HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 02/24/1986 DEPUTY CITY CLERK
AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
• Regular Meeting
ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM
February 24, 1986
** ALL COUNCILMEMBERS, STAFFMEMBERS AND CITIZENS ARE REMINDED TO
PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE.
Call to order
Pledge of Allegiance
Invocation
Roll Call
City Council Comments
Special Presentation - EMT-II Emergency Medical Program - Fire
Dept.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO PUBLIC
• All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar , are considered
to be routine and will be enacted by one motion in the form list-
ed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items.
If discussion is required, that item will be removed from the
Consent Calendar and considered separately. Vote may be by roll-
call.
1. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of February 11, 1986
2. Tentative Parcel Map 11-85 - 7150 Serena (Kennedy/Stewart)
3. Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 - 7100 Serena (Harrell/Stewart)
4. Acceptance of Final Tract Map 5-85 - 5405 E1 Camino Real
(Van Alen/Associated Professions)
5. Claim of Andrew Zabiega, M.D. (RECOMMEND DENIAL)
6. Accept Proposal for Atascadero Lake Feasibility Study from
Alderman Engineering.
7. Authorization to Purchase Parks Dept. Truck through State
Cooperative Fleet Plan (Proposed Res. No. 19-86)
8. Resolution Authorizing Parks & Recreation Director to Enter
• into Animal Loan Agreements
9. Award Contract for Asbestos Removal to P.W. Stephens Con-
• tractors, Inc. , So. E1 Monte, California (Bid #86-35)
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS
1. Consideration of Adopting Development Impact Ordinances (PUB-
LIC HEARING) (Cont'd from 2/11/86)
a. Amapoa-Tecorida Development Area (Proposed Ord. No. 117
SECOND READING) (ResolutioAddressing Fees to be Intro-
duced at Council Meeting) -YG
b. Lewis Avenue Bridge (Proposed Ord. No. 118 SECOND READ-
ING) (Resolution Addressing Fees to be Introduced at
Council Meeting)'�11_
'a
c. General (Proposed Ord. No. 119 - SECOND READING) (Resolu-
tion Addressing Fees to be Introduced at Council Meeting)
oto-*
2. General Plan Amendment 2G-85 - Lopus (8205 Coromar) /Coromar
Study Area (PUBLIC HEARING)
C. NEW BUSINESS
• 1. Zoning Ordinance Procedures Evaluation
(Council will recess and convene as the Atascadero County Sanita-
tion District Board of Directors)
D. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
1. Introduction of Proposed Amended Sewer Ordinance Adding New
and Revising Sewer Service Fees
(The Board of Directors will adjourn and reconvene as City Coun-
cil)
E. COMMUNITY FORUM
F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
1. City Council
2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk
4. City Treasurer
5. City Manager
�1.rEi:P3v /QCYiZ�A
DATE
MINUTES - ATASCADER0 -CITY COUNCIL
• Regular Meeting, February 11, 1986
Atascadero Administration Building
The Regular Meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to
order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Nelson, followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers Handshy, Mackey, Molina and Mayor Nelson
Absent: Councilwoman Norris (Ill)
STAFF
Mike Shelton, City Manager ; Robert Jones, City Attorney/City
Clerk; Bud McHale, Police Chief; Mike McCain, Fire Battalion
Chief; Henry Engen, Community Development Director ; Paul Sensi-
baugh, Public Works Director; Dave Jorgensen, Administrative Ser-
vices Director; Cindy Wilkins, Deputy City Clerk.
COUNCIL COMMENT
Councilwoman Mackey stated she feels, when a Councilmember is
absent from meetings, it should be announced and the reason stat-
ed.
Mayor Nelson announced Mayor Pro Tem Handshy and his wife are
celebrating their 30th Wedding Anniversary today: Congratula-
tions, Bear ! !
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of February 11, 1986
2. Tentative Parcel Map 31-85 —10800 Santa Ana Rd. (Davis/Twin
Cities Engr. )
3. Tentative Parcel Map 32-85 - 11400 Santa Ana Rd. (Davis/Twin
Cities Engr. )
4. Tentative Parcel Map 34-85 - 10420 San Marcos Rd. (Bres-
sler/Twin Cities Engr. )
5. Final Parcel Map 27-85 - 10390 Santa Ana Rd. (Ellison/Twin
Cities Engr.)
6. Final Lot Line Adjustment 2-85 - 13655/13805 Santa Ana Rd. &
9600 Corona (Atas. Mutual Water Co./Twin Cities Engr. )
•
1
Public Comment
Brian Cardy, resident on Azucena asked what the working defini-
tion is for ' fee' vs. ' tax' , to which both Paul Sensibaugh and
Mike Shelton responded; basically, the revenues from a tax can be
used for any general purpose (i.e. the $. 50 Development Mitiga-
tion Tax adopted last August, although it is, however , earmarked
for capital improvements, in general) , whereas a fee extracted
must have a direct relationship to the purpose for which the fee
is spent and must be put into special earmarked funds.
Doug Lewis, resident, asked what the word ' impact' implies; Mayor
Nelson responded it denotes the impact of growth on the level of
City services, referring to the Capital Improvement Budget.
Cindy Gillespie, a Santa Margarita resident, expressed concern
that the schools are not listed in the impacts and feels their
needs are being neglected; she proposed City officials slow down
growth of multi-family residentials as she feels their rate of
development is far too rapid.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina to read Ord. 117 by title, seconded
by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously, with Coun-
cilwoman Norris absent. Mayor Nelson read Ord. 117 by
title only.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey that this constitutes the first
reading of Ord. 117, seconded by Councilman Molina;
passed unanimously, with Councilwoman Norris absent.
Second reading will be at Council' s Feb. 24th meeting.
MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to read Ord. 118 by title, second-
ed by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously, with
Councilwoman Norris absent. Mayor Nelson read Ord. 118
by title only.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina that this constitutes the first
reading of Ord. 118, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey;
passed unanimously, with Councilwoman Norris absent.
Second reading will be at Council' s Feb. 24th meeting.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to read Ord. 119 by title, sec-
onded by Councilman Molina; passed unanimously, with
Councilwoman Norris absent. Mayor Nelson read Ord. 119
by title only.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina that this constitutes the first
reading of Ord. 119, seconded by Councilman Handshy;
passed unanimously, with Councilwoman Norris absent.
Second reading will be at Council' s Feb. 24th meeting.
3 •�
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Motion Awarding Atascadero Fire Dept. Office Addition Bid
#86-34 to LaFreniere Construction in the amount of
$35,600.00.
Paul-Sensibaugh, Public Works Director, gave staff report.
No public comment.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina to approve award of Bid #86-34,
seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed by 4:0 roll-call
vote, with Councilwoman Norris absent.
D. NEW BUSINESS
1. Proposed Urgency Ord. No. 120- Amending Title 9, Planning and
Zoning, of the Atascadero Municipal Code by Adding Chap. 10,
Lot Mergers
Henry Engen, Community Development Director, gave staff re-
port; he noted that Chapter 10 would, in the near future,
become part of a new subdivision ordinance which has been
drafted and is currently under review.
No public comment.
MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to read Ord. 120 by title, second-
ed by Councilman Molina; passed unanimously, with
Councilwoman Norris absent. Mayor Nelson read Ord. 120
by title only.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina that this constitutes the first and
last reading of Ord. 120 , seconded by Councilman Hand-
shy; passed by 4:0 roll-call vote, with Councilwoman
Norris absent. This, as an Urgency Ordinance, takes
effect immediately.
MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to recess as City Council and
convene as the Atas. County Sanitation District Board of
Directors, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unan-
imously, with Councilwoman Norris absent.
E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (ACSD)
1. Consideration of Sanitary Sewer Connection Fees
Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director , gave lengthy staff
report (refer to extensive backround materials in agenda
packet) and responded to questions from the Board.
4
No public comment
MOTION: By Director Molina that Board directs staff to amend the
recommendations outlined in the staff memo to reflect
that (1) areas under the Cease & Desist order are exempt
from these fees, and (2) annexation fees pertaining to
areas outside Improvement District #1 will be effective
immediately upon adoption of the proposed ordinance, and
to bring this item back in ordinance form; motion sec-
onded by Director Handshy. Passed unanimously, with
Director Norris absent.
2. Proposed Annexations to Improvement District No. 1 - Res.
No. ' s 15-86, 16-86, 17-86 and 18-86
Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director, gave staff report; he
noted these will be considered new annexations and the fees
previously discussed tonight (Item E-1) will apply.
No public comment.
MOTION: By Director Molina to adopt Res. No. ' s 15-86, 16-86,
17-86 and 18-86, seconded by Director Handshy; passed
4 :0 by roll-call vote, with Director Norris absent.
MOTION: By Director Molina to adjourn as Atas. County Sanitation
District Board of Directors and reconvene as City Coun-
cil, seconded by Director Mackey; passed unanimously,
with Director Norris absent.
F. COMMUNITY FORUM
Mary Ann Larson, a Santa Margarita resident, read a presentation
(providing copies to Council and staff) addressing several issues
relating to the possible use of vacant land at Atas. State Hospi-
tal as a site for the portable classrooms to accommodate the
overflow of students in the Atas. Unified School District; she
expressed opposition to such consideration, proposing the City
impose a residential and park development moratorium in the area
of the State Hospital in view of safety, residential and City
services concerns.
John Gillespie, a Santa Margarita resident, expressed his dissat-
isfaction with the handling of school facilities issues in this
district.
G. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
Councilwoman Mackey relayed that Mr . Gillespie (see above) had
discussed his concerns with her , suggesting that perhaps the de-
veloper of large-scale projects contribute some of the first com-
5
pleted buildings to be set aside and used for temporary school
facilities.
Robert Jones, City Clerk, announced that the nomination period
for the June 3rd election has been noticed in the paper and is
open through March 7; up for election are two seats on the City
Council, the City Clerk and City Treasurer positions. As City
Attorney, he announced that the Superior Court refused to grant
the writ relating to Barrett vs. City of Atascadero, thus the
City has won that court battle.
Mike Shelton, City Manager, related he received a call today from
Dr. Avina, A.U.S.D. Supt. , requesting that the City formulate a
sub-committee of two councilmembers to meet with the School Dis-
trict Boardmembers to discuss a number of issues, specifically
growth in So. Atascadero and also to reassess the need for in-
terim facilities fees. Councilmembers Handshy and Mackey were
appointed by Mayor Nelson to serve on said sub-committee.
Mr. Shelton mentioned that he and Sarah Gronstrand, of Friends of
the Library, met with the County' s architect and library commit-
tee regarding the new library; the schematic design is on display
in the first floor showcase of the Administration Bldg. He noted
that, after acceptance of the schematics, the design will be re-
ferred to the architect to make construction documents, which are
anticipated to be ready for bid in June, with construction com-
mencing immediately thereafter and completion by the end of this
calendar year ; now is the time for suggestions as to any modifi-
cations and/or further considerations of those designs.
MEETING ADJOURNED TO A CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL ACQUI-
SITION OF PROPERTIES FROM THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AT 9: 22
P.M. ? )
RECORbED` 9)t:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk
PREPARED BY:
CINDY WILKINS, Dep. City Clerk
6
• ,'- T. 'DA
• M E M0 R A N D U M
TO: City Council February 24 , 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Directory
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 11-85
LOCATION: 7150 Serena (formerly Pinal)
APPLICANT: Nellie Kennedy (Daniel J. Stewart)
REQUEST: To allow division of a 4.24 acre parcel into four
lots of 1.00, 1.00, 1.07 and 1.17 acres each.
On February 3, 1986, the Planning Commission conducted a public '
• hearing on the above-referenced matter unanimously approving the
land division request (with Commissioner Kennedy abstaining) sub
ject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached
staff report.
Dan Stewart, representing the applicant, indicated his concur-
rence with the recommendation and noted that he had worked with
staff for some time on this project in an effort to resolve the
issues involved.
Irene Bishop, 7151 Serena, stated that she and her husband had
concerns regarding the access road which were discussed at prev-
ious hearings which had now been resolved by a redesign of the
map, and noted she was in agreement with the project.
No one else spoke on the matter .
HE:ps
cc: Nellie Kennedy
Dan Stewart
i
• r
Tentative Parcel Map 11-85 (Kennedy/Stewart)
right-of-way to serve these
parcels.
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Y (Residential Single Family
- minimum lot size one acre with
sewer , one and one half acre
without sewer.
7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant
8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RSF-Y, vacant
South: RSF-Y, vacant
East: Stadium Park
West: RMF/16, County Hospital
9. General Plan Designation. . . . .Moderate Density Single Family
10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Steeply sloped with many large
oak trees.
11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declarationa
C. ANALYSIS:
In the RSF-Y zone, the minimum lot size is one acre with sewers,
one and one-half acre without sewer. These proposed lots are
within the sewer improvement district. Thus, the proposed lot
sizes of 1.00, 1.00, 1.07 and 1.17 acres each conform to the Zon-
ing Ordinance.
- DEVELOPMENT OF SITE
Staff has several concerns regarding the development of these par-
cels. The average slope of these lots is approximately 35%. Grad-
ing on such slopes will require a precise plan approval by the
Planning Department prior to the issuance of any grading
or build-
ing permits. This review will seek to determine that the extent
and nature of the proposed grading is appropriate for the use and
that the proposed grading will not result in erosion or other ad-
verse effects to life or property.
Sewage Disposal:
Septic systems are not allowed on slopes over 30%. For this rea-
son, as well as the fact that these lots are located within the
sewer improvement district boundary, the parcels are being pro-
posed to be required to connect to the sewer system. Condition
#11 of the conditions of approval addresses sewer conection.
Access:
The proposed lots are currently served by two unimproved access
roads. Serena is an unimproved private road. Parcel 4 fronts
Serena Road at its northeast corner . Mercedes Avenue is also un-
improved and is located to the west of proposed Parcel 1. Mer-
cedes is the proposed future alignment of Highway 41 and is cur-
Tentative Parcel Map 11785 (Kennedy/Stewart)
rently under Caltrans jurisdiction. To adequately serve these
proposed lots, off-site road improvements are proposed to be re-
quired as indicated in Condition #9. Stadium Road is an unim-
proved access easement being proposed to serve these parcels. It
is shown currently as a ten (10)- foot access easement and is being
proposed as a 50 foot right-of-way. Condition #9-d is included to
insure that the applicant acquires title to allow for these
improvements.
Fire Prevention:
Additional fire hydrants are required. Their type and location is
contained in Condition #5.
In summary, this proposed parcel map creates the need for substan-
tial infrastructure improvements before lot divisions would be
acceptable; however, with the recommended conditions of approval,
staff believes that the parcel map will result in an orderly pat-
tern of development.
D. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 11-85 based on
the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit A.
DGD:ps
ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A — Findings/Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B Location Map
Exhibit C - Parcel Map
1�
• i
Tentative Parcel Map 11-85 (Kennedy/Stewart)
EXHIBIT XHI IT A - Tentative Parcel Map 11-85
Findings/Conditions of Approval
February 3, 1986
FINDINGS:
1. The creation of these parcels conform to all applicable zoning 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, and preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report is not necessary.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development that
is proposed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of dev-
elopment proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision of the proposed improvements will
not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision or 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 subdivi-
sion; 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.
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
issuance of building permits in conjunction with installation of
driveways, access easements or structures. Prior to final build-
�1
n
i •
Tentative Parcel Map 11-85 (Kennedy/Stewart)
ing inspections, said engineer shall submit to the City written
certification that grading is in compliance with said codes and
standards.
a. Drainage facilities shall be constructed to City standards.
b. All drainage work shall be completed (or bonded for) prior to
recordation of the final map.,
4. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways and
driveway easements shall be submitted for approval by the Planning
and Public Works Departments in order to determine average grade
and appropriate improvement requirements.
5. Two City standard fire hydrants shall be required at the following
locations: 1) the corner of Stadium Road and Mercedes; and 2) 500
feet east of Mercedes on Stadium Road.
6. Provide a preliminary soils report and if said report indicates
that corrective measures are necessary to prevent structural
damage, then a note acceptable to the Director of Public Works
shall be noted on the final map.
7. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Department of Public Works
and construct improvements (or bond) as per permit requirements,
prior to recordation of the final map.
8. Obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans and construct road im-
provements per permit requirements. These improvements should be
compatible with the proposed improvement of Highway 41 extension.
9. The applicant shall submit road improvement plans, prepared by a
registered civil engineer, for review and approval by the Public
Works Department. These shall include:
a. The construction of Stadium Road to a 24 foot wide road sec-
tion with a 20 foot a.c. traveled way along the frontage of
the proposed parcels continuing to Hospital Drive per City
standards.
b. The construction of a City standard cul-de-sac or approved
hammerhead at the terminus of Stadium Road.
C. Upon approval by the Director of Public Works, the property
owner may enter into a deferral agreement for the construc-
tion of Stadium Road asphaltic concrete (traveled way) within
the right-of-way of future Highway 41.
d. Prior to approval of the improvement plans by the Director of
Public Works, either the subdivider shall acquire suffi-
cient title or interest in the off-site land to allow the
improvements to be made as required by these conditions; or
the City Council, upon request by and at the expense of the
subdivider , shall have made all appropriate findings and
adopted a Resolution of Necessity as required by law so that
a i
Tentative Parcel Map 11-85 (Kennedy/Stewart)
the e City may exercise its power of eminent domain.
e. Construction of road improvement plans shall be completed or
bonded for prior to recordation of the final map.
10. The applicant shall make an offer of dedication to the City of
Atascadero to the following rights-of-way and/or easements:
a. The sanitary sewer easement, ten feet each side of the sewer
main line.
b. Stadium Road along the parcel map frontage 25 feet from the
centerline of Stadium Road and the right-of-way for the cul-
de-sac.
C. The public utility easements.
d. These offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded
prior to recordation of the final map.
11. A sewer connection permit shall be obtained from the Public Works
Department prior to hooking up to the public sewer.
a. Plans for the sewer main extension, prepared by a registered
civil engineer , shall be submitted and approved by the Public
0 Works Department.
b. The applicant shall enter into a sewer main extension agree-
ment subject to approval by the Director of Public Works.
C. Construction of sanitary sewer facilities shall be completed
(or bonded for) prior to recordation of the final map.
d. An in-lieu sewer connection fee of $850.00 per single family
lot shall be due in addition to the usual connection, tap-in,
and installation fees, prior to issuance of a building
permit.
12. All conditions herein specified shall be complied with prior to
filing of 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 will be set by a date specific, and that
they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced.
r
Tentative Parcel Map 11785 (Kennedy/Stewart)
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit-
ted 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.
a
TION MAP
C I -1 Y MAI Al l-A I N EU 57-1 I
12
127
it
G
31414
`.
RoAp I BVI PR O v D
7-71 'ION
po
ZA
{ q
I_-_ t-r2 -. i". '�\ 1 .,}:'i \: � •��'��9 _
A.
FA' PF 5�
ROAD �j - •, o,�,0 1 � 1,
Vj
O 23
2 - y= •� 1Q 5 .� I � ,tt •'�'.S :q t3^IZ is =`1G!--•._I /� _d -� .-
131 L
4 7777777-
ne
Ll
�rN ANO R 5 -• •�
F 3 _, t i / /Z.•:.a.;��-r�1`� ,� 3irrt__ /'.cam'
;, , /' // / // / / / ..ter/ /�; '' /' 1' ♦ ♦ yWj'
' � .rte i /• ,' / r ,r r / I/ , , �� .. ...
' I A e''h •c O
°
1rr"�:S�;J itV:�IVL/1
ti
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council February 24, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager .
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 12-85
LOCATION: 7100 Serena (formerly Pinal)
APPLICANT: David Harrell (Daniel J. Stewart)
REQUEST: To allow division of a 4. 52 acre parcel into four
lots of 1. 52, 1.00, 1.00 and 1.00 acres each.
On February 3, 1986, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the above-referenced matter unanimously approving the
land division request (with Commissioner Kennedy abstaining) sub-
ject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached
staff report.
Dan Stewart, representing the applicant, indicated his concur-
rence with the recommendation and thanked staff for working so
much on this project.
Irene Bishop, 7151 Serena, noted her concurrence with the recom-
mended conditions of approval.
No one else spoke on the matter .
HE:ps
cc: David Harrell
Dan Stewart
•
Tentative Parcel Map 12785 (Harrell/Stewart)
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Y (Residential Single Family
minimum lot size one acre with
sewer , one and one half acre
without sewer.
7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant
8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RSF-Y, vacant
South: RSF-Y, vacant
East: single family residence
West: RMF/16, County Hospital
9. General Plan Designation. . . . .Moderate Density Single Family
10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Steeply sloped with many large
oak trees.
11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declarationa
C. ANALYSIS:
In the RSF-Y zone, the minimum lot size is one acre with sewers,
one and one-half acre without sewer. These proposed lots are
within the sewer improvement district. Thus, the proposed lot
sizes of 1. 52, 1.00, 1.00 and 1. 00 acres each conform to the Zon-
ing Ordinance.
- DEVELOPMENT OF SITE -
Staff has several concerns regarding the development of these par-
cels. The average slope of these lots is approximately 35%. Grad-
ing on such slopes will require a precise plan approval by the
Planning Department prior to the issuance of any grading or build-
ing permits. This review will seek to determine that the extent
and nature of the proposed grading is appropriate for the use and
that the proposed grading will not result in erosion or other ad-
verse effects to life or property.
Sewage Disposal:
Septic systems are not allowed on slopes over 30%. For this rea-
son, as well as the fact that these lots are located within the
sewer improvement district boundary, the parcels are being pro-
posed to be required to connect to the sewer system. Condition
#12 of the conditions of approval addresses sewer conection.
Staff' s main concern is that this sewer main be placed in Serena,
as opposed to where it is shown on the proposed parcel map.
Access:
The proposed lots are currently served by two unimproved access
roads. Serena Road is an unimproved private road which is located
directly to the north of proposed Parcels A, B, and C. Mercedes
Avenue is also unimproved and Parcel A fronts Mercedes on the
west. Mercedes Avenue is the proposed alignment of Highway 41 and
is currently under Caltrans jurisdiction. To adequately serve the
1°�
Tentative Parcel Map 12.-85 (Harrell/Stewart)
parcels, off-site road improvements are proposed. Condition #9
of the conditions of approval states the specific requirements.
Compatibility with CalTrans' plans for future development of High-
way 41 is addressed in Condition #8. Additionally, a private
drive is proposed off Serena - to serve these parcels. Standards
for this are addressed in Condition #11.
Fire Prevention:
Additional fire hydrants are required. Their type and location is
contained in Condition #5.
In summary, this proposed parcel map creates the need for substan-
tial infrastructure improvements before lot divisions would be
acceptable; however, with the recommended conditions of approval,
staff believes that the parcel map will result in an orderly pat-
tern of growth.'
D. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 based on
the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit A.
DGD:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B - Location Map
Exhibit C Parcel Map
Y
i •
Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 (Harrell/Stewart)
EXHIBIT A - Tentative Parcel Map 12-85
Findings/Conditions of Approval
February 3, 1986
FINDINGS:
1. The creation of these parcels conform to all applicable zoning 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, and preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report is not necessary.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development that
is proposed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of dev-
elopment proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision of the proposed improvements will
not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision or 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 subdivi-
sion; 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.
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
issuance of building permits in conjunction with installation of
driveways, access easements or structures. Prior to final build-
2
A
Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 (Harrell/Stewart)
ing inspections, said engineer shall submit to the City written
•
certification that grading is in compliance with said codes and
standards.
a. Drainage facilities shall be ,constructed to City standards.
b. All drainage work shall be completed (or bonded for) prior to
recordation of the final map,
4. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways and
driveway easements shall be submitted for approval by the Planning
and Public Works Departments in order to determine average grade
and appropriate improvement requirements. This shall appear as a
note on the final map.
5. Two City standard fire hydrants shall be required: 1) one on
Serena at entrance to private drive; 2) the other on the corner of
Mercedes and Serena.
6. Provide a preliminary soils report and if said report indicates
that corrective measures are necessary to prevent structural
damage, then a note acceptable to the Director of Public Works
shall be noted on the final map.
7. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Department of Public Works
and construct improvements (or bond) as per permit requirements,
prior to recordation of the final map.
8. Obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans and construct road im-
provements per permit requirements. These improvements should be
compatible with the proposed improvement of Highway 41 extension.
9. The applicant shall submit road improvement plans, prepared by a
registered civil engineer, for review and approval by the Public
Works Department. These shall include:
a. The construction of a City standard cul-de-sac or hammerhead
on Serena Avenue.
b. The applicant shall agree to participate in the formation of
an assessment district for road improvements along Serena
Avenue.
C. Prior to approval of the improvement plans by the Director of
Public Works, either the subdivider shall acquire suffi-
cient title or interest in the off-site land to allow the
improvements to be made as required by these conditions; or
the City Council, upon request by and at the expense of the
subdivider, shall have made all appropriate findings and
adopted a Resolution of Necessity as required by law so that
the City may exercise its power of eminent domain.
Tentative Parcel Map 12785 (Harrell/Stewart)
d. Construction of road improvement plans shall be completed or
bonded for prior to recordation of the final map.
10. The applicant shall make an offer of dedication to the City of
Atascadero to the following rights-of-way and/or easements:
a. The sanitary sewer easement, ten feet each side of the sewer
main line.
b. 25 feet from the centerline of Serena and right-of-way for
cul-de-sac along Serena Avenue frontage (Parcels A, B, C) .
C. Public utilities easement.
d. These offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded
prior to recordation of the final map.
11. A road maintenance agreement for the private drive, in a form ac-
ceptable to the City, shall be recorded with the deed to each par-
cel at the time it is first conveyed and a note to this effect
shall be placed on the final map. A common egress and ingress
easement for private drive (minimum 30 foot right-of-way, 16 foot
traveled way) shall be provided and shown on the final map.
12. A sewer connection permit shall be obtained from the Public Works
Department prior to hooking up to the public sewer.
a. Plans for the sewer main extension, prepared by a registered
civil engineer , shall be submitted and approved by the Public
Works Department.
b. Construction of sanitary sewer facilities shall be completed
(or bonded for) prior to recordation of the final map. The
main line extension shall be compatible with future develop-
ment needs.
C. An in-lieu sewer connection fee of $850.00 per single family
lot shall be due in addition to the usual connection, tap-in,
and installation fees, prior to issuance of a building
permit.
13. All conditions herein specified shall be complied with prior to
filing of the final map.
14. 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 will be set by a date specific, and that
they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced.
2
Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 (Harrell/Stewart)
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit-
ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
15. 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.
?,� PIB17 B
L.00Art"1DN MA-j
C 1 T Y MTS 11V TA 1 AI E'D STRE L
4 d
tA
JO
J m p IC o U ✓ i' K\ s
POR fico N �.
/a '5EREA11A
JD
E-A ROA D
25 ;iyy
PAPER
29-
- - SAL �r _
�3,�.c tom• = Z, J {3a 1 ��t „� /�,• J'';u
RA
��~ - - __ _ _ •�.-� ��-- --_—_-�, _ `r�' . _ '. � •`meq.
C. (• �' '
• _ �; , ,� J` - !` `� • �.• � ,� `g i Lal t f!
IJ ANO RF,�j - - ` - •\ \3�1 `s
,-
CALIFF�-dlWZ-_�fi"- R.E.5ERVAT/ON -.��W 1 ��
71
,t .
Vb
1 1
.16
IS
N co 154
a - � �. •••ifi a soh ''
l},� �^ ,.+. � �� � kyr � •,
,�` � / ' /r4^ `� ` }.. ' 1 —` \ ASA w;�.', � •.�
- SCALE:/'ASO' •
� a
w � 2
4
� 1
Ci a
Com '
W.
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council February 24, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager Pv�_
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 4
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Tract Map 5-85
LOCATION: 5405 E1 Camino Real
APPLICANT: Raymond Van Alen (Associated Professions)
• On April 1, 1985, the City Council approved Tract. Map 5-85, sub-
ject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommen-
dation of the Planning Commission. The required conditions have
been complied with and the final map is recommended for approval.
HE:ps
cc: Raymond Van Alen
Associated Professions
•
• T
z-,
..NDA
•
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mike Shelton
FROM: Dave Jorgensen
SUBJECT : Claire of Andrew abiega, M.D.
DATE: February 24, 1986
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council deny claim submitted on January 22, 1986, by the
above-named claimant' s attorney.
BACKGROUND
Claimant alleges false arrest by Atascadero Police Department.
• City' s adjustors , Carl Warren & Co. , have reviewed this claim
and have advised that it be rejected at this time.
DJ/cw
•
Z�
DA
M E M O R A N D U M raA
•
February 19 , 1986
To : City Council
Via: Mike Shelton, City Managerw,
From: Bob Best , Director of Parks & Recreation
Subject : Atascadero Lake Feasibility Study
INTRODUCTION
As part of the 1985-86 Budget , Council approved $7 , 500 for a
Lake Feasibility Study . The purpose of the study was to identify
problems with Atascadero Lake , identify health problems at lake ,
listing of most feasible options to problems , provide a cost
estimate to the proposed solutions , and to identify long term
costs to the City.
BACKGROUND
• Two proposals were submitted:
1 . Alderman Engineering - Los Osos ( $7 ,250)
2 . John Wallace and Associates - San Luis Obispo ( $7 , 500)
The proposals were closely aligned with the Scope of Services
outlined by department staff. BAckgrounds of the two firms were
checked concerning length of time in business , quality of the
personnel each proposed to use , potential for followup work as a
result of the solutions proposed, and background of the firms re-
lating to projects similar in scope .
RECOMMENDATION
Award the Atascadero Lake Feasibility Study to Alderman
Engineering.
FISCAL IMPACT
A total of $7 , 500 was budgeted for this project , so the
Alderman bid of $7 ,250 is within the budgeted amount .
�D
MA
M E M O R A N D U M
•
February 12 , 1986
To : City Council
Via: Mike Shelton, City Manager t
From: Bob Best , Parks and Recreation Director
Subject : Purchase of Truck for Parks Department
RECOMMENDATION
City Council authorize the purchase of one Parks Department
truck through the State Cooperative Fleet Plan by executing the
attached resolution .
BACKGROUND
The Parks and Zoo staff currently has only one truck for use by
• department staff . With the development of Paloma Creek only one
vehicle is available for the staff , making it impossible to complete
daily assignments .
The approved total of $30 ,000 for Paloma Creek Park includes
$7 ,710 for a truck. This will provide the staff with the necessary
vehicle to perform work at Paloma Creek.
FISCAL IMPACT
As mentioned, the total amount would not exceed $7 ,710 .
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Date Prepared B ---
DEPARTMENT
y Agency Billing Code Purchase Request Number Page Number
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICE'S
OFFICE OF PROCUREMENT
FOR OFFICE OF PROCUREMENT USE ONLY! S
*OCAL AGENCY H City of Atascadero
PURCHASE REQUEST I P.O. Box 747
P Atascadero , Ca. 93423
GSOP-36 (Rev 10/85) T
0
MAIL TO:
M
Office of Procurement A
P. 0. Box 1612
1 Same
Sacramento, CA 95807 L
Agency Contact Regarding This Request (Name, Title, b Phone Number) T
0
( 805 ) 466-8.000 , Ext . 123 (Purchase Order 5 Invoice Copies Will Be
Bob Best , Parks & Recreation Director Sent In Triplicate To •MAIL TO' Address)
LINE IOUANTITY 111NIT 1,TATE STOCK NUMBER DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE 1EXTENSION
Hereby requests that the State Office of Procurement purchase the items specified below under Provisions of California
Public Contract Code Section 10324.
l
#2320-009-0400 -6 Mini Pickup , 1200##Capacity 6 ,862. 98 6 ,462 . 98
4 cylinder , 3780 GVW,
Ford Ranger wuth all options
catalogued- as standard on
page 16 .
Engine 140CID H.W. w/coolant system
Bed 72X54 Tires P185/75R14
5 speed manual transmission
Step type rear bumper
Power disc brakes , air conditioning
60 amp alternator AM Radio
Resolution on file with state
procurement office .
MAXIMUM FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR THIS PURCHASE 1$ $7 . 710 - 00
The local agency accepts sole responsibility for payment to the vendor, and will make a payment directly to the vendor
in accordance with the provisions of the purchase order. It is understood that the State shall incur no financial
responsibility in connection with this purchase. The local agency agrees to pay promptly, when billed, all charges of
the Department of General Services for rendering the service.
Signature (Authorized by Resolution) Title
Date
M E M 0 R A N D U M
•
February 20 , 1986
To : City Council
Via: Mike Shelton , City Manager
From: Bob Best , Parks and Recreation Director Id
Subject : Animal Loan Agreements
INTRODUCTION
As part of our attempt to make the Charles Paddock Zoo mo»e
self-sufficient and bring quality animals to the zoo , I am proposing
animal loan agreements to be utilized. Basic procedures would in-
clude the shipment of animals to Atascadero or to other institutions
in California for breeding loan purposes . When animals are born
the Zoo would be able to keep a specified number of offspring. Due
to the fact that many of the species on loan agreements will be rare
or endangered, offspring will be very valuable. This will assist
the zoo in getting a collection which is valuable and popular with
the general public . In time , the City should be in a position to
• sell various species at prices which yield a profit . This should
prove to be a major contributor in heading the zoo toward self-
. Buff iency .
PROBLEM STATEMENT
At the present time no ordinance or resolution allows department
staff to enter into any type of agreement concerning the re-locating
and/or breeding of zoo animals .
RECOMMENDATION
Approve Resolution 21-86 authorizing the Director of Parks and
Recreation to enter into Animal Loan Agreements with other institutions ,
and to sign these agreements on behalf of the City of Atascadero .
FISCAL IMPACT
Cost of the program would be split equally between the loaning and
receiving insitutions . The only cost would be paid from the existing
zoo budget .
A sample agreement is attached.
CHARLES PADDOCK ZOO
CITY OF ATASCADERO
P.O. BOX 747
ATASCADERO, CA. 93423
ANIMAL LOAN AGREEMENT
This Animal Loan Agreement , entered into by
(loaning institution)
and
(receiving instituion)
and
( second loaning institution)
concerns the following specimen( s ) identified as follows :
and will remain in effect until terminated.
A. Obligation of the Loaning Institution
i1. It is agreed that in the event of diseases , injury or death of the
specimen( s) and in the absence of negligence , the receiving insti-
tution , its agents and employees will be free of all responsibility
to the loaning institution.
2 . A detailed copy of all information pertainingto s
the specimen( s ) ,
en( s ) ,
including, but not restricted to , ISIS data, behavioral traits ,
medical and reproductive history, diet , origin and all other per-
tinent data will be provided by the loaning instituion .
3. In the event of intention to sell , trade or otherwise dispose of
the specimen( s) the receiving instituion shall be given the first
right of refusal .efusal . In three-party p y a greements the other
loaning
instituion shall be given the second right of refusal .
B. Obligations of
g the Receiving Institution
1 . The receiving instituion will provide adequate housing , diet ,
veterinary care and other necessities conductive to the well-being
and reproduction of the specimen( s ) . Under certain circumstances
(bachelor herds , etc . : , the specimen( s ) may be placed in a non-
reproductive situation , but will be maintained in compliance with
the above , for subsequent reintroduction into a potential repro-
ductive situation .
njo
J
2 . Any live young born or hatched, either during the term of this
agreement or within a period after termination of this agreement
measured by the `normal gestation ,or incubation period of the
specimen( s) , willb e divided between the participating institu-
tions as follows
Loaning institution will be the owner of
(number) ( sex)
Receiving institution will be the owner of
(number) ' ( sex)
Second loaning institution will be the owner of
(number) ( sex) .
OR
3. In the event of the specimen( s ) being subjected to high-risk
veterinary or husbandry procedures , permission must first be
obtained by phone from the loaning institution before the per-
formance of such procedures . This provision is waived in the
event of an emergency. Details of such procedures shall be
provided in writing to the loaning institution within 10 days .
For any research project in which the specimen( s) may be subjected
to manipulation, stress or high-risk procedures , permission must
be obtained in writing from the appropirate official of the loan-
ing institution.
4 . The specimen( s) described in this document will not be trans-
ferred to another location outside the receiving institution ' s
contiguous property without first obtaining permission from the
loaning insitution .
5 . The loaning institution will be notified with
of mortaility of the specimen( s ) . Births, hatchings , serious
illness or the escape of the specimen( s ) shall be reported
within
6 . In the event of the death of the specimen( s ) , a detailed necropsy
will be" performed- by the receiving insitution and the findings
sent to the loaning institution.
7 . The carcass and its parts remain the property of the loaning
instituion . The final dispostion of the carcass and parts
will be the decision and responsibility of the loaning
institution.
