HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 05/12/1987 NOTE: THERE WILL BE A CLOSED SESSION BEGINNING AT 6 :30 P.M. IN
THE FOURTH FLOOR CLUB ROOM REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS
A G F N n A
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA .ROOM
MAY 12. . •1987
7:30 P. M.'
A
City Council Members:
(Seating from Left to Right: )
Council Member Norris Michael Shelton
Council Member Bourbeau City Manager
Mayor Mackey Jeffrey G. Jorgensen
Council Member Handshy City Attorney
• Council Member Borgeson Boyd C. Sharitz
City Clerk
RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
* Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. '
* A person may speak for three (3) minutes. If a group has a
spokesperson, the spokesperson may speak for five (5) minutes.
* No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to
speak has had an opportunity to do so.
* No one may speak more than twice on any item.
* Council members may question any speaker; the speaker may
respond; but after the alloted time has expired, may not
initiate further discussion.
* The floor will then be closed to public participation and open
for Council discussion.
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Invocation: Reverend Gene Hensley
Roll Call
** Swearing In of Gere Sibbach, Newly Appointed City Treasurer
0 ** Introduction of Vern Elliott, Fire Department and John Barlow,
Police Department as Atascadero Employees of the Year
':: 1
(Approximate Time - 30 Minutes)
• COMMUNITY FORUM
The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and comments
from you the citizen. The public comment period is provided to
receive comments from the public on matters other than scheduled
agenda items. To increase the effectiveness of Community Forum,
the following rules will be enforced:
* A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum,
unless Council authorizes an extension.
* All remarks shall be addressed to Council as a whole and not
to any individual member thereof.
* No questions shall be asked of a Council Member or City staff
without permission of the Mayor.
* No person shall be allowed to make slanderous, profane,
impertinent, or personal remarks against any Council Member.
* Any person desiring to submit written statements may do so by
forwarding to Council, prior to the Council Meeting, nine (9)
copies to the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday
preceeding the Council Meeting.
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 be-
low. There will be no separate discussion of these items. A member
of the Council or public may, by request, have any item removed from
the Consent Agenda, which shall then be added to and taken up at the
end of the "New Business" section of the agenda.
1. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of April
28, 1987
2. Approval of Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of April
15, 1987
3. Acceptance of Offer of $1,500 for Sale of Surplus Dial-A-Ride Bus
by Paul Torba
4. Authorization for Police Department to Offer for' Public Sale
Lost and Unclaimed Property on May 16, 1987
5. Approval to Award Backhoe Tractor Bid for the Street Division
to Ryan Equipment - $31,272. 65
6. Proclamation Acknowledging the Month of June, 1987 as Zoo
and Aquarium Month
7. Approval to Award Play System Bid for Paloma Creek Park to
Miracle Recreation Equipment - $19,356. 53
•
2
8. Approval of Traffic Control Items :
A. Resolution 41-87 - Designating a 2 Hour Parking Zone
in Area Previously Designated as Loading Zone - Traffic Way
East of El Camino
B. Resolution 40-87 — Designating a Stop Intersection on
Old Santa Rosa Road at Intersection with West Front
C. Resolution 42-87 - Designating a Stop Intersection on
Llano Road at Intersection with Santa Lucia
9. Proclamation Acknowledging May 17-23, 1987 as Traffic Safety
Week
10. Approval of Tentative Tract Map 6-87 - 8784 Plata Lane - Creation
of 6 Industrial Air-Space Condominium Units on a . 509 Acre Parcel
Palmer/Cuesta Engineering
11. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 8-87 - 8660/8700 Coromar
(Lots 33J & 33K, Block 7) - Subdivision of 2 Parcels Totaling
1.95 Acres into 4 Lots of Approximately 20,000 Square Feet
Each - Silberstein/Barbieri/Volbrecht Surveys
12. Approval of Tentative Lot Line Adjustment 7-87 - 5703/5705 Del
Rio Rd - Adjust Lot Line Between 2 Existing Lots - Cropper/Twin
Cities Engineering
13. Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 9-86 — 8971 San Gabriel Road -
Warhurst/Tartaglia
14. Acceptance of Final Tract Map 20-84 - 5600 West Mall - Dennis
Bethel and Associates
B. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(Approximate Time - 5 Minutes)
1. Zone Change 1-87 - 9385 Vista Bonita (Lots 6, 7, & 10-15)
Nimmo/Yeomans
A. Ordinance 151 - Amend Existing Zoning of Residential
Single Family, 1-1/2 to 2-1/2 Acre Minimum Lot Sizes to
Residential Single Family with a Planned Development
Overlay Zone 7 (SECOND AND FINAL READING) (Cont'd
from 4/28/87)
(Approximate Time - 5 Minutes)
2. Tentative Parcel Map 3-87 - 9005 Atascadero Avenue - Subdivision
of .93 Acre Parcel into two .46 Acre Lots - Shultz/Baumberger
(Cont'd from 4/2/87 Consent Calendar)
(Approximate Time - 5 Minutes)
• 3. Tentative Tract Map 4-87 9240 Atascadero Avenue - Subdivision
of a 4.93 Acre Parcel into 10 Lots Containing Between 20 ,100
Square Feet and 24,720 Square Feet - Hawkins/Cuesta Engineering
(Cont ' d from 4/28/87 Consent Calendar)
3
C. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES/REPORTS
(Approximate Time - 30 Minutes)
1. Presentation by John Bartelt - Proposed Nuclear Free Zone
Ordinance
(Approximate Time - 15 Minutes)
2. Business Improvement Association Report - Request for
Initiation of Special Zoning District for Central Business
District and an In-Lieu Fee Parking Program
(Approximate Time - 15 Minutes)
3. Presentation on Proposed Boundaries for Undergrounding Utilities
in the Downtown Area
(Approximate Time - 20 Minutes)
4. Urgency Ordinance 152 - Clarifying the Minimum Lot Size in
the LSF-x and RSF-x Zones - Requiring a Net Minimum Land Area
of 20,000 Square Feet With Sewer (excluding land area needed
for street right-of-way whether public or private)
(FIRST AND FINAL READING)
•
D. NEW BUSINESS
(Approximate Time - 15 Minutes)
1. Authorization for Mayor to Enter into Agreement with "ARE" -
Preparation of the Atascadero Creek Bridge Traffic
Study - $5,000
(Approximate Time 10 Minutes)
2. Authorization for Mayorto Enter Into a Memorandum of Understanding ,
with Atascadero School District - Joint Use of Recreational
Facilities
(Approximate Time - 10 Minutes)
3. Authorization for Mayor to Enter into Agreement with Alderman
Engineering - Design Phase of Atascadero Lake Improvement
Project - $17,850
(Approximate Time - 15 Minutes)
4. Authorization to Establish an Employee Service Award Program
and Approve Appropriation of Funds for First Year Costs
E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
• (Council will recess and convene as the Atascadero County
Sanitation District Board of Directors)
I
i
4
(Approximate Time - 10 Minutes)
1. Authorization for Public Works Director to Solicit Bids for
Inflow and Infiltration Analysis Project to the Wastewater
Treatment Plant (Cont'd from 4/28/87)
(Approximate Time - 15 Minutes)
2. Appeal of Sewer Annexation Fee Revised Requirement- 10705
El Camino Real (Casa Camino Apartments) - Messer
(Cont'd from 4/28/87)
(Approximate Time - 10 Minutes)
3. Marchant Way (Lots 72 & 73) Sewer Connection - Request for
Exception
(Approximate Time - 10 Minutes)
4. Approval to Award Backhoe Tractor Bid for the Sanitation District
to Ryan Equipment - $31,272. 65
(The Board of Directors will Adjourn and Reconvene as the City
Council)
F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
1. City Council
Committee Appointments:
a. Traffic Committee (Consideration to appoint Planning
Commission member)
b. City/School Committee
C. San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council (alternate
representative) (unexpired term)
d. Ad Hoc Committee on Acquisition of Property along
Frontage of Atascadero Lake Park
2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk
4. City Treasurer
5. City Manager
a. Discussion Regarding Budget Review
5
,moEET!NG AG7MDA
Nb
ATC_ /�Z ITZm #
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council Members May 12,1987
FROM: Michael Shelton
City Manager
SUBJECT: EMPLOYEES OF THE YEAR
In accordance with the City' s Employee Recognition Program,
annually an employee is designated from the previous year ' s
designated Employee of the Month awards.
The Selection Committee, consisting of the City Manager, a
citizen representative, and a representative from each City
Department have met and reviewed the merits of the previous
12 months designated employees. After considerable evaluation,
the committee has designated. Sergeant John Barlow of the Police
Department and Captain Vern Elliott of the Fire Department as
joint "Employees of the Year" for their exemplary performance.
John and Vern were designated Employees of the Month in February,
1986.
. Attached is a memorandum to Sergeant Barlow and Captain Elliott
designating them as joint Employees of the Month for the arrest
and conviction in an arson case, which brought to conclusion
numerous prior years of arson offenses. Both suspects were sen-
tenced to prison on January 29, 1986. The convictions were the
result of three years of joint investigations for crimes which
were directly against the citizens of Atascadero. Both employees
put in hundreds of hours in this investigation, and many of which
were uncompensated. Well known in the safety field, the crime of
arson is one of the most difficult crimes to get a conviction on.
In. addition to the outstanding arrest and conviction, the com-
mittee also recognized that John and Vern exemplify positive per-
sonal relationsships in working with fellow employees within
their department and on an interdepartmental level.
In behalf of the committee, I request the City Council to join
with the committee in recognizing Sergeant John Barlow and
Captain Vern Elliott as "Employees of the Year" for the period of
February, 1986 to February, 1987.
MS:kv
File: MEmpyr
•
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
FEBRUARY, 1986
Congratulations John Barlow and Vern Elliott, you both have
jointly been designated by the Employee Recognition Program
Committee as Atascadero's first "Employee of the Month" for
the outstanding effort and conclusion you were able to achieve
in the recent arson convictions.
Your commitment and effort in behalf of the City and citizens of
Atascadero is an example to all of us, and serves as a point .of
pride and professionalism we are all proud to be associated with.
Please convey our appreciation and heartfelt thanks to your
families also, as I am sure the many extra hours spent required,
on their part, a great deal of understanding and support.
In addition to the nomination, I am pleased to attach two letters
of commendation from San Luis Obispo County Fire Chief Franklin
Frank, who not only speaks to the merits of your achievement,
but equally congratulates the City in having personnel of out-
standing character , who exhibit attitudes of being willing
workers, and who display interpersonal skills to effectively and
harmoniously work with other people. The highest compliment
came, I believe, in Chief Frank 's commending your coordinated
leadership and declaring you as true friends of the California
Department of Forestry.
Finally, I wish to commend and recognize the harmonious manner in
which each of you, in different departments, were able to break
down segmented barriers that are often imposed by the formal
organization. It's a real pleasure to know that communication is
exchanged freely, mutual respect is acknowledged, and a desire is
manifested to help each other, as necessary, to achieve the com-
mon good.
Congratulations again!
Michael Shelton City Manager
EN
5%, 97 �EM IDA
• ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
April 'I4, 1987
Atascadero Administration Building
The regular meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to order
at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Mackey. City Clerk, Boyd Sharitz, administered
the Oath of Office to newly-appointed Council Member Charles Bourbeau.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited, followed by an invocation given
by Rev. Larry Etter, Atas. Community Church.
ROLL-CALL
Present: Council Members Borgeson, Bourbeau, Norris and Mayor Mackey
Absent: Councilman Handshy (Vacation)
STAFF
Mike Shelton, City Manager; Henry Engen, Community Development Dir-
ector; Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director; Mike Hicks, Fire Chief;
Lt. Chuck Hazelton, Police Department; Jeff Jorgensen, City . Attorney;
Boyd Sharitz, City Clerk; Cindy Wilkins, Deputy City Clerk
• COUNCIL COMMENT
Councilwoman Borgeson nominated Councilwoman Norris for Mayor Pro Tem,
seconded by Mayor Mackey; passed by 4:0 roll-call, with Councilman
Handshy absent.
Mayor Mackey asked for public comment regarding whether the City Trea-
surer position (resigned by Mr . Bourbeau on 4/16) should be filled by
appointment or election.
Public Comment
Terrill Graham, 6205 Conejo Rd. , questioned why the Council would
think the public would object to their appointment of a Treasurer,
expressing an opinion opposing the recent appointment (in lieu of el-
ection) of Councilman Bourbeau.
Mr. Jorgensen, City Atty. , noted that an individual appointed to the
City Treasurer vacancy would serve the full remainder of the unexpired
term (which ends in June 1990) .
MOTION: By Councilman Bourbeau to appoint Gere Sibbach as City Trea
• surer for the duration of the unexpired term, seconded by
Councilwoman Borgeson. Mayor Mackey introduced Mr. Sibbach,
who applied for the position earlier today, and summarized
his background. Mr. Jorgensen asked Mr. Sibbach if he is a
1
registered voter in the City, to which he responded y
Motion passed unanimously, with Councilman Handshy absent.
Mayor Mackey issued proclamations:
- "National Police Week" , May 10-16, 1987
"National Fire Recognition Day" , May 9 , 1987
- "Be Kind to Animals Week" , May 3-9, 1987
- "Organ Donor Awareness Week" , April 26 - May 2, 1987
Introduction of. New Employees:
- Melinda Fielder , Support Services Aide, APD, introduced by Lt.
Chuck Hazelton
- William Wittmeyer, Sr. Building Inspector, CDD, introduced by
Henry Engen, Commun. Devel. Director
COMMUNITY FORUM
Pat Duncan, 12-year resident, reported on his contact and research
with both the FAA and U.S. Navy personnel regarding low-flying air-
craft over areas of the City. He noted he anticipates follow-up
actions by the Navy.
Dennis Fernandes, a Liberal Arts Major at Cal Poly SLO, desiring to
solicit on behalf of Southwestern Publishing Co. , Nashville, TN,
requested a student reduction in the cost of a sales permit. Mr. F.
nandes was referred to discuss the issue with Planning staff.
John McNeil, resident, spoke regarding the recent Gen. Plan survey
performed by students of Cal Poly. He noted certain defects in the
survey, the major one being that almost no attention was paid to
growth. He urged that, in revising the Gen. Plan, Council will view
the survey very carefully before acting upon it.
Terrill Graham spoke again, expressing dissent with various past and
recent actions by Council. When he began to make personal remarks
against certain members, Mayor Mackey called him out of order. When
he failed to comply, Mayor Mackey called for a brief recess (at 8:22
p.m. ) .
MAYOR MACKEY CALLED MEETING BACK TO ORDER AT 8 :30 P.M.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of April 14,
1987
2. Approval of Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of March 30,
1987
•
2
3. - Approval of the Finance Director ' s Monthly Report - March, 1987
4. Approval of the Treasurer ' s Monthly Report - March, 1987
5. Acknowledging Proclamation for "Clear Air Week" from April 27 to
May 3, 1987
6. Authorization to Solicit Bids to Purchase New Dial-A-Ride Bus
7. Authorization for Mayor to Enter into Agreement with Bruce Walker
Consultants - Administration Building Fourth Floor Rotunda Room
Acoustics and Sound Reinforcement System Improvements
8. Authorization for City Manager to Enter into Proposed Memorandum
of Understanding with Atascadero Unified School District -
Gasoline Disbursement for Vehicles
9. Approval of Tentative Lot Line Adjustment 3-87 - 7055 Llano Road
- Wood/Cuesta Engineering
10. Approval of Tentative Lot Line Adjustment 5-87 - 3905 E1 Camino
Real - Zimmer/Volbrecht Surveys
11. Approval of Tentative Lot Line Adjustment 6-87 - 3275/3355 Ramona
Road - St. Clair/North Coast Engineering
12. Approval of Tentative Tract Map 21-86 - Lots 1, 2, & 4-8 of PM
28-30 (Santa Lucia & Lomitas Roads) - Subdivision of 6 Existing
Lots Totaling 119.6 Acres into 22 Lots Varying from 26.3 to 3.1
Acres
13. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 3-87 - 9005 Atascadero Ave. -
Subdivision of .93 Acre Parcel into two .46 Acre Lots Shultz/
Baumberger
14. Approval of Tentative Tract Map 4-87 - 9240 Atascadero Ave. -
Subdivison of , 4. 93 Acre Parcel into ten 20 ,100-24,720 sq. ft.
Lots - Hawkins/Cuesta Engineering
15. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 5-87 - 8925 Atascadero Ave. -
Subdivision of 1. 66 Acre Parcel into 3 Lots of . 5, .5 & .66
Acres Each - Fisher
16. Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 4-86 - 8855 & 8905 San Pedro Rd.
- Cassera/Cuesta Engineering
17. Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 25-86 - 8375 Portola Road Wright/
North Coast Engineering
18. Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 5-86 - 4685 Lobos -
Riggs/Watkins/Twin Cities Engineering
3
19. Acknowledging Proclamation for Be Kind to Animals Week - May 3
1987
20. Acknowledging Proclamation for Organ Donor Awareness Week - April
26-May 2, 1987
Items A-12 & A-13 pulled by Councilwoman Borgeson; Item A-14 pulled by
Mayor Mackey; Item A-7 pulled by Sarah Gronstand of audience; Item
A-15 pulled by Dennis Lockridge of audience. All pulled items moved
to New Business for discussion.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to approve Consent Calendar, minus
items 7, 12, 13, 14 & 15 , seconded by Councilman Bourbeau;
passed by 4:0 roll-call, with Councilman Handshy absent.
B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES/REPORTS
1. Zone Change 1-87 - 9385 Vista Bonita (Lots 6 , 7 & 10-15) Nimmo/
Yeomans
A. Ordinance 151 - Amend Existing Zoning of Residential Single
Family, 1-1/2 to 2-1/2 Acre Minimum Lot Size to Residential
Single Family with a Planned Development Overlay Zone 7 (FIRST
READING)
Mr. Engen, Commun. Devel. Director, gave staff report.
Public Comment
Robert Nimmo, applicant, expressed the appreciation of the partners of
Spanish Ridge for the staff presentation, which he feels is fair, and
for individual members of Council taking time to inspect the site.
Tim Gallagher, Park Supt. , SLO County Parks Dept. , speaking neither
for or against subject project, expressed various related concerns:
(1) The road entering the project off E1 Bordo is very narrow, and Mr.
Gallagher suggests a traffic study be performed; (2) E1 Bordo is very
narrow, and subject project proposes to increase its use; (3) the road
to the development is very steep, and there is already severe erosion
in the same general area; and (4) there has been discussion regarding
direct access to the golf course by persons residing in the develop-
ment, which the County cannot undertake unless there is some equal
compensation.
Mr. Engen suggested that Mr. Gallagher be provided with a copy of the
draft Conditions of Approval of the tentative map and review it with
him before coming back to Council.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to read Ord. 151 by title only, sec-
onded by Councilwoman Borgeson; passed unanimously, with
Councilman Handshy absent. Mayor Mackey read Ord. 151
title.
4
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson that this constitutes the first
reading of Ord. 151, seconded by Councilwoman Norris; passed
by 4:0 roll-call, with Councilman Handshy absent.
2. Proposed Revisions to South Atascadero General Plan Amendment En-
vironmental Impact Report Study Area
Mr. Engen, Commun. Devel. Director , gave staff report.
Public Comment
Mike Arrambide, 7243 Del Rio, representing the Chamber of Commerce,
relayed that the Chamber Board of Directors has reviewed the proposed
site plan for development of the 43 acres and unanimously supports
this project as proposed. He encouraged that Council rezone the prop-
erty to CT so the project may come to pass. Further, he encouraged
staff and Council to handle the project review process expeditiously
so the proposed clients/tenants may be retained and that the EIR be
limited in scope to areas that will have a definite impact.
Rex Hendrix, owner of parcel (s) within the proposed EIR study area,
expressed his feeling that this is not a focused EIR and should be,
noting the cost proposals range up to $60 ,000; he requested that the
study be limited in scope to only those areas requested to be included
within the Urban Service Line.
Judy Young, owner of (7) parcels within the proposed EIR study area,
spoke in favor of a reduction in the size of the study area; she noted
that there were more people originally interested in assisting to pay
for the EIR, and now only three property owners remain to foot the
bill. There are no longer any applicants interested in sewer service
from Viejo Camino.
John Kunz, owner of trailer park on Viejo Camino, suggested Council
write each property owner and ask if they' re interested in participat-
ing in the cost of the EIR.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson that Council endorse the EIR study
area reflected in Exhibit D of staff report, seconded by
Mayor Mackey; passed 3 :1, with Councilwoman Norris opposed
and Councilman Handshy absent.
C. NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution 39-87 - Authorization for Public Works Director and
City Manager to Execute Certificates of Acceptance for Real Estate
on Behalf of the City of Atascadero
Mr. Jorgensen, City Atty. , briefly summarized this item, with added
comments from Mr. Sensibaugh, Pub. Works Director.
5
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson to approve Res. No. 39-87, second
by Councilman Bourbeau; passed by 4:0 roll-call, with Cou
cilman Handshy absent.
2. Resolution 31-87 - Declaring Weeds a Nuisance and Approval for
Weed Abatement Procedures to Commence
Mike Hicks, Fire Chief, gave staff report.
Public Comment
Jaime Lopez-Balbontin, resident, noted that the bill for abating weeds
on his property increased 1,000% last year , which he feels is exces-
sive, and he feels the billing to the City should be policed. He also
expressed frustration at trying to have a satisfactory discussion with
an appropriate City official over the matter. Chief Hicks responded
that he anticipates further increases, and he is not opposed to them,
noting that clearing weeds is not the City' s order of business but
property owners' responsibility.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to approve Res. No. 31-87 , seconded by
Councilman Bourbeau; passed by 4:O roll-call, with Councilman
Handshy absent.
*3. (*Item A-7, pulled from Consent Calendar)
Authorization for Mayor to Enter into Agreement with Bruce Walk
Consultants - Administration Building Fourth Floor Rotunda Room
Acoustics and Sound Reinforcement System Improvements
Public Comment
Sarah Gronstrand asked if the budget appropriation of $26,000 is the
result of competitive bidding; Mr. Sensibaugh summarized the total
improvements included in that amount, noting informal bid procedures
take place for projects under $15,000 . Formal bidding procedures
would be utilized should the project, as a whole, go to bid. A deci-
sion will be made after the consultant determines a final estimate for
improvements.
Jaime Lopez-Balbontin suggested a speaker face the dais to improve the
sound for Council and Planning Commission; Mr . Shelton, City Mgr . ,
responded that a professional acoustical engineer will direct where
speakers would best be placed.
Sharon Morin asked if there are any guarantees that the money spent
will really fix the acoustics; Mr . Sensibaugh responded that acoustic-
al studies have been done and indicate that the sound can be improved,
and that is staff's intent.
Mildred Copelan, Planning Commissioner, agreed with Mr. Lopez-Balbo�
tin that it is very difficult to hear well when seated behind t
dais.
6
Mrs.- Gronstrand spoke again, suggesting that the Jr. High Prather
Bldg. be utilized for public meetings; Mr. Shelton, City Mgr. , summar-
ized other alternative meeting places which have been explored, noting
that the problem with the Prather Bldg. is that the educational needs
of the school must take precedence.
Paul Rose, resident, noted the Rotunda acoustics has been an ongoing
problem since the City began.
Further discussion ensued between Council and staff regarding the pro-
posed expenditures for improvements.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to approve Item A-7 (C-3) ; motion died
for lack of a second.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson to continue this item for 30 days,
seconded by Councilwoman Norris; passed unanimously, with
Councilman Handshy absent.
*4. (*Item A-12, pulled from Consent Calendar)
Approval of Tentative Tract Map 21-86 - Lots 1, 2, and 4-8 of PM
28-30 (Santa Lucia & Lomitas Roads) - Subdivision of 6 Existing
Lots totaling 119.6 Acres into 22 Lots Varying from 26.3 Acres to
3.1 Acres
Mr. Engen, Commun. Devel. Director, gave staff report.
Public Comment
Donald Hughes, 7005 Lomitas, noted he was not aware of the Planning
Commission hearings as his lot is outside of the 300 ' legal noticing
radius. Expressing various concerns, he requested that a decision be
delayed until such time as the residents affected have the opportunity
to study the report and make input; he doubts that many residents know
much about this proposal. Mr. Engen responded to some of Mr. Hughes' s
concerns.
Mr. Jorgensen, City Atty. , suggested Council continue this item to
their meeting of 5/26, and he requested that Mr. Hughes submit a list
of names (to Mr. Engen) of property owners who he believes wish to be
notified of public hearing.
Bob Tartaglia, applicant' s engineer, noted that this application was
submitted last July 7th, and he addressed some of the concerns ex-
pressed.
Bill Ray, resident on Lomitas, noted he is not opposed to the project
but is concerned about increased density in view of current traffic
situation and affect on drainage conditions.
George Molfino, 6790 Lomitas, -noted that some trees have already been
removed. He expressed he is presently neither for nor against the
proposal, but wants to research the issues further.
7
9 •
Council and staff discussion ensued. Mayor Mackey suggested th0
Planning staff post notice of pending development hearing on prope
ties at time of lot inspection.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson to continue this item to the 5/26/87
Council meeting, seconded by Councilman Bourbeau; passed un-
animously with Councilman Handshy absent.
*5. (*Item A-13, pulled from Consent Calendar)
Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 3-87 - 9005 Atascadero Ave. -
Subdivision of .93 Acre Parcel into two .46 Acre Lots - Shultz/
Baumberger
Mr. Engen, Commun. Devel. Director, gave staff report. Councilwoman
Borgeson asked if the issue of sidewalks was resolved; Mr. Engen re-
sponded that revised Cond. of Approval #11 addresses that concern. ,
Public Comment
Tom Baumberger, owner 's engineer , asked if the issue of sidewalks can
be handled by placing a note on the final parcel map stating that, at
time sidewalks are placed, the owner will enter into an agreement.
Mr. Sensibaugh pointed out that it' s also a matter of security to ac-
tually achieve obtainment of sidewalks at time of development.
Mr. Jorgensen, City Atty. , suggested this item be continued to t
next Council meeting so this issue can be worked out, either throu
bonding or some specific contribution for sidewalks.
Dennis Lockridge, 8935 Atascadero Ave. , spoke in support of requiring
sidewalk installation at time of lot split (s) and passing the cost
along to the property/home purchaser to be financed over 30 years.
Mr. Engen spoke in support of Mr. Sensibaugh' s suggestion of estab-
lishing a sinking `fund (from monies collected at time of lot split)
for future construction at such time as the City and school staff
have coordinated to determine where they are most needed.
John Falkenstien, Cuesta Engin. , representing Mr. Hawkins (see Item
A-14) proposed that his client is more than willing to pay a fair
share of the cost for sidewalks; he requested the sidewalk condition
read that they are willing to work this out with staff in lieu of a
continuance.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to continue this item to the 5/12/87
meeting , seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson; passed unanimous-
ly, with Councilman Handshy absent.
*6. (*Item A-14, pulled from Consent Calendar)
Approval of Tentative - Tract Map 4-87 9240 Atascadero Av
Subdivision of 4.93 Acre Parcel into ten 20 ,100-24,720 sq. f
dots - Hawkins/Cuesta Engineering
8
Mr. Engen, Commun. Devel. Director, gave staff report.
Public Comment
John Falkenstien, representing Mr. Hawkins, reviewed the history of
this application. He spoke in support of Council approval of this
map and proposed subdivision.
Mr. Jorgensen, City Atty. , stated that he believes the proposed map
does meet the letter of the law as far as the 20,000 sq. ft. minimum
being within one property ownership; however, he asked if it was the
Council' s desire to allow 20, 000 sq. ft. lots where a considerable
portion of each lot might be effectively unusable because it is within
road right-of-ways. He noted that staff will be bringing a recommen-
dation before Council that the 20 ,000 sq. ft. standard be amended to
include those areas exclusive of road right-of-ways, which will solve
the problem for the future.
Further related discussion ensued. Mr. Engen referenced an earlier
exhibit which accompanied the General Plan amendment indicating a 10-
lot development. Council consented to urge that staff amend the zon-
ing text, possibly by urgency ordinance, to address the issue of gross
acreage vs. net acreage. Mr. Engen responded that he would consult
with the City Atty. for alternatives and report back to Council.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to approve TTM 4-87 , seconded by May-
or Mackey; Mr. Jorgensen advised that the Council direct that
specific language be included to identify what the contribu-
tion for sidewalks would be, treating this item consistently
with the prior item. Mayor Mackey withdrew her second, and
the motion died.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to approve TTM 4-87, subject to nego-
tiation of a contribution for sidewalks to be brought back at
at the 5/12%87 meeting, seconded by Mayor Mackey; passed 3 :1,
with Councilwoman Borgeson opposed.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to continue meeting past 11:00 p.m. ,
seconded by Councilman Bourbeau; passed unanimously.
*7. (*Item A-15 , pulled from Consent Calendar)
Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 5-87 —8925 Atascadero Ave. -
Subdivision of 1.66 Acre Parcel into 3 Lots of .5, .5 & .66 Acres
Each - Fisher
Mr. Engen, Commun. Devel. Director, gave staff report.
Public Comment
Robert Fisher, applicant, disputed neighbors claims of flooding and
drainage problems; he thinks the conditions listed in the staff report
address any problems, urging approval of his application.
9
• i
Dennis Lockridge, 8935 Atascadero Ave. , expressed strong opposition
this project, mainly due to site suitability, drainage deficienci
and flag lot development. He expressed concern regarding potential
emergency access issues as well as driveway maintenance responsibili-
ties. Mr. Engen responded to concerns expressed, reviewing related
Conditions of Approval in agenda packet.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson to deny TPM 5-87; motion died for
lack of a second.
Council discussion ensued regarding whether a two-way split would be
acceptable to both Council and the applicant. Mr. Jorgensen, City
Atty. , recommended a continuance of this item in order to allow staff
to work with the applicant and establish findings for a possible two-
way split.
MOTION: By Councilman Bourbeau to continue TPM 5-87, directing staff
to negotiate with the applicant with the intent to split the
property two ways, rather than three, and come up with an
acceptable emergency vehicle turnaround. Motion seconded by
Councilwoman Norris; passed unanimously, with Councilman
Handshy absent.
MOTION: By Councilman Bourbeau to recess as Council and convene as
the Atas. County Sanitation District, seconded by Council-
woman Borgeson; passed unanimously.
D. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (ACSD)
**Mr. Sensibaugh, Pub. Works Director, suggested Items D-2 & 4 be ad-
dressed prior to Items 1 & 3 in consideration of the applicants/
representatives- being present; the Board consented.
**2. Assessment District #3 (Marchant Way) — Funding change Order Re-
quest for Excavation (West Coast Tank and Pipe Company)
Mr. Sensibaugh, Pub. Works Director, gave staff report. He introduced
John Falkenstien, the Project Engineer, present to respond to ques-
tions.
Public Comment
Gary Carripo, W. Coast Tank & Pipe, addressed reasons for this change
order request, reviewing the history of events evolving around their
agreement with the City. He noted that what is being requested is a
fair and equitable amount (some compromise between staff' s proposed
$5,870 and W. Coast' s requested $35,330 .50) so W. Coast can recoup its
costs.
Discussion between Council and staff ensued on the issue of liquidated
damages.
10
• 0
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson that the Board award a net change
order of $5,800 over the original contract amount and to deny
the request for $35 ,330.50 , seconded by Councilman Bourbeau;
Tim Selby, Pres. , W. Coast Tank, expressed he feels they are being
chastised on their negotiated agreement with the City, which was based
on ideal conditions, noting conditions proved not to be ideal; he
urged the Board to give them consideration in the interest of fair-
ness. Further discussion ensued.
The motion on the floor failed by 2:2 roll-call, with Direc-
tor Norris and Chairman Mackey opposed, and Director Handshy
absent.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson for approval, over contract by a
total amount of $10,770 (encompassing staff' s recommended
$5,870 over contract amount + $4,900 in liquidated damages)
for a total final amount of $127,770. Motion seconded by
Chairman Mackey; passed by 3:1 roll-call, with Director Nor-
ris opposed and Director Handshy absent.
**4. Appeal of Sewer Annexation Fee Requirement - 7620 Santa Ynez -
Kelly
Mr. Sensibaugh, Pub. Works Director, gave staff report.
Public Comment
Terry Kelly, appellant, spoke in support of this appeal; he noted
having no objection to hooking up to sewer, asking only that the an-
nexation fee be waived.
Lengthy discussed ensued between staff and the Board regarding prior
and current ordinance language addressing fees required for sewer ser-
vice.
MOTION: By Director Borgeson that the Board deny this appeal for
payment of the sewer annexation fee requested by Mr. & Mrs.
Kelly, seconded by Director Bourbeau; failed by 2:2 roll-
call, with Director Norris and Chairman Mackey opposed and
Director Handshy absent.
MOTION: By Director Borgeson that the Board deny the appeal of pay-
ment for the sewer annexation fee as requested by Mr. & Mrs.
Kelly, seconded by Director Bourbeau; passed by 3:1 roll-
call, with Director Norris opposed and Director Handshy
absent.
**1. Authorization for Public Works Director to Solicit Bids for In-
flow and Infiltration Analysis Project to the Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant
11
• •
Mr. -Shelton, City Mgr. , suggested the Board continue this item
their next meeting; the Board concurred.
**3. Appeal of Sewer Annexation Fee Revised Requirement - 10705 El
Camino Real (Casa Camino Apartments) - Messer
Mr. Jorgensen, City Atty. , noted a letter from Atty. Glen R. Lewis on
behalf of Mr. Messer, and he recommended the Board continue this item
to 5/12/87; the Board concurred.
MOTION: By Director Norris to adjourn as ACSD Board and reconvene as
City Council; passed unanimously.
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
City Council - Committee Appointments postponed to next meeting.
Public Works Director - Mr. Sensibaugh announced that staff will be
obtaining a program either this Thurs. or next Tues. to eliminate
the sludge problem at the w/w treatment plant; some residents might
have odor complaints. The RWQCB has given permission for the City
to dump the sludge into the temporary drying beds.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:50 P.M.
MINUTES RECORDED BY:
BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk
MINUTES PREPARED BY:
CINDY WILKINS, Deputy City Clerk
12
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
• MINUTES
Special Meeting - April 15 , 1987
Atascadero Administration Building
The special Council meeting commenced at 9 :00 a.m. Interviews of ap-
plicants to Council vacancy were held throughout the day according to
the attached schedule.
ROLL-CALL
Present: Councilmembers Borgeson, Handshy, Norris and Mayor Mackey
Absent: None
STAFF
David Jorgensen, Administrative Services Director ; Boyd Sharitz , City
Clerk (present for p.m. interviews) ; Cindy Wilkins, Deputy City Clerk
(present for a.m. and most of p.m. interviews)
COUNCIL RECESSED AFTER THE FINAL INTERVIEW (APPROX. 3:40 P.M. ) . MAYOR
MACKEY CALLED THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER AT 4 :30 P.M.
Staff Present: Bud McHale, Police Chief/Acting City Manager; David
Jorgensen, Administrative Services Director ; Boyd
Sharitz, City Clerk; Cindy Wilkins, Deputy City
Clerk
Mayor Mackey announced that interviews were held throughout the day,
and she encouraged unsuccessful candidates to run in the next munici-
pal election (June ' 88) .
Members of the audience were invited to lobby, if desired, on behalf
of applicants. There was no public comment.
Council proceeded with ballot/selection process. After the third
round of voting, City Clerk , Boyd Sharitz , announced that candidate
,Charles Bourbeau had received 3 votes, constituting a majority.
MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to adopt Res. No. 33-87, appointing
Charles E. Bourbeau to fill the unexpired term vacated by
George Molina, seconded by Councilwoman Norris; passed
unanimously (4:0) by roll-call.
Mr. Sharitz administered the standard Oath of Office to Mr . Bourbeau.
Councilman Bourbeau thanked the City Council for their confidence in
him.
1
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4 :45 P.M.
Attachment
Note: Interviews and the selection process were recorded; three
tapes are on file in the City Clerk' s Office.
MINUTES RECORDED BY:
BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk
MINUTES PREPARED BY:
lam,
CINDY WILKINS, Deputy City Clerk
2
j
IuF
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager C"
FROM: PaulS 'baugh, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Sale of Surplus Bus
DATE: May 5 , 1987
Recommendation :
Staff recommends that Council authorize the sale
of the surplus bus to Mr . Paul J. Torba of San Luis
Obispo .
Background:
Council has previously declared this 1979 Dodge
Dial-A-Ride bus surplus and authorized staff to
advertise it for sale .
The sale was advertised with a minimum bid of
$1800, however, there was no response. Subsequently,
Mr . Torba contacted this office, inspected the bus and
submitted an offer of $1500 .
Discussion :
We are recommending that Council accept Mr.
Torba' s offer of $1500 as a fair and reasonable price
for a bus of this age and condition .
Fiscal Impact :
If Council authorizes the sale the City will
receive $1500 .
•
j 1 G'MNDA
M E M O R A N D U M
• TO: CITY MANAGER MIKE SHELTON AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CHIEF OF POLICE ; - I
SUBJECT: SALE OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY (ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSENT
CALENDAR MAY 12, 1987)
DATE: APRIL 22, 1987
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the police department to offer for public sale at
10 :30 am. , Saturday, May 16 , 1987, lost and unclaimed property
(primarily bicycles) in keeping with all applicable Civil and
Government Code procedures .
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
By motion, authorize the sale of unclaimed property as indicated
above.
BACKGROUND:
• At the present time, the police department has a large accumulation
of property which may now be disposed of within the guidelines of
the law.
As we have not had a property sale for approximately one year, our
property/evidence room is overflowing.
The police department will coordinate the sale as was the case
previously (to be held in the Sunken Gardens in conjunction with the
Crime Prevention Fair) , and we will enlist clerical assistance from
our finance department.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This sale will be conducted within existing financial constraints ,
and the City will obtain revenue from the proceeds .
RICHARD H. McHALE
RHM: sb
cc: Dave Jorgensen, Admin. Svcs . Dir.
Lt . Hazelton and W. C. ' s
• S. S .A. Harthoorn
BOL Board
Dispatch
LOST 31O6f -ND GOODS � § 2080.3
Pt. 4
Notes of Decisions
1. In general crime, where police could have obtained im-
Warrantless search of jacket pockets and mediate custody of jacket by having it •
bindle found to contain marijuana could not turned over to them as lost property and
be justified on ground that defendant would defendant could have been detained long
have destroyed evidence which linked him enough to question him about relationship
with jacket and police would have lost both to jacket. People v. Hawkins (1969)78 Cal.
criminal and evidence connecting criminal to Rptr. 286, 273 C.A.2d 529.
§ 2080.2. Restoration to owner
If the owner appears within 90 days, after receipt of the property by
the police department or sheriff's department, proves his ownership of
the property, and pays all reasonable charges, the police department or
sheriff's department shall restore the property to him.
(Added by Stats.1967, e. 1512, p. 3601, § 3.)
Historical Note
Former§ 2080.2, added by Stats. 1951, c. Derivation: Former § 1866, enacted
656, p. 1866,§ 2,amended by Stats. 1953,c. 1872.
602, p. 1847, § 2, relating to the appoint-
ment of appraisers, was repealed by Stats.
1967, c. 1512, p. 3601, § 2. 656, p. 1867, § 2.
§ 2080.3. Advertisement; payment of cost; vesting of title in finder
(a) If the reported value of the property is fifty dollars ($50) or more
and no owner appears and proves his ownership of the property within
90 days,the police department or sheriff's department shall cause notice
of the property to be published at least once in a newspaper of general
circulation. If, after seven days following the first publication of the
notice, no owner appears and proves his ownership of the property and •
the person who found or saved the property pays the cost of the
publication, the title shall vest in the person who found or saved the
property unless the property was found in the course of employment by
an employee of any public agency in which case the property shall be
sold at public auction. Title to the property shall not vest in the person
who found or saved the property or in the successful bidder at the public
auction unless the cost of publication is first paid to the city, county, or
city and county whose police or sheriff's department caused the notice to
be published.
(b) If the reported value of the property is less than fifty dollars ($50)
and no owner appears and proves his ownership of the property within
90 days, the title shall vest in the person who found or saved the
property, unless the property was found in the course of employment by
an employee of any public agency, in which case the property shall be
sold at public auction.
(Added by Stats.1967, c. 1512, p. 3601, § 3. Amended by Stats.1970, c. 260, p.
524, § 1; Stats.1971, c. 1254, p. 2465, § 1; Stats.1977, e. 250, p. 1136, § 1.)
425
•
§ 2080.3 0 LOST AND UNCLAIi110' \.OPFIZTY
Div. 3
Historical Note
The 1970 amendment provided that title Former § 2080.3, added by Stats.1951, c.
shall vest if no owner appears "and the 656, p. 1866, § 2, amended by Stats.1953,
person who found or saved the property 602, p. 1847, § 3, relating to valuation and
pays the cost of such publication"; and description lists by appraisers,was repealed
added the last sentence in the first para- by Stats.1967, c. 1512, p. 3601, § 2.
graph.
The 1971 amendment added subd. (a)des- Derivation: Former § 1871, enacted
ignation; required reported value of$25 or 1872, amended by Stats.1905, c. 453, p. 614,
more (now $50 or more; see 1977 amend- § 2.
ment note)in subd.(a); and added subd.M. Former§§ 2080.5,2080.6,added by Stats.
