 84-1 San Fernando Road" pursuant
to the provisions of this resolution and law, and said transfer
shall be made and accomplished as soon as said monies have been
made available to the City Treasurer.
Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to
file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor
upon its adoption.
Section 7. The City Clerk is hereby further ordered and
directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the
County Tax Collector upon its adoption.
Section 8. Any parcels or lots of land known as public
property, as the same is defined in Section 22663 of Division 15,
Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code, which are ;included within
the boundaries of the District shall be omitted and exempt from any
assessment made under these proceedings.
On motion by Councilmember and seconded
by Councilmember , the foregoing Resolution is hereby
adopted in its entirety on the following roll call' vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST: CITY OF ATA$CADERO
LEE PRICE, City Clerk GEORGE P. HIGHLAND, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney
0000(;9
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR ROLL YEAR 1996/97
FUND: 1791 - AT
AS AS SAN FERNANDO
ASSESSMENT NO. ASSESSMENT AMOUNT
049, 241, 008 20. 00
049, 241, 012 20. 00
049, 241, 030 20. 00
049, 241, 031 20. 00
049,241, 039 20.00
049, 241, 040 20.00
049, 251, 036 20.00
049, 251, 037 20. 00
049,251, 038 20. 00
049, 271, 016 20. 00
049, 271, 017 20. 00
049, 271, 020 20. 00
049, 271, 021 20. 00
049, 271, 022 20. 00
049, 281, 001 20. 00
049, 281, 002 20. 00
049, 281, 003 20. 00
049, 281, 004 20. 00
049, 281,005 20. 00
049, 281, 007 20. 00
049, 281,008 20. 00
049, 281, 009 20. 00
049, 281, 010 20. 00
049,281, 011 20. 00
0000'70
ASSESSMENT NO. ASSESSMENT AMOUNT
049, 281, 012 20.00
050, 051, 001 20.00
050, 051, 022 20. 00
050, 051, 023 20.00
050, 051, 024 20. 00
0000"71
i
RESOLUTION NO. 54-96
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
ESTABLISHING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF
CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 (STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION
5830) FOR MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 83-2 SONORA/PINAL AVENUES
WHEREAS, The Council has previously approved the formation of
Maintenance District 83-2; and
WHEREAS, certain street improvements were constructed under
the provisions of the Improvement Act of 1911; and
WHEREAS, it may be necessary for the City to perform routine
maintenance of the improvements constructed within Maintenance
District 83-2 ; and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of Section 5830 of the Streets
and Highways Code it is the responsibility of the Council to
estimate the cost of maintenance in the district during the ensuing
year and to fix a special tax rate for the real property within
said maintenance district to raise an amount of money to cover the
expense of maintaining said improvements:
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE Council of the
City of Atascadero as follows:
Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct.
Section 2 . Based on an estimate of the Public Works Director,
the Council sets a special tax rate of Twenty Dollars ($20. 00) per
parcel as identified in the assessment diagram for Maintenance
District 83-2 , said special tax to cover the expense of maintaining
the road and drainage improvements within said district during the
ensuing year.
Section 3 . The adoption of this resolution constitutes a levy
of the assessment for the fiscal year commencing the 1st day of
July, 1996, and ending the 30th day of June, 1997 .
Section 4 . The works of improvement and maintenance performed
within Maintenance District 83-2 shall be performed pursuant to law
and the County Auditor shall enter on the County Assessment Roll,
the amount of the assessment, and said assessment shall then be
collected at he same time and in the same manner as the County
taxes are collected. After collection by said County, the net
amount of the assessment shall be paid to the City Treasurer of the
City.
0000'72
Section 5. The City Treasurer shall place all monies
collected by the Tax Collector into the special fund known as "City
of Atascadero Maintenance District 83-2 Sonora/'Pinal Avenues"
pursuant to the provisions of this resolution and' law, and said
transfer shall be made and accomplished as soon as said monies have
been made available to the City Treasurer.
Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to
file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor
upon its adoption.
Section 7. The City Clerk is hereby further ordered and
directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the
County Tax Collector upon its adoption.
Section 8. Any parcels or lots of land known as public
property, as the same is defined in Section 22663 of Division 15,
Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code, which are included within
the boundaries of the District shall be omitted and exempt from any
assessment made under these proceedings.
On motion by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember , the foregoing Resolution is, hereby adopted
in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES: '
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO
LEE PRICE, City Clerk GEORGE P. HIGHLAND, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney
0000,73
_ _ s
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR ROLL YEAR 1996/97
FUND: 1705 - ATAS SONORA/PINAL
ASSESSMENT NO. ASSESSMENT AMOUNT
029, 121, 001 20. 00
029, 121, 002 20. 00
029, 121, 003 20. 00
029, 161, 009 20.00
029, 171, 001 20. 00
029, 171,002 20.00
029, 171, 003 20. 00
029, 171, 021 20. 00
029 , 181, 002 20. 00
029, 181, 005 20. 00
029, 181, 006 20. 00
029, 181, 016 20. 00
029 , 181, 040 20.00
029 , 181,041 20. 00
029 , 181, 045 20. 00
029, 181, 046 20. 00
029, 181, 051 20. 00
029 , 181, 052 20. 00
0000,74
i
a
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MeetingjDate: 7-9-96
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-10 (A-E)
i
Through: Andrew Takata, City Manager
Via: Brady Cherry, Director of Community Sorvices
From: Valerie Humphrey, Staff Assistant
SUBJECT•
Assessment District #3 - Marchant Way
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolutiot No. 55-96 for
the placement of the annual assessment charge for District 3 on the
property taxes for Fiscal Year 1996-97
BACKGROUND•
Assessment District No. 3 was formed in 1486 to provide
sanitary sewer service to a Cease and Desist Area %located at the
southwest end of Atascadero Lake along Marchant Way.
After construction each parcel was assessed $41150 for the cost
of the sewer service extension. At that time residents were given
the option to pay the assessment up front or to mate payments for
a period of 15 years at 6% interest. This charge is the ninth
installment on that assessment.
FISCAL IMPACT•
This District was funded by using the remaining FmHA monies
left over after completion of the new Wastewater Treatment Plant.
These annual assessments go toward repayment of that loan.
Attachment:
Resolution No. 55-96 w/attachment
4
0000'75
RESOLUTION NO. 55-96
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO PLACING THE ANNUAL PAYMENT FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
NO. 3 (MARCHANT WAY) ON THE PROPERTY TAXES FOR
THE 1996-97 FISCAL YEAR
WHEREAS, Improvement District No. 3 was formed by Resolution
3-86 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Board on January
13 , 1986; and
WHEREAS, Improvement District No. 3 was annexed into the
Atascadero County Sanitation District by Resolution 4-86 of the
Board on January 13 , 1986; and
WHEREAS, the Atascadero County Sanitation District has
subsequently been dissolved; and
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has absorbed the former
District into the Wastewater Division of the Department of Public
Works, giving the City Council all of the powers and fiscal
responsibilities of the former District.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Atascadero as follows:
Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct.
Section 2 . The adoption of this resolution authorizes the
collection of the assessment for the fiscal year commencing on the
lst day of July 1996 and ending on the . 30th days of June, 1997,
said assessments as listed on attached Exhibit A.
Section 3 . The assessment has been determined to be $4150. 00
per parcel to be paid at an interest rate of 6% per year for a term
of 15 years, said yearly assessment to be $428. 00.
Section 4 . The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to
file a certified copy of the diagram and assessment roll with the
County Auditor, together with a certified copy of this Resolution
upon its adoption.
Section 5. The City Clerk is hereby further ordered and
directed to file a certified copy of the assessment roll with the
County Tax Collector, together with a certified copy of this
Resolution upon its adoption.
On motion by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember , the foregoing resolution is adopted
in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
000076
Resolution No. 55-96
page two
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE:
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASC;ADERO
LEE PRICE, City Clerk GEORGE P. HIGHLAND, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER MONTANDON
City Attorney
000077
_l
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR ROLL YEAR 1996/97
FUND: 1835 - ATAS MARCHANT A/D
ASSESSMENT NO. ASSESSMENT AMOUNT
031, 381, 007 428.00
031, 381, 009 428. 00
031, 381, 010 428. 00
031, 381,020 428. 00
031, 381, 032 428. 00
031, 381, 036 428.00
031, 381, 051 428. 00
031, 381, 052 428 . 00
031, 381,053 428. 00
031, 381, 055 428. 00
031,381, 059 428.00
031, 381, 061 428.00
031, 381, 062 428 . 00
031, 381, 063 428. 00
000078
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 7-9-96
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item:
Through: Andrew J. Takata, City Manager
Via: Brady Cherry, Director of Community Services
From: Valerie Humphrey, Staff Assistant
SUBJECT•
Assessment District No. 8 - San Gabriel Road
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution No. 56-96 for
the placement of the annual assessment charge for District 8 on the
property taxes for Fiscal Year 1996-97.
BACKGROUND•
Assessment District No. 8 is unique in that the sewer line was
installed by the Atascadero Unified School District for the new San
Gabriel Road School. Upon completion of the line a Reimbursement
Agreement was executed establishing a charge for all of the
properties fronting on the line.
While City ordinance requires all properties fronting a sewer
line to connect, the area along San Gabriel Road 'is outside the
Urban Services Line and are therefore prohibited from such
connection. To complicate matters, there are six properties on San
Gabriel Road which are part of Cease and Desist Order No. 81-60
requiring connection to the new sewer line. To enable compliance
with the Order a General Plan Amendment was adopted which allows
for the connection of Cease and Desist properties even when outside
the USL.
In accordance with Ordinance #246 the property owners were
given the option of paying all fees up front or having the fees
prorated for a 15 year period at 10% interest, payment to be made
through the property taxes. The fees include the reimbursement
amount, Annexation Fee and permit cost for a total of $5,830. 00
While five of the six property owners chose to pay the total cost
up front, one has chosen to have the charges added to the property
taxes.
0000'70
FISCAL IMPACT•
The Reimbursement Agreement with the AUSD states that the
reimbursement amount will be paid upon connection of the property
and does not allow for prorated payments. Therefore, the City has
paid the full amount to the AUSD and these charges are a repayment
to the City.
Attachment: Resolution No. 56-96
000050
i
i
RESOLUTION NO. 56-96
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
PLACING THE ANNUAL PAYMENT FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
NO.8 (SAN GABRIEL) ON THE PROPERTY TAXES
FOR' FISCAL YEAR 1996-97
WHEREAS, the Regional Water Quality Control Board issued
Cease and Desist Order No. 81-60 which included the area
specified as Assessment District No. 8; and
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Unified School District (AUSD)
constructed a public sewer line on San Gabriel Road providing
access to this area; and
WHEREAS, the AUSD entered into a Reimbursement Agreement
with the City providing for the collection of monies from
properties connecting to this sewer line; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 246 allows for the repayment of such
fees over a 15 year period at an interest rate of 10%
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council. of the City of
Atascadero as follows:
Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct
Section 2 . The adoption of this resolution authorizes the
collection of the assessment for the fiscal year commencing on
the 1st day of July 1996 and ending on the 30th day of June,
1997 , said assessments as listed on attached Exhibit A.
Section 3 . The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to
file a certified copy of the assessment roll with the County Tax
Collector, together with a certified copy of this Resolution upon
its adoption.
On motion by Councilmember and
seconded by Councilmember the foregoing
resolution is adopted in its entirety on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
000081
Resolution No. 56-96
page two
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO
LEE PRICE, City Clerk GEORGE P. HIGHLAND, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER R. MONTANDON
City Attorney
000082
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 7-9-96
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item:
Through: Andrew J. Takata, City Manager
Via: Brady Cherry, Director of Community Services
From: Valerie Humphrey, Staff Assistant
SUBJECT•
Assessment District #10 - Santa Rosa Road (portion C & D Area
F)
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution No. 60-96 for
the placement of the annual assessment charge for District 10 on
the property taxes for Fiscal Year 1996/97.
BACKGROUND•
Assessment District No. 10 was formed earlier this year to
provide sewer service to a small number of lots that were
originally included in Assessment District No. 3 (Marchant Way) but
for which no physical access to the sewer main was provided.
Repeated attempts to obtain an easement to serve these parcels were
unsuccessful and it was determined that a new sewer line in Santa
Rosa could serve these parcels and some parcels not currently in a
Cease and Desist Area.
After construction of the line, each parcel was assessed
$7 , 656. 01 for the cost of the extension, and all property owners
have chosen to have these costs paid through assessment.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This District was funded through the Wastewater Facilities
account and all assessment payments received will be returned to
that fund.
Attachment:
Resolution No. 60-96
0000811
RESOLUTION NO. 60-96
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
PLACING THE ANNUAL PAYMENT FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
NO. 10 (SANTA ROSA - AREA F) ON THE PROPERTY TAXES
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996-97
WHEREAS, the Regional Water Quality Control Board issued
Cease and Desist Order No. 81-60 which included a portion of the
area specified as Assessment District No. 10; and
WHEREAS, on June 8, 1992 the Regional Water Quality Control
Board issued Cease and Desist Order No. 92-68 reconfirming their
requirements that the remaining areas be provided with sewer
service by specific deadlines; and
WHEREAS, those properties included in this Assessment
District which are not in a designated Cease and Desist Area are
included in this district due to the fact that sewer service has
been provided to these property thorough sewer main extension;
and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 12-96 allows for the repayment of
funds expended for the construction of these improvements at 5%
interest over a period of 15 years.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Atascadero as follows:
Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct
Section 2 . The adoption of this resolution authorizes the
collection of the assessment for the fiscal year commencing on
the 1st day of July 1996 and ending on the 30th day of June,
1997, said assessments as listed on attached Exhibit A.
Section 3 . The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to
file a certified copy of the assessment roll with the County Tax
Collector, together with a certified copy of this Resolution upon
its adoption.
On motion by Councilmember and
seconded by Councilmember the foregoing
resolution is adopted in its entirety on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
000085
Resolution No. 60-96
page two
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO
LEE PRICE, City Clerk GEORGE P. HIGHLAND, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER R. MONTANDON
City Attorney
0
i
000086
A
EXHIBIT A
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT - DISTRICT NO. 10 `
054-151-043 $ 726. 42
054-151-041 $ 726. 42
054-151-049 $ 726. 42
054-151-047 $ 726. 42
054-151-048 $ 726. 42
000087
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 7-9-96
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item:
Through: Andrew J. Takata, City Manager
Via: Brady Cherry, Director of Community Services
From: Valerie Humphrey, Staff Assistants#1
SUBJECT:
Assessment District #9 - San Gabriel Road
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution No. 61-96 for
the placement of the annual assessment charge for District #9 on
the property taxes for Fiscal Year 1996-97.
BACKGROUND:
Assessment District No. 9 was formed this year to provide
sanitary sewer service to a Cease and Desist Area on San Gabriel
Road.
After construction each parcel was assessed $9, 720.03 for the
cost of the sewer service extension. At that time residents were
given the option to pay the assessment up front or to make payments
for a period of 15 years at 5% interest.
FISCAL IMPACT•
This District was funded by monies borrowed from the
Wastewater Facilities Account. Funds received from these annual
assessments will go towards repayment of that loan.
Attachment:
Resolution No. 61-96
000088
RESOLUTION NO. 61-96
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
PLACING THE ANNUAL PAYMENT FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
NO. 9 (SAN GABRIEL ROAD) ON THE PROPERTY TAXES FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1996-97
WHEREAS, Assessment District No. 9 was formedi by Resolution
No. 11-96 on February 13, 1996; and
WHEREAS, funds expended for the improvement from the
Wastewater Facilities Account must be repaid through the levying of
assessments against all benefitting property owners.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council', of the City of
Atascadero, as follows:
Section 1. The Foregoing recitals are true and correct and
this Council so finds and determines.
Section 2 . The adoption of this resolutionauthorizes the
collection of the assessment for the fiscal year commencing on the
1st day of July 1996 and ending on the 30th day of June, 1997, said
assessments as listed on attached Exhibit A.
Section 3 . The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to
file a certified copy of the assessment roll with the County
Auditor, together with a certified copy of this Resolution upon its
adoption.
Section 4 . The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to
file a certified copy of the assessment roll with, the County Tax
Collector, together with a certified copy of this ;Resolution upon
its adoption.
On motion by Councilperson and seconded
by Councilperson the foregoing resolution is
hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
DATE:
000089
FIS! 13.01 P. 03
Assessment district 9
ASN 1996!97 Levy Amt
054143008 $1,150.00
054142016 1150.00
054142015 1150.00
054142017 1150.00
054142018 1150.00
054142008 1150.00
054142031 1150.00
054142032 1150.00
054142026 1150.00
054142021 1150.00
054142006 1150.00
054142028 1150.00
054142027 1150.00
054142013 1150.00
054142004 1150.00
054142003 1150.00
054212027 1150.00
054212028 1150.00
054212023 1150.00
054212024 1150.00
054212013 1150.00
054212014 1150.00
054212029 1150.00
054212030 1150.00
054212026 1150.00
054212025 1150.00
054212018 1150.00
054212020 1150.00
054212018 1150.00
054221012 1150.00
054221010 1160.00
054221011 1150.00
05-4221008 1150.00
Totals 33 $371950.00 '
000091
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 7-9-96
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item:
Through: Andrew J. Takata, City Manager
Via: Brady Cherry, Director of Community Services
From: Valerie Humphrey, Staff Assistan
SUBJECT•
Assessment District #7 - Santa Rosa Road
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution No. 62-96 for
the placement of the annual assessment charge for District #7 on
the property taxes for Fiscal Year 1996-97 .
BACKGROUND:
Assessment District No. 7 was formed in 1994 to provide
sanitary sewer service to a Cease and Desist Area on Santa Rosa
Road, Mountain View and Lakeview Drives.
After construction each parcel was assessed $8,434. 37 for the
cost of the sewer service extension. At that time residents were
given the option to pay the assessment up front or to make payments
for a period of 15 years at 5% interest. During the pre-payment
period six residents chose to pay the assessment in full and one
resident paid $7, 000 of the total. This charge is the third
installment on that assessment.
FISCAL IMPACT•
This District was funded by monies borrowed from the
Wastewater Facilities Account. Funds received from these annual
assessments will go towards repayment of that loan.
Attachment:
Resolution No. 62-96
0
000092
RESOLUTION NO. 62-96
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
PLACING THE ANNUAL PAYMENT FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
NO. 7 (SANTA ROSA ROAD) ON THE PROPERTY TAKES FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1996-97
WHEREAS, Assessment District No. 7 was formed by Resolution
No. 132-93 on March 8, 1994; and
WHEREAS, funds expended for the improvement from the
Wastewater Facilities Account must be repaid through the levying of
assessments against all benefitting property owners.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council!, of the City of
Atascadero, as follows:
Section 1. The Foregoing recitals are true and correct and
this Council so finds and determines.
Section 2. The adoption of this resolution authorizes the
collection of the assessment for the fiscal year commencing on the
1st day of July 1996 and ending on the 30th day of June, 1997 , said
assessments as listed on attached Exhibit A.
Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to
file a certified copy of the assessment roll with the County
Auditor, together with a certified copy of this Resolution upon its
adoption.
Section 4. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to
file a certified copy of the assessment roll with the County Tax
Collector, together with a certified copy of this Resolution upon
its adoption.
On motion by Councilperson and seconded
by Councilperson the foregoing resolution is
hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roil call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
DATE:
000093
Resolution No: 62-96 '
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO
LEE PRICE, City Clerk GEORGE P. HIGHLAND, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney
000094
,,Lj1 Lij-yrs rKI is:ui P. 02
f
Assessment District 7
AFN19J6i97 GVy A
056322023 $2,453.76
055322016 145.08
066322018 828.00
056322107 828.60
056322019 828.60
056322020 828.60
056322021 828.60
056322011 828.60
056322010 828.60
056322027 828.60
056322026 828.60
056322006 828.60
050322032 828.60
056321006 825.60
056321021 828.60
066321020 828.60
056321010 828.60
056261051 828.60
056261058 $28.60
056261062 828.60
056261055 828.60
056261054 828.60
056261004 M.00
056351004 828.60
Totals 24 $20.828.04
00009)
I
i
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-1 {
Through: Steve DeCamp, Meeting DateA July 9, 1996
City Planner
From:- Doug Davidson, Senior Planner File No: TPM 95001
c
SUBJECT:
An appeal of the Planning Commission action of June 118, 1996 and
consideration of the recommended Findings and Conditions of
Approval for Tentative Parcel Map 95001 .
RECObMNDATION:
Per the City Council action of May 14, 1996, staff tecommends
approval of Tentative Parcel Map 95001 based on the Findings and
Conditions of Approval contained in the attached June 18, 1996
report to the Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND:
On May 14, 1996, the City Council held a hearing onjan appeal of
the Planning Commission' s March 5, 1996 decision to '.recommend
denial of the subject Tentative Parcel Map. After a motion
failed to deny the appeal, the Council referred thematter back
to the Planning Commission to review and clarify the conditions
from the Fire Department and other appropriate mitigation
measures. A preliminary set of Fire Department conditions was
discussed at that Council meeting. They were presented in the
form of a direct correspondence from the Fire Department to the
applicant. Subsequently, Planning staff routed theproposed
parcel map and supporting information to the Fire Department for
their final recommended conditions — these are contained in
Conditions #1-5. Staff has also since suggested a minor revision
to Condition #30. Basically, the condition has been reworded to
require the driveway improvements be completed prior to recording
of the parcel map, as opposed to in conjunction with construction
of the first residence.
A Negative Declaration, Findings for Approval, and Conditions of
Approval were presented to the Planning Commission on June 18,
1996. After discussion of the matter, a motion to gertify the
Negative Declaration deadlocked on a 3 : 3 vote. TheCouncil had
expressly included in their May 14t'' action, that upon the event
of denial or no action by the Planning Commission, the item would
proceed directly to the Council on appeal without cdllecting the
usual appeal fee.
ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Minutes June 18, 1996
Staff reports June 18, 1996 and May 14, 1996
00009G
MINUTES EXCERPTS. - JUNE 181. 1991
Planning Commission Meeting, June 18, 1996
B. 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #95001:
Reconsider the application of Roberta Lindsay (Wilson
Surveys) for the division of two lots of 7 .50 and 10.42
acres into three (3) parcels of 5.96, 5.96, and 5 . 60 acres
for single family residential use. Subject site is located
at 11750 San Marcos Road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (Davidson)
Per the City Council action of May 14, 1996, staff recommends the
following:
1. That the Negative Declaration prepared for the project be
found adequate under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act; and
2 . Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 195001 based on Findings in
Attachment C and the Conditions of Approval in Attachment D.
TESTIMONY: None.
ACTION: Find that the Negative Declaration prepared for the project
be found adequate under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Motion: Bowen
Second: Edwards
AYES: Bowen, Edwards, Wallace
NOES: Hageman, Johnson, Zimmerman
ABSENT: None
NO ACTION: 3 .3
B. 3 . ATIVE PARCEL MAP 6 l:
Consi the application of David Grummi o brecht
Surveys ) for division of a 0.55 parcel into three
(3 ) lots of 10,500 f , , 850 square feet, and 6, 850
square feet each osed action would restore the
three C ots that were ed into one in 1983.
ct site is located at 4055 E1 C Real .
(Page 6 of 12 )
000097
i
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 18, 1996
TO: Planning Commission
FROM:Vo-'A Doug Davidson, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 95001 (Lindsay/Wilson)
RECOMMENDATION:
Per the City Council action of May 14, 1996, staff recommends the
following:
1. That the Negative Declaration prepared for the project be
found adequate under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act; and
2 . Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 95001 based on Findings in
Attachment C and the Conditions of Approval in Attachment D.
BACKGROUND:
On March 5, 1996, at a continued hearing, the Planning Commission
voted to deny the above-referenced parcel map. The Commission
agreed with the staff recommendation that the terrain of the site
was not suitable for creation of another building site. The
applicant appealed this decision to the City Council on March 13,
1996. On May 14, 1996, the City Council held a public hearing on
the appeal. After review and discussion, including public comment,
a motion to deny the appeal failed on a 2:3 vote. The majority of
the Council believed that the proposed access was the best
alternative and that the creation of one additional parcel in this
manner would not pose a significant impact upon the vicinity. They
referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for review and
clarification of the Fire Department preliminary conditions of
approval which were presented that night and other mitigation
measures.
Since May 14th Planning staff has prepared a Negative Declaration
and received and clarified a set of recommended conditions with the
Fire Department and Engineering Division.
Attachments: Attachment A - Tentative Parcel Map
Attachment B - Negative Declaration
Attachment C- Findings for Approval
Attachment D - Conditions of Approval
Attachment E - City Council Minutes 5/14/96
000098
i,
ATTACHMENT A
'�► .,• ` CITY TENT. PARCEL MAP
OF ATASCADERO
�—two. na — . 1;T. TPM 95001
4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
UNTAMT PARCEL MAP
AT 94 W
GROW acus new. a/A K '
` wr IS laf7l r o<A7AtlAafllp mm
\\\`
dNorM OfAffilppp
04 . C r alrn a/sr ue Dr+•4 aAtc v avow
%W S ar a ecciwx it" SG1[r-W
1■wNf v Kv.+oTm.a n.s-o""
1 w.• a ROOERTA Ll� MY
yw s1ro[cr aau
a.Ir+riwa t
a
wr
•.www YArANIrrAI V /M-M-W/Y 1
1VOKUM MR ANDLO"Y SLWWr.70*5 50
1
aOf If SOUS?0 1/S"7 ARE yKD Old KCpa DATA
alcm21A ummy
M MAMN ROAD
ATAGOQCA W422
�
1750 sm
G j
low K7CDICL a96
�o s Alnl r
aNNo lw Ns
PARCEL_3
1••AiA]/ 460 ACRES
r is wr \
WERS WAMEXTw
1 mmm A/q.T SON TK AI'1aYAl Of Oh"M .
P in IWM"SMON11 ON NS imrAWA tl AND
STAR IMAf 1 M K Oral r A TK A ROMZ. `
AM"of Un Oral AM TIMT TK WORYAWN
1 Slam KK7(is=A AND ewam 10 D/KiT or
NOWADOL 1af S
DAMD •AAfA A ANrIIp OTO r rlltAol •—
ONM
M.
. AW r lrl N tlCv Al T.r A{SN . ..
W N AIOi S1 Ntl ACS! � 1
CX.
000099
ATTACHMENT "B"
CITY OF ATASCADERO
1970 ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO. Cts. 93422 (805) 461-5035
APPLICANT: ROBERTA LINDSAY KEN WILSON
11750 SAN MARCOS 6715 MORRO ROAD '
ATASCADERO, CA 93422 ATASCADERO, CA 93422
PROJECT TITLE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 95001
PROJECT LOCATION: 11750 SAN MARCOS ROAD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DIVISION OF TWO (2) LOTS OF 7 . 50 AND 10 . 42 ACRES
INTO THREE (3) PARCELS OF 5. 60, 5 . 96, AND 5 . 96 ACRES EACH FOR SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL USE.
FINDINGS:
1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment.
2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited,but comulatively considerable.
4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly.
DETER.PMATION:
Based on the above findings, and the information contained in the initial study(made a part hereof by refer-
ence and on file in the Community Development Department). it has been determ1med that the above project
will not have an adverse impact on the environment.
.011
STEVEN L. DECAMP
CITY PLANNER
Date Posted: MAY 28, 1996
Date Adopted: JUNE 18, 1996
CDD 11-89
000100
i
ATTACHMENT C - Findings for Approval
Tentative Parcel Map #95001
11750 San Marcos Road (Lindsay/Wilson Surveys)
June 18, 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING:
The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the
environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project
is adequate.
MAP FINDINGS:
1 . The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable
General and Specific Plans.
2. The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is
consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed.
4 . The site is physically suitable for the density of the
development proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision, and/or the proposed
improvements, will not cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and
wildlife or their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of the
improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by
the public at large for access through or the use of
property within the proposed subdivision; or. substantially
equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7 . The proposed subdivision design, and/or the type of
improvements, will not cause public health problems .
FLAG LOT FINDINGS:
1 . The subdivision is consistent with the character of the
immediate neighborhood.
2 . The creation of flag lots is justified by topographical
conditions .
3 . The installation of a standard street, either alone or in
conjunction with neighboring properties, is not feasible.
4 . Granting an exception to the flag lot standards is in accord
with the intent and purposes of these regulations, and is
consistent with the General Plan, with all specific plans,
and with the intent and purposes of these regulations .
000101
ATTACHMENT D -- Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map *95001
11750 San Marcos Road (Lindsay/Wilson)
Revised by the City Council July 9, 1996
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Fire Department Conditions
1 . An automatic residential fire protection sprinkler system
conforming to NFPA standard 13D (One and Two-Family
Dwellings and Mobile Homes) shall be required for the two
new residential structures .
2 . An approved Weed Abatement and fuel management plan is
required prior to issuance of building permits,
3. Turnouts shall be constructed every 400 feet along the
driveway length. A turnout shall consist of a 'minimum
cumulative road width of 18 feet for a distance of at least
30 feet.
4 . A turnaround shall be provided at all building or structure
sites on driveways over 150 feet in length andshall be
within 50 feet of the building or structure. Turnarounds
may be an 80 foot diameter "bulb", a Hammerhead. "T" 92 feet
long or a "Key" turnaround 56 feet long.
5. If a security gate is desired at the driveway entrance to
the project, it shall be provided with a Fire department
approved entry system.
Engineering Division Conditions
6. All public improvements shall be 'constructedlin
conformance with the City of Atascadero Engineering
Department Standard Specifications and Drawings or as
directed by the City Engineer.
7 . The applicant shall enter into a Plan Check/Inspection
agreement with the City. Prior to recordation of the
parcel map, all outstanding plan check/inspection fees
shall be paid.
8 . An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City
Engineering Department prior to the start of construction.
1
000102
9. A Preliminary Soils Report shall be prepared for the
property to determine the presence of expansive soil or
other soil problems and shall make recommendations
regarding grading of the proposed site. A final soils
report shall be submitted by the soils engineer prior to
the final inspection and shall certify that all grading
was inspected and approved and that all work done is in
accordance with the plans and the preliminary report.
A separate document shall be recorded in conjunction with
the parcel map stating that a soils report has been
prepared. The document shall state the date of the report
along with the name and address of the soils engineer or
geologist who prepared the report. The document shall
indicate any soils problems which may exist on the newly
created parcels.
10. All improvements within the right-of-way shall be covered
with a 100% Performance Guarantee and a 50% Labor and
Materials Guarantee until the improvements are deemed
substantially complete by the City Engineer. Prior to the
final inspection of the improvements, and before the other
guarantees mentioned in this condition are released, a 10%
Maintenance Guarantee shall be posted to cover the
improvements for a period of 1 year from the date of the
final inspection. The guarantee amounts shall be based on
an engineer's estimate submitted by the project engineer
and approved by the City Engineer. The estimate shall be
based on City standard unit prices. The Guarantees posted
for this project shall be approved by the City Attorney.
11 . All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space,
scenic or other easements are to be shown on the parcel
map. If there are building or other restrictions related
to the easements, they shall be noted on the parcel map.
12 . The relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities
shall be the responsibility of the developer.
13. The applicant shall install all new utilities (water, gas,
electric, cable TV and telephone) underground.
Utilities shall be extended to the property line frontage
of each parcel or its public utility easement.
14 . Any utility trenching in existing streets shall be
overlayed to restore a smooth riding surface as required
by the City Engineer.
15. A sedimentation and erosion control plan shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer
prior to issuance of building permits. Sedimentation and
erosion control measures shall be in place between
October 15 and April 15.
2
000103
16. An access and utility easement across Lot 3, 'Block 81 of
the Atascadero Colony which benefits Parcel 2 and Parcel 3
shall be submitted for review by the City Engineer.
Recorded copies of the easement shall be submitted to the
City prior to recordation of the parcel map. ;,
17 . Maintenance agreements shall be submitted for the portions
of the driveway, slopes, brow ditches, drainage
structures, retaining walls, utilities, etc. which serve
multiple parcels. The form and content of the agreements
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and
the City Engineer. The maintenance agreements shall
record in conjunction with the parcel map.
18 . Drainage acceptance agreements shall be submitted for all
parcels onto which storm water discharge from adjacent
parcels is diverted, concentrated, or otherwise altered
from the manner which existed prior to the development.
The drainage acceptance agreements shall record in
conjunction with the parcel map.
19. A grading and drainage plan, prepared by a registered
civil engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval
by the City Engineer prior to the recordation of the
parcel map. A registered civil engineer shall provide a
written statement that all work has been completed and is
in full compliance with the approved plans and the Uniform
Building Code (UBC) .
20. Road improvement plans prepared by a registered civil
engineer shall be submitted for review and approval by the
City Engineer prior to recordation of the parcel map.
Road improvement plans shall conform to the requirements
of the City Standard Specifications, Section `2 -
Preparation of Plans. R-value testing shall be done, and
the pavement section designed by a registered civil
engineer to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Road
improvements shall include, but not be limited to the
following:
a. San Marcos Road shall be improved from centerline to
the property frontage in conformance with City
Standard 404 (Rural Hillside Collector) contiguous to
the entire property frontage, or as approved by the
City Engineer. Transitions shall be constructed where
required to achieve a smooth join with existing
improvements.
b. Slope easements shall be provided along ;,the property
frontage as required to accommodate cut; or fill
slopes .
3
000104
21 . All property corners shall be monumented for construction
control and shall be promptly replaced if disturbed. All
final property corners and street monuments shall be
installed, or bonded for, prior to acceptance of the
improvements.
22 . A black line clear Mylar (0. 4 mil) copy and a blue line
print of the parcel map shall be provided to the City upon
recordation.
23. A Mylar copy and a blue line print of as-built improvement
plans, signed by the registered engineer who prepared the
plans shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to the
final inspection. A certification shall be included that
all survey monuments have been set as shown on the map.
24 . A final map in substantial conformance with the approved
tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set
forth in the City of Atascadero Subdivision Ordinance and
the Subdivision Map Act shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for approval . The parcel map shall be signed by
the City Engineer prior to it being placed on the agenda
for City Council approval. A recently updated title
report shall be submitted in conjunction with review of
the final map.
25. The applicant shall acquire title or interest in any off-
site land that may be required to allow for the
construction of the improvements. The applicant shall
bear all costs associated with the necessary acquisitions.
The applicant shall also gain concurrence from all
adjacent property owners whose ingress or egress is
affected by these improvements.
26. All work shall be completed, or bonded, prior to
recordation of the parcel map. The applicant shall enter
into a Subdivision Agreement with the City if the work is
to be bonded. The Subdivision Agreement shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney and
the City Engineer. The Subdivision Agreement shall be
recorded in conjunction with the parcel map.
27 . The applicant shall complete a road abandonment for the
portion of San Cayetano Road within the boundaries of the
subdivision prior to recordation of the parcel map.
28 . A Drainage Acceptance Agreement shall be submitted to the
City for the storm water which discharges from the
existing 18" culvert on San Marcos Road onto Parcel 1 .
The form and content of the agreement shall be reviewed
and approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney. The
Drainage Acceptance Agreement shall be recorded in
conjunction with the parcel map.
4
00010b
Planning Division Conditions
29. A reflectorized house number master sign shall be
installed at the intersection of the street and accessway
and individual reflectorized address signs shall be placed
on the right hand side of the driveway to each lot. This
shall be done prior to recording of the final map.
30. Improvement plans for the private accessway shall be
reviewed and approved in conjunction with submittal of the
final map and associated required improvement plans. -The
private accessway shall be 20 feet wide and paved as shown
on the tentative map. The design shall also incorporate
the fire turnaround and turnouts as required ' in Conditions
#3 and #4 . Construction of the accessway shall be
completed prior to recording of the final map.
31 . The area below, or northeasterly, of the throe building
sites (one existing residence, two proposed sites ) shall
remain in open space for scenic and wildlife purposes . A
note shall be placed on the final map that this area is an
open space easement and that no structures are permitted.
32 . A tree protection/mitigation plan, prepared by a natural
resource specialist, shall be submitted in conjunction
with the site improvements plans. An acceptable plan is
one that minimizes tree removal to the great6st extent
possible, recommends special protection measures for trees
impacted by driveway construction, proposes adequate
replacement trees, and complies with the City' s Tree
Ordinance and Guidelines.
33 . This tentative map approval shall expire two (2) years
from the date of final approval unless an extension of
time is granted pursuant to a written request received
prior to the expiration date.
5
000106
ATTACHMENT E
COUNCIL MINUTES
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL TPM 95001
MEETING OF MAY 14, 1996
MINUTES EXCERPT
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 95-
001, 11750 SAN MARCOS ROAD - Application to divide two (2) lots containing
17.92 ac. into three (3) lots of 5.60, 5.96 and 5.96 acres (Lindsay/Wilson Surveys)
(Planning Commission/staff recommendation: Deny)
Doug Davidson provided the staff report and recommendation to deny the appeal.
Councilmember Johnson inquired if the property is build-able as currently
structured. Mr. Davidson reported that if the applicant were to submit a site plan
for the existing lot, it could be approved at the staff level. He clarified that the
application is, however, for subdivision. Councilmember Johnson asked where
staff is recommending that the road be constructed. Mr. Davidson commented
that staff has not developed a recommendation for an exact location for the road.
There was mutual concern shared by members of the Council that because of the
steepness of the terrain, road construction may result in scarring of the hillside and
removal of too many trees.
Councilmember Luna remarked that he would not have a problem with abandoning
the road despite the steepness of the road if it would deny access to an existing
lot because there are property rights to protect and approval of a building permit is
a ministerial act. He emphasized that the application is not for a building permit
but for a subdivision and argued that there are numerous problems, including the
removal of at least twenty mature oak trees, a high emergency response time, the
length of the proposed driveway and certain flag lot standards.
Steve DeCamp responded to questions regarding the proposed road abandonment
and explained that a current legal right of access exists along the San Cayetano
right-of-way to provide access to the lots, although not considered by staff to be a
practical alternative. If the road is abandoned, he continued, legal access is
denied. Mr. DeCamp also reported that the City Council, by approval of the lot
line adjustment for the Davis Ranch, has already approved the abandonment of
large portions of the right-of-way, predicated on the availability of the remaining
San Cayetano right-of-way to provide legal access. Doug Davidson remarked that
staff believes access can be obtained through an adjacent lot owned by the
applicant which is not a part of this subdivision. Councilmember Carden
suggested that the least-intrusive method for access may be to use the existing
driveway.
000117
ATTACHMENT E
The City Attorney advised that the road abandonment, if approved, would not
create significant liability for the City because the access that exists, although
costly, could be installed. Councilmember Luna asserted that if the applicant
desires to develop the parcels, she should prepare the environmental impact report
and bare the costs of road construction instead of the City Council abandoning the
road and subjecting the City to an inverse condemnation suit.
Public Comments:
Robert M. ("Grigger") Jones, representing the applicant, submitted a prepared
statement and summarized major points in support of the appeal (see Exhibit A).
Ken Wilson of Wilson Land Surveys presented overhead transparencies
demonstrating the project plan.
Upon review of the documents submitted, Councilmember Luna asked staff for
clarification of "defensible space distances" from houses as outlined in the Fire
Department's response to Wilson Land Surveys (included in Exhibit A). Capt.
Peter Gaw reported that defensible space distance is an important aspect for fire
control and prevention. He explained that the department seeks reasonable
clearance and noted that compliance can include clearing, fire breaks and other
fire control techniques. Capt. Gaw responded to additional Council questions
relevant to emergency response.
The City Attorney explained that included in the applicant's handout (Exhibit A) is
a letter from the Fire Department which was not considered by planning staff or by
the Planning Commission. He advised that it would be appropriate to refer the
matter back to staff and the Planning Commission for review of this new
information before taking any action on the appeal. In addition, Mr. Montandon
noted, for the record, that although Councilmember Luna owns property nearby,
there is no conflict of interest with him deliberating on this matter.
Joy Greenburg, 11655 Cenegal Road, urged the City Council to deny the appeal
and uphold the Planning Commission recommendation. She added that the project
would negatively impact her property and reported that the owner has done some
grading without City approval. Ms. Greenburg read a letter from'Cenegal Road
residents John and Hunter Perry, who are also recommending denial.
Jill Stegman, 10660 San Marcos Road, spoke in opposition to the subdivision and
urged denial of the appeal.
Dorothy Flaherty, 12100 Cenegal Road, voiced similar opposition and requested
that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission recommendation.
OOOIL08
ATTACHMENT E
Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, agreed with the comments of the previous speakers
and pointed out that staff and Commission have followed the General Plan in
making their recommendations.
Marvin Horowitz, 10830 San Marcos, also expressed opposition and urged denial
of the appeal.
The City Clerk read letters submitted by Gretchen Gray at 10420 San Marcos
Road and from James and Veda Thomas, 11695 Vista Road (Exhibits B & C
respectively).
Grigger Jones, speaking once more on behalf of the applicant, requested that the
City Council uphold the appeal and make specific findings as addressed in his
letter.
---end of public testimony---
MOTION: By Councilmember Luna, seconded by Mayor Highland to deny
the appeal in accordance with the Findings contained in the
Planning Commission and staff recommendation; motions failed
2:3 (Carden, Bewley, Johnson voting No),
MOTION: By Councilmember Johnson, seconded by Councilmember
Carden to refer the tentative parcel map, including [new] input
from the Fire Department, back to staff for transmittal to the
Planning Commission.
Discussion on the motion: Councilmember Bewley asked if the applicant
would have to pay an additional fee. The City Attorney advised that the
City Council has the discretion to waive the fee.
Motion amended and adopted: Motion amended to include waiving of the
filing fee. Amended motion to refer TPM 95009 back to staff and the
Planning Commission passed 4:1 (Luna).
Steve DeCamp reported that the matter would be noticed for the June 98`h
Planning Commission meeting and be brought back to the City Council three
weeks after that date (7/9/96).
1
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-1
Through: Andrew J. Takata Meeting Date: 05/14/96
City Manager
File Number: TPM 95001
Via: Steven L. Decamp, City Planner
From: f� Doug Davidson, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:
Appeal filed by Roberta Lindsay (Wilson Surveys) of Planning Com-
mission' s recommendation that City Council deny Tentative Parcel
Map #95001 . The request is to divide two (2) lots of 7 .50 and
10.42 acres into three parcels of 5.60, 5.96, and 5 . 96 acres each
for single family residential use. Subject site is located at
11750 San Marcos Road.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Deny Tentative Parcel Map #95001 in accordance with the
Findings contained in the Planning Commission and staff
recommendation.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above-
referenced tentative parcel map request on January 16, 1996, which
was continued to the Commission' s regular meeting of'' March 5, 1996.
After much discussion and public comment (see attached Minutes
Excerpts) , the Planning Commission recommended denial of TPM 95001
based on staff ' s recommendation and the reasons and Findings for
Denial contained in the attached Planning Commission, staff reports,
dated January 16, 1996 and March 5, 1996.
DD:ph
Attachments: Planning Commission Staff Report - January 16, 1996
Planning Commission Staff Report - March 5, 1996
Minutes Excerpts - March 5, 1996
Letter of Appeal - March 13, 1996
CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B . 3
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: January 16, 1996
BY%,"/ ug Davidson, Senior Planner File No: TPM #95001
SUBJECT:
Consideration of a tentative parcel map application to divide two
lots of 7.50 and 10.42 acres into three parcels of 5,60, 5.96,
and 5. 96 acres each for single family residential use.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Tentative Parcel Map #95001 be denied based
on the Findings for Denial contained in Attachment G.
A. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Roberta Lindsay
2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wilson Surveys
3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11750 San Marcos Road
4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . 17.92 acr
• . . es
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban)
7 . General Plan Designation. . . . . . . . . . .Suburban Residential
8. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Single Family Residence
B. ANALYSIS:
The present configuration of the subject property is two lots; a
7.50 acre lot with an existing single family residence and a
vacant 10.42 acre lot. The proposal is to subdivide the two lots
into three parcels of 5.60, 5.96, and 5.96 acres each. In effect
this is basically a proposed subdivision of the 10.42 acre lot
into two - the parcel with the existing home is included to gain
the additional area in order to obtain the minimum lot size. The
right-of-way for a portion of San Cayetano currently divides the
two existing parcels at centerline - this right-of way is
proposed for abandonment as part of the subdivision application.
The following analysis will examine the parcel map in light of
the City' s Land Use/Open Space Plan and Subdivision Ordinance, as
well as the site' s physical characteristics.
1
Land Use/Open Space Plan Policies
The Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth the policies
for appropriate lot sizes in the suburban residential area on
page II-10. (These policies are mirrored in Subdivision
Consistency on Page II-37. ) Five of these factors ;,are embodied
in the Zoning Ordinance performance standards as calculated below
under the site characteristic part of this report. Other
factors, such as the existence of a natural building site,
availability of services, and response time for emergency
services, also need to be taken into account. Preference is
given to creating new parcels when they can be served by
conventional septic systems - lots which require extraordinary
systems, such as E.T.I. systems will not be created. Also, new
lots in excess of 30% average slope are not permitted unless a
"building envelope" of 20% or less exists, or the Lot offers
public dedications of direct benefit to the City.
During the Land Use Update hearings there was a proposal to
prohibit further lot splits in areas beyond a certain response
time until a new fire station in the northwest quadrant was
constructed. Although a defined response time for :additional
subdivisions was not established, the language above shows that
emergency response is still an issue to consider in evaluating
parcel maps. In this case, the subject site is located in the
area of the City with the longest Fire Department response time -
more than 9 minutes. This fact, along with the steep and windy
access to the new building sites, questions the wisdom of
creating new lots in the far western part of the City.
The Land Use Element descibes "building envelope" as, "the
building footprint, access drives, leachfield, etc. " . As the
applicant' s engineer has defined, each site has a "building
envelope" of less than 20 percent ( 19%) . In this case, Community
Development Department staff has agreed with this determination
of "building envelope" under the former Director' s
interpretation. Under this determination, the "building
envelope" is defined as the building site, leachfield areas, and
each site' s individual driveway. The common driveway for the two
new residences coming off the existing driveway is not included.
Given the language cited, "access drives" could be 'interpreted to
include the complete access driveways necessary to 'serve the new
lots. If this broader interpretation of including the common
drive in the "building envelope" is used, the "envelope" exceeds
20%.
Several Open Space Plan policies on page II-31 relate to land
division:
"Lot splits shall be thoroughly evaluated and :be in
accordance with community plans and principles in order to
retain the desired character of the community. "
2
0ti
"Attention shall be paid to the esthetic result of land
division. Building sites shall be encouraged on natural
slopes, with minimum disruption of native vegetation and
watersheds by thoughtful placement of building site, private
sewage disposal system, and access. Building designs
inappropriate for hillside locations shall not be approved. "
"Tree-covered hills shall be preserved to retain the
distinctive scenic quality of the community. "
It is staff' s opinion that this
subdivision and the substantial
ial
grading and tree removal associated with the access is not in
compliance with these policies.
Subdivision Ordinance
The fundamental requirement for lot design is contained in
Subdivision Ordinance section 11-8.201. It reads that, "the
design of lots should be based on intended use, topography, and
access requirements. Lots which are impractical for intended
uses due to terrain, location, of natural features, inadequate
access, frontage, or buildable area, or other physical
limitations will not be approved. " This requirement carries out
the policies of the General Plan cited above.
The application proposes the abandonment of the San Cayetano Road
right-of-way within the project boundaries. Besides the
questions the abandonment itself raises, proposed Parcels #2 and
3, upon abandonment of this Colony right-of-way, become flag
lots. Since the proposal to abandon the right-of-way is a part
of the application it seems justified to review the subdivision
in its proposed ultimate form as flag lots.
Flag Lot Standards
In order to approve a flag lot subdivision, the Planning
Commission must find that: (1) the subdivision is consistent
with the immediate neighborhood; (2) the installation of a
standard street, either alone or in conjunction with neighboring
properties is not feasible; and (3) the flag lot is justified by
topographical conditions. If these Findings can be made
(Subdivision Ordinance Section 11-8.209) , then this section goes
on to list the flag lot standards. The proposed subdivision is
not in compliance with two of these standards. First, the
accessway is included in the lot areas. Secondly, the accessway
is not owned in fee by the lot farthest from the street.
Flag lots can be an appropriate lot design in some instances,
especially closer to the center of town where building sites are
generally level and easily accessible. In the steep slopes and
oal woodland of western Atascadero, however, they may not be so
3
desirable. In this case, a flag lot design would not be
consistent with the immediate neighborhood - as Attachment A (or
B) shows, there is only one other such example in the vicinity.
As far as the second Finding, staff will agree that:, the
construction of San Cayetano in its recorded right-of-way would
involve excessive earthwork, tree removal, etc. As proposed, the
access to Parcels 2 and 3 necessitates substantial grading and
the removal of 20 mature oak trees. Thus, staff caro not
recommend that the subdivision is justified by topographical
conditions.
Staff has earlier expressed its feeling that ownership of the
access by the rear most lot is a questionable standard. The
applicant has prepared an alternative (Attachment F') showing the
irregular lot lines which result if Parcel 3 owns the accessway.
Secondly, the lot size areas include the accessway. The lot
lines could possibly be adjusted to subtract this area and still
meet the minimum lot size of 5.60 acres - this has not been
calculated. Unless the Findings are affirmed, however, adherence
to these flag lot standards is a moot point.
Site Characteristics
According to zoning Ordinance Section 9-3. 144, the minimum lot
size in the RS zone is based in part on the sum of five
performance factors. In the subject property this is calculated
as follows:
Distance from center ( 16,000-18,000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 0.60
Septic Suitability (severe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.50
Average slope (36-40%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. 00
Access Condition (paved road <15%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.40
Neighborhood Character (5.50 acres) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 10
Minimum Lot Size. . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.60
The proposed lot sizes of 5.60. 5.96. and 5.96 acres meet the RS
zone criteria for lot size. (If the driveway accessway is
subtracted from the lot area, however, as required above for flag
lots, the minimum lot size might not be satisfied without an
exception to this standard) . More important than lot size is the
physical suitability of the site for an additional residence.
The existing vacant parcel is characterized by steep slopes,
unstable, loose soils, and native oak trees. The difficulty in
developing such properties was made clear in the Precise Plan
review and subsequent construction of the existing residence at
11750 San Marcos Road. This parcel could not be developed
without a substantial amount of site disturbance and tree
removal. This is sometimes an inherent situation when developing
existing Colony lots. To knowingly create a new parcel with
these constraints, however, is not good land use planning.
4
0001111
Hence, a question arises in looking at the development of the
existing undeveloped parcel. If the long access drive from 11750
must be constructed anyway, to serve one or two parcels, then
maybe the subdivision is acceptable, for there are two building
sites once access is gained to them. This is not the case in
order to develop the 10+ acre parcel, for there is an alternate
access to the building site(s) . The applicant owns adjacent Lot
3 which is proposed to contain a portion of the driveway and
access easement as it loops down toward the proposed building
sites. Instead of running roughly parallel to San Marcos from
the existing driveway, direct access can be provided from San
Marcos to the undeveloped parcel through an easement over Lot 3.
Indeed, from the Lot 3 perspective, the relative ease of
developing the vacant parcel is apparent. By viewing the knoll
on proposed Parcel 3 from the San Marcos Road frontage of
existing Lot 3, it can be seen that no tree removal and much less
earthwork for the driveway is necessary than for the proposed
access.
San Cayetano Road Right-of-Way Abandonment
Since staff is recommending denial of the parcel map, the
implications of abandoning San Cayetano Road have not been
addressed. Given the terrain of the right-of-way and the
existing lots with no other access than San Cayetano, this issue
will demand attention at some point in the future.
C. CONCLUSIONS•
With over a nine minute response time, the subject site is in a
location where only under the best of circumstances should
additional parcels be created. A proper "building envelope" in
light of the Land Use Element can only be obtained through a
confined interpretation of this term. As demonstrated by the
findings and standards of the Subdivision Ordinance for flag
lots, the site or its surrounding area are not conducive for flag
lots. Lastly, the substantial grading and tree removal
associated with the common access
drive is not justified in light
of t g
he Cit land goal of retaining Ys use g g the natural hillside
character of the community.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A -- Location Map (General Plan)
Attachment B -- Location Map (Zoning)
Attachment C -- Tentative Parcel Map
Attachment D -- Driveway Grading Plan (Sheet 1)
Attachment E -- Driveway Grading Plan (Sheet 2)
Attachment F -- Subdivision Alternative
Attachment G -- Findings for Denial
5
x }115
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF ATASCADERO ZONING MAP
-"�•-7
TPM 95001
-� ;OXASCADF-IR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
L(FH)
R s
i
At
0
S
S
'PCO ,O,O S
OS
d
6
'O�
to _I
�r—
I c
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF ATASCADER LAND USE MAP
,R. O
7'��l�'na = . -7 TPM 95001
CAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Yti
' 6
S
LUCIA
j
40 904 <qG
-40\ 4p-40
su RBA
SPO 1 I �•(P'�\
/,FEII PE/
PRS S POA D siti
or
i�
00011'7
ATTACHMENT C
CITY OF ATASCA TENT. PARCEL MAP
DERO
TPM 95001
—s�+;"b�CAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT
TENTATIVE PARCEL MM
AT 94-136
081PHlC OCALE LENO A DrA*CW Of PARCEL
or a SLOEX SO Or.Tw. OM COL2 Of CKY
*4m 1 W SAY URE OrsKC STAG 19 CAIiOtsA
fQEi 1 d 7 O[CEYBOI IN{ SCATS/•.[
I r 1•tr1 •. A7 REQUESTED M mra-oaG//
1
60.0 • - RL79ERTA UNSAY /Ro.ccr 4-02
t.a..r
�
ra
.tT,1 Ar
■am t Y Af•aT-aw L.rr
W w
M ICA111 Y W-Aw-Ap
S.YYYy'w• YYCAAI.A V Iw-.Y-NY/t(
L
• •Eltll[UQ FOR YOUDARY SnRWr.70 d So
LOT IS SOUDARY INET AK/ASCD ON MCOW OAt
SIAOINIXIt■pGtA IINDSAY
. SAY ACOS ROAD
ATAS
wTASCADEt10.G
p r
1710 tY G K9oO CLQ 1 � it •�•._„
• Nso.ISTr. Ttl•tW Ir wi" — i
/ � t...-•� •.Tar or ILOa• .._ 1 ....�..�-
A
j
wW..Y
..rr y.wtlr
1
PARCEL 3 1.1 1
—'5.00 ACRES
♦.rr
� L.IMr
OWE" STATD"T 11:.w
1-7 Ia{r r a.nr
1 HERESY AMY fOR ME AMAOYAL Of ON"
Of REAL•AOREA"510-ON MIS TENIATINE—AID
STAR MAT 1 m THE owm or OR ME AumzrO `
ACCYT Or SAD 001Ol,AND MAT TK 061MM T1o11 MaraNR ONK..t1 NO r AOCE!
1 :: /1[JQ01,IS TDR AND CORRECT TOM REST Of YY Aw uwlrr Iwnar
EIIDt4EDCE. tort
.Aq:A w,tNro®Otto s omK t1EY
OA1m .
� IzlllY wT am all r _ -
wno.tr a.n.-.naa w r.w Ac.n
r la Noel w tan AGII a
000118
ATTACHMENT D
�E� CITY OF ATASCA DRIVEWAY PLAN (SHEET I "
DERO TPM 95001
�'� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
rr.r rarrr ••, \;t., ,'\1�1;{li ii Fi j l�, \-. ' ,�1, ,i `,• • '.X4`4`. :, RAIICEL:
1Q IdON{L LWIM NOW rAY ,'��, " ' �\i ������111� ' +i+: �� •j+�i i}i'' 1 \ •Y 1\++ ,�`` 1
YNN[R f2[ ►Ml .``, iii' .\� �+�\�,\ i l tj'(jl�i1+ ••*�-\ \ '`�I�{i
i v •.rw � ,`+ - 'i(1{ �,r,)i'i'��' ��- �{IIII'�,s•s\••' t(,\,�:� its
\, 1
rr ww
i'
• + rwwwir ♦` `.� - 1,1,, f)1\\`\ �dy���+�ii{ . ■, r ►•q
r r
' "" ,,,` � ,•�\"``+�`�� �`� moi`��\\;`\����• `t•'`` \ 1 `'\ - _ -
DAfN '.'.'v
;; ,,,�.a•`�,\, \ ,` _
•T1r10AL T�CgI .� r `�,. ♦\;\��ry 1\�` •__Yi_ `\\r�'\`.
wo
R[NSED 10-24-15
.r..na.cu,
+ rr r•w n..s cs..r aT 3m•rwo•
�r ni!L•Twin
i
000219
ATTACHMENT E
CITY OF A1—ASCADERO DRIVEWAY PLAN (SHEET 2)
��:�:r.a —�•—,
TPM 95001
F COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
- •' `�` \ aures sm or=onum ruN
``�- \' waY Mw nano rte,rar raaaaala ran
•` `\�� \ ` 1 `\ . »aa's»nn r ams r..
:; A ;, , �.� t\,
lk
\ .�,,\\,`�\,\`,\;\`\\�` r��\.;\`. .\ - _``- `.\\`�..•-t_----------._ }_ii �.s'-.mac -.•+..r-Its ..�'�_
` ` ,;\ , , ,\\�\, \ �'-• ``\\` \.\•\ \`;` - _ ,i,% ^C \ •,•nue] �_.�.���� f:,_•`:_t
\`\.\\,` , , .>\ � \\, �\._�_ \ � \ \ `\`• i\ 1� ; \ �/ ��' �/ �i .�.,.� RENSID f0-34-96\ '� :•\�:\`.1�..� \ `. � ; ;\\\ 1 I ; � 1 ; � 1,. i ti � i J; .t / /; %i/"/ i:;:r' tortAnK e�+.�w.
\ \;`\"\\` ��\ \;.�•.' t iS �� .F-� ' ,I� 11 i� i l l I ��
AT 04
%•i
000120
ATTACHMENT F
SUBDIVISION ALTERNATIVE
y�( CITY OF ATASCADERO I VE
TPM 95001
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
'
1)05/6tJ AL7-EQtJ,4T/VE" ,
TMTA71VE PARE L MA
AT 04-16
GRAPHIC SCAU �t - we aYsorl ARCEE 2 A'A,
_ r � wr»9Eaa w a ATAscAorno cawr
1 tk..0 WD-. MINTY Or Or ar9PD.STATE CALWO"
SHUT 1 Or 3 DECEMBER 1094
(w nn) t� AS RCOUCSTED Rr. - Ixt
.6.6.w JE ' _-- t 1 +,• a 1.5, ROBERTA LINDSAY PRO''
i ♦ \1 L mow..I.at,r
' /• � � Ar.rw w.134
C7R•-wwYr
1 r
/ - ^ •.fev'w' r'N''W u of nAVAW i•-fat iW�
,1 1 ; REMENCE MR DOWDARY SiMttY: 70 R
I• 1 f t 1 LOT 19 OMMARY tWE2 ARE 9ASED ON f
wiso`ADER:ROBERLINDSAY
11750 SAN NM=Tt0A0
ATASCADM CA 93427
BRUAAND 741Q _(rant clmwi` T stat
t 1
11750 SB YAacos ROAD P\ARCE11.1\\�
.JDSRNc REaoENct 1 6.b1�ACRE93t tA%!'\ \\ \� —PARCEJ�. 2 \ 1 \T t
t \ t . \ 0.00 ACRa- / T 1
rA,owte,r amk er a`mt+•oA \ �t t ♦ ♦ �. DwNwiw u[.- ♦ 1 _--•-_
`\` \ 1
is uxw•
to in,wr
PARCEL 3 t� \
—0.11 ACRES.\\ \ t\
OWNERS STAT Rm w `.\ / `� i -�• / ��- ��
1 MMOY AFPEr TOR TW APPROVAL Or aNSION \ A.. rsrs 1 , .�,, �,•
Or REM.PROOERTY SNOw1 ON 11115 TENTADOE MN AND
._ •.,fee /
STATE TIAT 1 AY THE OMICR W 011 T1E AU/Ma117ED 1.zm / rf / - •�' ,� JTo'
AGENTOf SAID 00",AND 0 ", 1NAT ME 1W(WMA" r11ar00[0 P1MOff A."M fOTflt
S"WN IHREON q TRIS AND COMECT TO THE SEST Or WY -
kNOHEOOE. IDL 5SIGNED �' �'•
•. �P� .MfA Nr1VO4.0IPwwMfMN •/ ' /'' J ''- �--I---
DATED
ONn.[Tel[an ,�� � Lot w .�
109 N 10011 N Mtl xs I .
000121
ATTACHMENT G - Findings for Denial
Tentative Parcel Map #95001
11750 San Marcos Road (Lindsay/Wilson Surveys)
January 16, 1996
MAP FINDINGS:
1. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable
General and Specific Plans.
2. The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is
not consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans.
3. The site is not physically suitable for the type of
development proposed.
4. The site is not physically suitable for the density of the
development proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision, and/or the proposed
improvements, could cause substantial environmental damage
or substantially and avoidably injure fish and'' wildlife or
their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of the
improvements, could conflict with easements acquired by the
public at large for access through or the use of
property within the proposed subdivision.
FLAG LOT FINDINGS:
1. The subdivision is not consistent with the character of the
immediate neighborhood.
2. The creation of flag lots is not justified by topographical
conditions.
3. Granting an exception to the flag lot standards is not in
accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations,
and is not consistent with the General Plan, with all
specific plans, and with the intent and purposes of these
regulations.
00012Z.
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: March 5, 1996
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: ,c Doug Davidson, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Continued Hearing - Tentative Parcel Map 95001
11750 San Marcos Road (Lindsey/Wilson Surveys)
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends denial of Tentative Parcel Map 95001 for the
reasons and Findings as contained in the January 16, 1996 staff
report.
UPDATE:
Since this matter was continued at the January 16, 1996 meeting,
the project engineer has submitted two alternate access plans (see
attachments) . These plans were prepared in response to the staff' s
position that better access to the proposed building site (s) could
be obtained off of San Marcos through the adjacent Lot 3. The
attached alternative alignments confirms this. This is not to say
that substantial earthwork will not result - access to the
building site (s) via any alternative will involve extensive cut
and fill slopes in order to gain an acceptable driveway slope.
Tree removal can be avoided by a straighter alignment to the
westerly building site on proposed Parcel 3 as generally shown on
sheet two of the alternative access plan (Alternate "C" ) . Although
this straight driveway alignment as shown contains large (8 ' )
retaining walls, staff believes that a combination of grading and
the use of retaining walls - a compromise between alternates "B"
and "C" - can attain a suitable access to the knoll on proposed
Parcel 3. The result of gaining access to this better building
site would be less site disturbance and no tree removal. The
disruption of the natural terrain, particularly oak tree removal,
increases substantially upon the creation of a second building
site. Thus, staff is retaining its original recommendation.
Attachments: Attachment A - Alternate Access Plan
Attachment B - Alternate Access (Sheet 2 )
Attachment C - Elevation Perspective
Attachment D - 3-D Perspective
Attachment E - January 16, 1996 staff report
4- -7L-�
ATTACHMENT A
CIT
Y OF ATA.SCADEROALTERNATE ACCESS "Bl'
�» COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TPM 95001
,+ DEPARTMENT
' l \i,�\ � -.�•'•��'\\\`�.\`�.;•�•�:\\`j�� ��� r 1 �,\\\ �• Wil• ,,�'
•[?"'`��.'C�:�':, , `� ;•�; \\,,\\`• \ `.�`�* �,•,, ., .is - �- --- � �. .,.� i
10
,�\�,, •\\\�,.[•�. `• �" \\•\�\•:.,` '`\' ,` ,,�.t� .,,:�_ ;e\ .ice. ,•.��;'•�. ..�{_�-=-,•-'-'_'�,
\'\\�`. .• •`.� ,A, \,\ ` t may:, � .-` \�._. - _ �_�._.�./
• ,K;,' ,,\ `.\'\,
v.
--
i '1:� ' � ' � ) j +/. � " Ijjjllll,�jv�j�;i;f;% i•/;iji�/ M',X'•
'�� i Ii l�/�F'%��%% � � �moi,'::�'/i,•'i // %;/%'; /�//%T• /y; �� %�, 'd. ••'
i a � ' •/�y}r' ,%/ %. '/, / �// i i /i;''is�// /�,,�":
yi;,. ��. .'�/'' i,'•�'/moi:'�: ��:.%;�,':':/ �%. //i
4*1
t V___' �!'.. /,�, p r i %•i:•, ,�i%/:�i :' ALTUMAN ROAD!PRCM V
:�i'//'� � / ,�,/ .?'._ __ .fit ..__._ ._�• — .—,- _ ,_- ,
',--- , AL,TAIATE ROAD AUQIIENT 7 -,— r---- -/—• I--_-
nd AU=Wff r To DTgUL ATJOI�EMT
CPNK% .,a.oir .,o.«rr - - --• - .L.._ 1. 1.._. J.._:.'
- - r�_F. j�:�:._{._. ._:f = .�:_•: __fir_.. j-.. j---
4
-1-- --- - __—• AD[AT,•�- _ I_. - •w •w.,: •�_-•
-
0001124-
i
ATTACHMENT •B
CITY OF ATASCADERO
ALTERNATE ACCESS "C"
;joscAp COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TPM 95001
DEPARTMENT
.+ \ `.\•�\` .``_ _� -�... �'\'l\�`,�..�• . .\ +`.�1 �±• ). _ � � •r. �`•.,� ��—__•'_'ter___-_�.