•
��A
8. The receiving 'institu`ion will provide all information necessary
to maintain appropriate studbooks and record-keeping systems ,
including ISIS data, and provide such information to the loaning
institution, along with a yearly status report of the specimen(s) .
9. A copy of all pertinent records will be sent to the loaning
institution uoon terjination of this agreement .
10. The loaning institution will be free of any responsibility for
any personal injury or property damage due to any accident ,
escape or mishap resulting from this breeding loan.
C. Obligation of Both Institutions
1. All transportation expenses incurred in shipping the specimen( s)
to the receiving institution will be borne by the receiving
insitution; transportation expenses for returning the specimen( s)
to the loaning institution will be borne by the loaning institution .
2. This agreement will remain in effect until
unless otherwise terminated.
3. Either institution may terminate this agreement by giving the
other institution 30 days written notice prior to the effective
date of the proposed termination.
4 . Prior to the shipping of the specimen( s) , the receiving institution
must be notified at least 14 days in advance ; and specific shipping
information provided at least 24 hours in advance of actual
shipment .
5 . The welfare of the specimen( s ) shall be the sole goal of arbitra-
tion of any conflict that may arise from the implementation of this
agreement . In the event of a conflict , the directors of the loaning
and receiving insitutions shall each nominate five Professional
Fellows of the American Association of Zoological Parks and
Aquariums . The Professional Fellows must agree in writing to serve
as arbitrators . the lending institution would then delete a name
from the receiving institution ' s list , the receiving institution
would then delete a name from the lending insitution ' s list and
so rn until three names remain. The remaining Professional
Fellows shall arbitrate the dispute , and all involved institutions
shall agree to abide by their decisions .
Executed this day of 19
Loaning Insitution :
Signature :
Title
Institution
4j�
Receiving Institution--
Signature :
nstitution:Signature : K
Title :
Institution:
Second Loaning Institution:
Signature :
Title :
Institution :
DATE
CITY OF ATASCADERO
DIRECTOR, PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager � .
FROM: Paul Ssensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Bid No. 86-35 Asbestos Removal
DATE: February 19, 1986
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Council award the contract for asbestos
removal to P.W. Stephens Contractors, Inc. , 10343 E. Rush Street,
South E1 Monte, CA 91733. Only one bid was received for this project.
•
Background:
The asbestos to be removed is located on the first floor corridor
ceiling and is part of Phase IIA of the Administration Building Renovation.
Fiscal Impact:
The price bid was $11,490.00. Funds for this work are available
in the 1985-86 Budget. Engineer's estimate for the work was $12,000.
•
�0
•
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/City Enaineer
SUBJECT: Development Impact Fees
DATE: January 17, 1986
Recommendation:
The Development Fee Task Force recommends that Council:
1 Adopt an ordinance establishing the Development Impact
Fees as shown in the attached schedule,
2) That the fees go into effect on July 1, 1986 , •
(Any applications accepted prior to July 1 will not pay fees)
3) That the fees be paid upon issuance of building permit,
4) That development without buildings be subject to similar
fees and that other equivalent parameters besides sq. ft.
be used to determine the fees.
5) That offsite improvement, except for pave-out and curb,
gutter and sidewalk not be required unless triggered as
determined by the Director of Community Development, by
the following criteria,
6) That certain criteria will trigger offsite improvements,
namely;
a) The development requires an Environmental Impact
Review
b) The development requires certain reports or studies,
e.g. traffic or drainage,
c) The development does not have buildings, e.g. recreational
etc.
7) That a credit against normal fees beiven to developments
•
g P
that provide offsite improvements triggered as discussed,
and,
�u
8) That the Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Development Impact Fee
and the Lewis Avenue Bridge Impact Fee be separate and
distinct for those boundaries and that development in those
areas pay those fees in leiu of the normal drainage and
bridge impact fees.
9) That the fee schedule be by resolution, and that the fees
be adjusted annually according to the California Consumer
Price Index.
10) The Committee further recommends that a policy be adopted to
require developments of any class that front on an
undeveloped or underdeveloped street, city maintained or
non-maintained, to enter into agreement to petition for
assessment district for road improvements, at such time
as the city deems necessary.
SUK"LkRY OF FEES
Residential
Commercial Multiple Family Single Family Total
Fee/Landuse A t. U it Amt nit Am nit A t Unit
5 F.
Drainage 20,462 0.141 : 15,347 0.073 10,231 0.034 46,040 0.07
t Traffic 72,451 0.500 4,508 0.022 322 0.001 77,281 0.12
z" Bridges 22,706 0.157 26,368 0.1264
2 ,171 0.080 73,245 0.11
Roads 9, 731 0.067 11,301 0.054 10,359 0.034 31,391 0.05
Parks 0 0 64,595 0.309 4,614 0.015 69,209 0.11
Police 42,228 0.291 39,413 0.189 2,815 0.009 84,456 0.13
Fire 40,360 0.278 37,669 0.180 2,690 0.009 80,719 0.12
Bldg/Grnds 12,078 0.083 17,417 0.083 25,065 0.083 54,560 0.08
220,016 -41.517/ 216,618 1.03665 80,267 ( � 0.265, 516,901 0.79
Amapoa/
Techorida $501,470 S323,560 —�
Drainage $3,343/cfs $2,996/cfs
Lewis Ave. x$650,000
Bridge $1.9� 3/S.F.
t�
2 1
Background:
Council established, at the September 23 regular meeting, an
ad hoc Development Fee Task Force to study the reasonable distribution
of development fees that would be designated for specific capital
improvement categories, recommend the amount of such fees and report
back to Council with it' s recommendations.
The Committee members are within the following disciplines:
developer , builder , real estate, business and government. They are:
Wally Dunn, Tom McNamara, Norm Norton, Jud Porter, Paul Sensibaugh
and Jack Stinchfield. Mike Shelton, -City Manager , attended and
participated in all meetings.
The task force committee met seven times over a three-month
period and spent several hours on their own digesting material
and concepts.
Basis of Fees:
The recommended fees are intended to be used to solve specific
problems initiated or aggrevated by the impact of growth. The fee
is intended to be fair and reasonable and legally sound. The fees
are intended to be the reasonable cost of providing the services for
which the respective fee is charged and the basis for determining
the amounts of the fees bears a reasonable relationship to the
mitigation derived from the fee for the respective impacts.
The Purpose and Scope of the Development Fee Task Force as well
as a detailed scenario for the basis of all fees is contained in the
booklet used by the committee and made a part of this report.
Fiscal Impact:
The suggested development impact fees should derive approximately
$517, 000 per year and is based on an average of $0.79 per sq. ft. The
$0.50 tax is estimated to provide about $327 , 500/year . Thus, if
adopted, the City could realize approximately $845, 000 per year for
capital improvements. It is noted that the need without the Amapoa-
Tecorida and Lewis Avenue Bridge projects is about $855, 000 per year
for capital improvements.
t
3
ORDINANCE NO. 117
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
ADDING CHAPTER 9 TO TITLE 3 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE
ENACTING A FEE FOR THE AMAPOA - TECORIDA DRAINAGE AREA
WHEREAS ,historically, the Amapoa - Tecorida area in the City of
Atascadero has been subject to flooding and flooding problems -
during rainy seasons ; and
WHEREAS , residential and non-residential. development in the Amapoa -
Tecorida area have a great impact on drainage/run-off in the area;
and
WHEREAS , a mechanism is necessary to provide for public and capital
improvements as a result of increased residential and non-residen-
tial development in the Amapoa - Tecorida area such that the im-
pact of new development will be borne equitably by that new devel-
opment,
evel-
opment, a_nd
WHEREAS , The City of Atascadero as a general law city in the State
of California has the power to impose valid regulatory fees pur-
suant to the California Constitution, Article XI , Section 7; and
WHEREAS , A Development Fee Task Force appointed by the City Council
has carefully evaluated the costs attributable to the impact of new
development in the Amapoa - Tecorida area as documented in their
1986 report to the City Council; and
WHEREAS , The Development Fee Task Force has recommended that fees
be levied which do not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the
necessary services .
PART 1 . Chapter 9 is added to Title 3 of the
Atasca ero Municipal Code to read as follows :
CHAPTER 9
AMAPOA - TECORIDA DRAINAGE FEE
Sections : Title of Section:
3-9. 01 Title
3-9 . 02 Purpose and Intent
3-9 . 03 Definitions
3-9 . 04 Standards for Fees
3-9.05 Issuance of Regulations and
Setting of Fees
3-9. 06 Adjustment to Fees
3-9. 07 Limitations on Use
3-9 . 08 Payment of Fee
3-9 . 09 Alternative Payment
3-9 . 10 Exceptions
3-9 .11 Construction Prohibited
3-9. 12 Refund of Fee
3-9 . 13 Effective Date
3-9. 14 Severability
Section 3-9. 01 : TITLE:
This Chapter shall be known and may be cited at the "Amapoa
Tecorida Drainage Fee Ordinance . "
Section 3-9 . 02 :PURPOSE AND INTENT:
The purpose of this Chapter is to impose and collect a fee
on the construction and occupancy of new or expanded residential
and non-residential projects within that area of the City of
Atascadero known as the Amapoa - Tecorida area, which fees shall
be imposed for the sole purpose of constructing public facilities
to mitigate drainage problems due 'to the impact of new development
in the Amapoa — Tecorida area.
Section 3-9 . 03 : DEFINITIONS :
In addition to the definitions contained in Section 3-7 . 03
of
this Title , the following terms shall have the following meanings
when used in this Chapter.
(a) "New Development" shall include all residential , comrmer-
cial, or non-residential development in the Amapoa - Tecorida area.
(b) "Capital Improvements" are any public facilities includ-
ing drainage channels , culverts , and the like .funded through the
City' s Amapoa - Tecorida Drainage Impact Fee budget.
(c) "Costs of Capital Improvements" includes all costs re-
lated to acquisition, construction, repair, and financing but does
not include costs of routine maintenance .
(d) "Amapoa - Tecorida Drainage Area" shall mean that area
as set forth in the official map filed in the Engineering Depart-
ment of the City of Atascadero , a copy of which is attached to this
Ordinance as Exhibit A and made a part hereof.
-2-
Section 3-9 . 04 : STANDARDS FOR FEES :
Any fees imposed pursuant to this Chapter shall bear a reason-
able relationship to the costs associated with the capital improve-
ments which need is generated by such development in the Amapoa-
Tecorida Area.
Section 3-9. 05 : ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS AND SETTING OF FEES :
The City Council shall .from time to time by resolution, issue
regulations and set fees for the administration of this Chapter.
Section 3-9. 06 : ADJUSTMENT TO FEES:
The rates upon which the fees are based may be adjusted as of
July 1 of each year to reflect changes in building costs as deter-
mined in the revised Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers
for Los Angeles-Long Beach, California Area, for all items (1967-
100) , as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau
of Labor Statistics for the period between the year immediately
preceeding July 1 of each year. In calculating any increase , the
most current index available immediately preceeding July 1 of each
year shall be used. In the event that the index is unavailable , is
no longer published, or is calculated on a significantly different
basis following the date of the enactment of this Ordinance, the
most comprehensive o:Lficial index published which most closely ap-
proximates the rate of inflation shall be substituted in place of
the aforesaid index.
Section 3-9. 07 : LIMITATIONS ON USE :
(a) All fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be
placed in a capital outlay fund described as the Amapoa - Tecorida
Drainage Impact Fee fund and used only to pay for costs of capital
improvements as defined herein. The capital outlay fund shall be
divided into as many sub-funds as shall be necessary to separately
assess and collect fees for single-family residential development ,
multi-family residential development , and commercial/industrial
development.
(b) The amount of fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance
shall be limited to that portion of the cost which is reasonably
attributable to the impact generated by new development in the
Amapoa - Tecorida Drainage area.
Section 3-9 . 08 : PAY1,1ENT OF FEE :
Any applicant for a building permit for new development in the
Amapoa - Tecorida Drainage area shall pay a development fee in con-
-3-
1�j
�unction with payment of the building permit fee. The fee shall
e payable at the Building Division, City Nall, Atascadero , Califor-
mia, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The fee for a
mobile home space shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first 0
permit for the construction of such space or if such construction
is performed without a permit, at •the time the construction is
commenced.
Section 3-0 . 09 : ALTERNATE PAYMENT:
The amount of the payment of a Development Impact Fee and the
timing thereof, can only be altered pursuant to an agreement ap-
proved by the Council of the City of Atascadero.
Section 3-09. 10 : EXCEPTIONS :
There is excepted from the fee imposed by this Chapter the
following:
(a) The construction of a building, structure , or mobile home
which is a replacement for a building or mobile home being demol-
ished or moved from that parcel of land. The exception shall equal
but not exceed the fee which would be payable hereunder , if the
building or mobile home is a replacement or new construction. If
the fee imposed on the replacement or new construction exceeds the
amount of this exception, such excess shall be paid pursuant to
this Chapter;
(b) When imposition of such fee would be in violation of the
Constitution of the laws of the State of California, County of San
Luis Obispo , or the City of Atascadero;
(c) A condominium project converting an existing multi-family
building into condominiums where no new dwellings are added or
created, and no new building permit gees are sought for any addi-
tional construction;
(d) Any rebuilding of a structure destroyed or damaged by
fire , explosion, act of God, or other accident or catastrophe which
rebuilding does not increase the original gross building area. If
such increase does occur, the increase shall be subject to the fee
as imposed by this Chapter;
(e) Any rebuilding of a historical building recognized, ac-
knowledged, and designated as such by the City Planning Commission
or City Council of this City;
(f) The constuction of any building by the City of Atasca-
dero , or the United States or any department or agency thereof ,
-4-
or by the State of California or any -department , agency, or
political subdivision thereof, or any residential or non-residen-
tial development where the City Council finds there are specific
over-riding fiscal , economic , social or environmental factors bene-
fiting the City which, in the sole judgment of the City Council ,
would justify the approval of such development without the payment
of the fee provided by this Chapter.
Section 3-9 . 11 : CONSTRUCTION PROHIBITED:
It is unlawful for any person to erect , construct , enlarge ,
alter, repair, move , improve, make , put together , or convert any
building or structure of the City, or attempt to do so , or cause
the same to be done, without first paying the fee imposed by this
Chapter.
Section 3-9 . 12 : REFUND OF FEE :
If the building permit approval is vacated or voided, and if
the applicant so requests in *,writing, there shall be a refund of
the entire fee as set forth in this Chapter.
Section 3-9 . 13 : EFFECTIVE DATE: ,
The fees imposed by this Chapter shall be applicable with re-
spect to building permits for construction activities applied
for on or after thrity (30) days from the passage of this Ordinance.
Section 3-9 . 14 : SEVERABILITY:
If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause , or phrase of
this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitu-
tional by the decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction, such
decision shall not affect the validity of any remaining portion of
this Chapter.
PART 2 . The City Clerk shall cause this
Ordinance to be published in the Atascadero News , a newspaper of
general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in this
City, once within fifteen (15) days after its passage , in accor-
dance with government code Section 36933 ; shall certify the adop-
tion of this Ordinance; and shall cause this Ordinance and certifi-
cation to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City.
r
On motion by Council Member and
seconded by Council Member t e follow-
ing Ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety on the _following
roll call vote :
ADOPTED:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
ATTEST
ROBERT M. JONES , City Clerk ROLFE NELSON, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT :
ROBERT A .__....._
M. JONES , City Attorney MICHA L SHELTON, ' ty Manager
-6-
r
RESOLUTION NO. 9-86
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
AMAPOA-TECORIDA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PURSUANT TO
ORDINANCE NO. 117
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero has
adopted Ordinance No. 117 known as the Amapoa-Tecorida Development
Impact Fee Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, Section 3-9.04 and 3-9.06 of Ordinance No. 117
provides for the adoption of a fee schedule required to be paid by
developers in the specified area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The following fee schedule shall be effective 30 days after
passage of said Ordinance.
a) The development or construction of residential or non-
residential buildings, and the person causing such to
be constructed shall pay a fee in the amount of:
Commercial & Multifamily: $3 ,343 per cubic feet per
second of runoff based on 3 cfs per acre, and
Single Family: $2,996 per cubic feet per second of
runoff, based on 1. 8 cfs per acre.
The Development Impact Fee Report is hereby identified and
incorporated as a part of this resolution.
b) All developments which were previously conditioned for
deposits pursuant to Resolution No. 42-85 shall pay this
fee as meeting the obligation of contribution to the
future drainage improvements and will be payable upon
notice after passage. Appropriate credits may be applied
as determined by the Director of Public Works.
On motion by and seconded by
, the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in
its entirety by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
i (Res . No. 9-86)
ATTEST:
ROBERT M. JONES ROLFE NELSON, Mayor
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT APPROVED AS TO FORM
PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH ROBERT M. JONES
Director of Public Works City Attorney
City Engineer
2
ORDINANCE NO. 118
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
ADDING CHAPTER 10 TO TITLE 3 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE
ESTABLISHING A LEWIS AVENUE BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
WHEREAS , a general plan of the City of Atascadero identifies a
circulation problem in the downtown area relating to the need for
a bridge across Atascadero Creek from Lewis Avenue to the proposed
Highway 41 extension; and
WHEREAS , commercial development in the City of Atascadero in the
downtown area will generate increased traffic and circulation pro-
blems , and therefore, the need for capital improvement , specifically
a bridge across Atascadero Creek from Lewis Avenue; and
WHEREAS , a mechanism is necessary to provide a predictable and equi-
table funding method for requiring new developments in the downtown
area to cover the cost of providing a bridge across Atascadero Creek
at Lewis Avenue, thereby improving traffic and circulation in the
downtown area, which bridge would benefit such new development; and
WHEREAS , the City of Atascadero is a general law city in the State
of California and has the power to impose valid regulatory fees for
the health, safety, and welfare of the City of Atascadero pursuant to
the California Constitution, Article XI , Section 7 ; and
WHEREAS , the Development Fee Task Force appointed by the City Council
has carefully evaluated the costs attributable to the impact of new
development in the downtown area as documented in their 1986 report
to the City Council; and
WHEREAS , the Development Fee Task Force has recommended that fees
be levied for the construction of a Lewis Avenue Bridge which shall
not exceed the reasonable and actual cost of providing such bridge.
NOW, THEREFORE , THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS :
PART 1 . An Ordinance of the City of Atascadero
establishing a Lewis Avenue Bridge Development Impact Fee by adding
Chapter 10 to Title 3 of the Atascadero municipal Code to read as
follows :
40�
CHAPTER 10
LEWIS AVENUE BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Sections : Title of Sections :
3-10. 01 Title
3-10. 02 Scope and Purpose
3-10 . 03 Definitions
3-10 . 04 Standards for Fees
3-10 . 05 Issuance of Regulations and Setting
of Fees
3-10 . 06 Adjustment of Fees
3-10 . 07 Limitation on Use
3-10. 08 Payment of Fee
3-10 . 09 Alternative Payment
3-10 . 10 Exceptions
3-10 . 11 Construction Prohibited
3-10 . 12 Refund of Fee
3-10 . 13 Effective Date
3-10 . 14 Severability
Section 3-10. 01 : TITLE :
This Chapter shall be known and may be cited as "The Lewis
Avenue Bridge Development Impact Fee Ordinance. "
Section 3-10 . 02 : SCOPE AND PURPOSE :
The purpose of this Ordinance is to provide a predictable and
equitable funding method of requiring new development in the down-
town area to pay for the cost of the construction of the Lewis
Avenue Bridge from East Mall on the North across Atascadero Creek
to the extension of Highway 41 on the South. Thus , new development
in the downtown area will be required to cover the capital cost of
this specific bridge construction so that the impacts of increased
circulation and traffic problems will be borne equitably by that
new development.
Section 3-10.03 : DEFINITIONS :
In addition to the definitions contained in Section 3-7 . 03 of
this Title , the following terms shall have the following meanings
when used in this Chapter.
(a) "New Development" means any commercial, multi-family
residential, or non-residential construction in the downtown area,
but not including single-family residential construction.
-2-
(b) "Downtown Area" shall be all that area set forth in the
map on file in the Engineering Department of th.e City, a copy o4--
which
fwhich is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof.
(c) "Costs of Capital Improvement" include- all costs related
to acquisition , construction, repair , ani financing, but do not in-
clude costs of routine maintenance.
(d) "Bridge" shall mean the Lewis Avenue Bridge including
curbs , sidewalks , related structures adjacent to bri '¢e , and a paral-
lel pedestrian bridges necessary for circulation and traffic relat-
ing to the bridge , at the Lewis Avenue-Atascadero Creek crossover,
and no other bridge in the City of Atascadero.
Section 3-10. 04 : STANDARDS FOR FEES :
Any fees imposed pursuant to this Chapter shall bear a reason-
able relationship to the costs associated with the capita_ improve-
ment which need is generated by such development .
Section 3-10 . 05 : ISSUANCE OF REGULATIOTTS AND SETTING OF FF,;?S :
The City Council shall from time to time by resolution , issue
regulations and set fees for the administration of this Chapter.
Section 3-10 . 06 : ADJUSTEENT OF FEES :
The rates upon which the fees are based may be adjusted as of
July 1 of each year to reflect changes in buil__jing costs as deter-
mined in the revised Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers
for Los Angeles-Long Beach, California Area, for all items (1967-
100) , as published by the United States Department of Labor , Bureau
of Labor Statistics for the period between the year immediately
preceeding July 1 of each year. In calculating any increase , the
most current index available preceeding July 1 of each
year s':,all be used. In the event that the index is unavailable , is
no longer published, or is calculated on a significantly different
basis following the date of the enactment of this Ordinance , the
most comprehensive official index published which most closely ap-
proximates the rate of inflation shall he substututed in puce or
the aforesaid index.
Section 3-10 . 07 : LIM7ITATION OF USE :
(a) All feescollected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be
placed in a capital outlay fund, known as the ?:ewis Avenue Bridge
Development Fee fund, and used only to pay dor those costs of
capital improvements as defined herein.
-3-
(b) Fees shall only be collected from commercial development
in that area set forth as the downtown business area.
(c) The amount of fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance
which can be applied to the capital improvement known as Lewis
Avenue Bridge shall be limited to that portion of the cost whic?^_ is
reasonably attributable to the impact of t'.he new development in
the downtown area.
Section 3-10 . 08 : PAY1,1ENT OT FEE :
Any applicant for a building permit for new development within?.
the Lewis Avenue Bride - Atascadlero Creek area shall pay a develop-
ment fee in conjunction with payment of the building permit fee . The
feeshallbe payable at the Building Division, City Hall , Atascadero ,
California, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The fee for
a mobile home space shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first
permit for the construction of such space or if such construction
-is performed without a permit , at the time the construction is com-
menced.
Section 3-10 .09 : ALTERNATIVE PAY=TS :
The amount of the payment of the Lewis Avenue Bridge Development
Impact fee and tr.e timing thereof , can only be altered pursuant to
an agreement approved by the City Council of the City of Atascadero
Section 3-10 . 10 : EICEPTIONS :
There is excepted from this Chapter and the fees imposed herein ,
those exceptions as set forth in Section 3-07 . 10 of this Title.
Section 3-10 . 11 : CONSTRUCTION PROHIBITED:
It is unlawful for any person to erect, construct , enlarge ,
alter, repair, move , improve , make , put together , or convert any
building or structure in the downtown area, or attempt to do so , or
cause the same to be done without first paying the fee imposed by
this Chapter.
Section 3-1.0 . 12 : REFUND OF FEE :
If the building permit approval is vacated or voided, and if
the applicant so requests in writing, there shall be a refund of
the entire Development Impact Fee paid.
Section 3-10 . 13 : Ei'TIECTIVE DATE :
The fees imposed by this Chapter shall be applicable with
-4-
respect to building permits for construction activities applied for
on or after thirty (35) days from the date of passage of this
Ordinance.
Section 3-15 . 14 : SEVERABILITY:
If any section, sub-section, sentence , clause , or phrase of
this Ordinance is ror any reason held to be invalid or unconstitu-
tional by the decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction, such
decision shall not affect the validity of any remaining portion of
this Chapter .
PART 2 . The City Clerk shall cause this
Ordinance to be published in the Atascadero News , a newspaper of
general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in this
City, once within fifteen (15) days after its passage , in accor-
dance with government code Section 36933 ; and shall certify the
adoption of this Ordinance; and shall cause this Ordinance and
certification to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this
City.
On Notion by Council T-ember , and
seconded by Council Member , the
following Ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety on the follow-
ing roll call vote :
ADOPTED:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT :
ATTEST :
ROBERT T1. JONES , City Clerk ROLFE NELSON? , Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT :
'tl(
ROBERT M. JONES , City Attorney MICHAEL, SHELTON , City Manager
-5- ��
RESOLUTION NO. 11-86
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ATASCADERO RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE LEWIS AVENUE BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 118
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero has adopted
Ordinance No. 118 known as "The Lewis Avenue Bridge Development Impact
Fee", and
WHEREAS, Section 3-10.04 and 3-10.05 of Ordinance No 118 provides
for the adoption of a fee schedule required to be paid by developers.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The following fee schedule shall be effective 30 days
after passage of said Ordinance.
a. The development or construction of non-residential
buildings, and the person causing such to be con-
structed shall pay a fee in the amount of $1.93/S.F.
or $168 .00/ADT if square foot cannot be used, based
on 87 S.F/ADT.
b. All developments which werereviousl conditioned to
P Y
pay a reasonable share of the bridge construction pro-
ject shall be subject to the above fee as meeting that
condition and will be payable upon notice after passage.
Appropriate credits will be applied as determined by
the Director of Public Works.
The Development Impact Fee Report is hereby identified and
incorporated as a part of this Resolution.
On motion by and seconded by
, the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its
entirety by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
• (Res . No. 11-86)
ATTEST:
ROBERT M. JONES ROLFE NELSON, Mayor
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH ROBERT M. JONES
Director of Public Works/ City Attorney
City Engineer
2
ORDINANCE NO. 110
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
ADDING CHAPTER 8 to TITLE 3 OF THE ATASCADEP.O MUNICIPAL CODE
ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPME,7 IMPACT FEE
WHEREAS , residential, both single and multi-family, commercial,
industrial , and other non-residential development in the City of
Atascadero requires substantial public :facilities and capital
improvements pursuant to the City' s General Plan and other similar
policies ; and
WHEREAS , the costs of these public improvements are constantly es-
calating and funding resources for public facilities and capital im-
provements are diminished in terms of availability and control; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has found that due to the increase in
growth and population in Atascadero , services in the area of drain-
age , traffic control, bridges ,roads , parks , police , fire , adminis-
tration and other public buildings and grounds , require improvemiert
to meet the needs of the public health, safety, and welfare; and
WHEREAS , a mechanism is necessary to provide a predictable and equit-
able funding method for requiring new development to cover the costs
of future public facilities and capital improvements which are of
benefit to such development such that t"e impact to new gro:zth. Ti 1
be borne equitably by that new development; and
WHEREAS , the City of Atascadero as a general law city in the State of
California has the po*J,er to impose valid regulatory Fees pursuant to
the California Constitution, Article VI , Section 7 ; and
WHEREAS , the Development Fee Task Force appointed by the City Council_
has carefully evaluated the costs attributable to the impact of new
development as documented in their 1986 report to the City Co-Lncil;
and
WHEREAS , the Development Fee Task Force has recommended that fees
be levied which do not exceed the reasonable cost o" providing the
necessary services .
NOW, THEREFORE , THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS :
PART 1 . An Ordinance of the City of Atascadero es-
tablisHing a Development Impact Fee by adding Chapter g to Title 3
of the Atascadero Municipal Code to read. as follows :
CHAPTER 8
DEVELOP1,1ENT I111PACT FEE
SECTIONS : TITLE 07 SECTION
3-8. 01 Title
3-8. 02 Scope and Purpose
3-8 . 03 Definitions
3-8. 04 Standards for Fees
3-8 . 05 Issuance of Regulations and
Setting of Fees
3-8 . 06 Adjustment to Fees
3-8. 97 Limitations on Use
3-8. 08 Payment of Fee
3-8. 00, Alternative Payment
3-8. 10 Exceptions
3-8. 11 Construction Prohibited
3-8 . 12 Refund of Fee
3-8. 13 Effective nate
3-8 . 14 Severability
Section 3-8 . 01 : TITLE :
This Chapter shad_?_ be known and may be cited as the "Devel-
opment Impact Fee Ordinance. "
Section 3-8. 02 : SCOPE AND PURPOSE :
Theur os f
p p e o� this Ordinance is torovic�.e a predictable and
P
equitable funding method of requiring new development to pay for
the costs of future capital improvements which will benefit such_
development. Thus , new development will be required to cover the
cost of anticipated future public facilities and capital improve-
ments so that the impact to new growth �ail_l be borne equitably by
the new development.
Section 3-8 . 03 : REFI`, ITICNS :
In addition to the definitions contained in Section 3-7 . 03 ,
the following terms shall have the following meanings when used in
this Chapter.
(a) "New Development" means any resicential , single or multi-
family, commercial , industrial , or other non-resideritial construe-
tion project as specifically excepted herein.
(b) "Capital Improvement" means any public facilities or
equipment funded through the City's capital improvement budget .
-2-
(c) "Costs of Capital Improvement" includes all costs rela-
0 ted to acquisition, construction, repair, and financing, but does
not include costs of routine maintenance .
(d) "Governmental Facilities" are capita?. improvements rela-
ted to City Hall , City garage and equipment yard, City offices ,
parking, and all other public buildings and grounds , and similar
facilities in or through which general City government operations
are conducted.
(e) "Public Safety Facilities" are capital improvements rela-
ted to police and fire operations .
(f) "Essential Infrastructure" are capital improvements re-
lated to streets (including curbs , sidewalks , and related struc-
tures) , bridges , traffic control, drainage , and similar facilities
which serve public transportation, access , and drainage needs .
(g) "Park and Recreaction Facilities" are capital improvements
of general community benefit such as major landscaping , fountains ,
monuments , signs , and other similar facilities .
Section 3-8. 04 : STANDARDS FOR FEES :
Any fees imposed pursuant to this Chapter shall bear a reason-
able relationship to the costs associated with the capital improve-
ments which need is generated by such development.
Section 3-8. 05 : ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS AND SETTING OF HESS :
The City Council shall from time to time by resolution, issue
regulations and set fees for the administration of this Chapter.
Section 3-8. 06 : ADJUSTYEPNT TO FEES :
The rates upon which the fees are based may be adjusted as
of July 1 of each year to reflect changes in building costs as de-
termined in the revised Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consum-
ers for Los Angeles-Long Beach, California Area , for all items
(1967-100) , as published by the United States Department of Labor ,
Bureau of Labor Statistics for the period between the year immeii-
ately preceeding July 1 of each year. In calculating any increase ,
the most current index available immediately preceeding July lo= eac:,_
year shall be used. In the event that tr.e in� ex is unavailable , is
no longer published, or is calculated on a significantly different
basis following the date of the enactment of tris Ordinance , the
most comprehensive official index publis>,ed which most closely ap-
proximates the rate of inflation shall- be substituted in place of
the aforesaid index.
J
Section 3-8. 07: LIMITATIONS ON USE :
(a) All fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be
placed in the capital outlay fun- and used only to pay for costs
of capital improvements as defined, herein. The capital outlay
fund shall be divided into as many sub-funds as shall be necessary
to separately assess fees for single-family residential , multi-
family residential , commercial , industrial , and other non-residen-
tial development.
(b) Fees from residential development of single , multi-
family units may be used for all types of capital improvements .
(c) :Fees from commercial , industrial, and other non-residen-
tial development may be used for all types of capital improvements
except parks and recreation facilities .
(d) The amount of fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance
which can be applied to any capital improvement shall be limited
to that portion of the cost which is reasonably attributable to
the need generated by new development or benefit conferred upon new
development. In approving each capital improvement budget use of
funds from the capital outlay fund, the City Council shall appor-
tion the cost of capital improvements between needs or benefits
relating to existing development and needs or benefits relating to
new development.
Section 3-8. 08 : PAYMENT OF FEE :
Any applicant for a building permit for new development shall
pay a development fee in conjunction with payment of the building
permit fee. The fee shall be payable at the Building Division,
City Hall , Atascadero , California , prior to the issuance of a build-
ing permit. The fee for a mobile home space shall be paid prior to
the issuance of the first permit for the construction of such space
or if such construction is performed without a permit , at the time
when construction is ccmmer_ced
Section 3-3 . 09: ALTE;ZNATIVE PAYMENT :
The amount of the payment of a Development Impact Fee and the
timing thereof , can only be altered pursuant to an agreement approved
by the City Council of Atascadero.
Section 3-3 . 10 : EXCEPTIONS :
There is excepted from the Development Impact Fee imposeri by
this Chapter those exceptions as set forth in Section 3-7 . 10 of
the Atascadero Municipal Code .
is
-4-
Section 3-8. 11 : CONSTRUCTION PROHIBITED:
It is unlawful for any person. to erect , construct , enlarge,
alter, repair, move , improve , make , put together or convert any
building or structure in the City , ' or attempt to do so , or cause
the same to be done , without first paying the fee imposed by this
Chapter.
Section 3-8. 12 : REFUND OF FEE :
If the building permit approval is vacated or voided, and if
the applicant so requests in writing, there shall be a refund of
the entire Development Impact Fee paid.
Section 3-8. 13 : EFFECTIVE DATE :
The fees imposed by this Chapter shall be applicable with re-
spect to building permits for construction activities applied for
on or after July 1 , 1986 .
Section 3-8. 14 : SEVERABILITY:
If any section, sub-section, sentence , clause , or phrase of
. this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitu-
tional by the decision of the Court of competent jurisdiction,
such decision shall not affect the validity of any remaining por-
tion of this Chapter.
PART 2. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance
to be published in the Atascadero 'Yews , a newspaper of general cir-
culation, printed, published, and circulated in this City, once
within fifteen (15) days after its passage , in accordance with
government code Section 36933 ; shall certify the adoption of this
Ordinance; and shall_ cause this Ordinance and certification to be
entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City.
On motion by Council Member , seconded by
Council Member ' the foregoing Ordinance is
hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote :
ADOPTED:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
ATTEST :
• ROBERT TI. JONES , City Clerk— ROLFE NELSON , Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
RUBERE M. JUMES , City or y _ _E , 1 .anager
7
RESOLUTION NO. 10-86
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ATASCADERO RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES PURSUANT TO
ORDINANCE NO. 119
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero has
adopted Ordinance No. 119 known as the "Development Impact Fee
Ordinance" ; and
WHEREAS, Section 3-8.04 and 3-8.05 of Ordinance No. 119 pro-
vides for the adoption of a fee schedule required to be paid by
developers.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The following tax rate schedule shall be effective July 1,
1986 :
a. Development Impact Fees
(Dollars per Sq. Ft. of Building or Alternate Fee)
Fee/Land Use Commercial MultiFamily Single Family
Drainage $0.141/S.F. $0.073/S.F. $0.034/S.F.
$770. /cfs $533. /cfs $46.00/cfs
Traffic $0.500/S.F. $0.022/S.F. $0.001/S.F.
$43.46/ADT $2.27 /ADT $0.18 /ADT
Bridges $0.157/S.F. $0. 126/S.F. $0.080/S.F.
$13.62/ADT $13.29/ADT $13.43/ADT
Roads $0.067/S.F. $0.054/S.F. $0.034/S.F.
$5.34 /ADT $5.70 /ADT $5.76 /ADT
Parks $0.000/S.F. $0.309/S.F. $0.015/S.F.
Police $0.291/S.F. $0.189/S.F. $0.009/S.F.
Fire $0.278/S.F. $0.180/S.F. $0.009/S.F.
Bldg/Grounds $0.083/S.F. $0.083/S.F. $0.083/S.F.
TOTAL FEE $1.517/S.F. $1.036/S.F. $0.265/S.F.
(Res . No. 10-86)
b. The developer of a mobile home park shall pay a one-time
development mitigation tax of TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00)
for each mobile home space site.
2. This schedule of fees shall not apply to building permit
applications which were accepted by the Building Division
as complete applications prior to July 1, 1986 .
The Development Fee Impact Report is hereby identified and
incorporated as a part of this resolution.
On motion by and seconded by
, the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its
entirety by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
ROBERT M. JONES ROLFE NELSON, Mayor
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH ROBERT M. JONES
Director of Public Works City Attorney
City Engineer
2
i•=w= Tc A,,I 4-AL z
M E M O R A N D U M
•
TO: City Council February 24, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 2G-85
LOCATION: 8205 Coromar Road
APPLICANT: John and Dorothy Lopus
REQUEST: To revise the General Plan Land Use map from Moderate
Density Single Family Residential to High Density Single
Family Residential.