The 1977 amendment increased the mon, 1951, c. 656, p. 1867, § 2.
ey amount from $25 to $50 in two places.
Forms
See West's California Code Forms, Civil.
§ 2080.4. Local regulations
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2080.3 or Section 2080.6, the
legislative body of any city, city and county, or county may provide by
ordinance for the care, restitution, sale or destruction of unclaimed
property in the possession of the police department of such city or city
and county or of the sheriff of such county., Any city, city and county,
or county adopting such an ordinance shall provide therein (1) that such
unclaimed property shall be held by the police department or sheriff for
a period of at least three months, and (2) that thereafter such property
will be sold at public auction to the highest bidder, with notice of such
sale being given by the chief of police or sheriff at least five days before
the time fixed therefor by publication once in a newspaper of general
circulation published in the county, or that thereafter such property will
be transferred to the local government purchasing and stores agency or
other similar agency for sale to the public at public auction. If such
property is transferred to a county purchasing agent it may be sold in
the manner provided by Article 7 (commencing with Section 25500) of
Chapter 5 of,Part 2 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code for
the sale of surplus personal property. If property is transferred to the
local government purchasing and stores agency or other similar agency
pursuant to this section, such property shall not be redeemable by the
owner or other person entitled to possession. If the local government
purchasing and stores agency or other similar agency determines that
any such property transferred to it for sale is needed for a public use,
such property may be retained by the agency and need not be sold.
(Added by Stats.1967, c. 1512, p. 3601, § 3. Amended by Stats.1969, c. 857, p.
1689, § 1; Stats.1983, c. 878, § 1.)
426
LOST 110* A. -, GOODS 10 � 2080.6
Pt. 4
Historical Note
The 1969 amendment inserted the third 602, p. 1847, § 4, relating to the filing,
sentence and added the fifth sentence.
recording and posting of valuation and de-
The 1983 amendment in the second sen- scription lists by the judge,was repealed by
tence deleted "except unclaimed bicycles,"
following "unclaimed property", and delet-
Stats.1967, c. 1512, p. 3601, § 2.
ed "four months and that unclaimed biev- Derivation: Former § 1873, added by
cies shall be held for a period of at least" Stats.1947, c. 893, p. 2091, § 1,amended by
preceding "three months". Stats.1951,c. 159, P. 410, § 1; Stats.1963,c.
Former § 2080.4, added by Stats.1951, C. 470, p. 1325, § 1.
656, p. 1866, § 2, amended by Stats.1953, c.
Forms
See West's California Code Forms, Civil.
§ 2080.5. Authority to sell
The police department or sheriff's department may sell such property
by public auction, in the manner and upon the notice of sale of personal
property under execution, if it is a thing which is commonly the subject
Of sale, when the owner cannot, with reasonable diligence, be found, or,
being found, refuses upon demand to pay the lawful charges provided by
Sections 2080 and 2080.1, in the following cases:
(1) When the thing is in danger of perishing, or of losing the greater
part of its value; or,
(2) When the lawful charges provided by Sections 2080 and 2080.1
amount to two-thirds of its value.
(Added by Stats.1967, c. 1512, p. 3601, § 3.)
Historical Note
Former § 2080.5, added by Stats.1951, c. Derivation: Former§§ 1869, 1870, enact-
656, p. 1867,§ 2, relating to the vesting of ed 1872.
property having a value under $20 in the Former § 1873, added by Stats.1947, c.
finder, was repealed by Stats.1967, c. 1512, 893, p. 2091, § 1, amended by Stats.1951, c.
p. 3601, § 2. See, now, § 2080,$, 159, p. 410, § 1.
§ 2080.6. Public agency; adoption of regulations
Any public agency may elect to be governed by the provisions of this
article with respect to disposition of personal property found or saved on
property subject to its jurisdiction, or may adopt reasonable regulations
for the care, restitution, sale or destruction of unclaimed property in its
possession. Any public agency adopting such regulations shall provide
therein (1) that such unclaimed property shall be held by such agency for
a period of at least three months, (2) that thereafter such property will
be sold at public auction to the highest bidder, and (3) that notice of such
sale shall be given by the chief administrative officer of such agency at
10 Cal.Code-t 5 427
§ 2080.6
• '-.� LOST AND UNCLAIM6 I -JPERTY
` least five days before thetime fixed therefor b Div. 3
once in a
newspaper of general circulation published in the county in which such
property was found. Any property remaining unsold after being offered
at such public auction may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of by the
public agency. In a county having a purchasing agent, the purchasing
agent may conduct such sale, in which case the provisions of subdivisions
(2) and (3) of this section shall not be applicable. Such sale shall be made
by the county purchasing agent in the manner provided by Article 7
(commencing with Section 25500) of Chapter 5 of Part 2 of Division 2 of
Title 3 of the Government Code for the sale of surplus personal property.
If the public agency determines that any such property transferred to it
for sale is needed for a public use, such property may be retained by the
agency and need not be sold.
(Added by Stats.1967, c. 1512, p. 3601, § 3. Amended by Stats.1969, e. 857, p.
1690, § 2.)
Historical Note
The 1969 amendment added the fourth, property leaving a value over $20 in the
fifth, and sixth sentences.
Former § 2080.6, added by Stats.1951, c• finder, was repealed by Stats.1967, c. 1512,
656, p. 1867, § 2, relating to the vesting of p. 3601, § 2. See, now, § 2080.3.
Forms
See West's California Code Forms, Civil.
§ 2080.7. Abandoned property
The provisions of this article have no application to things which have
been intentionally abandoned by their owner.
(Added by Stats.1967, c. 1512, p. 3601, § 3.)
Historical Note
Former § 2080.7, added by Stats.1951, c. Stats.1967, c. 1512, p. 3601, § 2. See, now,
656, p. 1867, § 2, relating to the restoration § 2080.2.
of the property to the owner or right of Derivation: Former § 1872, enacted in
action for its restoration, was repealed by 1872.
Forms
See west's California Code Forms, Civil.
Notes of Decisions
I. Construction and application
Abandonment must be voluntary act of Former § 1864 et seq. dealt only with
things "lost" and had no application to
owner. Alberti v. Jubb (1928) 267 P. 1085 things which had been intentionally aban-
204 C. 325, doned by their owners, and hence were in-
applicable in determining ownership of ring
428
M -iL
a
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton , City Manager
FROM: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT Purchase of Tractor - Street Division
DATE: May 6, 1987
Recommendation :
Staff recommends that Council award the bid for the
purchase of a new tractor to Ryan Equipment , Santa Maria,
Ca .
Background:
On January 26, 1987 Council authorized staff to
advertise for bids for the purchase of a new Backhoe-
Tractor for the Street Division.
Bids were received on May 4th and the results are as
follows :
Ryan Equipment $31 ,272 . 65
*Lougee Michael 31 , 096 . 16
*Cal Coast Machine 29, 109 . 64
*The equipment submitted by these companies does not meet
the bid specifications .
Discussion :
Technically, Ryan Equipment is the sole bidder for the
equipment specified. The machinery bid by the other two
companies is smaller and lighter - duty than what is
required
Fiscal Impact
The 1986/87 Street Division Budget allocates $35 ,000
for a new Backhoe-Tractor .
•
i ANG AGINDA
DATA HEM#
P R O C L A M A T I O N
ZOO AND AQUARIUM MONTH
June, 1987
WHEREAS, the Zoological Parks and Aquariums of North America
provide a vital link to global wildlife conservation efforts; and
WHEREAS, they are committed to preserving genetic diversity
and conserving species through cooperation with zoological
institutions around the world; and
WHEREAS, the zoos and aquariums of North America provide
unique cultural and recreational experiences for over 115,000,000
people each year; and
WHEREAS, their commitment to education enriches and expands
the conservation awareness of over 20 million school children
each year; and
• WHEREAS, they have become the modern ark creating safe havens
for vanishing species; and
WHEREAS, zoos and aquariums save the needs of both humans and
wildlife by bringing people and animals together and therefore
contributing to awareness, understanding, caring and commitment.
THEREFORE, be it resolved that I, Marjorie R. Mackey, Mayor
of the City of Atasca,dero proclaim the month of June, 1987 as Zoo
and Aquarium Month.
i
'MARJ/0,RIE R. MACKEY
., �.
MayQX
May 12, 1987
wj
M E M O R A N D U M
• April 28 , 1987
To : City Council
Via: Mike Shelton, City Manager ,,
From: Bob Best , Parks and Recreation Director- ]
Subject : Award of Playsystem Bid
INTRODUCTION
On March 24th the Parks and Recreation Department was authorized to soli-
cit bids for the Playsystem at Paloma Creek Park. This process has been
completed with the opening of sealed bids on April 20 , 1987 .
BACKGROUND
As discussed in my memo to Council on March 18th, a total of $33 ,644 was
authorized by Council on March 10 from Revenue Sharing Funds . This made
up for the shortfall in development fee money originally approved in the
FY 1986-87 Budget . Plans for these funds included purchase and installa-
• ion of playground equipment , development of the playground area, and
_;urchase of additional site amenities (picnic facilities , benches ) .
The play unit specified in the bid package was a large multi-purpose play-
system, and will be the centerpiece of the playground area. The play-
system drawing is attached for your information.
BID RESULTS
A total of four bids were received. Prices listed include the playsystem,
installation , tax, and shipping. Summary of bids :
Iron Mountain Forge $12 ,981 . 15
Van Nuys , CA
Hanson Associates $15 , 515 . 00
Santa Ana, CA
Jenco $19 ,171 . 00*
Santa Maria
*Bid package incomplete -- did not submit detailed specifications
and materials to thoroughly identify the playsystem described
on the bid as required.
Miracle Recreation Equipment Company $19 , 356 . 53
•Nresno , CA
-2-
EVALUATION OF BIDS
Of the four bids received, only Miracle Recreation Equi1: Ott (-gym ZT met •
or equaled our specifications . The following observatif,„%ss wr ml by
myself and the Public Works Director:
1 ) City specifications called for deck heights of 96” , 391'x, "'„ '"„ and
36" . Iron Mountain and Hanson Associates submitted t1dL wi } mubstan-
tially shorter decks . This is a key factor , as all equdipmcoruit zpeclfied
by Miracle is larger and, thus , more expensive . For ex= .e�, a spiral
slide coming off an 8 ' deck is more expensive than ome :gi g (? ff a
deck which is only 80" high. The same can be said of gall- o)d-itex.m pieces
of equipment included in the playsystem. This is a .z price
difference. Neither Iron Mountain Forge nor Hanson Asia -c mit (car
equalled City specifications in this area.
2) A 16 ' wave slide ( stainless steel sliding surface) was. spae,,If'i.eedl.
Again, only Miracle met the specifications , as IMF Nftndit,- n) and
Hanson bid straight slides only with a length of 12 '_
3) A 10 ' canopy slide was specified. IMF and and Hanson" bt21, ani sliLdes
which are 8 ' and 7 ' ; respectively.
4) As mentioned in item 1) above , a whirlwind slide witli ai, staa,inflLess steel
sliding surface was specified. IMF and Hanson Associate . b., id' a- poly-
ethelene slide off decks of 80" and 70" , respectivel)T-1
Other comparisons can be made , but it is the conclusion tD�f,` ;?i i?' thiat on1e
Miracle was responsive to the bid as specified in the bl& pack.a�ge_, As a
result , all other bids did not meet or equal the specif,(.c 1't-ay s?.. Yhe re-
sult was substantially lower bids by IMF and Hanson ASaoxcia+t �.,
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends awarding the bid to Miracle Receration Iqu.,iymenit, C; an
for $19 , 356 . 53 .
ALTERNATIVES
1) Reject all bids and re-bid after developing revised pcic� :ias. As
our original budget estimate for this playsystem wit1. izna11 :on was
$20 ,000, the City may be criticized for changing the sp )ziiftick;-attjions
after the bid process was completed.
FISCAL IMPACT
The bid of $19 , 356. 53 is within budget estimates , and ass, ea r fi r
will be paid for by Revenue Sharing funds approved by
•
ty 1 Q =
Ab
qu
IQ
IL
n
0 -
W o o
-
h
r
Q � DRi •J r
lC
/ 4
LA
�,
i V sv
Q 4 V
3 � -i
IV
Q
N Q
•i ., �2
•
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton , City Manager
FROM: Paul M S nsibaugh, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT Resolution Changing an Existing Loading Zone
to 2 Hour Parking
DATE: May 4 , 1987
Recommendation:
The Traffic Committee recommends that Council adopt
the attached Resolution .
Background:
There is an existing loading zone on Traffic Way just
east of E1 Camino Real that was used by Dial-A-Ride to pick-
up and drop off residents of the Carlton Hotel .
With the closure of the Hotel facilities there is no
longer a need for this zone and it is proposed to change
the parking to a 2 Hour limit to conform with the current
posting in that area .
Fiscal Impact :
The cost of this revision will be approximately $100
and will be paid out of the street fund.
RESOLUTION NO. 41-87
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ATASCADERO DESIGNATING A 2 HOUR PARKING
ZONE IN AN AREA PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED AS A
LOADING ZONE ON TRAFFIC WAY, EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL
WHEREAS, Section 4-2 . 1101 et seq. of the Atascadero
Municipal Code allows the City Traffic Engineer to
determine the location of 2 Hour Parking zones , and .to
place and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating
the same; and
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Traffic Committee has
recommended 2 Hour Parking on Traffic Way just east of El
Camino Real in an area previously designated as a loading
zone for the Carlton Hotel ;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of
Atascadero directs the City Traffic Engineer to place and
maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating a 2 Hour
Parking zone on Traffic Way, east of E1 Camino Real .
On Motion by ,and seconded by
,the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted
in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES;
NOES;
ABSENT :
ADOPTED:
ATTEST :
BOYD C . SHARITZ, City Clerk MARJORIE R. MACKEY, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT :
JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH
City Attorney Director of Public Works/
City Engineer
ME U AG-NDA
D
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager ,
FROM: Paul Sen ugh, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing a Stop Intersection
on Old Santa Rosa Road and West Front
DATE: May 4 , 1987
Recommendation :
The Traffic Committee recommends that Council adopt
the attached Resolution establishing a Stop intersection on
• Old Santa Rosa Road at the intersection of West Front .
Background:
The Traffic Committee received a request to
investigate the possibility of creating a Stop intersection
at the subject location . The site was observed by the
Committee members and it was determined that the creating
of a Stop Intersection would improve the safety of this
location .
Fiscal Impact :
The cost to the City is approximately $75 to be paid
out of the street funds .
•
•
RESOLUTION NO. 40-87
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO DESIGNATING A STOP
INTERSECTION ON OLD SANTA ROSA ROAD AT THE
INTERSECTION WITH WEST FRONT
WHEREAS, Section 4-3 . 801 et seq, of the Atascadero
Municipal Code allows the City Traffic Engineer to
deterine the location of STOP intersections , and to place
and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating the
same; and
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Traffic Committee has
recommended that establishing a STOP intersection on Old
Santa Rosa at the intersection with West Front will
alleviate a hazardous traffic condition;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of
Atascadero directs the City Traffic Engineer to place and •
maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating a STOP
intersection at the location listed above .
On motion by , and seconded by
,the foregoing Resolution is hereby
adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote :
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
ADOPTED:
ATTEST :
BOYD C . SHARTIZ, City Clerk MARJORIE R. MACKEY ,Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: 4 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT :
JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH •
City Attorney Director of Public Works
City Engineer
DATZ �S /2
•
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton , City Manager ,]
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT Resolution Establishing Stop Sign at Llano
and Santa Lucia
DATE: May 4 , 1987
Recommendation:
The Traffic Committee recommends that Council adopt
the attached Resolution establishing a Stop intersection on
Llano Road at the intersection with Santa Lucia .
Backgrounds
The Traffic Committee has received a number of
requests from residents in the Llano Road area to install a
stop sign at this location . The site has been observed by
the committee and a stop intersection determined to be
appropriate .
Fiscal Impact :
The cost to the City is approximately $75 to be paid
out of the 1986/87 budget .
•
RESOLUTION NO. 42-87
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO DESIGNATING A STOP
INTERSECTION ON LLANO ROAD AT THE
INTERSECTION WITH SANTA LUCIA
WHEREAS, Section 4-3 . 801 et seq, of the Atascadero
Municipal Code allows the City Traffic Engineer to
deterine the location of STOP intersections , and to place
and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating the
same; and
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Traffic Committee has
recommended that establishing a STOP intersection on Llano
Road at the intersection with Santa Lucia will alleviate a
hazardous traffic condition;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of
Atascadero directs the City Traffic Engineer to place and
maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating a STOP
intersection at the location listed above.
On motion by , and seconded by
,the foregoing Resolution is hereby
adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote :
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
ADOPTED:
ATTEST :
BOYD C . SHARTIZ, City Clerk MARJORIE R. MACKEY,Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT :
JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH
City Attorney Director of Public Works
City Engineer
�""A
P R .O C L A M A T I O N
"CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC SAFETY WEEK"
May 17 - 23, 1987
WHEREAS, traffic collisions are the fourth leading cause of
deaths in California; and
WHEREAS, at least 92 percent of all injury-producing
collisions are attributed to human error; and
WHEREAS, many of these collisions and the resulting deaths
and injuries could have been prevented; and
WHEREAS, public and private institutions, along with
concerned individuals can promote traffic safety by increasing
• public awareness of safety measures; and
WHEREAS, the State of California is observing May 17 through
23, 1987, as California Traffic Safety Week; and
WHEREAS, this observance should lead to greater safety on our
streets and highways.
THEREFORE, I Marjorie R. Mackey, Mayor of the City of
Atascadero, proclaim May 17 through 23, 1987, as California
Traffic Safety Week.
MARJ IE R. MACKEY
Mayor
May 12, 1987
A.I PA NG 3 A
DATE �`� ITEM#
M E M O R A N D U M
•
TO: City Council May 12, 1987
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director LAC
SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 6-87
LOCATION: 8784 Plata Lane (Pt. Lot 4; Blk 7; Atascadero Colony)
APPLICANT: George Palmer (Cuesta Engineering)
REQUEST: Creation of six (6) industrial air-space condominium
units on a 0. 509 acre site.
BACKGROUND:
At their meeting held April 28, 1987 , the Planning Commission con-
ducted a public hearing on the above-referenced subject, recommending
. approval of the request subject to the findings and conditions of ap-
proval contained in the attached staff report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval subject to the findings and conditions of approval recom-
mended by the Planning Commission.
HE:ph
Attachments: Staff Report, dated 4/21/87
cc: George Palmer
Cuesta Engineering
i
City of Atascadero Item: B. 2
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 21, 1987
BY: POS teven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: TTM 6-87
Project Address: 8784 Plata Lane (Ptn. Lot 4; Blk 7; Atas. Colony)
SUBJECT:
Creation of six (6) industrial air-space condominium units on a 0.509
acre site.
BACKGROUND:
Precise Plan approval for the construction of a 9,000 square foot in-
dustrial building on the subject property was approved on February 23,
1984. The building and improvements were constructed . in conformance
with that approval.
A. SITUATION AND FACTS: .
1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .George Palmer
2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cuesta Engineering
3. Site Area. . . . . . . .0. 509 acres
4. Zoning. . . . . . . . IP (Industrial Park)
5. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Multi-tenant industrial build-
ing
6. General Plan Designation. . . . . . . . . .Industrial Park
7. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt (Class 1)
B ANALYSIS:
This application proposes the creation of six (6) industrial air-
space condominiums. The project consists of the conversion of an
existing multi-tenant structure to individual ownership. Thus,
each industrial unit will be individually owned, with parking and
other open areas owned in common.
Staff Report - TTM6-87
8784 Plata Lane
Page Two
This project was previously reviewed and approved under the pre-
cise plan and building permit processes. All public improvements
that would normally be required at the time of tract map approval
have been secured as part of these prior approvals. Tentative
tract map approval will not effect the imposition of those re-
quirements.
The conversion of the project to a condominium does not present
any substantial planning issues of concern to staff.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map 6-87
based on the Findings in Exhibit A and the Conditions of Approval
in Exhibit B.
SLD:ph
Attachments: Exhibit A - Location and Zoning Map
Exhibit B - Tentative Tract/Parcel Map
Exhibit C - Findings for Approval
Exhibit D - Conditions of Aproval
� Ex►� ►� .T Q
1
CITY
��; .,.. .. . �., OF ATASCADERO t_oc.a-I�iah Za�,�,y
.9Ut: �
r
` scow COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TTM 6-87
` DEPARTMENT
CL
46�� 105
O
r- t
`0 O
S-784 Pt a4;. C T
i- Lo � �� °sF°° Roy ,�� ��' o '^ •�
cc
Z
T a \
t �a AD b
r, Q
CITY r.
��, .,., :.. . . . OF ATASCADERO r h4.7vAv& I v Ae-+
sc�nf COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PM �_$-�
DEPARTMENT
-k o$ l W
j��a� f
i
>>.QOQ yyoQ
OOQ� V nC C9
1
e � 1^ •l
1^ N1
R
�
-
� 1
W> �l
Q
:o
r�
• 0
EXHIBIT C - Findings for Approval is
Tentative Tract Map 6-87 (Palmer/Cuesta Engineering)
April 21, 1987
FINDINGS:
1. The creation of these parcels conforms to the Zoning Ordinance and
the General Plan.
2. The creation of these parcels is categorically exempt from the
provisions of CEQA (Section 15301 (o) ) .
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development pro-
posed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development
proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will
not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish and wildlife of their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvement will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or
that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474. 6 of the
State Subdivision Map Act as to methods of handling and discharge
of waste.
i •
EXHIBIT D - Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map 6-87 (Palmer/Cuesta Eng. )
April 21, 1987
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and Restric-
tions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control of nui-
sances, architectural control of all buildings, landscape and
grounds maintenance, and drainage maintenance.
a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval by the
City Attorney and Community Development Department prior to
approval of the final map.
b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by a Condominium Owners
Association.
2. The open space (Lot 1) shall be designated as a Public Utilities
Easement.
3. Submit a soils report or engineer ' s certification that existing
soils on the site are adequate to support proposed structures per
Chapter 70 , Subsection (e) of the Uniform Building Code.
4. All applicable sewer fees shall be paid prior to recording the
final map.
5. The existing on-site storm water detention basin may be eliminated
and drainage redirected to the street. Proposed design shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. A drainage mitigation
fee of $500 .00 (five hundred dollars) to provide for downstream
improvements shall be paid if the detention basin is abandoned.
6. All signage on the site shall be brought into conformance with
approved plans and the Zoning Ordinance prior to filing the final
map.
7. Landscaping as shown on the approved building permit site plan
shall be re-established prior to filing the final map.
8. Parking lot striping and the handicaped parking stall shall be
re-established prior to filing the final map. -
9. A final map, in compliance with all conditions set forth herein,
shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the
Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to
recordation.
Exhibit D - Conditions of Approval
TTM 6-87 (Palmer/Cuesta Engineering)
Page Two
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created
and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor
shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners
have been set or shall be set by a date specific and that
they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be sub-
mitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
C. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for
review in conjunction with the processing of the final map.
10. Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted
pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date.
DA !/
�A7I2�1;77 ► �
M E M O R A N D U M
•
TO: City Council May 12, 1987
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director k_4�
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 8-87
LOCATION: 8660/8700 Coromar (Lots 33J & 33K; Blk 7 ; AC)
APPLICANT: Steve Silberstein/Alphonso Barbieri (Volbrecht Surveys)
REQUEST: Subdivision of two (2) parcels containing 1.95 acres
into four (4) lots containing approximately 20 , 000
square feet each
BACKGROUND:
At their meeting held April 28 , 1987 , the Planning Commission con-
ducted a public hearing on the .above-referenced subject, recommending
approval of the request subject to the findings and conditions of ap-
proval contained in the attached staff report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval subject to the findings and conditions of approval recom-
mended by the Planning Commission.
HE:ph
Attachments: Staff Report, dated 4/21/87
cc: Steve Silberstein
Alphonso Barbieri
Volbrecht Surveys
•
City of Atascadero Item: g. 3 •
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 21, 1987
BY: A teven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: TPM 8-87
Project Address: 8660/8700 Coromar (Lots 33J & 33K; Blk 7; AC)
SUBJECT:
Subdivision of two (2) parcels containing 1.95 acres into four (4)
lots containing approximately 20, 000 square feet each.
BACKGROUND:
An application far subdivision of this property, and one adjacent lot,
into 0. 5 acre lots was filed in October of 1986 . That proposal could
not proceed because of questions regarding minimum lot size determin-
ations. A general plan and zoning ordinance amendment allowing for
the creation of 20 ,000 square foot lots eliminated those questions and
allowed for submittal of the current application.
A. SITUATION AND FACTS: •
l.. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Steve Silberstein/Alphonso
Barbieri
2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Volbrecht Surveys
3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.95 acres
4. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-X (20,000 sq. ft. minimum
lot size)
5. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Parcels 1 and 4 - Single family
dwellings
Parcels 2 and 3 - Vacant
6 . General Plan Designation. . . .High Density Single Family
7. Environmental Status. . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted
April 1, 1987.
B. ANALYSIS:
The application before the Commission proposes the subdivision of
two (2) parcels containing 1.98 acres into four (4) parcels con-
taining approximately 20 ,000 square feet each. The property pro-
posed for subdivision is located in a RSF-X zoning district. The
minimum lot size in this zone is 0 .5 acres without sewers and
20 ,000 square feet where sewers are available. Because each of
the proposed parcels will be connected to the sanitary sewer, the
20,000 square foot minimum lot size is applicable.
The parcels proposed for subdivision each contain a single family
residence. The new lots being created will be located to the rear
of these existing dwellings. Access to these parcels will be by a
common easement crossing both of the front lots. This driveway
arrangement is advantageous because it will reduce by one the num-
ber of driveways that could enter Coromar . The ingress/egress
easement will also serve as a Public Utilities Easement allowing
the rear lots to be connected to the existing utilities in Cor-
omar.
The area surrounding the affected parcels was the subject of re-
cent General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments allowing for the
establshment of one-half acre and 20,000 square foot lots. The
proposal before the Commission is in conformance with the new Gen-
eral Plan and Zoning Ordinance provisions. Staff believes that
the type and density of development proposed is appropriate for
the neighborhood.
C. RECOMMENDAION:
Staff recommends conditional approval of Tentative Parcel Map 8-87
based on the Findings in Exhibit C and the Conditions of Approval
in Exhibit D.
SLD:ph
Attachments: Exhibit A - Location and Zoning Map
Exhibit B - Tentative Parcel Map
Exhibit C - Findings for Approval
Exhibit D - Conditions of Approval
� • •
��� :
. , � I •
1
+ � /;� �.
• -. �� � I
�1'�� � �
i
III - '� �'�; - .. - �
• ♦ ..
•
l.►_ ..�'
I�� �- � ..
�� � � - � ,
� � �: i
� .. - �
�i � �� : �� �� �- � � �
��� � " � j
����`iy'�j��X11 ► �
�I � ��►�
,�� '� �7
� •.
I��1 � � `
��� � � ��
�r � �' ' l "
� � , ;� • 1
CITY OF ATASCADERO Ttk% P-A,,ca I tvl a p
scan •` COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT TPM 8- el
� I
Ir
It
� NJt"t0DUY 4ja*7' ti
� :v3•• A
1
'; 1 i 1 1 1 ���/dT'fAJFA/ENl Y
1 1 Z
�� �; � ' L ra•.�cctsq�
r' aar:
�.rJtiaoo- y,�er
/\1�i
A
O
0
� ocean pQ
Al
n q, V
EXHIBIT C - Findings for Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 8-87
April 21, 1987
FINDINGS:
1. The creation of these parcels conforms to the Zoning Ordinance and
the General Plan.
2. The creation of these parcels, in conformance with the recommended
Conditions of Approval, will not have a significant adverse effect
upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the
project is adequate.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development pro-
posed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development
proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will
not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish and wildlife of their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvement will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or
that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474.6 of the
State Subdivision Map Act as to methods of handling and discharge
of waste.
EXHIBIT D - Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 8-87
April 21, 1987
1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company
and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel or its
public utility easement prior to recordation of the final map.
2. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines and other
easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are other
buildings or other restrictions related to the easements, they
shall be noted on the final map.
3. The accessway to the rear lots shall be constructed to the follow-
ing standards:
a. 25 foot wide easement
b. 16 foot paved traveled way and two foot graded shoulders
through Parcel 4
C. 50 foot minimum centerline radius
d. City standard turn-around at the end of the access easement
at Parcels 2 and 3.
4. A road maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney, shall be recorded with the deed to each parcel at the
time it is first conveyed and a note to this effect shall be
placed on the final map.
5. Construct City-standard drive approach to serve each parcel prior
to recording the final map.
6. Obtain encroachment permits from the Public Works Department prior
to construction of drive approaches and construct improvements as
directed by the encroachment permit(s) .
7. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, prepared by a regis-
tered civil engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to
issuance of building permits.
8. The applicant shall acquire and make an irrevocable offer for ded-
ication to the City of Atascadero the following rights-of-way for
public road purposes or submit proof acceptable to the City Attor-
ney that said right-of-way has been previously dedicated for such
purposes:
a. Street Name: Coromar Road
b. Twenty (20) feet from centerline along the entire property
frontage.
9. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to or
simultaneously to recording the final map.
Conditions of Approval - TPM 8-87
Page Two
10. Wastewater disposal shall be by connection to the public sewer.
11 Obtain sewer connection permits from the Public Works Department
prior to hooking up to sewer.
12. The applicant shall pay sewer connection fees and annexation fees
for the additional lots created, in addition to the usual con-
nection, tap-in and installation fees prior to filing the final
map.
13. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved
tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth
herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance
with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance
prior to recordation.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created
and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor
shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners
have been set or shall be set by a date specific and that
they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be sub-
mitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
C. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for
review in conjunction with the processing of the final map.
14. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted
pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date.
�+ J
��� `� .N:y,A
�2
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council May 12, 1987
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 4C-,
SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment 7-87
LOCATION: 5703/5705 Del Rio Road (Lot 7, Block 22)
APPLICANT: Ralph Cropper (Twin Cities Engineering)
REQUEST: To adjust the property line between two existing lots
of record.
BACKGROUND:
On April 21, 1987, the Atascadero Planning Commission considered the
above-referenced matter on its consent calendar and recommended ap-
proval of the lot line request subject to the findings and conditions
contained in the attached staff report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval per Planning Commission' s recommendation.
HE:ph
Attachment: Staff Report, dated 4/21/87
cc: Ralph Cropper
Twin Cities Engineering
•
City of Atascadero Item: q. 2
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commssion Meeting Date: 4/21/87
BY: PPS teven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: LLA 7-87
Project Address: 5703/5705 Del Rio Road (Lot 7 , Block 22)
SUBJECT:
Request to adjust the property line between two existing lots of
record.
A. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .Ralph Cropper
2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Twin Cities Engineering
3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .Parcel 1 - 1. 36 acre/0.69 acre
Parcel 2 - 0. 69 acre/1.36 acre
4. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CN (Neighborhood Commercial)
5. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Parcel 1 - single family dwell- .
ing and commercial
building
Parcel 2 - single family dwell.
6. General Plan Designation. . . . .Retail Commercial
7. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt (Class 5)
B. ANALYSIS:
The property involved in the proposed lot line adjustment is loca-
ted in a CN (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district. Because
this property is located outside of the Urban Services Line, mini-
mum lot sizes are evaluated based on the Suburban Residential
range (2. 5 to 10. 0 acres). Neither of the lots included in this
lot line adjustment proposal meet the minimum. standards of the RS
zone.
Parcel 1, which is located at the intersection of El Camino Real
and Del Rio Road, contains a single family dwelling and a large
metal commercial building. Parcel 2 contains a single famil
dwelling. The single family dwellings are legal, pre-existin
nonconforming uses. As a result of the lot line adjustment, both
of the single family dwellings will be located on one lot and the
commercial building will be isolated on its own parcel. This ap-
pears to be a preferable arrangement in that the number of lots
with nonconforming uses will be reduced.
The proposed lot line adjustment will result in a "swap" in posi-
tion of the larger of the two lots. There will be no reduction in
size of the resulting lots. This proposal does not appear to pre-
sent any substantial planning issues.
The proposed map complies with City policies and standards. It
should be noted that there will be no requirement for dedication
or other improvements along either El Camino Real or Del Rio Road.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Lot Line Adjustment 7-87 based on the
Findings in Exhibit C and the Conditions in Exhibit D.
SLD:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location and Zoning Map
Exhibit B - Proposed Lot Line Adjustment Map
Exhibit C - Findings for Approval
Exhibit D - Conditions of Approval
Ex�41517 A
CITY OF ATASCADERO L oca4mki a"J Zom,Kq
'D COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LLA 7- 87
DEPARTMENT
P F
t " I I IARI
RROC
RS (F
TR AY
�� as
C
a
RS
s— •
S7o3/5705 Dcl F-to ej
QED`
S
s�ti a�
C
y,Qf
/O, 6
4 /
H)
MPO!
/ 11
11
1
�1
I
IT 8
CITY OF ATASCADERO
14,v, /-i741,Va Loo' Lih¢
1979-7
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AJju.4kna,h- Map
DEPARTMENT
LL,a -S7
N to
$ a � "
No
o 3 oo J�
ti
h• 1�' 4 a
y IX
EXHIBIT C - Findings for Approval
Lot Line Adjustment 7-87 (Cropper/Twin Cities Engineering)
April 21, 1987
FINDINGS
1. The application as submitted has been determined to be categori-
cally exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
2. The application as submitted conforms with all applicable zoning,
General Plan and subdivision regulations of the City of Atascadero
3
. EXHIBIT D - Conditions of Approval
Lot Line Adjustment 7-87 (Cropper/Twin Cities Engineering)
April 21, 1987
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The lot line adjustment as generally shown on the map attachment
provided herein shall be submitted in final map format or reflec-
ted in a record of survey to be approved by the Community Develop-
ment Department prior to recordation by the County Recorder ' s
Office.
2. The proposed adjusted lot lines shall be surveyed and monuments
set at the new property corners prior to recordation of the final
map or record of survey.
3. The proposed lot line adjustment shall be drawn to insure that the
resultant lots do not deviate from existing lot sizes.
4. If a final map is to be recorded, all existing easements shall be
delineated thereon.
5. Approval of this lot line adjustment shall expire two years from
the date of approval unless a time extension has been granted pur-
suant to a written request prior to the expiration date.
M E M O R A N D U M
• �I
TO: City Council May 12, 1987
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development DirectorpA
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 9-86 -
LOCATION: 8971 San Gabriel Road
APPLICANT: Craig Warhurst(Robert Tartaglia)
BACKGROUND:
At their regular meeting held June 23 , 1986 , the Atascadero City Coun-
cil conducted a public hearing concerning an appeal of certain condi-
tions of approval for the above-referenced parcel map. After consid-
erable review and discussion, the Council denied the appeal..
• The parcel map request was approved subject to the findings and condi-
tions recommended by the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
The required conditions have been complied with, and the final map is
recommended for approval.
HE:ph
cc: Craig Warhurst
Richard Summers
Robert Tartaglia
•
4NA,,
n
Gtj
V
�_ os
(nNr%
r��d—
LA
Q 1 4 / /•—__ Y n
17
!A rri
9 44 000
C.
ot
41,
Q ( 4
/ 4A
r�
o17 s£
2
a11°�
�oA�2
u
�
02bA (� u �A�n4 e
a
FGaao�
o "� n�'gZZ f11 a n a�b3GA
n
30
rA
h i 'A �2
M E M O R A N D U M
•
TO: City Council May 12, 1987
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Map 20-84
LOCATION: 5600 West Mall
APPLICANT: Dennis Bethel and Associates
On April 28, 1986 , the City Council approved Tentative Tract Map
20-84, subject to certain findings and conditions and in concurrence
with the recommendations of the Planning Commission. The required
findings and conditions have been complied with and the final tract
. map is recommended for approval.
H/E:ph
cc: Dennis Bethel and Associates
•
i
D 4 � al•"'
• - r.< r
� w
.I'
ga Ra N� I iNs u
LN
t'
LN
4
.�., IN
ul
f
h/
`, � •, w �Az`, Vii . I � ��e—��— --- /
co - U
al
N
\\ c
.y
-WEST
co
ION
• � 4
� 4
E Y
I'll,
Q O c
i �� D �Y�Y* r O4 Yip - t /
M z c ,• m pim Mo 0 •� 3 a ,x '� t _
0 4 ;_ ? • V
r
�� �i3°o ia�In
z
2 + :77
� a+s
i
1
F /
�,. , �Xl4(f'�IIF
yp
t 5 Lour
1 � w
l
is na s a t y Durran+ ((Lcl13c4 M21
+
i
- -
'AA,
J # �
✓gy.trrr ry .; r'ixr S il' f.- 111 pr< _.::..ea"'
77
r
>• s..,:�f.._s..d�e.;•:�i:na.'}�$T; I:..S'
44
,-
1• _�� 4 I �_ C O/L9 3.f2.3F.p1/Y —
Via
ws
-I `.
y n, �
7.
• �/ ---- � -=`• '�\ Iii � ;• + i r-'__ ---1—,,� ,
-• •. - -- _ U � -�r' { _ _�_-^;�" Baa
4 z
_ l
I.
� r
,`—--•— — err..- :I j�--.. - ;{_ i � ��.
ai
W
h�w
40
® _ ; i
M E M O R A N D U M
•
TO: City Council Mav 12, 1987
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Zone Change 1-87: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 151
(9385 Vista Bonita: Robert and Patricia Nimmo/Michael
Yeomans)
BACKGROUND/RECOMMENDATION:
This Ordinance had first reading approval on April 28, 1987 .
Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 151, second reading.
HE:ph
Enclosure: Draft Ordinance No. 151
•
•
ORDINANCE NO. 151
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF •
ATASCADERO AMENDING SECTION MAP NUMBER 19 OF
OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT BY
REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN AS PORTIONS OF
LOTS 6, 7 , AND ALL OF LOTS 10 THROUGH 15 OF TRACT 5
(ATASCADERO) FROM RSF-Z (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY -
1 1/2 TO 2 1/2 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO RSF-Z (PD-7)
(RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
NO. 7) (ZONE CHANGE 1-87: NIMMO/YEOMANS)
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the
General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government
Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is in conformance with Section
65800 et seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning reg-
ulations; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will not have a significant ad-
verse effect upon the environment. A Negative Declaration has been
prepared on the project.
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearinc*
on April 7, 1987, and has recommended approval of Zoning Ordinance
Change 1-87.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain
as follows:
Section 1. Council Findings.
1. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land uses and ex-
isting zoning in the area.
2. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land use Map des-
ignation for the site and is consistent with other policies of the
General Plan.
3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environ-
mental impacts. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project
is adequate.
4. Benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be reasonably
achieved through existing development standards or processing re-
quirements.
5. Proposed plans offer certain redeeming features to compensate for
requested modifications. •
Zone Change 1-87 (Y*mans/Nimmo) •
6. Modification of development standards or processing requirements
is warranted to promote orderly and harmonious development.
7. Modification of development standards or processing requirements
will enhance the opportunity to best utilize special character-
istics of an area and will have a beneficial effect on the area.
Section 2. Zoning Map.
Map Number 19 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atasca-
dero on file in the City Community Development Department is hereby
amended to reclassify portions of Lots 6, 7, and all of Lots 10
through 15 of Tract 5 (Atascadero) as shown on attached Exhibit "A"
and Exhibit "B" , Site Master Plan, which are hereby made a part of
this ordinance by reference.
Section 3. Zoning Text Change.
Zoning Ordinance Text Change 1-87 is approved to add the following
language:
1. Section 9-3.651 is added to the Planned Development Overlay Zones
to read as follows:
9-3.651. Establishment of Planned Development Overlay Zone No.
7 (PD7) . The Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 7 is estab-
lished as shown on the official zoning maps (Section 9-1.102) .
The following development standards are established:
a. The Master Plan of Development of the site is approved as
shown on Exhibit B which is hereby made a part of this ordi-
nance by reference. All construction and development shall
be done in conformance with the approved Exhibit. Any modi-
fication in density will require a rezoning. Modification of
the Master Plan site design may be approved in a manner pre-
scribed for a Conditional Use Permit (Section 9-2.109) .
b. In approving a Master Plan of Development, the level of pro-
cessing for subsequent projects or phases may be reduced to a
Plot Plan provided that the Master Plan contain sufficient
detail to support such a determination.
C. No subsequent Plot Plan, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Per-
mit, or Tentative Parcel or Tract Map shall be approved un-
less found to be consistent with the approved Master Plan of
Development. Any amendment to a Master Plan of Development,
including conditions thereof, shall be accomplished as set
forth in Subsection (a) of this Section.
Section 4. Publication.
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once
within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a
newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in
this City in accordance with Government Code Section 36933; shall cer-
2
Zone Change 1-87 (tvomans/Nimmo) 0
tify the adoption of this ordinance; and shall cause this ordinance
and certification to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of this
City.
Section 5. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and ef-
fect at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage.