\ ,,VI \\\. .`\• •\�'' ���\'��'` �'`\ \� '\��\�\♦ � `f' , 11;11 , Ii Jlj �z 'r /�. /'�.' //'
1 ;1���� ' ; ; I,I . \' � , ' 1 ' 111 / ' /; ,�j' :/{iii% _ _'•�..
I; I/� ' rig.1/ I/ /%// ii��. •/�.•�/,j// % ii ':/%'�/;', /j /�,;
i ' /'�/ 1i/ 1/�.'%�.%Vii,%/I/i/%/�%:'/: /• i'j�//, �/ '/// _ ALMM79 RW PRQRE'e
�. -�-•
-- - •; AUEANAIE ROAD AUGM04'T'(f - — ...i ::t. : -�-` -+-..�� --1- ..��. ��-�' •..��:
DDIPAROgI DF AUmE)IT'Yr,>,D1g1Al AIOmfiTAM POWYAL
om
—
_
.7p= -r-- -�:
TE
000125
ATTACHMENT C
CITY OF ATASCADERO
�� .��� � � •%� ELEVATION PERSPECTIVE
' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TP.M 95001
DEPARTMENT
.yrf l� r =ice,: -i_ z' x€ �' ��. ,•., ta.�l tel.
:
t:•1%r� � '��.. � ��s✓ `.� 4 �j`�-�-tier. £ � �, 'i. ��� L -�7� � '�E 3?__ � �,�� � j
i is •T' i" %� i 1 �.te-�a �s.. t, i � _ '.` � `� �
r 11I:! S - i - i �.• j £' L r J-.' - � +t .t i � t' _ t t tom_ --��`,
000126
•�. r� yg�
Jax
�j���qy�ppg'�+��ir��_ ,r, c?' �s��y'�i=l `�`�r�.,fe�sx, ,1„.�.c #'m.fi .xa�•� t�3a�.
, ,�`��✓ a {t F ��5,�,, year B?p-�::::�rr r<rFoa �*4ef t r fi" � `;•'* fg�
��rs' �4 a til::Y�l`f�P•''Fr'.��sss- 353 f3�t'�J �'Sa ik,�'-n��, 'f YC�-4s+, � '�'a`as
�'���.l �•�S Fs P F. ' r ee__n_oef�i.rvr`!i s ai s i ,�E�s"!'.,"`�oSD '���,2y Qi``a
_
01:6 res?'- -
's°=F �;
�' ate- -'-
-. _ .r. •`�i•.� h ��: :.�::`�:�Tae:��-:3?_�t•�f' .:..�-rx=f'35_-I�xg� a�
2�9:s.��"'��. ''��!�_ rr.r::�.�'�� :i�.. x�� ��s-�•r �_ � �j9>r������j`�'_ `�r�r`�"C�sara�=��r .�`��--
'F �. .a � �.: ' �„ i•� L�' � . ,f5,,;.•5,.;,8'=�� _ _ �,s,� ��`r'FE�_ -rC;�ar--w is=•.�-e�--
rf� fs�;___ iS :a'`•:'�i-t ��sf� S � `��s r•���a �'s- �r� `.cai��,?•�„f==�`�sce�sM-
:#z
_�t" '��s� -��ri:��iso III/ r�` �' `r • r�` csl�� M f! .•,�
-
_
a -si-��-$-- fi=r$r
-L
.^� ' u •.t .fir z... _ -_ d+ �4�„ a�.i�ti-. �sas--j';w
IN
AV 3'NV ff aJ •,,' "S�
MdfI
gig jl�'f i .s. 1.� I-w��x.�i � `P�° fJ f -~ o- � _ •' ,:.�'�
f
H•.,'I
e 9
LAW SCE OF
Robert M.Jones ROBERT M. JONES Telephone(805)466.4422
Attorney at Law
Cindy Hemming 8655 Morro Road, Suite C Facsimile(805)466-7267
r> � Atascadero, Califomia 93422
March 13, 1996 t�
� I v
CITY OF ATASCADERO MAR 14199-6
Community Development Department
6500 Palma Ave. Cf ly OF ATASC;.�� o
CITY CLERK'S 0"FPCE
Atascadero, CA 93422 "
Subject: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF MARCH 5,1996
DENYING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAY # 95001
11750 San Marcos Road
Atascadero, CA
APPELLANT: ROBERTA LINDSAY
To Whom it May Concern:
This letter shall serve as a notice of appeal of the Atascadero Planning Commission's
denial of the Tentative Parcel Map # 95001, submitted by Roberta Lindsay for 11750 San
Marcos Road, Atascadero, Ca. 93422. The grounds for the appeal are as follows:
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans.
2. The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with
applicable General and Specific Plans.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the density of the development proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision and/or proposed improvements, would not cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and
wildlife or their habitat.
6. The design of the sub-division and the type of the improvements will not conflict
with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or the use of
property within the proposed subdivision.
7. The subdivision is consistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood.
000128
March 13, 1996
Page Two
8. The creation of flag lots within the subdivision is justified and permissible by the
topographical conditions, and is consistent with the General Plan, all specific plans,
prior decisions of the planning department and the City of Atascadero, and the intent
and purposes of the regulations.
I_ would request that any hearing before the City Council be held after April 23, 1996,
and the applicant waives any time requirements imposed by statute or regulation. Any notices
should continue to be sent to Wilson Land Surveys, as well as the undersigned on behalf of the
applicant.
Sincerely-
Robert M es
--Attorney At Law
RMJ:cs
cc: Client
Ken Wilson
0001#-
MINUTES EXCERPTS
CITY OF ATASCADERO
PLANNING COMMISSION
3/5/-96
ACTION MINUTES
SUBJECT: B. HEARINGS APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS
1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 95001:
Application filed by Roberta Lindsay (Wilson
Surveys) to divide two (2) lots of 7.50 and 10.42
acres into three (3) parcels of 560, $.96, and 5.96
acres each for single family residential use. Sub-
ject site is located at 11750 San Marcos Road.
(CONTINUED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
JANUARY 16, 1996) .
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: (Davidson)
Staff recommends that Tentative Parcel Map #95001 bf� denied based
on the Findings for Denial contained in Attachment G.
TESTIMONY:
Jim & Vida Thomas, a letter from Mr. and Mrs Thomas was read into
the record opposing the project and supporting staff in their
denial recommendation.
Ken Wilson, Wilson Land Surveys, 6715 Morro Road, (applicant' s
agent) provided the Commission with a history of the project. He
summarized the letter submitted prior to the meeting which detailed
why he and the applicant feel this project is reasonable, good
planning and not a detriment to the environments He answered
questions from the Commission.
Ursula Luna, P.O. Box 806, commends and supports the staff in
denial of this project. She made several points against approval
of this Tentative Parcel Map. She feels this parcel map is inap-
propriate.
Joan O' keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, supports denial of this
project because this is a fire prone and environmentally sensitive
area; inappropriate for development. This project represents and
encroachment into wildlife area.
Charlie Hawes, 10580 San Marcos Road, a neighbor, supports denial
of the project. He sees nothing but grief behind this project.
Dorothy McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista Road, expressed that the
applicant should be held to the same building regulations as
others . Ms . McNeil supports denial because this isnot good land
use planning.
000 10
Planning Commission Meeting, March 5, 1996
Erik Greening, 7365 Valle, complimented the staff in the conscien-
tious manner in which they have made their recommendation and he
hopes the Commission accepts the recommendation.
John McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista Road, * reiterated that there appears
to be nothing done about permit regulations with impunity. He
supports denial.
Roberta Lindsay, the applicant, feels attacked tonight and she
responded to some of the comments made by other speakers . She
expressed that she was lied to by the City staff and her con-
tractor. It was very confusing and the staff was not helpful. The
inspectors came out more when Mrs. Luna called than they did when
Ms. Lindsay called them. Chairman Edwards informed Ms. Lindsay
that there is a grievance procedure in place for her to utilize if
she feels she has been treated unfairly.
Commissioner Johnson, commented that only the merits of this pro-
ject should be taken into consideration and nothing else. Only the
facts before the Commission should be taken into account. He
expressed concern regarding the engineering on the road.
Commissioner Wallace, concurred that only the project should be
considered. She feels that the site is not suitable for what is
being proposed. She recommended denial.
Commissioner Hageman, asked the opinion of a Fire Department
representative. He expressed three concerns, as follows: (1) the
turning radius, (2) response time, and (3) water supply.
Commissioner Zimmerman, asked if the owner of Lot 7 has given con-
sent to abandon San Cayetano. Staff responded no, which could
present a potential legal issue for the City.
ACTION:
Deny Tentative Parcel Map #95001 based on the Findings for Denial
contained in Attachment G.
Motion: Wallace
Second: Johnson
AYES: Wallace, Johnson, Sauter, Hageman, Zimmerman,
Edwards
NOES: None
ABSENT: Bowen
MOTION PASSED: 6:0
0001:31
I
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO .Agenda Item: B-2
i
Through: Steve DeCamp, City Planner Meeting Date: July 9, 1996
r
From: &p'`%Z `Gary Kaiser, Associate Planner File !Nos: ZC #96002 ;
TTM 1960,01 & CUP #96004
3
SUBJECT:
Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's lack of
action on zone change (ZC 196002) , tentative trach map (TTM
#96001) and conditional use permit (CUP #96004) applications that
would allow for the subdivision of a 2 . 18-acre (net) site into
nineteen (19) planned residential lots ranging injsize from 4, 183
to 10, 694 square feet. The proposed density of the project
reflects the applicant's request for a density bonus (from 16
two-bedroom units to 19 two-bedroom units) for the provision of
housing that would be reserved for households with] low-to-
moderate income levels.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Council should Find the Negative Declaration prepared for the
project adequate and approve the project after modifying
Conditions #29 (a) and #29 (b) as shown by Attachment C.
DISCUSSION:
The project was considered by the Planning Commission during a
public hearing held on June 4, 1996. The hearingopened with a
verbal staff report, during which staff amended recommended
Conditions of Approval by correcting Condition #25 and adding
Conditions #39 and #40. After receiving public testimony and
much ensuing discussion, there was a motion and second to accept
the Negative Declaration prepared for the projectas adequate.
With one Planning Commissioner absent, however, the result of
that vote was a 3 : 3 deadlock. The Planning Commission agreed to
continue the hearing to June 18, 1996.
On June 18, 1996, the hearing was re-opened and once again there
was much public testimony and Planning Commissionjdiscussion. A
motion was made and seconded to add yet another condition to the
recommended Conditions of Approval in an attempt too ease their
Finding the Negative Declaration as adequate (Condition #41) .
This motion was passed unanimously. With a different Planning
Commissioner absent, however, the Commission onceagain
deadlocked when acceptance of the Negative Declaration came to an
actual vote.
3
1
000132
On the day following this second hearing date, an appeal was
received from the applicant arguing that the delays in the
processing of his application were costing him dearly and that
the Planning Commission's continued lack of action on the project
constituted de facto denial. On the advise of the City Attorney,
staff accepted that appeal and has now brought the matter to the
Council for resolution.
As if the project and its tribulations at the Planning Commission
level were not confusing enough, there is disagreement between
planning and engineering staffs as to the appropriate width and
design of proposed new streets (the preferences are equivalent
with respect to safety and "maintainability") . Planning staff is
recommending approval of the project if and only if conditions
recommended by engineering staff (Conditions #29 (a) and #29 (b) )
are modified. Whereas the recommended re-wording of these
conditions (Attachment C) would allow the new streets essentially
as proposed, the existing wording of these conditions (Attachment
A) would result in the applicant having to dedicate wider right-
of-ways for the new streets than proposed. If those additional
right-of-way widths are indeed required, the project could no
longer substantially comply with PD7 standards and would
therefore have to be substantially redesigned (although proposed
density would still be allowable) .
CONCLUSIONS•
In response to some of the testimony received during Planning
Commission hearings on this subject, and as a reiteration of
state law and consistent court rulings, a development application
must be reviewed under the development standards in effect at the
time the application is received and accepted for processing. In
other words, now is not the time to reconsider the zoning of the
subject site or, with the exception of the requested density
bonus, what the allowable density ought to be.
The project as proposed does, or through conditioning can, comply
with all the City's development standards except that an
exception to Engineering Standards is necessary with respect to
the width and design of the proposed new streets. In this case,
the only thing that would be gained from strict application of
Engineering Standards would be the allowance of seven (7) on-
street parking spaces within the project. Staff continues to
support the project and feels the drainage improvements, street
improvements and affordable housing offered by the project are
public benefits that outweigh the project' s shortcomings.
Attachments:
Attachment A - Staff Report to Planning Commission with
revised Conditions of Approval
Attachment B - Minutes of Planning Commission Hearing(s)
Attachment C - Recommended Re-wording of Conditions #29 (a)
and #29 (b)
000133
CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B . 1
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 4, 1996
BY: Gary Kaiser, Associate Planner File No: ZC #96002;
TTM #960.01 & CUP #96004
SUBJECT:
Consideration of zone change, conditional use permit and
.tentative tract map applications for a 19-lot planned residential
development that includes a density bonus for the provision of
housing that would be available to low-to-moderate income
households.
RECOMMENDATION•
The Planning Commission should make the following recommendations
to the City Council:
1. That Findings be made that the project would not have a
significant adverse effect on the environment and that the
Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate
under the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) ;
2. That Zone Change #96002 be approved based on the Findings
and land use provisions contained in Draft Ordinance No. 306
(Attachment Q) ;
3. That Conditional Use Permit #96004 be approved based on the
Findings and Conditions contained in Attachment N; and
4. That Tentative Tract Map #96001 be approved based on the
Findings for Approval contained in Attachment O and the
Conditions of Approval contained in Attachment P.
A. SITUATION AND FACTS:
I. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kelly Gearhart
2 . Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cannon Associates
3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . .4700 Traffic Way
4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. 18 acres (net)
1 40
000135
3
5. General Plan Designation. . . .Low Density Multiple Family
6 . Current Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF-10
7. Proposed Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . .RMF-10(PD7 )
8. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vacant
9. Environmental Status. . . . . . . .Negative Declaration pending
B. ANALYSIS•
The project site is located on the west side of Traffic Way
immediately south of its junction with Delores Avenue
(Attachments A & B) .
As shown by these Attachments, the site is designated for Low
Density Multiple Family use and is zoned RMF-10. The intent of
this multi-family zoning is to create a density buffer (i.e. ,
transitioned land use intensity) between the industrial area
along the east side of Traffic Way and the larger-lot single
family neighborhood to the west of the site. The zoning allows a
certain residential density which may manifest itself as either
apartments, condominiums or separate relatively small parcels
collectively called a planned development. The zoning also
allows, through the conditional use permit process, a density
bonus of up to 25% for projects providing affordable housing to
low and moderate income persons.
With that, the project now being proposed consists of the
following three (3) separate but inter-related applications:
Zone Change -- The proposed Zone Change would add generic Planned
Development Overlay Zone No. 7 (PD7) to the current low density
multiple family (RMF-10) zoning of the site, thereby allowing for
the creation of residential lots smaller than one-half on the
condition that the lots be developed in accordance with a Master
Plan of Development.
Conditional Use permit -- The Conditional Use Permit would allow
a density bonus (3 additional units) for the provision of housing
available to households with low-to-moderate income levels.
Tentative Tract Map -- The Tentative Tract Map (Attachment C)
would allow the existing two (2) lots which comprise the site to
be subdivided into nineteen ( 19) new parcels ranging in size from
4, 183 to 10,694 square feet. The Tentative Tract Map application
would also offer to dedicate right-of-ways for the Widening of
existing streets and that construction of three (3) new streets.
2
000136
Prosect Setting
The site is presently 2.7 acres (gross) but after subtracting the
areas proposed for dedication the size of the site is reduced to
2.18 acres (net) .
As shown by the preliminary grading plan (Attachment D) , the site
is vacant and essentially flat except for 10-15% slopes affecting
the extreme northerly portion of the site and the extreme
southwest corner of the site. The site is low in elevation in
relation to surrounding properties and ponds in the rainy season,
thereby earning the nickname "bathtub lot. " Although this
ponding has not caused much of a problem on the unimproved
project site, seasonal flooding is indeed a problem for the
industrial area on the east side of Traffic Way as well as the
aptly-named "river gardens" residential area east of that (see
Drainage, below) .
The only native tree on the site is an 84" White Oak at the
corner of Delores and Traffic Way. This tree is proposed to be
saved but its survival could be further ensured by relocating the
residence on proposed Lot 1 as close as possible to the rear
property line of that Lot. The other five (5) existing trees are
non-native yet two (2) of those are proposed to be saved,
including a 36" Willow tree in the front yard of proposed Lot 16.
Housing Element Policies
The City' s goals and policies related to housing are contained in
the Housing Element of the City' s General Plan. On page VI-32 of
that Element, the following policies can be found which are
intended to provide for increased opportunities for home
ownership (as opposed to rental housing) :
* "Promote the development and construction of new
housing units for low and moderate income persons,
including the 25 percent density bonus. "
* "Promote and encourage the development and construction
of new housingunits for "
first time home buyers.
* "Continue to encourage, where suitable, Planned
Development Overlay zones (PDs) , particularly the PD7
zone of small lot subdivisions, for single family
ownership. "
3
00013'7
Subdivision Design
Prior to the design and submittal of the current proposal, the
g P P ,
applicant had met with staff and discussed numerous other
development schemes for the property. One alternative was to
align units side-by-side along Traffic Way and Alamo Avenue such
that each unit would either have its own driveway connection
directly to the street or share one with an adjoining lot.
Although this would have undoubtedly been a less expensive
project, the concept was rejected because of traffic safety
concerns and the failure to create a "sub-neighborhood" or sense
of community within the project.
Another alternative considered was the creation of cul-de-sacs
instead of through streets. That concept was rejected because of
drainage concerns and the unusable, or far less usable, yard
areas that necessarily resulted.
In short, the latest layout for the project is cleaprly superior
to any of the others contemplated. The proposed through streets
allow for the conveyance of upstream drainage and the spacing of
proposed new streets creates regular-shaped lots with optimized
usable yard areas. In addition, the proposed lots face inwards
towards one another which, combined with common landscaping,
architecture, landscaping and fencing, fosters a sense of
community and continuity within the project but not to the extent
the project appears monotonous (as it did under the first
scenario described above) .
Subdivision Density
With a net acreage of 2. 18 and an average slope of less than ten
( 10) percent, the current zoning would allow for 22one-bedroom
units, 16 two-bedroom units or eleven ( 11) three-bedroom units.
Where the applicant is willing to deed restrict re-sale values to
ensure that additional units will continue to be available to
those with low-to-moderate income levels, the current zoning
would allow for a density bonus of up to twenty-five (25) percent
through the conditional use permit process.
The applicant proposes the construction of nineteen ( 19 ) two-
bedroom units, which would equate to a density bonus of 18.75
percent. If the project is approved, therefore, the three (3 )
additional units would have to be deed restricted such that they
remain available to low-to-moderate income familiesfor a period
of thrity (30) years.
46
4
000138
Pursuant to discussions with the San Luis Obispo Housing
Authority, the most common method of establishing resale price
limits is to determine what eighty percent (80%) of the median
income is and multiply that figure by four (4) . For example, if
the median income in Atascadero is $35, 140, as it was during the
1990 Census, the resale price would be calculated as follows:
{4 x ($35, 140 x 0.80) } _ $112,448
Although this formal resale price restriction would only be
required for three (3) of the proposed units, market conditions
will probably keep the other units close to the affordable range
for the foreseeable future.
Architecture
The applicant proposes two (2) different building styles with
different floor plans which are referred to as "type A" and "type
B" (Attachment F) . Both building types contain two bedrooms, a
den, and an attached two-car garage. "Type B" residences would
be constructed on thirteen ( 13) of the proposed lots while "Type
A" residences, which are slightly larger and have larger front
porches, would be built on only six (6) of the proposed lots.
All of the units would have composition shingle roofs with
hardboard horizontal siding on front elevations and cement
plaster exterior on the side and rear elevations. A color board
will be circulated at the hearing showing the four (4 ) proposed
color schemes to be used. The variation in building styles and
colors prevents monotony while maintaining project identity and
continuity.
Landscaping and Fencing
Landscape and fencing plans are contained in Attachment G. Six-
foot solid wood fencing is proposed along all rear and side
property lines to within twenty (20) feet of front property
lines. At that point, three-foot solid wood fencing is proposed
to extend to the street. Staff feels these three-foot fences
separating front yards should either be eliminated or made see-
through (i.e. , split-rail) such that individual front yards
appear larger and less clutterred.
All landscaped areas would be on fully automatic sprinkler
systems. Several shrubs and an ornamental "street" tree are
proposed in front yards. Staff feels that a native Oak tree
should be added to each of the front yards and that provisions
ought to be made to ensure that front yards are continually
maintained consistent with one another.
5
000139
Rear yards would all be turfed, at least until individual lot
owners begin to individualize their rear yards. Although by no
means drought tolerant, staff feels the turfing isan appropriate
starting point for rear yards as it maximizes play areas for
families with young children and is relatively easy to replace
with alternate landscape materials for those who so, choose.
Proposed Street Improvements
The applicant proposes to grant the additional right-of-way
needed to widen existing streets surrounding the site to City
standards and construct curbs, gutters and sidewalks. The three
(3) new streets are also proposed to be offered for: dedication as
City streets. The new streets would have curbs, gutters and
sidewalks but, as noted by the City Engineer (see Attachments H,
last paragraph, & Attachment I) , the new streets would not be
constructed to the City standard that is typicially required in
multi-family zones with respect to pavement width and width of
right-of-way.