RECOMMENDATION (Planning Commission) :
On a 5:2 vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
• general plan amendment request to include the entire study area but
excluding the portion of Lot 27 fronting on Atascadero Avenue and Lot
32 on Portola (Alternative IV as referenced in attached staff report) .
Approval of Draft Resolution No. 20-85 would approve this recommenda-
tion. Should the Council approve this recommendation, it should also
initiate rezoning to bring the zoning into compliance with the 1/2
acre lot standards.
RECOMMENDATION (Staff) :
Staff had recommended denial of the amendment request based on the
findings contained in the attached staff report.
BACKGROUND:
This request was considered by the Planning Commission originally on
February 7, 1983 and subsequently by the City Council on February 22,
1983 and was denied. A new application for this location was heard
again by the Planning Agency on May 6, 1985, June 17, 1985 and July
1, 1985. At that time the Commission recommended approval of the re-
quest (with Commissioners Sanders, Nolan and Hatchell dissenting)
which contained a change in the area boundaries, eliminating the Atas-
cadero Road frontage by extending the area boundary common to Lots 33
A-M. The matter was heard by the City Council on August 12,1985 and
referred the matter back to the Commission for a report on matters not
previously considered by the Commission (Iverson property ownership
• and the results of the sewer study) .
City of Atascadero Item: B-3
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 2/3/86
BY: Doug Davidson, Assistant Planner File No: GPA 2G-85
Project Address: 8205 Coromar Road
SUBJECT:
To revise the General Plan Land Use map from Moderate Density Single
Family Residential to High Density Single Family Residential.
BACKGROUND:
This request was previously reviewed under General Plan Amendment
820930 :2. On February 7, 1983, the Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing on the subject and directed preparation of a resolution
denying the general plan amendment. Resolution 3-83 was adopted on
February 22, 1983. That study focused on an expanded study area, in-
cluding all properties between Coromar Avenue, Highway 101, Curbaril
Avenue, and Portola Avenue. The major factors in the decision at that
time were the density of development, traffic impacts, and the impact
on sewer capacity if additional lots were allowed in the area.
At the Planning Agency meeting of May 6, 1985 each application of Gen-
eral Plan Cycle II was considered. This request is the same as was
proposed in 1982. After receiving a letter from a property owner
across the street requesting that his property be included in this
land use map change, the Planning Commission concurred with staff' s
recommendation to enlarge the study area for this present request.
This area includes all lots which front on Coromar, between Portola
and Curbaril, not including the property zoned Commercial Tourist (CT)
at the corner of Portola and Coromar.
The matter was continued at the Planning Commission meeting of June
17, 1985 to allow the applicant' s engineer to present additional in-
formation. On July 1, 1985 , the Planning Commission recommended ap-
proval of the request with Commissioners Sanders, Nolan and Hatchell
dissenting. The approval contained a change in the area boundaries,
eliminating the Atascadero Road frontage by extending the area boun-
dary common to Lots 33 A-M.
The City Council reviewed the request on August 12, 1985 and decided
to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for a report on
matters not previously before the Commission This included considera-
tion of an Iverson tract proposal to subdivide his property and to
provide for a street between Coromar and Atascadero Avenue. The Coun-
cil also concluded that it would be wise to review the matter in light
of the sewer study being prepared by John Wallace and Associates.
General Plan Amendm* GP 2G-85-.
G-85 (John and Dorotoy Lopus)
Due to the review of the Iverson proposal and another request by an
adjacent property owner to be included in the study area; the area
under review tonight is as follows: 1 0
All RSF-Y lots which front on Coromar , as well as Lot 27, a por-
tion of Lot 28, and Lot 32 of Block 7.
Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on June
7th, 1985 and all owners of record property located within 300 feet of
the study area were notified on that date.
A. LOCATION: 8205 Coromar (Lot 13D of Block 7)
B. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To revise the General Plan Land
Use map from Moderate Density
Single Family to High Density
Single Family. This change
would allow for half acre lot
sizes.
2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .John and Dorothy Lopus
3. Engineer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .John Kennaly
4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The subject property is approx-
imately 1. 4 acres. The study
area has been enlarged to in-
clude all lots which front on
Coromar between Portola and Cur-
baril, but not including the
Commercial Tourist zoning on the
corner of Portola and Coromar
(Lots 34, 34A, 34B) . The area
also includes Lot 27, a portion
of Lot 28, and Lot 32 of Block
7. This area includes approxi-
mately 56 parcels depending on
the validity of some lot lines.
This request could allow for an
additional maximum of 59 lots in
the study area.
5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Coromar is a City maintained
.street with a 40 foot right-of-
way.
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Y (minimum lot size, one
acre with sewer , 1 1/2 acre
without sewer)
2 �'�/
General Plan Amendmet GP 2G-85 (John and Dorothhf Lopus)
7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Single family residence
8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RSF-Y, residential
South: RSF-Y, residential
East: U.S. Highway 101
West: RSF-Y, residential
9 . General Plan Designation. . . . .Moderate Density Single Family
10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Level to gently sloping residen-
tial area.
11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration
C. ANALYSIS:
In the RSF-Y zone, the minimum lot size is one acre with sewer,
one and one half acre without sewer. This subject area is entire-
ly served by sewer . This proposal for High Density Single Family
Residential would allow for a minimum of one half acre lot sizes.
Proposed Density:
The area under review contains approximately 56 parcels. The lots
range in size from . 25 acres to 6.1 acres. Average lot size is
approximately one acre. Eighteen of the 56 parcels are currently
one-half acre or less. The area contains several vacant lots and
is otherwise fully developed with single family residences. Under
the current designation, five lots could be split into potentially
nineteen new lots. If the land use were changed to High Density
Single Family, 28 lots would be eligible for one-half acre lot
sizes, resulting in potentially 59 new lots in the study area.
Staff' s main concern is this potential density of development and
its impact on traffic and capacity of the sewer system. The gen-
eration of traffic created by this land use change needs to be
looked at together with that created by Madrid Plaza. This 88,000
square foot shopping center, containing a bowling alley, restau-
rant, and general retail stores, is located directly southeast of
the Coromar study area. The Community Development Department is
currently plan checking this building permit application. Staff
agrees that a high density single family designation adjacent to a
large shopping center could add to traffic congestion and
confusion.
The sewer study (done by John Wallace and Associates) has just
been completed. It examines the impact of the proposed land use
changes on the system and recommends alternatives for increasing
capacity. Two conclusions can be taken from the study regarding
the Coromar area:
1) That the potential creation of 59 new lots will have an im-
pact on the capacity of the sewer system.
2) Increased sewer charge fees are necessary to help maintain
3 �'?�
General Plan Amendme* GP 2G-85 (John and DorotR Lopus)
and/or enlarge the existing system. If this increased den-
sity were allowed, all newly created lots would be subject to
these new fees.
Most of the potential new lots would result from individual parcel
map applications over a number of years, thereby lessening immedi-
ate impacts.
The Iverson tract proposal is shown in Exhibit D. This map was
never approved but could occur as a higher impact tract develop-
ment. The main advantage of this plan is the better circulation
that would result from the Atascadero Avenue - to - Coromar Ave-
nue road connection.
Staff notes that many of these newly created half acre lots would
be flag lots many backing up directly to the freeway, subjecting
these residences to freeway noise.
Several residential policies in the General Plan address lot size
standards. The major theme of these policies is that large lots
are a distinguishing characteristic of Atascadero and that pro-
posed density standards shall preserve this feature and preserve
"elbow room" . It goes on to say that "creation of lots smaller
than those recommended must not be permitted if the maximum popu-
lation of approximately 30,000 is to be maintained. " This is con-
firmed in the fundamental goal of the Land Use element which
states that the ideal development pattern is "a population of
20,000 to 30,000 people living in some 7, 000 homes scattered over
about 23, 000 acres of the Colony. " The addition of 59 new lots to
the density pattern of the area is significant with respect to
setting a precident inviting other portions of the City within the
Urban Services Line to do the same, e.g. , the remainder of the
neighborhood lying between Morro Road, San Andres and Santa Rosa.
Approval of this request raises questions relative to rethinking
the target population and open space requirements of the City' s
General Plan.
D. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of General Plan Amendment 2G-85, based on
the findings contained in Exhibit A.
E. ALTERNATIVE:
If the Planning Commission chooses to approve this application,
staff has attached a resolution, as well as a location map with
several alternatives (Exhibit H) . In keeping with staff' s main
purpose of not inviting this and other large areas of the City to
subdivide, the alternatives range from the smallest area (I) to
the entire proposed study area (V) :
4 ���
General Plan Amendmet GP 2G-85 (John and DorothhfLopus)
Alternative I: The immediate area surrounding the subject site
is (Lots 13A - Lots 13-E) .
Alternative II : Alternate I plus generally the same area on the
other side of the street (Lots 14-15c) .
Alternative III: All lots fronting Coromar on the northeast
side of the street only (excluding the CT zoning designation on
the corner of Portola) .
Alternative IV: The entire study area excluding the portion of
Lot 27 fronting Atascadero Avenue and Lot 32 on Portola.
Alternative V: The entire study area as shown in Exhibit B of
the staff report.
DGD:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings for Denial
Exhibit B - Location Map
Exhibit C - General Plan Amendment Map
Exhibit D - Iverson Tract Proposal
Exhibit E - Minutes - Planning Commission - 6/17/85
Exhibit F - Minutes - Planning Commission - 7/1/85
Exhibit G - Minutes - City Council - 8/12/85
Exhibit H - Draft Resolution
s
5
�P�
General Plan Amendm4 GP 2G-85 (John and Dorotfi Lopus)
EXHIBIT A General Plan Amendment 2G-85
Findings for Denial
February 3, 1986
FINDINGS
1. The proposed land use map change does not result in a logical rep-
resentation of the existing residential area in that the average
lot size currently conforms to zoning ordinance standards.
2. The proposal is not compatible with the surrounding land use and
zoning.
g
3. The proposal will result in significant adverse impacts upon the
existing neighborhood.
4. The proposal will result in significant impacts upon the sewer
system.
5. The proposal is not consistent with the policies of the General
Plan.
6 (,�
75A� G9
00 2•
r S
73yp 21 I N .e ., �1.9L5 �'
Z.- Iso? q 5 69so 4 69sr a �aJ�•I~ ` o L
Yop�a 1 � AT- 72-ZIC
Tst ?s \
LSF-Y( FH) AT 78- G;
<
TC AlC3 4
i 739 e� ."? •• ,� \.� go0h �,j -78- 100
1I]C4
13.13 Y (FH) -
Rte"
1, h� p
t �ti j j f= �3 �� 13 C SUB:)r£C-r
1 g a
17
15-B, I� \ ;.- •�•�-
c L� �� `\ •��� y/ 6-A
TAR
cof 00
M,+
OIL—
" \� <1 EXN 181 r
kO
Lp
OP
77"�> A Jr 27 �—
7coir
K 3 `
�,�
YJ h 6 f
JT Y '
�6 �
ez� + 0 172 8 �6
5 8 1� ► - j tjto Q 01
41
fN
/
Yes
'
cp
CT
34
CID
CO- /� Y \\ Qac`' ' ' \,DrcLA _r
/ (I
N .2
/ 11? .Dl �� j rig ` 1_ 31 d6 6\�►T<T+a.. r.
- !. ?.�,,..:�=fir a �, w _ j���P p �r�+•
10
p � \
t BSc �`\ � p� �. "';e "F_'rjj � o � -9 � �`•' �Z.o�'j\�\Y`y �rr ie �r �.„
- .wA i'�,.i •'-.r-l-�..: r .. ..r� '�..J 1�. \ ung �iG _. r a ._'
+.-.-
l6� -fir'!~ 'y�••� -y\ 'a" �`+ n tD, .. .. . '�' . .•�c..-'�/,/ T `
.r..
ii.:►la.61./ .� j,;�• ::/`•.-' •�<-rte-�.` --.• •�
_ — ... t`'•.: Y�`li•A6:r�n.�cw�Cifi td:ihat'tlf�� A.
Al
;,� �:•:, s PROPOSED STUDY AREA
/
a
.y
AT
IO
.i' SITE
LOC
��•._.•
7.
,
SIN
LE
•\�~::'.�� MODERATE DENSITY I
.,
T
FAMILY TO HIGH DENSLY
.. .. ..:. � SINGLE FAMILY :•: ;::;: :: :' ...•�`' �. •' '
/ ..
*>:. `\ .
, ...., :E
.. ..:.. � :' .... . �0 4 oQ0/0\o 4Q�o.c
.............. r GENERAL PLAN AMEidDMENT
::..' ......:::' GP 2G-85
::.........::::::::: r r" , �. (LOPUS/KENNALY)
.::. :::::::::.:. ::.::::::.::::...:". LOT 13D of BLOCK 7
8205 COROMAR
.. ,'....
:......
EXHIBIT
8scl;
vozIoa
8
L
m', ;
o c�
! `� µ,ti.6�• � ..bels N
(2 2)
N •.a
[� ,V 3?•JO'H/Z30Q7 2-4
ti Z.- r�n
Q \ �+7 �n v C \ C. ;c9.95
n � d 4
CrwN `n1
IJ
s
tr N \ -- - J w� , • -V
^fin J,
N.
zz-
y
C X �\
4 ::u
LA
�Z0,4p
Minute - -
Minutes Planning June 17, 1985
2. General Plan Amendment 2F-85 :
Request submitted by Caroline Rehbock (Caroline Harter, /ep-
resentative)
to revise the existing low Density Single Family
Residential designation to High Density Multiple Family Res-
idential. Subject property is located at 5655 Ardilla Road,
also known as lot 1 of Block JB.
Chairman\LaPrade stepped down from the Commission due to a possi-
ble conf;i\ct of interest. Commissioner Bond then took the gavel. i
Mr. Moses pre ented the staff report pointing out the land use
patterns in a area and recommended approval of the request.
Commissioner Nolan asked that if the request is approved, will the
applicant be requiKed to annex into the/and. asked
Ellen Ziegler , adjace t property owner, she had no objec-
tions if the project� would be sewere if she would be
able to apply for sewer:'-., Mr. /about
'plained the process for
sewer applications.
Caroline Rehbock, applicant, spthe conceptual develop-
ment of the project and noted' apartments would be garden
in nature and would be screened,
to provide .a residential nature.
i
Terry Hood talked about the ,humber of multi-family developments
i being constructed in town/fahich are increasing the density, over-
crowding of schools and asked at what point will the density in-
creases stop.
Commissioner Sanders /poke about the difficulty in trying to get
across Traffic Way from Santa Lucia Avenue"`,because of the amount
of traffic which already exists.
There was discussion concerning the heavy traffic\\ situation with
the Traffic Way/Ardilla/Santa Lucia intersections. `
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Nolan, seconded by Commissioner
Hatchell and carried with a roll call vote\o approve
General Plan Amendment 2F-85:
AYES: Commissioners Nolan, Hatchell, Kennedy and and
NOES: Commissioners Michielssen and Sanders
Chairman LaPrade took his seat back on the Commission.
3. General Plan Amendment 2G-85 :
Request submitted by John and Dorothy Lopus to revise the
General Plan Land Use map from Moderate Density Single Family
to High Density Single Family. Subject property is located
at 8205 Coromar Road with enlarged study area to include all
lots which front on Coromar between Portola and Curbaril.
4
E'XH 1617- . E /10
Minutes - Planning Cmmission -June 17, 1985
In presenting the staff report, Mr . Davidson summarized the prev-
ious application that was considered two years ago and noted that
staff ' s recommendation to deny the request had not changed due to
the density, sewer and traffic impacts that would result with the
requested land use change.
John Kennaly, representing the applicant, requested a continuance
noting he had a meeting with the neighbors and would like to pre-
sent some additional information that would address some of
staff' s concerns.
Dennis McAvoy, 8060 Coromar , stated he was pleased with staff' s
findings but noted he was disturbed that an E.I .R. was deemed not
necessary and pointed out the large number of oaks trees that
would be cut down as a result of development. Mr. McAvoy further
stated that Coromar is not in good shape and that police and fire
protection services are inadequate.
Andrea Schulte stated her concern with the very rapid growth and
questioned the general plan envisioned total population of Atasca-
dero of 30, 000 people. She commented that the necessary services
are not keeping up with this rapid growth and expressed the need
for responsible growth.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Hatchell, seconded by Commissioner
Michielssen and carried unanimously to continue the pub-
lic hearing on General Plan Amendment 2G-85 to July lst.
General Plan Amendment GP 2H-85 :
Request submitted by Henry Hohenstein to revise the G eery
.Lan Land Use map from the existing Moderate Densit�ingle
Family Residential to High Density Multiple Fami.1-If Residen
tial�Subject property is located at 8760 Curbaril with en ;
i largedztudy area to include the area in which the drainage!
flows toward E1 Camino Real (Lots 84, 85, 86'' and a portion o
Lots 87 and 8,8 Block MC) .
Mr. Davidson presented the staff report and explained that this
property had previously been considered for a general plan amend-,
ment and summarized the actions involved with the application.;
He pointed out one of the reasons for limiting the expanded study;
area was because of the drainage which changes and drains toward'
El Camino Real.
Hank Hohenstein, applicant, spoke in support, of the request and;
commented on the previous application which had been a part ofj
five other applications for the general area which_ had become al
transitional study area. Mr . Hohenstein felt each application
should be reviewed on a site specific basis.
Terry Hood talked about the problems Atascadero is enco tering
� with-^ regard to the increased growth. She felt the use wou be
{ bitter suited for another type of use other than multi-family.
5 �.
Minutes - Planning CO*ission - July 1, 1985
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. General Plan Amendment 2G-85 :
Continued request submitted by John and Dorothy Lopus to re-
vise the General Plan Land Use Map from Moderate Density Sin-
gle Family to High Density Single Family. Subject property
is located at 8205 Coromar Road with enlarged study area to
include all lots which front on Coromar between Portola and
Curbaril.
r
Doug Davidson presented the staff report on this continued request
and pointed out that some of the reasons for recommending denial
included the increase in density as well as potential traffic im-
pacts and sewer service impacts.
John Kennaly, representing the applicants, suggested a modifica-
tion to the location map and proceeded to point out where the pro-
posed line for this "redesignation would be more appropriate.
Mr. Kennaly felt this location warranted 1/2 acre lot sizes due to
its proximity to the downtown area and has freeway access on both
sides of the project. He further stated that for eight years, the
area was developed with 1/2 acre sizes and pointed out that the
Coromar residents were involved in a 1969 Atascadero sewer pro-
ject at which time they paid for a sewer treatment plant to serve
this area. However , the area did not meet the density require-
ments that were required by the Environmental Protection Agency,
and proceeded to explain the steps and efforts taken in trying
to qualify for the loans that were undertaken to build the sewer
plant for the area.
Dennis McEvoy, 8060 Coromar, stated that Mr. Kennaly did not pre-
sent any different information that had been stated at the prev-
ious meeting and spoke to the various services such as traffic,
sewer , schools, police and fire services that would be severely
impacted by this increase in density, and further stated that his
statements applied not just to this particular application but to
any application that would have these effects.
Dottie Lopus, applicant, pointed out that Mr. McEvoy already had
a 1/2 acre lot size on Coromar .
Roy Moss, 8040 Coromar , spoke on behalf of ten families and pre-
sented the Commission a petition in opposition to the land use
change. Mr . Moss asked why this particular area was chosen for
this use and stated that the neighbors were not consulted on this
proposal.
Peggy Healy, 8250 Coromar , noted that when the original sewer
assessments were made, it had nothing to do with 1/2 acre lots
but were assessed with the size of the individual lots and
expressed her opposition to the proposal.
EXH IBcf' F
2 ��+,
Minutes - Planning Wission -..July 1, 1985
Richard Seitz, 8505 Coromar , stated that when the sewer lines were
put in, it was the neighborhood' s understanding that 1/2 acre lot
sizes would be allowable.
There was discussion concerning a, cost type of formula in assess-
ment of sewers.
Bob Stoner, 8635 Coromar , pointed out that the general area around
Coromar contains 1/2 acre lot sizes and felt that this use would
be logical in nature and stated that if the area remained one acre
lot sizes, there would be the likelihood of the area becoming com-
mercial in nature.
John Barbieri, 8660 Coromar , spoke in support of the request and
stated that there would probably be a maximum of 25 homes that
would be built as a result of approval of the land use change.
Susie Moss, 8040 Coromar , expressed concern that the guidelines of
the General Plan be utilized for the various areas of town and
spoke to her opposition to the request.
Claire Barbieri, 8660 Coromar, stated she has a one acre lot and
at the time it was purchased, she and her family were under the
impression that it could be split into 1/2 acre lot sizes.
Vince Sullivan, representing the owner at 8730 Coromar, pointed
out that there are about 34 nonconforming lots in the subject
neighborhood and proceeded to speak to the nonconforming lot
issues. Debbie Sullivan talked about the no growth issue and felt
that 1/2 acre lot sizes are adequate for a home.
John Lopus, applicant, stated he purchased the subject property
because of the assumable mortgage as well as the 1/2 acre provi-
sion, and explained efforts to split the lot prior to incorpora-
tion of the city.
Commissioner Bond asked that with 1. 4 acres, could three 1/2 acre
lot sizes be allowed.
Commissioner Sanders spoke about guest homes and asked if there
were any provisions for such. Chairman LaPrade noted that the
city had chosen not to adopt any "granny housing" and explained
reasons for this decision.
Commissioner Hatchell stated that there was a discrepancy with the
previous testimony on the number of nonconforming lots and asked
for a clarification. Mr. Engen pointed out that nonconforming lot
owners have development rights if, for instance, a house burns
down.
Commissioner Michielssen asked if any research has been done on
the sewer study. Mr . Engen responded that a sewer study is going
before the City Council for an overall city evaluation of the
capacity of the sewer plant and stated that this project could
possibly be completed by late September .
3 �'�
Minutes Planning Coission - July 1, 1985
Chairman LaPrade further noted that in his attendance with plan-
ning seminars, it has been pointed out not to zone property
"through a sewer pipe. " Commissioner Sanders expressed concern
that approval of this land use change would result in an increased
density.
Commissioner Michielssen felt that too much property is being
zoned multi-family and would like to see more 1/2 acre lot sizes.
He talked about the reasons for so many apartments with regard to
affordable) housing.
There was further discussion concerning the appropriate location
of the boundary line on the map.
Commissioner Kennedy asked for an approximate number of homes that
would be ready to build immediately after approval of the request.
Mr . Engen explained the time. frames involved with the parcel map
process in splitting the lots.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond, seconded by Commissioner
Michielssen and carried with a roll call vote to recom-
mend approval of General Plan Amendment GP 2G-85 with Ex-
hibit "B" changed to eliminate Atascadero Road frontage
by extending the area boundary common to Lots 33A-M:
AYES: Commissioners Bond, Michielssen, Kennedy, and
Chaiman LaPrade
NOES : Commissioners Sanders, Hatchell, and Nolan
2 Zone Change 4-85 :
•��Request submitted by H.L.S. Properties, Ltd. (Associat Pro
De ions, representative) to change the zoning ma, from RS;
(Residential Suburban) to CN (Commercial Neighborhood) . Sub-
ject proPerty is located at 1875 E1 Camino Real, also known]
as Lot 31 of.,\l`ock 49 . {
Mr . Davidson presented the staff report on the matter noting this;
request reflects the charnge_ granted under a previous general plan:
amendment.
In response to question, Commissioner-Nolan was advised that the;
subject lot does not extend from El Camino Real to Obispo Road.
i.
It was recently split into this lot and,a second lot fronting;
Obispo. % \\
j
Chuck Iglas}u 1845 E1 Camino Real, stated that when-the subject`
lot wsurveyed, it affected a 12 foot easement on him roperty
and as nted out he would like to see the lot developed becau of
t presence of many weeds on the lot.
4
f�
COUNCIL MINUTES - 8/105
PAGE FOUR'
2. G neral Plan Amendment -2A-85 - 2300 Ramona - Gaughan - Revisio
o Zoning from Suburban Single Family Residential to Commerc ' 1
Ret 1 - (PUBLIC HEARING) (Proposed Resolution 74-85 - Deny' ng
Gene 1 Plan Amendment 2A-85)
Henry E en, Planning Director, gave staff report.
Pat Gaugha , the applicant , requested a continuance on this item;
due to an i lness in the family, he has not had n essary time to
complete his rawings for review at public heari g.
MOTION: By Councilwoma Mackey to continue Item B-2 2300 Ramona) to the
Aug. 26th Counci Meeting, seconded by Cou cilwoman Norris; passed
unanimously.
3. General Plan Amendme 2F-85 - 5655 Ar lla - Rehbock - Revision
of Zoning from Low Den ity Single Fam' y Residential to High Den-
sity Multiple Family (P BLIC HEARIN (Proposed Resolution 46-85
Approving General Plan ndment 2 -85)
Henry Engen gave staff repo t, ollowed by Council discussion.
Public Comment
Jayne Sacks , 7-year Atas dero ,r sident , residing on Ardilla,
spoke in opposition of e propos GPA 2F-85 , mainly because of
the already dangerous raffic condi ion of the corner intersec-
tion. at Traffic Play nd Ardilla.
Andrea Schulte , o resides on San Gre rio Rd. , agreed with Mrs .
Sacks ' s comment about the extremely bad and dangerous traffic
conditions in he area of the proposed GP suggesting that Coun-
cilmembers d ive by that area during peak t affic hours to observe.
Debra Ka iewicz , who resides on Viejo Camino , expressed her op-
positio to the proposed GPA based on traffic fety concerns ,
such the previous two speakers .
Ca line Rehbock, applicant and residing on Ardill responded to
C uncil comment that reducing from 16 to 10 per acre would be suit-
able .
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to approve GPA 2F-85 (5655 Ardi a) , with
change in zoning to Low Density Multiple Family - 10 per acre ,
seconded by Councilwoman Norris ; passed 5 : 0 by roll-call te.
4. General Plan Amendment 2G-85 - 8205 Coromar Road - Lopus -
Revision of Zoning from Moderate Density Single Family ResidenN
tial to High Density Single Family Residential (PUBLIC HEARING)
(Proposed Resolution 75-85 - Approving General Plan Amendment
2G-85)
Henry Engen gave staff report , emphasizing that this issue took a
considerable amount of time before the Plannina Commission before
E X N t B I -t G- .��
COUNCIL MINUTES - 8/ 95
PAGE FIVE
coming to Council , and he referred Council to the extensive back-
ground materials included in the agenda packet. Planning staff
recommended against the chance , and it was recommended for appro
on a 4 : 3 vote.
Council conferred with Mr. Engen on the Planning Commission' s
recommendations and their suggested alternatives. Mr. Engen men-
tioned that a new set of material has been submitted, which will
have to be reviewed before the Planning Commission, proposing the
creation of a subdivision on the Iverson property.
Public Comment
John Kennaly, the applicants' engineer , indicated they are in
support of the Planning Commission' s review of the new informa-
tion and would be willing to supply any sewer information that
the Council feels might help them in making a decision.
John Lopus , the applicant , spoke in favor of the GPA so they can
go ahead with their original plans at the time of purchasing the
property in the 1970 ' s , which was then zoned for Z acre minimums.
Dorothy Lopus, co-applicant, spoke in favor of the Planning Com-
mission' s decision and urged Council support; they 've been waiting
seven years to add an additional building to accommodate their own
family members.
Roy Moss, who resides on Coromar Ave. , questioned why this excep*
tion for the General Plan is being done , to which Mr. Engen
responded that the Lopus single lot request lead to expanding the
area for consideration to the total street frontage.
Jack Stinchfield , representing "Clark Iverson, who owns 3 parcels
in the area under consideration, spoke of his support for , acre
zoning.
Celia Moss , 8040 Coromar, expressed opposition of the GPA.
Herb LaPrade, 6480 Santa Ynez , representing Bill Mullens, who is
in a hospital in Santa Barbara, expressed his support of the GPA.
Mr. Mullens owns 4 . 8 acres on Coromar.
Vince Sullivan, owner of 8730 Coromar , spoke in favor of the GPA.
Bob Stoner , 8635 Coromar , spoke in support of the GPA.
Phoebe Watson, owner of 8055 Coromar since 1955 , spoke in support
of the GPA.
Debbie Sullivan, owner of 8730 Coromar , spoke in support of GPA.
Terry Hood, who lives on Cascabel in Atascadero , inquired as to
the locations of the ( 34) non-conforming vs. (22) conforming lots
in the area under consideration for GPA, to which Mr. Engen res-*
i ponded. She also inquired as to which lots are and are not yet
developed.
COUNCIL MINUTES - 8/105
PAGE SIX '
Dorothy Lopus , co-applicant , responded to some of the comments of
earlier speakers.
Discussion came back to Council.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina to include the five-acre lots in the J� acre
study area all the way to Atascadero Ave. , seconded by Council-
woman Norris; motion failed by 3:2 roll-call vote , with Council-
members Mackey, Handshy and Nelson voting NO.
MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to send item back to the Planning Commis-
sion to consider the new data proposing a street connection from
Coromar to Atascadero Ave. and to get staff response on the sew-
er impact situation; seconded by Councilwoman Mackey. Motion
passed unanimously.
5. General Plan Amendment 2H-85 - .8760 Curbaril - Hohenstein -
Revision of Zoning from Moderate Density Single Family Residen-
tial to High Density Multiple Family Residential (PUBLIC HEARING)
(Proposed Resolution 47-85 - Approving General Plan Amendment
2H-85)
Henry Engen gave staff report.
Hank Hohenstein, applicant , spoke in support of the proposed GPA,
citing the density would be consistent with that of the property
across the street from his, and he regards to divide densities at
�
rear _property lines - rather than down the middle of the street
to be good planning principles; he added other reasons why he urges
Council support.
Pat Glakeler, owner of 8780 , which is the adjacent property, in-
dicated she fully supports the proposed GPA to high density.
Cecile King, resident and owner of 8830 Curbaril for 15 years,
spoke in opposition of the proposed GPA, based on the existent
heavy traffic congestion on Curbaril.
Mayor Nelson urged Curbaril residents to lobby State to follow
through with their commitment to construct a briCge over the
Salinas River and run Hwy. 41 through, which has been delayed
several times.
Terry Hood, Cascabel resident , spoke of her concern about the
approval of changes in zoning from SF to MF densities , which she
believes will , ultimatelv , change the character of Atascadero ' s
population.
Discussion came back to Council.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina to adopt Res . 47-85 and approve GPA 2H-85 ,
changing it to concur with the Planning Commission' s recommenda-
tion that property be zoned Low Density Multiple Family , second
by Councilwoman Norris; passed unanimously by roll-call vote .
RESOLUTION NO. 20-86
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO APPROVING GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT
OF THE CITY' S GENERAL PLAN PERTAINING TO COROMAR
ROAD (GPA 2G-86 : LOPUS)
WHEREAS, the Lopus' have filed an ,application to amend the City of
Atascadero' s General Plan pertaining to 8205 Coromar ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero conduc-
ted a public hearing on the subject matter for an enlarged study area
on June 17, 1985 , July 1, 1985, and February 3, 1986 and recommended
approval of the amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero conducted a
public hearing on the subject matter on February 24 , 1986 ; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65323 provides that a general
plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as follows:
1. The proposed general plan amendment recommended by the Plan-
ning Commission is consistent with the goals and policies of
the City' s General Plan.
2. The proposed general plan amendment provides a logical repre-
sentation of the residential site within the existing land
use pattern.
3. The proposed general plan amendment is compatible with sur-
rounding land use and zoning.
4. The proposed general plan amendment will not have a signifi-
cant adverse effect upon the environment, and preparation of
an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve
to approve General Plan Amendment 2F-85 as follows:
1. Amendments to the General Plan Map as shown on Exhibit A.
On motion by and seconded by
the motion was approved by the following roll call voter
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
By
ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT':
ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
z
HENRY E EN, munity Development Director
2 ��
S 7Soo 690 cee�Z'
75p 21 r •�-— -
=t. y35o ! � �69S •. dc9ts ��" _ .Z ;. .
240 o,a.3` h AT-- 50-c
20
/ _
�r 77
l, 3• ,' v_ �(ii� T LSF-Y( FH) AT- ai
ICC1 ?960 ''1`�� / �_ .. ✓ 4 t�'�V
Y (FH)
7-
15 K, o
- - ,
-t 1'6 $`
17
..�l j . I \ i. ,a.�•\ .�-8 . meq[.
Nxl
1` ?r �-cct�
C e •r.
'•fir"� '�,G�t'���.�� �� n? \^ %�G � ox
�_�/ \ •
25 vG
CIO col
EFXH fair,
L,
i • _ J -�-•-_-
Y2717,
x \ a�ys � ei ✓ 10 36 3
3-9
28
' �✓ K i lJ 2
.1,1, �,� ��" �,, :-�. *•.'/ Ty
�
a.0� •►= •` a��' � / �
30
_ '_b
7 - /l 2 (3
N , ' ctn. -M/ N /!G ray a. "+" / •� \/
31
43
tNUA 1, - — - 4'�' \+a��• c \ \
p Jo
•� �.i"7 bi+•
- i ;��`�. 1•.r�..�•t'wccLFi to_t``.e L`�L� .
Ak
Minutes - Planning C mission - February 3 , 198
Chairman LaPrade asked for clarification relative to the wording
contained in Conditions #11-d and #12 (re: prior to issuance of
building permit as opposed to prior to recording of final map.
Dan Stewart, representing the applicant, indicated his concurrence
with the recommendation and noted that he has worked with staff
for some time on this project in an effort to resolve the issues
involved.
Irene Bishop, 7151 Serena, stated that her husband had presented
concerns regarding the access road at the previous hearings and
the applicant and engineer listened to these concerns and revised
their access plans. She further stated that she was in concur-
rence with the project and wished the applicants well in their
endeavors.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond, seconded by Commissioner
Michielssen and carried unanimously to approve Tentative
Parcel Map 11-85 subject to the findings and conditions
contained in the staff report.
2. Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 :
Request submitted by David Harrell (Dan Stewart) to allow the
division of 4. 52 acres into four lots of ,1. 52, 1. 00 , 1.00 and
1. 00 acres each. Subject property is located at 7100 Serena,
also known as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map CO 74-185.
In presenting the staff report for this request, Mr . Davidson
noted the similarities between this application and the previous
one on the agenda.
Dan Stewart, representing the applicant, stated he worked with
both planning and engineering staff in an effort to resolve the
concerns associated with this application, and thanked staff for
working so much on these two projects.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner , Bond, seconded by Commissioner
Nolan and carried unanimously to approve Tentative Parcel
Map 12-85 subject to the findings and conditions con-
tained in the staff report.
Commissioner Kennedy resumed her seat back on the Commission.
3. General Plan Amendment GPA 2G-85 :
Request submitted by John and Dorothy Lopus (Kennaly Engin-
eering) to revise the General Plan land use map from Moderate
Density Single Family Residential to High Density Single Fam-
ily Residential. Subject property is located at 8205 Coromar
Road, also known as Lot 13D of Block 7 . The expanded study
area includes all lots which front on Coromar between Portola
and Curbaril, but not including the Commercial Tourist zoning
on the corner of Portola and Coromar . The area also includes
Lot 27 , a portion of Lot 28 , and Lot 32 of Block 7 .
2
UI
0 81P
Minutes Planning Commission February 3 , 19
In presenting the staff report, Mr . Davidson summarized the back-
ground and sequence of events leading to this evening ' s hearing.
It was noted that if this request is approved, there could be 59
potential new 1/2 acre lots that could be created. It was also
noted that the sewer study prepared by John Wallace and Associates
does not specifically address this application, but it was pointed
out that increased sewer fees will be necessary and that any new
lot created would assessed a sewer fee. Most of the new lots
would be created by parcel map process over a period of several
years, and that some of these lots would be flag lots.
Mr . Davidson stated there were five alternatives that could be
considered in the recommendation.
Chairman LaPrade asked if the Iverson property would be a part of
the 59 potential new lots, to which Mr . Davidson responded that
this property would be included.
Commissioner Sanders referenced the staff report concerning the
statement made that this application could set a precedent in the
City in other areas, and asked how many other lots could possibly
be affected. Mr. Davidson replied that this would apply to areas
within the Urban Services Line, but was unsure of exact locations.
Mr. Engen referenced a map on the overhead projector and pointed
out areas that were zoned RA (1/2 acre) before the City' s zoning
ordinance was adopted.
Commissioner Bond referenced the parcel on Portola Road included
in this study area and asked how this came to be. Mr . Engen
stated that the property owner submitted a letter requesting
consideration of his property to be included as part of a larger
study area.
In response to question from Commissioner Nolan, Mr . Davidson
stated that all of the lots would be in the sewered area.
Chairman LaPrade stated that when the concept of one half acre
lots first came before the Commission about 1 1/2 years ago, he
recalled that a motion was passed to call for lots within the
sewered area to be eligible for a half acre density. He asked if
this had been amended when it came before the Council. He asked
staff to check on this.