On motion by and seconded by
, the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its en-
tirety by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
BY:
MARJORIE MACKEY, Mayor
City of Atascadero, California
ATTEST:
BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
_A�� EVW 'Me22-�
HENRY ENGIN
Community DevelopInt Director
3
Jl,,, 1 ~AT=1i1•
's :. ve i^<t .•L'� t ..�.g�t I :x� aa.+Fxs t<e w t 3 aK;�'
• ::,r..r y ar ''} 'Jt\ `l•5. t? i.h •'A' ,AS:.`T'4. '_�. F•i r r �LnY 6o•St k*1211
18
/51
AT-1C•It3.z3,AT-79AT-81-185 AT 81 254
Iii 1'�,ai D4.�' �+.<..• 1 ,SyS R
' ��+ IK �',♦p� :tjr r^ 3�< -1. •ra.e t�8 i j �' \ � i
r,'
••�' a ., ♦♦ t{ ..a -j•,rr�r•'. ah`h.r ' 't� t •'
• ••tic•.' I ar •.. ;c.• !�r 1 .,° �ti•'! a .♦., -� 8EVI510N DATE'. C
_;,; '`` •¢ �y. oA \ ?�'k�' �` r 1- � 3,4,.• .�., oi►,'>' I: A � , �' � lt,.it.�':
VIP* r'" .ti'I1 ��'��• r. a•�.r-.4a- N 1 •� a �' Y•� e 'r.~ ram
•, •a. 3 ,e �
,p�ff�� aP* h✓: s'z+'• �r nw I..Y" J , r a � { i � 7 � ?"+.
f Y'�, .r ,. pip o '.✓.• � e 11.n r�i � 6 N �@B' •• � `�j 'I ,'! J• +k � �**
c r 17l .G .<•��.0 i �•r.�•. Cti�. JF'I "' zs.Fl� �" i '' ; _.,♦ <r♦ ,��;_
17
. ''.►♦ id +.moi, �s ey-t •.• o- r '.�•f
34 O i\ er CIIW _yup . '.. ti i• •1 h ...r. r P r'
co 7
f lo•A •by z's ;� n
\ ,•' •\�•9'1`1 a' Ire i 20 I•a�, 't�b • .\ � .
.. a,0�♦ ,S-♦•- a • � P p,�♦Ir ] - tws 6�S� rr �� �-�,{ ,
Zr
• .• p0 ♦cam,: a.'�q-• '4•'4, �'�{•„2::•t•• ♦,+ s•7D---- ^5 b� `ry moi ^yi
3• 2": ,\Yj♦ ,�'a,r 7 •�. .•,}�ni ni33s 30 �" .��r •' �` 1
'
CT C� •d -
1 jo 1.l 31'SF 4) r
1 `eio RSF 10 r�J�.r, ' t'• +d +++ �T• r}9Y y, '
.. - ✓!! Of-
Lo
.+ 1 asoS 616 W Srw •p,'V Leh t� J6,IpNd ter•',^_
/fr ,KI i11.)M t
05
s' •° Z`�"� :RMF/ '
.° nu '
.• - 1`r♦�`. > t .1,� . 10.6 v,ip c '�' I ''-.• •• o•t.r« '`,,� J
�,,�♦'. a't•4.\ � 1\,'ice t %• J �!' .•e• ' :y'' '' 4 •°,! -y '•'%' �\
It
17
lo•A t Ib• R i! 'i • it lf•w'�•• RML
f �
� • 1 cJ
.e
'I
m
is
'r
•_J r"+s r• � ••n5.•7r' h�°Sp �•�r•,• Py'•. O
/ •�
� 22
,...s_1 12..x••,. •'•yl
21
RS - Y ', �u...ln.•u.0 Iru)p K4.1.•.••••.. a..
•.:�--.. 21 i,+.ua n-n.W�.1..n..A...wv.-anla.c crt•a
t •` 20 'f4"—
t\ vr.....�
23
1..u...u...:a./.t♦..�f;:. „_l.f. •I.r..
� :\ • � Qua 13 rT_A
-r•••• Zot\' 2j7 �
1
V 15TA -F 06M l� C:
71
v s o z
to r r Sz
® 30
O
n 03 m �F
M m s '
i r
i� O
A �x
Cryo < O
m m m03
i
JJ
J $ C r O
is , S Q
r
x e - r m
rys r S > o
v10
ID
f4 4
ry
Z NL y
iP'-i c➢S -'-1 .�'Si%.r "':iii
'00 L`71pT7. 1•
10
g�. V.. U p
z O
Z--C:=--
OM
z
e Spanish Ridge r><AMIR TINW
by the SNL CH J1�JCE I b7-
• ' °o i' • e ': 1 7 'L'1. V/lid l t'1 t`_Q\ 1
Yeomans Gro VDT.z —TU
z n 7)
NIPA njD PA ;AN5
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council May 12, 1987
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 44C
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 3-87
LOCATION: 9005 Atascadero Avenue (Ptn. Lot 12, Blk 10)
APPLICANT: Robert and Bertha Shultz (Thomas E. Baumberger)
REQUEST: Subdivision of one parcel containing 0.93 acres into
two lots containing 0 .46 acres each
BACKGROUND:
. At the City Council' s April 28th, 1987 meeting, this matter was con-
sidered and continued until May 12th to develop alternate language
with respect to a deferred sidewalk requirement (refer to attached
Staff Report, Condition No. 11) . It was the consensus of the Council
to substitute the dollar amount required for any sidewalk improvement
across the frontage to be placed into a sinking fund for implementing
a future, route to school sidewalk plan. The Public Works Director
subsequently developed estimates for the amount of money needed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 3-87 subject to the findings and re-
vised conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission
with the exception that Condition No. 11 would be revised to read as
follows:
"11. The applicant shall deposit with the Director of Public
Works $1, 853. 00, which shall be utilized for future imple-
mentation of the sidewalk route to school plan serving Santa
Rosa Elementary School. "
HE:ph
Attachment: April 28, 1987 , Agenda Packet
• cc: Robert and Bertha Schultz
Thomas E. Baumberger
M E M O RAN D U M •
TO: City Council April 28, 1987
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager /VL-V
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director ;V
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 3-87
LOCATION: 9005 Atascadero Avenue (Ptn. 12, Block 10)
APPLICANT: Robert and Bertha Shultz (Thomas E. Baumberger)
REQUEST: Subdivison of one parcel containing 0..93 acres into two
lots containing 0.46 acres each.
BACKGROUND:
At their meeting held April 7, 1987 , the Planning Commission conducted
a public hearing on the above-referenced subject, approving the re
quest on a 4 :1 vote subject to the findings and revised conditions o
approval contained in the attached staff report.
There was considerable discussion and public testimony, especially as
it related to sidewalk improvements, as reflected in the attached
minutes excerpt.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval subject to the findings and revised conditions of approval
recommended by the Planning Commission.
HE:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report - April 7 , 1987
Revised Conditions of Approval
Minutes Excerpt - April 7 , 1987
cc: Robert and Bertha Shultz
Thomas E. Baumberger
i
City of Atascadero Item: C. 3
STAFF REPORT
FOR: ((Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 7, 1987
BY:p�4 teven L. Decamp, Senior Planner File No: TPM 3-87
Project Address: 9005 Atascadero Ave. (Ptn. Lot 12; Block 10; AC)
SUBJECT:
Subdivision of one parcel containing 0 .93 acres into two (2) lots con-
taining 0 .46 acres each.
BACKGROUND:
Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Fri-
day, March 27, 1987. All property owners of record located within 300
feet of the subject property were also notified on that date.
A. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Robert & Bertha Shultz
2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Thomas E. Baumberger
3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.93 acres
4. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-X (Residential Single Fam-
ily - 20 ,000 sq. ft. minimum
lot size)
5. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Parcel 1 - Single Family Dwelling
Parcel 2 - Vacant
6. Adjacent Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . .North: RSF-X
South: P (Santa Rosa School)
East: RSF-X
West: RSF-X
7. General Plan Designation. . . .High Density Single Family
8. Environmental Status. . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted
February 23 , 1987
! 0
Staff Report - TPM 3-87
9005 Atascadero Ave. (Shultz/Baumberger)
Page Two
B. ANALYSIS:
The application before the Commission proposes the subdivision of one
parcel containing 0.93 acres into two (2) parcels containg 0 .469 and
0.463 acres. The property proposed for subdivision is located in a
RSF-X (Residential Single Family) zoning district. The minimum lot
size in this zone is 0.5 acres where sanitary sewers are not available
and 20,000 square feet where sewers are available. Because sewers are
available in the subject area, the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size
is applicable.
The subject property currently contains a single family residence on
Parcel 1. Upon completion of the subdivision, Parcel 2 will be avail-
able for construction of an additional single family dwelling. Each
of the two lots will have direct access to Atascadero Avenue.
The area surrounding the subject parcel was the subject of recent Gen-
eral Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments allowing for the establish-
ment of one-half acre and 20 ,000 square foot lots. The proposal be-
fore the Commission is in conformance with the new General Plan and
le
Zoning Ordinance provisions. Staff believes that the type and density
of development proposed is appropriate for the neighborhood.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends conditional approval of Tentative Parcel Map 3-87
based on the Findings in Exhibit C and the Conditions of Approval in
Exhibit D.
SLD:ph
Attachments: Exhibit A - Location and Zoning Map
Exhibit B - Tentative Parcel Map
Exhibit C - Findings for Approval
Exhibit D - Conditions of Approval
ExwIBIT ,A
�`E � pVE �� •
l-oma-�'►o� a�,d Zoh�hg
TFM 3-8 7
y _
I -
i
a M Cl4
J `
RMF •
�
0 AV
m � _ !!tc
Rs F
n fC pO1 a
I �V S /.�4 t/ \ � •
a
�a V v
� c q i
vo-
co r i \\\vQQ � .s
y9. /
i
yJ cq/s rp /R
C T £ 'T
r
0
s S�0 45\gpERp ' OP\` �
cr
• P
1 >
QS vp 4VF"To �/
1 Te
Op\
L� UP
i\ .
125 - K Zo 000 -0 .
q ) Q
P /
�p
VIEW i
o f•,Z L(FH) y� o gIVE—
L
ID
I 4
\ / 5
t=x4l E511
l�h-�: Pa►�.I Ma
TPM 3-87
i 73 /
zs�
J '
j �C.2• � i' �� i
o
T
i r
EXHIBIT C - Findings for Approval
TPM 3-87 (Shultz/Baumberger)
April 7 ,1987
FINDINGS:
1. The creation of these parcels conforms to the zoning ordinance and
the General Plan.
2. The creation of these parcels, in conformance with the recommended
Conditions of Approval, will not have a significant adverse effect
upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the
project is adequate.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development pro-
posed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development
proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will
not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish and wildlife of their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvement will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or
that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474. 6 of the
State Subdivision Map Act as to methods of handling and discharge
of waste.
• 0
EXHIBIT D - Conditions of Approval
TPM 3-87 (Shultz/Baumberger)
April 7 , 1987
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company
and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel or its
public utility easement prior to recordation of the final map.
2. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines and other
easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are other
building or other restrictions related to the easements, they
shall be noted on the final map.
3. Wastewater disposal shall be by connection to the public sewer.
4. Obtain sewer connection permits from the Public Works Department
prior to hooking up to the public sewer.
5. A sewer annexation fee for the newly created parcel shall be paid
prior to recording the final map.
6. A sewer connection fee for each single family lot shall be due in
addition to usual connection, tap-in, and installation fees prior
to issuance of building permits.
7. The existing fire hydrant at the intersection of Atascadero Ave.
and Portola Avenue shall be upgraded to City Standards prior to
recording the final map.
8. Road improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer
must be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public
Works prior to recording the final map.
9. Construction of road improvements shall be completed (or bonded
for) prior to recording the final map. Required improvements
shall be to the following standards: paveout twenty (20) feet
from the centerline of Atascadero Avenue and a City standard drive
approach to serve each parcel.
10. An irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Atascadero for
the following right-of-way for future road and sidewalk purposes
shall be made and noted on the final map:
Street Name: Atascadero Avenue
Limits: Entire frontage of subject property
Minimum Width: 30 feet from centerline
Conditions of Approval
TPM 3-87
Page Two
11. The applicant shall enter into an agreement, acceptable to the
City Attorney, agreeing to install sidewalks along the entire
frontage of the property along Atascadero Road to City standards
as may be required by the City upon completion of a sidewalk needs
analysis.
12. Participate in eliminating a portion of the flood hazard to the
property by posting a performance security with the City to be
used for a drainage improvement project for channelizing the out-
flow from Atascadero Lake to Atascadero Creek. In the event that
a future assessment district is formed for the area drainage im-
provements that include this project, then credit in the amount of
the deposit will be applied towards final apportionment of the
assessment if allowed by the assessment district proceedings.
This shall appear as a note on the final map.
13. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved
tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth
herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance
with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance
prior to recordation.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created
and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor
shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners
have been set or shall be set by a date specific and that
they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be sub-
mitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
C. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for
review in conjunction with the processing of the final map.
14. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted
pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date.
0 0
EXHIBIT D - Conditions of Approval
TPM 3-87 (Shultz/Baumberger)
April 7, 1987 (R E V I S E D)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company
and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel or its
public utility easement prior to recordation of the final map.
2. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines and other
easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are other
building or other restrictions related to the easements, they
shall be noted on the final map.
3. Wastewater disposal shall be by connection to the public sewer .
4. Obtain sewer connection permits from the Public Works Department
prior to hooking up to the public sewer.
5. A sewer annexation fee for the newly created parcel shall be paid
prior to recording the final map.
6. A sewer connection fee for each single family lot shall be due in
addition to usual connection, tap-in, and installation fees prior
to issuance of building permits.
7. The existing fire hydrant at the intersection of Atascadero Ave.
and Portola Avenue shall be upgraded to City Standards prior to
recording the final map.
8. Road improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer
must be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public
Works prior to recording the final map.
9. Construction of road improvements shall be completed (or bonded
for) prior to recording the final map. Required improvements
shall be to the following standards: paveout twenty (20) feet
from the centerline of Atascadero Avenue and a City standard drive
approach to serve each parcel.
10. An irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Atascadero for
the following right-of-way for future road and sidewalk purposes
shall be made and noted on the final map:
Street Name: Atascadero Avenue
Limits: Entire frontage of subject property
Minimum Width: 30 feet from centerline
0 0
Conditions of Approval
TPM 3-87
Page Two
11. The applicant shall enter into an agreement, acceptable to the
City Attorney, agreeing to install sidewalks along the entire
frontage of the property along Atascadero Road to City standards
as may be required by the City upon completion of a sidewalk needs
analysis. Said agreement may be in the form of a lien against
the parcel. The cost of improvements will be collected only upon
City determination that the owners of at least fifty-one percent
(51%) of the land area in the affected territory are to install
sidewalks.
12. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved
tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth
herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance
with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance
prior to recordation.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created
and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor
shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners
have been set or shall be set by a date specific and that
they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be sub-
mitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
C. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for
review in conjunction with the processing of the final map.
13. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted
pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date.
•
0 0
Minutes - Planning Commission - April 7 , 1987
tions from the March 17th meeting which were inadvertently lef out
rom this agenda, but should be included. Mr . Tartaglia sta d he
w uld like to have approval of the map with exception of t bridge
is e.
Bruno damoli commented on the map request.
Bonita Bo eson asked why an Environmental Impact Repo t was not re-
quired for is project to which Mr. Engen explained hat this project
involved lar acreage parcels proposed with the t increase being
16 three acre arcels which is consistent with t e neighborhood. The
bridge widening not part of the project desc ption although it has
become an issue a an off-site question for th area; he elaborated on
the various develop nt issues in relation t the area.
Commissioner Lopez-Bal b ntin asked if it ' determined that the crea-
tion of the proposed lots would h e an impact on traffic, would
the applicant be required participa in the cost for a portion of
the bridge improvemgnt. r. DeC p stated there would be a way to
determine what the exact impa of a 16 new lots would be on that
bridge in terms of the avera aily traffic that is generated com-
pared to the amount of traffic o the bridge presently. He explained
the difficulties in requiring hi because of the "open-ended" nature
of the condition. Mr. Engen dded t t if the Commission felt it may
take too long for bridge mprovemen s to be addressed through fees,
there could be recommendat 'ons made by a Commission to looking ate
other revenue raising echanisms to spe up the process. A traffic
study could be require of the applicant.
In response to ques on from Commissioner Mich lssen, Mr . Sensibaugh
elaborated on the ost comparisons per square fo t for bridges.
MOTION: By Co issioner Nolan to approve Tentative ract Map 21=86
base on the findings and revised conditions of approval (re-
vi d at the March 17th Commission meeting) ; conded by Com-
missioner Copelan.
Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin asked that consideration be gi n in . the
futurwto have some sort of mechanism that would require deve pers to
pay or whatever improvements must be made. Commissioner Mich ' elssen
as d for clarification on the revised conditions of approval.
Motion passed 5 :0 with a roll call vote.
3. Tentative Parcel Ma 3-87 :
Request initiated by Robert and Bertha Shultz (Thomas E. Baumber-
ger) to allow subdivision of one parcel containing 0.93 acres into
two lots containing 0 .46 acres each. Subject property is located
at 9005 Atsacadero Avenue (portion Lot 12, Block 10 , Atascadero
Colony) .
5
0
Minutes - Planning Commission - April 7, 1987
Mr. DeCamp presented the staff report recommending conditional approv-
al of the request. He pointed out that condition #12 should be elim-
inated as the item is already covered by ordinance and it is not nec-
essary to appear on maps as a note. He further noted that there have
been a series of map applications submitted around the intersection of
Atascadero Avenue and Portola and the Fire Department has made a re-
quirement to upgrade the existing fire hydrant near that intersection.
The applicant has paid for the hydrant improvement as part of the
original submittal and felt it may be to the applicant' s advantage to
talk to some of the other property owners with maps in progress to try
to recoup some of the hydrant costs.
Commissioner Michielssen asked if sidewalks are going to be required
in residential single family zones. Mr. DeCamp stated that safety
considerations are being studied with respect to development of prop-
erties in the area of the Santa Rosa Road School, and explained that
staff has been working with the School District in developing a "route
to school" ; he stated that because of the increased level of use by
school-age children, it might be appropriate to require the installa-
tion of sidewalks along property frontages; he elaborated on a type of
agreement which could involve a lien against the newly created parcels
which would allow for sidewalk installations in the future.
Lengthy discussion ensued on this matter with emphasis on sidewalk
assessment districts, lien agreements.
Tom Baumberger, agent for the applicants, stated he did not recive a
copy of the conditions of approval and could not speak for the appli-
cants on the matter but commented on the sidewalk issue saying he felt
it would be better for everyone' s best interests to have all the side-
walks put in at the same time. Upon reviewing the conditions, Mr.
Baumberger stated he could speak for the owners and that they would
accept the conditions with the exception of the sidewalk requirement.
However, they might be receptive to the condition knowing that they
would not be required to pay any money at this time until the issue is
resolved.
Jane Smith, 8950 Atascadero Avenue, spoke in opposition to the pro-
posed lot split.
Dennis Lockridge, 8935 Atascadero Avenue, also expressed opposition to
the request and talked about the importance of requiring sidewalks for
the children' s safety.
John Falkenstien addressed the sidewalk issue saying that it would
impact other developments he is involved in; he felt the issue is not
whether the sidewalks are necessary but how the condition can be im--
plemented; he expressed opposition to a lien on property procedure and
felt the issue should be dealt with as a whole
Marge Mackey felt it would be fair to have a statement reflecting that
if sidewalks are required in the neighborhood, that the particular
property would contribute to them. This would avoid the complaints
heard in relation to the Separado sewer area.
6
0 0
Minutes - Planning Commission - April 7 , 1987
There was further discussion concerning an equitable agreement being
reached after a sidewalk study is completed. It was noted that in
this particular area there was a limited amount of future development.
Mr. Engen added that when the density in this neighborhood was re-
cently changed, one of the primary concerns of the neighbors had been
the need for sidewalks. Mr . Sensibaugh proposed an alternative simi-
lar to what Public Works uses for detention basins which involves pay-
ing a fixed amount for improvements which goes into a sinking fund.
Mr. Baumberger stated that the applicants would be in favor of a
solution proposed by Mr. Sensibaugh rather than having a lien placed
against their property.
Commissioner Copelan expressed concern that these lots are too long
and narrow for a adequate building sites.
MOTION: By Commissioner Copelan to approve Parcel Map 3-87 subject
to the findings and conditions of approval with the exception
of Condition #12 which is to be deleted; seconded by Commis-
sioner Nolan.
Commissioner Michielssen moved to amend the motion to modify
condition #11 to add: " . . .sidewalk needs analysis. How-
ever, the money shall not be called forth until a minimum 51%
of the property owners in the benefit assessment district
have agreed to participate, or if some other method is ar-
ranged whereby 51% or more of the property owners will parti-
cipate in the cost and installation of the sidewalk. Commis-
sioner Nolan seconded the amendment to the motion.
There was further discussion concerning 51% of the land area as op-
posed to 51% of the property owners. Mr. Sensibaugh stated that an
override of a protest is based on land area and not frontage.
Commissioner Michielssen further amended his motion to re-
flect 51% of the land area instead of 51% of the property
owners. Commissioner Nolan seconded the amendment.
Motion to the amendment passed with a 3 : 2 vote with Commis-
sioners Copelan and Lopez-Balbontin dissenting.
Motion to approve Tentative Parcel Map 3-87 with the elimina-
tion of condition #12 and amendment to condition #11 passed
4:1 with Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin dissenting.
4. Tentative Tract Ma 4-87 :
Request initiated by Michael Hawkins (Cuesta Engineering) to allow
subdivision of one parcel containing 4.93 acres into ten lots con-
taining between 20 ,100 square feet and 24 ,720 square feet each.
Subject property is located at 9240 Atascadero Avenue (Lot 2,
Block 12, Atascadero Colony) .
7
Dhl� ZiS { TEm
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council May 12, 1987
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director V
SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 4-87
LOCATION: 9240 Atascadero Avenue (Lot 2, Block 12)
APPLICANT: Michael Hawkins (Cuesta Engineering)
REQUEST: Subdivision of one parcel of 4.93 acres into 10 lots
containing between 20 ,100 square feet and 24,720 square
feet.
BACKGROUND:
At the City Council' s April 28th, 1987 meeting, this matter was con-
sidered and continued until May 12th to develop alternate language
with respect to a deferred sidewalk requirement (refer to attached
Staff Report, Condition No. 13) . It was the consensus of the Council
to substitute the dollar amount required for any sidewalk improvement
across the frontage to be placed into a sinking fund for implementing
a future route to school sidewalk plan. The Public Works Director
subsequently developed estimates for the amount of money needed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 4-87 subject to the findings and re-
vised conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission
with the exception that Condition No. 13 would be revised to read as
follows:
"13. The applicant shall deposit with the Director of Public
Works $3,982.00, which shall be utilized for future imple-
mentation of the sidewalk route to school plan serving Santa
Rosa Elementary School. "
HE:ph
Attachment: April 28 , 1987 , Agenda Packet
• cc: Michael Hawkins
Cuesta Engineering
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council April 28 , 1987
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager 10 1
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director U
SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 4-87
LOCATION: 9240 Atascadero Avenue (Lot 2, Block 12)
APPLICANT: Michael Hawkins (Cuesta Engineering)
REQUEST: Subdivision of one parcel of 4.93 acres into ten lots con-
taining between 20 ,100 square feet and 24,720 square feet.
BACKGROUND:
At their April 7, 1987 meeting, the Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing on the above-referenced subject, approving the lan
division request on a 3 :1 vote subject to the findings and revise
conditions as reflected in the attached staff report.
There was considerable discussion and public testimony, especially as
it related to downstream drainage improvements, as reflected in the
attached minutes excerpt.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval subject to the Planning Commission' s recommended findings and
revised conditions of approval.
HE:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report - April 7 , 1987
Revised Conditions of Approval
Minutes Excerpt - April 7 , 1987
cc: Michael Hawkins
Cuesta Engineering
•
City of Atascadero Item: C.4
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 4/7/87
BY 4,0s teven L. Decamp, Senior Planner File No: TTM 4-87
Project Address: 9240 Atascadero Avenue (Lot 2, Block 12, AC)
SUBJECT:
Subdivision of one parcel containing 4.93 acres into ten (10) lots
containing between 20,100 square feet and 24,720 square feet.
BACKGROUND:
Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Fri-
day, March 27, 1987. All property owners of record located within
300 feet of the subject property were also notified on that date.
A. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Michael Hawkins
2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cuesta Engineering
3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. 93 acres
4. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-X (20,000 square foot mini-
mum lot size)
5. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant
6. Adjacent Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . .North: RSF-X
South: RSF-X
East: P (Santa Rosa School)
West: RSF-Y
7. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Single Family
8. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted
February 23, 1987.
B. ANALYSIS:
The application before the Commission proposes the subdivision of
one parcel containing 4.93 acres into ten (10) parcels ranging in
size between 20 ,100 and 24 ,720 square feet. The property proposed
for subdivision is located in an RSF-X (Residential Single Family)
zoning district. The minimum lot size in this zone is 0 .5 acres
where sewers are unavailable and 20 ,000 square feet where sanitary
sewer service is available. Because each of the proposed lots is
0 i
Tentative Tract Map 4-87 (Michael Hawkins/Cuesta Engineering)
to be sewered, the 20 ,000 square foot lot size is applicable in
this case.
The property proposed for subdivision is relatively flat and ap-
pears well suited for its intended use as a residential develop-
ment. There are numerous trees on the site which can be saved by
careful placement of building pads and other improvements. There
are no buildings or other improvements on the property at this
time.
The area surrounding the subject parcel was the subject of recent
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments allowing for the es-
tablishment of one-half acre and 20 ,000 square foot lots. The
proposal before the Commission is in conformance with the new
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance provisions. Staff believes that
the type and density of development proposed is appropriate for
the neighborhood.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map 4-87
based on the Findings in Exhibit C and the Conditions of Approval
in Exhibit D.
SLD:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location and Zoning Map
Exhibit B - Tentative Parcel Map
Exhibit C - Findings for Approval
Exhibit D - Conditions of Approval
2
0 CX141BIT A
� v. �� w �—oG7►1'IOvi Ay� ZOYIIKJ
� a
T-FAA ti-87
eve
J
R'M F _
(PD •
0O AV
�c i
� Co4 � it -o�— �J 1 dib.
Vf -
AS
-QRS F° -
�\oobo
.\
.S
A.
� rtiai ,i\ M•tio •o
` \ O�
/s
q
°' s' 0451
v
coa a
1
7
y� cQ,STp _ 'R
�.
L L O AS\AOERO
♦ • /
2 P
5i�c
�• r J
9 Z4 o X14,x-3c lJd ✓o Avc-
S1� ° °` R 5 F- X
Z o, 000 �q• 4.
$F•�, L( H) 91VE1 i
1 Lc
R3>r•X '� � Z.
-
1 I I I
z tiT. 01
/ _ , -.0
Exµ,�lr a
a
M P
T-rAA 4-3-7
I tab
.n 1.
o I �
x
u
172
N
p °
r•lJ4{L d•S• L•tw,, N JWF
ATAICADCAP —N�brw isr '•
AMEN E
q
\rya
S.no�
� _ moo, °� a o•�..
�� my U♦ •A
env v
-cm22�N ;pro
• •
Tentative Tract Map 4-87 (Michael Hawkins/Cuesta Engineering)
EXHIBIT C - Tentative Tract Map 4-87
Findings for Approval
July 7, 1986
FINDINGS:
1. The creation of these parcels conforms to the Zoning Ordinance and
the General Plan.
2. The creation of these parcels, in conformance with the recommended
conditions of approval, will not have a significant adverse effect
upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the
project is adequate.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development that
is proposed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development
that is proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision and 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 improvement will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or
that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474.6 of the
State Subdivision Map Act as to methods of handling and discharge
of waste.
• 0
Tentative Tract Map 4-87 (Michael Hawkins/Cuesta Engineering)
EXHIBIT D - Tentative Tract Map 4-87
Conditions of Approval
April 7, 1987
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company
and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel or its
public utility easement prior to recordation of the final map.
2. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines and other
easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are other
building or other restrictions related to the easements, they
shall be noted on the final map.
3. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, prepared by a regis-
tered civil engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to
recording the final map.
4. Drainage work and facilities shall be constructed to City stand-
ards prior to recording a final map.
5. Prior to recording the final map a soils investigation (as re-
quired by the Map Act) shall be submitted, recommending corrective
action which will prevent structural damage to each structure pro-
posed to be constructed in the area where soils problems may
exist. The date of such reports, the name of the engineer making
the report, and the location where the reports are on file shall
be noted on the final map.
6. Road improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer
must be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department
prior to recording the final map.
7. Construction of road improvements shall be completed prior to re-
cording the final map, and shall include paving of the entire road
and cul-de-sac as shown on the tentative map.
8. Construct an Atascadero City standard cul-de-sac at the terminus
of the new road serving the tract.
9. Road improvements shall be to the following standards:
City-accepted road:
1. 20 foot wide AC traveled way
2. 24 foot wide road bed
3. Minimum 110 foot centerline radius
4. 40 foot wide right-of-way
0 •
Tentative Tract Map 4-87 (Michael Hawkins/Cuesta Engineering)
10. All road grading shall be completed prior to recording the final
map.
11. An irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Atascadero for
the following right-of-way for future road purposes shall be made
and noted on the final map:
Street name: Atascadero Avenue
Limits: Property frontage
Minimum width: Thirty (30) feet from centerline
Street name: Unnamed
Limits: From Atascadero Avenue to terminus of cul-de-sac
Minimum width: 40 foot right-of-way with 48 foot cul-de-sac
radius and 20 foot corner rounding at
intersection
12. Install all street signs, traffic delineation devices, warning and
regulatory signs, guardrail, barricades, and other similar devices
where required by the Public Works Director. Signs shall be in
conformance with the Public Works Department standards and the
rent State of California uniform sign chart. Installation of
traffic devices shall be subject to review and modifications after
construction.
13. The property owner shall enter into an agreement, acceptable to
the City Attorney, agreeing to install sidewalks along the entire
frontage of the property along Atascadero Avenue to City standards
as may be deemed necessary by a sidewalk needs assessment.
14. An offer of dedication to the public for the Public Utilities
Easement shall be made.
15. All offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to
or simultaneously to recording the final map.
16. A City standard fire hydrant shall be installed at the frontage of
proposed lot #3 prior to recording the final map.
17. The fire hydrant located at the intersection of Portola Road and
Atascadero Avenue shall be upgraded to City standards.
18 . A name for the future road shall be selected and presented to the
Planning Commission for approval. Said name shall then appear on
the road on the final map.
19. Obtain an encroachment permit from the City of Atascadero. Sign
an Inspection Agreement and a Curb and Gutter Agreement, guaran-
teeing that the work will be done and inspections paid for , prior
to issuance of a building permit, and construct improvements as
directed by the Encroachment Permit, prior to recording the final
map.
• 0
Tentative Tract Map 4-87 (Michael Hawkins/Cuesta Engineering)
20. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways, drive-
way easements and private roads shall be submitted for approval by
the Community Development and Public Works Departments in order to
determine average grade and appropriate improvement requirements.
This shall appear as a note on the final map.
21. Wastewater disposal shall be by connection to the public sewer.
22. Obtain sewer connection permits from the Public Works Department
prior to hooking up to the public sewer .
23. The property owner shall enter into an agreement, acceptable to
the City Attorney, agreeing to participate in the formation of an
assessment district for drainage and related improvements intended
to mitigate flooding in the Amapoa/Tecorida drainage area and in
those areas impacted by that drainage.
24. Participate in eliminating a portion of the flood hazard to the
property by posting a performance security with the City to be
used for a drainage improvement project for channelizing the out-
flow from Atascadero Lake to Atascadero Creek. In the event that
a fugure assessment district is formed for the area drainage im-
provements that include this project, then credit in the amount of
the deposit will be applied towards final apportionment of the
assessment if allowed by the assessment district proceedings.
This shall appear as a note on the final map.
25. Offer a 15 foot wide drainage easement along rear lot lines of Lot
1 through 5. Said easement will be consented to but rejected
without prejudice by the City.
26. Provide drainage easements (and/or drainage releases) from points
of concentration of stormwater leaving the project boundary
through adjoining properties to the nearest natural watercourse as
approved by the Public Works Department.
27. Grading and drainage plans prepared by a registered civil engineer
must be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and
Public Works Departments prior to recording the final map.
28. All utilities (including cable TV, telephone, and electricity) ex-
tended to each of the new lots shall be installed underground.
Said utilities shall be installed prior to recording the final
map.
29. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved
tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth
herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance
with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance
prior to recordation.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created
and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor
shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners
have been set or shall be set by a date specific and that
• •
Tentative Tract Map 4-87 (Michael Hawkins/Cuesta Engineering)
they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit-
ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
C. A preliminary guarantee shall be submitted for review in con-
junction with the processing of the final map.
30. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted
pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date.
s
•
0 •
EXHIBIT D - Tentative Tract Map 4-87
Conditions of Approval (R E V I S E D)
April 7, 1987
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company
and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel or its
public utility easement prior to recordation of the final map.
2. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines and other
easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are other
building or other restrictions related to the easements, they
shall be noted on the final map.
3. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, prepared by a regis-
tered civil engineer , shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to
recording the final map.
4. Drainage work and facilities shall be constructed to City stand-
ards prior to recording a final map.
5. Prior to recording the final map a soils investigation (as re-
quired by the Map Act) shall be submitted, recommending corrective
,*action which will prevent structural damage to each structure pro-
posed to be constructed in the area where soils problems may
exist. The date of such reports, the name of the engineer making
the report, and the location where the reports are on file shall
be noted on the final map.
6. Road improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer
must be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department
prior to recording the final map.
7. Construction of road improvements shall be completed prior to re-
cording the final map, and shall include paving of the entire road
and cul-de-sac as shown on the tentative map.
8. Construct an Atascadero City standard cul-de-sac at the terminus
of the new road serving the tract.
9. Road improvements shall be to the following standards:
City-accepted road:
1. 20 foot wide AC traveled way
2. 24 foot wide road bed
3. Minimum 110 foot centerline radius
4. 40 foot wide right-of-way
1*
0
Tentative Tract Map -87 (Michael Hawkins Cuesta Engineering)
/ g g)
10. All road grading shall be completed prior to recording the final
map.
11. An irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Atascadero for
the following right-of-way for future road purposes shall be made
and noted on the final map:
Street name: Atascadero Avenue
Limits: Property frontage
Minimum width: Thirty (30) feet from centerline
Street name: Unnamed
Limits: From Atascadero Avenue to terminus of cul-de-sac
Minimum width: 40 foot right-of-way with 48 foot cul-de-sac
radius and 20 foot corner rounding at
intersection
12. Install all street signs, traffic delineation devices, warning and
regulatory signs, guardrail, barricades, and other similar devices
where required by the Public Works Director. Signs shall be in
conformance with the Public Works Department standards and the
rent State of California uniform sign chart. Installation of
traffic devices shall be subject to review and modifications after
construction.
13. The property owner shall enter into an agreement, acceptable to
the City Attorney, agreeing to install sidewalks along the entire
frontage of the property along Atascadero Avenue to City standards
as may be deemed necessary by a sidewalk needs assessment.
14. An offer of dedication to the public for the Public Utilities
Easement shall be made.
15. All offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to
or simultaneously to recording the final map.
16. A City standard fire hydrant shall be installed at the frontage of
proposed lot #3 prior to recording the final map.
17. The fire hydrant located at the intersection of Portola Road and
Atascadero Avenue shall be upgraded to City standards.
18. A name for the future road shall be selected and presented to the
Planning Commission for approval. Said name shall then appear on
the road on the final map.
19. Obtain an encroachment permit from the City of Atascadero. Sign
an Inspection Agreement guaranteeing that the work will be done
and inspections paid for , prior to issuance of a building permit,
and construct improvements as directed by the Encroachment Permit,
prior to recording the final map.
i
`2
Tentative Tract Ma4-87 (Michael Hawkins/Cue s Engineering)
Map
20 . Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways, drive-
way easements and private roads shall be submitted for approval by
the Community Development and Public Works Departments in order to
determine average grade and appropriate improvement requirements.
This shall appear as a note on the final map.
21. Wastewater disposal shall be by connection to the public sewer.
22. Obtain sewer connection permits from the Public Works Department
prior to hooking up to the public sewer .
23. Offer a 15 foot wide drainage easement along rear lot lines of Lot
1 through 5. Said easement will be consented to but rejected
without prejudice by the City.
24. Provide a $500 downstream improvement fee as a contribution toward
the required downstream drainage improvements.
25. Grading and drainage plans prepared by a registered civil engineer
must be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and
Public Works Departments prior to recording the final map.
26. All utilities (including cable TV, telephone, and electricity) ex-
tended to each of the new lots shall be installed underground.
Said utilities shall be installed prior to recording the final
map.
27. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved ,
tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth
herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance
with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance
prior to recordation.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created
and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor
shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners
have been set or shall be set by a date specific and that
they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit-
ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
C. A preliminary guarantee shall be submitted for review in con-
junction with the processing of the final map.
28. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted
pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date.
29. A twenty-five foot side setback shall be established for Lots 5
and 10 along Atascadero Avenue. Said setback shall be delineated
on the final map.
3
0 •
Minutes - Planning Commission - April 7 , 1987
. ere was further discussion concerning an equitable agreemen being
re hed after a sidewalk study is completed. It was note that in
this articular area there was a limited amount of future evelopment.
Mr. En en added that when the density in this neighbor od was re-
cently hanged, one of the primary concerns of the nei bors had been
the need or sidewalks. Mr. Sensibaugh proposed an al ernative simi-
lar to wha Public Works uses for detention basins w ch involves pay-
ing a fixed ount for improvements which goes into a sinking fund.
Mr. Baumberger ated that the applicants would be in favor of a
solution proposeby Mr. Sensibaugh rather t n having a lien placed
against their pro% ty.
Commissioner Copelan a ressed concern tha these lots are too long
and narrow for a adequa building sites.
MOTION: By Commissioner Co elan to ap rove Parcel Map 3-87 subject
to the findings and onditi s of approval with the exception
of Condition #12 whic is be deleted; seconded by Commis-
sioner Nolan.
Commissioner Michielss n m ved to amend the motion to modify
condition #11 to d: . . sidewalk needs analysis. How-
ever , the money sha not be alled forth until a minimum 51%
18 of the property ow ers in the benefit assessment district
have agreed to p ticipate, or i some other method is ar-
ranged whereby 1% or more of the 'property owners will parti-
cipate in the ost and installationf the sidewalk. Commis-
sioner Nolan seconded the amendment t the motion.
There was further iscussion concerning 51% of th land area as op-
posed to 51% o the property owners. Mr. Sensib ugh stated that an
override of a p test is based on land area and not h ontage.
Com ssioner Michielssen further amended his m tion to re-
fl ct 51% of the land area instead of 51% of he property
ners. Commissioner Nolan seconded the amendment.
Motion to the amendment passed with a 3 : 2 vote with ommis
sioners Copelan and Lopez-Balbontin dissenting.
Motion to approve Tentative Parcel Map 3-87 with the elimi -
tion of condition #12 and amendment to condition #11 passe
4: 1 with Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin dissenting.
4. Tentative Tract Map 4-87 :
Request initiated by Michael Hawkins (Cuesta Engineering) to allow
subdivision of one parcel containing 4.93 acres into ten lots con-
taining between 20 ,100 square feet and 24 ,720 square feet each.
Subject property is located at 9240 Atascadero Avenue (Lot 2,
Block 12, Atascadero Colony) .
7
• •
Minutes - Planning Commission - April 7 , 1987
Commissioner Michielssen stepped down from the Commission due tole
a possible conflict of interest.
In presenting the staff report, Mr. DeCamp noted that conditions
#23 and #24 be deleted as they are covered by ordinance and need not
be noted on the map. He suggested that the wording for condition #13
referring to the sidewalk requirement be amended as reflected in the
previous motion (TPM 3-87/Schultz) .
Chairman Bond stated this request meets all of the findings and
criteria, however, he expressed concern that the street area was
being used as part of the square footage for the proposed lots.
He discussed the net versus gross acreage issue and his feelings
that the map still has to be accepted by the City, to which Mr. DeCamp
responded that the proposed street would meet City standards but that
there is no requirement that the City accept the road for dedication.
There was discussion concerning the need for the 20, 000 square
foot lot issue to be reviewed during the General Plan update.
John Falkenstien, agent for the applicant, stated he is in favor of
the amended wording on the sidewalk condition as previously approved
by the Commission. With regard to condition #19, Mr. Falkenstien
stated he would like the wording "curb and gutter agreement" deleted
as there is no requirement for such. Mr . DeCamp stated there was no
problem with this deletion. Mr . Falkenstien further addressed condi-�
tion #26 relating to drainage easements stating that the site is a
gently sloping one and that everything drains to the rear. He felt
that this site does not have a drainage impact on adjacent properties
and explained how the drainage on the different lots drains off the
property. Discussion ensued. Mr. Sensibaugh offered a solution in
which a $500 detention basin fee could be utilized and applied to
downstream improvements. Mr. Falkenstien indicated his agreement to
such a compromise.