What the applicant has essentially done is mesh City Standard 401
(Attachment J) with City Standard 405 such that curb, gutter and
sidewalk would be provided on both sides of a twenty-six (26)
foot wide traveled way. Thhe applicant feels this its justified
by the limited length and usage of proposed streetsand the
project ' s provision of adequate on-site parking and affordable
housing. The applicant does not oppose a prohibition on parking
along the new streets and is willing to paint the curbs red.
Staff agrees with the applicant that proposed street improvements
are adequate for two-way traffic and that, with each home having
a two-car garage and room for two additional cars in the
driveway, there is no need for on-street parking alpng these
streets. Considering that wider streets and right-of-ways would
result in less-affordable housing and/or lots with less usable
yard area, staff prefers this aspect of the projectas proposed.
Staff feels that, once safety and structural soundness of access
roads are confirmed, the site is better used for housing than
superfluous roadway.
The conditions contained in Attachment P are from the City
Engineer' s office and, although they recognize that the proposed
streets would not pose significant maintenance nor operational
problems provided the Fire Marshal approves and on-street parking
is prohibited, they recommend that proposed new streets strictly
conform to the adopted City Standard 405. Since the Standard
requires a fifty (50) foot right-of-way, the building setback
would change as would density calculations to the print where the
project would have to be redesigned, re-reviewed by` staff and
sent back through the hearing process.
I
6
000140
Before leaving the subject of streets, it should be noted that
the City' s street standards are currently in the process of being
revised. One of the reasons a reconsideration of these standards
is needed is because of questions as to whether right-of-way and
pavement widths currently required -- particulary the ones that
apply in residential zones -- are excessive or otherwise
inconsistent with basic General Plan goals to "preserve the rural
atmosphere of the community" and "respect the winding, tree-lined
nature of the street and road system. "
Drainage
As noted above, the site is currently low-lying and ponds during
storm events. This ponding, like a detention basin, reduces the
extent to which .downstream properties flood during the rainy
season. This project proposes to fill the site and add a
significant amount of additional impervious areas. Thus, it has
the potential to adversely affect downstream properties.
The Assistant City Engineer' s comments related to drainage are
contained in Attachment H. For the project to "pay for itself, "
the applicant should be required to demonstrate that it will not
worsen existing flooding on downstream properties. In this case,
the applicant proposes to go far beyond offsetting the impacts of
this project and has agreed to install a storm drain from the
site all the way to the Salinas River. Such a storm drain, which
the City has planned to do with or without this project, would
significantly decrease existing flooding problems in the area.
Although the applicant, reasonably, would be looking for
reimbursement from the City, the applicant can construct the
improvement far more inexpensively than could the City.
The Land Use Element states that "master storm drainage plans for
.selected sub-drainage basins within the urban services areas
shall be prepared and implemented (Page II-6) . " Such a plan for
this area was prepared in 1987 (Attachment K) , and the
recommended improvement -- a storm drain which the applicant
would be constructing all or a portion of -- is listed as a
"project without funding" in the City' s 1994 Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) . This project would enable that already-planned
improvement to be completed sooner and less expensively.
Master Plan of Development
Lacking a composite drawing which overlays the various landscape,
fencing, architecture and other details of the project, the
Master Plan Development for this project is essentially the
conditions of approval which are ulimately imposed. As usual,
the conditions will "lock-in" subsequent development to the plans
proposed, as modified during the approval process.
7
000141
Environmental Review
Since the project is consistentwith the General Plan and zoning
of the site, most of the "big picture" impacts (land use, air
quality, traffic, public facilities, etc. ) were addressed in the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the ,1992 General
Plan update. A favorable response to this projectwas received,
however, from the Air Pollution Control District (Attachment L) .
The only potentially significant physical effect of the project
was related to drainage, but this impact would be altogether
avoided with recommended conditions of approval which the
applicant has agreed to. Having completed an Initial Study,
staff finds no substantial evidence that project approval could
have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative
Declaration has therefore been prepared (Attachment M) .
CONCLUSIONS•
The project is consistent with the Land Use and Housing Elements
of the City' s General Plan and satisfies applicable Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Upon review of the site and
its surroundings, staff finds no indication that the project
would have an adverse physical effect on the environment; in
fact, staff has found that the project would considerably improve
existing drainage conditions.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A -- Location Map (General Plain)
Attachment B -- Location Map (zoning)
Attachment C -- Tentative Tract Map
Attachment D -- Preliminary Grading Plan ';
Attachment E -- Preliminary Utility Plan '
Attachment F -- Elevations and Floor Plans
Attachment G -- Landscape and Fencing Plain
Attachment H -- Memo from Assistant City 'iEngineer
Attachment I -- Street Standard 405
Attachment J -- Street Standard 401
Attachment K -- Storm Drain Master Plan
Attachment L -- Letter from APCD
Attachment M -- Negative Declaration
Attachment N -- Findings & Conditions of ;Approval (CUP)
Attachment 0 -- Findings for Approval (Map)
Attachment P -- Conditions of Approval (Map)
Attachment Q -- Draft Ordinance No. 306
g
0001,}2
511
�• •`moi:. ,►,�„:R',;,;:• �'.` •t �`�,5 �`�
• l+lf, .IA
�•pow �p �`� � =`� •`
�°' :WTIo
ATTACHMENT-- B,
�. CITY OF ATASCADERO LOCATION MAP (ZONING)
C^�•�•�wa .r =�•—� TTM`', #96001; ZC #96002, At
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT cuw 496004
DEPARTMENT
i
Xyl ; k o
P(FH
%
AV.. f
0 4v
Z r
`— W Z-o
...........
VIE
ui
cr
lto
�P SAVE
0001,14
��+� ATTACHMENT. C,
CITY OF SCADERO TENT. TRACT MAP
ATA
TTM #96001; ZC #96002; AI
' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CUP #96004
DEPARTMENT
CQ
o cQ
_OW13d
' 4
' 111 II i
I
133 as
N
1
IIS
---
G -r--
Ila I 1 Iz I _ - y 1 a
1 w'
>I r+ 1 rr
<: '1 rr li
Ip
unpg C � I I1
�ai
JI
Q ' 1
1
I t- _ • i � � I I—i
111 I 1 , 1
111 1' N
11 -
111
0
— T
0002,15
ATTACHMENT D
PRaLIM. GRADING PLAN
... CITY OF ATASCADERO TTM #96001; ZC #96004; A.
CWP #96004
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
a N
I —oaa3d
11--
i NVS
a
1j3H15 '� dN32iOl I
' j I I I li ,) •� I li � I I �
1 ( e
I =4
8 s d
I`n s3a3l.- —
I '
'-(f � -----------
t
----- ----1 i 1 - —
III
o1, 1c;
i
.�� ATTACHMENT E
^� � n PRELIM. UTILITY PLAN
•�•• CITY OF Ci.11-i5�*+ ,� �E1\� TTM #96001; ZC #96004; A.
=,«:.y«, CUP #96004
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
i I I
I N
il l 02la3d I r
� a
I �
I Y
I I
j'I
-1---
1
133211 - V 32101 -
I
1
1 N
I 11.1 I
d5 2131- >
Q li O I
� 1
i
1
I I I I ! II 1
I pll ' I
II
V .
I
X11
I pXpll � ✓J �l� .�
I
0001,17
� 8
l4 M
•
. r; ;tfillllllllllll'
'= 11111
.4 i
--
mle'
IiA
it t
�' �►, �� 'Illflllldlltli CiL
■
�� � IIIHiII1gtIH� ^
,�y, ' IIIIIIIIIhI •, s-
n
mmun w �•r
-u ATTACHMENT G
LAN.DSCAPEIFENCING PLAN
4444 . . CITY OF ATASCADERO TTM #96001; ZC 096002;
r 14.1N4 to 1:r4-7 CUP 096004
- ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
1
' e..ern rtl4r
i
life M..Mt10tMCt -
I
OAtAOE
.tlli
4..er..4sn.wc�
. •'� «.ern err �
rw.rl..r
ir
LANDSCAPE PLAN-TYPI'A'UNIT
r r..n 141
f
,. a . . .. . :`_ •.!4.....I�a.,�..
..o..n.r•ewl.eal E
Nrrn IwM
le W.ewn.111.tre4...\Ie j !
. u..\.rwn.wr n.4 whir.\ner1.4..e.• ' e.ee.e1.er•- ` 117!E.I.ttttfENCE ,•.
i
�-y GAVAGE
!K/Jl 444\4 r«mw.rwWw
.eu.\\rraerw Ie.1e..11nA•urwler•wu rlAw �
Y f rll.r uw•r.•1..eu.ewe. �`'. .
• � 1,. " /iia ..
1
r w1e.Ire r ae.wn.we
O1r/11tH M..Ne4 tl Y\YM I\NIr WN N\r rIYN��-- `•�p.., A 4444 r Me.e Iw�\.Y4 -.
r..w MN-vO —\e.eetlN "
..4t Me.e.rnR r.4e.\tt 1
LANDSCAPE/IRRIGATION LE" LANDSCAPE PLAN-TYPE W UNIT «..+.
_ 0003,19
ATTACHMENT H
S CITY ENGINEER ' S MEMO
TTO 496001; ZC #9600?;
CI P #96004
CITY OF ATASCADER0
DEPARTMENT OF•PUBLIC WORKS
Jeri i - 1978 6500 PALMA AVENUE,ATASCADERO,CA 93422
Telephone:(805)466-5020 • Fax:(805)461-7615
i •
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 22, 1996
To: Gary Kaiser, Associate Planner
From: John Neil, Assistant City Engineer
Subject: 4700 Traffic Way, Gearhart
Tract 2225
Completeness Review No. 2
Conditions of Approval
This memorandum supersedes our previous memorandum dated May 21, 1996 regarding
the subject subdivision.
Normally, the Engineering Division would not accept an application as complete if land,
other than that in which the applicant or City has sufficient interest, is required for off-site
improvements. This subdivision, as currently proposed, will require the applicant to
acquire a drainage easement across Parcel 1, 16PM17 between Traffic Way and the
Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. At your direction, and in order oto find the
application complete, we have conditioned the applicant to acquire the necessary drainage
easement(s) on land which neither the City nor the applicant has sufficient title or interest.
In this particular case, there are existing rights-of-way in which the storm drain
improvements required for the subdivision could be constructed. One storm drain
alignment which utilizes existing rights-of-way is identified in the "Storm Drain Master
Plan, Traffic Way: San Jacinto Avenue to Rosario" prepared by Tartaglia-Hughes Consulting
Engineers March 1987. Since this alternate alignment is available, we feel that the
accepting the application as complete is reasonable even though the applicant does not
currently hold sufficient interest in lands required for the construction the off-site
improvements as proposed.
Normally, should the applicant fail to acquire the necessary easement(s) the City will be
obligated to, within 120 days of the filing of the final map, acquire by negotiation or
commence condemnation proceedings pursuant to Title 7 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil
000150
l
Procedure. In the event the City fails to meet the 120-day time limitation for acquiring the
easement(s), the condition for construction of offsite improvements is conclusively deemed
to be waived. However in this case, should the applicant fail to acquire the easements
necessary for the off-site improvements as proposed, the existing rights-of-way exist which
would allow for their construction.
Note that the proposed on-site street section is approximately 30' wide curb-to-curb. The
City standard which would normally be applied to a subdivision in this zone (City Standard
405, Local)would require a 40' curb-to-curb width. We have conditioned the subdivision
to conform with the City Standards. However, should on-street parking be prohibited in
the subdivision (i.e. red-curbs) as proposed by the applicant and should the City Fire
Marshal concur that the proposed street section is of adequate width for fire apparatus
access, the proposed street section should pose no significant maintenance (except for the
painting of additional red-curbing) or operational deficiencies. If on-street parking does
occur within the subdivision, travel lanes could be reduced below safe operating widths.
000151
ATTACHMENT I
_ STREET STANDARD 405
,� :.•• . • CITY OF ATASCADERO I TTA #96001; ZC #9600?; �.
c�L�►�M° ' " COP 096004
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
,. DEPARTMENT
REVISIONS APPROVALS
DESCRIPTIONS BY DATE APPROVED COUNCIL RESOlUT10N NO. 6-92 3/10 92
MINIMUM R/W: 50'
as' II
5' 18' 18' 5'
JIZI 2' MIN. TYPE
'B' A.C. (TYP)
2x 2%
27.
q�
P.C.C. SIDEWALK
76'
TYPE 'A' CURB MIN. CLASS II ACC. BASE
AND GUTTER
DRAWN BY:
R.A.L. CITY OF ATASCADERO DESIGNED BY: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DRAWING NO.
S.J.S.
D TE: TYPICAL sECMNS 405
2 27 92
FI NAME: LOCAL
AT405.D WG
000152
ATTACHMENT J
STREET STANDARD 401- -
CITY
01- -CITY OF ATASCADERO TTM 096001; ZC 096004; A
—sT'ti�■e �y CUP #96004
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
c � DEPARTMENT
REVISIONS APPROVALS
DESCRIPTIONS BY I DATE APPROVED COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 26-92 3 10 92
MINIMUM R/W: 40' EXISTING ROADS
50' NEW ROADS
30'
4' 10' 10' 4' 2-
2" MIN. TYPE
"B" A.C. (TYP.)
6" MIN. CLASS II
AGG..BASE (TYP.)
TYP E A
32'
3' _ (23' ASPHALT DIKE AND
— 13' 13' PAVED SHOULDERS TO
MIN. 2" MIN. TYPE MIN. BE INSTALLED WHERE
21
B. A.C. (TYP.) NEEDED TO CONTROL
DRAINAGE OR EROSION.
2% 2% 5z
6" MIN. CLASS 11
AGG. .BASE (TYP.)
TYPE 8 * NOTE: AS AN ALTERNATE THE
CHOKER CAN BE ELIMINATED
AND THE AGG. BASE CARRIED
TO THE HINGE POINT.
DRAWNCITY OF ATASCADERO
R A ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DRAWING NO.
D 61 6N E D BY:
2 2 ' s2 TYPICAL SECTIONS 401
FILE NAME: RURAL LOCAL
000153
ATTACHMENT K
STORM DRAIN, MASTER_ PLAN _
:..�.`� CITY OF ATASCADERO TTM 49§001; zC #96002;
—,«.'«a rr •—••-.. CVP 096004
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
,. DEPARTMENT
MEMO m
pV E
SpLEDa0
D
IRC
r_
w z
x b
=p dam= N vim, co y
i~SGP�a n
3 �
� AYE•
rn
0
oQV � "• QN�,,s cr
N
I*
14
SPN Pv a�� moor.,
EID
.v R pyo AVE. � GR
R10 AVE
RDSP J�
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
6PR R�N�-4 c�
LEGEND
a P STUDY AREA I-IMITS
4y ---o-- EXISTING STOMM DRAIN
EXISTING DRAIN INLET
l� — 360 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN
iq • PROPOSED MANHOLE
• PROPOSED DRAIN INLET
13 Fla. 2
000154
AIIACHMtNI L
LETTER FROM APCD
AIR POLLUT101 . TTM 096001; 'ZC #96002; A,
CUP DISTUNTY OF SAN LUIS eRIC1 CUP #96004
ISPO
April 18 1996
Gary Kaiser
City of Atascadero, Community Development Dept.
6500 Palma Ave.
Atascadero, CA 93422
RE: Tentative Tract 2225
Dear Mr. Kaiser,
Thank you for referring the above mentioned Tentative Tract application for our review and
comment. The applicant is proposing a 19-lot subdivision at 4700 Traffic Way within the City
Limits of Atascadero.
District staff do not anticipate emissions from this project to exceed our significance thresholds.
The site plan indicates that the lots will be accessed by a grid system of streets with pedestrian
sidewalks. Such a layout will likely improve pedestrian and other non automobile dependent
accessibility options. Future development projects in the vicinity should attempt to expand this
pattern of street layout where possible.
Thank you,
e-4
Lajoi
Air Quality Specialist
H:IPLAN\BARRY\WP51V 996\REPERRAL196W 1.BPL
RECEiVED nRR 2 3 1996
2156 Sierra Way, Suite 8 •San Luis Obispo. CA 93401 • 805-781-5912 • FAX: 805781.1035 `�rr��
primed on recycled paper 000155 0155
ATTACHMENT M
NEGATIVE-DECLARATION
_ .
..•• CITY OF RTASCADEROTIM 496001; ZC #96082;
q U P 096004
4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
CITY OF ATASCADERO
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR. .
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
COQ DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 65M PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO,CA $3422 (805)461-5035••:
APPLICANT: 4LL,, G�E�M1dA2r
6660 OAQ0.ToAt taQST1VE
-A-WSC A06SZo) GA 9342_2
PROJECT TITLE: Ed:$- 9600Z i T" s9Eco( Ae4O cuP "600+
PROJECT LOCATION: -+70o TVAFPi L W
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: S�3a.�it�E -two Cz� E,t�S�tik6� ts>TS te�'+ro NtiJF, �Iq)
Ne#-3 PAZCWS FWZP � es�ttc. t�e�er w�T�-+ s,�ty
BoNQS Fait. P f* r t7i t&E +tWS to G •
FINDINGS:
1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment.
2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term e3vironmental goals.
3. The project does not have impacts which are Individually limited.but comAgattvely.considerable.';.:.
4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly::.
DETERNMATION:
Based on the above Endings,and the Information contained in the initial study(made a part hereof by.refer-:-
ence and on file in the Community Development Department),it has been determined that the above project
will not have an adverse impact on the environment.
STEVEN L. DECAMP
CITY PLANNER
Date Posted: MA,-1 14 I`�9Ca
Date Adopted:
rnn„-w=
_ 000156
ATTACHMENT N - Findings & Conditions of Approval
Conditional Use Permit #96004
4700 Traffic Way (Gearhart/Cannon Associates)
June 4, 1996
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
1. The proposed density bonus, as conditioned for off-site
drainage improvements, will not have a significant impact on
the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the
project is adequate.
2. The proposed density bonus, for the provision of housing
units that would be available for ownership to households
with low-to-moderate income levels, is consistent with
policies contained in the Land Use and Housing Elements of
the General Plan.
3. The proposed density bonus, as conditioned for deed
restrictions regulating the resale price of the three (3)
additional units allowed, satisfies all applicable
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The establishment, and subsequent operation and conduct of
the use will not, because of circumstances and conditions
applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the
health, safety, or welfare of the general public or persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be
detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity of the use.
5. The proposed density bonus will not be inconsistent with the
character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its
orderly development.
6. The proposed density bonus, as conditioned for roadway
improvements and parking restrictions, will not generate a
volume of traffic beyond the safe capacity of all roads
providing access to the project, either existing or to be
improved in conjunction with the project, or beyond the
normal traffic volume of the surrounding neighborhood that
would result from full development in accordance with the
Land Use Element.
7. The proposed density bonus, as conditioned for conformance
with an approved Master Plan of Development, is consistent
with the City' s Appearance Review Guidelines.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. All site development shall be consistent with Ordinance No.
306 and the conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map
#96001.
000157
ATTACHMENT O - Findings for Approval
Tentative Tract Map #96001
4700 Traffic Way (Gearhart\Cannon Associates)
June 4, 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING:
The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the
environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project
is adequate.
MAP FINDINGS:
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable
General and Specific Plans.
2. The design and/or improvement of the proposedisubdivision is
consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the density of the
development proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision, and/or the proposed
improvements, will not cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and
wildlife or their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of the
improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by
the public at large for access through or the use of
property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially
equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7. The proposed subdivision design, and/or the type of
improvements proposed, will not cause serious public health
problems.
0001E
ATTACHMENT P - Revised Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map #96001
4700 Traffic Way (Gearhart\Cannon Associates)
Revised during Planning Commission Hearings
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. All site development shall be consistent with Attachment C
(tentative tract map) ; Attachment D (preliminary grading
plan) ; Attachment E (preliminary utility plan) ; Attachment F
(elevations and floor plans) ; Attachment G (landscape and
fencing plans) ; this Attachment (conditions of approval) ;
and all other codes, ordinances, standards and requirements
of the City of Atascadero.
2. The residence on proposed lot 1 shall be relocated towards
the rear property line a distance of ten ( 10) feet to
minimize encroachment into the dripline of the 84" White Oak
located on that lot. The proposed stem wall shall remain
as/if necessary to eliminate the need for fill under said
dripline.
3. Should improvements to Traffic Way (see Engineering
Conditions below) be modified slightly during construction
to allow for a wider measurement from centerline to curb
face to avoid the need to relocate the existing sewer main
in that street, there shall be a transition, or tapering, of
that additional width such that curb, gutter and sidewalk
improvements remain as far as possible from the existing 84"
White Oak near the intersection of Traffic Way and Delores
Avenue.
4 . The applicant shall work with staff in choosing four (4)
distinct yet compatible color schemes to be used for
buildings throughout the project. Said exterior colors
shall be approved by staff prior to the issuance of building
permits.
5. Proposed front yard fencing shall either be eliminated or
modified so that it is not more than 50% sight-obscuring.
Fencing shall be consistent throughout the project.
6. Three (3) of the approved nineteen (19) lots shall have deed
restrictions imposed such that the resale price does not
exceed eighty percent (80%) of the City' s median annual
income multiplied by four (4) . Said deed restrictions shall
apply and remain in effect for a period of thirty (30) years
following final map recordation. The most recent median
income figure available through either the U.S. Bureau of
Census or CA Department of Finance shall be used (i.e. , resale
price may fluctuate with median income levels during 30-year
period) .
7. At least one ( 1) native Oak shall be planted on each of the
proposed lots in addition to proposed landscaping. The
proposed landscaping plans shall also be modified to avoid
the use of turf or other water-demanding plantings beneath
the dripline of the 84" White Oak on proposed lot 1.
Building permit application materials for the residence on
proposed lot 1 shall include recommendations from a
certified arborist for the protection of the 81.4" Oak during
construction and landscaping beneath the tree'is dripline.
The recommendations of the arborist shall be implemented.