John and Dorothy Lopus, applicants , asked for some positive action
in the Commission' s recommendation to the City Council. Mrs.
Lopus felt that this request is not an unreasonable one and talked
about the need for affordable housing for members of her family.
Mr . Lopus stated that when they purchased this property, the zon-
ing designation was for one half acre lots. He explained his
efforts and frustrations in attempting to get this property back
to a half acre minimum. He also noted that he is still paying
sewer fees on the property, and felt that the Iverson project
should be valued on its own merit.
32
01
Minutes - Planning Co -mission - February 3, 198
Jack Stinchfield, representing Clark Iverson, reviewed the fact
that this property was originally zoned for 1/2 acre minimums and
subsequently changed to a minimum of one acre lots. He expressed
the need for smaller parcels in the city and talked about the
density extremes from high density apartments to large acreage
lots, and felt that there should be a density in between these
extremes. Mr . Stinchfield also felt that these 1/2 acre lot
designations should be in areas where there is the availability of
sewer. He further stated that Mr. Iverson is uncertain of his
plans for this property, but noted the advantage to the city of
the availability of having a connecting road between Coromar and
Atascadero Avenue if Mr . Iverson were to proceed with his plans.
He also indicated that Mr. Iverson would not be against Alterna-
tive IV.
Vince Sullivan, representing family property owners at 8730 Coro-
mar , re-iterated that this property had been designated as a half
acre minimum for years and that a good deal of development in this
area was based on the half acre lot designation and urged the Com-
mission' s consideration in approving this redesignation.
Bob Stoner, 8635 Coromar, referenced staff' s recommendation for
denial based on increased impacts that would result, but pointed
out that the City has had several hundred units recently built
which has contributed to sewer line impacts. He also felt that
if this area is approved for half acre lots, there would be more
resistance to developing this area commercially.
Debbie Sullivan spoke in support of the amendment request and
stated that there is a need for more individual housing for those
who do not wish to live in apartments and felt there should be a
choice.
Phoebe Watson, 8055 Coromar , spoke in support of the request and
stated her family has owned this property since the 1950 ' s when
it was zoned for one half acre densities. She noted her concur-
rence with the testimony given by the Lopus ' , the Sullivans, and
Mr . Stoner .
Commissioner Hatchell referenced the sewer study and asked for
clarification on this expanded amendment request in relation to
the sewer study.
There was discussion concerning how the Iverson property would
affect this request, especially as it would relate to the proposed
connecting street between Coromar and Atascadero Avenue. It was
also noted that any parcel map divisions would require development
improvements.
Commissioner Sanders noted this is a difficult situation as it
relates to the previous zoning designation for these subject prop-
erties and expressed concern that any lot divisions would result
mostly in flag lots backing up against Coromar . She further
stated that the Commission must look at the whole community in
consideration of this matter with regard to cumulative impacts.
4 83
Minutes - Planning •mission - February 3 198f
Y
Chairman LaPrade commented on the 1968 and 1980 General Plans and
felt that there is definitely a need for smaller lots in
Atascadero.
Further discussion ensued as to what types of improvements would
be required in the lot division process.
Commissioner Michielssen added that he would be in favor of ap-
proving the whole area for 1/2 acre lots and felt that if this
request is approved, it would open the door for looking at other
areas within the City for similar type lots as opposed to apart-
ment complexes.
There was further discussion concerning the appropriateness of
looking at areas designated for multi-family zoning to be consid-
ered as smaller lots.
Commissioner Bond stated that if this request is approved, not all
the property owners would be splitting their lots and noted he
would be in favor of approving the request for the whole expanded
study area.
At this point, Mr. Stinchfield asked if he could make a point of
clarification to the Commission, to which Chairman LaPrade re-
sponded that he could.
Mr. Stinchfield emphasized that Mr . Iverson would not want his
property to be a "thorn in the side" as it might relate to the
Commission' s decision in the matter , and went on to clarify some
points about Mr. Iverson' s property.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Michielssen and seconded by Com-
missioner Bond to recommend approval of General Plan
Amendment GPA 2G-85 based on Alternative V as contained
in the staff report. The motion was defeated with a roll
call vote, as follows:
AYES: Commissioners Michielssen and Bond
NOES: Commissioners Sanders, Hatchell, Nolan, Kennedy,
and Chairman LaPrade
MOTION: -Made by Commissioner Hatchell and seconded by Commis-
sioner Bond to recommend approval of General Plan Amend-
ment GPA 2G-85 based on an altered Alternative III which
would include Alternatives I and III , the west side of
Coromar down to Portola. The motion was defeated with a
roll call vote, as follows :
AYES: Commissioners Hatchell and Kennedy
NOES : Commissioners Sanders, Michielssen, Nolan, Bond,
and Chairman LaPrade
5
Minutes - Planning clsommission February 3 198f
Further discussion ensued.
s
MOTION: Made by Chairman LaPrade, and seconded by Commissioner
Kennedy to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment
GPA 2G-85 to include Areas I, II, III, and IV. The mo-
tion passed with a roll call vote, as follows:
AYES: Commissioners Hatchell, Michielssen, Bond, Kennedy
and Chairman LaPrade
NOES: Commissioners Sanders and Nolan
Mr. Engen pointed out that the Commission' s recommendation would
be forwarded to City Council and will be scheduled as a public
hearing item.
C. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
D. INDIVIDUAL ACTION AND/OR DETERMINATION
1. Planning Commission
Commissioner Michielssen inquired about Commission-initiated
general plan amendments with respect to overall City-wide
zoning (i.e. , multiple family zoning, decreasing multiple family
zoning, etc. ) , and asked what processes would be necessary.
Discussion on this continued. Mr . Engen stated that in order to
change the density factors, it would be necessary to change the
standards. There was further discussion concerning the feasibil-
ity of lowering the density of multi-family zoning areas.
Commissioner Kennedy asked for an update on the hillside ordi-
nance.
There was also an update on the status of the tree ordinance.
2. Community Development Director
Mr. Engen reported that he has received a verbal response from the
City Attorney concerning the .language involved for a property
owner ' s "waiver of his right to protest" .
It was also reported that the draft Subdivision Regulations is
currently being routed to affected departments, as well as some
engineering firms.
Mr. Engen noted that the City Council denied the Kaleidoscope Kids
appeal with respect to curb, gutter, and sidewalk, and parking
requirements. He also stated that the Kmart precise plan is cur-
rently being reviewed by affected departments with emphasis on
6 ��
E
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
Steven Decamp, Senior Planner
DATE: February 24, 1986
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Procedures Evaluation
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council initiate an evaluation of var-
ious sections of the City' s Zoning Ordinance as specified herein.
BACKGROUND:
The City/Contractors Permit Review Group has concerned itself with
various means of streamlining the permit review process. Among the
areas of concern have been numerous sections of the City' s Zoning
Ordinance dealing with procedural, as opposed to policy, issues.
These sections have been identified as potentially causing confusion,
if not delays, in the permit review and issuance process.
Either the Planning Commission or City Council can - initiate Zoning
Ordinance amendments. City Council action is required to adopt and
implement any changes in the ordinance. Staff is recommending that
the Council initiate this group of evaluations because the candidate
sections have been identified by the City/Contractors Permit Review
Group which has included Council participation.
ANALYSIS:
The following sections of the Zoning Ordinance have been identified as
candidates for in-depth evaluation relative to their impact on the
permit review process. These sections do not address major policy
issues nor items relating to General Plan consistency ( i.e. , General
Plan designation vs. allowed uses) . A brief explanation of why each
section has been selected for further evaluation is as follows:
1. Section 9-1. 106 , Compliance with Standards Required. Under the
literal interpretation of this section, virtually any improvement
• to property other than that applying to nonconforming uses re-
quires that the full site be brought up to code compliance in all
areas. It would appear desirable to add a percent of project cost
Zoning Ordinance Proodures Evaluation
districts with performance standards for the basis of any lot size
• determination, i.e. , existence of an accessible building site and
a septic system that meets City standards. (To be undertaken at a
later time. )
HE:SD:ps
3 gg
C MEMORANDUM l
{ ~ � �D
.7 A �
TO: Board of Directors
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Revision of Sewer Charges - Addition of Connection Fee
DATE: February 6, 1986
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Board of Directors approve the
suggested changes in sewer fees, designate the distribution of sewer
rates, and adopt suggested policies as explained in detail in this
report. It is recommended that all changes go into effect July 1,
1986.
Background:
At the January 27 regular meeting the Board received the Sewer
Study prepared by John L. Wallace and Associates of San Luis Obispo.
The study recognized the problem areas of the wastewater sewer system
• and the treatment plant, suggested broad spectrum improvements, est-
ablished the need for an Inflow and Infiltration (I & I) analysis and
presented a range of costs for the suggested improvements. Ad-
ditionally, the need for a sewer connection fee was established and it
was recommended that the Board proceed immediately with management
plans to combat anticipated changes in the sewer system in-
frastructure.
Growth
Growth within Improvement District No. l has been rapid and is
above past projections. The need for design changes in the original
plans, underestimated I & I and the shift in economical parameters has
continued and will continue to place a burden on the customers within
the District.
Growth outside Improvement District No. 1 has been slow but
recent annexations show a demonstrative impact on the system and are
being, and should continue to be, mitigated by appropriated fees or.
improvements.
Only 22 annexations occurred between 1964 and 1979 and con-
sidering use, this equates to less than 2 units per year . From 1979
to 1986 there have been 32 single family, 56 mobile home, and 104
apartments annexed to Improvement District No. 1, or about 28 units
per year . The District has realized approximately $145,000 in
• annexation fees from these developments to buy into .the system.
8-I
• i
Explanation of Revenue Sources:
Within I.D. No. 1:
A Permit Fee of $5 is charged upon application to those in I.D.
No. 1, including annexations or lot splits. This fee is intended to
help offset the clerical costs of handling the permit. (In the summary
table this will be called [D] )
A Connection Fee of $250 is charged for the physical connection
to the sewer lines and is borne by all who have not previously covered
this charge in their assessments or otherwise. This charge is in-
tended to offset the labor and materials necessary to provide a tap to
the mainline from a building sewer. It is herein recommended that
this charge be hereafter called a Tap Charge. (In the summary table
this will be called [c] )
A Lot Split or Use Change Fee is charged for all lot splits
within I.D. No. 1. The fee was intended to be similar to the In-Leiu
fee discussed below, but for simplicity was calculated on the basis
of plant replacement. The cost of the new plant as outlined in form 5
of the Revenue Program for the EPA grant and the assumed parameters of
3.2 persons per household and 3. 0 per apartment were used as the
acceptable estimates at that time. The results of those calculations
produced a fee of: $850 for single-family, $725 per each apartment,
$660 per each mobile home and $26 .35 per fixture unit for commercial
and industrial uses. (In the summary table this will be called [B] ) .
Annexations to I.D. No. 1: (Fees in addition to the charges in
I.D. No. 1)
An In-Leiu Assessment Fee is charged for any annexation.
This fee was previously calculated on the same basis as the original
assessments with a credit given for actual expenditures for line ex-
tension to the lot. This method was obviously intended as a
buy-in to the system with the balance collected as a fair share
of the oversizing of lines and the cost of lift stations. This is
not, however , entirely equitable since the original assessments were
based on 1980 costs and the in-leiu fee does not contain a cost index
clause.
This fee was later replaced by a fixed fee which was calculated
as described in the Lot Split fee discussion above. Although the cost
of the existing plant was used in the calculations for simplification
and although the money went to the facilities fund and not to decrease
the actual debt, the intent of the fee was for maintaining a place in
the system for those in I.D. No. 1. This "buy-in" money will go toward
plant or line expansion but does not take into account he buildout of
the ACSD and to actual cost of expansion based on the potential number
of new customers.
It is felt that not only should this in-leiu fee be collected
as a "buy-in" to help offset the impact on the existing system of
which a portion was paid for only by the original I .D. No. 1 parcels,
but that an annexation fee be high enough to support future facility
improvement as referenced later . It is suggested that this be called
3
oJ�'
an Annexation Fee and recalculated as discussed later in this report
(In the Summary this fee will be called [B] ;
In addition to the above a $70 fee has recently been added to
southside developments as allowed by section 4. 13 of the ACSD Con-
solidated Ordinances to offset lift station upgrading. This fee will
be consumed in the newly proposed annexation fee to simplify
calculations. Since improvements will be provided based upon the pro-
ximity of actual growth, coupled with the fact that the southside is
rapidly developing relative to other areas, there is little change for
inequities in the new approach.
Summary of Fees
[A] New Fee established in this Report
[B] Annexation Fee, or Lot Split or Use Change Fee, as Revised
[C] Tap Charge
[D] Permit Fee
Rates:
All customers are charged a monthly rate which is payable
annually and is collected on the tax roles. Different uses are
assigned different rates as established in the Revenue Program as part
of the EPA grant for the new treatment plant.
Form 8 of the above reference outlines the amount of money
necessary to be collected for Operations and Maintenance (0 & M) , Deb*
Service and Capital Outlay:
0 & M $350 ,000/yr or 67% of the rates
Debt Service 76, 000/yr or 14.6% of the rates
Capital Outlay 96 ,000/yr or 18.4% of the rates
While this money is appropriately collected and distributed
accordingly for 0 & M and Debt Service, the Capital Outlay loses its
identity in the sewer fund. It is recommended that the ordinance be
amended to specifically allocate $76,000 for debt service and that 0 &
M and Capital Outlay keep their current proportions to each other,
i.e. Capital Outlay is 27% of 0 & M,and that that money be placed in a
sinking fund with other monies intended for replacement or expansion
of facilities.
Explanation of Expenditures
Pay off of General Obligation Bonds - $665 ,000
Pay off of FmHA Loan (Assessment Bonds) - $3,010 .869
Pay off of Revenue Bonds - $1,300 ,000
0 & M $350, 000/year (presently)
Capital Outlay - $96 , 000/year (from rates)
Sinking Fund - Newly Collected sewer charges and Annexation Fees
Needs: - (Reference: Wallace Sewer Study and Engineering Science' s
Facilities Plan)
Within I.D. No. 1:
4 ��
. Replace Existing Sewers and Manholes $1,030,000
Upgrade Pump Stations 142,000
I & I Analysis and Aleviation Projects 274, 300
Total 'Needs (1985$$) $1, 446 ,300
Total Needs (1990$$) 1,845,886
There are eleven (11) surcharged pipe segments in I.D. No. 1
and upon buildout of I.D. No. 1 without regard to annexations, there
will be thirty three (33) . I & I represents 20% of the average dry
flow, which is double the assumption used in the plant design. It
is anticipated that all new customers share in the above costs with
exceptions as shown in the summary table and that the money from the
the new sewer connection fee be placed in a sinking fund for capital
improvements.
Assuming that the $96,000 per year is used to upgrade the ex-
isting facilities due to normal deterioration and depreciation, this
money is not available for the above work. The Bordeaux money
($350, 000) will reduce the need when paid but fees will be calculated
on total needs since bordeaux impacts the the total needs. Annexation
fees collected in the last several years (assuming to July, 1986) ,
amount to about $143,480. Now annexation fees will go into a sinking
fund but are theoretically for plant and facility expansion not in-
cluded above. Cease and Desist areas may contribute to the above
depending upon when they connect to the system and upon what fees
are then applicable. Subtracting the $143 , 480 from the 1990 total
the realistic need is reduced to $1.7 million, including design
of facilities upgrade.
Annexations:
The needs will be based on the amount of flow that will come
from the ultimate sewered population. That flow will be compared with
the present design flow and proportioned to the replacement cost of
the present treatment facility. These assumptions recognize that sub-
stitutions such as lift station expansion and treatment plant ex-
pansion may set the basis for the actual expenditure of the annexation
monies, but the end result will meet the intention of the fees.
The new annexation fee will be a combination of the above
mitigation and the previous in-leiu fee discussed earlier.
Explanation of Boundaries:
There are seven boundaries recognized in this and other such
reports, directly or indirectly, and deserve mention here.
Atascadero Colony (1913) - The Colony laid out by founder
• E.G. Lewis (This boundary is not a political boundary and is only of
major significance when playing the road game puzzle, which is not
the pleasure of this report. ) The area emcompased by this line is
approximately 38 sq. miles or 24,320 acres.
5 (�
City of Atascadero Corporation Line (1979) - The city is withi-
the Atascadero Colony with the exception of the new wastewater treat
ment plant, the "Holiday Inn Site" and a few scatterings in the south-
east section. The area of the City is about 26 sq. miles or 16,640
acres.
Urban Reserve Line - This is a county planning line that
simulates the ultimate urban community and was laid prior to the in-
corporation of the city. This line is only significant in that
estimates for the ultimate sewered population are taken from this
area. The area within this boundary is about 14,000 acres (21.88 sq.
miles) This lines crosses over the Colony line in the area of the
State Hospital.
Atascadero Coiulty Sanitation District (1956) - This boundary
(ACSD) was formed as means of establishing bonding capabilities under
the Health and Safety Code. It replaced the Perkins Sewer Maintenance
District and the Atascadero Sanitary District which were later dis-
solved. The ACSD is comprised of approximately 3620 acres and is en-
tirely within the City Limits. This line will dissolve upon
completion of the final EPA-RWQCB audit which has officially begun,
but will not see much action until March. It is expected to be
dissolved by late 1986 , almost exactly 30 years after its inception.
Work in this report has anticipated the dissolving of this line and a
final revision of the sewer ordinance will be made when the sewer
system becomes a division of the City Department of Public Works.
Urban Services Line (1979) - This line (USL) is a figment o0
the General Plan of the city and delineates the area which is intended
to be more urban in nature than the remainder of the City and within
which, amongst other services, sewer service is provided. This area
is approximately the same as the ACSD(but is outside the ACSD) north
of San Jacinto and east of Santa Ysabel but is inside the ACSD west
of Santa Rosa. This line will serve a purpose similar to the ACSD in
delineating future additions (annexations) to the City Sewer System
(I.D. No. 1) when the ACSD dissolves, but will not have special
financing capabilities under the Health and Safety Code.
Improvement District No. 1 (1969) - This line represents
Assessment District No. l which encompases most of the present sewered
area within the ACSD but has had two group annexations (Assessment
District No. 2 and Assessment District No. 3) , along with several
single annexations discussed previously. There are about 2162 acres
in the original I.D. No 1, the buildout of which is the subject of the
Wallace Sewer Study. This line will have significance for debt
service to the year 2021 unless the FmHA loan is either paid off
earlier or unforseen legal complications enter the picture.
Cease and Desist Boundaries - These boundaries delineate major
sewer problem areas scattered throughout the City. All are within the
City but some are outside the ACSD and some are outside the USL.
These boundaries are expected to exist until the sewers are eventuall
provided. The City is presently under an Order to sewer three oie
these areas by November of 1986 .
6 �
0 •
• New Sewer Connection Fee (A)
The buildout of the area within I.D. No 1 is
expected to produce
P
1. 86 mgd. Currently the wet weather flow is 1.03 mgd (wet weather
flow is typically used to calculate sewer pipe sizes and lift station
capacities, which constitute the bulk of the recommended improvements.
Dry Flow is used for treatment plant design with emergency measures
provided for wet weather flow) .
The future flow increase is therefore 830 ,000 gpd.
There are 6231 units predicted in I.D. No. 1 buildout as compared
to 3278 currently. Therefore 2958 units are expected to produce
830,000 gpd. Assumptions are based on residential single family.
Large Commercial and Industrial uses would be scrutinized by the new
computer program at the time of application as their flows are
difficult to impossible to anticipate in planning.
Then, 830,000 gpd divided by 2958 residences equals 280 gpd/
residence. Also, 10 gallons per day per plumbing fixture unit hs been
used in past calculations. Therefore, a single family unit is ex-
pected to be equivalent to 28 fixture units. The 280 gpd compares with
fixture units per residence to calculate flow. These two changes
result from a reduction in water use through conservation or reduction
in family size not experienced by this writer.
The cost for the needs outlined has been derived to be $1.7
million.
$1,700 , 000 _ 830,000 gpd = $2. 05/gpd
$2. 05 X 10 gpd = $20. 50 per F.U.
Single Family Residence:
28 F.U. X $20. 50/F.U. _ $573. 49/Residence
Multiple Family:
Keeping relative to the initial design, 300 gpd or 30 F.U.
should be proportioned to the newly predicted flows based on actual
usage. Therefore,
30 X 28 = 26 .35 call 26 F.U. or 260 gpd/apt. unit
32
Then, 26 F.U. X $20. 50/F.U. =$533 per apartment unit
Mobile Home:
Again, keeping proportionate to the original design,
25 X 28 = 21. 88 call 22 F.U. or 220 gpd
32
Then, 22 F.U. X $20. 50 = $451 per mobile unit
1
Commercial, Industrial and Other Non-Residential: fl�j
Use $20. 50 per Fixture Unit �r
7
Adjustment to Annexation Fee (B)
In place of the in-leiu fee previously discussed, future plant
expansion or system expansion will be covered by the annexation fee.
The ultimate sewered population is expected to be 22,500. The
projected sewered population for I.D. No. 1 is 17,073. Therefore,
5427 people are expected to join into the system from outside I.D.
No. 1 about the time the I.D. No. l is saturated. Using 2. 74 people
per unit as used in the Sewer Study, then 5427 - 2. 74 = 1981 units
which should complete the annexations, an ultimate increase of 32%.
Then, 1981 X 280 gpd = 555 ,753 gpd added flow. If the 1. 4
mgd plant cost $3, 678,900 in 1980 then the assumed cost to handle
the increased flow for 1990 improvements is:
. 56 X 3,678,900 X 1.63 (Inflation factor, using 10 years @ 5%)
1.4 = $2, 398,643
Then $2,398, 643_ 555 , 753 gpds = $4.32/gpd
Single Family:
280 gpd X $4. 32 = $1,210 per residence
Multifamily:
260 gpd X $4. 32 = $1,123. 20 per unit
Mobile Units:
220 gpd X $4.32 = $ 950 .40 per unit
Commercial, Industrial and Other Non-Residential:
10 gpd X $4.32 = $43. 20 per Fixture Unit
Summary of Fees:- Proposed
Use / Fee [A] Sewer Conn. Fee [B] Annex. Fee [C] Tap Charge [D] Permit Fee
Single Family $573/unit $ 1,210/unit $250/each $5/each
MultiFamily $533/unit $ 1,123/unit $250/each $5/each
Mobile Home $451/unit $ 950/unit $250/each $5/each
Commercial $20.50/F.U. $ 43.20/F.U. $250/each $5/each
When Payable: Upon Connection Upon App. Upon Conn. Upon App.
Rates: See Rate Table in Ordinance - It is not anticipated that rates will
increase in the near future.
L
8
Scenarios for Future Connection:
(1) Presently outside the ACSD or USL or Inside the ACSD, but
outside I.D. No. 1, Not previously annexed.
Recommendations: Require annexation approval
Pay all fees when applicable
Pay all extension costs
(2) Inside ACSD,but outside I.D. No. 1 and previously annexed
but not connected.
Recommendations: Require connection within 12 months
from effective date of the new fees
or annexation is void.
Pay all extension costs
To include all previous annexations to
I.D. No. 1
Pay all fees.
(3) Inside ACSD, outside I.D. No. 1, but sewer available.
Recommendations: Require connection within 12 months of
the effective date of the new fees if
lot is not vacant.
Pay all fees when applicable
Pay all extension costs
Sewer be deemed available and subject
to violations.
(4) Inside I.D. No. l Lot Splits or Re-Zone or Use Change
Recommendations: Pay all fees for rezoning or Use change
when applicable
For lot splits, both will pay sewer
connection fee but only one will pay the
Annexation Fee.
(5) Inside I.D. No. 1, Sewer Available, but Building not
connected within the required 24 month period.
Recommendations: Pay all fees within 12 months.
Grant a 12 month grace period to connect
without being fined for the violation.
(This could be as many as 100 parcels)
(6) Inside I.D. No. 1, Vacant Lot, Sewer Available.
Recommendations: This category to not include previous
annexations.
Not pay the annexation fee but pay the
• sewer connection charge.
9
(7) Inside I.D. No. 1, Vacant Lot, Sewer Not Available, (Rare
case)
Recommendations: Pay all fees when they become applicable.
Sewer Availability: (Mentioned because pertinent to above scenarios)
Sewer Ordinance Sections 3.1 through 3. 5 govern sewer
availability.
Section 3.1 For the purposes of this Article a public sewer
shall be deemed to be available to a building if said sewer is in-
stalled in a public right of way or easement adjacent to the lot upon
which said building is located.
Section 3. 2 Pursuant to authority of Health and Safety Code
Section 4762, the Board of Directors hereby finds and declares the
maintenance or use of cesspools and other local means of sewage dis-
posal within the District constitute a public nuisance, and finds it
to be in the public interest that properties to which a public sewer
is available be required to connect thereto.
Section 3.3 When a public Sewer becomes available to a building
served by a private sewage disposal system, said building shall be
connected to the public sewer within twenty-four (24) months after
said public sewer is available and said private disposal system shal
be abandoned in accordance with the 1982 edition of the Unifor
Plumbing Code, unless a variance is granted by the Board of Directors.
Section 3. 4 Any newly-constructed building to which a public
sewer is available shall be connected to said public sewer prior to
its use for human occupancy, unless a variance is granted by the Board
of Directors.
Section 3. 5 Variances referred to in Section 3. 3 and 3. 4 may
be granted upon written application to the Board of Directors by the
applicant setting forth the basis for such request. Variances may be
granted only upon affirmative showing that no health hazard, public
nuisance, or inequity to other property owners will result therefrom.
Policy:
Previous Policy. Seven policy statements were adopted in 1983.
They are as follows:
1. All sewer main extensions are to be funded by those requesting
annexation.
2. Annexations must be contiguous to the existing Improvement
District.
•
10 \�
• 3. In consideration of the annexation request, the proponents
shall be required to furnish an engineer ' s evaluation of
adequacy of existing sewer mains affected by the service ex-
tension. This would include an evaluation of the downstream
line capacities as well as any possible upgrading of existing
lift stations.
4. Ongoing service to the annexed areas shall not require
substantially higher costs than other areas presently
served. Typical of the consideration would be a need for
additional sewer lift stations.
5. Annexations will be processed as outlined in Article 8 of
the Sanitation District Ordinance.
6. Annexation fees, based on use, will be due and payable prior
to any sewer connection in the annexed area.
7. Should the proponent of the annexation wish to receive
reimbursement for any sewer main extensions by those
connecting within the annexed area, then the propnent whall
file a reimbursement map with the City upon completion of
the extension.
Suggested Changes in Current Policy:
The above referenced statements are recommended to be changed
as follows:
2. Add. For problem sewer areas the governing body may annex
public areas to provide continuity.
3. Delete. "proponent shall be required to" and replace with,
"the City Engineer may. "
5. Add. "As amended"
6. Revise to read : Annexation fees, based on use, will be due
and payable upon application for annexation or lot splits
or use change or rezoning.
New Policy Proposals:
It is recommended that the Board adopt the following policies
in addition to the above:
8. Annexations become void if connection is not made within
12 months of application, and fees will be deemed forfeited.
Reapplication will require new fees.
9. Within the ACSD if sewer is available on the boundary of
I.D. No. 1, it be deemed available to the lots outside
of I.D. No. 1 as well as those inside.
10. Sewer Connection Fees and Tap Charge be paid upon connection.
11. Sewer lines be brought to the far property line unless other-
wise approved by the Director of Public Works on perimeter
or problem lots where future extensions are not practicable.
12. Condominiums be considered the same as Single Family.
13. Change of use from Apartments to Condominiums to pay the
difference in Single Family and MultiFamily fees upon
application. Rates will likewise be adjusted.
14. Change of Use from one Commercial use to another to pay
the difference in fees per fixture unit. Rates will
likewise be adjusted.
15. User Rates be designated in the proportion outlined in the
Revenue Program for the EPA-RWQCB grant and allocated to
appropriate accounting funds respective to their intended
use.
Timing - Effective Date:
It is recommended that the effective date of the suggested fees
and policies contained in this report be effective July 1, 1986, the
start of the next fiscal year . This date will also be timely with
other proposed development fees and will provide adequate time fo
financial planning for development. 0
Fiscal Impact:
The fees suggested herein will provide adquate funding for the
proper management of present and future capital improvement needs.
Although the projects would be anticipated by 1990,fees are based on
buildout and the Board may want to utilize its bonding capabilities as
long as it is available. Operation and Maintenance costs generally
increase due to cost index rise and expansion of service levels as the
system buildsout. Rates are not anticipated to be increased in the
near future. The debt service portion of the rates is fixed for 40
years, but the capital improvement costs may rise due to deterioration
, depreciation and telemetering of lift stations and may require ad-
justment periodically in the same manner as does 0 & M.
12 i
DD
. Summary Table of Fee Recommendations:
Applicable Scenario Proposed Fees Total Cost for Old Fees Notes
(max. case) Si ile Family
(1) Presently outside A,B,C,D $2,038 B,C,D Requires approval
ACSD, USL or inside ACSD of annexation by
but outside ID #1, not governing body
previously annexed
(2) Inside ACSD, but out- A,B,C,D $2,038 B,C,D Requires conn.
side ID #1, previously within 12 mo or
annexed but not connected void.
(3) Inside ACSD, outside A,B,C,D $2,038 B,C,D requires conn.
I.D. ##,but sewer avail. within 12 mos.
or violation
(4) Inside I.D. #1, Lot A*B*C,D (2 conn.) B,C,D_ *One lot to pay B
Split, Re-Zone, Use Chg. $2,866 Both to pay A
Treated like
annexation.
(5) Inside I.D. #1, Sewer A,B,C,D $2,038 C,D Grant 12 mo grace
Available, building not period w/o fine
connected within reqd 24
month period.
(6) Inside I.D. X61, vacant A,C,D $ 828** C,D not to include
lot, sewer available previous annex.
(7) Inside I.D. #1, vacant A,B,C,D $2,038 C,D
lot, sewer not avail.
Note:
** For the typical Single family zoned vacant lot in I.D. No. 1, which has
an existing sewer lateral, the total fees will equal $578.
13
SDI
1 `
Conclusion: i
Adoption of the above fees and policies will provide a first-come
first-serve pay-as-you-go system (although financing tools will be
necessary) which will not need to bar future users from service inside
or outside the I.D. No. 1.
References:
Capacity Analysis and Evaluation of the ACSD Wastewater Treatment
and Collection System, John L. Wallace & Assoc. November 1985
Facilities Plan Wastewater Treatment Alternatives, Engineering
Science, November 1977
LAFCO Report
ACSD Revenue Program - CWG Project No. C-06-1324-110
Attachments•
Map of Boundaries
Bar Chart of Comparison of Single Family Residence Total
Development Fees
ACSD Consolidated Ordinances
Memorandum: Proposed Policies for Sewer Annexation,
Larry McPherson, November 1983
Excerpts from ACSD Revenue Program
Ib�
14 1
1� oc
'= w� /7/lN& 37d/17/VN �
to U .�
`= � DC71fVV l' JN/s
W Q Q
♦aaqq�• pp�� p
1 ttl W >tu ,� lex O vt a[
LU
i oaf 3 a o� „ 3q 3
Q4 st%
wa
L__..
h
1,70Zt*2
W
+► +►
�. o .4-4'
It
QA
o
+►
co Q
0 � Q
op
o � 2cfDN 3 � oot
w
o
Ito
O
_r
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM
February 24, 1986
** ALL COUNCILMEMBERS, STAFFMEMBERS AND CITIZENS ARE REMINDED TO
PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE.
Call to order
Pledge of Allegiance
Invocation
Roll Call
City Council Comments
Special Presentation - EMT-II Emergency Medical Program - Fire
Dept.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO PUBLIC
All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar , are considered
to be routine and will be enacted by one motion in the form list-
ed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items.
If discussion is required, that item will be removed from the
Consent Calendar and considered separately. Vote may be by roll-
call.
1. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of February 11, 1986
2. Tentative Parcel Map 11-85 - 7150 Serena (Kennedy/Stewart)
3. Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 - 7100 Serena (Harrell/Stewart)
4. Acceptance of Final Tract Map 5-85 - 5405 El Camino Real
(Van Alen/Associated Professions)
5. Claim of Andrew Zabiega, M.D. (RECOMMEND DENIAL)
6. Accept Proposal for Atascadero Lake Feasibility Study from
Alderman Engineering.
7. Authorization to Purchase Parks Dept. Truck through State
Cooperative Fleet Plan (Proposed Res. No. 19-86)
• 8. Resolution Authorizing Parks & Recreation Director to Enter
into Animal Loan Agreements
9. Award Contract for Asbestos Removal to P.W. Stephens Con-
tractors, Inc. , So. E1 Monte, California (Bid #86-35)
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS
1. Consideration of Adopting Development Impact Ordinances (PUB-
LIC HEARING) (Cont'd from 2/11/86)
a. Amapoa-Tecorida Development Area (Proposed Ord. No. 117
SECOND READING) (ResolutioAddressing Fees to be Intro-
duced at Council Meeting)
b. Lewis Avenue Bridge (Proposed Ord. No. 118 - SECOND READ-
ING) (ResolutionAddressing Fees to be Introduced at
Council Meeting) 7j�
c. General (Proposed Ord. No. 119 - SECOND READING) (Resolu-
tion Addressing Fees to be Introduced at Council Meeting)
X10_*
2. General Plan Amendment 2G-85 - Lopus (8205 Coromar) /Coromar
Study Area (PUBLIC HEARING)
C. NEW BUSINESS
• 1. Zoning Ordinance Procedures Evaluation
(Council will recess and convene as the Atascadero County Sanita-
tion District Board of Directors)
D. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
1. Introduction of Proposed Amended Sewer Ordinance Adding New
and Revising Sewer Service Fees
(The Board of Directors will adjourn and reconvene as City Coun-
cil)
E. COMMUNITY FORUM
F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
1. City Council
2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk
4. City Treasurer
5. City Manager
•
qDA
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
• Regular Meeting, February 11, 1986
Atascadero Administration Building
The Regular Meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to
order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Nelson, followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers Handshy, Mackey, Molina and Mayor Nelson
Absent: Councilwoman Norris (Ill)
STAFF
Mike Shelton, City Manager; Robert Jones, City Attorney/City
Clerk; Bud McHale, Police Chief; Mike McCain, Fire Battalion
Chief; Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Paul Sensi-
baugh, Public Works Director; Dave Jorgensen, Administrative Ser-
vices Director; Cindy Wilkins, Deputy City Clerk.
COUNCIL COMMENT
Councilwoman Mackey stated she feels, when a Councilmember is
absent from meetings, it should be announced and the reason stat-
ed.
Mayor Nelson announced Mayor Pro Tem Handshy and his wife are
celebrating their 30th Wedding Anniversary today: Congratula-
tions, Bear ! !
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of February 11, 1986
2. Tentative Parcel Map 31-85 - 10800 Santa Ana Rd. (Davis/Twin
Cities Engr. )
3. Tentative Parcel Map 32-85 - 11400 Santa Ana Rd. (Davis/Twin
Cities Engr. )
4. Tentative Parcel Map 34-85 - 10420 San Marcos Rd. (Bres-
sler/Twin Cities Engr. )
5. Final Parcel Map 27-85 - 10390 Santa Ana Rd. (Ellison/Twin
Cities Engr. )
6. Final Lot Line Adjustment 2-85 - 13655/13805 Santa Ana Rd. &
9600 Corona (Atas. Mutual Water Co./Twin Cities Engr. )
•
1 t
,
7. Resolution No. 12-86 - Requesting Consolidation of Election
with that of County of S.L.O. Scheduled for 6/3/86 (2 Seats
on City Council, City Treasurer & City Clerk)
8. Proposed Res. No. 13-86 - Approving Change in Position Title
from Asst. Finance Director to Accounting Supervisor
9. Request Addendum to Res. No. ' s. 117-85, 110-85 and 82-85 -
Modifying Police Officers' Assn. , Sergeants' Service Orgn.
and S.E.I.U. Memoranda of Understanding
10. Motion Authorizing Employee Recognition Program & Appropri-
ating Funds from City Council Budget
11. Resolution Approving Funds for Community Newsletter
12. Motion Awarding Engineering Proposal to John Wallace & Asso-
ciates for Sycamore Bridge Project
13. Motion Authorizing Staff to Obtain Land Appraisal of Lot #6
Located on Morro Rd. Between Portola Rd. & Lago Ave.
* Mayor Nelson announced a modification to Item #9: The Addendum
proposed shall apply only to the S.E.I.U. Memorandum of Under-
standing (Res. 82-85) .
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to approve Consent Calendar items
1-13 (*) , seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed unani-
mously by roll..-call vote, with Councilwoman Norris
absent.