Mr. Falkenstien spoke -on the lot size issue with regard to the owner-
ship from the centerline of the street to the property.
Mr. Gulliver, 9310 Atascadero Avenue, explained difficulties he had in
receiving hearing notice since his name was not listed on the assessor
rolls. He addressed the drainage issue and stated there is a drainage
problem in this area and noted he was not sure whether he approved of
the land division request.
Jane Smith talked about the continued reduction of lot sizes in this
area and expressed her concern with the drainage problems.
Dennis Lockridge felt the lot definitely needs to be developed and
commented on how this particular application has changed since it
first came before the Commission over a year ago.
Mr. DeCamp pointed out that Lots 5 and 10 (corner lots) front on the•
new street with side setbacks along Atascadero Avenue and noted that
the Ordinance requires a ten foot minimum setback on a corner lot on
the street side. However, because of the other development along the
R
0 0
Minutes - Planning Commission - April 7, 1987
street being set back at 25 feet, and the fact that the school is
directly across the street, he asked that a condition be imposed that
would require a 25 foot setback along the frontage and side of Lots 5
and 10 along the new street and along Atascadero Avenue and that
that setback be shown on the final map.
Chairman Bond felt that individual property owners should not be re-
quired to put in sidewalks until the school puts in a sidewalk since
the school takes up two-thirds of the frontage on Atascadero Avenue
and added some additional comments on the sidewalk issue.
In response to question from Commissioner Nolan regarding the reword-
ing of condition #26, Mr. Sensibaugh stated the applicant should give
$500 towards downstream drainage improvements above and beyond the
normal drainage fees for this area in lieu of a offsite easements.
Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin stated that sidewalks will be needed in
that area and there should be some sort of guarantee that the develop-
ers will participate in the cost of providing sidewalks. He did not
feel that the amended condition on sidewalks in the previous item was
adequate.
MOTION: By Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin to approve Tentative Tract
4-87 subject to the findings and conditions contained in the
staff report with the following modifications:
• - deletion of conditions #23 and #24
addition of condition #31 (pertaining to side setbacks)
- amendment to condition #26
The motion passed 3 :1 with a roll call vote; Chairman Bond
dissenting.
Commissioner Michielssen took his seat back on the Commission.
irman Bond called a recess at 11: 05 p.m. ; meeting reco ned at
11: .m.
5. Tentative cel Ma 5-87 :
Request initia d by Robert S. Fisher�tolow subdivision of one
parcel containing 66 acresinto thrcontaining 0 . 5 acres,
0. 5 acres, and 0 . 66 a es. Subjec property is located at 8925
Atascadero Avenue (Parc_ of 76-280) .
Mr. DeCamp presented the staff repo recommending conditional approv-
al, but noting condition `8 should be leted as it is already cov-
ered by ordinance.
In response to estion from Commissioner Lopez-B ontin, Mr . DeCamp
responded at the 16 foot road width is adequate fo Fire Department
• apparatu . Mr. DeCamp pointed out that the Fire Departm has asked
for Jte installation of a new fire hydrant at the inte ction of
Ats-!�'.cadero Avenue and the new accessway to the proposed lots hich
�11 provide them with additional fire protection throughout the a
9
0 ET!'111�3 N'D A
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council Members May 12, 1987
FROM: Michael Shelton
City Manager
SUBJECT: NUCLEAR WEAPONS FREE ZONE ORDINANCE
Attached is a letter to Mayor Mackey from John Bartelt, PhD,
dated March 3, 1987, requesting Council consideration of adopting
a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Ordinance. A Nuclear Weapons Free
Zone, as proposed, would prohibit research, production, or stor-
age of weapons, manufacturing of component parts, or supplying
substances to make nuclear weapons within Atascadero city limits.
The ordinance would also prohibit the City from doing business
with, or awarding contracts to any person, firm, or organization
engaged in the production of nuclear weapons or components.
Mr. Bartelt will give a presentation at the May 12, 1987 Council
Meeting, provide an overview of the proposed sample ordinance,
and request Council consideration and public discussion.
DISCUSSION:
Considerable staff and Council time would be required to
implement and administer the proposed ordinance.
Anticipated impacts created from the proposed ordinance would be
as follows:
Section 4 - Policy - Atascadero Shall be Established as a
Nuclear weapons free zone - Staff is unaware of any business
in the city which is currently involved in the research or pro-
duction of substances used to manufacture nuclear weapons.
This section would require considerable staff time to monitor
business and industry to insure compliance. The compliance
monitoring would be handled most likely through the business
license process. Certificates of compliance would be required
from all businesses.
Section 5 - Purchasing and Contracts - Staff is unaware of ven-
dors that the City does business with that engages in the pro-
duction of nuclear weapons or components. Conceivably, however,
it is reasonable to assume that many of the larger firms the City
patronizes (IBM, General Motors, General Electric, etc. ) could be
precluded from doing further business with the City, reducing
• financial competitiveness and technology otherwise available.
• 0
City staff would be required to obtain an updated list of nuclear
weapons producers, research alternative sources for necessary S
purchases or services, and obtaining certificates of compliance
stipulating non involvement in the production of nuclear weapons
or components.
Section 6 - Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Committee - Staff and
Council time will be required in the formulation of a committee,
directing the efforts of the committee, and monitoring their rec-•
ommendations. Council time would be required to provide di-
rection, monitor progress, and receive reports.
Section 7 - Investment of City Funds - Investment practices
would be amended to insure that City funds were not invested with
nuclear weapons contractors. It is unclear if this also includes
banks, savings and loans, and the Local Agency Investments Fund,
which may have investments with nuclear weapons contractors.
Again, staff time would be required on an ongoing basis to insure
compliance and this practice may have an impact on City invest-
ment returns possibly reducing investment earnings.
Section 9 - Violations and Penalties - City Attorney time and
cost will be required for preparation of the proposed ordinance,
providing ordinance administrative interpretations, persuing
prosecution in the case of violation, and defending the ordinance
in the case of challenge by vendors, citizens, or the Federal
Government. .
Section 11 - Notification - This provides for extensive noti-
fication to all levels of government including County, State
Federal, special organizations, the United Nations, and foreign
governments.
The ordinance also provides for providing this communication to a
similar size city in the Soviet Union, and placing and
maintaining signs stating, "Nuclear Weapons Free Zone" at City
limits.
Unrelated to the time involved with the administration of the
ordinance, considerable Council time will be required in the for-
mation process hearing and dealing with public controversy that
may arise over this issue.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Council may wish to take the message and intent of the
proposed ordinance and adopt a resolution declaring Council' s
position and conveying this position to appropriate State,
Federal, and other representatives deemed appropriate.
2. Council may receive the presentation with no further action. •
3. Council may wish to first develop a policy in dealing with
State, Federal, and international issues (non-local issues)
0 0
tabling this issue pending policy formation.
4. Council may wish to receive public input prior to making
further decision. Although public alternate input may be
achieved through the following means:
A. Appointment of a broad based ad hoc committee to
review and make recommendations to Council.
B. Conducting public hearing to receive public
input.
C. Direct of the formation of a survey to survey the desire
of the community.
D. Placing the issue on an upcoming ballot for community
direction.
5. Council may direct staff to notice and bring back ordinance
for Council consideration.
MS:kv
File: MNucs
41
Marjorie Mackey, Mayor
and City Council Members
City of Atascadero
Atascadero CA 93422
March 3, 1987
Dear Mayor Mackey and City Council Members:
This constitutes a request for your consideration of a City ordinance. As
explained below, attached to this letter Is a draft of such an ordinance,
as it might be appropriate to our City. This follows several months of
research into similar ordinances enacted by other cities across America.
1 request that the City of Atascadero enact an ordinance, to In essence
declare by whatever means necessary to effect Its intent , the area within
Its borders to be a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (-NYYF_Z) . This request is made
on the basis of only one moral consideration :t3f`1lftTue world peace and .
freedom from violence will ultimately be achiev' by the Kremlin, nor
by Congress, but rather when enough courageous_ individuals decide in their
own hearts to personally make peace their way of_ life.
ALkaa�cY+le$PaAr-g , Zae {NNIFyVZ: g ,�sse,nl�. �. . as a
city) declared off—limits to the arms race. Probably the most widely
accepted definition for a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Is: "Any well—defined •
geographical area, regardless of size, In which no nuclear weapons shall
be produced, transported, stored, processed, disposed of, or detonated.
Neither shall any facility, equipment , supply, or substance for their
production, transportation, storage, processing, disposal , or detonation,
be permitted within its borders."
Many titles have for a long time forbidden the transportation or storage
of radioactive materials or the storage of radioactive waste, and a large
number of cities have made formal proclamations opposing nuclear weapons.
But the first actual ordinance against nuclear weapons was passed only
four years ago, although since then , many cities have joined suit : more
than 13 million Americans now live in one of 150 such legally recognized
zones in the U.S. , including two complete counties here in California.
There are nearly 4,000 locally—declared Nuclear Free Zones in 24 countries
around the earth, Including seventeen entire COUNTRIES which have declared
all territory within their borders as a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone.
Many cities (such as Chicago, Tacoma Park, Portland, Seattle, and others)
require written certification of non—involvement with nuclear weapons
contracts before the city will even consider a bid. Because of such
pressures from such cities, several contractors have terminated their
weapons contracts. Such an ordinance therefore has not only a symbolic
gesture, but also carries an actual economic impact , by the restriction of
bids from weapon—involved corporations.
J rf
Ltr to Atasc City Council re NWFZ — Page 2
You may have questions about the legality of such an ordinance. A common
misconception is that such ordinances are preempted by the exclusive power
of federal government to provide for the national defense. The Lawyers'
Committee on Nuclear Policy has stated that where NWFZ laws are drafted
carefully so as to articulate clearly local reasons for the adoption of
the legislation (for example, to ensure the moral integrity of the local
citizenry, and/or to promote sound economic development by relying on a
non—military economy that Is not subject to the whims of Congress) , then
the law should be found constitutional . Several recent U.S. Supreme Court
decisions also indicate that , absent the clearest expression of intent by
the Congress, mere inconsistency with national policy does not invalidate
a local or state law adopted pursuant to the jurisdiction's traditional
police power authority. That is, unless Congress passes legislation that
Specifically preempts local NWFZ laws, such local laws should be upheld
and are fully enforceable by local police powers;:
Dwight D. Eisenhower said that "people In the longgrrun are going to do
mxore to promote peace than our government — one of these days government
better get out of their way and let them have It!'.- . The time has come for
us to say "no, not here In Atascadero; not in our name".
I have attached a sample draft ordinance, based on several verified
ordinances from other cities. I would be happy to share more NWFZ
Information with you, assist In any additional ordinance research or
drafting, serve on a NWFZ committee at the pleasure of the Council , and/or
speak with you In person, should you so desire. I do wish this issue on
the agenda as a public discussion item. If you wish NOT to consider this
request at all , then please apprise me of all alternative options (for
example, how many signatures by petition it would take to effect an
Initiative to have the citizens of Atascadero consider it) . In any case,
I would appreciate a response to this request .
have avoided moralizing, trusting that we all place a high priority on
efforts toward world peace. While you can (and should) judge this issue
solely on its own merit , I must say that , as regards the horror of nuclear
weapons and the feasibility of the genocide of the human race, I do know
whereof I speak.
I sincerely thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
John Bartelt, PhD
(former U.S.A.F. Nuclear Weapons Specialist)
P.O. Box 2225
Atascadero CA 93423
Attachments: Draft NWFZ ordinance; sample ordinances from other cities.
. cys: Bonita Borgeson, Wayne Handshy, Marjorie Mackey, George Molina,
Barbara Norris.
into cys: Carl Hysen (County Supervisor) , Atascadero chapters or members
of various local peace groups, and news agencies.
PROPOSED NUCLEAR WEAPON FREE ZONE ORDINANCE
City of Atascadero
Drafted by John Bartelt , PhD
Proposed to the City Council in March, 1987
1. Title.
2. Purpose.
3. Findings.
4. Policy.
5. Purchasing and Contracting.
6. Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Committee
7. Investment of City Funds.
8. Exclusions.
9. Violations and Penalties.
10. Definitions.
11. Notification.
12. Severability.
1. TITLE
Ordinance".
2. PURPOSE
The purpose of this ordinance is to establish the City of Atascadero,
California as a nuclear weapon free zone, prohibiting nuclear weapons
and/or their production, transportation, testing, development, or
research, within the city limits.
3. FINDINGS
It is the finding of the Mayor and Council of the City of Atascadero,
California that :
(a) whereas nuclear weapons cannot be used without indiscriminately
killing civilians and violating accepted international laws of
war and the Nuremberg Principles, and
(b) whereas nuclear weapons production, in the United States and in
other countries, is draining the world's resources and presenting
humanity with an ever—increasing threat of nuclear war , and
(c) whereas the emphatic expression of our community, along with
communities throughout the world, can help initiate steps by all
nuclear weapons powers to end complicity with the escalation of
the arms race and the proliferation of nuclear weapons , and
Sample NWFZ Ordinance — Page 2 of 5
(d) whereas the failure of governments of nuclear nations to reduce or
eliminate the risk of nuclear war requires that the people
themselves, and their local representatives, take such action,
SO THEREFORE the City of Atascadero finds that , THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
BE ESTABLISHED AS A NUCLEAR WEAPON FREE ZONE.
4. POLICY:
ATASCADERO SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AS A NUCLEAR WEAPON FREE ZONE
(a) The production or storage of nuclear weapons, or any equipment ,
components, supplies, or substance used for the production of
nuclear weapons or for their testing, ,-'rRxearch, or development ,
shall not be allowed in the City of Atascadero.
(b) No nuclear waste shall be stored withift*'rT1**i ity.
(c) No research furthering nuclear weaponseve opment shall be
conducted within the City, subject to rights guaranteed under
the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
(d) The City of Atascadero shall not knowingly do business with, or
Award__aaY .�i t�.act .ta .;,8ny.�,p.ersa; ; ;�3-ArganIzatIon
engaged in the production of nuclear weapons or components.
5. PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING
(a) The City of Atascadero and its officials, employees, or agents,
shall not knowingly and intentionally grant any award, contract ,
or purchase order, or purchase goods, materials, supplies, or
services, either directly or indirectly, to any nuclear weapons
contractor .
(b) All City bid awards shall be denied to companies knowingly engaged
In the research, development , production, or testing of nuclear
warheads, nuclear weapons systems, or their components.
(c) Contracts and agreements held by the City In violation of this
ordinance prior to the effective date of this ordinance may be
allowed to expire, but shall be renewed only under the terms of
this ordinance.
L d
Sample NWFZ Ordinance — Page 3 of 5
(d) The City shall at least annually obtain, from any reputable
clearinghouse of nuclear weapons information (such as Nuclear
Free America in Baltimore) , an updated list of major nuclear
weapons producers and contractors. That list of major nuclear
weapons contractors shall be distributed to City officials,
employees, and agents, as a guide in the implementation of this
section. Said list shall function as a guide, and shall not be
construed to be complete or binding in and of itself.
(e) Exceptions: The provisions of this section may be waived by the
City Council If the City Administrator advises after diligent
search that a necessary good or service cannot reasonably be
obtained from any source other than a nuclear weapons producer.
6. NUCLEAR WEAPON FREE ZONE CTEE .
The Atascadero Mayor and City Council may, If they so desire, appoint a
committee of administrative officials and dedicated citizens, to oversee
the Implementation
��o[f this
� ordinance, and to resolve any questions or
�AAhISAI64LU0 ♦•IIIA u-AAL4r.'w,w.: _-I&.i.,mL`caKAika_kY.lQi.L1.L";.Lkft _ n s i s t of
seven (7) Atascadero residents, with some collective experience in the
following areas, science, research, finance, law, peace, and ethics.
Committee members may serve two—year terms, with the exception that three
(3) of the initial appointees may serve one—year terms. The Committee
may appoint its own chair, and establish its own bylaws, both subject to
approval by the Mayor and Council . The Council and the Committee may
elect to broaden the scope of the Committee to include all (or at least
other) areas of social responsibility as well , but such a committee would
at least be responsible to,
(a) review all work, and any proposed contracts, awards, purchase
orders, or Investments within the City, which It has reason to
believe Is not in compliance with this ordinance, and make
recommendations as appropriate to the Mayor and Council regarding
penalties for violations of this ordinance;
(b) provide public education and information on issues related to the
Intent and purpose of this ordinance;
(c) prepare an annual report for the City Council , to include an
updated list of nuclear weapons producers to guide City agents in
the implementation of this ordinance;
(d) review for possible reasonable alternative sources for necessary
purchase or service, before any waiver of the provisions of this
ordinance are granted.
. Sample NWFZ Zone — page 4 of 5
7. INVESTMENT OF CITY FUNDS
The City of Atascadero hereby adopts a nuclear—free investment policy. As
of the effective date of this ordinance, no public funds shall be invested
In the stocks, bonds, securities, or other obligations of nuclear weapons
contractors.
8. EXCLUSIONS
Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to prohibit or regulate the
research and application of nuclear medicine, or of fissionable materials
for smoke detectors, light—emitting watches, clocks, and/or other
applications where the purpose is unrelated to the production of nuclear
weapons or nuclear weapons components. No prov44-4*ts of this ordinance
shall be construed to intend or direct a viola applicable federal
or state laws and regulations. Nothing in this ordinance shall be
interpreted to infringe upon the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment
to the United States Constitution, nor upon the power of Congress to
on
2�nss e
,L�.. -z •s. �ate: %
9. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES
Businesses operating in Atascadero must be duly licensed by the City
licensing authority. Violations of this ordinance shall be punishable by
denial or revocation of business license, and as a misdemeanor as defined
In the San Luis Obispo County municipal bail schedule.
10. DEFINITIONS
"Nuclear weapon" is any device the sole purpose of which is the
destruction of human life and property by an explosion resulting from the
energy released by a fission or fusion reaction involving atomic nuclei .
"Component of a nuclear weapon" Is any device, radioactive substance , or
nonradioactive substance, designed knowingly and intentionally to
contribute to the operation, launch, guidance, delivery, or detonation of
a nuclear weapon.
"Nuclear weapons producer" Is any person, firm, corporation, institution,
facility, parent or subsidiary thereof , or agency of the federal
government , engaged In the production of nuclear weapons or their
components.
•
Sample- NWFZ Ordinance — Page 5 of 5
"Production of nuclear weapons" is the knowing or intentional research,
design, development , testing, manufacture, evaluation, maintenance,
storage, transportation, or disposal of nuclear weapons or their
components.
11 . NOTIFICATION
(a) Upon adoption of this ordinance, the Mayor and Council shall
present a true copy of this ordinance to the President of the
United States, to the Premier of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, to the Secretary—General of the United Nations, to the
Director of the International Atomic Agency, to the Governor of
the State of California, to the United States Senators from
California, to the United States Repres'AlV tives representing .
Atascadero, to our State Delegates and'"':Xie`ators, to the County
Executives of San Luis Obispo, and to the Council members of the
cities within San Luls Obispo County.
(b) The Mayor and Council of Atascadero, California shall choose a
_,- ;�:..�_�! w .•�►r yL3�t:sGsEs a �.nx tmlk�1)I.�ibe sa%a;; she r e 1 n
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as the Mayor and Council
may deem appropriate, and send a true copy of this ordinance, and
a letter urging the chosen town to take similar action.
(c) The City shall place and maintain signs reading "Nuclear Weapon
Free Zone" at all City limit sign post locations. The signs
shall conform with all existing standards and regulations.
12. SEVERABILITY
If any portion of this ordinance Is hereafter declared Invalid, all
remaining portions shall remain In full force and effect , and to this
extent , the provisions of this ordinance are severable.
00
4*1
Oe
096*66
. .. .
so
00
00
.. . . . . .. .:
. . .... . . .. . . . ... . . . . .. ..
. . . . . . . . . . .:. . . ... .
. .. . .. . . . . . .. .
.. . . .. . ... :: . . ... . . .. .... . . . . . . . .
DOT CHART
1 dot - represents the firepower contained in all the aerial bombing
by all the combatants during World War II (1939 - 1945) , including the
bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: 3 megatons (3 million tons TNT) .
8 dots - represent the firepower contained in the nuclear missiles of 1
Trident submarine: 24 megatons. This is enough firepower to destroy
every major city in the northern hemisphere.
61000 dots - represent the explosive power in the nuclear arsenals of
the superpowers today: 18,000 megatons. The United States and the
Soviet Union share this firepower with approximately equal destructive
capability.
Detonation of a little more than one square could cause a "nuclear winter".
Source: Center for Defense Information, 303 Capitol Gallery West, 600
Maryland Ave. S.W. , Washington D.C. 20024
3/83
. • M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council May 12, 1987 •
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director !mss
SUBJECT: Request of Business Improvement Association for Initiation
of a Special Zoning District for the Central Business Dis-
trict and an In-Lieu Fee Parking Program
BACKGROUND:
The attached letter from the BIA has been submitted requesting that
Council direct staff to initiate development of a downtown zoning dis-
trict together with an in-lieu fee parking program.
ANALYSIS:
The problems identified by the BIA are real and have been recognized
• i.e. , the downtown area is characterized by many small lots but devel-
opment standards are the same as for vacant acreage. This has had a
chilling affect on new development in that the properties are fre-
quently too small to permit development of adequate parking.
The attached map shows present zoning in the central area of Atasca-
dero, together with a Use Matrix showing the allowed uses within vari-
ous zones in the City. In addition to the problems of small lots and
inability to meet parking needs on said lots, there is an additional
issue of the incompatability of many uses allowed within the downtown.
The CR District allows drive-in restaurants, gas stations and other
uses which are clearly incompatible to a pedestrian-oriented downtown
environment. Hence, in addition to reconsidering site development
standards, a central commercial zone should also focus on appropriate
land uses to be permitted in the downtown.
With respect to parking, BIA suggests the possibility of in-lieu con-
tributions as an alternative to providing full parking on site. Staff
would suggest that consideration be given to revising the parking
standards by one-half for the downtown area with the option made
available to developers to provide for a specific per space contri-
bution for off-street spaces off site.
Achievement of these objectives will require development of new zoning
text and a map amendment, either in the form of a new zoning district
• or a downtown overlay zone. Staff is recommending as part of the fis-
cal year 87/88 Budget under Special Studies as follows: "Complete zon-
ing amendment creating downtown commercial district with modification
to parking. standards. " This work would entail meetings with the BIA
prior to scheduling hearings before the Planning Commission for a rec- •
ommendation back to the City Council.
The BIA/City/Chamber Committee considered and endorsed this concept at
their April 24th meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Initiate proposed zoning amendment as requested by the BIA.
HE:ph
Enclosures: BIA Communication, dated April 8 , 1987
Boundaries of the BIA
Zoning Map
Zoning Text Matrix
cc: Kirk Pearson, BIA
.. int°fin
�° BUSINE�S IMPROVEMENT AlOCIATION
P.O. Box 1607 j Atascadero, CA 93423
TO: City Council/Planning Commission
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Executive Board, Business Improvement Association (BIA)
DATE: April 8, 1987
SUBJECT: Special Zoning District for the Central Business District; In-lieu
Parking Fee Program
There is a growing awareness that our city lacks a healthy,
identifiable downtown. The concept that E. G. Lewis laid out early on in our
history has been spread out into an automobile-oriented strip, similar to so
many cities that lack identity.
There is no doubt that there is a need for convenient, automobile-
accessible services, but what we lack at present is an area that is
pedestrian-oriented. We need an area we can call the "heart" of the city, an
area that has a healthy, diverse mix of cultural , retail , professional , and
residential uses in an atmosphere that caters to the individual , rather than
. the automobile.
The BIA feels that there is a need for a special zoning district that
addresses the concerns of our downtown area. This concept is common to many
cities. The City of San Luis Obispo's downtown zone, designated as C-C, or
Central-Commercial zone, might provide a good framework to use as a basis.
The boundaries for such a zone for our city could coincide with the existing
boundaries of the BIA.
We propose that a zoning district for the Central Business District
encorporate the following concepts:
* Mixed-Use: with predominantly retail and cultural uses at ground
floor; other uses (most business services, residential ) above
ground floor
* Medium-Rise development with special height restrictions
adjacent to the Memorial Building (possibly a graduated scale of *
buildings nearest the Memorial Building)
* Maintenance of the desirable characteristics of the downtown
while accomodating carefully integrated new development
* Higher density development
* Restriction of incompatible uses (drive-thru restaurants, etc. )
* Revised parking standards to promote more retail uses and more
fairly treat uses such as theatres and rest.uarants which have a
larger parking demand during off-peak hours
* Encorporate an in-lieu parking fee program (see following) to
provide funding' for off-street parking areas and improvements
A long-range plan for parking is critical to the success of creating a
pedestrian-oriented downtown. At present, businesses that might consider
locating in the downtown area are stifled due to the stringent parking
requirements. Some of our older buildings that give our downtown character
(Carlton Hotel , Bowling Alley, etc. ) are prohibited from upgrading due to
the lack of options open to them with regard to parking.
We propose the development of an in-lieu parking fee program to help
offset construction and maintenance costs of off-street parking. The program
should be developed in such a way that:
* The fees are graduated such that small capital investments, such
as changes in use of occupancy, are not penalized as heavily as
large capital investments, such as new construction
* Portions of the fees may be made on a term basis so that
businesses are not discouraged initially from locating in the
downtown
The Executive Board of the BIA would like to request that the City
Council direct staff to begin development of these issues as an overlay of
the BIA boundaries, and would like to offer our assistance as may be
appropriate.
- Respectfully Submitted
The BIA Executive Board
•
•
C,
•
C�
i
Boundaries of the Atascadero Business Improvement Association
' y • MEETING DATE:
d1�I�II�W���iIIII�p ��IU city of San tins OBISPO 1-14-87
PLANNING COMMISSION TAFF REPORT ITEM NU5BER:
BY: Michael Multari, Community Development Director 0
SUBJECT: FILE # CR 1234
Revised downtown in -lieu parking fees.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend to the City Council adoption of the revised in -lieu fee program.
BACKGROUND:
Situation
In 1981, the city established a standardized parking requirement for the downtown
(Central -Commercial, C -C, zone). The zoning ordinance requires new uses to provide
parking when (1) a new building is constructed, or (2) when additions are made to
existing buildings, or (3) when a new use replaces another one and the parking
requirement is higher than that of the old one.
The ordinance gives several options for meeting this requirement, including, of course,
by providing parking on-site or by leasing spaces on another nearby property. The
ordinance also allows for participation in either a parking district or payment of an
in -lieu fee which would be used for centralized, city -provided parking. Neither a
parking district or an in -lieu fee program has as yet been adopted by the city. The
in -lieu fee program seems particularly practical because there is so little vacant
available land downtown and that which is available is quite valuable. Thus, the
provision of parking in larger -scale, conveniently -located lots and structures is the
most practical approach to addressing parking needs downtown; and, it is, in fact, the
one being pursued by the city and business community. (As an aside, bids are presently
being solicited for the first of two major city -built parking facilities.)
Last spring, the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed an in -lieu fee program
which would have required payment of $4000 per parking space. The money would be used to
help offset construction and maintenance costs of the city -owned and operated lots and
structures. The BIA and others asked the Council to postpone action on the proposal to
allow time for consideration of alternatives. The principal ideas for changes were (1)
reducing the fees charged to projects involving only a change in occupancy of an existing
building versus the fees charged to new construction projects; and (2) a
reduction in the standards for certain uses (such as theaters and restaurants) whose
current parking requirements are so large so as to make them unfairly bear the cost of
providing parking when in fact their parking demand is primarily at off-peak hours.
Throughout the summer and fall, the BIA worked with city staff on a variety of options.
The proposal before the Planning Commission now reflects in large measure the BIA's
recommendation.
0
• 0
Staff Report
Page 2
Proposal Summary. The following outlines the principal features of the revised program:
1. Revised Parking Standards
A. The parking requirement for theaters and restaurants would have a "cap" of not
more than one space per 350 square feet of gross floor area. This could
result, in some cases, in a reduction of up to about 50% in the required
parking spaces, depending on the configuration of the project. This would
make the parking standards easier to meet and the corresponding fees would
be more reasonable. This is discussed further below.
B. Retail and offices would all have a requirement of one space per 500 square
feet gross. Presently, most retail requires one space per 400 square feet,
while most offices require one space per 600 square feet. The result of the
proposed change would be a slight reduction in the retail standards, making
retail somewhat easier to build. Further, and perhaps more significantly, it
would make tenant conversions from offices to retail use easier.
2. The Fee Program
A. For new construction or additions to existing buildings, $4000 per space plus
$1.00 per square foot would be the fee.
B. For changes in occupancy only, $1000 per space would be the fee.
C. Project proponents would have to pay the $1.00/foot fee with the building
permits and would have the option of paying the per space fee as a lump sum
payment or amortized payment with interest (with a 20 -year term maximum for
fees totally $5000 or greater or with a 10 -year term maximum for fees
less than $5000.
EVALUATION
Revised Parking Standards. The rationale for the revised standards for theaters and
food -service businesses is as follows: Patrons of these uses in the evening are in the
downtown after principal office hours and after peak parking demand times. Therefore,
requiring the full standard for this element of their parking demand is unnecessary as
there is usually more than sufficient parking at that time. There are few patrons of the
theaters during the day. People going to restaurants during breakfast or lunch are
primarily persons who are working or shopping in the downtown anyway. Thus, again,
requiring the full parking standard for this aspect of these uses is redundant and
unnecessary in this part of the city.
The other revised standards would equalize the parking standard for offices and retail in
the downtown. This approach has several potential benefits. First, by slightly
reducing the retail requirement, it makes retail uses somewhat easier to provide. The
• protection of existing retail opportunities and encouragement of new ones are goals of
the city for downtown (which are going to be increasingly difficult to achieve as the
downtown competes with other retail areas in the city and region). Second, by equalizing
office and retail standards, conversion to retail from office is easier. The higher
parking requirement for retail has inhibited conversions from office in some cases.
•
Staff Report .
Page 3
Next, from a regulatory standpoint, administration of a zoning ordinance which utilizes a
common standard for a wider range of uses is simpler and clearer both from the city's
and applicant's standpoints. This approach seems particularly reasonable in the
downtown, which tends to function as a unit (somewhat like a mall or shopping center) and
for which the usual standards are already reduced. Further differentiations in the
standards among similar uses become increasingly subtle, and marginally useful from the
standpoint of actually providing parking (especially in light of the goal of keeping the
buildings occupied with vibrant, active businesses). From the property owners'
standpoint, there is a similar benefit in that a wider range of tenants can occupy an
existing building without the concern about payment of fees triggered simply by the
change in tenants.
This approach would also make new offices bear a somewhat greater proportion of parking
costs in the downtown, but not so great as to make the downtown significantly less
attractive for this type of use (the parking standards for offices would still be 40%
lower than elsewhere in the city).
In -lieu Fees. The revised fees appear reasonable and fair. The following tables
summarize the likely costs for different types of uses. The first compares the costs of
a similar -sized expansion among different kinds of uses utilizing the proposed revised
standards. The second shows a "per space" cost for different kinds of uses. (Note that
under the proposal, the $1.00/square foot charge must be paid up front and the remainder
of the fee can be amortized at different terms depending on the size of the fee. The
examples below are calculated at 10 percent interest rate.)
TABLE 1
C,
EXAMPLE OF A
1000 SQUARE
FOOT PROJECT
# of Spaces
Total
Initial
Annual Pmt.
Type of Project
Required
Cost
Pmt.
(Max. Term)
Retail Office
2
9,000
1,000
$ 940
(new/addition)
Office (new/addn)
2
9,000
1,000
$ 940
Restaurant
3
13,000
1,000
$1,410
(new/addition)
Restaurant
3
3,000
0
$ 488
(Change in use)
C,
• Staff Report
Page 4
TABLE 2
COSTS ON A "PER SPACE" BASIS (ASSUMES "WORST CASE")
Monthly Cost
Total Total Cost Initial Annl.Pmt per sq.ft.
Type of Proiect Cost/Space Sq. Ft. Pmt. 20yr/lOyr 20yr/10yr
Retail (new/addn) $ 4,500 $ 9.00 $500 $470/650 11.5 �/8
Office (new/addn) $ 4,500 $ 9.00 $500 $470/650 11tW
Restaurant $ 4,3;0 $12.43 $350 $470/650 15.0 /11�
(new/addition)
Restaurant $ 1,000 $ 2.86 $ 0 $117/$163 4�/4
(change in use)
A conservative estimate is that at least 10% of the costs of a new commercial project is
devoted to supplying parking. Monthly rents in the downtown are estimated to be running
between $1.00 and $1.65 per square foot. If we assume a typical case of about
$1.20/foot, then monthly costs in parking fees (about 8 - 124/foot for new retail in
offices) would generally be 10% or less of the rent . Thus, the fees seem reasonable.
Similarly, we can look at the parking fees in terms of total cost per square foot
relative to costs of new construction. These would be $9.00/foot for new retail and
office. New construction costs have been estimated at about $80/foot, so parking would
be about 11% of that cost, which is in line with the usual costs of providing parking on
site.
The fee proposal also recognizes the difference between a project involving a major
capital investment in new building as opposed to the relatively minor investment usually
occurring with a simple occupancy change, and distinguishes the fee for these two cases,
accordingly. It should also be recognized, however, that the "Leveling" of the parking
standards for retail and office use will reduce the number of cases where simple changes
in occupancy will trigger the need for more (or less) parking.
Income Generation. As noted above, the fees would be used to help offset construction
and maintenance costs of the city lots and structures. The earlier program had been
estimated to generate about $100,000/year to this end. There is no set amount the
in -lieu fee must generate or is expected to generate, however. The revised program would
is
produce substantially less income (a conservative estimate by the BIA put the number at
about $30,000/year, but this seems low). The BIA recommended that the council supplement
funds from the in -lieu fee program with a business license surcharge and other revisions
to the business license fees as well as by other methods. These are not part of the
zoning ordinance change and are not evaluated here.
Staff Report
Page 5
ALTERNATIVES
The commission may recommend approval of the program as proposed or with modifications as
deemed appropriate.
The commission may continue action on the proposal with direction to staff on what
additional information might be useful in reaching a recommendation.
While technically the commission may recommend the in -lieu fee not be adopted, it is
already prescribed by ordinance and is the only realistic option for meeting parking
requirements for many projects in the downtown.
FISCAL IMPACT
As noted above, the fee system will generate monies to be used to help offset some of the
city's parking -related costs. The magnitude of this has been estimated at $30,000/year
by the BIA.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
•
The Community Development Director has reviewed the project and has approved a negative
declaration. The initial study is attached. 0
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
As noted above, the city staff has worked closely with the BIA and the proposal largely
reflects the BIA's recommendation. However, no formal public meetings or hearings on the
fee program has been held since the council meetings last June.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The proposal reflects a continued effort of Community Development, Public Works, and
Administration. The ordinance has also been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney
and Finance Director.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend to the City Council adoption of the proposed ordinance, including the revised
parking standards and. related in -lieu fee program.
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance
•
ORDINANCE NO. (1987 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADJUSTING
PARKING STANDARDS AND ESTABLISHING PARKING IN -LIEU
FEES FOR THE CENTRAL -COMMERCIAL ZONE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Council makes these findings:
1. The Community Development Director has found that the proposed revised
standards and in -lieu fee program will not result in a significant adverse
impact on the environment and has approved a negative declaration for same
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
2. Establishment of new standards and parking in -lieu fees is consistent with
the general plan and and Goals for Downtown, as explained in the staff
reports referenced hereby, and will promote the public health, safety, and
welfare.
3. Parking in -lieu fees are development fees, not a tax or special
assessment.
SECTION 2. Parking Standards. Section 17.42.020(E) of the Municipal Code
• is amended to read as follows:
E. Parking Requirements:
1. Restaurants, sandwich shops, take-out food, bars, taverns, night
clubs, other food service or entertainment establishments, theaters,
auditoriums, convention halls, and churches: one-half that required in Section
17.16.060 provided, however, that in no case the requirement shall exceed one
space per 350 square feet gross floor area.
2. Dwellings, motels, hotels and bed and breakfast inns: One-half that
required in Section 17.16.060.
3. All other uses: one space per 500 square feet gross floor area.
4. In determining the total number of required spaces, all fractions
shall be rounded to the nearest whole number. Fractions of .5 or greater shall
be rounded to 1; fractions less than .5 shall be rounded to 0.
5. The parking space requirement may be met by:
a. Providing the required spaces on the site occupied by the use;
b. Providing the required spaces off-site, but within five hundred
feet of the proposed use, in a lot owned or leased by the developer of the
proposed use;
C. Participating in a commonly held and maintained off-site parking
lot where other businesses maintain their required spaces;
Ordinance No. (1987 Series)
Page 2 0
d. Participating in a parking district which provides parking
spaces through a fee or assessment program. (This subsection may be satisfied
by participation of the underlying property in a parking district by June-3QT-
1996 January 1, 1988. If by that date the underlying property is not
participating in such a district, the parking requirement shall be otherwise
met) ;
e. Participating in an in -lieu fee program as may be established by
the City Council. Any parking agreement approved prior to adoption of the
parking standards contained in Sections E.1-3 above, may be adjusted to conform
with those standards, subject to approval by the Community Development Director
and City Attornev: or
f. Any combination of subsection E.4.a through E.4.e of this
section.
The Community Development Department shall be notified of the
expiration or termination of any agreement securing required parking. The
department shall schedule a public hearing before the planning commission to
consider revocation of the use authorization where no alternative location for
required parking is provided (Ord. 1050 1 (part). 1985: Ord. 1023 1. 1984:
Ord. 1006 1 (part). 1984: Ord. 941 1 (part). 1982: prior code
9203.10(B)) . 0
SECTION 3. In -lieu fee program. Chapter 4.30 is added to the Municipal
Code, to read as follows:
4.30.010 Purpose.
This Chapter establishes fees in -lieu of providing parking spaces within the
Central -Commercial (C -C) zone, as provided in the zoning regulations (Section
17.16 060 and Section 17.42.020). Fees collected pursuant to this Chapter
shall become part of the parking fund and shall be used solely for the
development or maintenance of parking within the -Central -Commercial zone.
4.30.020 Amount of fee
A. New construction. The parking in -lieu fee shall be $4000.00 per
vehicle space required by the zoning regulations and not otherwise provided,
plus $1.00 per square foot of new construction.
B. Addition to existing buildings. The in -lieu fee shall be $4000.00
per vehicle space required by the zoning regulations for the addition and not
otherwise provided, plus $1.00 per square foot of the addition.
C.Change in occupancy requiring additional parking spaces. The in -lieu
fee shall be $1000.00 per vehicle space required by the zoning regulations for
the new use and not otherwise provided. The number of spaces required by the
change in occupancy shall be the difference between the number required by the
new use and the number required by the previous occupancy.
• Ordinance No.
Page 3
0
(1987 Series)
D. The demolition or removal of all or a
and its replacement with another structure of -eq
of the original -building shall -not be considered
of this chapter. However, all floor area in an
the original -building building shall be considered an add
calculated accordingly. Changes in occupancy wh
spaces and which occur in new construction or an
final inspection of that new construction or add
E. Payment
1. The $1.00
to existing buildings sh
permit.
0
ortion of an existing building
al or less than the floor area
new construction for purposes
mount beyond that contained in
tion and -fees -shall be
ch require additional parking
addition within two years of
tion shall be treated as new
ter.
foot fee for new construction or additions
at the time of issuance of the building
2. The per space fee for new construction, additions or changes in
occupancy may be paid in either of the following methods:
a. In a lump sum, prior to the issuance of construction
permits for the structure or occupancy for which the parking is required or
prior to the issuance of a city business license for the activity for which the
. parking is required, if no construction permit is required. For those who have
signed parking acknowledgments, the lump sum payment shall be paid no later
than January 1, 1988.
b. In one installment per year, as provided in an amortization
schedule established- y the City Finance Director. The term of said schedule
shall not exceed twenty years for fees $5,000 or greater, nor ten years for
fees less than $5,000. The interest rate shall be determined by the Finance
Director each January for that ensuing year, based on current market rates.
The rate offered at the beginning of any amortization schedule shall be fixed
throughout the entire payment period. The annual installment shall be due on
January 1 (delinquent on February__). The penalty and interest for delinquent
Payments shall be as provided for property taxes. Unpaid fees shall become a
lien upon the property for which the parking is required.
If the installment option is selected, the remaining
principal balance may be paid in full at any time without penalty.
For any use or structure for which in -lieu fees are to be
paid by installment, the first Installment shall be due on the January 1
following issuance of the business license or building permit, but no sooner
than January 1, 1988.
4.30.030 Change or cessation of use.
Once a property is subject to an obligation for in -lieu parking fees, the
following shall apply if the use is changed or discontinued:
Ordinance No. (1987 Series)
Page 4
A. If a structure is enlarged or a use -is -replaced with a use for which
more parking is required according to the zoning -regulations, the -additional
parking requirement may be met by -paying additioT nal in -lieu fees, as proyided
in Section 4.30.020.