Fire Department Conditions
8. All streets shall be installed and in service prior to the
beginning of combustible construction.
9. The existing fire hydrant at the intersection of Valentina
and Alamo Avenues shall be upgraded to a type approved by
the Fire Department.
10. A new fire hydrant shall be installed at the i0tersection of
"Lolita Street" and Traffic Way. The specifictype and
location of the hydrant shall be as approved by the Fire
Department.
11. Fire hydrants shall be installed and in service prior to the
beginning of combustible construction.
Engineerina Department Conditions
12. All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the
City of Atascadero Engineering Department Standard
Specifications and Drawings or as directed by the City
Engineer.
13. The applicant shall enter into an Plan Check/Inspection
agreement with the City. Prior to recordation of the map,
all outstanding plan check/inspection fees shall be paid.
14. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City
Engineering Department prior to the issuance of building
permits.
15. A Preliminary Soils Report shall be prepared for the
property to determine the presence of expansive soil or
other soil problems and shall make recommendations regarding
grading of the proposed site. A final soils report shall be
submitted by the soils engineer prior to the final
inspection and shall certify that all grading was inspected
and approved and that all work done is in accordance with
the plans and the preliminary report.
000160
The final map shall state that a soils report has been
prepared for the subdivision. The statement shall provide
the date the report was prepared along with the name and
address of the soils engineer or geologist who prepared the
report.
16. All public improvements shall be secured with a 100%
Performance Guarantee and a 50% Labor and Materials
Guarantee until the improvements are deemed substantially
complete by the City Engineer. Prior to the final
inspection of the improvements, and before the other
guarantees mentioned in this condition are released, a 10%
Maintenance Guarantee shall be posted to cover the
improvements for a period of l year from the date of the
final inspection. The guarantee amounts shall be based on
an engineer' s estimate submitted by the project engineer and
approved by the City Engineer. The estimate shall be based
on the City Standard Unit Prices for Bonding Estimates. The
Guarantees posted for this subdivision shall be approved by
the City Attorney.
17. A six (6) foot Public Utility Easement (PUE) shall be
provided contiguous to all street frontages.
18. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space,
scenic or other easements are to be shown on the final map.
If there are building or other restrictions related to the
easements, they shall be noted on the final map.
19. The relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall
be the responsibility of the developer.
20. The applicant shall install all new utilities (water, gas,
electric cable TV and telephone) underground. Utilities
shall be extended to thero ert line frontage of each lot
P P Y
g
or its public utility easement.
21. Any utility trenching in existing streets shall be overlayed
to restore a smooth riding surface as required by the City
Engineer.
22. Drainage facilities shall be constructed to City of
Atascadero Standards. Each improvement shall be designed so
as to not increase the rate of flow of water onto adjacent
properties. Should a diversion be required, the applicant
shall construct improvements upstream and or downstream to
provide all affected properties at lease the same level of
flood protection as existed prior to the diversion as
determined by the City Engineer.
23. Drainage shall cross lot lines only where a drainage
easement has been provided. Drainage from off-site areas
shall be conveyed across the subdivision site in drainage
easements.
000161
24. The applicant shall limit storm water discharge from the
developed site to the design capacity of the downstream
drainage improvements. The applicant shall demonstrate that
the design capacity of the downstream drainage improvements,
or natural water courses, can adequately convey the total flow
of storm water from the fully developed watershed plus the
developed subdivision site without adversely affecting other
properties.
25. The applicant shall design and construct those portions of the
storm drain system as described in the "Storm Drain Master
Plan, Traffic Way: San Jacinto Avenue to Rosario" prepared by
Tartaglia-Hughes Consulting Engineers March 1987 which are
required to reasonably offset the impacts of the subdivision.
At a minimum, the applicant shall design and. construct the
following storm drain improvements as identified in the master
plan:
A. Design and construct the storm drain along Buena Avenue
from the Salinas River to the Southern Pacific Railroad
right-of-way or as approved by the City Engineer.
B. Design and construct those portions of the storm drain
required to convey storm water from both the subdivision
and off-site areas to the Southern Papific Railroad
right-of-way in conformance with Sections of the City
Standards or as approved by the City Engineer.
The applicant may apply for an agreement to be reimbursed for
the design and construction of the above storm drain
improvements per Section 11-10.009 of the Municipal Code and
the Subdivision Map Act. The amount to be reimbursed shall be
the actual cost incurred by the applicant for the design and
construction of the storm drain improvements, including a
reasonable amount attributable to interest, as determined by
the City Engineer. The total reimbursement for: the design and
construction of the storm drain improvements shall not include
those costs for design and construction which 'are reasonably
related and roughly proportional to the impacts of the
subdivision as determined by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall submit improvement plans ++++for review and
approval by the City Engineer for the storm dram improvements
prior to recordation of the final map. The plans shall be
prepared in conformance with Section 2 of the City Standards.
26. The applicant shall acquire public drainages easements as
required to convey storm water from the Traflfic Way right-
of-way to the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way in
conformance with Section 5.03 of the City Standards or as
approved by the City 'Engineer.
000162
Should the applicant fail to acquire the public drainage
easements, the applicant shall construct the storm brain
improvements along the alignment identified in the "Storm 0
Drain Master Plan, Traffic Way: San Jacinto Avenue to
Rosario" prepared by Tartaglia-Hughes Consulting Engineers
March 1987 as required to reasonably offset the impacts of
the subdivision.
27 . A grading and drainage plan, prepared by a registered civil
engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval by th3
City Engineer prior to the recordation of the final map. A
registered civil engineer shall provide a written statement
that all work has been completed and is in full compliance
with the approved plans and the Uniform Building Code (UBC) .
28. A sedimentation/erosion control plan addressing interim
erosion control measures to be used during construction
shall be submitted for review and approval by the City
Engineer prior to the recording of the final map. The
sedimentation/erosion control plan shall be prepared by a
registered civil engineer.
29. Road improvement plans prepared by a registered civil
engineer shall be submitted for review and approval by the
City Engineer prior to recordation of the final map. Road
improvement plans shall conform to the requirements of the
City Standard Specifications, Section 2 - Preparation of
Plans. R-value testing shall be done, and the pavement
section designed by a registered civil engineer to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Road improvements shall
include, but not be limited to the following:
a. The on-site streets shall be fully improved to City Std
405 (Local) .
b. A 50' offer of dedication shall be provided for
the on-site streets. The offer of dedication
shall be recorded prior to, or in conjunction
with, the recordation of the final map.
C. Traffic Way shall be improved from centerline to the
property frontage in conformance with City Standard 406
(Collector) contiguous to the entire property frontage,
or as approved by the City Engineer. The improvements
may require the overlaying of the existing pavement to
remedy an inadequate structural section or to remedy a
deteriorated paving surface. Transitions shall be
constructed where required to achieve a smooth join
with existing improvements.
d• m_Aff-c Way, Alamo Avenue and Dolores Avenue shall be
improved from centerline to the property frontage in
conformance with City Standard 405 (Local) contiguous
to the entire property frontage, or as approved by the
000163
City Engineer. The improvements may regdire the
overlaying of the existing pavement to remedy an
inadequate structural section or to remedy a
deteriorated paving surface. Transitions) shall be
constructed where required to achieve a smooth join
with existing improvements.
e. Offers of dedication shall be provided along TFaffie
Way, Alamo Avenue and Dolores Avenue as zequired to
achieve a minimum 25' wide half-width right-of-way
(centerline to property frontage) . Offers of
dedication shall be recorded prior to, or, in
conjunction with, the final map.
f. Offers of dedication shall be provided along Traffic
Way as required to achieve a minimum 30' gide
half-width right-of-way (centerline to property
frontage) . Offers of dedication shall be recorded
prior to, or in conjunction with, the final map.
g. Slope easements shall be provided on each side of the
right-of-way as needed to accommodate cut or fill
slopes.
30. All property corners shall be monumented for construction
control and shall be promptly replaced if disturbed. All
final property corners and street monuments shall be
installed, or bonded for, prior to acceptance of the
improvements.
31. A black line clear Mylar (0.4 mil) copy and a blue line
print of the tract map shall be provided to the City upon
recordation.
32. A Mylar copy and a blue line print of as-built improvement
plans, signed by the registered engineer who prepared the
plans shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to the
final inspection. A certification shall be included that
all survey monuments have been set as shown on the tract
map.
33. A final map in substantial conformance with the approved
tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth
in the City of Atascadero Subdivision Ordinance and the
Subdivision Map Act shall be submitted to the? City Engineer
for approval. The final map shall be signed by the City
Engineer prior to it being placed on the agenda for City
Council approval.
34. The applicant shall acquire title or interest in any off-site
land that may be required to allow for the construction of the
improvements. The applicant shall bear all casts associated
with the necessary acquisitions. The applicant shall also
gain concurrence from all adjacent property'', owners whose
000164
ingress or egress is affected by these improvements.
35. All public improvement work required by these conditions of
approval shall be completed, or bonded, prior to recordation
of the final map. The applicant shall enter into a
Subdivision Agreement with the City if the work is to be
bonded. The Subdivision Agreement shall be submitted for
review and approval by the City Attorney and the City
Engineer. The Subdivision Agreement shall be recorded prior
to, or in conjunction with, the final map.
36. The public improvement work required by these conditions of
approval shall be substantially complete, as determined by the
City Engineer, before issuance of building permits.
37. Sewer annexation fees shall be paid prior to the recordation
of the final map.
38. This tentative map approval shall expire two (2) Years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time has
been granted pursuant to a written request received prior to
the expiration date.
39. Conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be
recorded concurrently with the final map to ensure
architecture, fencing, landscaping and land use (i.e. , maximum
of two bedrooms per unit) are maintained consistent with these
conditions of approval. Said CC&Rs shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Planner before their recordation.
40. The Agreement mentioned in Condition #25 (above) shall include
provisions for reimbursement of sewer main extensions beyond
that necessary to serve this project (along the site' s full
Delores and Alamo frontages) . All sewer improvements shall be
constructed to City standards, as approved by the Chief of
Wastewater Operations.
41. Building footprints shall not exceed 35% of individual lot
areas.
GK:\ttm96001.co2
000165
ATTACHMENT Q
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. X06
TTM #96001; ZC #96002; A
CWP #96004
dRDINANCE NO. 306
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITYOF
ATASCADERO AMENDING MAP 6 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS
BY REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES AT 4700 TRAFFIC WAY
FROM RMF/10 TO RMF/10 (PD7)
(ZC 96002: GEARHART)
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with
the General Plan in effect at the time of applicatioon acceptance,
as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is in conforman6e with Section
65800 et seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning
regulations; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will not have 1a significant
adverse impact upon the environment. The Negative Declaration
prepared for the project is adequate; and
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public
hearing on June 4, 1996, and has recommended approval of Zone
Change 96002.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does
ordain as follows:
Section 1. Council Findings.
1. The proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses and
the zoning in effect at the time of application
acceptance.
2. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan
in effect at the time of application acceptance.
3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse
environmental impacts." The Negative Declaration
prepared for the project is adequate.
4. Modification of development standards or processing
requirements is warranted to promote orderly and
harmonious development.
5. Modification of development standards or processing
requirements will enhance the opportunity to best utilize
special characteristics of an area and will have a
beneficial effect on the area.
000166
Ordinance No. 306
Page 2
6. Benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be
reasonably achieved through existing development
standards or processing requirements.
7. The proposed plans offer certain redeeming features to
compensate for requested modifications.
Section 2. Zoning Map.
Map number 6 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of
Atascadero on file in the City Community Development Department is
hereby amended to reclassify the parcels listed below, and shown on
the attached Exhibit A which is hereby made a part of this
ordinance by reference:
Block P and Portion of Block O, Atascadero Colony
Assessor' s Parcel Nos. 028-084-002 & 028-103-014
Development of said property shall be in accordance with the
standards of the Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 7 and the
Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 96001 (Tract 2225) .',
Section 3. Publication.
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once,
within fifteen ( 15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News,
a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and
circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the
Government Code; shall certify the adopting 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 the City.
Y
Section 4. 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.
On motion by and seconded by
, the foregoing Ordinance is approved by
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
00016'7
Ordinance No. 306
Page 3
ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADER042
By:
GEORGE P. HIGHLaAND, Mayor
ATTEST:
LEE PRICE, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
STEVEN L. DECAMP, City Planner
000168
ORDINANCE NO. 3 0 6 EXHIBITS
Page 1 of Y
44 /
F H
'94,4'
T1 i
�►,V 4
104 Uj
7d
N FROM: (RMF-10)
0cr
S1TE
Z/ r TO : "RMF-10(PD7)"
LU
37a
F- tet'
1 1 vt �2—�.`��ti J'G� ice.• '
Z
Yo
•
New Zone="ABC'
Old Zone=(XYZ)
All Overlay Zones to remain unchanged 4
' 0Q� rj
ATTACHMENT B
Minutes of June 4, 1996 and June 18, 1$96
Planning Commission Hearings
000170
CITY OF ATASCADERO
PLANNING COMMISSION
6/4%96
ACTION MINUTES
SUBJECT: B. HEARINGS APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS
1 . ZONE CHANGE #96002/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #96004/
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #96001:
Consideration of applications filed by Kelly Gearhart
(Cannon Associates) for a proposed 19-lot planned resi-
dential development. The project includes a requested
density bonus for the ,provision of housing that would
be available to low-to-moderate income households.
Subject site is located at 4700 Traffic Way.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (Kaiser)
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the following
recommendations to the City Council:
1 . Find that the project would not have a significant
adverse effect on the environment and that the Negative
Declaration prepared for the project is adequate under
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) ;
2 . That Zone Change #96002 be approved based on the
Findings contained in Draft Ordinance No. 306
(Attachment Q) ;
3 . That Conditional Use Permit #96004 be approved based on
the Findings and Conditions contained in Attachment N;
and
4 . That Tentative Tract Map #96001 be approved based on
the Findings for Approval contained in Attachment 0, as
modified, and the Conditions of Approval contained in
Attachment P.
TESTIMONY:
John Falkenstein, Cannon Associates, represented the applicant. He
elaborated on the staff report and answered questions on the open
space calculation as well as other questions from the Commission. He
justified the 40 foot right-of-way and discussed drainage issues .
Steve Pascal, Morro Bay, who owns property at 4905 and 4785 Traffic
Way, expressed that he supports the project and is willing to work
with the applicant as long as the project improves the flooding on his
property. He expressed serious concerns about how the water is going
to be diverted. He asked questions regarding zoning differences
(Page 3 of 6)
0001'71
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 1996
Steve Pascal (continued)
between adjacent properties and was concerned aboutlater having to
justify a zoning change because the new residents don't like having
industrial property operating next door.
Lyndon Denlinger, who'owns Lyndon' s Automotive and is a tenant in one
of Mr. Pascal' s properties on Traffic Way, supports the project if
they can show adequate plans but is concerned that the water problem
in the area is being understated.
Carl Wassink, who owns Atascadero Marble and is another tenant in Mr.
Pascal' s properties on Traffic Way, is not opposed to the project or
property rights, but he feels that not enough is being done to support
and protect industrial zoning. While he is not opposed to the
project, he is opposed to the way it is laid out.
Chris Temple, 6115 Buena Avenue, wants to have an opportunity to
somehow take advantage of this storm drain since the City will be
paying for part of it. Buena Avenue has no drainage because the
street is either higher than or level with the property along it. He
would like to see something done, either now or in the future, that
would improve the flooding on Buena Avenue.
Gary Graton, 4455 Sycamore, which is "downstream from this Buena
property. " He expressed concerns that, since some public funds are
going to be used to finance this storm drain system, that the issue of
the drainage in the downstream area be addressed and that the storm
drain be of adequate size to provide for some drainage in the
downstream area as well. He is not opposed to sorAeone developing
their property, but is opposed to someone "moving their puddle to the
other side of the railroad tracks and putting it in [his) backyard. "
Jim Taves, Bible Baptist Church on Buena and Hidalgo Avenue, is
concerned about the condition of the road during construction of this
drainage system. He was satisfied when he discovered that
construction would probably not prevent those attending church from
parking in the lot provided by the church because;, they would not
operate at night or on weekends.
Don Jones, 4585 Viscano, opposed to zoning variances (i.e. , industrial
next to residential) ; he likes the neighborhood theway it is . He
asked questions about the drainage and wanted to know where the money
from the City will come from. He also expressed concern about the
CC&R' s prohibiting fencing between the homes and Traffic Way and
industrial property. He is opposed to the project. (See Attachment
"A" provided by Mr. Jones, which reflects his concerns regarding the
inadequacy of the staff report on this project) .
ACTION: Recommend to the City Council that the project would not
have a significant adverse effect on the environment and
(Page 4 of 6 )
0001'72
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 1996
that the Negative Declaration prepared for the project is
adequate under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (.CEQA) .
Motion: Johnson
Second: Edwards
AYES: Johnson, Edwards, Wallace
NOES: Sauter, Hageman, .Zimmerman
ABSENT: Bowen
MOTION FAILED: 3:3 Action is continued to the next
meeting.
(Page 5 of 6)
0001'73
ATTACHMENT "A"
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE- 4, 1996
. THERE IS NO FINANCIAL INFORMATION INCLUDED
OR PUBLIC REVIEW AND DISCLOSURE FOR THE PUBLIC
WORKS PORTIONS\REQUIRED AS PART OF THE STAFF
REPORT�OR A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
I AM TOLD BY STAFF THATTHIS OMISSION IS
INTENTIONAL, AND THAT THE ELA ING COMMISSION
IS NOT INVOLVED IN SUCH FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
IN THESE PARTICULAR APPLICATIONS.
I BELIEVE THIS CLEARL
MISUNDERSTAN -ff WHAT A PLANNING COMMISSION
IS.
BY THIS I MEAN THAT THE TERM 'PLANNING:
COMMISSION' IS A LEGAL DEFINITION GIVEN IN PUBLIC
LAW IN ESSENCE A 'PLANNING COMMISSION ' IS
A LAW AND A LAW NOT ARBITRARY IN GOVERNMENT
CODE.
NOR ARE THE SEVERAL PAGES OF SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS AND REQUIRED DUTIES IN THE
LEGISLATION CALLED 'PLANNING COMMISSION':
IN THIS LAW CERTAIN SPECIFIED THINGS ARE TO
BE PUT IN SO AS TO BE ACTED-UPON AND COME OUT IN
A PARTICULAR FORM. IF A PROPOSAL IS DEFECTIVE
AS TO SOME SPECIFIC REQUIRED TIT
IS DEFECTIVE IN THE LAW
0001'74
THE PUBLISHED CITY ORDINANCE INCORPORATES
IN WHOLE THE GOVERNMENT CODE WHEN
ESTABLISHING THIS COMMISSION
CH.9 PLANNING COMMISSION SEC. 2-9.07
DEERINGS CALIF. CODE GOVERNMENT SECTION 6511
PG. 251 SECTION 6500A.
REVIEW CAPITAL BUDGETS AND ASSURE THE EFFICIENT
EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS.
PG. 215 SECTION 65103 C
THE REVIEW PUBLIC WORKS REQUIREMENT FOR A
PLANNING COMMISSION ESTABLISHED BY THIS CODE.
THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MY CHOICE OR
MY PREFERENCE THESE REQUIREMENTS AND
STATUTES ARE THE LAW THAT A PLANNING
COMMISSION IS AND EMBODIES.
IF WE DON'T LIKE IT WE CAN TALK TO THE
LEGISLATURE, BUT IGNORING THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THIS LAW IS NOT AN OPTION,
STAFF ARGUMENT, TELLING ME THIS ISN'T THE
WAY WE DO IT . DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A RIGHT®
IT APPEARS TOME TO ILLUMINATE "_ ^"_".^'_- T LACK OF
KNOWLEDGE
ABOUT THE REQUIREMENTS OF 'A LAW
CALLED A PLANNING COMMISSION' FOR WHICH THEY
PREPARE THESE SES- aQ f-o�
0001'75
WHEN PUBLIC NOTICE IS SENT OUT
AS NOTIFICATION THAT A "PLANNING COMMISSION "
IS MEETING TO DISCUSS A PROJECT, I EXPECT it,
STAFF REPORISFOR A 'PLANNING COMMISSION' AS
DEFINED; AND NOT MERELY WHAT SOMEONE THINKS 1
SHOULD KNOW IN A FORMAT THEY WISH TO INVENT.
WHEN IT LACKS SUBSTANCE IT IS A VIOLATION OF
LAW, AND NOTHING LESS.
STRONGLY REQUEST THIS COMMISSION
RECOMMEND A READING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING
LAW BY ALL CONCERNED WITH THESE PROCEEDINGS.
THE ENTIRE FOCUS OF THESE COMMENTS 1S
DIRECTED AT THE MINUTES AND PUBLIC RECORD "FOR
THE HEARING CALLED AT THE LAST PUBLIC MEETING OF
THIS COMMISSION.
000176
CITY OF ATASCADERO
PLANNING COMMISSION
6/18/96
ACTION MINUTES
SUBJECT: B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS
1 . ZONE CHANGE #96002/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
#96004/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #96001:
Consideration of applications filed by Kelly Gearhart
(Cannon Associates) for a proposed 19-lot planned resi-
dential development. The project includes a requested
density bonus for the provisions of housing that would
be available to low-to-moderate income households.
Subject site is located at 4700 Traffic Way.
(CONTINUED FROM THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF JUNE 4, 1996) .
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (Kaiser)
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the following
recommendations to the City Council:
1 . Find that the project would not have a significant adverse
effect on the environment and that the Negative Declaration
prepared for the project is adequate under the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ;
2 . That Zone Change #96002 be approved based on the Findings
contained in Draft Ordinance No. 306 (Attachment Q) ;
3 . That Conditional Use Permit #96004 be approved based on the
Findings and Conditions contained in Attachment N; and
4. That Tentative Trace Map #96001 be approved based on the
Findings for Approval contained in Attachment O, as
modified, and the Conditions of Approval contained in
Attachment P.