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS
1. Consideration of Development Impact Ordinances (PUBLIC
HEARING) :
a. Amapoa-Tecorida Development Area (Proposed Ord. No. 117)
b. Lewis Avenue Bridge (Proposed Ord. No. 118)
C; General (Proposed Ord. No. 119)
Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director, gave staff report; he
noted the fees will be adopted by resolutions, which are now be-
fore the City Attorney for approval and will be introduced at the
next meeting on Feb. 24th. City Attorney, Robert Jones, noted
that the ordinances will be amended to reflect that the Bordeaux
Project conditions of approval required the equivalent of said
fees and, as a result, should be exempt from the Development Im-
pact Fees.
2
Public Comment
Brian Cardy, resident on Azucena, asked what the working defini-
tion is for ' fee' vs. ' tax' , to which both Paul Sensibaugh and
Mike Shelton responded; basically, the revenues from a tax can be
used for any general purpose (i.e. the $. 50 Development Mitiga-
tion Tax adopted last August, although it is, however, earmarked
for capital improvements, in general) , whereas a fee extracted
must have a direct relationship to the purpose for which the fee
is spent and must be put into special earmarked funds.
Doug Lewis, resident, asked what the word ' impact' implies; Mayor
Nelson responded it denotes the impact of growth on the level of
City services, referring to the Capital Improvement Budget.
Cindy Gillespie, a Santa Margarita resident, expressed concern
that the schools are not listed in the impacts and feels their
needs are being neglected; she proposed City officials slow down
growth of multi-family residentials as she feels their rate of
development is far too rapid.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina to read Ord. 117 by title, seconded
by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously, with Coun-
cilwoman Norris absent. Mayor Nelson read Ord. 117 by
title only.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey that this constitutes the first
reading of Ord. 117, seconded by Councilman Molina;
passed unanimously, with Councilwoman Norris absent.
Second reading will be at Council' s Feb. 24th meeting.
MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to read Ord. 118 by title, second-
ed by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously, with
Councilwoman Norris absent. Mayor Nelson read Ord. 118
by title only.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina that this constitutes the first
reading of Ord. 118, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey;
passed unanimously, with Councilwoman Norris absent.
Second reading will be at Council' s Feb. 24th meeting.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to read Ord. 119 by title, sec-
onded by Councilman Molina; passed unanimously, with
Councilwoman Norris absent. Mayor Nelson read Ord. 119
by title only.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina that this constitutes the first
reading of Ord. 119, seconded by Councilman Handshy;
passed unanimously, with Councilwoman Norris absent.
Second reading will be at Council' s Feb. 24th meeting.
3 ,�
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Motion Awarding Atascadero Fire Dept. Office Addition Bid
#86-34 to LaFreniere Construction in the amount of
$35,600.00.
Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director, gave staff report.
No public comment.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina to approve award of Bid #86-34,
seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed by 4 :0 roll-call
vote, with Councilwoman Norris absent.
D. NEW BUSINESS
1. Proposed Urgency Ord. No. 120- Amending Title 9, Planning and
Zoning, of the Atascadero Municipal Code by Adding Chap. 10,
Lot Mergers
Henry Engen, Community Development Director, gave staff re-
port; he noted that Chapter 10 would, in the near future,
become part of a new subdivision ordinance which has been
drafted and is currently under review.
No public comment.
MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to read Ord. 120 by title, second-
ed by Councilman Molina; passed unanimously, with
Councilwoman Norris absent. Mayor Nelson read Ord. 120
by title only.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina that this constitutes the first and
last reading of Ord. 120 , seconded by Councilman Hand-
shy; passed by 4:0 roll-call vote, with Councilwoman
Norris absent. This, as an Urgency Ordinance, takes
effect immediately.
MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to recess as City Council and
convene as the Atas. County Sanitation District Board of
Directors, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unan-
imously, with Councilwoman Norris absent.
E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (ACSD)
1. Consideration of Sanitary Sewer Connection Fees
Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director , gave lengthy staff
report (refer to extensive backround materials in agenda
packet) and responded to questions from the Board.
4 a
No public comment.
MOTION: By Director Molina that Board directs staff
to amend the
recommendations outlined in the staff memo to reflect
that (1) areas under the Cease & Desist order are exempt
from these fees, and (2) annexation fees pertaining to
areas outside Improvement District #1 will be effective
immediately upon adoption of the proposed ordinance, and
to bring this item back in ordinance form; motion sec-
onded by Director Handshy. Passed unanimously, with
Director Norris absent.
2. Proposed Annexations to Improvement District No. 1 - Res.
No. ' s 15-86, 16-86, 17-86 and 18-86
Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director, gave staff report; he
noted these will be considered new annexations and the fees
previously discussed tonight (Item E-1) will apply.
No public comment.
MOTION: By Director Molina to adopt Res. No. ' s 15-86, 16-86,
17-86 and 18-86, seconded by Director Handshy; passed
4:0 by roll-call vote, with Director Norris absent.
MOTION: By Director Molina to adjourn as Atas. County Sanitation
District Board of Directors and reconvene as City Coun-
cil, seconded by Director Mackey; passed unanimously,
with Director Norris absent.
F. COMMUNITY FORUM
Mary Ann Larson, a Santa Margarita resident, read a presentation
(providing copies to Council and staff) addressing several issues
relating to the possible use of vacant land at Atas. State Hospi-
tal as a site for the portable classrooms to accommodate the
overflow of students in the Atas. Unified School District; she
expressed opposition to such consideration, proposing the City
impose a residential and park development moratorium in the area
of the State Hospital in view of safety, residential and City
services concerns.
John Gillespie, a Santa Margarita resident, expressed his dissat-
isfaction with the handling of school facilities issues in this
district.
G. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
Councilwoman Mackey relayed that Mr. Gillespie (see above) had
discussed his concerns with her , suggesting that perhaps the de-
veloper of large-scale projects contribute some of the first com-
5
pleted buildings to be set aside and used for temporary school
facilities.
Robert Jones, City Clerk, announced that the nomination period
for the June 3rd election has been noticed in the paper and is
open through March 7; up for election are two seats on the City
Council, the City Clerk and City Treasurer positions. As City
Attorney, he announced that the Superior Court refused to grant
the writ relating to Barrett vs. City of Atascadero, thus the
City has won that court battle.
Mike Shelton, City Manager, related he received a call today from
Dr. Avina, A.U.S.D. Supt. , requesting that the City formulate a
sub-committee of two councilmembers to meet with the School Dis-
trict Boardmembers to discuss a number of issues, specifically
growth in So. Atascadero and also to reassess the need for in-
terim facilities fees. Councilmembers Handshy and Mackey were
appointed by Mayor Nelson to serve on said sub-committee.
Mr. Shelton mentioned that he and Sarah Gronstrand, of Friends of
the Library, met with the County' s architect and library commit-
tee regarding the new library; the schematic design is on display
in the first floor showcase of the Administration Bldg. He noted
that, after acceptance of the schematics, the design will be re-
ferred to the architect to make construction documents, which are
anticipated to be ready for bid in June, with construction com-
mencing immediately thereafter and completion by the end of this
calendar year ; now is the time for suggestions as to any modifi-
cations and/or further considerations of those designs.
MEETING ADJOURNED TO A CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL ACQUI-
SITION OF PROPERTIES FROM THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AT 9: 22
P.M. '1
RECORDED 9)t:
ROBERT M. ,TONES, City Clerk
PREPARED BY:
CINDY WILKINS, Dep. City Clerk
6
DA
L ss:�tr
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council February 24, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Directorj.
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 11-85
LOCATION: 7150 Serena (formerly Pinal)
APPLICANT: Nellie Kennedy (Daniel J. Stewart)
REQUEST: To allow division of a 4.24 acre parcel into four
lots of 1.00, 1.00, 1.07 and 1.17 acres each.
On February 3, 1986, the Planning Commission conducted a public
• hearing on the above-referenced matter unanimously approving the
land division request (with Commissioner Kennedy abstaining) sub-
ject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached
staff report.
Dan Stewart, representing the applicant, indicated his concur-
rence with the recommendation and noted that he had worked with
staff for some time on this project in an effort to resolve the
issues involved.
Irene Bishop, 7151 Serena, stated that she and her husband had
concerns regarding the access road which were discussed at prev-
ious hearings which had now been resolved by a redesign of the
map, and noted she was in agreement with the project.
No one else spoke on the matter.
HE:ps
cc: Nellie Kennedy
Dan Stewart
•
City of Atascadero Item. 13-1
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 2/3/86
BY: Doug Davidson, Assistant Planner . File No: TPM 11-85
Project Address: 7150 Serena (formerly Pinal)
SUBJECT:
To allow the division of a 4.24 acre parcel into four lots of 1.00,
1.00, 1.07, and 1.17 acres each.
BACKGROUND:
This matter was originally heard at the Planning Commission meeting of
April 15, 1985. At that time, staff requested a continuance in order
to evaluate road improvement alternatives. On May 6, 1985, the City
Council, acting in its capacity as the Planning Agency, granted a con-
tinuance to allow the applicant's engineer to redesign the parcel map.
Staff has since received a revised parcel map and all affected City
agencies, as well as CalTrans, have reviewed the project.
Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Jan-
uary 24, 1986 and all owners of record property located within 300
feet were notified on that date.
A. LOCATION: 7150 Serena (Parcel 2 of Parcel Map CO 74-185, Stad-
ium Park)
B. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To allow the division of a 4.24
acre parcel into four lots of
1.00, 1.00, 1.07 and 1.17 acres
each.
2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .Nellie Kennedy
3. Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Daniel Stewart
4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.24 acres
5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Serena Road is a private, unim-
proved road. Mercedes Avenue is
unimproved and the alignment of •
the proposed Highway 41 expan-
sion. Stadium Road is an exist-
ing ten foot access easement
being proposed as a 50 . foot
i •
Tentative Parcel Map ll-85 (Kennedy/Stewart)
right-of-way to serve these
parcels.
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Y (Residential Single Family
- minimum lot size one acre with
sewer, one and one half acre
without sewer.
7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant
8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RSF-Y vacant
South: RSF-Y, vacant
East: Stadium Park
West: RMF/16, County Hospital
9. General Plan Designation. . . . .Moderate Density Single Family
10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Steeply sloped with many large
oak trees.
11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declarationa
C. ANALYSIS:
In the RSF-Y zone, the minimum lot size is one acre with sewers,
one and one-half acre without sewer. These proposed lots are
within the sewer improvement district. Thus, the proposed lot
sizes of 1.00, 1.00, 1.07 and 1.17 acres each conform to the Zon-
ing Ordinance.
- DEVELOPMENT OF SITE -
Staff has several concerns regarding the development of these par-
cels. The average slope of these lots is approximately 35%. Grad-
ing on such slopes will require a precise plan approval by the
Planning Department prior to the issuance of any grading or build-
ing permits. This review will seek to determine that the extent
and nature of the proposed grading is appropriate for the use and
that the proposed grading will not result in erosion or other ad-
verse effects to life or property.
Sewage Disposal:
Septic systems are not allowed on slopes over 30%. For this rea-
son, as well as the fact that these lots are located within the
sewer improvement district boundary, the parcels are being pro-
posed to be required to connect to the sewer system. Condition
#11 of the conditions of approval addresses sewer conection.
Access:
The proposed lots are currently served by two unimproved access
roads. Serena is an unimproved private road. Parcel 4 fronts
Serena Road at its northeast corner. Mercedes Avenue is also un-
improved and is located to the west of proposed Parcel 1. Mer-
cedes is the proposed future alignment of Highway 41 and is cur-
Tentative Parcel Map 11785 (Kennedy/Stewart)
rently under Caltrans jurisdiction. To adequately serve these
proposed lots, off-site road improvements are proposed to be re-
quired as indicated in Condition #9. Stadium Road is an unim-
proved access easement being proposed to serve these parcels. It
is shown currently as a ten (10)- foot access easement and is being
proposed as a 50 foot right-of-way. Condition #9-d is included to
insure that the applicant acquires title to allow for these
improvements.
Fire Prevention:
Additional fire hydrants are required. Their type and location is
contained in Condition #5.
In summary, this proposed parcel map creates the need for substan-
tial infrastructure improvements before lot divisions would be
acceptable; however, with the recommended conditions of approval,
staff believes that the parcel map will result in an orderly pat-
tern of development.
D. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 11-85 based on
the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit A.
DGD:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B - Location Map
Exhibit C - Parcel Map
�D
Tentative Parcel Map 11-85 (Kennedy/Stewart)
EXHIBIT A - Tentative Parcel Map 11-85
Findings/Conditions of Approval
February 3, 1986
FINDINGS:
1. The creation of these parcels conform to all applicable zoning 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, and preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report is not necessary.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development that
is proposed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of dev-
elopment proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision of the proposed improvements will
not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision or 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 subdivi-
sion; 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.
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
issuance of building permits in conjunction with installation of
driveways, access easements or structures. Prior to final build-
. I�
n
0
Tentative Parcel Map 11-85 (Kennedy/Stewart)
ing inspections, said engineer shall submit to the City written
certification that grading is in compliance with said codes and
standards.
a. Drainage facilities shall be constructed to City standards.
b. All drainage work shall be completed (or bonded for) prior to
recordation of the final map.
4. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways and
driveway easements shall be submitted for approval by the Planning
and Public Works Departments in order to determine average grade
and appropriate improvement requirements.
5. Two City standard fire hydrants shall be required at the following
locations: 1) the corner of Stadium Road and Mercedes; and 2) 500
feet east of Mercedes on Stadium Road.
6. Provide a preliminary soils report and if said report indicates
that corrective measures are necessary to prevent structural
damage, then a note acceptable to the Director of Public Works
shall be noted on the final map.
7. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Department of Public Works
and construct improvements (or bond) as per permit requirements,
prior to recordation of the final map.
8. Obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans and construct road im-
provements per permit requirements. These improvements should be
compatible with the proposed improvement of Highway 41 extension.
9. The applicant shall submit road improvement plans, prepared by a
registered civil engineer, for review and approval by the Public
Works Department. These shall include:
a. The construction of Stadium Road to a 24 foot wide road sec-
tion with a 20 foot a.c. traveled way along the frontage of
the proposed parcels continuing to Hospital Drive per City
standards.
b. The construction of a City standard cul-de-sac or approved
hammerhead at the terminus of Stadium Road.
C. Upon approval by the Director of Public Works, the property
owner may enter into a deferral agreement for the construc-
tion of Stadium Road asphaltic concrete (traveled way) within
the right-of-way of future Highway 41.
d. Prior to approval of the improvement plans by the Director of
Public Works, either the subdivider shall acquire suffi-
cient title or interest in the off-site land to allow the
improvements to be made as required by these conditions; or
the City Council, upon request by and at the expense of the
subdivider , shall have made all appropriate findings and
adopted a Resolution of Necessity as required by law so that
1�
r '
Tentative Parcel Map 11-85 (Kennedy/Stewart)
the City may exercise its power of eminent domain.
e. Construction of road improvement plans shall be completed or
bonded for prior to recordation of the final map.
10. The applicant shall make an offer of dedication to the City of
Atascadero to the following rights-of-way and/or easements:
a. The sanitary sewer easement, ten feet each side of the sewer
main line.
b. Stadium Road along the parcel map frontage 25 feet from the
centerline of Stadium Road and the right-of-way for the cul-
de-sac.
C. The public utility easements.
d. These offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded
prior to recordation of the final map.
11. A sewer connection permit shall be obtained from the Public Works
Department prior to hooking up to the public sewer.
a. Plans for the sewer main extension, prepared by a registered
civil engineer , shall be submitted and approved by the Public
Works Department.
b. The applicant shall enter into a sewer main extension agree-
ment subject to approval by the Director of Public Works.
C. Construction of sanitary sewer facilities shall be completed
(or bonded for) prior to recordation of the final map.
d. An in-lieu sewer connection fee of $850.00 per single family
lot shall be due in addition to the usual connection, tap-in,
and installation fees, prior to issuance of a building
permit.
12. All conditions herein specified shall be complied with prior to
filing of 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 will be set by a date specific, and that
they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced.
Exr� I � ir L
r...,
LOCA -NDN MJ4P
C t 7"Y MA!AI7-A I N EJD S7'R 1=IF-r<
it
Dh
_ • rte .. -
►'�` 's tol` tx S�RE/V l '1�oA 0I'vi PROV D
• po
t +�•s
-(_- J 1` -�-'�_ �y� `IO
� � � h1�-- ' �t- .�`�/ - �-.S a f� J i � w Z /��• _ 6'7 .`: • ��}� 9r.
,,, ,,may 'I -•F ` .
PA PER
ROAD
2z
i7~I2. It +�IG
�r-_LSA J,� --a'h,gs•�_, �_.T ..Y Lc'• <_ _!1 �, QJ,i
il-�iVT, - c;�
40M -
/mss.. ' / • / I y � -
77
INO
46
✓r.�o�� / ; � / ', /, � ,Tar• / r �
S14 ts�
�i� � gYA Z4
�h'� 1t et°iZ OsLn�1 • � � `�
�o 40411I, �I1 �1A��egIN Rev
iaoIt
i i it, . .
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council February 24, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager .
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 12-85
LOCATION: 7100 Serena (formerly Pinal)
APPLICANT: David Harrell (Daniel J. Stewart)
REQUEST: To allow division of a 4. 52 acre parcel into four
lots of 1. 52, 1.00, 1.00 and 1.00 acres each.
On February 3, 1986 , the Planning Commission conducted a public
• hearing on the above-referenced matter unanimously approving the
land division request (with Commissioner Kennedy abstaining) sub-
ject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached
staff report.
Dan Stewart, representing the applicant, indicated his concur-
rence with the recommendation and thanked staff for working so
much on this project.
Irene Bishop, 7151 Serena, noted her concurrence with the recom-
mended conditions of approval.
No one else spoke on the matter .
HE:ps
cc: David Harrell
Dan Stewart
•
�1
i
City of Atascadero Item: B-2
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 2/3/86
BY: Doug Davidson, Assistant Planner File No: TPM 12-85
Project Address: 7100 Serena (formerly Pinal)
SUBJECT:
To allow the division of a 4.52 acre parcel into four lots of 1.52,
1.00, 1.00, and 1.00 acres each.
BACKGROUND:
This ;natter was originally heard at the Planning Commission meeting of
April 15, 1985. At that time, staff requested a continuance in order
to evaluate road improvement alternatives. At the May 6, 1985. hear-
ing, the item was continued to allow the engineer to redesign the par-
cel map following meetings with staff. Staff has received a redesign
of the parcel map and all affected City agencies, as well as CalTrans,
have reviewed the project.
Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Jan-
uary 24, 1986 and all owners of record property located within 3.00
feet were notified on that date.
A. LOCATION: 7100 Serena (Parcel 1 of Parcel Map CO 74-185, Stad-
ium Park)
B. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .Toallowthe division of a 4.52
acre parcel into four lots of
1.52, 1.00, 1.00 and 1.00 acres
each.
2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .David Harrell
3. Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Daniel Stewart
4. Site Area. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .4. 52 acres
5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Serena Road is a private, unim-
proved road. Mercedes Avenue is
unimproved and the alignment of •
the proposed Highway 41
expansion.
l�
Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 (Harrell/Stewart)
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Y (Residential Single Family
- minimum lot size one acre with
sewer , one and one half acre
without sewer.
7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant
8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RSF-Y, vacant
South: RSF-Y, vacant
East: single family residence
West: RMF/16, County Hospital
9. General Plan Designation. . . . .Moderate Density Single Family
10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Steeply sloped with many large
oak trees.
11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declarationa
C. ANALYSIS:
In the RSF-Y zone, the minimum lot size is one acre with sewers,
one and one-half acre without sewer. These proposed lots are
within the sewer improvement district. Thus, the proposed lot
sizes of 1. 52, 1.00, 1.00 and 1.00 acres each conform to the Zon-
ing Ordinance.
- DEVELOPMENT OF SITE -
Staff has several concerns regarding the development of these par-
cels. The average slope of these lots is approximately 35%. Grad-
ing on such slopes will require a precise plan approval by the
Planning Department prior to the issuance of any grading or build-
ing permits. This review will seek to determine that the extent
and nature of the proposed grading is appropriate for the use and
that the proposed grading will not result in erosion or other ad-
verse effects to life or property.
Sewage Disposal:
Septic systems are not allowed on slopes over 30%. For this rea-
son, as well as the fact that these lots are located within the
sewer improvement district boundary, the parcels are being pro-
posed to be required to connect to the sewer system. Condition
#12 of the conditions of approval addresses sewer conection.
Staff' s main concern is that this sewer main be placed in Serena,
as opposed to where it is shown on the proposed parcel map.
Access:
The proposed lots are currently served by two unimproved access
roads. Serena Road is an unimproved private road which is located
directly to the north of proposed Parcels A, B, and C. Mercedes
Avenue is also unimproved and Parcel A fronts Mercedes on the
west. Mercedes Avenue is the proposed alignment of Highway 41 and
is currently under Caltrans jurisdiction. To adequately serve the
l�
Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 (Harrell/Stewart)
parcels, off-site road improvements are proposed. Condition #9
of the conditions of approval states the specific requirements.
Compatibility with CalTrans' plans for future development of High-
way 41 is addressed in Condition #8. Additionally, a private
drive is proposed off Serena to serve these parcels. Standards
for this are addressed in Condition #11.
Fire Prevention:
Additional fire hydrants are required. Their type and location is
contained in Condition #5.
In summary, this proposed parcel map creates the need for substan-
tial infrastructure improvements before lot divisions would be
acceptable; however, with the recommended conditions of approval,
staff believes that the parcel map will result in an orderly pat-
tern of growth.
D. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 based on
the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit A.
DGD:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B - Location Map
Exhibit C - Parcel Map
Y
Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 (Harrell/Stewart)
EXHIBIT A - Tentative Parcel Map 12-85
Findings/Conditions of Approval
February 3, 1986
FINDINGS:
1. The creation of these parcels conform to all applicable zoning 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, and preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report is not necessary.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development that
is proposed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of dev-
elopment proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision of the proposed improvements will
not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6 . The design of the subdivision or 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 subdivi-
sion; 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.
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.
M3. 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 in conjunction with installation of
driveways, access easements or structures. Prior to final build-
_ 21
Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 (Harrell/Stewart)
ing inspections, said engineer shall submit to the City written
certification that grading is in compliance with said codes and
standards.
a. Drainage facilities shall be constructed to City standards.
b. All drainage work shall be completed (or bonded for) prior to
recordation of the final map,
4. Plan andPs rofile drawing proposed Y of ro osed individual driveways and
driveway easements shall be submitted for approval by the Planning
and Public Works Departments in order to determine average grade
and appropriate improvement requirements. This shall appear as a
note on the final map.
5. Two City standard fire hydrants shall be required: 1) one on
Serena at entrance to private drive; 2) the other on the corner of
Mercedes and Serena.
6. Provide a preliminary soils report and if said report indicates
that corrective measures are necessary to prevent structural
damage, then a note acceptable to the Director of Public Works
shall be noted on the final map.
7. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Department of Public Works
and construct improvements (or bond) as per permit requirements,
prior to recordation of the final map.
8. Obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans and construct road im-
provements per permit requirements. These improvements should be
compatible with the proposed improvement of Highway 41 extension.
9. The applicant shall submit road improvement plans, prepared by a
registered civil engineer, for review and approval by the Public
Works Department. These shall include:
a. The construction of a City standard cul-de-sac or hammerhead
on Serena Avenue.
b. The applicant shall agree to participate in the formation of
an assessment district for road improvements along Serena
Avenue.
C. Prior to approval of the improvement plans by the Director of
Public Works, either the subdivider shall acquire suffi-
cient title or interest in the off-site land to allow the
improvements to be made as required by these conditions; or
the City Council, upon request by and at the expense of the
subdivider , shall have made all appropriate findings and
adopted a Resolution of Necessity as required by law so that
the City may exercise its power of eminent domain.
r
Tentative Parcel Map 12785 (Harrell/Stewart)
•
d. Construction of road improvement plans shall be completed or
bonded for prior to recordation of the final map.
10. The applicant shall make an offer of dedication to the City of
Atascadero to the following rights-of-way and/or easements:
a. The sanitary sewer easement, ten feet each side of the sewer
main line.
b. 25 feet from the centerline of Serena and right-of-way for
cul-de-sac along Serena Avenue frontage (Parcels A, B, C) .
C. Public utilities easement.
d. These offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded
prior to recordation of the final map.
11. A road maintenance agreement for the private drive, in a form ac-
ceptable to the City, shall be recorded with the deed to each par-
cel at the time it is first conveyed and a note to this effect
shall be placed on the final map. A common egress and ingress
easement for private drive (minimum 30 foot right-of-way, 16 foot
traveled way) shall be provided and shown on the final map.
12. A sewer connection permit shall be obtained from the Public Works
Department prior to hooking up to the public sewer.
a. Plans for the sewer main extension, prepared by a registered
civil engineer , shall be submitted and approved by the Public
Works Department.
b. Construction of sanitary sewer facilities shall be completed
(or bonded for) prior to recordation of the final map. The
main line extension shall be compatible with future develop-
ment needs.
C. An in-lieu sewer connection fee of $850. 00 per single family
lot shall be due in addition to the usual connection, tap-in,
and installation fees, prior to issuance of a building
permit.
13. All conditions herein specified shall be complied with prior to
filing of the final map.
14. 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 will be set by a date specific, and that
they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced.
2�
XpIBIT B
Lo(-A IDN MAS
C !7- Y M41N I-A1NED SrREE-
-74
v i Q-
Ile
- g CY r tom.'. ! i_• — _ - a \\� •�
3.5 ON
PoRtl
13
PA PE R
RCAD
r S I 1
14
tC-_!7 'G a wq/ _—e j A• J Lac , '_'t
.3
..�.. p l..
Ilk
Ell
RA
A.
ZI
4.
;. �rN AwO RP
4or
AL/F
�
On
03
VA770N I�/W
• ; . •. ,'� Ctt Si a �-^''
-� �,.• _ 1 - '�� .� �,t •Z.0. . . . t� ��...•;• �7
Al
ell
aw — Boa\�•»..}r. \\ \\\ Z ,�
Ilh
la x
IR
7�
�
a
� �Qy•-.��p �\ r• 1�\ � 11 1 \ T4s ,*1; i - '
• fin,. `,� •
• SCALE:/"�f0'
IM
� O � tio �,r �o
NL ..jtg3c o} aD�i� c
ivi
IN
f c
tj
co
Ln
w M
w
Av7i`vD
•
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council February 24, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director *,r,
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Tract Map 5-85
LOCATION: 5405 E1 Camino Real
APPLICANT: Raymond Van Alen (Associated Professions)
• On April 1, 1985, the City Council approved Tract Map 5-85, sub-
ject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommen-
dation of the Planning Commission. The required conditions have
been complied with and the final map is recommended for approval.
HE:ps
cc: Raymond Van Alen
Associated Professions
•
w
w c '
..r• ; 2�� �� � � ' vhf M M �,
yy � ii
Lou
�oe� o qc
K
R�
Wto
CJ
iN
all
v
r�
J
i
•
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mike Shelton
FROM: Dave Jorgensen
SUBJECT : Clain of Andrew abiega, M.D.
DATE: February 24, 1986
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council deny claim submitted on January 22, 1986, by the
above-named claimant' s attorney.
BACKGROUND
Claimant alleges false arrest by Atascadero Police Department.
City' s adjustors , Carl Warren & Co. , have reviewed this claim
and have advised that it be rejected at this time.
DJ/cw
G IDA
M E M O R A N D U M [�i.7 _ _-Z�.2 �� :i;:,'VI 4 _G
February 19 , 1986
To : City Council
Via: Mike Shelton , City Managerw-
From: Bob Best , Director of Parks & Recreation
Subject : Atascadero Lake Feasibility Study
INTRODUCTION
As part of the 1985-86 Budget , Council approved $7 ,500 for a
Lake Feasibility Study. The purpose of the study was to identify
problems with Atascadero Lake , identify health problems at lake ,
listing of most feasible options to problems , provide a cost
estimate to the proposed solutions , and to identify long term
costs to the City.
BACKGROUND
Two proposals were submitted:
1 . Alderman Engineering - Los Osos ( $7 ,250)
2 . John Wallace and Associates - San Luis Obispo ( $7 ,500)
The proposals were closely aligned with the Scope of Services
outlined by department staff. BAckgrounds of the two firms were
checked concerning length of time in business , quality of the
personnel each proposed to use , potential for followup work as a
result of the solutions proposed, and background of the firms re-
lating to projects similar in scope .
RECOMMENDATION
Award the Atascadero Lake Feasibility Study to Alderman
Engineering.
FISCAL IMPACT
A total of $7 , 500 was budgeted for this project , so the
Alderman bid of $7 ,250 is within the budgeted amount .
SD
M E M O R A N D U M
•
February 12 , 1986
To : City Council
Via: Mike Shelton , City Manager
From: Bob Best , Parks and Recreation Director
Subject : Purchase of Truck for Parks Department
RECOMMENDATION
City Council authorize the purchase of one Parks Department
truck through the State Cooperative Fleet Plan by executing the
attached resolution .
BACKGROUND
The Parks and Zoo staff currently has only one truck for use by
• department staff . With the development of Paloma Creek only one
vehicle is available for the staff , making it impossible to complete
daily assignments .
The approved total of $30 ,000 for Paloma Creek Park includes
$7 ,710 for a truck. This will provide the staff with the necessary
vehicle to perform work at Paloma Creek.
FISCAL IMPACT
As mentioned, the total amount would not exceed $7 ,710 .
•
RESOLUTION NO. 19-86
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO PURCHASE CERTAIN ITEMS.
Be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Atascadero
does hereby authorize the Office of Procurement , Department of Gen-
eral Services , State of California, to purchase a two wheel drive
truck for park department services to current specifications for and
on behalf of the City of Atascadero pursuant to Section 14814 Govern-
ment Code , and that Michael Shelton, City Manager, is hereby authorized
and directed to sign and deliver all. necessary requests and other
documents in connection therewith and on behalf of the City of
Atascadero .
On motion by and seconded by
the foregoing resolution is
hereby adopted by the following vote :
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
ATTEST: City of Atascadero , California
ROBERT M. JONES, CITY CLERK ROLFE NELSON, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MICHAEL SHELTON7 CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROBERT M. JONES, CITY ATTORNEY
3�
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Date Prepared B 1 "-
P y Agency..y Billing Code Purchase Request Number
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES Page Number
OFFICE OF PROCUREMENT
FOR OFFICE OF PROCUREMENT USE ONLY! $
00CAL AGENCY H City of Atascadero
PURCHASE REQUEST I P.O. Box 747
P Atascadero , Ca. 93423
GSOP-36 (Rev 10/85)
T
0
MAIL TO:
M
Office of Procurement A
P. 0. Box 1612 1 Same
Sacramento, CA 95807 L
Agency Contact Regarding This Request (Name, Title, b Phone Number) T
( 805)466-8.000 , Ext . 123
Bob Best , Parks & Recreation Director (Purchase Order 5 Invoice Copies Will Be
LINE UANTITY UNIT STATE STOCK NUMBER DESCRIPTION Sent In Triplicate To 0MAIL TO' Address)
UNIT PRICE IrXTENSION
Hereby requests that the State Office of Procurement purchase the items specified below under Provisions of California
Public Contract Code Section 10324.
1
#2320-009-0400 -6 Mini Pickup, 1200#Capacity 6 ,862 . 98 6 , 462 . 98
4 cylinder, 3780 GVW,
Ford Ranger wuth all options
catalogued- as standard on
page 16 .
Engine 140CID H.W. w/coolant system
Bed 72X54 Tires P185/75R14
5 speed manual transmission
Step type rear bumper
Power disc brakes , air conditioning
60 amp alternator AM Radio
Resolution on file with state
procurement office .
MAXIMUM FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR THIS PURCHASE
The local agency accepts sole responsibilityfor 0
payment to the vendor, and will make a payment directly to the vendor
in accordance with the provisions of the purchase order. It is understood that the State shall incur no financial
responsibility in connection with this purchase. The local agency agrees to pay promptly, when billed, all charges of
the Department of General Services for rendering the service.
Signature (Authorized by Resolution) Title
Date
t 'OA
-8
M E M O R A N D U M �-
•
February 20 , 1986
To : City Council
Via: Mike Shelton , City Manager lu_)� .
From: Bob Best , Parks and Recreation Director1e1�/
Subject : Animal Loan Agreements
INTRODUCTION
As part of our attempt to make the Charles Paddock Zoo me-^e
self-sufficient and bring quality animals to the zoo , I am proposing
animal loan agreements to be utilized. Basic procedures would in-
clude the shipment of animals to Atascadero or to other institutions
in California for breeding loan purposes . When animals are born
the Zoo would be able to keep a specified number of offspring. Due
to the fact that many of the species on loan agreements will be rare
or endangered, offspring will be very valuable . This will assist
the zoo in getting a collection which is valuable and popular with
the general public . In time , the City should be in a position to
• sell various species at prices which yield a profit . This should
prove to be a major contributor in heading the zoo toward self-
suff iency .
PROBLEM STATEMENT
At the present time no ordinance or resolution allows department
staff to enter into any type of agreement concerning the re-locating
and/or breeding of zoo animals .
RECOMMENDATION
Approve Resolution 21-86 authorizing the Director of Parks and
Recreation to enter into Animal Loan Agreements with other institutions ,
and to sign these agreements on behalf of the City of Atascadero .
FISCAL IMPACT
Cost of the program would be split equally between the loaning and
receiving insitutions . The only cost would be paid from the existing
zoo budget .
A sample agreement is attached.
•
J;
RESOLUTION #f21-86
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO APPROVING ANIMAL LOAN AGREEMENTS BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND AUTHORIZED INSTITUTIONS
Whereas , the City of Atascadero. Parks and Recreation Department
wishes to improve the quality of the animal collection at Charles
Paddock Zoo; and
Whereas , the City of Atascadero Parks and Recreation Department
wishes to display rare and endangered animals not currently owned by
the city: and
Whereas , the City of Atascadero Parks and Recreation Department
wishes to utilize this program to improve the potential for self-
sufficiency of the Charles Paddock Zoo; and
Whereas , at the present time no ordinance or resolution allows
the City of Atascadero Parks and Recreation Department to enter into
any ,type of agreement concerning the re-locating and/or breeding loan
with other institutions;
Now, therefore , be it resolved that the Atascadero City Council
hereby approves Resolution No. 21-86, authorizing the Director of
Parks and Recreation to enter into Animal Loan Agreements with other
institutions on an as needed basis , and to sign these agreements on
behalf of the City of Atascadero.
On motion by Councilperson and seconded
by Councilperson the foregoing resolution is
hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote :
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
BY:
ROBERT M. JONES, CITY CLERK ROLFE NELSON, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
ROBERT M. JONES, CITY ATTORNEY MICHA SHELTO , CITY MANAGER
3ti
CHARLES PADDOCK ZOO
CITY OF ATASCADERO
P.O. BOX 747
ATASCADERO, CA. 93423
ANIMAL LOAN AGREEMENT
This Animal Loan Agreement , entered into by
and (loaning institution)
and (receiving instituion)
( second loaning institution)
concerns the following specimen( s ) identified as follows :
and will remain in effect until terminated.
A. Obligation of the Loaning Institution
1. It is agreed that in the event of diseases , injury or death of the
specimen( s) and in the absence of negligence , the receiving insti-
tution , its agents and employees will be free of all responsibility
to the loaning institution.
2 . A detailed copy of all information pertaining to the specimen( s) ,
including, but not restricted to , ISIS data, behavioral traits ,
medical and reproductive history, diet , origin and all other per-
tinent data will be provided by the loaning instituion .
3. In the event of intention to sell , trade or otherwise dispose of
the specimen( s) the receiving instituion shall be given the first
right of refusal. In three-party agreements , the other loaning
instituion shall be given the second right of refusal .
B. Obligations of the Receiving Institution
1. The receiving instituion will provide adequate housing, diet ,
veterinary care and other necessities conductive to the well-being
and reproduction of the specimen( s ) . Under certain circumstances
(bachelor herds , etc . , the specimen( s ) maybe placed in a non-
reproductive situation , but will be maintained in compliance with
the above , for subsequent reintroduction into a potential repro-
ductive situation .
i
2 . Any live young born or hatched, either during the term of this
agreement or within a period after termination of this agreement
measured by the normal gestation :or incubation period of the
specimen( s) , willb e divided between the participating institu- •
tions as follows
Loaning institution will be the owner of
(number) ( sex)
Receiving institution will be the owner of
(number) ( sex)
Second loaning institution will be the owner of
(number) ( sex) .
OR
3. In the event of the specimen( s) being subjected to high-risk
veterinary or husbandry procedures , permission must first be
obtained by phone from the loaning institution before the per-
formance of such procedures. This provision is waived in the
event of an emergency. Details of such procedures shall be
provided in writing to the loaning institution within 10 days .
For any research project in which the specimen( s) may be subjected
to manipulation, stress or high-risk procedures , permission must
be obtained in writing from the appropirate official of the loan-
ing institution.
4. The specimen( s) described in this document will not be trans-
ferred to another location outside the receiving institution' s
contiguous property without first obtaining permission from the
loaning insitution.
5. The loaning institution will be notified with
of mortaility of the specimen( s ) . Births , hatchings , serious
illness or the escape of the specimen( s ) shall be reported
within
6. In the event of the death of the specimen( s ) , a detailed necropsy
will be" performed by the receiving insitution and the findings
sent to the loaning institution.
7 . The carcass and its parts remain the property of the loaning
instituion. The final dispostion of the carcass and parts
will be the decision and responsibility of the loaning
institution.
. •
8. The receiving 'instituion will provide all information necessary
to maintain appropriate studbooks and record-keeping systems ,
including ISIS data, and provide such information to the loaning
institution , along with a yearly status report of the specimen(s) .
9. A copy of all pertinent records will be sent to the loaning
institution uoon terjination of this agreement .
10. The loaning institution will be free of any responsibility for
any personal injury or property damage due to any accident ,
escape or mishap resulting from this breeding loan.
C. Obligation of Both Institutions
1. All transportation expenses incurred in shipping the specimen( s)
to the receiving institution will be borne by the receiving
insitution; transportation expenses for returning the specimen( s)
to the loaning institution will be borne by the loaning institution.
2. This agreement will remain in effect until
unless otherwise terminated. '
3. Either institution may terminate this agreement by giving the
other institution 30 days written notice prior to the effective
date of the proposed termination .
4 . Prior to the shipping of the specimen( s ) , the receiving institution
must be notified at least 14 days in advance ; and specific shipping
information provided at least 24 hours in advance of actual
shipment .
5 . The welfare of the specimen( s ) shall be the sole goal of arbitra-
tion of any conflict that may arise from the implementation of this
agreement . In the event of a conflict , the directors of the loaning
and receiving insitutions shall each nominate five Professional
Fellows of the American Association of Zoological Parks and
Aquariums . The Professional Fellows must agree in writing to serve
as arbitrators . the lending institution would then delete a name
from the receiving institution ' s list , the receiving institution
would then delete a name from the lending insitution ' s list and
so m until three names remain. The remaining Professional
Fellows shall arbitrate the dispute , and all involved institutions
shall agree to abide by their decisions .
Executed this day of 19
Loaning Insitution :
Signature :
Title
Institution
QA
„r ----------------
.:,,..,_
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Pau Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Bid No. 86-35 Asbestos Removal
DATE: February 19, 1986
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Council award the contract for asbestos
removal to P.W. Stephens Contractors, Inc. , 10343 E. Rush Street,
South E1 Monte, CA 91733. Only one bid was received for this project.
•
Background:
The asbestos to be removed is located on the first floor corridor
ceiling and is part of Phase IIA of the Administration Building Renovation.
Fiscal Impact:
The price bid was $11,490.00. Funds for this work are available
in the 1985-86 Budget. Engineer's estimate for the work was $12,000.
/)o
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Enaineer
SUBJECT: Development Impact Fees
DATE: January 17, 1986
Recommendation:
The Development Fee Task Force recommends that Council:
1) Adopt an ordinance establishing the Development Impact
Fees as shown in the attached schedule,
2) That the fees go into effect on July 1, 1986 ,
(Any applications accepted prior to July 1 will not pay fees) •
3) That the fees be paid upon issuance of building permit,
4) That development without buildings be subject to similar
fees and that other equivalent parameters besides sq. ft.
be used to determine the fees.
5) That offsite improvement, except for pave-out and curb,
gutter and sidewalk not be required unless triggered as
determined by the Director of Community Development, by
the following criteria,
6) That certain criteria will trigger offsite improvements,
namely;
a) The development requires an Environmental Impact
Review
b) The development requires certain reports or studies,
e.g. traffic or drainage,
c) The development does not have buildings, e.g. recreational
etc.
7) That a credit against normal fees be given to developments •
that provide offsite improvements triggered as discussed,
and,
MEMORANDUM
MEETING AGr:MA
DATE 8G ITEM#
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Development Impact Fee Ordinances and Resolutions'
DATE: January 6, 1986
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council adopt Ordinances 117, 118 and
119 and Resolutions
Background:
At the last regular council meeting council directed staff to
bring back ordinances and resolutions based upon the recommendations
of the Development Fee Task Force committee which was appointed by
Council.
(Please refer to the attached memo from the last regular meeting)
A verbal report will be given at the Council meeting.
8 Thath •
t e Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Development Impact Fee
and the Lewis Avenue Bridge Impact Fee be separate and
distinct for those boundaries and that development in those
areas pay those fees in leiu of the normal drainage and
10 bridge impact fees.
9) That the fee schedule be by resolution, and that the fees
be adjusted annually according to the California Consumer
Price Index.
10) The Committee further recommends that a policy be adopted to
require developments of any class that front on an
undeveloped or underdeveloped street, city maintained or
non-maintained, to enter into agreement to petition for
assessment district for road improvements, at such time
as the city deems necessary.
SUMS- NRY OF FEES
Residential
Commercial Multiple Family Single Family Total
Fee/Landuse A t. U it Amt nit Amp. Jinit A t Unit
5 F.
Drainage 20,462 0.141 : 15,347 0.073 10,231 0.034 46,040 0.07
C Traffic 72,451 0.500 4,508 0.022 322 0.001 77,281 0.12
Bridges 22,706 0.157 26,368 0.126 24,171 0.080 73,245 0.11
Roads 9, 731 0.067 11,301 0.054 10,359 0.034 31,391 0.05
Parks 0 0 64,595 0.309 4,614 0.015 69,209 0.11
Police 42,228 0.291 39,413 0.189 2,815 0.009 84,456 0.13
Fire 40,360 0.278 37,669 0.180 2,690 0.009 80,719 0.12
Bldg/Grnds 12,078 0.083 17,417 0.083 25,065 0.083 54,560 0.08
220,616 041-517/ 216,618 -1.03 �80,267 ( �0.265�f 516,901 0.7
Amapoa/
Techorida < $501,470 $323,560 —�
Drainage $3,343/cfs $2,996/cfs
Lewis Ave. x$650,000 —�-
Bridge $1.93/S.F.
�I
2
Background:
Council established, at the September 23 regular meeting, an
ad hoc Development Fee Task Force to study the reasonable distribution
of development fees that would be designated for specific capital
improvement categories, recommend the amount of such fees and report
back to Council with it' s recommendations.
The Committee members are within the following disciplines:
developer, builder , real estate, business and government. They are:
Wally Dunn, Tom McNamara, Norm Norton, Jud Porter , Paul Sensibaugh
and Jack Stinchfield. Mike Shelton, City Manager , attended and
participated in all meetings.
The task force committee met seven times over a three-month
period and spent several hours on their own digesting material
and concepts.
Basis of Fees:
The recommended fees are intended to be used to solve specific
problems initiated or aggrevated by the impact of growth. The fee
is intended to be fair and reasonable and legally sound. The fees
are intended to be the reasonable cost of providing the services for
which the respective fee is charged and the basis for determining
the amounts of the fees bears a reasonable relationship to the
mitigation derived from the fee for the respective impacts.
The Purpose and Scope of the Development Fee Task Force as well
as a detailed scenario for the basis of all fees is contained in the
booklet used by the committee and made a part of this report.
Fiscal Impact:
The suggested development impact fees should derive approximately
$517,000 per year and is based on an average of $0.79 per sq. ft. The
$0.50 tax is estimated to provide about $327 ,500/year . Thus, if
adopted, the City could realize approximately $845,000 per year for
capital improvements. It is noted that the need without the Amapoa-
Tecorida and Lewis Avenue Bridge projects is about $855, 000 per year
for capital improvements.
3
ORDINANCE NO. 117
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
ADDING CHAPTER 9 TO TITLE 3 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE
ENACTING A FEE FOR THE AMAPOA TECORIDA DRAINAGE AREA
WHEREAS,historically, the Amapoa - Tecorida area in the City of
Atascadero has been subject to flooding and flooding problems
during rainy seasons; and
WHEREAS , residential and non-residential. development in the Amapoa -
Tecorida area have a great impact on drainage/run-off in the area;
and
WHEREAS , a mechanism is necessary to provide for public and capital
improvements as a result of increased residential and non-residen-
tial development in the Amapoa - Tecorida area such that the im-
pact of new development will be borne equitably by that new devel-
opment, and
WHEREAS , The City of Atascadero as a general law city in the State
of California has the power to impose valid regulatory fees pur-
suant to the California Constitution, Article XI , Section 7; and
WHEREAS , A Development Fee Task Force appointed by the City Council
has carefully evaluated the costs attributable to the impact of new
development in the Amapoa - Tecorida area as documented in their
1956 report to the City Council; and
WHEREAS , The Development Fee Task Force has recommended that fees
be levied which do not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the
necessary services .
PART 1 . Chapter 9 is added to Title 3 of the
Atasca ero Municipal Code to read as follows :
CHAPTER 9
AMAPOA - TECORIDA DRAINAGE FEE
Sections : Title of Section:
3-9. 01 Title
3-9 . 02 Purpose and Intent
3-9 . 03 Definitions
3-9 . 04 Standards for Fees
3-9. 05Issuance of Regulations and
Setting of Fees
3-9. 06 Adjustment to Fees
3-9 . 07 Limitations on Use
3-9 . O8 Payment of Fee
3-9 . O9 Alternative Payment
3-9 . 10 Exceptions
3-9 . 11 Construction Prohibited
3-9 . 12 Refund of Fee
3-9 . 13 Effective Date
3-9. 14 Severability
Section 3-9. 01 : TITLE:
This Chapter shall be known and may be cited at the "Amapoa -
Tecorida Drainage Fee Ordinance . "
Section 3-9. 02:PURPOSE AND INTENT :
The purpose of this Chapter is to impose and collect a fee
on the construction and occupancy of new or expanded residential
and non-residential projects within that area of the City of
Atascadero known as the Amapoa - Tecorida area, which fees shall
be imposed for the sole purpose of constructing public facilities
to mitigate drainage problems due 'to the impact of new development
in the Amapoa - Tecorida area.
Section 3-9. 03 : DEFINITIONS :
In addition to the definitions contained in Section 3-7 . 03
of this Title , the following terms shall have the following meanings
when used in this Chapter.
(a) "New Development" shall include all residential , commer-
cial , or non-residential development in the A-mapoa - Tecorida area.
(b) "Capital Improvements" are any public facilities includ-
ing drainage channels , culverts , and the like .funded through the
City' s Amapoa - Tecorida Drainage Impact Fee budget.
(c) Costs of Capital Improvements" includes all costs re-
lated to acquisition, construction, repair, and financing but does
not include costs of routine maintenance .
(d) "Amapoa - Tecorida Drainage Area" shall mean that area
as set forth in the official map filed in the Engineering Depart-
ment of the City of Atascadero , a copy of which is attached to this
Ordinance as Exhibit A and made a part hereof_ .
-2-
Section 3-9. 04 : STANDARDS FOR FEES :
10 Any fees imposed pursuant to this Chapter shall bear a reason-
able relationship to the costs associated with the capital improve-
ments which need is generated by such development in the Amapoa-
Tecorida Area.
Section 3-9. 05 : ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS AND SETTING OF FEES :
The City Council shall from time to time by resolution, issue
regulations and set fees for the administration of this Chapter.
Section 3-9. 06 : ADJUSTMENT TO FEES:
The rates upon which the fees are based may be adjusted as of
July 1 of each year to reflect changes in building costs as deter-
mined in the revised Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers
for Los Angeles-Long Beach, California Area, for all items (1967-
100) , as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau
of Labor Statistics for the period between the year immediately
preceeding July 1 of each year. In calculating any increase , the
most current index available immediately preceeding July 1 of each
year shall be used. In the event that the index is unavailable , is
no longer published, or is calculated on a significantly different
basis following the date of the enactment of this Ordinance , the
most comprehensive official index published which most closely ap-
proximates the rate of inflation shall be substituted in place of
the aforesaid index.
Section 3-9. 07 : LIMITATIONS ON USE :
(a) All fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be
placed in a capital outlay fund described as the Amapoa - Tecorida
Drainage Impact Fee fund and used only to pay for costs of capital
improvements as defined herein. The capital outlay fund shall be
divided into as many sub-funds as shall be necessary to separately
assess and collect fees for single-family residential development ,
multi-family residential development, and commercial/industrial
development.
(b) The amount of fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance
shall be limited to that portion of the cost which is reasonably
attributable to the impact generated by new development in the
Amapoa - Tecorida Drainage area.
Section 3-9. 08 : PAYMENT OF FEE :
Any applicant for a building permit for new development in the
Amapoa - Tecorida Drainage area shall pay a development fee in con-
�unction with payment of the building permit fee. The fee shall
e payable at the Building Division, City Hall , Atascadero, Califor-
mia, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The fee for a
mobile home space shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first
permit for the construction of such space or if such construction
is performed without a permit , at .the time the construction is
commenced.
Section 3-0 . 09 : ALTERUNATE PAYMENT :
The amount of the payment of a Development Impact Fee and the
timing thereof, can only be altered pursuant to an agreement ap-
proved by the Council of the City of Atascadero.
Section 3-09 . 10 : EXCEPTIONS :
There is excepted from the fee imposed by this Chapter the
following:
(a) The construction of a building, structure , or mobile home
which is a replacement for a building or mobile home being demol-
ished or moved from that parcel of land. The exception shall equal
but not exceed the fee which would be payable hereunder , if the
building or mobile home is a replacement or new construction. If
the fee imposed on the replacement or new construction exceeds the
amount of this exception, such excess shall be paid pursuant to
this Chapter;
(b) When imposition of such fee would be in violation of the
Constitution of the laws of the State of California, County of San
Luis Obispo, or the City of Atascadero;
(c) A condominium project converting an existing multi-family
building into condominiums where no new dwellings are added or
created, and no new building permit fees are sought for any addi-
tional construction;
(d) Any rebuilding of a structure destroyed or damaged by
fire , explosion, act of God, or other accident or catastrophe which
rebuilding does not increase the original gross building area. If
such increase does occur, the increase shall be subject to the fee
as imposed by this Chapter;
(e) Any rebuilding of a historical building recognized, ac-
knowledged, and designated as such by the City Planning Commission
or City Council of this City;
(f) The constuction of any building by the City of Atasca-
dero, or the United States or any department or agency thereof ,
-4-
or by the State of California or any department , agency, or
political subdivisionthereof, or any residential or non-residen-
tial development where the City Council finds there are specific
over-riding fiscal , economic , social or environmental factors bene-
fiting the City which, in the sole judgment of the City Council ,
would justify the approval of such development without the payment
of the fee provided by this Chapter.
Section 3-9. 11 : CONSTRUCTION PROHIBITED:
It is unlawful for any person to erect, construct , enlarge ,
alter, repair, move , improve, make , put together , or convert any
building or structure of the City, or attempt to do so, or cause
the same to be done , without first paying the fee imposed by this
Chapter.
Section 3-9 . 12 : REFUND OF FEE :
If the building permit approval is vacated or voided, and if
the applicant so requests in writing, there shall be a refund of
the entire fee as set forth in this Chapter.
Section 3-9 . 13 : EFFECTIVE DATE :
The fees imposed by this Chapter shall be applicable with re-
spect to building permits for construction activities applied
for on or after thrity (30) days from the passage of this Ordinance.
Section 3-9. 14 : SEVERABILITY:
If any section, sub-section, sentence , clause , or phrase of
this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitu-
tional by the decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction, such
decision shall not affect the validity of any remaining portion of
this Chapter.
PART 2. The City Clerk shall cause this
Ordinance to be published in the Atascadero News , a newspaper of
general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in this
City, once within fifteen (15) days after its passage , in accor-
dance with government code Section 36933 ; shall certify the adop-
tion of this Ordinance; and shall cause this Ordinance and certifi-
cation to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City.
r
On motion by Council Member and
seconded by Council Member the' follow-
ing Ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following
roll call vote:
ADOPTED:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
ATTEST
ROBERT M. JONES , City Clerk ROLFE NELSON , Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
ROBERT M. JONES , City Attorney MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager
-6-
- a�
RESOLUTION NO. 9-86
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
AMAPOA-TECORIDA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PURSUANT TO
ORDINANCE NO. 117
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero has
adopted Ordinance No. 117 known as the Amapoa-Tecorida Development
Impact Fee Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, Section 3-9.04 and 3-9.06 of Ordinance No. 117
provides for the adoption of a fee schedule required to be paid by
developers in the specified area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The following fee schedule shall be effective 30 days after
passage of said Ordinance.
a) The development or construction of residential or non-
residential buildings, and the person causing such to
be constructed shall pay a fee in the amount of:
Commercial & Multifamily: $3,343 per cubic feet per
second of runoff based on 3 cfs per acre, and
Single Family: $2,996 per cubic feet per second of
runoff, based on 1. 8 cfs per acre.
The Development Impact Fee Report is hereby identified and
incorporated as a part of this resolution.
b) All developments which were previously conditioned for
deposits pursuant to Resolution No. 42-85 shall pay this
fee as meeting the obligation of contribution to the
future drainage improvements and will be payable upon
notice after passage. Appropriate credits may be applied
as determined by the Director of Public Works.
On motion by and seconded by
, the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in
its entirety by the following vote
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
ORDINANCE NO. 118
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
ADDING CHAPTER 10 TO TITLE 3 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE
ESTABLISHING A LEWIS AVENUE BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
WHEREAS, a general plan of the City of Atascadero identifies a
circulation problem in the downtown area relating to the need for
a bridge across Atascadero Creek from Lewis Avenue to the proposed
Highway 41 extension; and
WHEREAS , commercial development in the City of Atascadero in the
downtown area will generate increased traffic and circulation pro-
blems , and therefore, the need for capital improvement , specifically
a bridge across Atascadero Creek from Lewis Avenue; and
WHEREAS , a mechanism is necessary to provide a predictable and equi-
table funding method for requiring new developments in the downtown
area to cover the cost of providing a bridge across Atascadero Creek
at Lewis Avenue, thereby improving traffic and circulation in the
downtown area, which bridge would benefit such new development; and
WHEREAS , the City of Atascadero is a general law city in the State
of California and has the power to impose valid regulatory fees for
the health, safety, and welfare of the City of Atascadero pursuant to
the California Constitution, Article XI , Section 7 ; and
WHEREAS , the Development Fee Task Force appointed by the City Council
has carefully evaluated the costs attributable to the impact of new
development in the downtown area as documented in their 1986 report
to the City Council; and
WHEREAS , the Development Fee Task Force has recommended that fees
be levied for the construction of a Lewis Avenue Bridge which shall
not exceed the reasonable and actual cost of providing such bridge.
NOW, THEREFORE , THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS :
PART 1 . An Ordinance of the City of Atascadero
establishing a Lewis Avenue Bridge Development Impact Fee by adding
Chapter 10 to Title 3 of the Atascadero municipal Code to read as
follows :
�a1
CHAPTER 10
LEWIS AVENUE BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Sections : Title of Sections :
3-10. 01 Title
3-10 . 02 Scope and Purpose
3-10 . 03 Definitions
3-10 . 04 Standards for Fees
3-10 . 05 Issuance of Regulations and Setting
of Fees
3-10 . 06 Adjustment of Fees
3-10 . 07 Limitation on Use
3-10 . 08 Payment of Fee
3-10 .09 Alternative Payment
3-10 . 10 Exceptions
3-10 . 11 Construction Prohibited
3-10 . 12 Refund of Fee
3-10 . 13 Effective Date
3-10 . 14 Severability
Section 3-10. 01 : TITLE :
This Chapter shall be known and may be cited as "The Lewis
Avenue Bridge Development Impact Fee Ordinance. "
Section 3-10. 02 : SCOPE AND PURPOSE:
The purpose of this Ordinance is to provide a predictable and
equitable funding method of requiring new development in the down-
town area to pay for the cost of the construction of the Lewis
Avenue Bridge from East Mall on the North across Atascadero Creek
to the extension of Highway 41 on the South. Thus , new development
in the downtown area will be required to cover the capital cost of
this specific bridge construction so that the impacts of increased
circulation and traffic problems will be borne equitably by that
new development.
Section 3-10. 03 : DEFINITIONS :
In addition to the definitions contained in Section 3-7 . 03 of
this Title , the following terms shall have the following meanings
when used in this Chapter.
(a) "New Development" means any commercial, multi-family
residential, or non-residential construction in the downtown area,
but not including single-family residential construction.
-2- ��
(b) "Downtown Area" shall be all that area set forth in the
map on file in the Engineering Department of the City, a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof.
(c) "Costs of Capital Improvement" include- all costs related
to acquisition, construction, repair , an- financing, but do not in-
clude costs of routine maintenance.
(d) "Bridge" shall_ mean the Lewis Avenue Bridge including
curbs , sidewalks , relates_ structures adjacent to bri,'ge, and a paral-
lel pedestrian bridges necessary for circulation and traffic relat-
ing to the bridge , at the Lewis Avenue-Atascadero Creek crossover,
and no other bridge in the City of Atascadero.
Section 3-10. 04 : STANDARDS FOR TEE'S :
Any fees imposed pursuant to this Chapter shall bear a reason-
able relationship to the costs associated with the capital_ improve-
ment which need is generated by such development .
Section 3-10 . 05 : ISSUANCE OF REGULATIOITS AND SETTING OF FE1?S :
The City Council shall from time to time by resolution, issue
regulations and set fees for the administration. of this Chapter.
Section 3-10 . 06 : , 1 F
ADJUSTP,OJT.T 0_ FEES
The rates upon which the fees are bases' may be adjusted as of
July 1 of each year to reflect changes in building costs as deter-
mined in the revised Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers
for Los Angeles-Long Beach, California Area, for all items (1967-
100) , as published by the United States Department of Labor , Bureau
of Labor Statistics for the period between the year immediately
preceeding July 1 of each year. In calculating any increase , the
most current index available preceeding July 1 of each
year s' all be used. In the event that the index is unavailabl-e , is
no longer published, or is calculated on a significantly different
basis following the date of the enactment of this Ordinance , the
most comprehensive official index published which most closely ap-
proximates the rate of inflation shall be substututed in place of
the aforesaid index.
Section 3-10 . 07 : LIMITATION OF USE :
(a) All _feescoilected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be
placed in a capital outlay fund, known as the Lewis Avenue Bridge
Development Fee fund, and used only to pay Tor those costs of
capital improvements as defined herein.
-3-
(b) Fees shall only be collected from commercial development
in that area set forth as the downtown business area.
(c) The amount of fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance
which can be applied to the capital improvement known as Lewis
Avenue Bridge shall be limited to that portion of the cost which. is
reasonably attributable to the impact of the new development in
the downtown area.
Section 3-10 . 08: PAYMENT OF FEE :
Any applicant for a building permit for new development within
the Lewis Avenue Bridge - Atascadero Creek area shall pay a develop-
ment fee in conjunction with payment of the building permit fee . The
fee shall be payable at the Building Division, City Hall , Atascadero ,
California, prior to the issuance of a building permit. THe fee for
a mobile home space shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first
permit for the construction of such space or if such construction
is performed without a permit , at the time the construction is com-
menced.
Section 3-10 . 09 : ALTERNATIVE PAY=TS :
The amount of the payment of the Lewis Avenue Bridge Development
Impact fee and the timing thereof, can only be altered pursuant to
an agreement approved by the City Council of the City of Atascadero
Section 3-10 . 10 : EICEPTIONS :
There is excepted from this Chapter and the fees imposed herein,
those exceptions as set forth in Section 3-07 . 10 of this Title.
Section 3-10 . 11 : CONSTRUCTION PROHIBITED:
It is unlawful for any person to erect, construct , enlarge ,
alter, repair, move , improve , make , put together, or convert any
building or structure in the downtown area, or attempt to do so , or
cause the same to be done without first paying the fee imposed by
this Chapter.
Section 3-10 . 12 : REFUND OF FEE :
If the building permit approval is vacated or voided, and if
the applicant so requests in writing, there shall be a refund of
the entire Development Impact Fee paid.
Section 3-10 . 13 : Ei�T11 CTI'7E DATE :
The fees imposed by this Chapter shall. be applicable with
-4- ��
respect to building permits for construction activities applied for
on or after thirty (30) days from the date of passage of this
Ordinance.
Section 3-10 . 14 : SEVEPABILITY:
If any section, sub-section, sentence , clause , or phrase of
this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitu-
tional by the decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction , such
decision shall not affect the validity of any g remainin portion of
this Chapter.
PART 2 . The City Clerk shall cause this
Ordinance to be published in the Atascadero News , a newspaper of
general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in this
City, once within fifteen (15) days after its passage , in accor-
dance with government code Section 36933 ; and shall certify the
adoption of this Ordinance; and shall cause this Ordinance and
certification to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this
City.
On Motion by Council T-ember and
seconded by Council Member the
following Ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety on the follow-
ing roll call vote :
ADOPTED:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT :
ATTEST :
ROBERT M. JONES , City Clerk ROLFE NELSON? , Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT :
r.
i
ROBERT M. JONES , City Attorney MICHAEL, SHELTON, City Manager
-5- ��
RESOLUTION NO. 11-86
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ATASCADERO RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE LEWIS AVENUE BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 118
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero has adopted
Ordinance No. 118 known as "The Lewis Avenue Bridge Development Impact
Fee" , and
WHEREAS, Section 3-10.04 and 3-10.05 of Ordinance No 118 provides
for the adoption of a fee schedule required to be paid by developers.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The following fee schedule shall be effective 30 days
after passage of said Ordinance.
a. The development or construction of non-residential
buildings, and the person causing such to be con-
structed shall pay a fee in the amount of $1.93/S.F.
or $168 .00/ADT if square foot cannot be used, based
on 87 S.F/ADT.
b. All developments which were previously conditioned to
pay a reasonable share of the bridge construction pro-
ject shall be subject to the above fee as meeting that
condition and will be payable upon notice after passage.
Appropriate credits will be applied as determined by
the Director of Public Works.
The Development Impact Fee Report is hereby identified and
incorporated as a part of this Resolution.
On motion by and seconded by
, the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its
entirety by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
ORDINA14CE NO. 119
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCA_DERO
ADDING CHAPTER 8 to TITLE 3 OF THE ATASCADEpO MUNICIPAL CODE
ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPIE:;`7 INTACT FEE
WHEREAS , residential, both single and multi-family, commercial ,
industrial , and other non-residential development in the City of
Atascadero requires substantial public facilities and capital
improvements pursuant to the City' s General Plan and other similar
policies; and
WHEREAS , the costs of these public improvements are constantly es-
calating and funding resources for public facilities and capital im-
provements are diminished in terms of availabii.ity and control; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has found that due to the increase in
growth and population in Atascadero , services in the area of drain-
age, traffic control_, bridges ,roads , parks , police , fire , aaninis-
tration and other public buildings and grounds , require improvement
to meet the needs ofthe public health, safety, and welfare; an
WHEREAS , a mechanism is necessary to provide a predictable and equit-
able funding method fo :- requiring new development to cover the costs
of future public facilities and capital improvements which are of
benefit to such development such that t'_e impact to new growth
be borne equitably by that new development; anj
WHEREAS , the City of Atascadero as a general law city in the State of
California has tr.e Dower to impose valid regu?a.tory fees pursuant to
the California Constitution, Article VI , Section 7 ; and
WHEREAS , the Development Fee Task Force appointed by the City Council_
has carefully evaluated the costs attributable to the impact of neW
development as documented in their 1986 report to the City Council;
and
WH-EREAS , the Development Fee Task Force has recommended that fees
be levied which do not exceed the reasonable cost o= providing the
necessary services .
NOW, THEREFORE , THE CITY COMIICIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS :
PART 1 . An Ordinance of the City of Atascadero es-
tablisHing a Development Impact Fee by adding Chapter 8 to Title 3
of the Atascadero Municipal Code to rear? as follows :
CHAPTER 8
DEVELOP11ENT IliPACT FEE
SECTIONS : TITLE OT SECTION
3-8. 01 Title
3-8. 02 Scope and Purpose
3-8. 03 Definitions
3-8. 04 Standards for Fees
3-8. 05 Issuance of Regulations and
Setting of Fees
3-8. 06 Adjustment to Fees
3-8. 07 Limitations on Use
3-8. 08 payment of Fee
3-8. 09 Alternative Payment
3-8. 10 Exceptions
3-8 . 11 Construction Drohibited
3-8 . 12 Refund of Fee
3-8. 13 Effective Date
3-8. 14 Severability
Section 3-8. 01 : TITLE:
This Chapter scall be known and may be cited as the "Devel-
opment Impact Fee Ordinance. "
Section 3-8. 02 : SCOPE AND PURPOSE :
The purpose of this Ordinance is to provide a predictable and
equitable funding method of requiring new development to pay for
the costs of future capital improvements which will benefit such_
development. Thus , new development will be required to cover the
cost of anticipated future public facilities and capital improve-
ments so that the impact to new growth T•Till be borne equitably by
the new development.
Section 3-8. 03 : DEFINITIONS :
In addition to the definitions contained in Section 3-7 . 03 ,
the following terms shall have the following meanings when used in
this Chapter.
(a) "New Development" means any residential , single or multi-
family, commercial , industrial , or other non-residential construc-
tion project as specifically excepted herein.
(b) "Capital Improvement" means any public facilities or
equipment funded through the City' s capita?.. improvement budget .
-2-
(c) "Costs of Capital Improvement" includes all costs rela-
ted to acquisition, construction, repair, and financing, but does
not include costs of routine maintenance.
(d) "Governmental Facilities" are capital improvements rela-
ted to City Hall , City garage and equipment yard, City offices ,
parking, and all other public buildings and grounds , and similar
facilities in or through which general City government operations
are conducted.
(e) "Public Safety Facilities" are capital improvements rela-
ted to police and fire operations .
(f) "Essential Infrastructure" are capital improvements re-
lated to streets (including curbs , sidewalks , and related struc-
tures) , bridges , traffic control, drainage , and similar facilities
which serve public transportation, access , and drainage needs .
(g) "Park and Recreaction Facilities" are capital improvements
of general community benefit such as major l.and.scaping, fountains ,
monuments , signs , and other similar facilities .
Section 3-8. 04 : STANDARDS FOR FEES :
Any fees imposed pursuant to this Chapter shall bear a reason-
able relationship to the costs associated with the capital improve-
ments which need is generated by such development.
Section 3-8. 05 : ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS AND SETTING OF FEES :
The City Council shall from time to time by resolution, issue
regulations and set fees for the administration of this Chapter.
Section 3-8. 06 : ADJUSTP�HINT TO FEES :
The rates upon which the fees are based may be adjusted as
of July 1 of each year to reflect changes in building costs as de-
termined in the revised Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consum-
ers for Los Angeles-Long Beach, California Area , for all items
(1967=100) , as published by the United States Department of Labor ,
Bureau of Labor Statistics for the period between the year immedi-
ately preceeding July 1 of each year. In calculating any increase ,
the most current index available immediately preceeding -July 1 of eac',.
year shall be used. In the event that tre index is unavailable , is
no longer published, or is calculated on a significantly different
basis following the date of the enactment of tris Ordinance , the
most comprehensive official index publisred whi-
ch most closely ap-
proximates the rate of inflation shall be substituted in place of
the aforesaid index.
-3-
Section 3-8. 07 : LIMITATIONS ON USE :
(a) All fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be
placed in the capital outlay funz1 and used only to pay for costs
of capital improvements as defined. herein. The capital outlay
fund shall be divided into as many sub-funds as shall be necessary
to separately assess fees for single-family residential , multi-
family residential , commercial , industrial , and other non-residen-
tial development.
(b) Fees from residential development of single , multi-
family units may be used for all types of capital improvements .
(c) Epees from commercial , industrial, and other non-residen-
tial development may be used for all types of capital improvements
except parks and recreation facilities .
(d) The amount of fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance
which can be applied to any capital improvement shall be limited
to that portion of the cost which is reasonably attributable to
the need generated by new development or benefit conferred upon new
development. In approving each capital improvement budget use of
funds from the capital outlay fund, the City Council shall appor-
tion the cost of capital improvements between needs or benefits
relating to existing development and needs or benefits relating to
new development.
Section 3-8. 08 : PAYMENT OF FEE :
Any applicant for a building permit for new development shall
pay a development fee in conjunction with payment of the building
permit fee. The fee shall be payable at the Building Division,
City Hall , Atascadero , California, prior to the issuance of a build-
ing permit. The fee for a mobile home space shall be paid prior to
the issuance of the first permit for the construction of such space
or if such construction is performed without a permit , at the time
when construction is commenced.
Section 3-3 . 09 : AI.TERTIATIVE PAYMENT :
The amount of the payment of a Development Impact Fee and the
timing thereof , can only be altered pursuant to an agreement approved
by the City Council of Atascadero.
Section 3-8 . 10 : EXCEPTIONS :
There is excepted from the Development Impact Fee impose_? by
this Chapter those exceptions as set forth in Section 3-7 . 10 of
the Atascadero Municipal Code .
-4-
Section 3-8. 11 : CONSTRUCTION PROHIBITED:
It is unlawful for any person to erect , construct , enlarge ,
alter, repair, move , improve , make , put together or convert any
building or structure in the City, ' or attempt to do so , or cause
the same to be done , without first paying the fee imposed by this
Chapter.
Section 3-8. 12 : REFUND OF FEE :
If the building permit approval is vacated or voided, and if
the applicant so requests in writing, there shall be a refund of
the entire Development Impact Fee paid.
Section 3-8. 13 : EFFECTIVE DATE :
The fees imposed by this Chapter shall be applicable with re-
spect to building permits for construction activities applied for
on or after July 1 , 1986 .
Section 3-8. 14 : SEVERABILITY:
If any section, sub-section, sentence , clause, or phrase of
this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitu-
tional by the decision of the Court of competent jurisdiction,
such decision shall not affect the validity of any remaining por-
tion of this Chapter.
PART 2 . The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance
to be published in the Atascadero 'Yews , a newspaper of general cir-
culation, printed, published, and circulated in this City, once
within fifteen (15) days after its passage , in accordance with
government code Section 36933 ; shall certify the adoption of this
Ordinance; and shall_ cause this Ordinance and certification to be
entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City.
On motion by Council Member , seconded by
Council Member ' the foregoing Ordinance is
hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote :
ADOPTED:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
ATTEST :
ROBERT M. JONES , City Clerk— ROLFE NELSON, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Kubhrrl 1,11.
, City or y _E , i .anager 7�
RESOLUTION NO. 10-86
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ATASCADERO RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES PURSUANT TO
ORDINANCE NO. 119
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero has
adopted Ordinance No. 119 known as the "Development Impact Fee
Ordinance" ; and
WHEREAS, Section 3-8.04 and 3-8.05 of Ordinance No. 119 pro-
vides for the adoption of a fee schedule required to be paid by
developers.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The following tax rate schedule shall be effective July 1,
1986 :
a. Development Impact Fees
(Dollars per Sq. Ft. of Building or Alternate Fee)
Fee/Land Use Commercial MultiFamily Single Family
Drainage $0.141/S.F. $0.073/S.F. $0.034/S.F.
$770. /cfs $533. /cfs $46.00/cfs
Traffic $0.500/S.F. $0.022/S.F. $0.001/S.F.
$43.46/ADT $2.27 /ADT $0.18 /ADT
Bridges $0.157/S.F. $0. 126/S.F. $0.080/S.F.
$13.62/ADT $13.29/ADT $13.43/ADT
Roads $0.067/S.F. $0.054/S.F. $0.034/S.F.
$5.34 /ADT $5.70 /ADT $5.76 /ADT
Parks $0.000/S.F. $0.309/S.F. $0.015/S.F.
Police $0.291/S.F. $0.189/S.F. $0.009/S.F.
Fire $0.278/S.F. $0.180/S.F. $0.009/S.F.
Bldg/Grounds $0.083/S.F. $0.083/S.F. $0.083/S.F.
TOTAL FEE $1.517/S.F. $1.036/S.F. $0.265/S.F.
a �
(Res . No. 10-86)
b. The developer of a mobile home park shall pay a one-time
development mitigation tax of TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00)
for each mobile home space site.
2. This schedule of fees shall not apply to building permit
applications which were accepted by the Building Division
as complete applications prior to July 1, 1986 .
The Development Fee Impact Report is hereby identified and
incorporated as a part of this resolution.
On motion by and seconded by
, the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its
entirety by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
ROBERT M. JONES ROLFE NELSON, Mayor
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH ROBERT M. JONES
Director of Public Works City Attorney
City Engineer
2
Orr.7,-,.,.. ,.X71,_
1. 1 A
M E M O R A N D U M
•
TO: City Council February 24, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 2C
LOCATION: 8205 Coromar Road
APPLICANT: John and Dorothy Lopus
REQUEST: To revise the General Pla Moderate
Density Single Family Re a o ig ensity Single
Family Residential.
RECOMMENDATION (Planning Commission) :
On a 5:2 vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
• general plan amendment request to include the entire study area but
excluding the portion of Lot 27 fronting on Atascadero Avenue and Lot
32 on Portola (Alternative IV as referenced in attached staff report) .
Approval of Draft Resolution No. 20-85 would approve this recommenda-
tion. Should the Council approve this recommendation, it should also
initiate rezoning to bring the zoning into compliance with the 1/2
acre lot standards.
RECOMMENDATION (Staff) :
Staff had recommended denial of the amendment request based on the
findings contained in the attached staff report.
BACKGROUND:
This request was considered by the Planning Commission originally on
February 7, 1983 and subsequently by the City Council on February 22,
1983 and was denied. A new application for this location was heard
again by the Planning Agency on May 6, 1985, June 17, 1985 and July
1, 1985. At that time the Commission recommended approval of the re-
quest (with Commissioners Sanders, Nolan and Hatchell dissenting)
which contained a change in the area boundaries, eliminating the Atas-
cadero Road frontage by extending the area boundary common to Lots 33
A-M. The matter was heard by the City Council on August 12, 1985 and
referred the matter back to the Commission for a report on matters not
previously considered by the Commission (Iverson property ownership
• and the results of the sewer study) .
P ndm 2 -85
General Plan Ame G (Copus)
On February 3, 1986, the Commission conducted a public hearing on the
request along with an expanded study area (see attached minutes
excerpt) . After considerable review, the Commission recommended ap-
proval (with Commissioners Sanders and Nolan dissenting) to recommend
approval of the amendment request as reflected in Alternative IV.
This alternative limits the high density single family change to the
Coromar frontage.
There was considerable public testimony and discussion by the Commis-
sion concerning this matter as referenced in the attached minutes
excerpt.
HE:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Staff Report - February 3, 1986
Resolution No. 20-86
Minutes Excerpt - Planning Commission - February 3, 1986
2 (p�
City of Atascadero Item: B-3
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 2/3/86
BY: Doug Davidson, Assistant Planner File No: GPA 2G-85
Project Address: 8205 Coromar Road
SUBJECT:
To revise the General Plan Land Use map from Moderate Density Single
Family Residential to High Density Single Family Residential.
BACKGROUND:
This request was previously reviewed under General Plan Amendment
820930:2. On February 7, 1983, the Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing on the subject and directed preparation of a resolution
denying the general plan amendment. Resolution 3-83 was adopted on
February 22, 1983. That study focused on an expanded study area, in-
cluding all properties between Coromar Avenue, Highway 101, Curbaril
Avenue, and Portola Avenue. The major factors in the decision at that
time were the density of development, traffic impacts, and the impact
on sewer capacity if additional lots were allowed in the area.
At the Planning Agency meeting of May 6, 1985 each application of Gen-
eral Plan Cycle II was considered. This request is the same as was
proposed in 1982. After receiving a letter from a property owner
across the street requesting that his property be included in this
land use map change, the Planning Commission concurred with staff' s
recommendation to enlarge the study area for this present request.
This area includes all lots which front on Coromar, between Portola
and Curbaril, not including the property zoned Commercial Tourist (CT)
at the corner of Portola and Coromar.
The matter was continued at the Planning Commission meeting of June
17, 1985 to allow the applicant' s engineer to present additional in-
formation. On July 1, 1985, the Planning Commission recommended ap-
proval of the request with Commissioners Sanders, Nolan and Hatchell
dissenting. The approval contained a change in the area boundaries,
eliminating the Atascadero Road frontage by extending the area boun-
dary common to Lots 33 A-M.
The City Council reviewed the request on August 12, 1985 and decided
to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for a report on
matters not previously before the Commission This included considera-
tion of an Iverson tract proposal to subdivide his property and to
provide for a street between Coromar and Atascadero Avenue. The Coun-
cil also concluded that it would be wise to review the matter in light
of the sewer study being prepared by John Wallace and Associates.
General Plan Amendm* GP 2G-85'� (John and Doroto Lopus)
Due to the review of the Iverson ,proposal and another request by an
adjacent property owner to be included in the study area; the area
under review tonight is as follows:
All RSF-Y lots which front on Coromar , as well as Lot 27, a por-
tion of Lot 28, and Lot 32 of Block 7.
Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on June
7th, 1985 and all owners of record property located within 300 feet of
the study area were notified on that date.
A. LOCATION: 8205 Coromar (Lot 13D of Block 7)
B. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To revise the General Plan Land
Use map from Moderate Density
Single Family to High Density
Single Family. This change
would allow for half acre lot
sizes.
2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .John and Dorothy Lopus
3. Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .John Kennaly
4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The subject property is approx-
imately 1.4 acres. The study
area has been enlarged to in-
clude all lots which front on
Coromar between Portola and Cur-
baril, but not including the
Commercial Tourist zoning on the
corner of Portola and Coromar
(Lots 34, 34A, 34B) . The area
also includes Lot 27, a portion
of Lot 28, and Lot 32 of Block
7. This area includes approxi-
mately 56 parcels depending on
the validity of some lot lines.
This request could allow for an
additional maximum of 59 lots in
the study area.
5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Coromar is a City maintained
street with a 40 foot right-of-
way.
6. zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Y (minimum lot size, one
acre with sewer, 1 1/2 acre
without sewer)
2 ��
General Plan Amendmet GP 2G-85 (John and Dorothh Lopus)
7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Single family residence
8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RSF-Y, residential
South: RSF-Y, residential
East: U.S. Highway 101
West: RSF-Y, residential
9. General Plan Designation. . . . .Moderate Density Single Family
10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Level to gently sloping residen-
tial area.
11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration
C. ANALYSIS:
In the RSF-Y zone, the minimum lot size is one acre with sewer ,
one and one half acre without sewer. This subject area is entire-
ly served by sewer . This proposal for High Density Single Family
Residential would allow for a minimum of one half acre lot sizes.
Proposed Density:
The area under review contains approximately 56 parcels. The lots
range in size from . 25 acres to 6.1 acres. Average lot size is
approximately one acre. Eighteen of the 56 parcels are currently
one-half acre or less. The area contains several vacant lots and
is otherwise fully developed with single family residences. Under
the current designation, five lots could be split into potentially
nineteen new lots. If the land use were changed to High Density
Single Family, 28 lots would be eligible for one-half acre lot
sizes, resulting in potentially 59 new lots in the study area.
Staff' s main concern is this potential density of development and
its impact on traffic and capacity of the sewer system. The gen-
eration of traffic created by this land use change needs to be
looked at together with that created by Madrid Plaza. This 88,000
square foot shopping center, containing a bowling alley, restau-
rant, and general retail stores, is located directly southeast of
the Coromar study area. The Community Development Department is
currently plan checking this building permit application. Staff
agrees that a high density single family designation adjacent to a
large shopping center could add to traffic congestion and
confusion.
The sewer study (done by John Wallace and Associates) has just
been completed. It examines the impact of the proposed land use
changes on the system and recommends alternatives for increasing
capacity. Two conclusions can be taken from the study regarding
the Coromar area:
1) That the potential creation of 59 new lots will have an im-
pact on the capacity of the sewer system.
2) Increased sewer charge fees are necessary to help maintain
3 �'?,
General Plan Amendm GP 2G-85 (John and Dorotl Lopus)
and/or enlarge the existing system. If this increased den-
sity were allowed, all newly created lots would be subject to
these new fees.
Most of the potential new lots would result from individual parcel
map applications over a number of years, thereby lessening immedi-
ate impacts.
The Iverson tract proposal is shown in Exhibit D. This map was
never approved but could occur as a higher impact tract develop-
ment. The main advantage of this plan is the better circulation
that would result from the Atascadero Avenue - to - Coromar Ave-
nue road connection.
Staff notes that many of these newly created half acre lots would
be flag lots many backing up directly to the freeway, subjecting
these residences to freeway noise.
Several residential policies in the General Plan address lot size
standards. The major theme of these policies is that large lots
are a distinguishing characteristic of Atascadero and that pro-
posed density standards shall preserve this feature and preserve
"elbow room" . It goes on to say that "creation of lots smaller
than those recommended must not be permitted if the maximum popu-
lation of approximately 30,000 is to be maintained. " This is con-
firmed in the fundamental goal of the Land Use element which
states that the ideal development pattern is "a population of
20,000 to 30,000 people living in some 7, 000 homes scattered over
about 23, 000 acres of the Colony. " The addition of 59 new lots to
the density pattern of the area is significant with respect to
setting a precident inviting other portions of the City within the
Urban Services Line to do the same, e.g. , the remainder of the
neighborhood lying between Morro Road, San Andres and Santa Rosa.
Approval of this request raises questions relative to rethinking
the target population and open space requirements of the City' s
General Plan.
D. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of General Plan Amendment 2G-85, based on
the findings contained in Exhibit A.
E. ALTERNATIVE:
If the Planning Commission chooses to approve this application,
staff has attached a resolution, as well as a location map with
several alternatives (Exhibit H) . In keeping with staff' s main
purpose of not inviting this and other large areas of the City to
subdivide, the alternatives range from the smallest area (I) to
the entire proposed study area (V) :
4 ���
General Plan Amendme* GP 2G-85 (John and Dorothf Lopus)
Alternative I: The immediate area surrounding the subject site
(Lots 13A - Lots 13-E) .
Alternative II: Alternate I plus generally the same area on the
other side of the street (Lots 14-15c) .
Alternative III: All lots fronting Coromar on the northeast
side of the street only (excluding the CT zoning designation on
the corner of Portola) .
Alternative IV: The entire study area excluding the portion of
Lot 27 fronting Atascadero Avenue and Lot 32 on Portola.
Alternative V: The entire study area as shown in Exhibit B of
the staff report.
DGD:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings for Denial
Exhibit B - Location Map
Exhibit C - General Plan Amendment Map
Exhibit D - Iverson Tract Proposal
Exhibit E - Minutes - Planning Commission - 6/17/85
Exhibit F - Minutes - Planning Commission - 7/1/85
Exhibit G - Minutes - City Council - 8/12/85
Exhibit H - Draft Resolution
5
pal
General Plan Amendmett GP 2G-85' (John and Dorot Lo us
P )
EXHIBIT A - General Plan Amendment 2G-85 •
Findings for Denial
February 3, 1986
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed land use map change does not result in a logical rep-
resentation of the existing residential area in that the average
lot size currently conforms to zoning ordinance standards.
2. The proposal is not compatible with the surrounding land use and
zoning.
3. The proposal will result in significant adverse impacts upon the
existing neighborhood.
4. The proposal will result in significant impacts upon the sewer
system.
5. The proposal is not consistent with the policies of the General
Plan.
6 �O�
-1 --�' a ,Tal - -pn fi ioK� f �.
4 7500 7M r�6900 2. ' e\ ` \
sso21 h ��–– c+ts=3 ;.
r•- 751 Q '�. 56 331
24
AT- 80-O
s to
901,
ps�',� —•iii i � 4 �Z_� o
77IJ s . S LSF-Y( FH) _ AT f 8- 6;
'' 3.:; •,� ?ice, �,�v
_T
IC)0
4
13-8 (FH)
1 � ` �A=� pyo �� —
% %
it �. .� 13-c SuB�rECT-
® y SITE
16
t ALJ / -� '►`� ��� 6-A.
TAR 2 — f 5 C �. n
J 1
X14 is 1 T
25
/
mAlp
p
Y 27
7 � ,/ . �S - ���/>> � � stir ,g'f°4 _•��' '� ���
28 o v �6
Le % ~�C,=�� �f �T,�,,IO � bbl" gyp' �. � / / %:�• /G�'�'�
29CIO
. /w /tet•��/�c`� `�" �Q, S
FIN
30
C✓•�,- :. J / 1��Zti+ - <o�• � a9� �+sn � 1°rc- 7¢�9 9 0 `s��! ,�r�
12
t t t i � r t t n,a 6q"5 �•j� �`1 G'� 6 4 p bzJ'
..
3 tv►L'7ti�. r.
ic
RL;AID I
.m.i�.1 .-Jam _:.� �J ►� una �iG14twes, 10
ra
de
.�. .': •.�' f-�'� :•'�..••• '.I ._ iii••• .♦ '� ,
PROPOSED STUDY AREA
r am
��. :;�:;.;a•.�:!:;.':i:;:^pis
1. .
SITE
L
O
C
AT
I
Oil
1
� •rte . _
EMODERATEDE DENSITY SIA
y•
:r.
• •� `�.>':.:�. FAMILY TO HIGH DENSLY ._
'••' SINGLE FAMILY ''' ' .
/.. ....
. ' .. =. _ :
.
r - ,,/ .
.
. t
.
1J `.
0
�•
e) 04004w .'
Id
3 0 ... :r' :::::•
q4
. 7 Y
p p
r �? a X
�, w000 r00 � Op .
:: :::::::::::: ,� .. .. •:::... ...........
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
... ............... ...... :.::.::" ::::::::: GP 2G-85
(LOPUS/KENNALY)
.... .. ..............
..:::... :::::::::.::.: LOT 13D of BLOCK 7
::: ... .:'.:...::...' ..: ` 8205 COROMAR -
::::::::. `• ,�' ,'. �. �.(, ;� EXHIBIT
I
J�^
adpzl
cal
NN
Zs
O C�
3^ e W N 1 1 (22)
Al
q
14 ro
NI
v �
N C C F
C 13
co
-
�.
N^
g \ O \tel \ \ �✓ i
S.
_ N i15.7 y
rn
L a
° `} Z ,�
Minutes - Planning tmmission --June 17 1985
2. General Plan Amendment 2F-85:
Request submitted by Caroline Rehbock (Caroline Harter, ep-
resentative) to revise the existing low Density Single Family
Residential designation to High Density Multiple Family' Res-
idential. Subject property is located at 5655 Ardilla Road,
also known as lot 1 of Block JB.
Chairman�LaPrade stepped down from the Commission due to a possi-
ble conf>2\ct of interest. Commissioner Bond then took the gavel.
Mr. Moses re ented the staff report pointing out the land use
P P P 9
patterns in a area and recommended approval of the request.
Commissioner Nolan asked that if the request is approved, will the
applicant be requiized to annex into the/seweEllen Ziegler , adjace t property owner , she had no objec-
tions if the project would be seweresked if she would be
i able to apply for sewer.',..,, Mr . M/about
plained the process for
sewer applications.
Caroline Rehbock, applicant, 'spthe conceptual develop-ment of the project and noted' apartments would be garden
in nature and would be screened. to provide .a residential nature.
Terry Hood talked about the ,number .,of multi-family developments
i being constructed in town which are' increasing the density, over-
crowding of schools and naked at what point will the density in-
creases stop. r
Commissioner Sanders/spoke about the difficulty in trying to get
across Traffic Way from Santa Lucia Avenue",because of the amount
of traffic which already exists.
There was discussion concerning the heavy traffic\\\Cojpmissioner
situation with
the Traffic Way/Ardilla/Santa Lucia intersections.
MOTION: Made b Commissioner Nolan seconded b
Y Y
,Hatchell and carried with a roll call vote to approve
General Plan Amendment 2F-85:
AYES: Commissioners Nolan, Hatchell, Kennedy and and
NOES: Commissioners Michielssen and Sanders
Chairman LaPrade took his seat back on the Commission.
3. General Plan Amendment 2G-85 :
Request submitted by John and Dorothy Lopus to revise the
General Plan Land Use map from Moderate Density Single Family
to High Density Single Family. Subject property is located
at 8205 Coromar Road with enlarged study area to include all •
lots which front on Coromar between Portola and Curbaril.
EXHIBUr E
4 `A
`1
Minutes - Planning Commission -,-June 17, 1985
In presenting the staff report, Mr. Davidson summarized the prev-
ious application that was considered two years ago and noted that
staff ' s recommendation to deny the request had not changed due to
the density, sewer and traffic impacts that would result with the
requested land use change.
John Kennaly, representing the applicant, requested a continuance
noting he had a meeting with the neighbors and would like to pre-
sent some additional information that would address some of
staff' s concerns.
Dennis McAvoy, 8060 Coromar , stated he was pleased with staff' s
findings but noted he was disturbed that an E. I .R. was deemed not
necessary and pointed out the large number of oaks trees that
would be cut down as a result of development. Mr. McAvoy further
stated that Coromar is not in good shape and that police and fire
protection services are inadequate.
Andrea Schulte stated her concern with the very rapid growth and
questioned the general plan envisioned total population of Atasca-
dero of 30,000 people. She commented that the necessary services
are not keeping up with this rapid growth and expressed the need
for responsible growth.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Hatchell, seconded by Commissioner
Michielssen and carried unanimously to continue the pub-
lic hearing on General Plan Amendment 2G-85 to July lst.
General Plan Amendment GP 2H-85c
Request submitted by Henry Hohenstein to revise the G �fera
Pan Land Use map from the existing Moderate Densit�ingle
Family Residential to High Density Multiple FamiIY Residen
tial. Subject property is located at 8760 Curbar'il with en-I
large lstudy area to include the area in which the drainages
flows toward E1 Camino Real (Lots 84, 85, 86- and a portion of
Lots 87 and 8'8 Block MC) .
Mr. Davidson presented the staff report aTid explained that this
property had previously been considered for a general plan amend-j
ment and summarized the actions involved with the application.;
He pointed out one of the reasons for limiting the expanded study;
area was because of the drainage which changes and drains towardi
E1 Camino Real.
Hank Hohenstein, applicant, spoke in support. of the request and
commented on the previous application which had been a part ofd
five other applications for the general area which had become al
transitional study area. Mr . Hohenstein felt each application
should be reviewed on a site specific basis.
; Terry -Hood talked about the problems Atascadero is enco tering
� with--' regard to the increased growth. She felt the use wou be
fib—ter suited for another type of use other than multi-family.
- 5 �;
Minutes - Planning Cission - July 1, 1985
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. General Plan Amendment 2G-85 :
Continued request submitted by John and Dorothy Lopus to re-
vise the General Plan Land Use Map from Moderate Density Sin-
gle Family to High Density Single Family. Subject property
is located at 8205 Coromar Road with enlarged study area to
include all lots which front on Coromar between Portola and
Curbaril.
t
Doug Davidson presented the staff report on this continued request
and pointed out that some of the reasons for recommending denial
included the increase in density as well as potential traffic im-
pacts and sewer service impacts.
John Kennaly, representing the applicants, suggested a modifica-
tion to the location map and proceeded to point out where the pro-
posed line for this tedesignation would be more appropriate.
Mr. Kennaly felt this location warranted 1/2 acre lot sizes due to
its proximity to the downtown area and has freeway access on both
sides of the project. He further stated that for eight years, the
area was developed with 1/2 acre sizes and pointed out that the
Coromar residents were involved in a 1969 Atascadero sewer pro-
ject at which time they paid for a sewer treatment plant to serve
this area. However , the area did not meet the density require-
ments that were required by the Environmental Protection Agency,
and proceeded to explain the steps and efforts taken in trying
to qualify for the loans that were undertaken to build the sewer
plant for the area.
Dennis McEvoy, 8060 Coromar , stated that Mr. Kennaly did not pre-
sent any different information that had been stated at the prev-
ious meeting and spoke to the various services such as traffic,
sewer, schools, police and fire services that would be severely
impacted by this increase in density, and further stated that his
statements applied not just to this particular application but to
any application that would have these effects.
Dottie Lopus, applicant, pointed out that Mr. McEvoy already had
a 1/2 acre lot size on Coromar .
Roy Moss, 8040 Coromar , spoke on behalf of ten families and pre-
sented the Commission a petition in opposition to the land use
change. Mr. Moss asked why this particular area was chosen for
this use and stated that the neighbors were not consulted on this
proposal.
Peggy Healy, 8250 Coromar , noted that when the original sewer
assessments were made, it had nothing to do with 1/2 acre lots
but were assessed with the size of the individual lots and
expressed her opposition to the proposal.
2
Minutes - Planning Wission -:.July 1, 1985 0
Richard Seitz, 8505 Coromar, stated that when the sewer lines were
put in, it was the neighborhood' s understanding that 1/2 acre lot
sizes would be allowable.
There was discussion concerning a. cost type of formula in assess-
ment of sewers.
Bob Stoner, 8635 Coromar, pointed out that the general area around
Coromar contains 1/2 acre lot sizes and felt that this use would
be logicail in nature and stated that if the area remained one acre
lot sizes, there would be the likelihood of the area becoming com-
mercial in nature.
John Barbieri, 8660 Coromar , spoke in support of the request and
stated that there would probably be a maximum of 25 homes that
would be built as a result of approval of the land use change.
Susie Moss, 8040 Coromar, expressed concern that the guidelines of
the General Plan be utilized for the various areas of town and
spoke to her opposition to the request.
Claire Barbieri, 8660 Coromar , stated she has a one acre lot and
at the time it was purchased, she and her family were under the
impression that it could be split into 1/2 acre lot sizes.
Vince Sullivan, representing the owner at 8730 Coromar, pointed
out that there are about 34 nonconforming lots in the subject
neighborhood and proceeded to speak to the nonconforming lot
issues. Debbie Sullivan talked about the no growth issue and felt
that 1/2 acre lot sizes are adequate for a home.
John Lopus, applicant, stated he purchased the subject property
because of the assumable mortgage as well as the 1/2 acre provi-
sion, and explained efforts to split the lot prior to incorpora-
tion of the city.
Commissioner Bond asked that with 1. 4 acres, could three 1/2 acre
lot sizes be allowed.
Commissioner Sanders spoke about guest homes and asked if there
were any provisions for such. Chairman LaPrade noted that the
city had chosen riot to adopt any "granny housing" and explained
reasons for this decision.
Commissioner Hatchell stated that there was a discrepancy with the
previous testimony on the number of nonconforming lots and asked
for a clarification. Mr. Engen pointed out that nonconforming lot
owners have development rights if, for instance, a house burns
down.
Commissioner Michielssen asked if any research has been done on
the sewer study. Mr . Engen responded that a sewer study is going
before the City Council for an overall city evaluation of the
capacity of the sewer plant and stated that this project could
possibly be completed by late September .
Minutes - Planning C*ission - July 1, 1985
Chairman LaPrade further noted that in his attendance with plan-
ning seminars, it has been pointed out not to zone property
"through a sewer pipe. " Commissioner Sanders expressed concern
that approval of this land use change would result in an increased
density.
Commissioner Michielssen felt that too much property is being
zoned multi-family and would like to see more 1/2 acre lot sizes.
He talked about the reasons for so many apartments with regard to
affordable) housing.
There was further discussion concerning the appropriate location
of the boundary line on the map.
Commissioner Kennedy asked for an approximate number of homes that
would be ready to build immediately after approval of the request.
Mr . Engen explained the time. frames involved with the parcel map
process in splitting the lots.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond, seconded by Commissioner
Michielssen and carried with a roll call vote to recom-
mend approval of General Plan Amendment GP 2G-85 with Ex-
hibit "B" changed to eliminate Atascadero Road frontage
by extending the area boundary common to Lots 33A-M:
AYES: Commissioners Bond, Michielssen, Kennedy, and
Chaiman LaPrade
NOES : Commissioners Sanders, Hatchell, and Nolan
��, Zone Change 4-85 :
Request submitted by H.L.S. Properties, Ltd. (Associat Pro
j essions, representative) to change the zoning ma from RS1
(Residential Suburban) to CN (Commercial Neighbor-Kood) . Sub-
ject proPerty is located at 1875 E1 Camino Real, also known;
as Lot 31 of,\ck 49 .
i
Mr . Davidson presented'the staff report on the matter noting this.,
request reflects the Chan _.granted under a previous general plan,
amendment.
In response to question, Commissioner--Nolan was advised that the,
subject lot does not extend from El Camino Real to Obispo Road.;
It was recently split into this lot and,a second lot fronting;
Obispo.
Chuck Iglas,.0, 1845 El Camino Real, stated that when—the subject
lot was surveyed, it affected a 12 foot easement on hi roperty
and nted out he would like to see the lot developed becau of
` t presence of many weeds on the lot. __
4 ��.
COUNCIL MINUTES - 8/1085
PAGE FOUR'
2. G neral Plan Amendment -2A-85 - 2300 Ramona - Gaughan - Revisio
o Zoning from Suburban Single Family Residential to Commerc ' 1
Ret 1 - (PUBLIC HEARING) (Proposed Resolution 74-85 - Denying
Gene 1 Plan Amendment 2A-85)
Henry E en, Planning Director, gave staff report.
Pat Gaugha , the applicant, requested a continuance on this item;
due to an i lness in the family, he has not had n essary time to
complete his rawings for review at public heari g.
MOTION: By Councilwoma Mackey to continue Item B-2 2300 Ramona) to the
Aug. 26th Counci Meeting, seconded by Cou cilwoman Norris; passed
unanimously.
3. General Plan Amendme 2F-85 - 5655 Ar lla - Rehbock - Revision
of Zoning from Low Den ity Single Fam' y Residential to High Den-
sity Multiple Family (P BLIC HEARIN (Proposed Resolution 46-85
Approving General Plan ndment 2 -85)
Henry Engen gave staff repo t, ollowed by Council discussion.
Public Comment
Jayne Sacks , 7-year Atas dero , r sident , residing on Ardilla,
_spoke in opposition of e propos GPA 2F-85 , mainly because of
the already dangerous raffic condi ion of the corner intersec-
tion. at Traffic Way nd Ardilla.
Andrea Schulte , o resides on San Gre rio Rd. , agreed with Mrs .
Sacks ' s comment about the extremely bad and dangerous traffic
conditions in he area of the proposed GP suggesting that Coun-
cilmembers d ive by that area during peak t affic hours to observe.
Debra Ka iewicz , who resides on Viejo Camino , expressed her op-
positio to the proposed GPA based on traffic fety concerns ,
such the previous two speakers.
Ca line Rehbock, applicant and residing on Ardill responded to
C uncil comment that reducing from 16 to 10 per acre would be suit-
able.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to approve GPA 2F-85 (5655 Ardi a) , with
change in zoning to Low Density Multiple Family - 10 per acre ,
seconded by Councilwoman Norris ; passed 5 : 0 by roll-call te.
4. General Plan Amendment 2G-85 - 8205 Coromar Road - Lopus -
Revision of Zoning from Moderate Density Single Family ResidenN
tial to High Density Single Family Residential (PUBLIC HEARING)
(Proposed Resolution 75-85 - Approving General Plan Amendment
2G-85)
Henry Engen gave staff report , emphasizing that this issue took a
considerable amount of time before the Planninq Commission before
E X N l I3 l f' C_ .��,
COUNCIL MINUTES - 8/ 95
PAGE FIVE
coming to Council , and he referred Council to the extensive back-
ground materials included in the agenda packet. Planning staff
recommended against the change, and it was recommended for appro
on a 4 :3 vote.
Council conferred with Mr. Engen on the Planning Commission' s
recommendations and their suggested alternatives. Mr. Engen men-
tioned that a new set of material has been submitted, which will
have to be reviewed before the Planning Commission, proposing the
creation of a subdivision on the Iverson property.
Public Comment
John Kennaly, the applicants ' engineer , indicated they are in
support of the Planning Commission' s review of the new informa-
tion and would be willing to supply any sewer information that
the Council feels might help them in making a decision.
John Lopus , the applicant, spoke in favor of the GPA so they can
go ahead with their original plans at the time of purchasing the
property in the 1970 ' s , which was then zoned for lg acre minimums.
Dorothy Lopus , co-applicant, spoke in favor of the Planning Com-
mission' s decision and urged Council support; they've been waiting
seven years to add an additional building to accommodate their own
family members.
Roy Moss, who resides on Coromar Ave. , questioned why this exceple
tion for the General Plan is being done , to which Mr. Engen
responded that the Lopus single lot request lead to expanding the
area for consideration to the total street frontage.
Jack Stinchfield , representing Clark Iverson, who owns 3 parcels
in the area under consideration, spoke of his support for h acre
zoning.
Celia Moss , 8040 Coromar, expressed opposition of the GPA.
Herb LaPrade, 6480 Santa Ynez , representing Bill Mullens , who is
in a hospital in Santa Barbara, expressed his support of the GPA.
Mr. Mullens owns 4. 8 acres on Coromar.
Vince Sullivan, owner of 8730 Coromar , spoke in favor of the GPA.
Bob Stoner , 8635 Coromar, spoke in support of the GPA.
Phoebe Watson, owner of 8055 Coromar since 1955 , spoke in support
of the GPA.
Debbie Sullivan, owner of 8730 Coromar , spoke in support of GPA.
Terry Hood, who lives on Cascabel in Atascadero , inquired as to
the locations of the (34) non-conforming vs. (22) conforming lots
in the area under consideration for GPA, to which Mr. Engen res-
ponded. She also inquired as to which lots are and are not yet
developed.
COUNCIL MINUTES - 8/105 0
PAGE SIX '
Dorothy Lopus , co-applicant, responded to some of the comments of
earlier speakers. �.
Discussion came back to Council.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina to include the five-acre lots in the -� acre
study area all the way to Atascadero Ave. , seconded by Council-
woman Norris; motion failed by 3:2 roll-call vote, with Council-
members Mackey, Handshy and Nelson voting NO.
MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to send item back to the Planning Commis-
sion to consider the new data proposing a street connection from
Coromar to Atascadero Ave. and to get staff response on the sew-
er impact situation; seconded by Councilwoman Mackey. Motion
passed unanimously.
5. General Plan Amendment 2H-85 - 8760 Curbaril - Hohenstein -
Revision of Zoning from Moderate Density Single Family Residen-
tial to High Density Multiple Family Residential (PUBLIC HEARING)
(Proposed Resolution 47-85 - Approving General Plan Amendment
2H-85)
Henry Engen gave staff report.
Hank Hohenstein, applicant , spoke in support of the proposed GPA,
citing the density would be consistent with that of the property
across the street from his, and he regards to divide densities at(
rear property lines - rather than down the middle of the street
to be good planning principles; he added other reasons why he urges
Council support.
Pat Glakeler, owner of 8780 , which is the adjacent property, in-
dicated she fully supports the proposed GPA to high density.
Cecile King, resident and owner of 8830 Curbaril for 15 years ,
spoke in opposition of the proposed GPA, based on the existent
heavy traffic congestion on Curbaril.
Mayor Nelson urged Curbaril residents to lobby State to follow
through with their commitment to construct a bridge over the
Salinas River and run Hwy. 41 through, which has been delayed
several times.
Terry Hood, Cascabel resident , spoke of her concern about the
approval of changes in zoning from SF to MF densities , which she
believes will , ultimately , change the character of Atascadero ' s
population.
Discussion came back to Council.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina to adopt Res . 47-85 and approve GPA 2H-85 ,
changing it to concur with the Planning Commission' s recommenda-
tion that property be zoned Low Density Multiple Family, second
by Councilwoman Norris; passed unanimously by roll-call vote.
RESOLUTION -
U ON NO. 20 86
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO APPROVING GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT
OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN PERTAINING TO COROMAR
ROAD (GPA 2G-86 : LOPUS)
WHEREAS, the Lopus' have filed an application to amend the City of
Atascadero' s General Plan pertaining to 8205 Coromar; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero conduc-
ted a public hearing on the subject matter for an enlarged study area
on June 17, 1985, July 1, 1985, and February 3, 1986 and recommended
approval of the amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero conducted a
public hearing on the subject matter on February 24, 1986 ; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65323 provides that a general
plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as follows:
1. The proposed general plan amendment recommended by the Plan-
ning Commission is consistent with the goals and policies of
the City' s General Plan.
2. The proposed general plan amendment provides a logical repre-
sentation of the residential site within the existing land
use pattern.
3. The proposed general plan amendment is compatible with sur-
rounding land use and zoning.
4. The proposed general plan amendment will not have a signifi-
cant adverse effect upon the environment, and preparation of
an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve
to approve General Plan Amendment 2F-85 as follows:
1. Amendments to the General Plan Map as shown on Exhibit A.
On motion by and seconded by
the motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
��_^ to ''� : :=2� �_•,•—-../ /a c ^1 '4.�'
so 7M Io 6 ���[�� •ey'-� A!
A 7SOV 690
21
750?
j � •� •�
�. o
it's }- cA?-
7710
LSF-
�C3 4 r ,,'• .'f4�+. \ j ( FN) a fA AT- i8-
n.
77S
- ��•-�---� \` ` '—`" _� � t 13-.8 _ Y ,
(FH)
c.� 14 w /a phi r
15 fee OC7 17—
� t �
la
� ••'• tet• 1 a� gla5
t ) Vii'
\\r~' �r\ ••L ' nx�
15-C ti 6-A
`? 25 IAe CPC
iG� O Sat 5 G
17
LF
\ O
17
5_ �\ s�Yq �� v� 6� jT j-�1� G� 36
..s 3
e ' 3
� 'j�' bO
t���� � � ?��� O fie. e' •' � i''� �b" 'til aj �./
29
D 'Oi„�' TS^
0 ` / , ,d m•�� ' 0.�G� • \' 5 '" ?y. �'+0'..,G'1ti / 3 4 J
IN
11 1 �r /Yf 1 `O �on5 \`Y % !- �C�'G'j7'•a0 `J,a.• \'.. ,S` o � .
' s r c?r -.•vi ^ /�I _ /f4ty— 1 `` / roti f. 1 s• 9 \�
31 Ar 7i
iz
Li
' r o A%\\ Q"''
10
�4T \ y\ ;'� !It'/j�•,_
Aft
Minutes - Planning C mission - February 3 , 198
Chairman LaPrade asked for clarification relative to the wording
contained in Conditions #11-d and #12 (re: prior to issuance of
building permit as opposed to prior to recording of final map.
Dan Stewart, representing the applicant, indicated his concurrence
with the recommendation and noted that he has worked with staff
for some time on this project in an effort to resolve the issues
involved.
Irene Bishop, 7151 Serena, stated that her husband had presented
concerns regarding the access road at the previous hearings and
the applicant and engineer listened to these concerns and revised
their access plans. She further stated that she was in concur-
rence with the project and wished the applicants well in their
endeavors.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond, seconded by Commissioner
Michielssen and carried unanimously to approve Tentative
Parcel Map 11-85 subject to the findings and conditions
contained in the staff report.
2. Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 :
Request submitted by David Harrell (Dan Stewart) to allow the
division of 4. 52 acres into four lots of 1. 52, 1. 00 , 1. 00 and
1.00 acres each. Subject property is located at 7100 Serena,
also known as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map CO 74-185.
In presenting the staff report for this request, Mr . Davidson
noted the similarities between this application and the previous
one on the agenda.
Dan Stewart, representing the applicant, stated he worked with
both planning and engineering staff in an effort to resolve the
concerns associated with this application, and thanked staff for
working so much on these two projects.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner , Bond, seconded by Commissioner
Nolan and carried unanimously to approve Tentative Parcel
Map 12-85 subject to the findings and conditions con-
tained in the staff report.
Commissioner Kennedy resumed her seat back on the Commission.
3. General Plan Amendment GPA 2G-85 :
Request submitted by John and Dorothy Lopus (Kennaly Engin-
eering) to revise the General Plan land use map from Moderate
Density Single Family Residential to High Density Single Fam-
ily Residential. Subject property is located at 8205 Coromar
Road, also known as Lot 13D of Block 7 . The expanded study
area includes all lots which front on Coromar between Portola
and Curbaril, but not including the Commercial Tourist zoning
on the corner of Portola and Coromar . The area also includes
Lot 27, a portion of Lot 28, and Lot 32 of Block 7 .
2
UI
•
Minutes - Planning Commission - February 3 , 1981
In presenting the staff report, Mr. Davidson summarized the back-
ground and sequence of events leading to this evening' s hearing.
It was noted that if this request is approved, there could be 59
potential new 1/2 acre lots that could be created. It was also
noted that the sewer study prepared by John Wallace and Associates
does not specifically address this application, but it was pointed
out that increased sewer fees will be necessary and that any new
lot created would assessed a sewer fee. Most of the new lots
would be created by parcel map process over a period of several
years, and that some of these lots would be flag lots.
Mr. Davidson stated there were five alternatives that could be
considered in the recommendation.
Chairman LaPrade asked if the Iverson property would be a part of
the 59 potential new lots, to which Mr. Davidson responded that
this property would be included.
Commissioner Sanders referenced the staff report concerning the
statement made that this application could set a precedent in the
City in other areas, and asked how many other lots could possibly
be affected. Mr. Davidson replied that this would apply to areas
within the Urban Services Line, but was unsure of exact locations.
Mr. Engen referenced a map on the overhead projector and pointed
out areas that were zoned RA (1/2 acre) before the City' s zoning
ordinance was adopted.
Commissioner Bond referenced the parcel on Portola Road included
in this study area and asked how this came to be. Mr . Engen
stated that the property owner submitted a letter requesting
consideration of his property to be included as part of a larger
study area.
In response to question from Commissioner Nolan, Mr . Davidson
stated that all of the lots would be in the sewered area.
Chairman LaPrade stated that when the concept of one half acre
lots first came before the Commission about 1 1/2 years ago, he
recalled that a motion was passed to call for lots within the
sewered area to be eligible for a half acre density. He asked if
this had been amended when it came before the Council. He asked
staff to check on this.
John and Dorothy Lopus, applicants, asked for some positive action
in the Commission' s recommendation to the City Council. Mrs.
Lopus felt that this request is not an unreasonable one and talked
about the need for affordable housing for members of her family.
Mr . Lopus stated that when they purchased this property, the zon-
ing designation was for one half acre lots. He explained his
efforts and frustrations in attempting to get this property back
to a half acre minimum. He also noted that he is still paying
sewer fees on the property, and felt that the Iverson project
should be valued on its own merit.
3 �2
Minutes - Planning
Omission - February 3, 19819
Mi g
Jack Stinchfield, representing Clark Iverson, reviewed the fact
that this property was originally zoned for 1/2 acre minimums and
subsequently changed to a minimum of one acre lots. He expressed
the need for smaller parcels in the city and talked about the
density extremes from high density apartments to large acreage
lots, and felt that there should be a density in between these
extremes. Mr . Stinchfield also .felt that these 1/2 acre lot
designations should be in areas where there is the availability of
sewer. He further stated that Mr. Iverson is uncertain of his
plans for this property, but noted the advantage to the city of
the availability of having a connecting road between Coromar and
Atascadero Avenue if Mr . Iverson were to proceed with his plans.
He also indicated that Mr. Iverson would not be against Alterna-
tive IV.
Vince Sullivan, representing family property owners at 8730 Coro-
mar , re-iterated that this property had been designated as a half
acre minimum for years and that a good deal of development in this
area was based on the half acre lot designation and urged the Com-
mission' s consideration in approving this redesignation.
Bob Stoner, 8635 Coromar , referenced staff' s recommendation for
denial based on increased impacts that would result, but pointed
out that the City has had several hundred units recently built
which has contributed to sewer line impacts. He also felt that
if this area is approved for half acre lots , there would be more
resistance to developing this area commercially.
Debbie Sullivan spoke in support of the amendment request and
stated that there is a need for more individual housing for those
who do not wish to live in apartments and felt there should be a
choice.
Phoebe Watson, 8055 Coromar , spoke in support of the request and
stated her family has owned this property since the 1950 ' s when
it was zoned for one half acre densities. She noted her concur-
rence with the testimony given by the Lopus ' , the Sullivans, and
Mr . Stoner .
Commissioner Hatchell referenced the sewer study and asked for
clarification on this expanded amendment request in relation to
the sewer study.
There was discussion concerning how the Iverson property would
affect this request, especially as it would relate to the proposed
connecting street between Coromar and Atascadero Avenue. It was
also noted that any parcel map divisions would require development
improvements.
Commissioner Sanders noted this is a difficult situation as it
relates to the previous zoning designation for these subject prop-
erties and expressed concern that any lot divisions would result
mostly in flag lots backing up against Coromar . She further
stated that the Commission must look at the whole community in
consideration of this matter with regard to cumulative impacts.
4 g3
Minutes - Planning commission - February 3, 198f
Chairman LaPrade commented on the 1968 and 1980 General Plans and
felt that there is definitely a need for smaller lots in
Atascadero.
Further discussion ensued as to what types of improvements would
be required in the lot division process.
Commissioner Michielssen added that he would be in favor of ap-
proving the whole area for 1/2 acre lots and felt that if this
request is approved, it would open the door for looking at other
areas within the City for similar type lots as opposed to apart-
ment complexes.
There was further discussion concerning the appropriateness of
looking at areas designated for multi-family zoning to be consid-
ered as smaller lots.
Commissioner Bond stated that if this request is approved, not all
the property owners would be splitting their lots and noted he
would be in favor of approving the request for the whole expanded
study area.
At this point, Mr. Stinchfield asked if he could make a point of
clarification to the Commission, to which Chairman LaPrade re-
sponded that he could.
Mr. Stinchfield emphasized that Mr . Iverson would not want his
property to be a "thorn in the side" as it might relate to the
Commission' s decision in the matter , and went on to clarify some
points about Mr. Iverson' s property.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Michielssen and seconded by Com-
missioner Bond to recommend approval of General Plan
Amendment GPA 2G-85 based on Alternative V as contained
in the staff report. The motion was defeated with a roll
call vote, as follows:
AYES: Commissioners Michielssen and Bond
NOES: Commissioners Sanders, Hatchell, Nolan, Kennedy,
and Chairman LaPrade
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Hatchell and seconded by Commis-
sioner Bond to recommend approval of General Plan Amend-
ment GPA 2G-85 based on an altered Alternative III which
would include Alternatives I and III , the west side of
Coromar down to Portola. The motion was defeated with a
roll call vote, as follows:
AYES: Commissioners Hatchell and Kennedy
NOES : Commissioners Sanders, Michielssen, Nolan, Bond,
and Chairman LaPrade
5 8�
Minutes - Planning commission February 3, 1986
Further discussion ensued.
MOTION: Made by Chairman LaPrade. and seconded by Commissioner
Kennedy to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment
GPA 2G-85 to include Areas I , II, III, and IV. The mo-
tion passed with a roll call vote, as follows:
AYES: Commissioners Hatchell, Michielssen, Bond, Kennedy
and Chairman LaPrade
NOES: Commissioners Sanders and Nolan
Mr. Engen pointed out that the Commission' s recommendation would
be forwarded to City Council and will be scheduled as a public
hearing item.
C. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
D. INDIVIDUAL ACTION AND/OR DETERMINATION
1. Planning Commission
Commissioner Michielssen inquired about Commission-initiated
general plan amendments with respect to overall City-wide
zoning (i.e. , multiple family zoning, decreasing multiple family
zoning, etc. ) , and asked what processes would be necessary.
Discussion on this continued. Mr . Engen stated that in order to
change the density factors, it would be necessary to change the
standards. There was further discussion concerning the feasibil-
ity of lowering the density of multi-family zoning areas.
Commissioner Kennedy asked for an update on the hillside ordi-
nance.
There was also an update on the status of the tree ordinance.
2. Community Development Director
Mr. Engen reported that he has received a verbal response from the
City Attorney concerning the language involved for a property
owner ' s "waiver of his right to protest" .
It was also reported that the draft Subdivision Regulations is
currently being routed to affected departments, as well as some
engineering firms.
Mr. Engen noted that the City Council denied the Kaleidoscope Kids
appeal with respect to curb, gutter, and sidewalk, and parking
requirements. He also stated that the Kmart precise plan is cur-
rently being reviewed by affected departments with emphasis on
6
�5
"El
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
Steven DeCamp, Senior Planner
DATE: February 24, 1986
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Procedures Evaluation
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council initiate an evaluation of var-
ious sections of the City' s Zoning Ordinance as specified herein.
BACKGROUND:
• The City/Contractors Permit Review Group has concerned itself with
various means of streamlining the permit review process. Among the
areas of concern have been numerous sections of the City' s Zoning
Ordinance dealing with procedural, as opposed to policy, issues.
These sections have been identified as potentially causing confusion,
if not delays, in the permit review and issuance process.
Either the Planning Commission or City Council can initiate Zoning
Ordinance amendments. City Council action is required to adopt and
implement any changes in the ordinance. Staff is recommending that
the Council initiate this group of evaluations because the candidate
sections have been identified by the City/Contractors Permit Review
Group which has included Council participation.
ANALYSIS:
The following sections of the Zoning Ordinance have been identified as
candidates for in-depth evaluation relative to their impact on the
permit review process. These sections do not address major policy
issues nor items relating to General Plan consistency (i.e. , General
Plan designation vs. allowed uses) . A brief explanation of why each
section has been selected for further evaluation is as follows:
1. Section 9-1.106 , Compliance with Standards Required. Under the
literal interpretation of this section, virtually any improvement
• to property other than that applying to nonconforming uses re-
quires that the full site be brought up to code compliance in all
areas. It would appear desirable to add a percent of project cost
C�
Zoning Ordinance Prdures Evaluation
of similar constraint to this language.
2. Section 9-2.106 (a) (iii) , Business license clearance-violations. •
This section states that "the proposed site and any structure or
land uses existing on the site shall not be in violation of any
applicable provision of this Title, except for nonconforming uses
. . . . " It was felt that this standard was too stringent.
3. Section 9-2.106 (2) (ii) , Signing. The ordinance requires that all
signing on a proposed site should be in compliance with the ordi-
nance also. Re-use of pre-existing signing was felt by some to be
appropriate.
4. Section 9-2.107, Plot Plan and Section 9-2.108, Precise Plan.
The California Environmental Quality Act is the determinant of
when a precise plan is required versus a plot plan. The Committee
felt that an expanded explanation of that distinction would be
beneficial.
5. Section 9-2.108, Precise Plan/Architectural Elevations= It was
noted that there is an Architectural Standards Review Committee
evaluating this requirement and criteria for reviewing this com-
ponent of a plan (not recommended for action at this time).
6. Section 9-2.114, Substantial Site Work Defined Projects Involved
in the Construction of Buildings. . Under the language of this
section, projects which have had foundations installed but would
not be defined as having commenced for purposes of complying with
the normal one year effective date of a use permit or precise
plan. It was felt that foundations should be considered
"substantial. "
7. Section 9-3.701, Land Use Descriptions and Chapter 9, General
Definitions. Both sections contain definitions which means hav-
ing to research two areas. The sections should be combined and
streamlined.
8. Section 9-4,118, Required Number of Parking Spaces. There is
concern that the existing parking space requirements are not ade-
quate. It was also noted that the procedure for determining the
number of required spaces is cumbersome.
9. Section 9-4.134, Sign Design Standards (a) (1) , limits building
business wall signs to building faces having a public entrance.
Exceptions require a conditional use permit process and tradition-
ally have not posed a problem for approval by the Planning Commis-
sion. It should be considered for modification in the ordinance.
10. Sections 9-3.141, 9-3.151, 9-3.161, Suburban Residential, Resi-
dential Single Family, and Limited Single Family Residential
Zone - Lot Size Performance Standards. The five standard for-
mula that is required to determine minimum lot size in these
zones, absent existence of sewers, is time consuming and open to
arguments. The consensus of the Committee was that it would be
appropriate to establish a definite minimum lot size for these
2 y�
MEMORANDUM ``�''ia
•
TO: Board of Directors
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Revision of Sewer Charges - Addition of Connection Fee
DATE: February 6, 1986
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Board of Directors approve the
suggested changes in sewer fees, designate the distribution of sewer
rates, and adopt suggested policies as explained in detail in this
report. It is recommended that all changes go into effect July 1,
1986.
Background:
At the January 27 regular meeting the Board received the Sewer
Study prepared by John L. Wallace and Associates of San Luis Obispo.
The study recognized the problem areas of the wastewater sewer system
• and the treatment plant, suggested broad spectrum improvements, est-
ablished the need for an Inflow and Infiltration (I & I) analysis and
presented a range of costs for the suggested improvements. Ad-
ditionally, the need for a sewer connection fee was established and it
was recommended that the Board proceed immediately with management
plans to combat anticipated changes in the sewer system in-
frastructure.
Growth
Growth within Improvement District No. 1 has been rapid and is
above past projections. The need for design changes in the original
plans, underestimated I & I and the shift in economical parameters has
continued and will continue to place a burden on the customers within
the District.
Growth outside Improvement District No. 1 has been slow but
recent annexations show a demonstrative impact on the system and are
being, and should continue to be, mitigated by appropriated fees or.
improvements.
Only 22 annexations occurred between 1964 and 1979 and con-
sidering use, this equates to less than 2 units per year . From 1979
to 1986 there have been 32 single family, 56 mobile home, and 104
apartments annexed to Improvement District No. 1, or about 28 units
per year . The District has realized approximately $145,000 in
• annexation fees from these developments to buy into the system.
. g�
Other annexations on the books but not constructed includ
two projects consisting of 436 apartment units. The in-1i
assessment fees for these units will amount to $344,100, not includ� n
approximately $350,000 from the Bordeaux project that was conditioned
for specific impact as -allowed 'by Seciton 4.13 of the ACSD Con
solidated Ordinances.
History of Financing ACSD:
The bonding capacity of the ACSD is $23,108,000. A portion
(approximately 32%) has been utilized as follows:
The Traffic Way Activated Sludge Treatment Plant was
constructed in June of 1969. General Obligation Bonds were issued on
$665,000 for 30 years at 6% interest. This amount is being paid back
through assessments which are based on a pre-proposition 13 ad valorem
tax of 0.023 per $100 valuation of property. This debt will be paid
off at about the projected buildout year . Post proposition 13 lot
splits or annexations are not subject to this payment.
The Improvement District No. 1 (hereinafter I.D. No. 1)
sewers and lift stations were completed in September of 1971. Assess-
ment Bonds were issued on $3,010,869.07 for 20 years at 7% interest.
This amount is being paid back through assessments based upon a com-
plicated, controversial, yet workable and fair assessment formula.
Each property has a specific assessment differing from the others but
the average assessment is about $2536 per lot. This debt will be
off prior to the projected buildout year. Lot splits, use changes Pan0
annexations pay in-leiu orsubstitute onetime payments which do not
reduce this debt but go toward expansion of the system to help protect
availability of service for those original I.D. No. 1 lots.
The new Aeriated Lagoons Treatment Plant adjacent to the Salinas
River was constructed in 1981 and completed its first year of full
operation in 1984. Revenue Bonds were issued on $1,300,000 and a' 40
year FmHA loan at 5% interest was awarded to finance the bonds. (The
actual cost was $3,678,900, but a joint EPA, RWQCB grant was awarded
for the balance) Sewer customer rates are used to pay back this debt
at $76,000 per year. All new customers contribute to this payment but
of course are not expected to make up for the years when they were: not
connected. There is an availability rate, however, that is being
charged at $7 per month to help equalize this difference recognizing
that the non-connected lot does not have an impact on `operation and
maintenance. . (O & M)
The new treatment plant was needed not because of annexations
but because the growth within I.D. No. 1 would reach its capacity of
0.833 mgd by 1980. And, amongst other things, the noise and odor in
the downtown area was intolerable and the solids handling system was
badly overloaded.
The recently predicted improvements based on the Wallace Sewer
Study and the update estimate for the cost of new annexation impacts
are currently being triggered and the financing of such are a subject
of this report.
2
Explanation of Revenue Sources:
Within I.D. No. 1:
A Permit Fee of $5 is charged upon application to those in I.D.
No. 1, including annexations or lot splits. This fee is intended to
help offset the clerical costs of handling the permit. (In the summary
table this will be called [D] )
A Connection Fee of $250 is charged for the physical connection
to the sewer lines and is borne by all who have not previously covered
this charge in their assessments or otherwise. This charge is in-
tended to offset the labor and materials necessary to provide a tap to
the mainline from a building sewer. It is herein recommended that
this charge be hereafter called a Tap Charge. (In the summary table
this will be called [c] )
A Lot Split or Use Change Fee is charged for all lot splits
within I.D. No. 1. The fee was intended to be similar to the In-Leiu
fee discussed below, but for simplicity was calculated on the basis
of plant replacement. The cost of the new plant as outlined in form 5
of the Revenue Program for the EPA grant and the assumed parameters of
3.2 persons per household and 3. 0 per apartment were used as the
acceptable estimates at that time. The results of those calculations
produced a fee of: $850 for single-family, $725 per each apartment,
$660 per each mobile home and $26 . 35 per fixture unit for commercial
and industrial uses. (In the summary table this will be called [B] ) .
Annexations to I.D. No. 1: (Fees in addition to the charges in
I.D. No. 1)
An In-Leiu Assessment Fee is charged for any annexation.
This fee was previously calculated on the same basis as the original
assessments with a credit given for actual expenditures for line ex-
tension to the lot. This method was obviously intended as a
buy-in to the system with the balance collected as a fair share
of the oversizing of lines and the cost of lift stations. This is
not, however , entirely equitable since the original assessments were
based on 1980 costs and the in-leiu fee does not contain a cost index
clause.
This fee was later replaced by a fixed fee which was calculated
as described in the Lot Split fee discussion above. Although the cost
of the existing plant was used in the calculations for simplification
and although the money went to the facilities fund and not to decrease
the actual debt, the intent of the fee was for maintaining a place in
the system for those in I.D. No. 1. This "buy-in" money will go toward
plant or line expansion but does not take into account he buildout of
the ACSD and to actual cost of expansion based on the potential number
of new customers.
It is felt that not only should this in-leiu fee be collected
as a "buy-in" to help offset the impact on the existing system of
which a portion was paid for only by the original I.D. No. 1 parcels,
but that an annexation fee be high enough to support future facility
improvement as referenced later . It is suggested that this be called
3
a
an Annexation Fee and recalculated as discussed later in this report
(In the Summary this fee will be called [B] ; 0
In addition to the above a $70 fee has recently been added to
southside developments as allowed by section 4.13 of the ACSD Con-
solidated Ordinances to offset lift station upgrading. This fee will
be consumed in the newly proposed annexation fee to simplify
calculations. Since improvements will be provided based upon the pro-
ximity of actual growth, coupled with the fact that the southside is
rapidly developing relative to other areas,there is little change for
inequities in the new approach.
Summary of Fees
[A] New Fee established in this Report
[B] Annexation Fee, or Lot Split or Use Change Fee, as Revised
[c] Tap Charge
[D] Permit Fee
Rates:
All customers are charged a monthly rate which is payable
annually and is collected on the tax roles. Different uses are
assigned different rates as established in the Revenue Program as part
of the EPA grant for the new treatment plant.
Form 8 of the above reference outlines the amount of money
necessary to be collected for Operations and Maintenance (O & M) , Deb*
Service and Capital Outlay:
0 & M $350,000/yr or 67% of the rates
Debt Service 76, 000/yr or 14.6% of the rates
Capital Outlay 96 ,000/yr or 18.4% of the rates
While this money is appropriately collected and distributed
accordingly for 0 & M and Debt Service, the Capital Outlay loses its
identity in the sewer fund. It is recommended that the ordinance be
amended to specifically allocate $76,000 for debt service and that O &
M and Capital Outlay keep their current proportions to each other ,
i.e. Capital Outlay is 27% of 0 & M,and that that money be placed in a
sinking fund with other monies intended for replacement or expansion
of facilities.
Explanation of Expenditures
Pay off of General Obligation Bonds - $665,000
Pay off of FmHA Loan (Assessment Bonds) - $3,010. 869
Pay off of Revenue Bonds - $1,300 ,000
0 & M $350, 000/year (presently)
Capital Outlay - $96 , 000/year (from rates)
Sinking Fund - Newly Collected sewer charges and Annexation Fees
Needs: - (Reference: Wallace Sewer Study and Engineering Science' s
Facilities Plan)
Within I.D. No. 1:
4 G�'�
Replace Existing Sewers and Manholes $1,030,000
Upgrade Pump Stations 142,000
I & I Analysis and Aleviation Projects 274,300
Total 'Needs (1985$$) $1, 446 ,300
Total Needs (1990$$) 1,845,886
There are eleven (11) surcharged pipe segments in I.D. No. 1
and upon buildout of I.D. No. 1 without regard to annexations, there
will be thirty three (33) . I & I represents 20% of the average dry
flow, which is double the assumption used in the plant design. It
is anticipated that all new customers share in the above costs with
exceptions as shown in the summary table and that the money from the
the new sewer connection fee be placed in a sinking fund for capital
improvements.
Assuming that the $96 ,000 per year is used to upgrade the ex-
isting facilities due to normal deterioration and depreciation, this
money is not available for the above work. The Bordeaux money
($350, 000) will reduce the need when paid but fees will be calculated
on total needs since bordeaux impacts the the total needs. Annexation
fees collected in the last several years (assuming to July, 1986) ,
amount to about $143 ,480 . Now annexation fees will go into a sinking
fund but are theoretically for plant and facility expansion not in-
cluded above. Cease and Desist areas may contribute to the above
depending upon when they connect to the system and upon what fees
are then applicable. Subtracting the $143, 480 from the 1990 total
the realistic need is reduced to $1.7 million, including design
of facilities upgrade.
Annexations:
The needs will be based on the amount of flow that will come
from the ultimate sewered population. That flow will be compared with
the present design flow and proportioned to the replacement cost of
the present treatment facility. These assumptions recognize that sub-
stitutions such as lift station expansion and treatment plant ex-
pansion may set the basis for the actual expenditure of the annexation
monies, but the end result will meet the intention of the fees.
The new annexation fee will be a combination of the above
mitigation and the previous in-leiu fee discussed earlier.
Explanation of Boundaries:
There are seven boundaries recognized in this and other such
reports, directly or indirectly, and deserve mention here.
Atascadero Colony (1913) - The Colony laid out by founder
E.G. Lewis (This boundary is not a political boundary and is only of
• major significance when playing the road game puzzle, which is not
the pleasure of this report. ) The area emcompased by this line is
approximately 38 sq. miles or 24 ,320 acres.
5 (�
G��
City of Atascadero Corporation Line (1979) - The city is withi-
the Atascadero Colony with the exception of the new wastewater treat!
ment plant, the "Holiday Inn Site" and a few scatterings in the south-
east section. The area of the City is about 26 sq. miles or 16,640
acres.
Urban Reserve Line This is a county planning line that
simulates the ultimate urban community and was laid prior to the in-
corporation of the city. This line is only significant in that
estimates for the ultimate sewered population are taken from this
area. The area within this boundary is about 14,000 acres (21. 88 sq.
miles) This lines crosses over the Colony line in the area of the
State Hospital.
Atascadero CoUntV Sanitation District (1956) - This boundary
(ACSD) was formed as means of establishing bonding capabilities under
the Health and Safety Code. It replaced the Perkins Sewer Maintenance
District and the Atascadero Sanitary District which were later dis-
solved. The ACSD is comprised of approximately 3620 acres and is en-
tirely within the City Limits. This line will dissolve upon
completion of the final EPA-RWQCB audit which has officially begun,
but will not see much action until March. It is expected to be
dissolved by late 1986 , almost exactly 30 years after its inception.
Work in this report has anticipated the dissolving of this line and a
final revision of the sewer ordinance will be made when the sewer
system becomes a division of the City Department of Public Works.
Urban Services Line (1979) - This line (USL) is a figment 09
the General Plan of the city and delineates the area which is intended
to be more urban in nature than the remainder of the City and within
which, amongst other services, sewer service is provided. This area
is approximately the same as the ACSD(but is outside the ACSD) north
of San Jacinto and east of Santa Ysabel but is inside the ACSD west
of Santa Rosa. This line will serve a purpose similar to the ACSD in
delineating future additions (annexations) to the City Sewer System
(I.D. No. 1) when the ACSD dissolves, but will not have special
financing capabilities under the Health and Safety Code.
Improvement District No. 1 (1969) - This line represents
Assessment District No. 1 which encompases most of the present sewered
area within the ACSD but has had two group annexations (Assessment
District No. 2 and Assessment District No. 3) , along with several
single annexations discussed previously. There are about 2162 acres
in the original I.D. No 1, the buildout of which is the subject of the
Wallace Sewer Study. This line will have significance for debt
service to the year 2021 unless the FmHA loan is either paid off
earlier or unforseen legal complications enter the picture.
Cease and Desist Boundaries - These boundaries delineate major
sewer problem areas scattered throughout the City. All are within the
City but some are outside the ACSD and some are outside the USL.
These boundaries are expected to exist until the sewers are eventuall
provided. The City is presently under an Order to sewer three o
these areas by November of 1986.
6
(?�'l
9 - 9
New Sewer Connection Fee (A)
The buildout of the area within I.D. No 1 is expected to produce
1.86 mgd. Currently the wet weather flow is 1.03 mgd (wet weather
flow is typically used to calculate sewer pipe sizes and lift station
capacities, which constitute the bulk of the recommended improvements.
Dry Flow is used for treatment plant design with emergency measures
provided for wet weather flow) .
The future flow increase is therefore 830 ,000 gpd.
There are 6231 units predicted in I.D. No. 1 buildout as compared
to 3278 currently. Therefore 2958 units are expected to produce
830,000 gpd. Assumptions are based on residential single family.
Large Commercial and Industrial uses would be scrutinized by the new
computer program at the time of application as their flows are
difficult to impossible to anticipate in planning.
Then, 830,000 gpd divided by 2958 residences equals 280 gpd/
residence. Also, 10 gallons per day per plumbing fixture unit hs been
used in past calculations. Therefore, a single family unit is ex-
pected to be equivalent to 28 fixture units. The 280 gpd compares with
fixture units per residence to calculate flow. These two changes
result from a reduction in water use through conservation or reduction
in family size not experienced by this writer.
The cost for the needs outlined has been derived to be $1.7
. million.
$1,700 ,000 _ 830,000 gpd = $2. 05/gpd
$2. 05 X 10 gpd = $20. 50 per F.U.
Single Family Residence:
28 F.U. X $20. 50/F.U. _ $573. 49/Residence
Multiple Family:
Keeping relative to the initial design, 300 gpd or 30 F.U.
should be proportioned to the newly predicted flows based on actual
usage. Therefore,
30 X 28 = 26 .35 call 26 F.U. or 260 gpd/apt. unit
32
Then, 26 F.U. X $20.50/F.U. =$533 per apartment unit
Mobile Home:
Again, keeping proportionate to the original design,
• 25 X 28 = 21.88 call 22 F.U. or 220 gpd
32
Then, 22 F.U. X $20.50 = $451 per mobile unit
Commercial, Industrial and Other Non-Residential: 0�`1
Use $20. 50 per Fixture Unit r
7
0
Adjustment to Annexation Fee (B)
In place of the in-leiu fee previously discussed, future plant •
expansion or system expansion will be covered by the annexation fee.
The ultimate sewered population' is expected to be 22,500. The
projected sewered population for I.D. No. 1 is 17,073. Therefore,
5427 people are expected to join into the system from outside I.D.
No. 1 about the time the I.D. No. l is saturated. Using 2.74 people
per unit as used in the Sewer Study, then 5427 - 2.74 = 1981 units
which should complete the annexations, an ultimate increase of 32%.
Then, 1981 X 280 gpd = 555,753 gpd added flow. If the 1. 4
mgd plant cost $3, 678 ,900 in 1980 then the assumed cost to handle
the increased flow for 1990 improvements is:
. 56 X 3,678,900 X 1.63 (Inflation factor, using 10 years @ 5%)
1.4 = $2, 398,643
Then $2,398,643 _ 555,753 gpds = $4. 32/gpd
Single Family:
280 gpd X $4.32 = $1,210 per residence
Multifamily:
260 gpd X $4.32 = $1,123. 20 per unit
Mobile Units:
220 gpd X $4.32 = $ 950.40 per unit
Commercial, Industrial and Other Non-Residential:
10 gpd X $4.32 = $43. 20 per Fixture Unit
Summary of Fees:- Proposed
Use / Fee [A] Sewer Conn. Fee [B] Annex. Fee [C] Tap Charge [D] Permit Fee
Single Family $573/unit $ 1,210/unit $250/each $5/each
MultiFamily $533/unit $ 1,123/unit $250/each $5/each
Mobile Home $451/unit $ 950/unit $250/each $5/each
Commercial $20.50/F.U. $ 43.20/F.U. $250/each $5/each
When Payable: Upon Connection Upon App. Upon Conn. Upon App.
Rates: See Rate Table in Ordinance - It is not anticipated that rates will
increase in the near future. II
8
Scenarios for Future Connection:
(1) Presently outside the ACSD or USL or Inside the ACSD, but
outside I.D. No. 1, Not previously annexed.
Recommendations: Require annexation approval
Pay all fees when applicable
Pay all extension costs
(2) Inside ACSD,but outside I.D. No. 1 and previously annexed
but not connected.
Recommendations: Require connection within 12 months
from effective date of the new fees
or annexation is void.
Pay all extension costs
To include all previous annexations to
I.D. No. 1
Pay all fees.
(3) Inside ACSD, outside I.D. No. 1, but sewer available.
Recommendations: Require connection within 12 months of
the effective date of the new fees if
lot is not vacant.
Pay all fees when applicable
Pay all extension costs
Sewer be deemed available and subject
to violations.
(4) Inside I.D. No. 1 Lot Splits or Re-Zone or Use Change
Recommendations: Pay all fees for rezoning or Use change
when applicable
For lot splits, both will pay sewer
connection fee but only one will pay the
Annexation Fee.
(5) Inside I.D. No. 1, Sewer Available, but Building not
connected within the required 24 month period.
Recommendations: Pay all fees within 12 months.
Grant a 12 month grace period to connect
without being fined for the violation.
(This could be as many as 100 parcels)
(6) Inside I.D. No. 1, Vacant Lot, Sewer Available.
Recommendations: This category to not include previous
annexations.
Not pay the annexation fee but pay the
. sewer connection charge.
9
(7) Inside I.D. No. 1, Vacant Lot', Sewer Not Available, (Rare
case) 0
Recommendations: Pay all fees when they become applicable.
Sewer Availability: (Mentioned because pertinent to above scenarios)
Sewer Ordinance Sections 3. 1 through 3. 5 govern sewer
availability.
Section 3.1 For the purposes of this Article a public sewer
shall be deemed to be available to a building if said sewer is in-
stalled in a public right of way or easement adjacent to the lot upon
which said building is located.
Section 3.2 Pursuant to authority of Health and Safety Code
Section 4762, the Board of Directors hereby finds and declares the
maintenance or use of cesspools and other local means of sewage dis-
posal within the District constitute a public nuisance, and finds it
to be in the public interest that properties to which a public sewer
is available be required to connect thereto.
Section 3.3 When a public Sewer becomes available to a building
served by a private sewage disposal system, said building shall be
connected to the public sewer within twenty-four (24) months after
said public sewer is available and said private disposal system shah
be abandoned in accordance with the 1982 edition of the Unifor
Plumbing Code, unless a variance is granted by the Board of Directors.
Section 3. 4 Any newly-constructed building to which a public
sewer is available shall be connected to said public sewer prior to
its use for human occupancy, unless a variance is granted by the Board
of Directors.
Section 3. 5 Variances referred to in Section 3. 3 and 3.4 may
be granted upon written application to the Board of Directors by the
applicant setting forth the basis for such request. Variances may be
granted only upon affirmative showing that no health hazard, public
nuisance, or inequity to other property owners will result therefrom.
Policy:
Previous Policy. Seven policy statements were adopted in 1983.
They are as follows:
1. All sewer main extensions are to be funded by those requesting
annexation.
2. Annexations must be contiguous to the existing Improvement
District.
10 \��
! 0
. 3. In consideration of the annexation request, the proponents
shall be required to furnish an engineer ' s evaluation of
adequacy of existing sewer mains affected by the service ex-
tension. This would include an evaluation of the downstream
line capacities as well as any possible upgrading of existing
lift stations.
4. Ongoing service to the annexed areas shall not require
substantially higher costs than other areas presently
served. Typical of the consideration would be a need for
additional sewer lift stations.
5. Annexations will be processed as outlined in Article 8 of
the Sanitation District Ordinance.
6. Annexation fees, based on use, will be due and payable prior
to any sewer connection in the annexed area.
7. Should the proponent of the annexation wish to receive
reimbursement for any sewer main extensions by those
connecting within the annexed area, then the propnent whall
file a reimbursement map with the City upon completion of
the extension.
Suggested Changes in Current Policy:
The above referenced statements are recommended to be changed
as follows:
2. Add. For problem sewer areas the governing body may annex
public areas to provide continuity.
3. Delete. "proponent shall be required to" and replace with,
"the City Engineer may. "
5. Add. "As amended"
6. Revise to read: Annexation fees, based on use, will be due
and payable upon application for annexation or lot splits
or use change or rezoning.
New Policy Proposals:
It is recommended that the Board adopt the following policies
in addition to the above:
8. Annexations become void if connection is not made within
12 months of application, and fees will be deemed forfeited.
Reapplication will require new fees.
9. Within the ACSD if sewer is available on the boundary of
I.D. No. 1, it be deemed available to the lots outside
of I.D. No. 1 as well as those inside.
10. Sewer Connection Fees and Tap Charge be paid upon connection.•
11. Sewer lines be brought to the far property line unless other-
wise approved by the Director of Public Works on perimeter
or problem lots where future extensions are not practicable.
12. Condominiums be considered the same as Single Family.
13. Change of use from Apartments to Condominiums to pay the
difference in Single Family and MultiFamily fees upon
application. Rates will likewise be adjusted.
14. Change of Use from one Commercial use to another to pay
the difference in fees per fixture unit. Rates will
likewise be adjusted.
15. User Rates be designated in the proportion outlined in the
Revenue Program for the EPA-RWQCB grant and allocated to
appropriate accounting funds respective to their intended
use.
Timing - Effective Date:
It is recommended that the effective date of the suggested fees
and policies contained in this report be effective July 1, 1986, the
start of the next fiscal year. This date will also be timely with
other proposed development fees and will provide adequate time fo
financial planning for development. Is
Fiscal Impact:
The fees suggested herein will provide adquate funding for the
proper management of present and future capital improvement needs.
Although the projects would be anticipated by 1990,fees are based on
buildout and the Board may want to utilize its bonding capabilities as
long as it is available. Operation and Maintenance costs generally
increase due to cost index rise and expansion of service levels as the
system buildsout. Rates are not anticipated to be increased in the
near future. The debt service portion of the rates is fixed for 40
years, but the capital improvement costs may rise due to deterioration
, depreciation and telemetering of lift stations and may require ad-
justment periodically in the same manner as does O & M.
12
ADD
Summary Table of Fee Recommendations:
Applicable Scenario Proposed Fees Total Cost for Old Fees Notes
(max. case) S. 1 Family
(1) Presently outside A,B,C,D $2,038 B,C,D Requires approval
ACSD, USL or inside ACSD of annexation by
but outside ID #1, not governing body
previously annexed
(2) Inside ACSD, but out- A,B,C,D $2,038 B,C,D Requires conn.
side ID #1, previously within 12 mo or
annexed but not connected void.
(3) Inside ACSD, outside A,B,C,D $2,038 B,C,D requires conn.
I.D. ##,but sewer avail. within 12 mos.
or violation
(4) Inside I.D. X61, Lot A*B*C,D (2 conn.) B,C,D *One lot to pay B
Split, Re-Zone, Use Chg. $2,866 Both to pay A
Treated like
annexation.
(5) Inside I.D. #1, Sewer A,B,C,D $2,038 C,D Grant 12 mo grace
Available, building not period w/o fine
connected within reqd 24
month period.
(6) Inside I.D. #1, vacant A,C,D $ 828** C,D not to include
lot, sewer available previous annex.
(7) Inside I.D. #1, vacant A,B,C,D $2,038 C,D
lot, sewer not avail.
Note:
** For the typical Single family zoned vacant lot in I.D. No. 1, which has
an existing sewer lateral, the total fees will equal $578.
13
1 '
Conclusion:
0
Adoption of the above fees and policies will provide a first-serve pay-as-you-go
me
system (althugh financng
tools will be
necessary) which will not need to bar future users from service inside
or outside the I.D. No. 1.
References:
Capacity Analysis and Evaluation of the ACSD Wastewater Treatment
and Collection System, John L. Wallace & Assoc. November 1985
Facilities Plan Wastewater Treatment Alternatives, Engineering
Science, November 1977
LAFCO Report
ACSD Revenue Program - CWG Project No. C-06-1324-110
Attachments:
Map of Boundaries
Bar Chart of Comparison of Single Family Residence Total
Development Fees
ACSD Consolidated Ordinances
Memorandum. Proposed Policies for Sewer Annexation,
Larry McPherson, November 1983
Excerpts from ACSD Revenue Program
0
14 � l
ad
DC71MV 37d1JVkV
Pi DC7//'VV-4
�A Q
�71*"YV 7
oe
CIN
usi-fl o `��` w
cv
q `3 oma x xIn
k Q �
L....
h rW _
W
+� +, Zc
S � m uuao � o
ul
� o
X co
IR-
O
13- OU
(10
l� M
? 3 � t4i �3
QE
N
W
g
C> � $ 32
i
0 0