B. If a structure is reduced in area, or wholly or partially becomes
vacant, or a use is replaced with a use for which less parking is required
according to the zoning regulations, there -shall be no change in the obligation
for parking in -lieu fees. There shall be no refund of a lump -sum payment no
an abatement of installment payments. Once satisfied, the obligation for
parking in -lieu fees shall -be deemed to meet the parking requirement for any
structure or use in the same location having a parking requirement equal to or
less than that forwhichthe in -lieu fee amount was previously determined.
C. If a structure is destroyed, upon the property owner's request the
city shall refund the lump -sum payment or cancel the obligation for following
installment payments. Any future structure or use at the same location would
thereafter be required to meet the parking requirement as provided in the
zoning regulations, which may include payment of a lump -sum in -lieu fee or
commencing at the beginning of the installment payment schedule.
D. If a structure isreplacedby a permanent structure intended for uses
requiring fewer parking spaces than those in the previous structure, according_
to the zoning regulations, the city, upon the property owner's request, shall
refund the difference between the lump -sum payment for the previous structure
and the lump -sum 4yment which would be due for the replacement structure or
cancel the obligation for the proportionate number of spaces covered by
installment payments.
4.30.040 Ownership change; dividing or merging properties
A change of ownership or the dividing or merging of properties shall not affect
an obligation for parking in -lieu fees or a determination that parking
requirements have been met according to fees paid for a particular use.
SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney,
together with the ayes and noes, shall be published at least three (3) days
priorto its final passage in the Telegram -Tribune, a newspaper published and
circulated in said city, and the same shall go into effect at the expiration of
thirty (30) days after its said final passage. A copy of the full text of this
ordinance shall be on file in the office of the City Clerk on and after the
date following introduction and passage to print and shall be available to any
interested member of the public.
Is
•
Ordinance No. (1987 Series
� 0 Page 5
� 0
INTRODUCED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, at its meeting
held on the day of , 1987, on motion of
seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: _
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
City Administrative Officer
City Attorney
Community Development Director
Mayor
E
city of San lues OBISpo
In►IIIIIIIILIIiI����j!illlllll�li�l
® INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION C -C Zone APPLICATION NO. 1-87
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Revised parking standards and yina in lieu Lee ,=o=m for the
C -C Zone
APPLICANT City of SanLuis Ob sM
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
X_ NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY rlichaei Pulltar i, Ccmunity Deve' ogmnt Director DATE 1-6-$7
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION:
DATE
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
II. POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW
POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A.
COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ...................................................
NO
NO
B.
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH ..........................................
—.
NO
C.
LAND USE...................................................................... .
D.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ..............................................
TJn
E.
PUBLIC SERVICES................................................................
NO
F.
UTILITIES........................................................................
NO
G.
NOISE LEVELS............................................................ ....
NO
NO
H.
GEOLOGIC & SEISMIC HAZARDS & TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS ....................
I.
AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS ...............................................
tvn
J.
SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY .............................................
r,,Y?
NO
K.
PLANT LIFE......................................................................
NO
L.
ANIMAL LIFE.....................................................................
NO
M.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL ...................................................
N. AESTHETIC...................................................................... 140
O. ENERGY(RESOURCE USE ......................................................... NO
P. OTHER................................................................ ........ 140
111. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT
. ER 1-87
I. DESCRIPTION
The project involves a change in parking standards for the C -C zone
reducing the parking requirements for uses such as restaurants, theaters
and some retail while increasing the requirements for other uses such as
off ices .
The project also involves the creation of a parking in -lieu fee for this
zone whereby monies can be collected to help offset the city's cost to
construct and maintain larger scale, centralized parking structures and
lots.
II. POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW
The proposal actually helps to further several city goals including retaining
and attracting retail in the downtown, provision of centralized parking in the
downtown, provision of centralized parking in the downtown and maintaining
the overall economic vitality of the central business district.
The most realistic solution to the existing and future parking demand in the
downtown is the provision of city -subsidized, larger -scale, centralized lots and
• structures. The subject proposal, by providing a funding supplement to the
city's efforts, helps improve parking and circulation and, therefore,
contributes toward improved parking service in the downtown.
The reduction in parking standards could be seen as potentially detrimental
in that if parking demand is not adequately provided for, there could be
increased congestion (and related energy use and air pollution). However,
the subject code revisions would also increase the parking requirement for
the most prevalent downtown use, namely offices and so the net effect on.
provision of parking will not be significant. Furthe more, the uses for which
the greatestreductions are propsed include theaters and restaurants. During
peak parking demand, there are few theater patrons and most restaurant
customers are people already in the downtown for work or shopping. Evening
patrons of theaters and restaurants arrive at off peak times. Therefore, no
significant impacts are expected frau the reduced standards. Again, as noted
above, the overall programs of the city's providing larger scale parking facilities
with the in -lieu fees being used to offset part of the costs of these
facilities appears to be the most practical way of addressing parking
demand.
The parking structures themselves and the ordinance provision for in -lieu fees
have been granted negative declarations under earlier environmental
reviews.
0
6�
CITY OF ATASCADERO
j ZONING MATRIX - JUNE 27, 1983
40
A -ALLOWABLE C -CONDITIONAL
S -SUBORDINATE H -HISTORICAL
*SPECIAL CONDITION
LAND USE
TIRS'
R S F
LSF
RMF
�CN
CP
CR
CS
CT
CPK
IP
I
L
LS
P
Accessory, Storage _AjjA
A
JA
A
A
JA
A
A
A
A
A
AlA
JA
Agricultura ,
A
A
il
A
Accessory
I
I
JA
Ag r 1—c-5-1 t u r a 1
A
C
C
A
Processing
Amusement
C
C
C
A
A
C
Services
Animal Hospitals
A
C
C
A
Appareland
A
A
A
Finished Products
C*
JA
Vehicle Dea ers
A
A
C
A
and Supplies
Auto Repair
C
A
S
A
and Services
JA
11A
Bed and Breakfast
;C
C
C
IC
JA
JA
A
A
S
IC
I
ASA
Broadcasting
H
H
H
A
A
A
JA
A
A
A
Studios
11H
I
Building Materials
A*
A
A
A
A
and Hardware
C*
1A,
f
Business Support
H
H
H
H
A*
A*
A
A
A
A
C
Services
Caretaker
C':1C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C-
C
A
Residence
Cemetaries
C
C
A
Chemical Products
I
C
C
,C
Churches and
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Related Activities
Collection
AIA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
• Stations
11A
'Concrete, Gypsum, &
C
C
A
Plaster Products
Contract Constr-
A
A
A
tion services
JA
Crop Production
A
C
A
and Grazing
Eating and
A*
A
A
A
A
S
C
C
Drinking Places
C*
Electronic and Scien
A*j
A
A
A
tific Instruments
C*I
Farm Animal
A
A
C
A
Raising
JA
Farm Equipment
A
A
A
A
A
and Supplies
I
Farm Labor Quarters
Ay-----F—
Fin L_n_c�jal
Financial
A
A
A
S
Services
Fisheries and
C'
Game Preserves
I
i
A
C
LAND USE
A
RSRSF
I LSF
RMF
CN
CP
CR
CS
CT
CPK
IP
I
L
LS
P
Food and Beverage
A*
A*
A
A
S
S
Retail Sales
C*
C*
IC
Food and
A
C
A
A
A
Kindred Products
I
JA
Forestr
A
C
A
A
Fuel and
A
A
A
A
A
Ice Dealers
I
Funeral Services
A
A
Furniture and
A-
All
Fixtures
C*
I
I
Furniture, Furn-
A*
A
A
S
ishings & Equipment
IC*
General Merchandise
A*
A*
A
A
S
S
S
C
Stores
IC*
I C*
il
I
I
Glass Products
C
C
C
A
ll
I
Healt Care
A
A
S
A
Services
JA
111
Home Occupation
A
A
JA
A
A
Horticultural
A
A*
A,
A
A
C
Specialties
C
JA
Hotels, Motels
A
JA
JA
C
Indoor Recreation
C
C
S
A
C
Services
Kennel
A
C
C
C
A
Laundries and
A
A
A
Al
Dry Cleaning Plants
I
Libraries, Museums
H
H
HH
A
A
A
A
I
A
A
A
ig t epair
Services
11
1
Livestock
A
C
Specialties
-E-umber andC
C
A
Wood ProductsIl
Machinery,
C
C
Ai
Manufacturing
I
Mail Or er
A
A
A
A
and Vending
Membership
+1
A
A
A
Organizations
Metal Industries,
C
Primary
Mining (&Surface)
C
C
Mobilehome
C
C
C
Development
IC
Mobilehome
A
A
A
A
Dwelling
Multiple Family
A
Dwelling
Uttices
H
H
H
H
A
A
A
S
S
A
Organization
C
C
C
C
Houses
2
�I
[wi
i
i
i
LAND USE
3
TS
RS9
LSF+RMF
CN
CP
CR
CS
CT
CPK
IP
I
L
LS
P
Outdoor Recreation
C
C
A
AIC
Paper Products
C
C
AI
Paving Materials
C
C
A
ir
Personal
H
H
H
H
A*
A*
A
A
S
S
Services
C*
C*
Petroleum
C
- Extraction
Petroleum Refining
C11
_& Related Industry
I
Pipelines
A*'*
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
CIC
1A
C*
*
ilc
P 1 astics an
C
C
C
Rubber Products
i
Primary Fami y
Housing
Public Assembly
C
C
A
C
C
A
and Entertainment
ecreationa
A
C
C
Vehicle Parks
Recycling and
C
C
C
Scrap
i
Residential
A
A
A
AIA
!
A_
Accessory Uses
Resi entia
A
A
Care
*
C*
C*
IA
I
Retirement Hotel
ic
JA
Roadside Stands
A
iA
JA
A
I A
JA
A
A
Rural Sports &
C
C
A
C
Group Facilities
Sales Lots---,--
A JA
C
A
A
A
Schools - Business
H
H
H
A
A
A
C
CIA
and Vocational
IH I
i
Schools
C
C
C IC IIA
A
A
A
A
A
Service Stations
C
C
C
A
Single Family
A
A
A
A
A
Dwelling
IIA 11
Skilled Nursing
A*
A*
A* A
A
A
Facilities
C*
C*
C*
A
mall Scale
A
A
A
A
A
Manufacturing
Social & Service
A
A
A
' I
A
Or anizations
Sports Assembly
C
C
A
C
Stone & Cut
A*
A
A
Stone Products
C*
JAI
Storage Yards
A
A JAI
Structural Clay &
C
C
Related Products
JAI
Temporary Dwelling
A
A
A
A
A
—
—
A
Tempor_r� Events
A
A JA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A I
A
A
Temporary Offices
A
A
A
A
Temporary or
Seasonal
AA
=It
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Sales
-
LAND USE
A
RS
RSF
LSF
RMF
CN
CP
CR
CS
CT
CPK
IPFIFLFp]
Textile Mills
C
1C
Cl!
Transit Stations
C
C
C
A
and Terminals
IC JA
ICJICI
Utility Service
A
A
A
Centers
I
I
JA
Utility Trans-
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AIA
mission Facilities
IIA
IA
JAI
Vehicle and
C
C
C
C
Freight Terminals
Vehicle and
A
A
A
A
A
Equipment Storage
Warehousing
C
C
A
A
-Wholesaling and
A
A
A
A
Distribution
ZONING DESCRIPTIONS
=acs A - AGRI-CULTURE ZONF�
RFsTnPNTTAT SiTRTTRRAN 7QNF $ ss+O1liCEl4NE
.'lye _ _RS_F —-RESZDENTIAL__S-MGLE FAM_TLY 7.ONE
2%2 LSF_- LIMITED_REST_DENTI-T
AL _S.INGLEAMILY_RES-IDENTIAL ZONE
��o°�pG<RMF_RESIDENTIAL-MULTIPLE-.FAMILY-ZONE (:j et, teT�
CN-_ COMMERCIAL NEIGH$-OR1i00DZON=
_ __._CP_-SOMMECTAT_;___PRI FES TONAL ZONE
_____CR _-_COMMERCIAL_._RETAIL_ZONE_
CS ----.-.COMMERCIAL -SERVICE--ZONE
- .__CT-_-_COMMERCIALSOURLS_T- _ZONE
---_-----CPK __COMMERCIAL PARK. ZONE
_-.INDUS.TRIAL_PARKZONF_.
_-----__I-_ - __.INDUS TRIAL_ZONE
- T - RECREATION -..ZONE
_._._LS - SPECIAL._-RECREAT_LONZONE
---_,'P — _PUBLIC__ZONF
4
0
• MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Through: Michael Shelton, City Manager
NIE v AG7NOA
From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Subject: Undergrounding of Utilities -Boundary -Enabling Ordinance
Date: May 4, 1987
f
Recommendation:
The Undergrounding Committee recommends that Council direct staff
to bring back an enabling ordinance __allowing the_ City to foxm--a-
district boundary an to spend available P G---& mounds. Additionally,
tIFe--mmi twee recommends a boundary that approximates the Downtown
B.I.A. boundary as the area to expend approximately $700,000 for
undergrounding of power lines.
• Backround:
Since the establishment of the Undergrounding Committee on
November 24, 1986 the committee has met four times. Four areas have
been selected for consideration for undergrounding in the following
priority ranking: Downtown (B.I.A.), Hwy. 41 South (Morro Rd.), South
E1 Camino Real (south of Curbaril), and North E1 Camino Real (north of
Rosario) .
The top priority area, the Downtown B.I.A. area was studied by
P G & E to decide if part or all of this area could be undergrounded
within the allotted funding. P G & E reported back at the April 28th
meeting that area would use approximately $700,000 of the $730,000
available up to 1989. The area is delineated on the attached map and
is bounded by E1 Camino Real on the South, Olmeda Ave on the North,
west of Traffic way on the West, and Atascadero Creek on the East.
Discussion:
The Council is asked to direct staff to bring back an enabling
ordinance ,patterned after the one attached, at the May 26 Council
meeting for their consideration. Upon ordinance adoption and
completion of design, a noticed public hearing will be held;
neighborhood meetings held (as necessary), after which council will be
requested to adopt a final resolution setting the boundary and
mandating undergrounding of utilities. The above area is approximate
• but will enable the individual utility companies to design the new
system and to estimate the costs more accurately. Council is asked to
approve the general boundary so that the utilities can begin their
design.
9
0
Design is anticipated to take approximately 3 months, biddin
month, and construction 6 months. Three (3) to 6 months is needed
clear the old lines before shutting down the old system. Therefore,
the process will take at best 15 months from June 1. Thus, the target
completion date is September 1, 1988,
Fiscal Impact:
The undergrounding project is budgeted in the Capital
Improvements Budget and relys on the revenue set aside for use by
Atascadero from the rate structure imposed upon the users.
Approximately $730,000 is available ahead to 1989. The City can
borrow ahead until that time but if the funds are not committed by
that time they will be shifted to other projects in other communities.
•
40
c,
•lt1A J
O j�l� . ir.•ir / 1 Q 1§ � 1�
13 `! OL EDA
+ t �\ j
AVE'
:� rolJel,
:a,� r1Jr
t Y.MY )IJi r t 11+ 11
n _1 k S e.psea 'caa..i LEWIS t , .ws.w:v �� M .� •, rx
AVE
C
\e )n ••' " H.-.. t-« i r�ss..- tt. AVE'
lii..a.>.! ` f i:0 f�erea-sees •In+e•••b, s i:.
••op5\$ a AVE 9
t ! �r-•�.c:c. ...cn.� , �y KGs
11 AIA
YY'' JJ 11♦0 ; = O r'r Qrb +TVi )VN
R_E4L y �Y� �.'J ,i;y- }t~ ;"
5j
='1 , ,i„ ti 3 b �kri ws/>(/e.la>s-w i✓� I3
i' Sen 2dA AND C kz.YrirDc-�0
COAST V/:LLE)'S DIVISION
� SG:.LE L
77/771
UR yi
777 d NO,re ( +r7u�ra11ILH — ER MVTuRr—�3ii� .
z.4Z
'"-I"Ie- mmm 0700•-io onnnnomnnr
■C , L.C- >>> SST :r =r G�nUo -a=r 0 M =4 ono+=' moon so m m 0
Z;G CLa� n A 2237 ' a o
3 N y o o a y 3 'n ^ y x u ° z --1 cn m a,2 ' r
1 i! to to•��<> Q7 •T1 a n N � ^� 4��". • i -i c v' c o p T r" N n� !? o d o ry �� n c N o °' '� S r -n (i
n (!1. S m ;; ,^> >• x m Qo = o 'o o. �-- n �^—y ?. (� a c
F J�ii r.�. i }�l 'Vr�, 'v :� 3 0 °_ i�- o
0 to G =r o a :;
.rR�v�•rti �.s. ` f � F", n � � �, � ` � '•" o � c ,,. ? o ; A � � n 3 =
0
ORDINANCE N0.___________
9
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE
REMOVAL OF OVERHEAD UTILITY FACILITIES AND THE
INSTALLATION OF UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IN UNDER-
GROUND UTILITY DISTRICTS. -
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
_____________, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 DEFINITIONS
Whenever in this ordinance the words or phrases
hereinafter in this section defined are used, they shall.have the
respective meanings assigned to them in the following
definitions:
(a) "Commission" shall mean the Public Utilities
Commission of the State of California.
(b) "Underground Utility District" or "District" shall
mean that area in the City within which poles, overhead wires,
and associated overhead structures are prohibited as such area is
described in a resolution adopted pursuant to the provisions of
Section 3 of this ordinance.
(c) "Person" shall mean and include individuals, firms,
corporations, partnerships, and their agents and employees.
(d) "Poles, overhead wires and associated overhead
structures" shall mean poles, towers, supports, wires,
conductors, guys, stubs, platforms, crossarms, . braces,
transformers, insulators, cutouts, switches, communication
14
0 0
circuits, appliances, attachments and appurtenances located
above -ground within a District and used or useful in supplying
electric, communication or similar or associated service.
(e) "Utility" shall include all persons or entities
supplying electric, communication or similar or associated
service by means of electrical materials or devices.
Section 2 - PUBLIC HEARING BY COUNCIL
------------- -- -------
The Council may from time to time call public hearings
to ascertain whether the public necessity, health, safety or
welfare requires the removal of poles, overhead wires and
associated overhead structures within designated areas of the
City and the underground installation of wires and facilities for
supplying electric, communication, or similar or associated
service. The City Clerk shall notify all affected property
owners as shown on the last equalized assessment roll and
utilities concerned by mail of the time and place of such
hearings at least ten (10) days prior to the date thereof. Each
such hearing shall be open to the public and may be continued
from time to time. At each such hearing all persons interested
shall be given an opportunity to be heard. The decision of the
Council shall be final and conclusive.
15
01
•
*I
Section 3 - COUNCIL MAY DESIGNATE UNDERGROUND
UTILITY DISTRICTS BY RESOLUTION
If, after any such public hearing the Council finds
that the public necessity, health, safety or welfare requires
such removal and such underground installation within a
designated area, the Council shall, by resolution, declare such
designated area an Underground Utility District and order such
removal and underground installation. Such resolution shall
include a description of the area comprising such district and
shall fix the time within which such removal and underground
installation shall be accomplished and within which affected
property owners must be ready to receive underground service. A
reasonable time shall be allowed for such removal and underground
installation, having due regard for the availability of labor,
materials and equipment necessary for such removal and for the
installation of such underground facilities as may be occasioned
thereby.
Section 4 - UNLAWFUL ACTS
Whenever the Council creates an Underground Utility
District and orders the removal of poles, overhead wires and
associated overhead structures therein as provided in Section 3
hereof, it shall be unlawful for any person or'utility to erect,
16
•
0- �
construct, place, keep, maintain, continue, employ or operate
poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures in the
District after the date when said overhead facilities are
required to be removed by such resolution, except as said
overhead facilities may be required to furnish service to an
owner or occupant of property prior to the performance by such
owner or occupant of the underground work necessary for such
owner or occupant to continue to receive utility service as
provided in Section 9 hereof, and for such reasonable time
required to remove said facilities after said work has been
performed, and except as otherwise provided in this ordinance.
Section 5 -EXCEPTION,, EMERGENCY OR UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES Is
Notwithstanding the provisions of this ordinance,
overhead facilities may be installed and maintained for a period,
not to exceed ten (10) days, without authority of the Council* in
order to provide emergency service. The Council* may grant
special permission, on such terms as the Council* may deem
appropriate, in cases of unusual circumstances, without
discrimination as to any person or utility, to erect, construct,
install, maintain, use or; operate poles, overhead wires and
associated overhead structures.
*If the City prefers, this could be the Director of Public Works
or some other appropriate city official.
•
17
Section 6 - OTHER EXCEPTIONS
----- ----------
This ordinance and any resolution adopted pursuant to
Section 3 hereof shall, unless otherwise provided in such
resolution, not apply to the following types of facilities:
(a) Any municipal facilities or equipment installed
under the supervision and to the satisfaction of the City
Engineers.
(b) Poles or electroliers used exclusively for street
lighting.
(c) Overhead wires (exclusive of supporting
structures) crossing any portion of a District within which
overhead wires have been prohibited, or connecting to buildings
on the perimeter of a District, when such wires originate in an
area from which poles, overhead wires and associated overhead
structures are not prohibited.
(d) Poles, overhead wires and associated overhead
structures used for the transmission of electric energy at
nominal voltages in excess of 34,500 volts.
(e) Overhead wires attached to the exterior surface
of a building by means of a bracket or other fixture and
extending from one location on the building to another location
on the same building or to an adjacent building without crossing
any public street.
18
•
i
(f) Antennae, associated equipment and supporting
structures, used by a utility for furnishing communication
services.
(g) Equipment appurtenant to underground facilities,
such as surface mounted transformers, pedestal mounted terminal
boxes and meter cabinets, and concealed ducts.
(h) Temporary poles, overhead wires and associated
overhead structures used or to be used in conjunction with
construction projects.
Section 7 - NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS
------ ---------- ------
AND UTILITY COMPANIES
Within ten (10) days after the effective date of a
resolution adopted pursuant to Section 3 hereof, the City Clerk
shall notify all affected utilities and all persons owning real
property within the District created by said resolution of the
adoption thereof. Said City Clerk shall further notify such
affected property owners of the necessity that, if they or any
person occupying such property desire to continue to receive
electric, communication, or similar or associated service, they
or such occupant shall provide all necessary facility changes on
their premises so as to receive such service from the lines of
the supplying utility or utilities at a new location, subject to
applicable rules, regulations and tariffs of the respective
utility or utilities on file with the Commission.
19
•
•
•
Notification by the City Clerk shall be made by mailing
a copy of the resolution adopted pursuant to Section 3, together
with a copy of this ordinance, to affected property owners as
a
such are shown on the last equalized assessment roll and to the
affected utilities.
Y
9
a
t
Section 8 — RESPONSIBILITY OF UTILITY COMPANIES
If underground construction is necessary to provide
utility service within a District created by any resolution
'
adopted p pursuant to Section 3 hereof, the supplying utility shall
furnish that portion of the conduits, conductors and associated
equipment required to be furnished by it under its applicable
rules, regulations and tariffs on file with the Commission.
(a) Every person owning, operating, leasing,
occupying or renting a building or structure within a District
shall perform construction and provide that portion of the
service connection on his property between the facilities
referred to in Section 8 and the termination facility on or
within said building or structure being served, all in accordance
with applicable rules, regulations and tariffs of the respective
utility or utilities on file with the Commission. If the above
is not accomplished by any person within the time provided for in
the resolution enacted pursuant to Section 3 hereof, the City
20
•
Engineer shall give notice in writing to the person in possession
of such premises, and a notice in writing to the owner thereof as
shown on the last equalized assessment roll, to provide the
required underground facilities within ten (10) days after
receipt of such notice.
(b) The notice to provide the required underground
facilities may be given either by personal service or by mail.
In case of service by mail on either of such persons, the notice
must be deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope
with postage prepaid, addressed to the person in possession of
such premises at such premises, and the notice must be addressed
to the owner thereof as such owner's name appears, and must be
addressed to such owner's last known address as the same appears
on the last equalized assessment roll, and when no address
appears, to General Delivery, City of ------------------- If
notice is given by mail, such notice shall be deemed to have been
received by the person to whom it has been sent within forty-
eight (48) hours after the mailing thereof. If notice is given
by mail to either the owner or occupant of such premises, the
City Engineer shall, within forty-eight (48) hours after the
mailing thereof, cause a copy thereof, printed on a card not less
than eight (8) inches by ten (10) inches in size, to be posted in
a conspicuous place on said premises.
•
21
(c) The notice given by the City Engineer to provide
the required underground facilities shall particularly specify
what work is required to be done, and shall state that if said
work is not completed within thirty (30) days after receipt of
such notice, the City Engineer will provide such required
underground facilities, in which case the cost and expense
thereof will be assessed against the property benefited and
become a lien upon such property.
(d) If upon the expiration of the thirty (30) day
period, the said required underground facilities have not been
provided, the City Engineer shall forthwith proceed to do the
work; provided, however, if such premises are unoccupied and no
electric or communications services are being furnished thereto,
the City Engineer shall, in lieu of providing the required
underground facilities, have the authority to order the
disconnection and removal of any and all overhead service wires
and associated facilities supplying utility service to said
property. Upon completion of the work by the City Engineer, he
shall file a written report with the City Council setting forth
the fact that the required underground facilities have been
provided and the cost thereof, together with a legal description
of the property against which such cost is to be assessed. The
Council shall thereupon fix a time and place for hearing protests
22
•
against the assessment of the cost of such work upon such
premises, which said time shall not be less than ten (10) days
thereafter
(e) The City Engineer shall forthwith, upon the time
for hearing such protests having been fixed, give a notice in
writing to the person in possession of such premises, and a
notice in writing thereof to the owner thereof, in the manner
hereinabove provided for the giving of the notice to provide the
required underground facilities, of the time.and place that the
Council will pass upon such report and will hear protests against
such assessment. Such notice shall also set forth the amount of
the proposed assessment. .
(f) Upon the date and hour set for the hearing of
protests, the Council shall hear and consider the report and all
protests, if there by any, and then proceed to affirm, modify or
reject the assessment.
(g) If any assessment is not paid within five (5)
days after its confirmation by the Council, the amount of the
assessment shall become a lien upon the property against which
the assessment is made by the City Engineer, and the City
Engineer is directed to turn over to the Assessor and Tax
Collector a notice of lien on each of said properties on which
•
23
•
•
the assessment has not been paid, and said Assessor and Tax
Collector shall add the amount of said assessment to the next
regular bill for taxes levied against the premises upon which
said assessment was not paid. Said assessment shall be due and
payable at the same time as said property taxes are due and
payable, and if not paid when due and payable, shall bear
interest at the rate of six per cent (6X) per annum.
Section 10 - RESPONSIBILITY OF CITY
City shall remove at its own expense all City -owned
equipment from all poles required to be removed hereunder in
ample time to enable the owner or user of such poles to remove
the same within the time specified in the resolution enacted
pursuant to Section 3 hereof.
Section 11 - EXTENSION OF TIME
--------- -- ----
In the event that any act required by this ordinance or
by a resolution adopted pursuant to Section 3 hereof cannot be
performed within the time provided on account of shortage of
materials, war, restraint by public authorities, strikes, labor
disturbances, civil disobedience, or any other circumstances
beyond the control of the actor, then the time within which such
act will be accomplished shall be extended for a period
equivalent to the time of such limitation.
24
0 •
Section 12 - PENALTY
It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any
provision or.to fail to comply with any"of the requirements of
this ordinance. Any person violating any provision of this
ordinance or failing to comply with any of its requirements shall
be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof
shall be punished by a fine not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars
($500.00) or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or by
both such fine and imprisonment. Each such person shall be
deemed guilty of -a separate offense for each day during any
portion of which any violation of any of the provisions of this
ordinance is committed, continued or permitted by such person,
and shall be punishable therefor as provided for in this
ordinance.
Section 13 - CONSTITUTIONALITY
-----------------
If any section, sub -section, sentence, clause or phrase
of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it would
have adopted the ordinance and each section, sub -section,
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that
any one or more sections, sub -sections, sentences, clauses or
phrases be declares invalid.
25
•
•
Section 14 - PUBLICATION
The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause this
ordinance to be published by one insertion in the 1
a newspaper of general circulation printed, published and
circulated in City and hereby designated for that purpose by the
Council.
Section 15 - EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty
(30) days from and after its adoption.
This ordinance was introduced and read on the
--------------
day of ________________� 19___, and passed and adopted on the
day of ________________1 19____, by the following
vote:
AYES'-----------------
NOBS;----------------
ABSENT:
---------------
ATTEST:
---------CL--B--
RR ----
CITY
26
--- ----------------
MAYOR
WE AGzNDA
• DATc�iTEM
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council May 12, 1987
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director K
SUBJECT: A Report to City Council Relative to Clarifying 20,000
Square Foot Minimum Lot Size Requirement
BACKGROUND:
At the City Council's meeting of April 26, 1987, Council requested
that staff report back on the matter of minimum lot sizes required in
the LSF -X and RSF-X Single Family Residential Districts. In amending
the minimum lot size in such zones from one-half acre with sewer to
20,000 square feet, the Council had intended to establish a net ac-
reage standard, i.e., 20,000 square feet minimum excluding street
rights-of-way whether owned or not owned by the abutting owner. Sub-
sequently, lot splits have been received which "net" to less than
20,000 square feet when roads are excluded. The Planning Commission
is recommending to the Council that the General Plan and related zon-
ing language be amended to establish a net density standard as part of
the next cycle of amendments.
ANALYSIS:
The General Plan of the City currently states as follows with respect
to minimum lot area (page 58):
"8. In the calculation of lot area for the purposes of con-
sidering land divisions and in determining permitted numbers
and types of animals allowed, gross acreage shall be used.
However in determining permitted densities for multiple fam-
ily residential developments, net acreage (excluding land
area needed for streets rights-of-way) shall be used."
In reviewing this language with the City Attorney, the opinion was
given that the Council could consider a zoning text amendment to
tighten up the language with respect to minimum lot size on 20,000
square foot lots. The normal process for a zoning text amendment
would be to refer the matter to the Planning Commission for study and
public hearing and then forward a recommendation to the City Council
for first and second reading with an effective date thirty-one days
thereafter.
0
•
The Council also has the option of adopting clarifying language as an
urgency ordinance which is permitted pursuant to Section 65858 of the •
Government Code (see attached). This language allows for adopting on
a four -fifth vote an urgency ordinance which is effective for forty-
five (45) days, and which permits subsequent extension for ten months
and fifteen days pending conclusions of ongoing studies pertinent to
the issue at hand. As noted, the Planning Commission will be recom-
mending to the City Council on the matter of establishing a tighter
definition of net minimum lot size in residential districts. A draft
urgency ordinance reciting requisite findings changing the zoning text
is enclosed for Council's consideration.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are available to implement a net acreage
lot size standard:
1. No action - in anticipation of receipt of a recommendation from
the Planning Commission to initiate this change in both the gen-
eral plan and zoning as part of the current General Plan cycle.
2. Initiate a conventional zoning text amendment to be referred to
the Planning Commission, or
3. Adopt the attached��Vo� dinance No.15
p , which would go into immed-
iate effect and preclude approving any future parcel maps or tract
maps in LSF -X or RSF-X zones which contain lots proposed to be
less than 20,000 square feet after streets have been deducted from
the acreage.
HE: ph
Enclosures: Draft Ordinance No. 152
Government Code Excerpt Section 65858
0
REV. 5/11/87
ORDINANCE NO. 152
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING TITLE 9 ZONING REGULATIONS
BY CLARIFYING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT SIZE IN THE LSF -X
AND RSF-X DISTRICT AS REQUIRING A NET MINIMUM LAND AREA OF
20,000 SQUARE FEET WITH SEWER (EXCLUDING LAND AREA NEEDED
FOR STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY WHETHER PUBLICLY OR PRIVATELY OWNED)
WHEREAS, Section 65858 of the Government Code authorizes the
adoption by local legislative bodies of interim ordinances as,urgency
measures to protect the.public safety, health and welfare; and
WHEREAS, said ordinances may be adopted as urgency measures pro-
hibiting actions which may be in conflict with a contemplated zoning
proposal which the legislative body, Planning Commission or Community
Development Department is considering, or studying, or intends to
study within a reasonable time; and
WHEREAS, the City is presently studying amendments to the City's
General Plan and zoning regulations to clarify definitions of minimum
lot areas required; and
WHEREAS, the City Zoning Ordinance Sections 9-3.154 and 9-3.164
were recently amended (Ordinance 145) to reduce minimum lot size in
the RSF-X and LSF -X districts to 20,000 square feet with sewers; and
WHEREAS, said revision was a reduction from one-half acre minimum
lot size to eliminate disputes as to credit for fee ownership of roads
with the objective of setting a minimum net lot area of 20,000
square feet in these districts where sewer is available regardless of
ownership of said fee title to the roads; and
WHEREAS, applications for the subdivisions of land with lot sizes
of less than 20,000 square feet net have been submitted contrary to
the City Council's intent; and
WHEREAS, such urgency measures shall require a four-fifths vote of
the legislative body for adoption.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero does
ordain as follows:
Section 1. Council Findings.
1.
0 2.
The proposed code amendment is in conformance with Section
65800 et seq of the California Government Code concerning -
zoning regulations.
The proposed zoning text amendment will not have a significant
adverse effect on the environment. Preparation of an Environ-
mental Impact Report is not necessary.
•
3. That there are pending applications for subdivisions of land
in conflict with general plan and zoning changes being
studied.
4. That further study is necessary to determine what legislation,
if any, is proper for the protection of the public health,
safety and welfare.
5. That there is a current and immediate threat to the public
health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of addition-
al subdivisions inconsistent with the zoning text changes pro-
vided for herein, would result in a threat to public health,
safety, or welfare.
Section 2. Zoning Text Change.
That the chart in Section 9-3.154 Minimum Lot Size in the Resi-
dential Single Family zone and 9-3.164 Minimum Lot Size in the Lim-
ited Residential Single Family Zone shall be changed to read as fol-
lows in relation to the Symbol X:
SYMBOL MINIMUM LOT SIZE
X 20,000 square foot net area (excluding land area
needed for street rights-of-way whether publicly
or privately owned) with sewer; half acre net
area (excluding land area needed for street
rights-of-way whether publicly or privately
owned) where sewer is not available.
Section 3.
Beginning on the effective date of this ordinance and for a forty-
five (45) day period thereafter, no permit for a subdivision of land
shall be approved or granted by the City except as provided in Section
2. above.
Section 4.
This ordinance is adopted under Government Code Section 65858.
Section 5.
The City Council hereby declares that this is an urgency ordinance
necessary to preserve the public peace, health and safety due to the
facts set forth above.
Section 6.
This ordinance being an urgency ordinance for the immediate pro-
tection of the public safety, health and general welfare, containing a
declaration of the facts constituting the urgency and passed by a
four-fifths (4/5) vote of the Council shall take effect immediately
upon its adoption.
� 0
� 0
•
Section 7. 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 this City.
On motion by and seconded by
the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its en-
tirety by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
HENRY ENGEN,
Community De lopment Director
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
MARJORIE R. MACKEY, Mayor
0
0
• ORDINANCE NO. 152
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING TITLE 9 ZONING REGULATIONS
BY CLARIFYING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT SIZE IN THE LSF -X
AND RSF-X DISTRICT AS REQUIRING A NET MINIMUM LAND AREA OF
20,000 SQUARE FEET WITH SEWER (EXCLUDING LAND AREA NEEDED
FOR STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY WHETHER PUBLICLY OR PRIVATELY OWNED)
WHEREAS, Section 65858 of the Government Code authorizes the
adoption by local legislative bodies of interim ordinances as urgency
measures to protect the public safety, health and welfare; and
WHEREAS, said ordinances may be adopted as urgency measures pro-
hibiting actions which may be in conflict with a contemplated zoning
proposal which the legislative body, Planning Commission or Community
Development Department is considering, or studying, or intends to
study within a reasonable time; and
WHEREAS, the City is presently studying amendments to the City's
General Plan and zoning regulations to clarify definitions of minimum
lot areas required; and
• WHEREAS, the City Zoning Ordinance Sections 9-3.154 and 9-3.164
were recently amended (Ordinance 145) to reduce minimum lot size in
the RSF-X and LSF -X districts to 20,000 square feet with sewers; and
WHEREAS, said revision was a reduction from one-half acre minimum
lot size to eliminate disputes as to credit for fee ownership of roads
with the objective of setting a minimum net lot area of 20,000
square feet in these districts where sewer is available regardless of
ownership of said fee title to the roads; and
WHEREAS, applications for the subdivisions of land with lot sizes
of less than 20,000 square feet net have been submitted contrary to
the City Council's intent; and
WHEREAS, such urgency measures shall require a four-fifths vote of
the legislative body for adoption.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero does
ordain as follows:
Section 1. Council Findings.
1. The proposed zoning ordinance text amendment proposes stan-
dards consistent with the General Plan.
• 2. The proposed code amendment is in conformance with Section
65800 et seq of the California Government Code concerning
zoning regulations.
• 0
3. The proposed zoning text amendment will not have a significant
adverse effect on the environment. Preparation of an Environ- •
mental Impact Report is not necessary.
4. That there are pending applications for subdivisions of land
in conflict with general plan and zoning changes being
studied.
5. That further study is necessary to determine what legislation,
if any, is proper for the protection of the public health,
safety and welfare.
Section 2. Zoning Text Change.
That the chart in Section 9-3.154 Minimum Lot Size in the Resi-
dential Single Family zone and 9-3.164 Minimum Lot Size in the Lim-
ited Residential Single Family Zone shall be changed to read as fol-
lows in relation to the Symbol X:
SYMBOL MINIMUM LOT SIZE
X 20,000 square foot net area (excluding land area
needed for street rights-of-way whether pri-
vately owned or not) with sewer, half acre where
sewer is not available. -
Section 3. •
Beginning on the effective date of this ordinance and for a forty-
five (45) day period thereafter, no permit for a subdivision of land
shall be approved or granted by the City except as provided in Section
2. above.
Section 4.
This ordinance is adopted under Government Code Section 65858.
Section 5.
The City Council hereby declares that this is an urgency ordinance
necessary to preserve the public peace, health and safety due to the
facts set forth above.
Section 6.
This ordinance being an urgency ordinance for the immediate pro-
tection of the public safety, health and general welfare, containing a
declaration of the facts constituting the urgency and passed by a
four-fifths (4/5) vote of the Council shall take effect immediately
upon its adoption.
r�
•
Section 7.
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 this City.
On motion by and seconded by
, the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its en-
tirety by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
MARJORIE R. MACKEY, Mayor
• ATTEST:
BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
lAz.
HENRY ENGEN,
Community evelopm t Director
0
GOEfzNM6t-1T CODEW_XCE4l:P1-
• Cwmission revieyi of
legislative body's
changes
_Urgency measure:
Interim zoning
ordinance (effective
until 1,/1/89)
(Amended by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009.)
65857. The legislative body may approve,
modify or disapprove the recommendation of the
planning commission; provided that any
modification of the proposed ordinance or
amendment by the legislative body not previously
considered by the planning commission during its
hearing, shall first be referred to the planning
commission for report and recommendation, but the
planning commission shall not be required to hold
a public hearing thereon. Failure of the
planning commission to report within forty
(40) days after the reference, or such longer
period as may be designated by the legislative
body, shall be deemed to be approval of the
proposed modification.
(Amended by Stats. 1973, Ch. 600.)
65858. [Text of section operative until_
�n., ,
(a) Without following the procedures otherwise
required prior to the adoption of a zoning
ordinance, the legislative body, to protect the
public safety, health and welfare, may adopt as
an urgency measure an interim ordinance
prohibiting any uses which may be in conflict
with a contemplated general plan, specific plan,
or zoning proposal which the legislative body,
planning commission or the planning department is
considering or studying or intends to study
within a reasonable time. That urgency
measure shall require a four-fifths vote of the
legislative body for adoption. The interim
ordinance shall be of no further force and effect
45 days from its date of adoption. After notice
pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing,
the legislative body may extend the interim
ordinance for 10 months and 15 days and
subsequently extend the interim ordinance for
one year. Any such extension shall also require
a four -fifties vote for adoption. Not more than
the two such extensions may be adopted.
(b) Alternatively, an interim ordinance may be
adopted by a four-fifths vote following notice
pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing,
in which case it shall be of no further force and
effect 45 days from its date of adoption. After
notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public
hearing, the legislative body may by a four-
fifths vote extend the interim ordinance for
22 months and 15 days.
(c) The legislative body shall not adopt or
extend any interim ordinance pursuant to this
section unless the ordinance contains a finding
that there is a current and immediate threat to
107-
0-
0
is
•
0
Repealer
Urgency measure:
Interim zoning
ordinance (operative
1/1/89)
•
the public health, safety, or welfare, and that
the approval of additional subdivisions, use
permits, variances, building permits, or any
other applicable entitlement for use which is
required in order to comply with a zoning
ordinance would result in a threat to public
health, safety, or welfare.
(d) Ten days prior to the expiration of an
interim ordinance or any extension, the
legislative body shall issue a written report
describing the measures taken to alleviate the
condition which led to the adoption of the
ordinance.
(e) When any such interim ordinance has been
adopted, every subsequent ordinance adopted
pursuant to this section, covering the whole or a
part of the same property, shall automatically
terminate and be of no further force or effect
upon the termination of the first such ordinance
or any extension of the - ordinance as
provided in this section.
This section shall remain in effect only until
January 1, 1989, and as of such date is repealed,
unless a later enacted statute, which is
chaptered before January 1, 1989, deletes or
extends such date.
(Amended by Stats. 1982, Ch. 1108; Stats. 1984,
Ch. 1009.)
Note: Stats. 1982, Ch. 1108, also reads:
SDC. 2. 65858. [Text of section operative
January 1, 1989.1
Without following the procedures otherwise
required preliminary to the adoption of a zoning
ordinance, the legislative body, to protect the
public safety, health and welfare, may adopt as
an urgency measure an interim ordinance
prohibiting any uses which may be in conflict
with a contemplated general plan, specific plan,
or zoning proposal which the legislative body,
planning commission, or the planning department
is considering or studying or intends to study
within a reasonable time. That urgency
measure shall require a four-fifths vote of the
legislative body for adoption. The interim
ordinance shall be of no further force and effect
four months from its date of adoption. After
notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public
hearing, the legislative body may extend the
interim ordinance for eight months and
subsequently extend the interim ordinance for
one year. Any such extension shall also require
a four-fifths vote for adoption. Not more than
the two such extensions may be adopted. is
Alternatively, an interim ordinance may be
108
�J
• MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
a ' �-_'."DA
DR, '2' 7-1 : Elk 0-1
21-
Through: Michael Shelton, City Manager
From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Subject: Traffic Study Proposals-Atascadero Creek Bridge
Date: May 5, 1987
Recommendation:
The City/School Committee reccommends that Council accept the
ARE, Inc. proposal for the Traffic Circulation Study and Impact
Mitigation Analysis for the Atascadero Creek Bridge.
Backround:
Council authorized staff to proceed with requests for proposals
for the above project on Feburary 23, 1987. Proposals were originally
. accepted on March 16, but no entries were received. The scope of
services was slightly adjusted with respect with the origin -
destination portion of the study and proposals were again sought on
April 15.
Discussion:
Two proposals were received, both of which adhered closely to the
scope of services. Both consultants were well qualified and offered
Prompt response to our needs. Both firms have excellent references
and resourses and are able to supply adequate insurance protection.
Following is a summary of the proposals:
Consultant: ARE,Inc-Scotts Valley ATE, -Santa Barbara
Cost: $5,000 $11,050
Time: 60 days 75 days
Man-hours: 154 230
Fiscal Impact:
The budget for the design and right-of-way and impact mitigation
is currently $101,000. This portion of the preliminary design was
targeted at approximately $5,000. The proposal from ARE, Inca is
recommended by Staff as the best proposal and the least costly
selection. It should be understood that this is the first step in a
long process to make the bridge a reality and that upon completion
• staff will be recommending -to Council to request proposals for the
structural design of the bridge.
EET'N i AG�NO .•+r""
MEMORANDUM
Y •
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Bridge over Atascadero Creek at or Near Lewis Avenue
DATE: February 18, 1987 Y' u
Recommendation:
The City/School Committee recommends that the City proceed
:.with a Request for Proposals for a Traffic Circulation Study and
..an Impact Mitigation Analysis for a new bridge over 'Atascadero
Creek as called for in the General Plan. Staff concurs with that s
recommendation. Staff further recommends that Council �,Iirecofwith the congent of AUSD, the City/School Committee 4d a.consultant and,6review any reports regarding the feasibity
the bridge.
Background: •
The "Lewis -Avenue Bridge" has been discussed for many years
and is included in the General Plan of the City. The City imple-
mented a Lewis Avenue Development Fee within the BIA area bound-
ary in April of 1985. The 1986-87 budget includes a line item
-for the Lewis Avenue Bridge with the thought of doing a traffic
study and pre -engineering.
The traffic study was to tell the impact of the bridge on
the schools and nearby intersection with collectors and arter-
ials. The preliminary engineering would provide bridge type,
right-of-way appraisals, rough line and grade, the location of a
walk bridge, and cost estimates.
Discussion:
Prior to entering into a consultant agreement for the
design of 'the structure questions must be answered about the
feasibility of the connecting structure. The AUSD is aprehensive
about opening up Lewis Avenue schools to the Santa Ysabel-
Capistrano traffic and would prefer a Palma Avenue alignment.
The City staff favors a Lewis Avenue alignment for directness of
route, less right-of-way cost and access to a potential future
development agency. It should be noted here that the School owns
the property along Atascadero Creek that will be spanned.
q IR
The City School Committee recognizes the need for a, joint
effort in solving anticipated problems and has asked to be the C
body to select the Consultant and review studies or reports that
come out of this action.
City staff has prepared a Request -For -Proposals (attached)
that has been endorsed by the City/School Committee. Addition—
ally, the City and Schools have jointly selected three
(3) firms to invite to submit proposals. Namely, they are
Associated Transportation Engineers; ARE, Inc.; and Gerald
Skiles.
k
X Fiscal Analysis: 3'
-' .The City has budgeted $101,750 in the "Lewis Avenue" bridge #
line item. This money was to be the start of the traffic �.•*_
,Ianalysis/preliminary engineering that must occur for the project
to proceed. Only a portion, approximately $5,000 will probably �=
go to the traffic analysis. The remainder will go to engineering
and right-of-way, or into the project account.
? " ,_`..The revenue to support the appropriation is being derived
from the Bordeaux House project. If this money is used as anti-
cipated, the Lewis Avenue Bridge Development Fee will be reduced
from $1.93 to $1.63/sq.ft. of building space. If the $101,750 is
not used then the fee would remain the same until the question of
the reality of the bridge is determined. The fee can only be C
used for a bridge in this vicinity. The Bordeaux money was ori-
ginally for bridges in general, but the Development Fee Committee
recommended that Council budget the amount to this bridge to show
initiative in implementing the General Plan concept and to show
developers that they will be contributing to a real project and
not just to an interest-bearing fund.
1)
City of Atascadero
Department of Public Works
P.O. Box 747
Atascadero, California 93423
ARE Inc—ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
DESIGN • RESEARCH • ANALYSIS •EVALUATION
April 15,1987
Attention: Mr. Paul Sensibaugh
Public Works Director
Reference: Engineering Proposal to Perform
Traffic Analysis and Impact Mitigation Study
for Atascadero Creek Bridge
Dear Mr. Sensibaugh:
ARE Inc is pleased to submit this proposal to perform the above
traffic study. We believe that our firm is uniquely qualified to perform
and complete this study to the City's total satisfaction. Our confidence
lies in the fact that ARE has been providing quality engineering services
to local government agencies for more than 16 years.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien will serve as project manager. Mr. O'Brien is
manager of traffic and transportation engineering for ARE's Western
Regional office. He has been responsible for conducting numerous remedial
traffic studies and solely responsible for all traffic signal design
'j within ARE's Western Region. With a proven record of innovative solutions
to traffic operational problems, Mr. O'Brien can draw upon the practical
experience he has gained from conducting similar remedial traffic studies.
In order to provide reliable information concerning future needs and
requirements of the City, ARE will enlist the services of Ronald J.
• Marquez, Transportation Engineering and Planning. Mr. Marquez will
provide planning and traffic forecasting expertise to ARE.
We feel Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Marquez will provide the City with the
highest quality product within the time frame required for project
completion. The following points are emphasized concerning our team
qualifications.
• Extensive experience in remedial traffic engineering analysis;
• Demonstrated competence in traffic signal design;
• A close proximity to ensure good communication and prompt
response to City needs;
20 Victor Square • Scotts Valley, California 95066 • (408) 438-7905 • TWX 910-874-1324
•
•
0
• Experience in the use of computer aided design to produce
presentation visual aids;
• Capability to provide all forms of insurance required by the
City.
We feel that this proposal addresses the City's needs regarding this
problem. We look forward to the opportunity to work with you.
FNF:jh
Enclosure
/Sincerely,
FRED N. FINN, P.E.
Sr. Vice President
SUMMARY SHEET
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND IMPACT MITIGATION STUDY
FOR ATASCADERO CREEK BRIDGE
Proposing Agencies:
Proposal Due:
Project Manager:
Proposed Contract:
Period
ARE Inc. Engineering Consultants
Western Regional Office
Scotts Valley, California
Ron Marquez, Transportation Engineering
and Planning, Santa Cruz, California
April 15, 1987
Stephen M. O'Brien
May 1, 1987 to July 1, 1987
Team Capabilities: ARE Inc. is a nationally recognized civil
engineering firm that has been providing
engineering services to both public and private
agencies for 16 years. The firm's office in
Scotts Valley, California specializes in traffic
and pavement engineering.
Ron Marquez, Transportation Engineering and
Planning is a single person transportation
consulting firm with fourteen years of
experience. The most recent experience includes
serving as project director for an OTS
grant for the County of Santa Cruz. Mr. Marquez's
local experience and his knowledge of County
operations and procedures will complement
ARE's strengths.
0 �
0
10
Q�
�i
�o
UI
10
The following tentative process was developed to meet the needs of
the project and the intent of the City of Atascadero, and to help ensure
that the project moves smoothly into the location and design phases. This
tentative process is subject to review and refinement in the early phases
of the work program.
In order toresent the results s of the study to those agencies that
could be affected by proposed improvements, it is recommended that a
technical advisory committee be formed consisting of representatives from
public works, the school board and the fire department. With this
arrangement, the consultant would be able to discuss the advantages and
disadvantages of alternative bridge alignments to the TAC and develop
improvement plans that will address the concerns of all the agencies
affected by this project.
The "public involvement process" should include at least two
meetings. The first meeting could be held in early May. The purpose of
this meeting would be to present the scope, schedule and purpose of the
traffic study. Early reaction and input on the study will aid in
determination of problem areas within the project area. The second
meeting should be held after the data collection and traffic analysis
phase.
4. WORK PLAN
Task 1: Initial Meeting
The objective of the meeting with the City and the School Board is to
provide these agencies the opportunity to provide input and ideas so that
the proposed project provides the maximum service and minimizes the
adverse impact. A highly successful process will enable the project to
move into design and construction with substantial public and agency
support. Meetings
will allow the consultant to explain or clarify
improvement concepts to the layman so that the public sector understands
the advantages and disadvantages of specific roadway improvements.
The following tentative process was developed to meet the needs of
the project and the intent of the City of Atascadero, and to help ensure
that the project moves smoothly into the location and design phases. This
tentative process is subject to review and refinement in the early phases
of the work program.
In order toresent the results s of the study to those agencies that
could be affected by proposed improvements, it is recommended that a
technical advisory committee be formed consisting of representatives from
public works, the school board and the fire department. With this
arrangement, the consultant would be able to discuss the advantages and
disadvantages of alternative bridge alignments to the TAC and develop
improvement plans that will address the concerns of all the agencies
affected by this project.
The "public involvement process" should include at least two
meetings. The first meeting could be held in early May. The purpose of
this meeting would be to present the scope, schedule and purpose of the
traffic study. Early reaction and input on the study will aid in
determination of problem areas within the project area. The second
meeting should be held after the data collection and traffic analysis
phase.
Good graphics are essential to the City's understanding of the ideas,
alternatives, and issues being presented. Informational packets will be
provided at the meetings.
Task 2: Site Review
The purpose of this task is to collect data relating to the physical
features, geometric features, operational features, and performance
measures of the streets located within the. project scope to provide a
sound basis in providing direction to future improvements.
on All available traffic data will be compiled to document base
10
conditions and evaluate the operation of the existing intersection.
Average Daily Traffic (ADT), Am and Pm peak hour turning movement volumes,
pedestrian data, and anticipated future intersectional volumes will be
collected from the City for this study. Turning movement counts for the
signalized intersections along E1 Camino Real and the intersection of
Traffic Way and Lewis Avenue will be performed by ARE Inc and will be used
to calculate existing levels of service. ADT counts will be taken for
those streets where no data is available and considered necessary for the
study. All data required to forecast future traffic volumes for Atascadero
will be obtained from the City.
Data regarding roadway geometrics (roadway and lane widths, number of
lanes, curb return radii, etc.) for the select streets will be assembled.
The consultant will contact the City of Atascadero to collect the
necessary data from as -built plans, if available. The consultant will
obtain aerial photographs of the project area from the City.
Finally, the consultant will field review the major roads and
intersections within the project area to record any information not
readily available from the City. Location of physical objects (such as
fire hydrants, buildings, utilities, etc.) that may affect the new bridge
alignment will be documented.
15
Task 3: Traffic Flow Analysis of Present Conditions
The data collected in Task 2 will be analyzed to determine the base
operational condition of the project area. Circular 212 will be used to
evaluate the performance of the three existing signalized intersections.
"Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 1984," published by AASHTO,
will be used to evaluate the geometric features of the select streets and
determine if deficiencies exist. The "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices" will be used to determine whether the existing traffic control
devices at the three signalized conform to current standards.
Pedestrian facilities will be evaluated to determine existing
deficiencies. This will identify areas for improvement to provide safe
and smooth pedestrian flow within the project location. Specific items
included in the evaluation will be pedestrian provisions at intersections,
physical dimensions of sidewalks, and provisions for the handicapped and
elderly.
Task 4: Alternative Bridge Alignment Analysis
The evaluation of operational characteristics of the existing project
road network will provide the foundation for the analysis of viable
alternative bridge alignments. Two viable bridge alignments exist and are
shown in Figure 2. Alignment 1 connects Santa Ysabel Avenue to Lewis
Avenue. Alignment 2 connects Santa Ysabel Avenue to Palma Avenue. To
evaluate the impact of each alignment and the addition of a new street
segment, it is necessary to assign both existing and anticipated future
traffic volumes to the streets within the project area. The consultant
will use growth factors and planned development programs to forecast
future traffic volumes. Existing transportation planning models would not
work on this project. To model individual street segments, a model would
have to be developed for this project. The development of a
16
•
•
� 0
is
EL C.
TRAFFIC WAY
ATASCADERO
FIRE DEPART.
PALMA AVENUE
LEWIS AVENUE
ATASCADERO CITY HALL
WEST MALL
EAST MALL
DAILY PRESS f ATASCADERO JUNIOR
HIGH SCHOOL
'�-.,TAS ��ADE; G CREE"
r SHOPPING
MALL f /.-
SANTA YSABEL AVENUE
BANK OF AMERICA
PROPOSED SR 41 EXTENTION
Figure 2. Alternative Bridge Alignments
17
transportation model is considered to be outside the scope of this
project.
Shifts in current traffic patterns due to the new bridge will be
estimated and both existing and future traffic volumes will be reassigned
to the streets within the project scope.
Analysis of both existing and expected future traffic volumes for
each bridge alignment alternative will be conducted by the consultant.
The planning approach from Circular 212 will be used to analyze each
improvement alternative. Circular 212 provides greater division of level
of service based on critical paths. The divisions provided in the 1985
Highway Capacity Manual are too simplistic to be used as an evaluation
tool. The planning approach of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual provides
the user with capacity levels (under, near, and over). The consultant
feels that a study of this nature requires an evaluation of level -of -
service rather than level of capacity. Therefore, the consultant will use
Circular 212 to analyze the bridge alignment alternatives. Figure 3 shows
an example work sheet that will be used for the analysis. Results will be
documented and included in the final report. The advantages and
disadvantages of each alignment will be summarized and presented to the
City and the school board.
Task 5: Meeting With Technical Advisor Committee
A second meeting with the technical advisory committee should be held
after the data collection phase and prior to the development of
improvement recommendations for the project area. This meeting would
allow the results of analysis and evaluation tasks of the traffic study to
be presented to the public for review and comment. These comments would
be used two -fold. First, they would allow the consultant to determine if
an adequate evaluation of the corridor has been performed and second, to
provide initial guidance as to what roadway improvements the public is
19
•
•
4
I*
Critical Movement Analysis: OPERATIONS AND DESIGN
E:omple I Calculation Form 2
Intersection LINCOLN ANC CoM�Eecc 4'3o -5:3o P•,-.
Design Hour —
Problem Statement FNo M0'5TING LOS CAL) L1• BE HAN01-F-D wITH Z 4 ?
Step 1. Identify Lane Geometry
Approach 3
1
LINCOLN I
LI�Z.o N
Y 1T O c
b u
8 s e.6 c
� !bil0
up 1
V Pp'pach t
Step 2. Identify Hourly 1101umes
(Hv)
in ►nh
_�L
152 At 61 AL 64 A3 58 A4
QI
QI
Turn %olumc
1PV prom sup 61
Approach J
Orro.ing.ul. in
�i
cph uom sup 2'
110 I5)o • 530 330 -
red. pal hour
RT , 10
PCE LT from
lable )
4• - L.o
LT vol. in pch
7 5/d
TM . 54o
a F
1.8-�
LT . 40
L
T.
a
N
V
o
lB• t•
v
loll K4 }o;
L
t,
hL te51.10
a
Te °,
o
c
<
8, 6
o
LT . 50T�
+
`I
ca
N
pl
TH. 1510
lB•�
AT •�
Ppr7C- oa�A a
J a- Q
Step 5. Develop Passenger Car
Volumes (PCV) in pch
111.
I Approach
1 L
Q N J
N
c �
0 w
0 0
o u
o a
< <
LT - 51
TH • 1564
AT • 07 �
ApproactTi a � r ¢
Step 6. Calculate Period Volumes
(P V) iiTn" pch
OI � �I � ADPr1 PHF . O.'/ 3
AT . a�
u
=J TH . 9q�
Q. aa.
a LT . 44
N
i u
a
° o
c <
PHF •O_ •as O NI
LT
TH • 1040
LL F = H
AT . 96 pproacn I J ►' Q
Step 7. Turn Adjustments
Approach
_l.. ...2_
Ldo.ement
_�L
152 At 61 AL 64 A3 58 A4
lurn
LT LT LT T7 LT AT LT LT
Turn %olumc
1PV prom sup 61
!b , 1 76 11! i! 150 IL
Orro.ing.ul. in
Adjusted Volumes Volumes
cph uom sup 2'
110 I5)o • 530 330 -
red. pal hour
60 - to - LSD • 6"
PCE LT from
lable )
4• - L.o
LT vol. in pch
to - U4 !IV
PCE AT rrom
table
1.e• i•a - ILS 1.LS
AT %'.I. to pch
LIS
TH %'M. in fah
At
horn Sup o
L033
lural PCV topch
�Il3� Z)a !16
lol; Ipi 1.00
loll K4 }o;
53 10HI.05110 Ill} !L sw
tep 9b. Volume Adjustment f
Multiphase Signal Overt
Potable Volume Adluarr
Probable CIrIKal Carr7o.er Currul
Phax Volume to near Volume
to pch _ phos in Dch
2�
Step J0. Sum ofsCritical
CbL a161 otAlOol.11., (AID+ os A401
I .5 (AH1
1604 pcb
Step 11. Intersection Level of
Service
1compare Sup le •irh Table 61
E`
Step 12. Recalculate
ADD W L.r LAaT ro
Geomrrriechange wrt.nncwe� . _
Srgnal Change
Volume Change
Comments
toLJCt'UUL DEwCCV Lps o A.10 C
Figure 3. Example worksheet from Circular 212.
20
Step 8.
Step 44.
Calculate
Lane
Adjusted Volumes Volumes
himc-
lural
PCV
Adruurd No. PCV
PCV 01
romp
Par
ISuP71 U W IU•WPCV LAnn Lane
52
L10 loo 1.10
244
1 LIQ
11
U4 loo I -to
LIS
1 110
At
1156 Los loo
L033
Z loft,
At
lol; Ipi 1.00
iPi4
L 531
AW
hL te51.10
}91
L 40o
53 10HI.05110 Ill} !L sw
tep 9b. Volume Adjustment f
Multiphase Signal Overt
Potable Volume Adluarr
Probable CIrIKal Carr7o.er Currul
Phax Volume to near Volume
to pch _ phos in Dch
2�
Step J0. Sum ofsCritical
CbL a161 otAlOol.11., (AID+ os A401
I .5 (AH1
1604 pcb
Step 11. Intersection Level of
Service
1compare Sup le •irh Table 61
E`
Step 12. Recalculate
ADD W L.r LAaT ro
Geomrrriechange wrt.nncwe� . _
Srgnal Change
Volume Change
Comments
toLJCt'UUL DEwCCV Lps o A.10 C
Figure 3. Example worksheet from Circular 212.
20
0
A
anticipating. For this meeting, aerial photographs and concept drawings
will be prepared. 0
Task 6: Develop Recommended Improvements
Use of the evaluation criteria established in previous tasks of the
study will identify areas requiring improvements within the project area.
The recommended improvements will be those that best meet the established
criteria. Both short-term and long-term improvements will be provided to
the City. Short-term improvements will involve low-cost modification
which can be implemented immediately. These modifications will include
pavement markings, loop detector installations, traffic signal
modifications, new signal phasing, and improved street signing. Long-term
improvements involve major street modifications and have associated with
them higher costs and longer construction periods. These alterations
involve complete rehabilitation of existing intersections, major geometric
improvements, street lighting, and additional pedestrian facilities.
All proposed improvements will be in accordance with AASHTO Design
Standards, Caltrans Standards, City of Atascadero Standards and
Specifications, and the latest edition of the MUTCD.
Signal Modification or Implementation. Recommendations to modify
Traffic signal hardware will be provided for portions of E1 Camino Real
where deficiencies exist. Both type and the placement position of traffic
signal heads, signal poles and foundations, pedestrian indications and
pushbuttons, pavement loops and signal controller will be recommended
where deficiencies exist. Recommendations for the installation of traffic
control signals will be provided when one or more of the signals warrants
provided in the MUTCD are met.
Street Lighting. To promote safe and efficient traffic flow at
night, recommendations for implementing street lighting will be provided
to the City.
21
Median Cuts and Driveway (Removal). Geometric alternations to the
existing median and curb may be necessary to promote safe and efficient
traffic flow. Where deemed necessary, median and curb removal or
additions will be recommended for streets within the project area.
Improvements to the existing channelization will also be included in this
tank.
Si nin . Recommendations for the improvement and implementation of
ror►dway signing will be provided to the City. Recommendations for the
removal or replacement of signs that currently fail to meet MUTCD
standards as well as the implementation of additional signing to
f:►cilitate motorist safety and awareness will be included in this study.
Pedestrian Improvements. Recommendations to promote safe pedestrian
Movement within the study corridor will be provided to the City.
i►►tersection improvements will include pedestrian actuation and
111,I1cations, crosswalk placement, any restricted pedestrian movements with
:►ccompanying signing, and provisions for the handicapped and elderly.
Task 7: Documentation
A A summarization of all collected data, the analysis and evaluation
documentation, and all proposed improvements to the street network within
the project area will be included in a written report provided to the City
as partial fulfillment of the requirements of the traffic study. As part
16 of Task 6, the consultant will provide a detail cost estimate for each
recommended improvement. Current bid tabulations and local manufacturers
k'
22
School Improvements. Improvements to
the school, that will promote
+,tudent safety,
will be provided to the
City and the school board.
improvements may
involve physical changes
to school grounds, changes in
tilt, present safe
school route program, and
providing additional crossing
};cards.
Task 7: Documentation
A A summarization of all collected data, the analysis and evaluation
documentation, and all proposed improvements to the street network within
the project area will be included in a written report provided to the City
as partial fulfillment of the requirements of the traffic study. As part
16 of Task 6, the consultant will provide a detail cost estimate for each
recommended improvement. Current bid tabulations and local manufacturers
k'
22
0
0
will be used to produce an accurate estimate. A draft report will be
provided to the City for review and comment. A final report will be
provided to the City, 30 days after receipt of their comments.
Task 8: Presentation to City Council and the School Board
The consultant will present the results of the traffic study to the
City Council and to the School Board. The consultant is aware that City
Council meetings are held on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month
and that the School Board meets on the first and third Mondays of each
month. Appropriate visual aids will be produced for the presentation
•
0
23
W
M
W
CO ,
U
W
-73O
C)
/W
V )
O
CL
O
Cl
N
a
24
co
IW
YA
(n
u
4,
7.1
co
it
y
:fq
,y
N
Z
a.
Y
L
bH
>-
d
�q
(�
<
Z
W
W
m
Juj
��-
?
I:q
AI
Q
?r
O
-jJ
U
W
Q
I--
W
Z
C5F-
C3
co
O
w
u
Z
O_
W
U
in
...
;w
C'h
'V'
24
co
IW
(n
Z
co
W
N
Z
a.
O
>-
d
W
(�
<
Z
W
W
m
Juj
��-
?
W
W
H
N
Q
?r
O
-jJ
U
W
Q
I--
W
Z
C5F-
C3
co
O
w
N
W
O
cc
CA-
Z
O_
W
U
in
...
N
C'h
'V'
LA
CO
fl
24
co
6
6. COST SUMMARY
The consultant is prepared to begin this project upon notification
to proceed. We could comfortably complete the project, providing the City
with a draft report, within an eight-week time schedule. It should be
noted that this schedule is dependent on the City providing to the
consultant all traffic counts and historical data needed to complete the
study.
Cost Summary
Based on our experience with similar projects, it is our estimate
that this project could be accomplished as outlined in the proposal and
meet all the requirements of your request for proposal at a cost of
$5,000.00. The costs may be divided as shown below:
Direct
Task 1: Meeting
Task 2: Site Review
Task 3: Safety & Traffic Flow Analysis
Task 4: Bridge Alignment Analysis
Task 5: .Meeting with TAC
Task 6: Improvement Development
Task 7: Documentation
Task 8: Presentation to City Council
Subtotal
Printing
Subtotal
Indirect Costs
Fee - included in above Direct Costs
$ 400.00
720.00
480.00
480.00
160.00
1200.00
1120.00
400.00
4960.00
40.00
$5000.00
TOTAL COST $5,000.00
25
•
r�
L
•
rl;
I
1•
J
O
C14
T
O
U3
CMT-
co
-r
L�
F--
co
]OCID
N
T
O
Ll.
C4
LU
Cp
T
co
to
O
--J
LU
co
W
J
I
1•
J
O
C14
T
O
co
CMT-
co
-r
L�
F--
co
N
T
C4
Cp
T
co
to
N
co
N
co
-r
Co
'
O
MT
N
T
N
T�
N
N
T
N
Co
M
T
b"'
�
b•
N
T
LU
1%4
Z
Z
L1J
LU
Q
W
F-
LL
LU
cj-_
LL
LU
EE
O
Q
Cl=
'Q
C)
LU
F-
J
C-)
LU
J
C.a
f—
F --
26
ie
a
0
o..
0
CL
w
.c
O
Z
C.),
m
11f
vn
c
cc
s
a
0
C.),
0
0
0
caca
CL
v
m
.8
C
0
ca
m
3
C
_C
Li-
G2
i-
m
LA -
`o
m
v
i
N
� I
Cost per Contractor
ARE Inc. $4040.00
Ron Marquez $ 960.00
Hourly Rates - ARE
ARE Inc hourly rates are based on direct cost of labor for full time
employees. For full time employees the hourly rate is increased by the
current company overhead of 127 percent, plus a 6% profit factor. No
hourly rate increase is assigned to part-time employees. The charge rates
are summarized as follows:
Personnel Hourly Rate Overhead Fee Rate
Multiplier Multiplier
Fred N. Finn*
$
33.72
2.27 1.06
$
81.13
Stephen O'Brien
$
16.44
2.27 1.06
$
39.56
Secretarial
$
8.17
2.27 1.06
$
19.67
Technician
$
10.00
---- ----
$
10.00
*
Services of Fred
N. Finn will
be contributed as
part
of the cost
sharing aspect
of
the proposal.
Hourly Rates - Ronald J. Marquez, P.E.
Ron Marquez, Transportation Engineering and Planning, is based on the
direct cost of the service amount multiplied by the overhead rate of 124%.
The result is the amount billed for each hour of service billed. The
current rate is:
Ron Marquez Direct Cost of Service (per hour)...... $25.00
Overhead Factor ................................... 2.4
Total Rate (per hour) ............................. $60.00
27
•
ll� Do—�
ASSOCIATED TRAIUSR®RTATI®IV EPIGIPJEERS
100 N. Hope Avenue, Suite 20, Santa Barbara, CA 93110 • (B05] BB7-4418
Maynard Keith Franklin. P.E.
Robert L. Faris, RE.
Peter J. Clark. P.E.
Richard L. Pool, P.E.
Scott A. Schell
April 13, 1987
Mr. Paul M. Sensibaugh
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Public Works Department
City of Atascadero
Post Office Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
• PROPOSAL F. -R PROVIDI;14G THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR A NEW BRIDGE OVER ATASCADERD
CREED, ATAISC DERO, CALIFORNIA
Associated Transportation Engineers is pleased to submit the following
proposel for the Traffic Analysis and an Impact -Mitigation Analysis for
bridge over Ut--scadcro Creek near Lewis and Palma Avenues.
ATE has completed analysis of two other projects in the City of Atascadero in
the recent past. These were the K -Mart Project and the Rochelle Annexation
Project. lile have also recently completed the preparation of plans and
specifications for the conctruction of a traffic signal, for the City. ATE his
been involved in identifying and resolving the traffic related problems
related to the ►elocation of the Vista Del Mar School as a part of Chevron's
on—shore proccssing plant construction in the County of Santa Barbara, and we
have prepared a traffic safety study --nd analysis for the Santa Barbara City
College Campus Expansion Vaster Plan. This study was required by the Coastal
Commission and -.%,at, directed to identifying traffic safety impacts and
mitigations to minimize these impacts. We have also been involved with the
Oxnard Union high School D;strict in an analysis of impacts related to a pro—
posed interchange revision in the City of Camarillo. These projects have given,
ATE an in—depth understanding of the types of concerns held both by the City of
Atascadero and the Atascadero Unified School District relative to the proposed
project.
Engineering . Planning 9 Parking 9 Signal Systems . Impact Reports e Bikeways e Transit
•
Mr. Paul M. Sensibaugh
Page 2
0
April 13, 1987
This proposal is in response to the Request for Proposal we received from the
City, and incorporates by reference all of the stipulations made by staff in
said Request for Proposal. ATE proposes to prepare a study that will address
the impacts on the existing school and critical area streets and intersections
which would result from the construction of a bridge across Atascadero Creek
in the vicinity of Santa Ysabel Avenue—Lewis Avenue—Palma Avenue. We would
quantify the number of average daily and P.M. peak hour trips expected to be
generated during the 20 year study period from the forecast growth data and
proposed land use zoning furnished by the City. The projected traffic will
then be distributed onto the adjacent circulation system and impacts for the
alternate bridge locations will be analyzed and compared. The analysis will
include the planned relocation of State Highway 41 and the projection of the
traffic on the local circulation system for the two bridge alternatives.
Potential mitigation measures will be outlined for all identified adverse
traffic impacts which may occur. The study will include the scenarios of the
existing school site being expanded to meet the projected needs of the School
District and the alternative of the school site being redeveloped as a
commercial center with a relocation of the school facilities. The
identification of an alternate location for the school is not a part of this
study.
SCOPE OF 14ORK
Associated Transportation Engineers proposes to furnish engineering and
related technical services necessary to complete the required study. The
services which will be provided are as follows:
1. Assemble all existing_ data related to the study. Visit project site.
Discuss the project with City, School District, and Caltrans staff.
2. Inventory existing street segments, channelization and traffic
controls in the bridge project area.
3. Conduct 24—hour machine traffic counts on roadways in the project
area, where additional data is needed.
4. Conduct evening peak hour manual turning movement counts at critical
intersections in the project area, where current data is not
available.
•
•
5. Redistribute the existing traffic onto the system for each of the
proposed locations for the bridge. 10
•
•
•
Mr. Paul M. Sensibaugh Page 3
April 13, 1987
6. Redistribute the existing traffic onto the system with the relocation
of State Highway 41, for each of the bridge locations.
7. Determine daily and peak hour trip generation for the projected
growth in the study area as identified in the Request for Proposal.
8. Distribute projected traffic onto the existing street system for each
of the bridge location alternates.
9. Distribute the projected traffic onto the street system with State
Highway 41 in the planned location and for each of the bridge
locations.
10. Calculate peak hour volume/capacity ratios and levels of service at
critical intersections and roadway segments in the area.
The intersections to be included in this analysis are as follows:
E1 Camino Real/Curbaril Avenue
El Camino Real/West Mall
Santa Ysabel Avenue/Curbaril Avenue
Santa Ysabel Avenue/Future State Highway 41
Lewis Avenue/East Mall
Lewis Avenue/West Mall
Lewis Avenue/Traffic Way
Palma Avenue/East Mall
Palma Avenue/West Mall
Palma Avenue/Traffic Way
12. Analyze the intersections and recommend mitigations to bring the
intersection level of service to Level C or better.
13. Identify specific impacts on the school site for each of the bridge
locations and develop mitigations for the identified impacts.
14. Prepare cost estimates for the mitigations proposed for the school
and the various intersections.
15. Meet with the City—School Committee on an as needed basis (three such
meetings have been included in the proposal).
16. Prepare three copies of a draft report for review and comment by City
and School staff. Discuss draft with staff and revise as necessary.
0
0
I]
Mr. Paul M. Sensibaugh Page 4
April 13, 1987
17. Prepare three copies of the final report for presentation to the City
Council and the School Board. The presentation package will include
the necessaary visual aids to provide for a clear and understandable
explanation of the report contents and recommendations.
18. Attendance by the Project Engineer at one meeting of the City Council
and one meeting of the School Board to present and/or respond to
comments on the report.
INFORMATION TO BE SUPPLIED BY THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
The City of Atascadero will furnish the following materials to ATE for conduct
of this study:
1. Base maps of the City circulation system within the study area.
2. All applicable City General Plan text and maps, and zoning maps,
within the study area.
3. All existing traffic count data.
4. All forecast land—use data to be incorporated into the traffic
forecast model.
PERSONNEL
Associated Transportation Engineers is a professional corporation whose
principals are engineers. A full description of the company and our staff is
attached to and incorporated in this proposal. M. Keith Franklin and Richard
Pool will be the principals involved in the prosecution of the study and
analysis. The contact person will be designated as soon as the proposal is
accepted.
SCHEDULE AND FEES
Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE) will be able to commence work on
this project within ten days after receipt of notice to proceed, with comple—
tion of the report within 75 calendar days thereafter. Our lump sum fee for
the above outlined scope of work will be $11,050.00. Any additional work
•
Mr. Paul M. Sensibaugh Page 5 April 13, 1987
authorised by the City will be accomplished based upon rates contained in the
attached fee schedule. A time estimate for this project has also been
attached for your use in determining the sufficiency of our scope of work.
The scope of work outlined above is our concept of that required to accomplish
the study as outlined in the Request for Proposal. If the City is desirous of
negotiating the scope and the related fee, ATE is quite willing to do.so.
This proposal will be valid for a period of 30 calendar days from the date
hereon, unless such limit is extended by ATE. Please call us if you have any
questions regarding this proposal. We appreciate your consideration of ATE
for this work.
Maynard Keith Franklin P
.E.
RLP/MKF/wp
Attachments
0
0
Mr. Paul M. Sensibaugh Page 6 April 13, 1987
Associated Transportation Engineers
ESTIMATED TIME REQUIREMENT
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR NEW BRIDGE OVER ATASCADERO CREEK
Principal Engineer
120
hrs.
Senior Technician
40
hrs.
Senior Draftsman
20
hrs.
Secretary
10
hrs.
Traffic Counter
40
hrs.
TOTAL:
230
hrs.
•
•
•
r�
0
II �I ASSOCIATED TRAt!!SR®RTATI®iV EilIGIMEERS
100 N. Hope Avenue, Suite 20, Santa Barbara, CA 93110 • (BO5) 667-441 B
Maynard Keith Franklin, P.E.
Robert L. Faris, P.E.
Peter J. Clark, P.E.
Richard L. Pool, P.E.
Scott A. Schell
FEE SCHEDULE
(January. 1987)
Principal Engineer: Local
Principal Engineer: Out of Town
Draftsperson
Senior Technician
Technician
Secretary
Traffic Counter
$65.00 per hour
$70.00 per hour
$35.00 per hour
$30.00 per hour
$25.00 per hour
$15.00 per hour
$10.00 per hour
Engineering . Planning . Parking . Signal Systems . Impact Reports . Bikeways 9 Transit
•
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
Via: Mike Shelton, City Manager
From: Bob Best, Parks and Recreation Director LT
Subject: Memorandum of Understanding With Atascadero
Unified School District
BACKGROUND
,
May 12, 1987
As a result of the Park and Recreation Department's desire to improve
communication with the Atascadero Unified School District, Staff began
working on ideas on how the City could address some of our concerns re-
garding joint use of facilities, and at the same time address School
District concerns in reference to the usage of their facilities by the
Recreation Department. Our staff began meeting with appropriate school
district administrators to address joint concerns. This continues today
to be an ongoing process.
In discussions at the City/School Committee level, it was determined
that an advisory committee should be established to address the possible
formation of a Memorandum of Understanding and a Joint Powers Agreement.
The committee consisted of School District Administrators, one member of
the Parks and Recreation Commission and Parks and Recreation Staff. Since
that time the committee has recommended two additional members -- one
youth sports group representative and an at large member of the community.
THEORY BEHIND DEVELOPMENT OF MOU
Many juridictions have improved the use of resources, facilities, and pro-
grams by joining forces for the common good. However, some communities
suffer from a lack of coordinated services. Many reasons have been brought
forward to explain why cooperative programs either fail or have a low de-
gree of success. Solutions have been sought to help resolve some of the
problems. As a method to help improve the problems, the concept of a
Memorandum of Understanding and a Joint Powers Agreement was developed.
The intent to cooperate is based on two main concepts:
1) Both Education and Recreation and Parks have a philosophical and statutory
responsibility to meet education and recreation needs for the community.
2) A formal cooperative provision of services assures the community that
their right to optimum services for their tax dollar is being respected.
41
WHAT IS A MOU?
il
•
Simply stated, a MOU is a very brief general statement of purpose to
cooperatively provide learning and leisure services. The MOU is an
"umbrella" which can provide for later, more specific agreements between
the governing bodies. The MOU includes the need for ongoing communicatil
between the School District and the City. It also includes sections on
implementation of cooperative ventures, including committee membership,
duties of committee, division of costs, and personnel.
What it is not is a detailed document which identifies specifics of the
joint powers agreement. This would be identified as the committee actually
begins work on the joint powers agreement itself.
The adoption of a MOU represents a beginning -- it is a statement of
cooperation between the governing bodies of the School District and the
City. As before, specific information as relates to the detailed JPA
will be discussed by the Committee and forwarded to the Joint City/
School Committee.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the Atascadero Unified
School District and the City of Atascadero and authorize the Mayor and
the Parks and Recreation Director to sign the MOU on behalf of the City.
It is further recommended the Parks and Recreation staff be authorized to
continue the process of developing a formal joint powers agreement with
the school district.
ADDITIONAL BENEFITS OF MOU/JPA (Partial Listing of Financial Benefits)
1. Development of cooperative budgeting and administrative techniques.
2. Development of plans for cooperative actvities.
3. Establishment of common ground for fiscal planning.
4. Combining resources needed for agreed upon cooperative activities.
5. Improved awareness of potential barriers to cooperation between agencies.
6. Identification of common priorities for existing and needed resources.
7. Insurance considerations - problems and how to best resolve problem areas.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
The Joint City/School Committee has endorsed this concept as well as the
Parks and Recreation Commission. In addition, the School Board was very
supportive of the MOU at its meeting on May 4th, as department staff pre-
sented the MOU for School Board consideration.
MEMOANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BEEN
THE ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
AND THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
0. Basic Purpose
Since worthwhile recreational activity contributes to the well-being
of individuals, and in turn, to the progress of society, provision of
meaningful leisure opportunities can be properly recognized as a
governmental service. Consequently, the Parks and Recreation Depart-
ment has been delegated the responsibility for providing the commun-
ity with these leisure skills and opportunities.
In order to maximize these services and to maximize potential for
quality programs, the Atascadero Parks and Recreation Department and
the Atascadero Unified School District are committed to cooperate with
one another whenever feasible.. The cooperation will. include ongoing
communication for planning, implementing, and evaluation of cooperative
community recreation programs.
II. Mechanism for implentation of specific cooperative ventures
A. Community recreation Advisory Committee/Sub Committee of City -Schools
Community
1. Membership
1 member; Parks and Recreation Commission
3 members; School Administrative Staff
2 members; Parks/Recreation Administration Staff
1 member; Atascadero Youth Sports Committee
1 member; at large, community.
2. Duties:
a. Review all new plans for development of school or park sites
within the City of Atascadero.
b. Make recommendations to agency governing boards for cooperat-
tive programs.
c. Identify and coordinate other public resources. Inform the
public of availability of community resources, and encourage
support.
d. Coordinate community resources by promoting:
1. Greater use and sharing of human talents and resources.
2. Learning and enrichment opportunities for all ages.
3. Coordinate use of educational and community facilities.
4. Improve community, school, and recreation/park relationship.
5. Increase interagency coordination and cooperation.
6. Increase citizen involvement in the learning and leisure
decision-making process.
B. Division of Cost
1�1
1. Before any joint acquisition, development, or program implemen-
tation, a cost analysis listing benefits and responsibilities
will be reviewed by the joint committee. Recommendations will be •
made by this council to the administrative staff of both agencies.
2. The administrative staffs will agree on the division of costs,
based on a direct relationship of use.
3. Regular reports e`ivating the cooperative effort and its budget
will be reviewed by the joint committee.
C. Personnel
1. All personnel hired for joint supervision or program coordination
will be interviewed and chosen by a select committee of staff from
the facilities, or programs involved. Both agencies will be repre-
sented.
2. Decisions will be made by the administrative staff of both agencies
about supervisorial responsibilities and evaluation of staff mem-
bers.
IN WITNESS the parties hereto have caused this MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTAND-
ING to be executed in concept by their respective duly authorized officers,
and to seek and develop a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the
Atascadero Unified School District and the City of Atascadero.
Signature - School Board President
Signature - Superintendent of Schools
•
Signature - Mayor of Atascadero
Signature - Parks and Recreation
Director
4
ME ANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BEEN
THE ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
AND THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
ITEM: D-2 OF 5/12 COUNCIL
MEETING
I. Basic Purpose _*****REVISED SHEET*****
Since worthwhile recreational activity contributes to the well-being
of individuals, and in turn, to the progress of society, provision of
meaningful leisure opportunities can be properly recognized as a
governmental service. Consequently, the Parks and Recreation Depart-
ment has been delegated the responsibility for providing the commun-
ity with these leisure skills and opportunities.
In order to maximize these services and to maximize potential for
quality programs, the Atascadero Parks and Recreation Department and
the Atascadero Unified School District are committed to cooperate with
one another whenever feasible.. The cooperation will. include ongoing
communication for planning, implementing, and evaluation of cooperative
community recreation programs.
II. Mechanism for implentation of specific cooperative ventures
A. Community recreation Advisory Committee/Sub Committee of City -Schools
Committee.
1. Membership
1 member; Parks and Recreation Commission
3 members; School Administrative Staff
2 members; Parks/Recreation Administration Staff
1 member; Atascadero Youth Sports Committee
1 member; at large, community.
2. Duties:
a. Review all new plans for development of school or park sites
within the City of Atascadero.
b. Make recommendations to agency governing boards for cooperat
tive programs.
c. Identify and coordinate other public resources. Inform the
public of availability of community resources, and encourage
support.
d. Coordinate community resources by promoting:
1. Greater use and sharing of human talents and resources.
2. Learning and enrichment opportunities for all ages.
3. Coordinate use of educational and community facilities.
4. Improve community, school, and recreation/park relationship.
5. Increase interagency coordination and cooperation.
6. Increase citizen involvement in the learning and leisure
decision-making process
i
MEMORANDUM
•
,E-EVI%: G AGEN[M
May 5, 1987
To: City Council
Via: Mike Shelton, City Manager
From: Bob Best, Parks and Recreation Director
Subject: Award of Atascadero Lake Improvements Design Phase
BACKGROUND
On March 24th Council authorized Parks and Recreation to seek proposals
for Engineering Services for the Design Phase of the Atascadero Lake
Improvement Project. This process was completed on April 29th.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services was divided into two phases. These included:
1. Design Phase - design of Ozonation/Aeration System; extension of water
• supply line discharge; mechanical biofiltration system; formation of
isolated marsh area at south end of lake, including dike; planting of
emergent and submergent aquatic plants, including sources and methods;
monitoring system of water oxygen levels. A separate cost figure to
be provided regarding well feasibility and design.
2. Inspection and/or contract administration phase - proposal to be based
on an hourly fee.
PROPOSAL RESULTS
INSPECTION/CONTRACT
CONSULTANT DESIGN PHASE ADMINISTRATION PHASE
Alderman Engineering $17,850.00 $35 hourly
Los Osos, CA
John Wallace & Associates $25,303.00 $35-$55 hourly
San Luis Obispo, CA
WELL FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN (Cost to determine well feasibility and
location of test well).
Alderman Engineering
John Wallace & Associates
is
$700.
$2,500 (approximately)
-2 -
EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS
0
Both consultants have excellent backgrounds and were very responsive
to the Request for Proposals. John Wallace and Associates included a pre -
design report/evaluation of alternatives in the amount of $2,112.00.
According to the consultant, this is to determine the feasibility of the
ozonation as opposed to the aeration system alone, and the feasibility
of a mechanical biofiltration system.
Alderman Engineering, in their Feasibility Report presented to Council,
recommended these items be constructed as part of the Lake Improvement
Project. As a result, a pre -design report/evaluation of alternatives is
not included in their proposal. In the event the City went ahead with
plans to develop the ozonation/aeration system and mechanical biofiltra-
tion as recommended in the Feasibility Report and not have a pre -design
report/evaluation of alternatives completed, John Wallace and Associates
net bid would be $23,191.
RECOMMENDATION
Award the design phase of the Atascadero Lake Improvement Project to
Alderman Engineering for $17,850.00 and Inspection/Contract Administra-
tion Phase at $35 hourly.
FISCAL IMPACT
Consultant services are within original budget estimates, and will be fu
funded by the grant.
•
s MEET r I AGENDA _
DAT ITEM__
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS ITEM
• INTO YOUR 5/12 COUNCIL
AGENDA PACKAGE
M E M O R A N D U M
To: City Council
Through: Mike Sheltoni
From: David G. Jorgense
Date: May 5, 1987
Subject: Employee Service Awards
t,
k, RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council establish an employee
service award program and appropriate $3,000.00 from the Council
contingency funds to cover the first year costs.
DISCUSSION
Many cities have established an employee service award
program as a way of honoring employees who have worked for the
City for a minimum of 5 years. A typical breakdown.for recog-
nition is 5, 10, 15, 20 & 25 year awards. Each category
receives a specially designed gold pin with a precious stone
which represents the number of years served.
The City of Atascadero has been incorporated for 7 years and
has reached a maturity level to make this type of program fea-
sible. We have 24 employees who have been with the City for
5 years or more. This group of employees have provided stability
and direction during the difficult formative years of the City's
history. This program is a way of recognizing that effort and
for establishing the basis for continued recognition for other
employees who continue to work for the City.
FISCAL COST
The initial cost for establishing the program for the
current 24 employees is $3,000.00. This initial cost includes
additional pins that can be used for future years programs.
The funding for this program can be taken out of the Council
Contingency Fund.
DGJ:al
• file: m5svc
awd
PROPOSED PROGRAM
Years of Service Pin Type
5 years 10K plain
10 years 10K ruby
15ears
Y lOK emerald
20 years 10K diamond
First year costs:
50 plain pins $2,650
Die cut 350
.$3,000
Subsequent costs:
Supplementary Die Cut $37.50
Cost of Jewels Depends on type of jewel
DGJ:al (5/11/87)
file: m5svcawd 54/80
SERVICE AWARD COST ESTIMATES
Tie Tack Size Pins
cola
Wi th
Content
Quantity
Plain
Stone
Cost
10K
35
$ 67/ea
$2,345
$83/ea
- ruby
2,905
$98/ea
- emerald
3,430
$125/ea
- diamond
4,375
10K
50
$53/ea
2,650
$68/ea
- ruby
3,400
$84/ea
- emerald
4,200
$112/ea
- diamond
5,600
14K
35
$107/ea
3,745
$120/ea -
ruby
4,200
$138/ea
- emerald
4,830
$166/ea -
diamond
5,810
14K
50
$85/ea
4,200
$96/ea -
ruby
4,800
$114/ea
- emerald
5,700
$143/ea -
diamond
$7,150
One time costs:
Die cut
$350
DGJ:al
(5/11/87)
file: m5svcawd 84/117
•
MEMORANDUM
D - #
TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
THROUGH: MIKE SHELTON, CITY MANAGER,
FROM: PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: INFLOW AND INFILTRATION ANALYSIS
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
DATE: MAY 5, 1987
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Director of
• Public Works to advertise for bids for the cleaning, tv-
monitoring, and smoke testing for the existing sewer system as
presented in the current budget.
BACKGROUND:
The sewer study conducted by John Wallace and Associates as
well as the grant facilities plan presented by Engineering
Sciences expressed the importance of an inflow and infiltration
(I & I) analysis and implementation to increase the life of the
wastewater treatment plant. The I & I analysis was somewhat
informally done in-house since the start of the fiscal year. A
normal cleaning schedule has been layed out by sanitation
personnel and an investigation of services available, as well as
associated costs, was conducted by the Director.
The winter of 1985 showed an increase in discharge to the
plant of 3.7 times the average daily flow during the rainy
season. Normal infiltration is about 20% with peaks up to about
2.0 times the average daily flow. The current average daily
flow is approximately 1.0 million gallons per day (mgd). Thus,
about 2.7 mgd of the peak flow of 3.7 in. 1985', which came after
the sewer study had indicated 3.2 as a historic figure,
represents storm water intrusion.
The storm water enters via joints or cracks in the sewers
• (infiltration), or into manhole lids or manhole joints/cracks or
other inlets (inflow). The latter, or other inlets, could be
street or parking lot storm drains, roof drains or a drainage
open channel finding its
crack or opening.
DISCUSSION:
10
way along a sewer trench to a large
The problem is clear; the solutions are Tess obvious since
the cause of the problem is an unknown. Cleaning of the lines,
which has never been completely done except for problem areas
due to minimal slope, is the first step in the process.
Cleaning not only readies the lines for the tv-monitoring but
can give a good idea of which areas should be monitored. Areas
of large breaks and sags may be detected by cleaning by the type
of draggings such as sand or pieces of pipe.
Tv -monitoring can locate exactly any cracks, joints, storm
drain inlets, roof drain inlets, etc. The records from this
process are invaluable for future reference. Smoke testing can
also be conducted to find sources of roof drains or other
illegal taps.
The above processes will help determine not only where and
what the problem is, but whether it is more economical to fix
the problem or to expand the plant to accept the water. It is
noted here that not only does non -polluted water use up mainline
and plant capacity and make treatment more difficult due to
dilution, but it is illegal by our own rule to allow such
acceptance of flow.
Staff is recommending to bid the project on unit prices
with an estimated quantity that can be controlled by the
Director as work progresses. Contractors will bid on cleaning,
tv-monitoring, and smoke testing and may be awarded as few as
one or as much as all items. Thus two or more different
contractors may be awarded the bid based upon their expertise
and price of.work. All work will be based upon a linear footage
of sewer main. It is the intent to clean the entire system but
to only tv-monitor the areas designated by the Director.
Actual corrections to the system will be conducted in the
next fiscal year based upon the results of the above project.
It should be understood that sometimes problem sources can be
found that cannot easily be corrected, and in that sence their
is somewhat of a risk to overdoing the tv-monitoring.
Corrections may include removing illegal roof drains,
elimination of storm drains, water proofing manholes, sealing
cracks in sewer main joints, slip lining sewer mains or
completely removing and replacing inadequate lines. It is
anticipated that the bulk of the work will be necessary in the
older downtown section of the system where the sewers are slip
joints and roof drains are evident. Flat areas such as Morro
Flats is suspect of drainage I & I especially when the ground is
saturated.
P�
•
0
0 FISCAL ANALYSIS;
There are over 38 miles, or over 200,000 linear feet, of
sewer mains. Cleaning and bucketing ranges from 20 cents/l.f.
to 27 c/l.f. with root cutting as much as 40 c/l.f. Tv -
monitoring is estimated from 30 c/l.f.. to 50 c/l.f., and smoke
testing about 15 c/l.f.
If the entire system was done for all items the price could
reach about $150,000. It is anticipated that all of the sewer
will be cleaned and only about half will be tv-monitored and
perhaps only 25% smoke tested. The estimate for that work is
about $90,000. The budget includes $250,000. The balance of
funds will carry over into the next budget year's corrective
items. The current sewer fee structure includes I & I work,
future line replacement and expansion, sludge handling, and
future lift station and plant improvement and replacement. The
above work fits into the build -out projection used to establish
the fees.
•
■ INFILTRATION/INFLOW surveys used smoke testing for identification of manhole frame seal inflow sources.
0%-% zo' z'"
ness
:« w sewer Refth=,v%b1"HtaUor_-
WILLIAM
C. CARTER, P.E.
RICHARD J. NOGAJ, P.E.
and
ALAN J. HOLLENBECK, P.E.
Mr. Carter is senior engineer with the
Johnson County Unified Wastewater Dis-
tricts, Johnson County, Kansas. Mr. Nogaj
is president and Mr. Hollenbeck is an as-
sociate with RJN Environmental As-
sociates, Inc., Consulting Engineers,
Wheaton, Illinois.
COMMUNITIES and sewer agen-
cies needing sewer improve-
ments have been reluctant to under-
take major sewer rehabilitation pro-
grams largely due to the cost to quan-
tify the need and the lack of funds -
needed to implement the required
improvements. Also, in many cases
sewer studies have not resulted in on-
going survey and maintenance activi-
ties. That is, the sewer study is not
used as a basis for system manage-
ment.
Johnson County Unified Waste-
water Districts (JCUWD), despite po-
tential difficulties, is proceeding with
sewer improvements in a major
watershed known as Mission Town-
ship Main Sewer District No. 1
(MTMSD). The watershed includes
about 1.3 million linear ft of sewer
line, 17,500 residences, and nine mu-
nicipalities.
Residents- in the MTMSD service
area have experienced sanitary
sewer backups in their basements
and there has been raw wastewater
discharge to receiving streams during
moderate rainfall events for the past
30 years. Construction of about
250,000 linear ft of supplemental relief
sewers and three side stream holding
facilities in the 1960s and a voluntary
downspout disconnection program in
the 1970s did not prevent sewer
backups or the discharge of untreated
wastewater into the receiving
streams. In addition, the connection
and discharge of many of the
downspouts remains unknown.
In an effort to provide improved
sanitary sewer service to JCUWD
customers and to reduce the bypass-
ing of wastewater into the receiving
streams, JCUWD retained RJN En-
vironmental Associates, Inc. to con-
duct an initial sanitary sewer study of
MTMSD No. 1. Project objectives
were established to: identify existing
conditions; develop alternative so-
lutions with cost estimates, and pro-
vide an implementation plan based on
the selected solution. The scope of
work was developed for selected
areas to provide a sound basis for de-
veloping cost estimates for the re-
quired improvements (without having
to initially perform a comprehensive
investigation throughout MTMSD
No. 1.)
Flow Data. Existing sanitary sewer
maps were used for defining sewer
tributary areas or basins. MTMSD
No. 1 was divided into 42 sanitary
sewer basins. After determining
basin boundaries, locations for instal-
•
lation of flow meters and rain gauges
were selected. Flow monitoring was
performed at 45 key loc s
throughout the Mission Towns
trict while rainfall monitorin as
conducted at two locations. Flow
meters and rain gauges were oper-
ated from mid-March 1984 to mid-
June, 1984. The operation of wet
weather holding stations and activity
of sewer bypasses were also
monitored. Flow data were used to
evaluate system behavior and to de-
termine the base wastewater flow
(dry weather/low ground water), infil-
tration (dry weather/high ground
water) and inflow (wet weather/high
grount water) quantities.
Base, infiltration, and inflow rates
were determined from the monitored
data. Initially, inflow rates that would
be generated during a one-year rain-
fall event were determined. Inflow
was estimated by developing a rela-
tionship between inflow and rainfall
intensity with a technique reported by
Hollenbeck and Nogaj.'
Average daily base flow was de-
termined to be 3.6 mgd or about 207
gallons per building per day. The
diurnal variation in base flow rates
resulted in an average measured base
flow peaking factor of 1.52, where the
base flow peaking factor is def s
the ratio of the peak hourly �o
total daily flow. Peak infiltration was
determined to be slightly over 9.8 mgd
or about 2.7 times average base flow.
The unit infiltration rate, based on
64 PUBLIC WORKS for October, 1986
pipe diameter and length in t*ni-
tary sewer system, was 5,700 gallons
per day per inch -diameter mile (gpd/
idm). Peak one-year inflow was de-
termined to be 96.8 mgd or nearly 27
. times the average base flow rate. The
one-year unit inflow rate was 48,800
gpd/idm.
I/I Source Data. To obtain an esti-
mate of the total infiltration and inflow
(I/I) sources within the MTMSD, six of
the 42 basins were selected for inten-
sive investigation. The six selected
basins had high inflow rates, included
several different communities, and
were geographically distributed
throughout the district.
The intensive survey of the six ba-
sins included the following activities:
♦ Manhole and visual pipe inspec-
tions.
♦ Internal and external building
inspections.
♦ Smoke testing.
• Dye water testing of public and
private sector I/I sources.
♦ Television inspection of selected
sewer lines.
A comparison between I/I source
data and monitored flow data was de-
termined. For the purposes of analyz-
ing all of the MTMSD, the relative
proportion of each type of I/I source
identified in the intense study was
applied throughout the entire district.
From the study 22.5 percent of the
infiltration was identified, including
13.9 percent from defective manhole
walls, 1.4 percent from defective pipe
seals, 0.3 percent from defective
bench/troughs, and 6.9 percent from
defective joints and broken pipe. It
was further determined that the pub-
lic sector produced 27.1 percent of the
Table 1 — Distribution of
Inflow Sources
Estimated
1/1 Source
Percent
Source
Inflow
Public Sector Inflow
$100
Manhole Cover/Frames
5.6
Manhole Frame Seals
14.4
Manhole Corbels
7.1
Storm Connections
0.1
Private Sector Inflow
Cracked Pipe Seal
Storm Sumps
1.3
Storm with Diverter Valves
0.1
Combination Sumps
1.5
Unsealed Sumps
0.2
Suspect Storm Sumps
0.9
Downspouts
1.1
Suspect Downspouts
2.1
Foundation Drains
2.1
Suspect Foundation Drains
41.6
ea
0.2
AreaDrains
Area Drains
2.6
Suspect Area Drains
5.1
Transition Joints
0.1
Leaking Service Lateral
0.1
Suspect Leaking Service Lateral
14.0
Table 2 — Typical Rehabilitation and Construction Costs
■ VISUAL inspection of manhole revealed this infiltration source at a pipe seal.
PUBLIC WORKS for October, 1986 65
Rehabilitation
Estimated
1/1 Source
Method
Cost
Ponding Manhole
Replace Manhole Cover
$100
Pick Hole Inflow
Replace Manhole Cover
100
Corbel Leak
Grout Corbel
200
Cracked Manhole Wall
Chisel Cracks and Grout
375
Cracked Pipe Seal
Chisel Cracks and Grout
200
Cracked Bench/Trough
Grout Joint
200
Cracked Frame Seal
Adjust Frame and Seal
360
Storm Connection
Repair as necessary'
7,000-8,000
Direct Storm Sump
Repipe to Grade
800
Direct Storm Sump
Remove Diverter Valve
300
With Diverter
Downspouts
Redirect Downspouts
100
Foundation Drain
Connect New Storm Sump
5,2003
Unsealed Pump
Seal Pump with Concretez
200
Suspect Building
Replace Building Sewer
4,0003
Sewer
Cleanout
Repair as necessary
250
Collapsed Pipe
Replace Pipe (Each
5 it Section)'
4,300-6,000
Building Sewer
Replace Pipe
1,200
Combination Sump
Seal Old Pump/Install
New Sump
1,800
Driveway Drain
Disconnect Drain/Install
Pump
2,200
Transition Joint
Repair as necessary
800
Manhole Frame
Replace Manhole Frame
175
'Unit cost will vary with pipe diameter, number of repairs per line segment, and
required surface restoration.
2Actual recommended repairs will depend on the use of the existing
pump as a storm
sump pump, a sanitary sump
pump, or both.
3Generally not cost-effective to repair.
■ VISUAL inspection of manhole revealed this infiltration source at a pipe seal.
PUBLIC WORKS for October, 1986 65
■ FIGURE 1. Analysis shows Alternative "C" to be most cost-effective.
inflow with the remaining 72.9 per-
cent having its source in the private
sector. The distribution of these in-
flow sources is listed in Table 1.
Analysis
Optimization. Cost-effectiveness
analysis was utilized to estimate the
optimum level of I/I removal for the
purpose of achieving sanitary sewer
system integrity. System integrity is
defined as an operational condition
where sewer backups, overflows, or
bypasses would not occur up to a
specified storm event. The optimum
level of I/I removal would correspond
to the projected least cost alternative.
Elimination, treatment and trans-
port, and new sewer line require-
ments were analyzed at several levels
of infiltration and inflow removal.
Elimination costs were based on the
estimated construction costs to re-
move I/I sources. This would include
removal of sources such as storm
sump pumps, downspouts, and area
drains as well as repairing manhole
frame seals, pipe seals, and sewer
66
lines. Rehabilitation methods and
costs used in this study are shown in
Table 2.
Treatment and transport costs
were based on historical capital, op-
eration, and maintenance costs for
complete treatment and for wet
weather flow, sidestream treatment.
New sewer costs were based on
preliminary relief sewer require-
ments obtained by using the RJN En-
vironmental Sewer System Evalua-
tion Model (SSEM). This model
routes the projected flow byline seg-
ment and compares the line capacity
to the expected peak flow. Where
total flow exceeds line capacity the
model specifies a new sewer line that
is sized to carry the excess flow. Slope
and depth of the new line is assumed
to be the same as the existing line.
Estimated construction cost for the
new sewers is based on depth of ex-
cavation and pipe diameter.
Total present worth for several al-
ternatives was compared based on a
planning period of 20 years at an
interest rate of 8% percent. Construc-
tion cost was converted to capital cost
by using a service and contingency
factor of 27 percent for legal and fiscal
costs, administration, engineering,
and other expenses. Cost es . tes
were based on an ENR inde3W68
as of August, 1984.
The four major alternatives derived
from this study were:
♦ Alternative "A": No rehabilita-
tion of I/I sources; construction of new
sewers; and construction of required
treatment facilities.
Alternative `B": Removal of I/I
sources considered to be cost-
effective; construction of required
new sewers and treatment facilities
for the six intensively studied basins.
♦ Alternative "C": Complete field
studies for all of MTMSD No. 1 to lo-
cate and quantify I/I sources; removal
of I/I sources considered to be cost-
effective; and construction of new
sewers as required.
♦ Alternative "D": Complete field
studies for all of the MTMSD No. 1 to
locate and quantify IR sources; re-
moval of I/I sources generally consid-
ered cost-effective; and removal of all
directly connected foundation drains.
The results of the analysis, as
shown in Figure 1, indicate that alter-
native "C" would be the least -cost ap-
proach.
Design Storm. In separate sanitary
sewer systems, there is a relatigillkip
between inflow and rainfall in
where inflow increasesexponen ly
with storm intensity.' Existing system
analysis and new sewer requirements
depend on a level of design storm pro-
tection; this storm event frequency
must be selected for the analysis and
subsequent final design.
The marginal cost analysis tech-
nique was used to develop the unit
cost for the work necessary to prevent
a surcharge occurrence for flows that
exceed the system design capacity at
a given storm frequency as reported
by Braam and Nogaj.2 Using this
approach a design storm can be
selected. New sewer line, treatment,
and IR rehabilitation costs were esti-
mated with analyses performed at 1-,
2-, 5-, 10-, and 25 -year storm frequen-
cies. Incremental costs were de-
veloped at each of these storm fre-
quency intervals followed by a de-
termination of the unit cost to prevent
surcharge occurrence. These data
are shown graphically in Figure 2.
The results of the marginal costs
analysis indicate that a point of di-
minishing return would be experi-
enced somewhere between e
5 -year and 10 -year storm prot
level and that the design freq
should be between these two points.
The 5 -year storm protection level
would result in, on the average, a
backup occurrence twice every 10
PUBLIC WORKS for October, 1986
5 -YEAR STORM INFLOW (MGD)
70.0 0
26 52 78 104 130 156
LEGEND
\ ACTUAL DATA
\ -----PROJECTED COST BASED
\\\\
60.0
ON PHASE I INTENSIVE
\\ SURVEY DATA
\ \ ALTERNATIVE D
50.0
\\� TOTAL COSTS
\\
c~n
\
a
J
40.0
\\\\ ALTERNATIVE A
3
\\\\
ALTERNATIVE B
Z
\ \ (LIMIT OF REHAB
F- O
\\\ W/ EXISTING DATA)
\
w 1
30.0
\
ct
CL
0 ALTERNATIVE C
9
REHABILITATION
02Q0
& SURVEY COSTS
\\ COST-EFFECTIVE
\ POINT /
10'0
NEW SEWER TREATMENT
COSTS COSTS
100
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
PERCENT REDUCTION OF FLOW
BY REHABILITATION
■ FIGURE 1. Analysis shows Alternative "C" to be most cost-effective.
inflow with the remaining 72.9 per-
cent having its source in the private
sector. The distribution of these in-
flow sources is listed in Table 1.
Analysis
Optimization. Cost-effectiveness
analysis was utilized to estimate the
optimum level of I/I removal for the
purpose of achieving sanitary sewer
system integrity. System integrity is
defined as an operational condition
where sewer backups, overflows, or
bypasses would not occur up to a
specified storm event. The optimum
level of I/I removal would correspond
to the projected least cost alternative.
Elimination, treatment and trans-
port, and new sewer line require-
ments were analyzed at several levels
of infiltration and inflow removal.
Elimination costs were based on the
estimated construction costs to re-
move I/I sources. This would include
removal of sources such as storm
sump pumps, downspouts, and area
drains as well as repairing manhole
frame seals, pipe seals, and sewer
66
lines. Rehabilitation methods and
costs used in this study are shown in
Table 2.
Treatment and transport costs
were based on historical capital, op-
eration, and maintenance costs for
complete treatment and for wet
weather flow, sidestream treatment.
New sewer costs were based on
preliminary relief sewer require-
ments obtained by using the RJN En-
vironmental Sewer System Evalua-
tion Model (SSEM). This model
routes the projected flow byline seg-
ment and compares the line capacity
to the expected peak flow. Where
total flow exceeds line capacity the
model specifies a new sewer line that
is sized to carry the excess flow. Slope
and depth of the new line is assumed
to be the same as the existing line.
Estimated construction cost for the
new sewers is based on depth of ex-
cavation and pipe diameter.
Total present worth for several al-
ternatives was compared based on a
planning period of 20 years at an
interest rate of 8% percent. Construc-
tion cost was converted to capital cost
by using a service and contingency
factor of 27 percent for legal and fiscal
costs, administration, engineering,
and other expenses. Cost es . tes
were based on an ENR inde3W68
as of August, 1984.
The four major alternatives derived
from this study were:
♦ Alternative "A": No rehabilita-
tion of I/I sources; construction of new
sewers; and construction of required
treatment facilities.
Alternative `B": Removal of I/I
sources considered to be cost-
effective; construction of required
new sewers and treatment facilities
for the six intensively studied basins.
♦ Alternative "C": Complete field
studies for all of MTMSD No. 1 to lo-
cate and quantify I/I sources; removal
of I/I sources considered to be cost-
effective; and construction of new
sewers as required.
♦ Alternative "D": Complete field
studies for all of the MTMSD No. 1 to
locate and quantify IR sources; re-
moval of I/I sources generally consid-
ered cost-effective; and removal of all
directly connected foundation drains.
The results of the analysis, as
shown in Figure 1, indicate that alter-
native "C" would be the least -cost ap-
proach.
Design Storm. In separate sanitary
sewer systems, there is a relatigillkip
between inflow and rainfall in
where inflow increasesexponen ly
with storm intensity.' Existing system
analysis and new sewer requirements
depend on a level of design storm pro-
tection; this storm event frequency
must be selected for the analysis and
subsequent final design.
The marginal cost analysis tech-
nique was used to develop the unit
cost for the work necessary to prevent
a surcharge occurrence for flows that
exceed the system design capacity at
a given storm frequency as reported
by Braam and Nogaj.2 Using this
approach a design storm can be
selected. New sewer line, treatment,
and IR rehabilitation costs were esti-
mated with analyses performed at 1-,
2-, 5-, 10-, and 25 -year storm frequen-
cies. Incremental costs were de-
veloped at each of these storm fre-
quency intervals followed by a de-
termination of the unit cost to prevent
surcharge occurrence. These data
are shown graphically in Figure 2.
The results of the marginal costs
analysis indicate that a point of di-
minishing return would be experi-
enced somewhere between e
5 -year and 10 -year storm prot
level and that the design freq
should be between these two points.
The 5 -year storm protection level
would result in, on the average, a
backup occurrence twice every 10
PUBLIC WORKS for October, 1986
•
I—]
•
years (a 20 percent probability
given year) while the 10 -year storm
level would result in a backup once
every 10 years (a 10 percent probabil-
ity in any given year).
For cost-effective private sector
and public sector improvements fi-
nanced over 20 years, a typical
homeowner cost based on an average
assessed property evaluation would
be $55.80 per year for 5 -year protec-
tion and $68.30 per year for 10 -year
protection. Based on the computer
modeling and survey work the esti-
mated public and private sector capi-
tal cost for 5 -year protection was $15.3
million (or a unit cost of $0.098 million
to prevent a surcharge occurrence);
for the 10 -year protection the esti-
mated cost was $18.7 million (or $0.46
million to prevent a surcharge occur-
rence).
The breakdown of work for the 10 -
year protection program included
nearly $1.3 million for the remaining
survey work in the district, $2.5 mil-
lion for infiltration elimination, $3.1
million for inflow removal in the pub-
lic sector, nearly $3 million for inflow
removal in the private sector, and
over $8.8 million for new sewer lines.
Treatment of the remaining UI could
be handled by the existing treatment
facilities.
Phasing Schedule. The initial idea
toward phasing of the sewer system
survey, design, and rehabilitation ac-
tivities was based on the magnitude of
the unit inflow rate determined for
each basin. However, performing
work in this manner would result
in having the work "scattered"
throughout the district during any
given phase. This could result in both
higher administrative and construc-
tion costs. Further, basins with high
unit inflow rates would not necessar-
ily correlate with the areas where
there were known sewer backups.
Sewer capacity relative to actual
flows must therefore be considered
when evaluating the potential for
backup reduction.
The phasing is based on a combina-
tion of watershed location, unit inflow
rate, and the history of sewer
backups. This recommended phasing
approach will generally concentrate
the survey and construction activities
in the same geographical areas thus
lowering construction and adminis-
trative costs. Work will generally be
phased according to the watershed
thereby producing measurable im-
■ FIGURE 2. The relationship of cost for protection and design storm.
PUBLIC WORKS for October, 1986
provements early in the program.
Perimeter basins will be completed
first so that these basins will not be
subject to upstream tributary areas
that could overload areas of rehabili-
tation and new sewers.
Completion of the work by water-
shed allows for early evaluation of the
program. It is estimated that each
phase will take about two years to
complete. Survey and design will
proceed concurrently in one phase
while construction and rehabilitation
is being conducted for those basins
included in a previous phase. The
type of sewer rehabilitation is antici-
pated to be the same in all phases in-
cluding public and private sector
work. The types of public sector re-
habilitation will include manhole re-
pair, sewer line repairs and grouting,
relief sewers, cross -connection re-
movals, and in-place lining of sewers.
Conclusions
The "project approach" used in the
Mission District study can be applied
to provide information for determin-
ing the total cost of proceeding with
survey, design, and construction ac-
tivities. This enables planners to
evaluate the work based on economic
feasibility. In addition, the level of
protection against peak flow during
wet weather conditions can be
selected from the partial survey data.
The grouping of the work by geo-
graphical areas allows an early evalu-
ation of the program and helps control
construction costs and area construc-
tion activity. The Mission District
study indicates that system flow
monitoring and selective survey in-
vestigation can achieve the following:
♦ Provide cost-effective evaluation
of sewer rehabilitation alternatives.
♦ Project the total system rehabili-
tation cost.
♦ Develop a rationale for the selec-
tion of a storm design level of protec-
tion.
♦ Determine a phasing schedule
for implementation of a selected so-
lution. E300
Acknowledgment. Data used in this
study were obtained during the sewer sur-
vey conducted by RJN Environmental and
funded by the Johnson County Unified
Wastewater Districts. This article is based
on a paper presented at the Water Pollu-
tion Control Federation Conference held
in Kansas City, Missouri, October 1985.
References
1. "One Technique for Estimating Inflow
with Surcharge Conditions." Richard J.
Nogaj and Alan J. Hollenbeck, Journal
WPCF, April 1981.
2. "Selection of Optimum Storm Fre-
quency for Sewer Studies." Richard J.
Nogaj and George A. Braam, Journal
WPCF, October 1982.
67
1400
25 -YEAR STORM
1300--
30012001100
1200--
1100
W
Z
1000
W
2
n
900
o_
W y
600
c¢� a
_ „Jj
700.-
0
N Z
600
a
y
10 -YEAR STORM
Z
500
W=
W
"
400--
Q.
F
300
y
U
200-
5 -YEAR STORM
100 t
2 -YEAR STORM
0
0
10 20 30 40
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH
(MILLION DOLLARS)
PUBLIC WORKS for October, 1986
provements early in the program.
Perimeter basins will be completed
first so that these basins will not be
subject to upstream tributary areas
that could overload areas of rehabili-
tation and new sewers.
Completion of the work by water-
shed allows for early evaluation of the
program. It is estimated that each
phase will take about two years to
complete. Survey and design will
proceed concurrently in one phase
while construction and rehabilitation
is being conducted for those basins
included in a previous phase. The
type of sewer rehabilitation is antici-
pated to be the same in all phases in-
cluding public and private sector
work. The types of public sector re-
habilitation will include manhole re-
pair, sewer line repairs and grouting,
relief sewers, cross -connection re-
movals, and in-place lining of sewers.
Conclusions
The "project approach" used in the
Mission District study can be applied
to provide information for determin-
ing the total cost of proceeding with
survey, design, and construction ac-
tivities. This enables planners to
evaluate the work based on economic
feasibility. In addition, the level of
protection against peak flow during
wet weather conditions can be
selected from the partial survey data.
The grouping of the work by geo-
graphical areas allows an early evalu-
ation of the program and helps control
construction costs and area construc-
tion activity. The Mission District
study indicates that system flow
monitoring and selective survey in-
vestigation can achieve the following:
♦ Provide cost-effective evaluation
of sewer rehabilitation alternatives.
♦ Project the total system rehabili-
tation cost.
♦ Develop a rationale for the selec-
tion of a storm design level of protec-
tion.
♦ Determine a phasing schedule
for implementation of a selected so-
lution. E300
Acknowledgment. Data used in this
study were obtained during the sewer sur-
vey conducted by RJN Environmental and
funded by the Johnson County Unified
Wastewater Districts. This article is based
on a paper presented at the Water Pollu-
tion Control Federation Conference held
in Kansas City, Missouri, October 1985.
References
1. "One Technique for Estimating Inflow
with Surcharge Conditions." Richard J.
Nogaj and Alan J. Hollenbeck, Journal
WPCF, April 1981.
2. "Selection of Optimum Storm Fre-
quency for Sewer Studies." Richard J.
Nogaj and George A. Braam, Journal
WPCF, October 1982.
67
N"3 - AG7kM:)A
F2' S 110,kZ '41-1 EkA #
0 MEMORANDUM
TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS-ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
THROUGH: MICHAEL SHELTON, CITY MANAGER ,
FROM: PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKSICITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: INTERPRETATION OF RESOLUTION 20-84 AND APPEAL OF
SANITATION FEES - CASA CAMINO APARTMENTS/DON MESSER
RECOMMENDATION:
.w r.
s:
Staff recommends that the Board support the payment of sewer
annexation fees and sewer charges now in effect.
BACKGROUND:
July 1, 1986 was the effective date of the sewer ordinance update
with respect to fees. The above project has proceeded with two phases
of 48 units and 52 units. The initial 48 units was applied for under
the old fee structure, but the 52 units filed for a permit after July
1,. 1986. Staff is charging fees for this second phase based on
current fees.
The developer has cited Resolution 20-84 (attached) which reads
in part "...payment of all connection and extension fees...". Staff
has interpreted this to mean the fees and charges in effect at the
time of connection. Mr. Messer and his attorney (letter attached)
disagree with this position and are asking for relief under sanitation
code section 12.3 (copy attached).
DISCUSSION:
Due to treatment plant problems prior to the opening of the new
plant, the District included in the annexation resolutions of the
south side of town language that would add $70 per unit to apartments
constructed in this area. This fee was to be added to the normal
annexation fee which is not specified by a dollar figure.
The revised fee schedule eliminated the special $70 per unit and
incorporated that fee into the new charges. Certain provisions
regarding on-site lift stations are conditioned during the map filing
process.
Mr. Lewis' letter (attorney) claims that Precise Plan 11-84 for
this project is protected by Map Act section 66498.1 which addresses
vested rights. Section 66452(c) states that a map so considered
shall include the words "Vesting Tenative Map." Section 66498.1(e), a
• 1986 ammendment says that the local agency may impose reasonable
conditions on subsequent required approvals or permits necessary for
the development.
0
0
In October of 1986 Mr. Messer filed
supercedes the previous Precise Plan 11-84. As
of the Tract Map the Applicant was conditioned
fees in force at the time of recordation
construction of additional units." A copy
Condition of Approval #3 are attached.
Tract Map 1389 whiO
a Condition of Approval
to "pay all appropriate
of the final map or
of the Tract Map and
Staff's position is that the resolution gave the right to annex
based upon fees in effect at the" time of application for sewer
service.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The old fee was $725 per unit plus $70 per unit, or $795 per unit
times 52, or a total of $41,340. The new fees and charges are $1123
for annexation plus $533 per unit for the connection fee, or $1656 per
unit, or a total of $86,112. The loss to the sewer facilities sinking
fund for capital improvements if the old fee is allowed would be
$44,772. It is pointed out here that this and other developments
anticipated after July 1, 1986 were used in the calculation of the
current fees and that future improvements and expansions will rely on
the collection of those fees.
It should be noted that the unit costs quoted above are for
apartment units. If these units are converted to condominiums th�
is an additional $123 per unit.
GLEN A. LEWIS
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
5275 EL CAMINO REAL
POST OFFICE BOX 1980
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423
TELEPHONE (805) 466-6644
April 21, 1987
Paul Sensibaugh
Public Works Director
City of Atascadero
City Administration Building
Atascadero, CA 93422
RE: CASA CAMINO APARTMENTS/DONALD MESSER
Dear Mr. Sensibaugh:
This law office has been contacted by Mr. Donald Messer with
reference to the proposed fees to be charged for the erection of
Phase III of the 140 -Unit Casa Camino Apartment Project. In
reviewing the documentation supplied to me, more particularly the
precise Plan 11-84 Approval and Resolution Number 20-84, it is
clear that this particular project comes under the vested right
theory under Government Code Section 66498.1.
In reviewing Resolution Number 20-84, Subpart 1 (a) through
(c), it is clear that the only additional fees to be charged the
project developer would be $70.00 per residential unit as stated
in item 1(b). No other fees are recited in the Resolution Number
20-84. With reference to the precise Plan 11-84, the conditions
stated in that precise plan will be met by my clients.
Except for the additional fees of $70.00 per residential
unit and the other conditions in the original precise Plan 11-84
presented to the developer as of July 9, 1984, Government Code
Section 66498.1 prevents the City of Atascadero or any subagency
of the City from imposing any additional fees.
Please have this letter presented to the City Council and
City Attorney with reference to an application being presently
processed on behalf of Don Messer Construction.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
. GRL:rg GLEN R. LEWIS
D& MESSER CONSTRU*70N
CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. 294114
7450 MORRO ROAD
P. O. BOX 1958
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423
PHONE (805) 466-0549
Paul Sensibaugh
Public Works Director
Atascadero, CA 93422
RE: Casa Camino Fees
April 14, 1987
Dear Paul,
I have reviewed the precise plan approval and resolution I 20-84, the
Sewer District extension agreement for the entire 140 unit Casa Camino
project in order to understand how the city can increase our sewer fees.
It appears clear to me that we have an approved project (all 140 units)
and have agreed in advance to what the fees will be. Item # 1B of re-
solution 20-84 is very specific as to the amount $70.00 and for future
cost of upgrading the local sewer collection system. Condition lA
clearly refers to the existing fees and has no reference to future fees
since the next item 1B addresses future cost of improvements.
Our group has invested a considerable amount of time and money into im-
provements related to the development of Phase III:
1. Sewer lift pump and collection system
2. Access roads
3 Frontage road improvements
4. Swimming pool
5. Parking
6. Engineering
7. P G & E Service
All of these improvements and expenses were sized in order to accomodate
Phase III (52 units). Had we not had an agreement that assured our ability
both physically and economically to build Phase III we would not have in-
curred as much expense. We feel we have a vested interest in this project
and that the prior approval has properly addressed the future fees with
item 1B.
INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
Condition 1C also addresses future systems by requiring us to design our
system to minimize pumping during peak -flows. I thought we had met your
requirements for Phase III, but now I understand we may have to install
holding tanks for Phase III. We will co-operate with the city in this
regard, but the additional sewer fees were not planned for and could
destroy the project after all our efforts and expenses.
I have asked Glen Lewis attorney to better explain our position for the
benefit of the city attorney.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Dcn Messer
C7
RESOLUTION NO. 20-84
3- 1 EAA� �
A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICT APPROVING EXTENSION OF SEWER SERVICE OUTSIDE THE
BOUNDARIES OF IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND ESTABLISHING
CONDITIONS FOR -APPROVAL OF SAID EXTENSION FOR APN #45-320-01
WHEREAS, Allen Grimes,.Tom McNamara, Bill McNamara, Stan Cherry, Gayle
Sharp and Dennis Bethel own the property described in Exhibits A and B, as
attached to this Resolution, and;
WHEREAS, the property owner wishes to connect to an existing sewer main
in E1 Camino Real, fronting said property, and;
WHEREAS, the property described in Exhibits A and B is not within the
limits of Improvement District No. 1, and;
WHEREAS, an engineered study of the effect of adding this property to
the sewer system has been submitted, reviewed and approved by the Public
Works Director, and;
WHEREAS, said study indicates the future necessity of improvements to
the local sewer collection system, with the cost of these improvements pro-
rated equally to new connections outside Improvement District No. 1, and;
11 WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the Sanitation District to provide
sewer service to residential development in this area of the City.
Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved by the Board of Directors of the Atascadero
County Sanitation District, as follows:
1 - That the property owned by Allen Grimes, Tom McNamara, Bill McNamara,
Stan Cherry, Gayle Sharp and Dennis Bethel, as described in Exhibits A and B
is approved for extension of sewer service subject to the following conditions:
a - Payment of all connection and extension fees as provided in the
Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code.
b - Payment of an additional $70.00 per residential unit, such payment
to be in consideration of the future cost of upgrading the local
sewer collection system.
c - Any on-site sewer lift or pump station must be designed and
constructed to eliminate pumping into the collection system during
periods of peak sewer flows. The system must be designed by a
Civil Engineer registered in the State of California, and approved
by the City Engineer. Said on-site pump station shall have pro-
visions for monitoring, by District employees to determine pumping
time utilized.
•
0
r
d - Obtaining all necessary plumbing and street encroachment permits.
On motion by Director Molina and seconded by Director Wilkins
the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following
vote:
AYES: Director Wilkins, Molina, Nelson, Stover and Mackey
NOES: None
ADOPTED: April 23, 1984
ATTEST:
�R
7MUR Y L./1�10
EN, Secretary MARJORI R. MACKEY,.Chairman
PROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FOR
UR Y L. ARDEN, City Manager
40
ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney
01
Exhibit B
Legal Description
Lot 9 in Block 7 of Eaglet No. 2, according to the Map
of Mitchell's Re -subdivision of Rancho Atascadero, as
per map recorded January 1, 1920, in Book 2, Page 39
of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of San
Luis Obispo County.
�i
r
Z :
EX PI I U IT I, 7PWC - Mtt
TEXJPM V>✓ 7V AfF M Af 6,
10705 EZ C" I UD fZLM
Or, A- Cii>'A IUV 'FE LU
l,[Ill _f )N 1IT i7LZlIN-11MV14 i
0 0
Tentative Tract Map 6-86 (Casa Camino/Dennis Bethel)
Is EXHIBIT D - Tentative Tract Map 6-86
Findings for Approval
October 6, 1986
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and Restric-
tions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control of nuisances
and architectural constrol for all buildings.
a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval by the
City Attorney and Community Development Department prior to
approval of the final map.
b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by a Condominium Homeowners
Association.
2. Submit a soils report or engineer's certification that existing
soils on the site are adequate to support proposed structures per
Chapter 70, subsection (e) of the Uniform Building Code.
3 The applicant shall pay all appropriate fees in force at the time
of recordation of the final map or construction of additional
units. This shall include the difference between the fees for
apartments and single family residences.
4. All requirements of state law (Subdivision Map Act) concerning the
conversion of occupied residential units to air -space condominiums
shall be complied with.
5. All conditions of approval herein specified are to be complied
with prior to the filing of the final map.
6. A final map, in compliance with all conditions set forth herein,
shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the
Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to
recordation.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created
and a registered civil .engineer or licensed land surveyor
shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners
have been set or shall be set by a date specific and that
they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit-
ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
7. Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted
pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date.
4 i2
Consolidated Ord •
0
12.3 Relief: Any person, who by reason of special circumstances
•believes that the application of any of the provisions of this
' Ordinance Code to him is unjust or inequitable, may make written
application to the Board of Directors for relief therefrom. Said
application shall set forth all of the special facts and circumstances
and shall request the specific relief or modification desired. The
Board of Directors upon receipt of such application and after such
investigation as deemed necessary may take action to grant such relief
or modification as it finds necessary. The Board of Directors, on its
own motion and without application, may, when special circumstances
make the application of any of the provisions of this Ordinance Code
unjust or inequitable, modify or suspend the rules and regulations for
the period during which the special circumstances exist y
•
•
iD 3 972 m m w a= 3? d v+ n n o, ,
7 7 d A =, O< n0 070 00 O70 - (p S. C A p rD R-' �< 7 �p "• 7 7
_ a O "• a p: pp O '^. d c7D (7D (7D n m" S (7D 7 Fa r- 0 3 c m �, °.w O_ w c C c n• C•� •� c w
° a'0 < ;+ 3 o w m m m a'D m m •* o m 3a7o ?^ o m- 3° 3 o —m - 3
(D n (D a•v ° S7 TfD ° o c3D >_> j_-^� m S A m Z m t
S Q. (3D 3 •�••. (D O_ m O �.^ n< O A c m C 7' ,n -. IE
a m 7 w 0-0 7 0 n w O 7 3 wi m C �^ n °' w =^� c00 0 1
w 00 �< �, c 0 y 0 c S <_. m 7 w a a w 7' 7 T< .. » a
a j a < A S Z C9 v p v O z 7 4• �: 7 p 7 p 7? 7 << o c- (D (D < f9 <
�.n7--m .n S D(SD 7m�ms(R m aN D n'v .O-.< wmQ- 3 mm O°Nm tA
- m c cam, 7 a O D �+ 3 =o ru ?m c ,�O o y 3 °:.»a•-^. ° (u (D c O 3 o m w m c n
0o_a- a R, �, o �_ canon nuc a0 m 7m co 3�na-,-. .,7 <= o c
< <^a a _� m n� cr 7 0mm O m IDS oovOQm
H 7ru eb
Joao (<D °< d :� d 0' -0 7 0 �7 < C =r :3 +A (aD (D 7 0 c ?�+� �� � 0 m (7D ;u O C
A`^. C7 a �'� o a 7 a o 0 o woo �'< ° w0° na7a 0 tA 3 <'T� %M '` c
<^ w ? iD3=w3 7o—fDwo� <—r0 7 Mmm 7 r, ��D 0
O n N <-0 700 w n ^ o 0 33D c n 0� =' � w ° <' < M Q' O D o w m 7 m 0 (�D w S O a
0 O a O :r 7 m v+ 7 -1 7
7 7 3 7''O 3 .�. A a m = '^ 7 7- r, 3 ;Y . O_ :: -^ -° S m d '' �' � C. ••+. - 7 o ao
(D a, -p pi S .�. O m 00 O p- (D O 3 j m in n' �' = "p m Q- O a o< 0-� oc 7 c T z O m
o �+ a 7 Nw �a�7c p, (D7 m v m 3< 3 n,m<7(oo
°� V 7 n (<D w O_ .' j w m p mt �R,G 00•?m 07o d3 c m j ., y Tums m a-� °-''<.7 p 00
< , n 0 4, ., <; A W co m -0 n S °' _^ 7 it 7 3 v, ..< z 7 '* ID = m m (-D " O
/o m 7 m fD w a 3 3 m< m 3 ID » 7 •• m (D m m o o m -.. 3 n ?
m'�'i�o aO'3 v7 p �„o`�vp=r��`���oo� mwMow<- a � •o �s�^^cif° v
C.=SA 7 ar ^ 3 7 7 �-. p -+� c N _ N 0- w . O S 7 ,,. H p,
p' O a-- 0 11 'o , C m =_c a N p.0 C 7 .0 3 T o� c 7 °-7 ��7 �� (nD m aao 3 sn a' K
° < a �� 3 c z 7^rnm 3 3 c �'^ -m ,� g Q -o —on O_m rmo ° c n —O W, =0. 3 ,
M mNt .t c w m m ,n d o O �• A 7 (D -- " C ,-. O: �. o �_ -° m m C n<< ..4:......
" l<D O 0 �. lD 0 w 0 a �.a G C? m'^ 3 a_ y m 7 0- w= O O T.070, o W r.�< 7" 7 N w A O. ..
�'' a°'a .�'. _t rrt 0 p v, a 3 m j ?� _ �`< O .+m �m S 7 c w �q 3� A ^ "-
-� „� _ •- S �p '� -� a c (D (D A 7 00• m o l O -w m m �: m z" '^ c O. a T
O a(IQ K a CD t0 D O� w w 7 O o0 7 �n 00 "' -^ (D O w ((D m <' O 7 ;; 0 7 7 m
��7Ta A dQ v OA�O��-,M m0 =m 00 om �^w op <m- �� ocDaC n
A..� .* .S► `c —v$�^�mm� ^3m n 33�- a6� n <7 OA_n O
° 0 �,0 � vn C-'"� sc � o °:070 ° ' � 3 0 `,�° gu -0 c i n " '^ o 7 > ��e O
0
7 'O < K ^ 7 tn' S m o < w .. �< (D < O < c z .+ �< 7 .r O 0 .� FA
7-p,0r, Sn m� �N c mO.n.(nS �v� *m :m?<o° a 'rig^ <� (9
O An [nD a fD N w dC c p c C n'c m° „7 ASO m O n fl S ; (D a O.�
M A;^ 0 m N z< �•�� O� 0 a3 O (p A O O O am Q �0 w 7 m m O 0 7n
7 c 01 A O a 3 7 .+ C ^�'• n 3 .+ = r. ,,,' °= T .' m 'fl C
v� m 3.070 "(aD H D 7• (D o `7 w r:-•aG =^ N ' .moi. N (SD (?D p' ,a•. (SD N a 0 p7-' N (-Di N 7 ? f
j
o (D M O a o o m ON S O X Cy% �' S C p' a to Q. to to a ° a -� �n -.
3a. � 7��37�o-?mom 7- �, 3mcu rD DA, °' °' n`D,� c� ° ma 3 °ro aa73
cND Z w o- - R. a 7 c a m (ND a+ wt° O n w' < a^ O. _^ `�° cx �, o O -. O—o -° (D m 3 O v m
rD
m ? 7 N < 700 o'cm 7 4� (D R <; < O �+ O O < (` d -O O< a. d v m a (j orD
00 C S O 7 S m n O d m A CG W 3 Q �^. m N 4 Oi (D ^ O m d <
O (D n (D m o. < 7 m M S (D 7- 7. 0-0 0 a, m �, ? - 0- (' O < cL S a+ o Pi ar70 m Z a ^ v,
Q (D 7- A < w vi 7. 0--n< �• 7 (D 177 ,,,� ° o0 7 -., � O d rD < O -0 m m a- m a O �, c
y < 5• rD -0 p' (D 3 n' 7 �' v,' A Q " ^ o °i Q A ;� Q n0 ,��, ._'' Q. 7 �. n O n - 3• .. 0-
w 3 S 7 O 7_ S m (D (D 7> m ryp < Co y n m 3 O p 0 C S r.
A� _Q o D -Q. �+ j -m T�� -0 -< +' p - ((DD .n+ .gyp w j 7 y ^vy ^� CO m S'' S 7 ?3 (D w S �j
7 �' 3 � 0 3 a a 3'0 ?(�='c�a °. �� �•Q� 3'�' n oa �CD o Z-.(� 3 ° ° a o -'°0
0 cmc �A 7 m o0 7 m m N 7 (<D C �• m 7 Q" m N oo m H m (3D Qa >> (SD 0 0 7 a- o 7 n
O oo A 7 p Q _. O� < A 7? (D (7 , 3^ .0i^. 0 7 7 7 0 < n ^ O
0.�� A Qw y r. �.� < = _O- 7 MCL O y 0'`' m O °: (DC > > <z 7"v,-0 ° '� O ?'� lD 3
- "6 7 7 0_ 7" 7 m w 3< a a Q= -° L -A ' -O °: 7_ Q C- " m n d o m w <-0
<5.o
r) -on
mo�w(om33'Mm = r) Curpo' .m^.°:rDaM.A a�0- 0 �'�?'ma 0c �o
A) w T m?�+ O y p ^00 n � m 7- O o 0 0 3 aQa a c m o� w' p c 7 d j'f71
Q N O 7 a O 7 7 7 O 00 O n= -0 (nD 0 7 7 w G 0 'aa -0 o' G 0 < d 7 - S n 0 <' oo m
y, 0 7-1 rD -+• in m-. O j v7i -• H ~ (p I n Q� O a O- l 7 C d O S H• .�° O ,n.
co O_ Nw �'d7•< o G �„ M a (D _?(D w< 7 y 7 m
O 7 o a, n_ n_ oo M O ''. (D 0< 7 rn O j A Q, O' �+• `^ rD ID �. a N O 7 7
w 3 `^• A w O o• 0 S C O v_7i (<D n T. � � w Zz-n' a °i N � � (CD CU O. w (ND ((b � -. 7 S (<D R C 0 S � `� < fD
S W, to 7 7 a " G 3 �i (��D 7' 7 ti (D' a (<D °' D 0- ^ 4 3 v_, 4 `� �. 0ru
' d d (° ? (D o
c'w <'. 7 n 7� w 7'(D A w �� 3 <O o 3.w X070 ^ p'in M (D a O
(^D a� •o (o �"„— O ao a<� o =� 7 M c yQ�ao a H Qm >> rn. a o 7 n 3 O w.
L+ a- Q m 7+ .•: y m T n (D (D CU w Q_ - Q. m n �,• 7
p: < w p N (D 7 (<D 0' ^ m m 7". p' 7• v, 7 �.-p (D " m "' -a O -o 0 7 Q a 7 R a_+ n
m 0 p' w O 7 S 7 p 7 <' �_ 0 G, w 7 •p 7 Cu Q' O 0 O n a ? w x m 7 w -0
0-0
vmi
Q OO O O n °O ` a n n o O A �' 4 a °: O a Q -4 C u, < p s <' ((DD 0 - m
7 ° cD z m3o-=rm<ren,3' � � :$o<S� ko m'°�o0m — m o os o_7 pO
(3D m w (D cn Cu w inn (D d j 'wp ,a. Obi Q 0,, .a m 0 O 0' > �;, z Q In = 3 - O C. m m n <
C .7-. n 7 (D -0 7 w- O _. -,. �. .. w O= �+ A p n m. a v. `G m r.
O O_ r^, p 00 < n 7 7 0 (<D 0 0 7 3 C m. G O ,n. m 3 a
a 3 (� o 00 Onaaa Q _ o� 33 0m.
?� p n j< 7 y am O^ w O j (rD 3DB n on d p CD O O 7 CTw N d A A
3 rn�• _. o
o s� m c a, O_� 7 ac z w a7 c 11 o �' .3 _ O (� m -• 0 7 a
7 0 M. 3�� m 0 3 0' 3 j' � H S� d� `^. 7 O• n. H• C n �' w S S p' p' 7 e, to
(D_ S d fl' P, }' (<D O m. (D'0 j n n 3 c j _4 7 m 3 ,•.• v,
w v' 0 7 �+ 7 7 D -I m ? m? ,��, 7 ,� O :^ m O N o °' �' a p.' 0 o O, O a
w .' ani _rn 3 m 7 -" 7
o ^ o + va w 070 070 N (SD 04 00 < fD 0 o 0O SS 0 A+ 0
m m .< ,
N
co
I
0
a c o _o ° ^.3 3 w a L :M3 a ��.�Q a� 0 3 ao� s
=Iy<r;- cw �°�°�°Ou,3 r;�wv'wOa �•n� w Qvm-4mO3•a w - . a
M I ^aa. � rno'^ ?rw�o o w- n To O N°� ° p v,QW -0 YnTo O o� o CD< c N o a 5� --1 0
m a M _ m< � co < S—,
o •n `^ `^ �.fD a 03 a+'O c y iv 3 a3 O w p� S ""'n• w,�•0 N m -<T
yID ^c �nO�(D IDmS�'cor) �Mc ary6mC NMa-I Sco�o ID r* �0= v am �m 3w
c a- o< a „m < n c S-0 n w q ;�
a� r?o 3 �? z aro o ��, � a, N3 �'� o ao Q° w o w n a� n
co o C7 0 on+ a O S °-' a s �* M s' a n a m ':D3 o f° v' �.� m a M
<w °� °-'� �o�QO�mn -°��o (D Er o ^o �'�o r'fm F)' =Y, N=Y,- CL �0
ai - 3'� r+_:O :» O y vO w oo w Nou 0 o o0 0- o ao S t o- p' 0 a O
M O S- 0' n c C v N O ^ a a n c 0 < m 0-0 co M 0 M
�+ n ° y a 3 m -O 3 a 7 a 2 ° -,, p' n 0 O- ] N m m f1 ,� na '< <n a �D a c a (D 3 rn
d o w O O c Sn c�D n o CD 0p= w � � O� w � > > �� o- ° c c � rnm � iD� (� c3o ",° O
a' ° °'0 n=_� na = m m oa ° m m °•° m m m-<� o �O ° rnv{'," w a SCR O Q s- n
a cO-0 w O 0 a O o �• c n O TCD.: O c n a0 4 CO FD•w Baca o'�O n C ma aS
n� °i �__� 0 nw O O n< x o O c ^ o m ��0 N O �a?� as W 0. ..
S a •, 3' C 0 c : o 0 v C a S
° N n a D n n• fD1 O 00 N. H o•a.,, M R 7 (SD M N m m .'v 7 n Q"O ,Y W `^ > l0 C y n O .a+
cm °S��woOpKp+'m°(i_��MC_° _+��'� �Qfl'0�<00_O 0-p, M �w-0 3 �na- o
_a _ -
p 7S a0�.•'�ao�ca� �,mcc OwMs m��_^.TO00 n�0 >v>> fD r.OSO of a
� -° n c .< [D N M a O. M a c o rn c -0 -0 3 m o �' m a d C R a <. �, n
O O+ n"a vc+ � - S -p fD N 3 n n w' M 7 n �'. 6 M n m m m O w A' n. c 3 ° v, 7 'C
-"� p m m �pnO
ON N Op �� n M'° 0 Q 0 a ,p j? �, !D �'<M �aSO 3M M c W j w O- a
pi �-O.O a R �m O 7 o 3 (D_SST = �'�� aw �n O Sw >. Pia -4 o �
aw °'°3�03Smw��_ �0Ma�a �=r �o°aco ���T ��n' Kpw< i j How su
��
0Do nvv aN��3w mSn.O 3Mwo a��o wmm� an CL nM man O y
pni .n. O O y OM -0= caD 6- ° N °' °' mac, a 0 m vc, 7 W ,n, vc, = pi O (D " j K m O Q. co
A j a' 3
0 'u
�� wm�wc MMwM°� �3:3 �o �N�n nc3oO� aaaoa�c m3A c 0
°i O'3 S _ r.� am ui� O O .� -_o cv
3 O a Q_ -< w S 0 0 3, (<D n Oj 0 O y w su
�n a n0 �n. y. ». in * H a O ' O Q 3
pm �c3o^cMo?ac'—mTjm °--' xo �x3° o'��° yaa ��M �•mci 3n w �
M a C O �: _= a S ,••. c ,-. C M I n c a R w^ O_' " A
3 93 -00 D'QOm �on3. onm� 3, fD n �m �om� a �o Qo
ON [3D w 6ar3D aCO a N ^.v C =� n^ �O>' n 7 o n M 30 °n. S p '^ p
m 7 M �CD m F). 0- �o vc 3 n<ao O N �' O O 41w O aw o o m °' O n' 3 m tND vc
�00� On0 w 3-0 Off+ 0 < ° �,. Off+ aa' 00 �p,O�NO p3 ---Lw
pj0
a a n c SCQ 7 7 CO0-
'p S^ S O 0 ,`G„ 7"6 A w a 7 a �< S A _S c - (D m m � c� O
A•fSD •O_ n m 7 d �',m O w N "O n : O0 m.a N �' S7 ] a C 'Sf1 Oro 3 ?� O m
�r^D 7 -i o- M -:+ c D w w D o -M M.y om�o D� 0 0 0 1 o w m a� DO 3 O ..I D
w �_ n r. 0- -^ < >' O 3 N- Q a A o a o- n !SD c O T' a 0 :r = -n 6 S O
j^. v, < K N M �D 7 A �•C a .. v, '^ ° .+ C '^ �- Z v+ M w "O r•' O 7 S C ,°nR' w- p 'O 7 n S m
<n�n �"w __a mc* Mn W- poQ 'z_.30 ..a wMm �n w aMTQ
a m ^ w m O-0 d_ : a O p ._, 7� 7 !D r�D a �. n 7 � C) m n n n_ -Mo
n� n r! v m vm
T3 p a a� < �'3 p"fl Y 3 M W o m °-' ?-C m a� �° 3 3 m ^.o ° w R
3 -_• m O ,. D o 0 a oo m N o
w� =T`7D a+ m� �o a o c D" a CD ? 3w0 a D Qa c y m a o o� o O M o o ID maa M
as° m n �' w M o� z q< a3 °: -0aoaa .+ m 0 3 M 3 c :^ T c x 0 w a
cmn< c s :,o M 0 :3
ao CL m �� y �� cL n m o;w c c s 3•a '3ID
am 6'aa� i m o �,e S �a3o n 3 0,< < m 0 s° c c c a m so °' c<
0�'�°3 ao0C �'wo y. o-7 p, --T ��n o .n. 3' as �00c° -0c 0 M0�
O c� s� n a� O v ?' a a m S� 10 3 c O - O Qa �.� �' = O
�° o i m s� ;r3 w w w w M c<D s� w s �„ m o p a a� o �� O 0 0 m
a07�_ OMm w�caQ �3 Om M w a a 7 maO w e
n-, M O c T 6 o O O n w 0 M O n A <� C C a 0 o T ac cnp 3 = a M
7 m' cm
m p*, m N.•e c N' '" M a ] fD 3 :9 " n' y -o Di w 0 (� ' 7 `^ Q- c O
aaw o M m f io 0 aO �;� w 0 3' °,' 3 =.mom S� m o s a --.a
3'� i n w aS o° y.o a o c p+ s o'Q� 3 aQ�� w C
'^ T 3' " w a w 0 �_ v, c<D r: m o wo- n M un o m• 3 - s? a� a cr
< %03 ..
°o ^fDma. °^� ��ay +'aw �� <° o m30 3 0'^ -•Qom o� m
sm O O'" ;3 SO N Q'0 p <y m? 0 3 woo y m w n a O S
0 3 m o °' a3 o w 3 v o n M> > �:n 3 M,< a
wom 0 <w 3 < a 0- cu D, p p�w3< n'O
M < ao °: °i -O w n a s
n- ro : x--0 a '0 7. y m Z o n c n 0 �-
n�� 3. a a m i s r: � (Do A M r±� m as M a° p a w
v+'0 a- o .n.•C p 3•sm 3• a a�-< 3 co �� m 0 c p M c 3 m ^� CO
O Sm m o n< �a 0 3 0 0 w � O N C cod O O E
m a 3' �. o -o a M < s� ._ m
• •
1
DENNIS BETHEL & ASSOCIATES INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERS
313 B East Plaza Drive, Suite 9 • Santa Maria, California 93454 • (805) 928-7666
April 13, 1987
DB -7108
City of Atascadero
Post Office Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
Attn: Paul Sensibaugh
SUBJECT: Casa Camino Sewer Fees
Dear Paul:
We ve reviewed: the Zpr'os for Casa Camino Sewer Extension
and Precise Plan,and find the gewer fee to be $70.00. We believe
th's eitablishes'the fees t,� be paid and request the permits be
is ued based qri this fee. /
Sin erely,
Dennis Bethel, P.E.
DB:cb
0
r+ ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
POST OFFICE BOX 747
,ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423
PHONE: (805) 466-8000
CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
CITY TREASURER
CITY MANAGER
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
RECREATION DEPARTMENT -
an ova
is
INCORPORATED JULY 2, 1979
June 25, 1984 -
CITY ATTORNEY
POST OFFICE BOX 749
-- - ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423
PHONE: (805) 466-5678
POLICE DEPARTMENT
POST OFFICE BOX 747
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
PHONE: (805) 466.8600
0
FIRE DEPARTMENT
6005 LEWIS AVENUE `
ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93422 -
PHONE: (805) 466-2141
Dennis Bethel and Associates
313 B East Plaza Drive - Suite 9
Santa Maria, CA 93454
RE: PRECISE PLAN 11-84 (10705 El Camino Real)
140 unit multiple family residential project (Lot 9, Block 7,
Eaglet #2)
Dear Mr. Bethel:
The City of Atascadero has received and reviewed your application for
a Precise Plan and Environmental Determination for approval of devel-
opment of a 140 unit multiple family residential project at the above
referenced location.
The proposed site is zoned RMF/16 (Residential Multiple, Family, 16
units per acre) and the proposed use would be allowable as defined as
Multiple Family Dwellings (Section 9-3.172(f)).
The surrounding properties are all zoned RMF/16 and are partially dev-
eloped with residential uses, with the exception of the property to
the north and east that is in the County and contains the State
Hospital.
The proposed project is in compliance with the provisions of the Zon-
ing Ordinance with the exception of:
Section 9-4.115(c) — Requiring the provision of five handicapped
stalls
Section 9-4.104(b) - Requiring a front yard setback of 25'-0" for
6'-0" fences
Section 9-4.129(b)(1) - Requiring trash enclosures to be within
100 feet of each building
A review by the Planning Director of the Environmental Description
form and application along with other background information shows
that the project will have no detrimental effect upon the environment,
therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Director has
also found the project to be in compliance with the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance with the exception of those sections stated a�.
JOB #
�u v
By
•
The proposed Precise Plan is approved as shown on attached Exhibit A
(site plan), Exhibit B (elevation), and subject to the conditions of
approval listed in Exhibit C. Final approval of the Precise Plan will
become effective at 5:00 p.m. on July 9, 1984, unless appealed.
In the event you intend to appeal any of the conditions, your appeal
should be in writing and should state the reasons for the appeal. Any
appeal would be scheduled for Planning Commission consideration as a
public hearing. You should, however, discuss any objections to the
conditions with the Planning Staff as it may be possible to alter con-
ditions after such discussion.
If you should have any questions concerning this project, you are wel-
come to contact this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
Joel Moses
Associate Planner
JM:ps
Enclosures
•
•
OA
mi
Ru
33
m
0
ti Y �iI
o y
O A
> r
m A
p a �
>Z
2
O O
s 7
A
0I
m�9
m'
c-
rr
I
I s
7
2 �l
JJIr
tat 3jd �
• 7 u
IM
i
� 1
S
i t
F
LTi
'F1
m
a
Z
m
r
m
a
0
z
T
t--
0 0
0
m
T
r
a
z
.r
0
m
m
r
m
0
z
OFNNII hfTM61 • AS -AX -IAM,
CASA CAMINO APARTMENTS - ----
•
EXHIBIT C
Conditions of Approval
Precise Plan 11-84
10705 El Camino Real
(Casa Camino Properties/Bethel)
1. All construction shall be in conformance with approved Exhibits A
(site plan), B (elevations), and C (conditions of approval) along
with all other applicable codes and ordinances of the City of
Atascadero.
2. Each phase shall conform to all sections of the Zoning Ordinance
including the required handicapped parking stall requirements and
trash enclosure requirements.
3. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
4. The wall along the front property line shall be relocated outside
the front yard setback or reduced to 3'-0" in height.
5. Improvement plans for curb, gutter, sidewalk and paveout shall be
reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
6. A second access shall be provided to fi Camino Real for emergency
access with the design to be reviewed and approved by the Fire
Department prior to the issuance of a building perit. Improvement
plans sh-11 also include a fire hydrant with the type and location
to be approved by the Fire Department.
5.. This Precise Plan approval is approved for one year from the date
of final approval.
3
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
PCb _ FICE BOX 747
-ATAS .1�RO, CALIFORNIA 93423
PHONE: (805( 466-8000
CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
CITY TREASURER
CITY MANAGER
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
RECREATION DEPARTMENT,
July 26, 1984
Dennis Bethel and Associates
313 B East Plaza Drive - Suite 9
Santa Maria, CA 93454
SUBJECT: PRECISE PLAN 11-84
10705 El Camino Real
Dear Mr. Bethel:
CITY ATTORNEY
POST OFFICE BOX 749
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423
PHONE: (805) 466-5678
POLICE DEPARTMENT -
POST OFFICE BOX 747
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 910
PHONE: (805) 466-8600
FIRE DEPARTMENT
6005 LEWIS AVENUE
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422
PHONE: (805) 466-2141
This is to advise that approval of the above -referenced applica-
tion concerning your request to approve a 140 unit multiple fam-
ily residential project became effective at 5:00 p.m. on July
9, 1984. No appeals were received during the appeal period which
ended on that same date. Enclosed please find a Final Notice of
Approval for the project.
If you should have any questions or concerns regarding this
matter, please feel free to contact the Planning Department.
Sincerely,
Joel Moses
Associate Planner
JM:ps
cc: Casa Camino Properties
•
st,r FIL
c.
ft l -
J03 T
0
NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF PRECISE PLAN
3JECT: PRECISE PLAN 11-84
LOC ATI ON :
10705 E1 Camino Real (Lot 9, Block 7)
APPLICANT: Dennis Bethel and Associates
REQUEST: To approve development of a 140 unit multiple family resi-
dential project.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Precise Plan 11-84 has been approved
by the Planning Director. Copies of the Staff Report, plans, and re-
lated project information are available for public review and comment
in the Planning Department (Room 103), Administration Building, 6500
Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California.
The Planning Director has prepared a Negative Declaration indica-
ting the project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the
environment.
This is to advise that approval of Precise Plan 11-84 became ef-
fective at 5:00 p.m. on July 9, 1984.
Dated:_ July 26, 1984
WAYNE LOFT S, Pla ing irector
City of Atascadero, California
cc: City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
Planning Commission
MJ O'Brien
CM Colombo
Victor Mori Jr.
Holiday Paper Products Inc.
BH Baker
G Wood c/o JK Nelson
AOMINISTRATION BUILDING , ~� CITY ATTORNEY
POST OFFICE BOX 747 !' POST OFFICE BOX 606
ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93423 ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93423
PHONE: (805) 466-8000 PHONE: (805) 466.4422
CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
CITY TREASURER
CITY MANAGER
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
June 23, 1986
'"AISIZI
famm
INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979
Dennis Bethel and Associates
313 B East Plaza Drive'- Suite 9
Santa Maria, CA 93454
POLICE DEPARTMENT
POST OFFICE BOX 747
ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 9
PHONE: (805) 466-8600 is
FIRE DEPARTMENT
6005 LEWIS AVENUE
ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93422
PHONE: (805) 466-2141
RE: Time Extension: Precise Plan 11-84
(10705 E1 Camino Real - Casa Camino Apartments)
Dear Mr. Bethel:
I have reviewed your request for a time extension for
the above -referenced precise plan. The approval would
normally expire on July 9, 1986. Pursuant to Section
9-2.118 of the Zoning Ordinance, the approvals have been
extended to July 9, 1987.
Normally, a second time extension would require Planning
Commission approval. In that the previously granted time
extension was unnecessary, this extension will be con-
sidered the first one.
If you should have any questions concerning this matter,
please contact the Community Development Department for
assistance.
Sincerely, 1
�a
Doug Da idson
Assistant Planner
DD:ps
is
FILE -
JOB a 1-
3y 1 A n A/
NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF PRECISE PLAN
SUBJECT: PRECISE PLAN 11-84
LOCATION: 10705 El Camino Real (Lot 9, Block 7)
APPLICANT: Dennis Bethel and Associates
REQUEST: To approve development of a 140 unit multiple family resi-
dential project.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Precise Plan 11-84 has been approved
by the Planning Director. Copies of the Staff Report, plans and rela-
ted project information are available for public review and comment in
the Planning Department (Room 103), Administration Building, 6500 Pal-
ma Avenue, Atascadero, California.
The Planning Director has prepared a draft Negative Declaration
indicating the project will not have a significant adverse effect upon
the environment.
The final date for appeal is fourteen (14) days after the decision
of the Planning Director, or until 5:00 p.m. on July 9, 1984.
Anyone wishing" further information on this proposed project may do
so by appearing in' -person at the Planning Department or by phoning
466-8000.
Unless appealed, the approval of Precise Plan 11-84 will become
effective at 5:00 p.m. on July 9, 1984.
Dated: June 25, 1984
4WAY LOFTU , anning Director
City of Atascadero, California
cc: City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
Planning Commission
Dennis Bethel and Associates
Casa Camino Properties
MJ O'Brien
CM Colombo
Victor Mori Jr.
Holiday Paper Products Inc.
BH Baker.
G Wood c/o JK Nelson
FILE
JOB 11
By —
6a .�
DATE �% ITEM #
• 0
• MEMORANDUM
To: Board of Directors-Atascadero County Sanitation District
Through: Michael Shelton, City Manager
From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Subject: Merchant Way Sewer Connection -Request for Exception
Date: May 5, 1987
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the connection of two
buildings to the public sewer by a common building sewer conditional
upon recordation of an appropiate easement and a maintenance agreement
by the applicant for connection.
Backround:
The Merchant Way Sewer Asesssment District No.3 in Cease and
Desist Area "F" has been completed and owners have approximately two
• years to connect. Several properties are already connected but a few
of the lots that front on Santa Rosa are still working on easement.,
access to the main sewer. The project included the running of'
laterals to the northerly property line of the Santa Rosa lots (rear
of the Merchant Way lots).
A lateral was run to Lot 71 within a negotiated easement through
Lot 81 (refer to enclosed map). This easement was planned to be on
the westerly lot line but was shifted to the easterly lot line. At
that time it was agreed with the owner of Lot 72 to include its
lateral within that same easement, which was done. Subsequently Lot
80 obtained a building permit which resulted in a 10 foot cut at the
face of lot 72. This cut intercepted the leach field of Lot 72 which
for the most part relied upon the lakefront lot for adequate
Percolation. Raw sewage effluent soon began to flow from the
saturated soil onto Lot 80, across the street and into the Lake.
The Health Department was contacted by neighbors and the Planning
Department enforcement team was notified. Public Works was asked to
find an appropiate solution to the problem as quickly as possible.
Indeed, the Health Department was ready to "red tag" the building on
Lot 72 as occupation was causing a nusiance and health hazzard for
neighboring properties. Due to the lack of room behind and above the
wall and the threat of collapse of the wall from an overburden on the
retained soil, it was not feasible to use heavy equipment for
• excavation, and the deep cut necessary could not be made without
bracing. A local contractor's cost for the work was $1500 but he
didn't want to do the work.
Since it was determined to be impracticable to use the suggest*
easement, the easterly side of the lot was suggested through an
existing 5 -foot utility easement. However, the wall had effectively
blocked this path and trenching was next to impossible. The remaining
solution was to communicate with the owner of Lot 73 to the south. A
lateral had already been run to serve the latter property and was
within a few feet of the septic tank (located under the kitchen!) of
Problem Lot 72. There was not enough room in the present trench in,
the area where the wall was wraped on the south line of Lot 80 to
accomodate another lateral.
Discussion:
In an attempt to solve a health hazzard problem the Director
contented to connection into the neighbor's lateral, conditional upon
three (3) actions: (1) The Board must concur of the Director's
decision, (2) The owner of Lot 72 must acquire an easement from Lot
73 (note that that owner did give concent to such an arrangement), and
that Lot 72 must file a maintenance agreement for the common lateral
which would go with its .land.
Article 7.1 of the Sanitation Code says that "Every
building..... shall be seperately and independently connected with
public sewer....., except that the district may approve the connection
of more than one building to the public sewer by a common build
sewer." Exceptions have been made in the past by staff if t�
development is under common ownership ,such as an apartment, complex or
condominium project. Due to maintenance headaches and administrative
nightmares it is generally unacceptable to allow two or more single
family buildings to use a common lateral.
This appears to be a unique case with no other reasonable
solution and staff recommends approval of the exception as
conditioned.
Fiscal Impact:
This is a losing proposition for the ACSD. The lateral run
initially will be "eaten" by the City and the alternative connection
substituted in its place. The loss will be approximately $750. The
owner denies that he ever found the initial lateral acceptable and is
willing to defend his position. Although staff and our consultant
disagree with this attitude, it appears that the recommended solution
will prove to be the least costly for everyone involved.
V9
•
6
1
v'
aI
s;
n�
a
►-
i
�Li
<
e
Q
W
ILI
v
J j
r-
4 4
F
Z;
6
C
0
Consolidated Ord.
•
a fees for the doing and inspection thereof have been paid, th
District s cause to be issued to the person, or firm ortr
corporation const r such work a certificate of final inspection,
which certificate shall reci at such work has been done pursuant
to the permit has been constructed a 'n to the Ordinance
provisions of said District, and that said wor 'n sanitary
condition. The District shall not issue such certifica
inspection unless the requirements of this Ordinance Code have been
met.
Exceptions granted in extreme cases, i.e. two buiZdinas on the same Zot and
one cannot get hooked up without extreme difficuZty due to the location of
the first house.
ARTICLE 7. BUILDING SEWERS
7.1 Every building in which plumbing fixtures are installed or
located shall be separately and independently connected with public
sewer or septic tank, except that the district may approve the
connection of more than one building to the public sewer by a common
1 building sewer.
2 The requirements for building sewers as set forth in the
la t st adopted versions of the Uniform Plumbing Code shall apply
the 'strict and are incorporated herein by reference. However,
the re lations of this Ordinance Code are more restrictive than
Plumbing ode, this Code shall apply.
(Amme ed by Ordinance #54, May 24, 1982)
7.3 Building ewers may be constructed only of the following
material
in I
where
said
C]
s.
a. Vitrifie clay pipe, extra strength, with either bell and
spigot or ain ends. Only approved flexible compression
type joints all be used with vitrified clay pipe.
b. Cast iron soil ipe and fittings, with either bell and spigot
cast iron soil p' e shall be firmly packed with oakum and
filled with molten lead to a depth of not less one (1) inch,
and then thoroughly aulked. Approved flexible compression
fittings each consists g of a rubber sleeve and a stainless
steel compression band, hall be used to join plain -end cast
iron soil pipe and fittin
c. Asbestos -cement pipe, Class 500, or heavier. Joints of
asbestos -cement pipe shall be ade according to the
manufacturer's specifications a d shall be a sleeve coupling
of the same composition as the pi e and sealed with rubber
rings, or joined by an approved ty compression couoijq .
Joints between asbestos -cement pipe d other approv?,j
shall be made by means of an approved aptor coupling.'
7.4 No building sewer shall be constructed with pi of internal
diameter less than (4) inches.
7.5 Building sewers shall be placed on a uniform slope o not less
than one-fourth (1/4) of an inch per foot, except that when it is no
practical to obtain this slope, then a slope of not less than
one-eighth (1/8) of an inch per foot may be used when approved
District. the
91
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Directors
Atascadero County Sanitation District
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Purchase of Tractor - Sanitation District
DATE: May 6, 1987
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council award the bid -for the
purchase of a new tractor to Ryan Equipment, Santa Maria,
Ca.
Background:
On January 26, 1987 Council authorized staff to
advertise for bids for the purchase of a new Backhoe -
Tractor for the Sanitation District.
Bids were received on May 4th and the results are as
follows:
Ryan Equipment $31,272.65
*Lougee Michael 31,096.16
*Cal Coast Machine 29,109.64
*The equipment submitted by these companies does not meet
the bid specifications.
Discussion:
Technically, Ryan Equipment is the sole bidder for the
equipment specified. The machinery bid by the other two
companies is smaller and lighter duty than what is
,required.
Fiscal Impact:
The 1986/87 Sanitation District Budget allocates
$35,000 for a new Backhoe -Tractor.
•
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Michael Shelton_
City Manager
,:''T�i`�a AGcPiDA
J
May 12, 1987
SUBJECT: FORMATION OF ATASCADERO LAKE PARK PROPERTY ACQUISITION
AD HOC COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council appoint an ad hoc committee of two Council Members,
the Parks and Recreation Director, Administrative Services
Director, and City Manager to evaluate and make recommendations
regarding acquisition of Atascadero Lake Park property.
DISCUSSION:
At the March 24, 1987 Council Meeting, staff presented for
Council consideration a general plan conformity finding that
• would enable the City to surplus City -owned properties on
Lake View Drive. The purpose of the proposed sale was to
obtain funding to acquire desired properties along Highway 41
fronting the park.
Council concurred with the need to acquire the additional prop-
erty, but not at the expense of giving up current open space
around the lake. Council directed staff to evaluate alternative
financing methods and bring the item back for further consider-
ation at a future Council Meeting.
Staff feels that since this item is a non -budgeted item in the
current year budget, Council may want to consider other park land
acquisition and improvement priorities along with the lake park
property. The budget process, which will begin in the next
month, will provide a more in-depth analysis, not only prioritiz-
ing park land acquisition and improvement needs, but -also review-
ing current revenue sources.
The purpose of formation of an ad hoc committee at this time
would serve to analyze possible alternative funding sources not
currently available to the City and to make further contact with
property owners to determine possible alternative acquisition
options. This more in-depth analysis by the committee will
enhance the budget review and decision making process.
• MS:kv
File:MAtaslak
LIVE FILE
Ccnvcrt I A(c; ss ;tart;
NEW VOLUME
BOX ":",�-Tsc o/r
voLuZ 1.3187 — Sol OR 7