TESTIMONY:
Carl Wassink distributed his letter to each Commissioner expressing
concerns about the interactions between a residential area and an
industrial area. (See Attachment "B" )
Paul Rickets, 4475 Sycamore, expressed concern about traffic impact
mitigations during construction. He also expressed concern about the
costs of this project to the City. He wanted to know how valid the
cost estimates are and where the money will come from. He also was
concerned that the project doesn' t result in further flooding of his
mother-in-law' s property. Another concern is about 19 houses on two
acres .
(Page 3 of 12 )
0001'7'7
Planning Commission Meeting, June 18, 1996
'
John Goers, 5200 Dolores, submitted a letter to the Planning
Commission and verbally summarized his concerns, as follows : (1) The
high density single family housing is inconsistent with the density of
the adjoining residential neighborhood. (2) Narrow streets would lead
to parking problems for residents within and outside the tract. He is
also concerned about safety/accessibility for fire trucks on the
substandard streets. (3) The proposed density bonus of three houses
for low-to-moderate income households is not necessary. (4) No
statement on the expected increased enrollment in schools has been
presented. (5) There are four native trees, not one, on the site.
(See Attachment "C" )
Donald Jones, 4585 Viscano Avenue, objected to the 'Conditional Use
Permit because he sees only higher costs being generated in the name
of low-priced housing. The CUP provides for a density bonus
purportedly for low-income property restrictions . It ,is proposed that
3 of 19 homes are being made affordable as defined by', a formula which
has already been addressed. This leaves 16 homes upon which to lay
the expense burden of the storm drain (estimated at $360,000 to
install) and another $150,000 for sewer work to the west side of this
property. Where will these expenses be charged. He feels that the
City is taking a certain liability with respect to funding these
programs when someone has a right to apply for reimbursement. The
testimony regarding the selling price indicated $120-140, 000 . Simply
deducting the $160, 000 figure which is supposed to be the minimum
portion of the Public Works expenses being leveled on the 16 units,
this would place the entire project (all 16 units) into the low-cost
housing parameters . It seems absurd to deduct $10-301000 more cost to
each of 16 families for a return benefit of no more than $8, 000 for
each of three others . It is also notable that these Small houses are
priced at $109 to $120 per square foot of living area. Other new
construction in the area is $10 to $30 per square foot less . Thus,
causing this bonus proposal to appear ridiculous. Low cost housing
should not cost more. Parking on fire lanes is effectively
unenforceable. Mr. Jones is concerned about a residential development
opening onto Traffic Way and the close proximity of railroad tracks .
He also objects to the tentative tract map. The map descriptions and
testimony failed to present all variances being a4forded in these
drawings and they haven' t been discussed.
Gregory Hagopian, 4790 Alamo Avenue (directly across the street from
this project) , feels the benefits outweigh the detriments of the
project. He supports the project because of the economic value and
immediate returns .
Steve DeCamp explained that the funding of this project will be a
payback to the developer of those portions of the drainage system
which are not his legal responsibility to install. The payback will
(Page 4 of 12 )
000178
Planning Commission Meeting, June 18, 1996
be drawn from Drainage Impact Fees collected from developments
throughout the City and from areas upstream of this project. These
fees must, by law, be spent on drainage projects. If the money is not
spent on a drainage project and is left in an account, the developers
who have contributed that money to the City can petition for its
return. This project does not fall into a category that would draw
funds from the General Fund, which was the concern of the Economic
Recovery Taskforce and which is currently the concern of the City
Council.
ACTION: Add a condition (#41) to the Conditions for Approval that
would require the house footprint to be no greater than 35%
of the individual lot, in accordance with the Zoning
Ordinance 9-3. 651(G) .
Motion: Johnson
Second: Edwards
AYES: Johnson, Edwards, Wallace, Bowen, Hageman,
Zimmerman
NOES: None
ABSENT: Sauter
MOTION PASSED: 6:0
ACTION: Recommend to the City Council that the project would not
have a significant adverse effect on the environment and
that the Negative Declaration prepared for the project is
adequate under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .
Motion: Johnson
Second: Edwards
AYES : Johnson, Edwards, Hageman
NOES : Wallace, Bowen, Zimmerman
ABSENT: Sauter -
NO ACTION: 3 :3
(Page 5 of 12 )
0001'79
ATTACHMENT C - Recommended Changes to Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map #96001
4700 Traffic Way (Gearhart\Cannon Associates)
29 . Road improvement plans prepared by a registered civil
engineer shall be submitted for review and approval by the
City Engineer prior to recordation of the final map. Road
improvement plans shall conform to the requirements of the
City Standard Specifications, Section 2 - Preparation of
Plans. R-value testing shall be done, and the pavement
section designed by a registered civil engineer to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Road improvements shall
include, but not be limited to the following:
a. The on-site streets shall be fully improved to Gity sem
495 . to the section shown on the tentative map.
All curbs along these streets shall be painted red to
indicate that on-street parking is prohibited.
b. A -5� 40' offer of dedication shall be provided
for the on-site streets. The offer of dedication
shall be recorded prior to, or in conjunction
with, the recordation of the final map.
000181
i
3
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITVM: B-3
CITY OF ATASCADERO MEETING D*TE: 7-9-96
Through: Andrew J. Takata, City Manager
via: Brady Cherry, Community Services Dire;tor
From: Valerie Humphrey, Staff Assistantgc'�;,
SUBJECT:
Addition of Sanitation Service Charges to the 1096-97 property
taxes.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council adopt the atta0hed resolution
No. 57-96 and Exhibit upon .completion of the public hearing.
BACKGROUND:
City Ordinance provides for the collection oil sewer service
charges on the general County tax bills. The charges applied are
those as revised by the City Council on June 14, 1094 when, after
a Public Hearing, Resolution 56-94 was adopted. 11 The attached
resolution has been prepared in accordance with Section 54354.5 of
the Government Code to accomplish the necessary collection through
the 1996-97 property tax bills. In addition, a NIPtice of Public
Hearing has been published noticing this action.
DISCUSSION•
The basic area of discussion during the public hearing is
whether or not the property owner is responsible ?for all or any
portion of the sewer charge that is listed under the column
entitled "amount" on Exhibit "A" . Any questions or concerns
received during the public hearing may be referred to staff for
resolution in order to ensure compliance with iforwarding the
approved list to the County Auditor in a timely manner.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The City will bill approximately $1,400, 000.010 in sanitation
service charges for fiscal year 1996-97.
Attachments:
Resolution No. 57-96
000182
RESOLUTION N.O. 57-96
A RESOLUTION OF -THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
ADOPTING SERVICE CHARGES TO BE ADDED TO THE
1996-97 PROPERTY TAX BILL
WHEREAS, Council, after due notice was given in accordance
with Section 5473-5473a of the Health and Safety Code has duly held
a public hearing concerning the addition of the 1996-97 service
charges to the 1996-97 property tax bill; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing the attached report marked "Exhibit
All containing such charges was duly received by said Council; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing opportunity was given for
filing objections and protests and for presentation of testimony of
other evidence concerning same; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest that this body adopt the
charges and determine and confirm the report presented at the
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Atascadero, as follows:
Section 1. That the recitals set forth hereinabove are true,
correct and valid.
Section 2. That Council hereby adopts the service charges set
forth on the attached report marked "Exhibit All which is hereby
expressly incorporated herein by reference ad though here fully set
forth; and Council hereby determines and confirms the report
containing such charges as set forth in said "Exhibit All and hereby
further determines and confirms that each and every service charge
set forth in said report is true and accurate and is in fact owed.
Section 3 . That the charges as so confirmed and determined
and adopted shall appear as separate items on the tax bill of each
parcel listed in said report, and such charges shall be collected
at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary County ad
valorem taxes are collected, and are subject to the same penalties
in the same procedure and sale in case the delinquency is provided
for such taxes.
Section 4 . The City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this
resolution and said Exhibit A with the County Auditor upon its
adoption.
Section 5. This resolution is approved by at least a two-
thirds vote of said Council.
0
000183
On motion by Councilperson and seconded by
Councilperson the foregoing resolution is hereby
adopted in its entirety by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST: CITY OF ATIASCADERO
LEE PRICE, City Clerk GEORGE P. HIGHLAND, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney
ill
000184
On motion by Councilperson and seconded by
Councilperson the foregoing resolution is hereby
adopted in its entirety by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO
LEE PRICE, City Clerk GEORGE P. HIGHLAND, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney
000184
EXHIBIT A
Due to the length of this document it will not
be reproduced for the agenda. A complete copy of
the listing is available in the City Clerk's Office
000185
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-4
Via: Andrew J. Takata, City Manager
From: Arther R. Montandon, City Attorney Meeting D*te: 7/9/96
SUBJECT: Ordinance regulating skateboarding and skating on public property and
in commercial areas
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on staff's recommendations, 1) Review this memorandum and proposed
Ordinance No. 307, and 2) make a motion to waive reading Ord. No. 307 in full and
introduce it on first reading, by title only.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council has requested that an ordinance regulating skating be brought back
for consideration. I met with the Chief of Police and Community Services Director to
receive input regarding the scope of such an ordinance. The proposed ordinance is
the result of their recommendations.
Vehicle Code Sections 21968 and 21969 authorize cities to regulate skateboarding
and skating on highways, sidewalks and roadways. This ordinancle is an exercise of
this authority.
The proposed ordinance prohibits skateboarding and skating on all highways,
sidewalks and roadways adjacent to or in close proximity to a public building or
business establishment. It also prohibits this activity on all public (property (e.g., City
Hall, parks, schools, etc.) unless the property is posted to permit such activity. There
are no regulations proposed which would impact skating in residential, industrial or
undeveloped areas.
The ordinance also specifically authorizes the enforcing officer to sieze skates,
skateboards and other devices as evidence. The Municipal. Code already, in Section
4-2.1001 , makes it a violation for any parent or guardian to authorize or knowingly
permit a minor to violate this law.
The penalty for violating these sections is either an infraction (up to $100-5500 fine)
or a misdemeanor (up to $1 ,000 fine and six months in counter jail). The citing
officer or the City prosecutor may choose how to cite or charge each violation.
ARM:ch
000186
CRAFT
ORDINANCE NO. 307
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
ADDING SECTION 4-2.1009 TO THE ATASCADERO
MUNICIPAL CODE, PROHIBITING SKATING AND SKATEBOARDING
ON PUBLIC SIDEWALKS AND PROPERTY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 4-2.1009 is added to the Atascadero Municipal Code to
read as follows:
4-2. 1009. Skateboarding prohibited on public right-of-ways.
No person shall ride or propel/ a skateboard or similar device upon a public
sidewalk, roadway or other part of the highway adjacent to or in close
proximity to any public building or commercial, business or professional
establishment.
Section 2. Section 4-2.1010 is added to the Atascadero Municipal Code to
read as follows:
Section 4-2. 1010. Skating prohibited on public right-of-ways.
No person shall roller skate upon a public sidewalk, roadway or other part of a
highway adjacent to or in dose proximity to any public building or commercial,
business or professional establishment.
Section 3. Section 4-2.1011 is added to the Atascadero Municipal Code to
read as follows:
Section 4-2. 1011. 'Skateboarding and skating prohibited on public property.
No person shall roller skate or ride or propel a skateboard or similar device on
public property unless the property is posted to allow such conduct.
Section 4. Section 4-2.1012 is added to the Atascadero Municipal Code to
read as follows:
Section 4-2. 1012. Seizure of evidence.
Any device used in violation of any provision of this chapter may be seized by
the enforcing officers as evidence to be removed, stored, forfeited, destroyed
or reclaimed in accordance with the law.
0001£x'7
DRAFT
Ordinance No. 307 (Cont'd)
Section 5. Section 4-2.1013 is added to the Atascadero Municipal Code to
read as follows:
Section 4-2. 1013. Penalty.
Violations of any provision of this chapter may be either an infraction or
misdemeanor in the discretion of the citing or prosecuting authority.
Section 6. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once
within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of
general circulation, printed, published and circulated in the City in accordance with
Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this
ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certiication, together with proof of
posting, to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City.
Section 4. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect
at 12:01 a.m. on the 31" day after its passage.
On motion by Councilmember , seconded by Councilmember
, the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety on the
following roll-call vote.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO
ATTEST:
GEORGE P. HIGHLAND, Mayor
LEE PRICE, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney
000188
t
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 7/9/96
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-5
Through: Andy Takata, City Manager
From: Brad Whitty, Finance Director C
SUBJECT: Placing Delinquent Solid Waste Charges on the Property Tax
Roll for FY 1996-97
RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of Resolution No. 67-96 as may be amended, placing
delinquent solid waste charges on the FY? 1996-97 Property
Tax Roll.
BACKGROUND:
Council adopted Ordinance No. 269 on May 11, 1993, which allows the City to place
delinquent solid waste bills on the property tax roll, provided:
1) That the charges were over 60 days delinquent
2) That the charges could be assessed only after a Public Hearing, and
3) That each effected property owner would receive written notice ten days prior to
the hearings.
Notices have been mailed to the property owners prior to this scheduled meeting.
DISCUSSION:
The total amount of outstanding bills to be placed on the tax rolls is $8,870.75.
Council has the discretion to remove individual accounts from the listing in Resolution No.
67-96, based on circumstances presented at the hearing. However, Council's decision to
remove an individual account would not necessarily preclude Atascadero Waste
Alternatives from pursuing other means of collection. Atascadero Waste Alternatives
representatives will be present to respond to individual questions.
It should be noted that some accounts may have been paid in full or resolved in some other
manner prior to the hearing. Atascadero Waste Alternatives is tracking these accounts and
will be able to report any accounts that should be removed from the listing for that reason.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total $8,870.75 will net the City an additional $443.54 in franchise fee revenues.
IL
RESOLUTION NO. 67-96
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
PLACING DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE CHARGES ON THE
1996-97 PROPERTY TAX ROLL
WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 38790.1 25831 allows cities to place
delinquent solid waste bills onto the annual property tax roll, under certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 269 on May 11, 1993, applying the
provisions of said Government Code to the City of Atascadero; and
WHEREAS, all property owners with delinquent solid waste fees of at least sixty (60)
days were duly notified in writing that their delinquent fees would be placed,on the FY
1996-97 property tax rolls, after a public hearing scheduled for July 9, 1996; and
WHEREAS, Council had duly held a public hearing concerning the placement of
delinquent solid waste fees on the FY 1996-97 property tax rolls; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing the attached report marked "Exhibit K containing the
delinquent fees by Assessor's Parcel Number was duly received by said Council; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing , opportunity was given for filing objections and
protests in presentation of testimony or other evidence concerning same; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest that this body confirm the report presented at
the hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Atascadero as
follows:
Section 1. That the recitals set forth above are true, correct and valid.
Section 2. That Council hereby determines and confirms the report containing
delinquent fees as set forth in "Exhibit K, which is hereby expressly incorporated herein by
reference as though here fully set forth, and hereby further determines and confirms that
each delinquent fee set forth in said report is true and accurate and is in fact owed.
Section 3. That the fees are so confirmed, determined, and adopted shall appear as
separate items on the tax bill of each parcel listed in said report, and such fees shall be
collected at the time and in the same manner as ordinary County ad valorem taxes are
collected, and are subject to the same penalties in the same procedure and sale in case
delinquency is provided for such taxes.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this resolution and said
"Exhibit K with the County Auditor upon its adoption.
Section 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption by a majority
vote of Council.
Resolution No. 67-96
Page 2
On motion by Councilman , seconded by Councilman , the foregoing
resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roil call vote.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
LEE PRICE, City Clerk By: GEORGE P. HIGHLAND, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 67-96
EXHIBIT A
Atascadero Waste Alternatives
1996 Lien
APP! # Lien Amount_ AP!d # Lien Amount
P. O. Box 6008
Atascadero, CA 93423 045,352,002 163.90 031,141,02? 74.55
Phone (805) 466-3636 0915, 431,007 68.25 0?1,16.1,038 1?3.13
024,03'?,019 136.50 031a�71 70.54
028,032.047 176 58- n4c ^02;003 ^S 7.5
0?8,061,01.7 136.60 045,44'1 ,0?4 ?'9.10
0?p 97.50
028,061 .x;4 49,70 04^,051 ,0?^ 1c
J
028,061,049 54.00 04'?.0GI ,C11 50
36.50 04"x,061,01" 7j' .50
.'1^G 1 c 2,050 201.85 049.1", 01ir 71 Pe
nye 161 0?<3 176,7c 09,152,043
(7?? X71 2 >Q f7n
.
^"C,
0 >, .')1 103 cc nn (}�9 1 n1 n1 1c
.rn 125.7`;J 190�^. 1 ,02 c•5 125 7
0%R_,:353,010 147.75 0 19 .101 Q1 7
C219,371,020 78.00 049,202,000 58. 0,5
029,041 ,015 34. 30 nG?y^,31 >r11n 3?. r _
n7q nr-'1 ,015 46.75 049.302.,C01
029. x061,015 87.75 050,01:;018 c'_'.4n
029,061,015 63.50 050,092,009 1.63.55
(:.7 1 q 054 ,0 32..022
1^5.,75
0-29.152,026 .
0-10 171 003 126.75 054,032,0321 71.55
0-19,181,047 149.70 05-4.01 , 08'. o0 1n
02_9,191,029 202.24 054,061,032 125.74
029,262,001 49.70 055,071 ,013 1716..7^
055,3i1,0i8 126.75
X77.,3, 56 nct n _ _
O1 1 ' C V.:v, .:.L,J3� , n .>c I
�_9 ?o1 h•039 167.74 056.1-62,021 1-7.45
�3v.•1)7 001 1'2ri.7r 1755
n n 71 4!717 1-)6 71 056,291.007 `r
0-3C 11} ,,014 7=.37 956, 301,0^ 1
3 ?, 1^•.,'J3`' 4-.75 029,151,005
030,131,009 7c 7c 02^.131,027
030,13^,7-174 199 ^= 054,1.4'_',00.5 8x'.75
0*30,.L2i1 c 1 '2 C..c 056 I
C?0,291',Oil, 'Ji.5L ice,56 701,O-.J 9J
031,.'_.:
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda' item: C - 1
j
Through: Andy Takata, City Manager n Meeting Date: 7-9-96
From: R.H. McHale, Chief of Police t/
Brad Whitty, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Reconsideration of Resolution #21-96 authorizing
the retirement of police canine "Rommel".
RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends amending Resolution #21-96
by reducing the cost of canine Rommel to $700.00, thereby
returning $300.00 of the $1,000.00 Officer Tilney originally
paid.
BACKGROUND: Council will recall that Officer Tilley, by Council
action, was allowed to purchase police canine Rommel for 1,000.00
in March, 1996. Since that time, Officer Tilley (who is on
medical leave at this time) has complained that he'! was compelled
to pay too much for the canine and that he had no i,choice but to
"take the deal". The estimated value of $1,000.00 was
established through conversations between our police canine
program supervisors and the kennel owner who sold the dog to Dr.
and Mrs. Schulte. a
Although the canine was valued at about $6,000.00, !', the Schulte's
actually paid $4,500.00 to Bairos kennels and a '' part of this
amount was assessed for training of the officer (non-POST
reimbursable) .
Various people who have questioned the amount for ;which we sold
Rommel have pointed out that typically retiring police canines
are sold to their handlers for one dollar. This case, however',
is atypical - the officer is potentially retiling, not the
canine; thus there is remaining value in the canine (both for
patrol and drug detection) .
The original goal our department attempted to ;reach was an
agreement which was equitable and sensitive to all parties
including the officer, the City and original benefactor of the
police canine.
All those issues considered, I am comfortable with offering a
compromise agreement of reducing the cost of` Rommel from
$1,000.00 to $700.00 to the officer.
000189
Other alternatives for Council consideration:
1. Leave the agreement as it stands.
2. Return Rommel to the P.D. and re-train the canine along
with another officer for patrol and drug detection work.
(See letter from Dr. DePaolo offering to pay training costs,
etc. )
3. Sell Rommel to Officer Tilley for one dollar (the least
appropriate option, in my judgment) .
Attachments: Report to City Council 3-26-96
Resolution No. 21-96
Transfer Agreement
Letter from Dr. DePaolo
Page - 2 000190
S' r.sx a
�':F" ! la>�.yya,+c -,Vit`. 1. ^wc. r.,:•:. klar ry -.;:..:.,:�.: w�#9"J{ _ r y i
F, : t - �'•�!zs�fi Mkt -'sf`,ki eM, htk ` • r ..r„
�'REPORTTQ;CI'IYCOUN�CIL" `` IRA
CITY OF ATASCADERO f i "' =� Ageniia[tem 4A 5"
5 ,r,;•..,:,.y ,..:.::. -. ,.: ,40,,.'. -....:._,.F y C.: a'S=;{1,+,.aXya{'•t.a r-i.-;''
iq
Through: Andy Takata, City Manager ,: Yy(
ryr . ..- _ ,. _ .._. _. 'ttu.,r<.-:atxire+*9is�•'4t.'"`L x J,°'�-��„n.� � u1.4� s r�a.^cS`-
From: Bud McHale; Chief of.Police �, . . . .... .�. w
Brad Whitty, Finance Director—�
SUBJECT: Retirement of Police Canine Rommel
RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends`. appt�oval.'of R�esolution 21s
authorizing the retirement of the Police Ca I Rommel.
BACKGROUND:
The.Atascadero Police Department has utilized the services of the Canine known as
Rommel over the past four years.. His Services have been very. helpful to the City during
this period of time.
.
A canine used in law enforcement typically remains with one handler during the entire span
of service by the canine. This is done so that the team forms a strong.bond that can be put
to the test in the event of a crisis situation. Officer William Tilley_has been Rommel's -
handler since the canine began service to the City.
DISCUSSION.'-
'IM
ISCUSSION r
r"k+a '"",
Staff believes-the costs`associated with retraining an=0fltcer sand Rommel;exceeds,the� r
benefits that would be gained. Additionally, Rommel may not be "retrainable° to another
Officer because of his bond to Officer Tilley.
Attached is a Transfer Agreement executed by the Police Chief and William Tilley which
will transfer the ownership for the sum of$1,000 upon approval of Resolution 21-96. The
City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and finds it acceptable
Enclosure: :. Transfer Agreement rt _
Resolution 21-96
i
c��Ke�?F63� � � -ia«� rrk�.'""; �„„gx,�,,Y«•Y�:w`;.- � �'� ��'"'�' �'� a a ' �`'� T a ;: ,•
R RESOLIJTION N0.;21-96 '`` t F
Y a h �,RESQLtl ON OF„ f;HE.C1lY�COUf�I'
=� =fit A` �Y;` r l� OF:THE CITY OF ATASCADERO " `
THO m d
RIZING�'HE RETIREMENT������ :*
AND TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF '" '
POLICE CANINE
"��7?3'�' �1,.�3,�-i``�?'?�sq"r. `7- C�s.+rw� .a•,t+:;l�a•a-a1er:F'i.,. < .�:s..-�.a►C�1r'waxs=.'Xs'-'w,i'Y*.. :;..`,•s,2--'-3?"«r�,' -..ti++C.� _ :.:moi _
WHEREAS, Police Canine Rommel has faithfully and diligently served the City of
Atascadero since 1992; and
WHEREAS, Police Canine Rommel, through the guidance and-partner-ship of
Officer William Tilleyhas participated in the
p pa apprehension and arrest of countless:criminals ,
in our community; and _ .
WHEREAS, Police Canine Rommel has courageously and fearlessly assisted law ; z_ >
: a :
Resolution.No. 2 J6, Page•?'[.
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO .• • - •- •
LEE PRICE, City Clerk By: GEORGE P. HIGHLAN
D
Mayor.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER MONTANDON
City Attomey
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
RICHARD H. WHALE
Chief of Police
r �
000133
`f 61
17"y D HARMLESS, INDEMNIFICATIO.,"�
AND TRANSFER AGREEMENT `
This Agreement is made and entered into this day of February, 1996 by and between the CITY of
Atascadero, a municipal corporation, hereafter referred to as "CITY"and William_ TILLEY,an individual a
hereafter referred to as "TILLEY."
It is understood by both the CI'T'Y and TILLEY that CITY owns a Rottweiler dog,!mown as "Rommel"which has
served the CITY for four(4)years in the Atascadero Police Department K9 Unit. TILLEY is a Canine Officer
employed by the City of Atascadero Police Department,and is air experienced dog handler: TILLEY is�-
specifically familiar with the dog "Rommel"_inasmuch as the animal lived with TILLEY and his•family for four
years when TILLEY was the dog's handler.
CITY and TILLEY agree that the dog "Rommel" has been trained to perform certain Police work and that the dog
has, in fact, performed such services for the Atascadero Police Department for approximately four(4)years.
Because such training and work experience, unless properly handled,the dog is potentially dangerous and may
cause serious bodily harm.
TILLEY agrees that as a condition of this agreement that"Rommel"is officially retired and shall not be utilized
as a police canine or representative of the Atascadero Police Department at any time or any place,inside or
outside of Atascadero jurisdiction.
TILLEY agrees to assume full responsibility for the reasonable care, feeding,and medical attention for the dog,
"Rommel" at his own expense.
CITY and TILLEY agree that the approximate value of the dog"Rommel" is one thousand dollars,$1000.
CITY agrees to accept one thousand dollars, $1000 for the transfer of ownership of the dog"Rommel"to Tilley.
TILLEY agrees to and shall fully indemnify, defend,keep and hold the CITY,the City of Atascadero Police
Department,the Chief of Police, and the City's officers,agents,and employees harmless from any and all costs,
liabilities, damages,or expense, including costs of suits,fees, pay for past feeding,training or dog care, and
expenses of legal services,claimed by anyone by reason of injury to or death of person or persons,or damage to
or destruction of property as an actual or proximate result by the dog known as "Rommel"a male Rottweiler dog.
It is the intent of this agreement that the CITY,the City of Atascadero Police Department,the Chief of Policeand
the City's officers,agents,and employees have no financial liability whatsoever resulting from the future action of
the dog, "Rommel" and that TILLEY shall be fully and solely responsible therefor.
In consideration of the above,and for payment of one thousand dollars($1000.),I hereby accept transfer to me of
all rights, title, and!_' t above named Police Service Dog.
2 . 2�- � �,
Signature of new owner Date
Acknowledging receipt of one thousand dollars, ($1000.), the Police Department, City of Atascadero hereby
transfers all rights, title and interest to the above named Police Service Dog effective on the date this agreement is
executed by the Chief of Police or his designee.
Agreement executed by Date
00019 }
ti
FILE
Dr. ANDREWJ. DE PAOLO C®p( '
7129 SAN GREGORIO RD
ATASCADERO, CA. 93422
May 23, 1996 `+GL;,
Mr:Andrew Takata
City Manager ' �-'.:
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Ave. JUAI 0 4 1996
Atascadero, CA. 93422
AT
Dear Andy, .►'
i
i
As you know,my daughter and son-in,law,Andrea and Dr. Jerome Schulte, have donated two
Police canines to the City. We feel very strongly that a canine is a valuable resource'to the police
department and the community. The dogs have been used for a myriad of law-enforcement tasks,
such as tracking, searching and locating illegal drugs, as well as for positive public relations at
various community functions and gatherings.
Inasmuch as Officer Tilley,the current canine handler, is out on medical leave and will apparently
be retiring soon, we wish to offer funds so that the canine, "Rommel", can be retrained to another
handler. It is my understanding that when a canine is ready to retire,he is usually sold to the
current handler. Since Rommel is not yet ready to retire,I think that it would be irresponsible and
fair to the community to retire him at this time. Also,it really seems insensitive and a bit
reckless to sell the dog for much less than its value. I feel that such an approach will surely
discourge others from donating anything to our City in the future.
Inasmuch as I support the efforts of our police department and its members(including the
canine!),please accept my offer to provide funding to retrain Rommel to another handler. In light,_ r,
of the City's fiscal situation,I can appreciate that the City is likely unable to fiunish additional
funds to the canine program. It is my hope that the City won't abondon the program and simply
give away such a valuable asset. (I spoke with Chief McHale about this, and he said he'd be
willing to retrain the canine along with a new handler/officer.)
Sincerely,
i
i
Andrew J. DePaolo '
Copies:George gWand
Ray Johnson
George Lima.
David Bewley
Harold Carden
i
000195 '
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 7/9/96
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item : C-2
Through: Andy Takata, City Manager
From: Lee Price, City Clerk
SUBJECT:
Calling the regular municipal election for November 5, 1996.
RECOMMENDATION:
1 . Review the Finance Director's attached memorandum regarding the status of
the City's adjustment to the Transient Occupancy Tax in light of the Supreme
Court's Guardino decision. '
2. Decide whether or not to submit to the voters at the election the question,
"Shall the adjustments made to the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) by
Ordinance No. 259 adopted on October 13, 1992 be ratified and approved?
3. Choosing one of the two following options, adopt the necessary resolutions
calling the election:
Option A. If Council agrees to place the Question on the ballot, adopt the
following resolutions:
Resolution No. 64-96 - Calling.and giving notice of the holding of a
General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 5, 1996 for the
election of certain officers and for the submission to the voters a
question relating to the ratification of the Transient Occupancy Tax
(TOT), directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis and
providing for the filing of rebuttals.
Resolution No. 65-96 - Requesting the County Board of'Supervisors to
consolidate the General Municipal Election with the Statewide General
Election to be held on November 5, 1996. (This option directs the
County to put the voter ratification measure on the ballot).
•
Report to City Council - Agenda Item C-2
• Page.2 7/9196
Option B. If the City Council agrees not to place the question on the ballot:
Resolution No. 6496 - Calling and giving notice of the holding of a
General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 5, 1996 for the
election of certain officers(only).
Resolution No. 65-96 - Requesting the County Board of Supervisors to
consolidate the General Municipal Election with the Statewide General
Election to be held on November 5, 1996. (Th'is optiondoes not direct
the County to put the voter ratification measure on the ballot).
BACKGROUND:
The General Municipal Election will be held on Tuesday, November 5, 1996.
The City Council must adopt two resolutions to initiate the election.process: One
calling the election and one requesting consolidation with the County. -
The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 257 on October 13, 1992 increasing
the City's transient occupancy tax (TOT) from 6% to 9%. The Finance Director has
prepared a memo outlining the status of the 1992 adjustment in light of the Supreme
Court's decision regarding Santa Clara County vs. Guarding. The City Council must
make a decision about whether or not it wants to have the voters ratify the 1992_
action increasing the TOT at the November 5' election. This decision must be made
before the resolutions initiating the election process are adopted so that the proper
language can be incorporated establishing certain provisions.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
The municipal election is estimated to cost approximately $16,000. Additional
costs of approximately $2,800 can be expected if the ballot measure is submitted.
Attachments: Memo from Brad Whitty, Finance Director
Option A Resolutions
Option B Resolutions
•
To: City Council
• Through• Andy Takata, City Manager
From::- Brad Whitty, Finance Director
Date: July 9, 1996
SUBJECT: Status of 1992 Adjustment to Transient Occupancy Tax in light of
. Supreme Court's.Guarding Decision.
BACKGROUND:
Proposition 62, a statewide initiative measure, was adopted by the voters at the general
election held November 4, 1986. It added sections 53720 through 53730 to the
Government Code, requiring that all new local taxes be approved by the voters.
In 1991, the case of City of Woodlake vs. Logan,230 Cal. App. 3d 1058, 282 Cal.Rptr.
27, the Court of appeal held that Proposition 62's voter approval requirement was
unconstitutional as applied to "general taxes (taxes imposed for general governmental
purposes), although the court upheld Proposition 62 with regard to "special taxes" (which
are imposed for specific purposes). The Supreme Court refused to review the lower
court's decision, so Woodlake became final.
In reliance on the Woodlake decision, local governmental entities all over the state
imposed new taxes and increased other taxes which had been adopted prior to Proposition
62. Among these entities was the City of Atascadero, which in 1992 increased its
Transient Occupancy Tax from 6%to 9%. As the Transient Occupancy Tax is clearly a
"general tax" which had been adopted well prior to Proposition 62, the City had every
reason to rely on Woodlake and to believe it was on firm ground in adjusting the tax
without voter approval.
But on September 28, 1995, in its decision in Santa Clara County Local Transportation
Authority vs. Guarding, 11 CalAth 220, 45 Cal. Rptr. 2d 207, the California Supreme
Court disapproved Woodlake and held that the voter approval requirements of
Proposition 62 are valid after all, as applied to both general taxes and special taxes. On
December 14, 1995, the Supreme Court-.made some minor nonsubstantive changes to its
written opinion but otherwise denied a petition for rehearing. Thus, the decision became
final on that date.
Unanswered Questions:
Unfortunately, while Guarding certainly makes it clear that local governmental entities
must comply with Proposition 62 when imposing new taxes in the future, the decision fails
•
1
to address-several crucial questions with which the City of Atascadero, among many other
• cities and governmental entities, must be concerned. Specifically:
1. Does Proposition 62 apply only to new rates or does it also apply to tax increases?
Proposition 62, by its terms, refers simply to the imposition of a tax. Clearly, this
is intended to apply to the adoption of new taxes, but it is not clear whether it
applies to increases in existing taxes, such as the City's adjustment of Transient
Occupancy Tax Guarding does nothing to resolve this question; undoubtedly, a
future court decision will. For now, the most cautious and conservative course of
action is to assume that all local tax increases do require voter approval.
2. Does the Guardino decision apply retroactively to general taxes adopted (or
increased) prior to the decision?
The Guardino decision contains no indication as to whether the Supreme Court
intends to invalidate taxes(or increases in taxes)which were adopted (or
increased) after the passage of Proposition 62 but before Guarding became final.
Unfortunately, general California law with regard to such retroactivity issues
essentially provides that each situation must be examined on a caserby-case basis,
with a balancing of the various competing interests. Thus, there is very little
predictability as to the eventual outcome of any court examination of this question.
The retroactivity issue is currently being litigated in the Court of Appeal,in a case
arising out of a utility users tax imposed by Butte County.
3. If Guarding is retroactive,what legal remedies are available to the taxpayers?
Again, general state law gives little guidance as to what the courts are likely to
decide in this regard. Proposition 62 itself provides for a remedy im the form of -
decreased property tax allocations to a City or other entity which levies a tax
without voter approval, but specifically provides that taxpayers may also bring suit
to invalidate a tax wrongfully imposed. The courts may also require refunds to
taxpayers, but even then there is no certainty as to whether these refunds would
apply to all sums paid since the tax was adopted or increased or only to sums paid
since Guardino became final. There are also questions regarding whether any
statue of limitations would apply to'any refund claim.
Proposed Legislative Solution:-
The League of California Cities has drafted legislation which will clarify that Guarding
does not invalidate tax ordinances, such as Atascadero's adjustment of the Transient
Occupancy Tax, which were adopted prior to December 14, 1995, in reliance on
Woodlake. If the bill, SB 1590, introduced by Senator O'Connell, were to become law,
then the uncertainly surrounding the Guardino decision's effect will be removed(at least
2
until the validity of the legislation is determined by the courts and no fizrther action would
• be required of the City.for the present.
SB 1590 was passed by the Senate with a floor vote of 21-10 on May 16, 1996. The bill
went to the Assembly on that date and was assigned to the Revenue and Taxation and
Local Government committees on May 24, 1996.
Despite the Senate's clear support for the bill, and despite earlier expressions of confidence
expressed by representatives of numerous cities and local governmental entities,the
League of California Cities is presently very pessimistic regarding the-likelihood of the
bill's passage by the Assembly.
Voter Ratification:
Due to the uncertainly as to whether SB 1590 will eventually be passed by,'the legislature
and approved by the governor,the City Council may choose to call a special election to
allow the voters within the City to ratify, approve, and validate retroactively the tax adjust
in questions and to reimpose the tax in full compliance with.Proposition 62. Pursuant to
Proposition 62's terms, the resolution to submit the measure to the voters would require a
two-thirds vote of the City Council's membership; thus, the resolution must be supported
by four council members. At the election, the measure would have to be approved by a
simple"majority, of the voters casting ballots.
. The largest risk in placing a voter ratification measure on the ballot is that the voters will
choose not to ratify the tax adjustment. This was the fate suffered by most cities which
submitted ratification provisions to the voters at elections held earlier this year.
As of the date of this report, it appears that the vast majority of affected cries are
choosing to take no action toward seeking voter ratification, hoping either that SV 1590
will eventually pass or that the courts will find that Guarding is not retroactive. The City
of Santa Maria,for example, increased its transient occupancy tax during the period
between Woodlake and Guarding..but has no plans to place a ratification measure on the
November ballot. The City of Santa Maria is impounding these funds pending a court or
legislative resolution.
It should be noted that, if the City Council resolves to put a ratification measure on the
ballot, the City cannot itself promote the measure. Rather, some independent persons
must organize in order to provide community support.
a:transient occupancy tax 9100
•
. OPT/ON A
RESOLUTION NO. 6496
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING
NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY,.NOVEMBER 5, 1996
FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED
BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES AND
FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS A QUESTION
RELATING TO RATIFICATION OF THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY
TAX (TOT) ADJUSTMENT OF 1992
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the laws relating to general law cities in the
State of California, a General Municipal Election shall be held on November 5, 1996,
for the election of Municipal Officers;
WHEREAS, the City Council also desires to submit to the voters at the election
a question relating to ratification of the Transient.Occupancy Tax (TOT) adjustment of
1992;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS;
SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of
California relating to General law Cities, there is called and ordered to be held in the
City of Atascadero, California, on Tuesday, November 5, 1996, a General Municipal
Election for the purpose of electing three members to the City Council for the full term
of four years.
SECTION 2. That the City Council, pursuant to its right and authority, does
order submitted to-the voters at the General Municipal Election the fallowing question:
Shall the adjustments made.to the Transient Yes
Occupancy Tax (TOT) by Ordinance No. 259
adopted on October 13, 1992 be ratified and Na
approved?
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Sections 9220 and 9285 of the Elections Code of the
State of California, when the City Clerk has selected the arguments for and against
the measure which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the City Clerk shall
send copies of the argument in favor of the measure to the authors of the argument
against, and copies of the argument against to the authors of the argument in favor.
The authors may prepare and submit rebuttal arguments not exceeding 250 words.
Resolution. No. 64-96
• Page Two
The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk not more than 10 days after
the final date for filing direct arguments. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the
same manner as"the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument( shall immediately
follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut.
SECTION 4. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of
the measure, to the City Attorney, who shall prepare an impartial analysis of the
measure showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of
the measure. The impartial analysis shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for
the filing of primary arguments.
SECTION 5. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and
content as required by law.
SECTION 6. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to
procure and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies,
equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully
conduct.the election.
SECTION 7. That the polls for the election shall be open at seven o'clock a.m.
of the day of the election and shall remain open continuously from that time until 8:00
p.m. of the same day when the polls shall be closed except as provided in Section
14401 of the Elections Code of the State of California.
SECTION 8. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election
shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
SECTION 9. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given
and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional
notice of the election, time, form and manner as required by law.
SECTION 10. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of
this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.
On motion by Councilperson and seconded by
Councilperson the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in
its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Resolution No. 6496
• Page Three
ADOPTED:
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO
By:
LEE PRICE, City Clerk GEORGE P. HIGHLAND, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney
1
OPTION A
RESOLUTION NO. 65-96
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO. TO CONSOLIDATE A
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
NOVEMBER 5, 1996, WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE DATE PURSUANT TO
SECTION 10403 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero called a General
Municipal Election to be held on November 5, 1996, for the purpose of the election of
three members of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is submitting to the voters the question relating to
ratification of the Transient Occupancy Tax; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable that the General Municipal Election be consolidated
with the Statewide Primary Election to be held on the same date, and that within the
city the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the
same; and
WHEREAS, it is equally desirable that the San Luis Obispo County Election
Department canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election and that the
election be held in all respects as,if there were only one election.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of Section 10403 of the
Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo is hereby
requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Election
with the Statewide General Election on Tuesday, November 5, 1996 for the purpose
of the election of three members of the City Council for terms of four years each.
SECTION 2. That a measure is to appear on the ballot as follows:
Shall the adjustments made to the Transient Yes
Occupancy Tax (TOT) by Ordinance No. 259
adopted on October 13, 1992 be ratified and No
approved?
• Resolution No. 65-96
Page 2
SECTION 3. That the County Elections Department is authorized to canvass
the returns of the General Municipal Election. The election shall be held in all respects
as if there wereonly one election, and one form of ballot shall be used.
SECTION.4. That the Board of Supervisors is requested to issue instructions to
the County Election Department to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of
the consolidated election.
SECTION 5. That the City of Atascadero recognizes that additional costs will
be incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the
County for any costs.
SECTION 6. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this
resolution with the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors and the. County
Elections Department.
SECTION 7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of
this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
• On motionY b Councilperson and seconded by
p
Councilperson , the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its
entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO
By:
LEE PRICE, City Clerk GEORGE P. HIGHLAND, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney
OPT/ON B
RESOLUTION NO. 64-96
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING
NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1996
FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED
BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the laws relating to general law cities in the
State of California, a General Municipal Election shall be held on November 5, 1996,
for the election of Municipal Officers;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of
California relating to General law Cities, there is called and ordered to be held in the
City of Atascadero, California, on Tuesday, November 5, 1996, a General Municipal
Election for the purpose of electing three members to the City Council for the full term
of four years.
SECTION 2. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and
content as required by law.
SECTION 3. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to
procure and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies,
equipment and paraphernalia that my be necessary in order to properly and lawfully
conduct the election.
SECTION 4. That the polls for the election shall be open at seven o'clock a.m.
of the day of the election and shall remain open continuously from that time until 8:00
p.m. of the same day when the polls shall be closed except as provided in Section
14401 of the Elections Code of the State of California.
SECTION 5. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election
shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal;elections.
SECTION 6. That. notice of the time and place of holding the election is given
and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional
notice of the election, time, form and manner as required by law.
SECTION 7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of
this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.
Resolution No. 64-96
• Page Two
On motion by Councilperson and seconded by
Councilperson , the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in
its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO
By:
LEE PRICE, City Clerk GEORGE P. HIGHLAND, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney
OPT/ON B
RESOLUTION NO. 65-96
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO CONSOLIDATE A
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
NOVEMBER 5, 1996, WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE DATE PURSUANT TO
SECTION 10403 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero nailed a General
Municipal Election to be held on November 5, 1996, for the purpose of the election of
three members of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable that the General Municipal Election be consolidated
with the Statewide Primary Election to be held on the same date, and that within the
city the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the
same; and
WHEREAS, it is equally desirable that the San Luis Obispo County Election
Department canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election and that the
election be held in all respects as if there were only one election.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1 . That pursuant to the requirements of Section 10403 of the
Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo is hereby
requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Election
with the Statewide General Election on Tuesday, November 5, 1996 for the purpose
of the election of three members of the City Council for terms of four years each.
SECTION 2. That the 'County Elections Department is authorized to canvass
the returns of the General Municipal Election. The election shall be held in all respects
as if there were only one election, and one form of ballot shall be used.
SECTION 3. That the Board of Supervisors is requested to issue instructions to
the County Election Department to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of
the consolidated election.
SECTION 4. That the City of Atascadero recognizes that additional costs will
be incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the
County for any costs.
Resolution No. 65-96
Page 2
SECTION.5. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this
resolution with the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors and the County
Elections Department.
SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of
this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
On motion by Councilperson and seconded by
Councilperson the. foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its
entirety on the following roll call vote: -
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST: CITY Of ATASCADERO
By:
LEE PRICE, City Clerk GEORGE P. HIGHLAND, Mayor
APPROVED.AS TO CONTENT:
j
ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney