Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 03/24/1986 DEPUTY CITY CLERK AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM MARCH 24, 1986 7:30 P.M. ** ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS, STAFF MEMBERS AND CITIZENS ARE REMINDED ** TO PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Invocation Roll Call City Council Comments ** Introduction of Jeffery Fredericks - New Employee - Police Department A. CONSENT CALENDAR • All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. Thee 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 roll call. 1. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of March 10, 1986 2. Approval of City Treasurer ' s Report - February 1-28, 1986 3. Approval of City Finance Report - February 1-28, 1986 4. Council Recognition of City Employees of the Month by Employee Recognition Program Committee - John Barlow and Vern Elliott 5. Proposed Resolution No. 25-86 - Appropriating $1,000 from Contingency Funds for Arson Information Reward 6. Claim by Richard C. Brodars (undetermined amount) - (RECOMMEND DENIAL) 7. Declare a 1953 International Van Pelt Fire Truck, License No. E73246, as Surplus Property • S. Approval of Final Lot Line Adjustment 16-85 - Rockstad/Cuesta Engineering - 91255 and 9145 Mountain View 9. Approval of Final Tract Map B-85 - Lilley/Pueblo Associates - 7460 Sombrilla Avenue B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS • 1. Public Hearing on General Plan Amend - Amendment 1C 86 and Zone Change 3-86 - Warren - 5809 Venado 2. Public Hearing on General Plan Amendment 1I-86 and Zone Change e g 9-86 Steil Roberts, Jagger City of Atasc ero _ Colorado Study Atea C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Selection/Recommendation for Architectural Services - City Police Facility (Cont'd from 1/27/86) D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Discussion on Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting Scheduled for March 27, 1986 E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (ACSD) (Council will recess and convene as the Atascadero County Sanitation District Board of Directors) 1. Ordinance Number 121 - Amendments to the Sewer Service Fees (SECOND READING) (Cont'd from 3/10/86) (The Board of Directors will adjourn and reconvene as City Council) F. COMMUNITY FORUM: G. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5. City Manager • , NOTE: Council adjourns to a Special Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting on March 27, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. ; and to April 14 at 6 :00 p.m. to Interview Planning Commission Board of Appeals Applicants • MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting, March 10, 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, Norris & Mayor Nelson Absent: None STAFF Mike Shelton, City Manager ; David Jorgensen, Admin. Svcs. Director ; Robert Jones, City Attorney/City Clerk; Bud McHale, Police Chief; Henry Engen, Commun. Developmt. Director ; Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director. COUNCIL COMMENT Councilwoman Mackey requested Council direct staff to look into meth- ods to cut density; Council consented to direct Community Development • Director to prepare a report and bring it before the Planning Commis- sion for review and recommendations before bringing it to Council for discussion of alternatives. Councilman Molina clarified that this constitutes a study and isn't intended to initiate down-zoning ac- tions. Mayor Nelson read the following proclamations: - To Sgt. Rosie Hebron for dedicated service since January 1982 with the Atascadero Police Department, who is retiring - To Carla Sanders in appreciation for her service on the City Planning Commission from May 185 - March 186 - - Proclaiming March 22-29, 1986 as "Zoo Week" in celebration of the 30th Anniversary of Atascadero' s Charles Paddock Zoo - Proclaiming March 16-22, 1986 as "Camp Fire Birthday Week" in observance of Camp Fire Youth, Inc. , celebrating its 76th Birthday on March 17th Police Chief Bud McHale announced that new employee Jeffery Fredericks wasn' t able to be ..present for introduction this evening, and hopefully he will be at the next Council meeting. A. CONSENT CALENDAR • 1. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of February 24, 1986 2. Finance Director 's Report - January 1-31, 1986 COUNCIL MINUTES • • 3/10/86 , PAGE TWO 3. Treasurer ' s Report - January 1-31, 1986 • 4. Approval of $5, 000 Funding for Alvord Field Proposed Improvements 5. Proposed Resolution 25-86 - Authorizing Public Works Director to Sign UMTA Section 18 Contracts 6. Claim by William K. Allen (Unspecified Amount) (RECOMMEND DENIAL) 7. Proposed Resolution 22-86 — Amending Resolution 79-85, Appointing Alternate to the Central Coast Cities Joint Powers Agreement Board of Directors 8. Proposed Resolution 23-86 - Establishing Maximum Settlement Au- thority to Risk Management Associates for Settlement of Workers' Compensation Claims 9. Consideration of General Plan Conformity Report for City Acquisi- tion of Real Property at 9185 Morro Road (Cont'd from 2/18/86) 10. Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 10-85, 1300 Garcia 11. Proclamation Acknowledging April 3D, 1986, as Tri-Counties Small Business Opportunities Day Councilman Molina requested Item #4 be removed for separate discus- sion; Councilman Handshy requested discussion of Item #8. Mayo• Nelson announced that there are corrections to- the Minutes of 3/24/86: Henry Engen, Commun. Development Director , clarified that the correc- tions need to be made to page 3, paragraph 1. The paragraph should read: "Richard Shannon, 4820 Obispo, requested and received clarifi- cation that additions or remodelings of accessory buildings in both the Amapoa and downtown areas are exempt from the fees; Henry Engen.,- -Commun. Dev. Director, noted that the ordinances. are patterned after , the $.50 tax ordinance, which provides for selective. exemptions and is applied only to the principal square footage on new construction" . Councilman Handshy, regarding Item #8, asked why the need for approval of established settlement amount; David Jorgensen, Admin. Svcs. Director, explained the need for this provision in the Worker ' s Com- pensation area (refer to staff report in agenda packet) . MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to approve Consent Calendar Items 1-11, deleting Item #4, seconded by Councilwoman Norris; passed unanimously by roll-call vote. MOTION: By Councilman Molina (refers to Item #A-4) that Council approve that the $5,000 come out of the remaining funds after the Paloma Creek Park' restrooms have been constructed, sec- onded by Councilwoman Norris; passed unanimously by roll-call vote. • COUNCIL MINUTES • • 3/10/86, PAGE THREE • B. NEW BUSINESS 1. Administration Building Renovation - Status Report Mike Shelton, City Manager , gave staff report; he noted that the City can request a delay of the receipt of grant funds for a per- iod of up to 3 years, which may be Council' s desire until the re- location of the library and Police facilities. Councilman Molina expressed his concern and desire for the City to expedite the structural improvements on the Admin. Bldg. as soon as possible; he suggested perhaps the study could include consid- eration of leasing the 3rd floor to the School District to assist with alleviating their overcrowding situation. Mayor Nelson directed Mr. Sensibaugh to expedite the structural review. Councilman Handshy expressed concern that we look to the future in studying the various departmental expansion needs and that the' building be utilized in the most efficient way. Mayor appointed Councilmembers Mackey and Handshy to sub-committee (see City Manager ' s staff report, pg. 4) to work with staff _ and report back to Council. • 2. A_ ma oa-Tecorida Drainage Plan - Status Report Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director , gave staff report. He indicated that City-wide drainage policy statements and design criteria will be commenced following the Amapoa-Tecorida project, hopefully by October, noting that the need is not, at this time, apparent to engage outside consultants for this purpose. Staff is looking to rectify the Azucena drainage problems this summer. Councilwoman Mackey inquired if the poles on Amapoa which are encroaching on the right-of-way will be removed; Mr . Sensibaugh noted that the City Attorney is looking into the question of who is responsible for the payment of removing some of the poles and will have a report forthcoming. In the meantime, the City is going 'to work the removals in with the drainage plans, so the de- velopment can go along as scheduled. 3. Discussion - Reappointment of Planning Commission Vacant Position Mike Shelton, City Manager, gave staff report. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to advertize the position which has been • vacated by Carla Sanders, which term will expire 8/1/88, with scheduled interviews to be held the first meeting in April. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously. COUNCIL MINUTES • 3/10/86 , PAGE FOUR MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to recess as Council and convene am d Atas. County Sanitation District Board of Directors, secone by Councilwoman Norris; passed unanimously. C. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (ACSD) 1. Proposed Ordinance No. 121 - Amendments to Sewer Service Fees (FIRST READING) (Cont!d from 2/24/86) Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director, gave staff report. Public Comment Art Jazwiecki inquired as to cost of hooking up in Improvement District #1 (referred to Pg. 9 of staff report dated 2/6/86, paragraph #2) , to which Paul Sensibaugh responded. Art Cunningham, 8495 E1 Dorado (Assessment Dist. #1) , said he' s been paying on sewer bond for 11 years, which comes due in 1990, and asked if payment of these fees will be required one time only, to which Paul Sensibaugh responded. Mr . Cunningham is connected to the system and has already paid much more than what will be required of new hookups; feels they should be paying on the col- lector system as he is. Mr . Shelton noted that newcomers will-be required to bear the cost of any sewer lateral in addition to their connection fee. • Mayor Nelson asked Mr. Sensibaugh t-, look into possibility of early pay-off of the original sewer bond. MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to read Ord. 121 by title only, seconded by Councilman Molina; passed unanimously. Mayor Nelson read Ord. 121 by title only. MOTION: By Councilman Handshy that this constitutes the first reading of Ord. 121, seconded by Councilman Molina; passed 4 :1, with Councilwoman Norris voicing NO. Second reading will be at the next meeting on March 24th. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to recess as ACSD Board of Directors and reconvene as Council, seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously. D. COMMUNITY FORUM No public comment. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION City Clerk - Robert Jones announced names of those individuals who have returned papers for candidacy at the June 3rd Election; COUNCIL MINUTES • • 3/10/86, PAGE FIVE • in addition, he announced that the Clerk' s Office has advertised the Appeals Board vacancies and has sent letters to those whose terms are due to expire 4/1/86 requesting they express their interest in reappointment. City Manager - Requested Council consent to hold an information seminar for candidates after filing period closes for Clerk and Treasurer (which periods were extended due to incumbents not filing) . MEETING ADJOURNED AT APPROX. 8:30 P.M. RECORDED BY: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk PREPARED BY: CINDY WILKINS, Dep. City Clerk ! 77", CITY OF ATASCADERO • TREASURER'S REPORT FEBRUARY 1, 1986 TO FEBRUARY 28, 1986 RECEIPTS TAXES Property Tax 35,907. 07 Cigarette Tax 3, 098.60 Motor Vehicle "In Lieu 55,999. 51 Sales Tax 114, 000.00 Franchise Tax 2,456.00 Occupancy Tax 714.39 Livestock-Head Day Tax 70.56 Development Impact Tax 6,431.00 LICENSES/PERMITS/FEES 34,783.90 GAS TAX 20,691. 89 REVENUE SHARING 48,428.00 STREET ASSESSMENT 10.50 RECREATION FEES 8,856.75 LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND 190 ,000.00 TRANSPORTATION SB-325 2,890 .45 • MISCELLANEOUS Accounts Receivable 5,700.00 Vouchers Payable 2,785.39 Miscellaneous 526.23 Rents/Concessions 712.09 Sale Maps/Publications/Reports 261.70 Special Police Services 57 .00 Fines & Penalties 933.88 Planning Permit Deposits (1,711.41) Bails/Bonds 315.00 Traffic Safety 5,158.84 Reimbursement from Sanitation District 19,087.16 Reimbursement to Expense 3, 665.00 P.O.S.T. 667.17 Traffic Safety Officer 2,569. 64 Narcotics' Officer Reimbursement 9,363.39 Weed Abatement 1,720.82 Use of City Crews/Equip. 33. 00 Storm Damage-Enver. Svcs. 221. 60 Performance Bonds 100. 00 Life Support Equip.-Contributions 7, 065. 24 TOTAL 583,570 .36 • � 1 t MARCH 18, 1986 • To All Council Members: The breakdown detail on all accounts is available for your viewing in the Finance Department. Dav d J r ensen Admini tr tive Services Director • 3 • 2 CITY OF ATASCADERO FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT FEBRUARY 1, 1986 TO FEBRUARY 28, 1986 EXPENSE LISTING PAYROLL DATED 02/05/86 CHECKS #35599-35698 68, 581.82 PAYROLL DATED 02/19/86 CHECKS #35699-35798 67,990.60 VOID CK#28095 CK. REG. DATED 02/07/86 (15.00) VOID CK#27271 CK. REG. DATED 02/21/86 (38.00) TOTAL 136, 519.42 11/ / • ME110' RAN D U M TO: City Council Members March 24, 1986 FROM: Mike Shelton, City Manager SUBJECT: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH NOMINATION - FEBRUARY RECOMMENDATION: Council RECOGNIZE John Barlow, Police Department, and Vern Elliott, Fire Department as "Employees of the Month" for February, 1986 , as nominated by the Employee Recognition Program Co-mmittee. BACKGROUND: John Barlow and Vern Elliott were nominated, evaluated and chosen according to the Employee Recognition Program Committee guidelines. • Both John and Vern were chosen for the award due to their coordinated effort and extensive investigation into wild- land arson fires, which occurred in Atascadero in 1983, aiid' recently resulted in the arrest and conviction of two suspects. (1 0 At 1850 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY P.O.Box 151 +� San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 co y "s _ 805-543-4244 'og9l Qty'` Cooperative Fire Protection fNT OE E March 5, 1986 s ' �.. EIVED K,R Chief Mike Hicks :`: ,loc—R• Atascadero Fire Department 6005 Lewis Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Mike: Congratulations on the conviction and sentencing of the two persons responsible for the rash of wildland arson fires which occured in Atascadero last summer. I am pleased with the sentence of 8 and 9 years for Pechon and Passe. This sentence serves as a message that has been heard throughout the County. I feel this sentence will serve as a deterrent to any "would be" arsonist, and to my recollection, is the stiffest arson sentence handed down in SLO County. Hopefully, this sentencing signifies the end of a long trail of wildland arson fires which has plagued both AFD and CDF during the last three fire seasons. It is alarming to look at the cumulative effect of 140 fires with the attendant threat to life and property of local residents and the damage to resource values. I feel the success of both the joint fire suppression operation and investigation is a direct result of outstanding cooperation between all personnel of both of our de- partments. From this success, Vern Elliott deserves a pat on the back for his cooperation and assistance to both APD and our investigators. I realize the arson activity placed a seemingly unbearable burden on Vern as he is a one man prevention bureau. In spite of this, he was always willing to provide assistance at any hour of the day or night. This assistance included performing complete fire scene investigations for us in the absence of CDF personnel. He has also assisted us in the investigation of structural fires in the north county. Vern came to us once again in our hour of need during the recent Nipomo homicide-arson investigation, whereby he offered his services in pro- viding investigation coverage countywide. Please convey my sincere appreciation to Vern as he has not only been an invaluable asset in fire/arson investigation, but as a true friend of CDF. Sincerer anklinF. Frank Ranger-in-C�arge SLO County Fire Chief id n i F�i CA X8 (50 S�1 OOA�ES,�E O F�9 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT y�Pr�.,\ _Fti�y9 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY J f IV P.O.Box 151 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 �. 805-543-4244 .o9�j Qty Cooperative Fire Protection ifjENT UE �p March 5, 1986 � -:�,� o c• i Chief Richard H. McHale ATASNDERO POLICE Opt. Atascadero Police Department P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Chief McHale: I want to congratulate you on the successful joint investigation conducted by the Atascadero Police and Fire Departments. The arrest, conviction, and sentencing of Stephen Pechon and James Passe is a significant step in curbing the ever increasing arson problem in San Luis Obispo County. I would like to thank you for the assistance provided by investigator John Barlow. Through John's investigative expertise and professionalism, he was able to coordinate an effective working relationship between CDF, APD, and AFD during this investigation. John coordinated this investigation while being committed to a second signifi- cant multi-agency investigation which also required a tremendous committment on his behalf. In spite of this added pressure, John provided the leadership which, I feel, resulted in the arrests and convictions in this case. We are looking forward to working once again with John during the forth coming fire season. Sincerely,• % �ranklin F. Ffank Ranger-in-Charge SLO County Fire Chief jd _/�✓�37'/(�R'Ta2 faHN BRRLoL.I C / r w ou l.0 L/✓. ct 7� /tel /7/r. �7TAn//_ /�/ WN Gl1A'rN t Y" 0.t1 9 T- 13 V c_7+-Y W b-LCA i7oNc=. yvw iL C x Cc=LLr7v, tvun K (=e='4 cTl i7aren gQLy /— 6-r" Lzut q%.- C_C .-CC Pr?LS �jc.L "I special comments why Aemployee is being recommended 9 employee of the month. Outline special contributions made during the past month. RLa I `' � � RtzT�►�� J ���N s ��-A ion �N o � N _ < DRCD� f,�cLDc�aND n oN Ftb0lcg OCCU(ZR ' 1W 0-145CA05Zb iti Iq$3 1�$y ic�r.io 1�s� C �MsC.� �'��tt,t�W S P NT H����nRUM of Wm2S �� L►�tLEC�Vi��yfNC� �U�l�ESS'F� at.!(� SUsPFCT J fJNt� Cf��AiF.1RT{N .- -f1J� CR1Mi N AL 1 IrrTt ATli�l� OF'F`cm- iRL 0UJ,5 FINE WO(7K R CULT i N T1IF AR14727 ARD , NVtcnot,J ty TWE Two Pr(lfn , susPP T5 IN VC A( 3us goT iq �us��� t�JErs "�tiT�tJC�� Tc) arm P(Z 1s�0 n►.► 149-S6- IN) (20OPME(OW W 170 :Ur-- F-IRE LPArYrMcf-fT aFL( f RARLOW J 10-t ESMG-ATES) TGIF AqsatJ g(j N(Nc, ()F- A Wojr (jjwicH oca)(zfzEp (ti -Cri-N ER ( �S -IL15r�1 r"\1= .-m[00 t rbTHCRIME RE Jcrr�) tN Tor ARREJ! IJND Ct'ciMNAL COPlELRi^., A "N3 -rflC7 SJ3Fl:-rT Oft-ICER 8AfZU3W'5- c,;JR TeN E vrbCf HIS Q�C UJ10VK AND r Oms U T 10 TO TH 1S C-XTeP St\fE {tNVEST(G-tom�1J. IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR REVIEW I concur/do not concur that the above named employee should be considered as Employee of the Month. EMPLOYEE'S SUPE PISOR SIGNATURE DATE DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: I concur/do not concur that the above named employee should be considered as Employee of the Month. DEPARTMENT HEAD SIGNATURE DATE #1 EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH NOMINATION I am recommending the following employee for employee of the month for March (Month) EMPLOYEE: Vern Elliott and John Barlow EMPLOYEE'S JOB TITLE: Fire Captain Vern Elliott, Detective John Barlow DEPARTMENT: Fire and Police NOMINATED BY: Mike Hicks and Bud McHale DEPARTMENT: Fire and Police start date 6-9-80 to 6-30- LENGTH OF CITY EMPLOYMENT (DATES) : Elliott - 2-2-81 Barlow - 6-22-83 to present The above named employee should be considered for Employee of the Month for the City of Atascadero for the reasons listed below: It is our recommendation that Fire Captain Vern Elliott and Detective John Barlow be considered as joint employees of the month for their outstanding efforts in the recent arson convictions for the City of Atascadero, with one defendant receiving eight years and the other receiving nine years. The convictions were the result of three years of joint investigations for crimes that were directly- against the citizens of Atascadero. Both employees put in hundreds of hours in this successful invest- igation, many of which were uncompensated. As any law enforcement agency will tell you, the crime of arson is one of the most difficult crimes to get a conviction on. Mike Hicks , Fire Chief Richard McHale, Police Chief M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton FROM: David G. Jorgensen SUBJECT: Appropriation of Ar on Reward - Proposed Resolution 25-86 DATE: March 17, 1986 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council appropriate $1,000 from Council Contingency Funds to be used to pay the reward that led to the successful prosecution of the individuals involved in the wildland arson fires. DISCUSSION • During the period of high fire danger , and when arson fires were plaguing Atascadero, the City Council verbally suggested a $1,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of those indivi- duals responsible for the fires. This $1,000 would become part of a total $3,000 reward. On January 29, 1986, the two individuals charged with the arsons were convicted and sentenced to prison terms. There were eight individuals responsible for the information leading to these convictions and who are eligible for the reward. FISCAL IMPACT Reduce Council contingency funds by $1, 000 , leaving $22,556 still available. DGJ/cw i M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM: Mike Shelton THROUGH: David Jorgensen SUBJECT: Claim of Richard C. Brodars DATE: March 18, 1986 RECOMMENDATION City Council deny the above Claim for Indemnification filed by above-named Claimant' s attorney on January 9, 1986. BACKGROUND Claimant' s vehicle struck Alan Julian, a minor , who ran a stop • sign at City intersection alleging stop sign was covered by a tree branch. City' s adjustors, Carl Warren & Co. , have reviewed th-is claim and recommend rejection at this time. DGJ/cw • t� V/Z""' 4- 12 • M E_M_O R A_N D U M TO: City Council THROUGH: Michael Shelton, City Manager < , FROM: Mike Hicks, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Surplus fire equipment - 1953 Van Pelt Fire Truck, License Number E73246 DATE: March 19, 1986 Recommendation The fire department is requesting Council to authorize declaring a 1953 International Van Pelt fire truck as surplus property. Background The engine was replaced during the fiscal year 1984-85. The fire department • proposes the method of disposal be that of advertising in newspapers and trade journals for sealed bids. The bid would be awarded to the highest bidder, with the right to refuse all bids if we feel they are not acceptable. I estimate the process to take 60 days. ij MIKE HICKS MH:pg �r F L2z1Z • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council March 24, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 16-85 LOCATION: 9125 and 9145 Mountain View APPLICANT: Jim Rockstad On January 27, 1986, the City Council approved Lot Line Adjust- ment 16-85, subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The required con- ditions have been complied with and the final map is recommended for approval. HE:ps cc: Jim Rockstad • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council March 24, 1986' VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager �(,( FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director ,µ SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Tract Map 8-85 LOCATION: 7460 Sombrilla Avenue APPLICANT: Bob Lilley (Pueblo Associates) On April 15, 1985, the City Council approved Tract Map 8-85, 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: Bob Lilley i M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council March 24, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager �I . . FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director .W, SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 1C-86 and Zone Change 3-86 (5800 Venado: Warren) RECOMMENDATION: Concur with the Planning Commission' s recommendation to deny the pro- posed application based on the findings contained in the attached staff report. BACKGROUND: On March 3, 1986, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing concerning the above-referenced request for redesignation to the gen- eral plan and zoning ordinance as referenced in the attached staff report. On a 6:0 vote, the Commission recommended denial of the general plan and zoning changes. There was considerable public testimony given which is reflected in the attached minutes excerpt. HE:ps ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report - March 3 , 1986 Minutes Excerpt - Planning Commission - March 3, 1986 cc: Norvell and Stella Warren 2 General Plan AmendmenP 3-86 Change 1C-86/Zone Arren)/ g 2. Applicants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .Norvell and Stella Warren 3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. 27 acres 4. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Venado - a residential street with a 50 foot wide right-of-way Aguila - a residential street with a 40 foot wide right-of-way 5. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Y (Residential Single Family - 1 acre minimum with sewer, 1 1/2 acre minimum without sewer 6. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Single family residential 7. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RSF, low density single family South: RSF, high density single family East: RSF, low density single family West: RSF, low density single family 8. General Plan Designation. . . . .Low Density Single Family Res. 9. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sloping to Venado 10. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. ANALYSIS: In reviewing the requested general plan amendment, several factors and existing policies in the general plan come into the process. The proposal is also a zone change request, so specified required findings will also have to be reviewed pursuant to the existing zoning ordinance. The general plan contains several policies that deal with the ex- pansion of multiple family areas. The land use element policies note that low density multifamily areas do not have to be adjacent to single family residential; the density of the community shall decrease as development spreads out from the center of the commu- nity, and that minimum lot sizes for new lots shall be 1/2 acre. The proposed amendment meets these policies. The general plan land use element also contains a policy that new designations shall be evaluated in light of topography, traffic circulation, drainage, fire protection, and general level of use intensity at that location. s 2 r. General Plan Amendment 1C-86/Zone Change 3-86Jarren) The site's topography is basically level, so development at a higher density should not be a problem. Traffic circulation and drainage appear to be of limited impact. The general intensity of use in the area poses the biggest ques- tion. The proposed designation would be a "spot designation" , an island of low density multifamily in the midst of single family residential. The impact of the change will also potentially bring further requests to change existing single family residential sites to multifamily residential in the area (one request to ex- pand the area was made at the time of preliminary review). The site is contained within the sewer district but sewer services have not been extended down Venado to this site, and ultimate dev- elopment will need sewer services. The City Engineer has for- warded to the staff a memo noting a policy of "first come, first serve" based on individual requests (Exhibit F) . The general plan also contains reference to maximum population desirable for the City at full development. Overall density pro- jections are dfficult at best and with changing demographic re- flecting smaller household sizes and prior changes, it would be difficult to determine the existing or the impact of the proposed change in the overall density. Overall, the proposal has some merit. This would be based on meeting several sets of criteria layed out in the General Plan. But several of the most important criteria have not been met. Without sewer, and with the development being a spot designation, it would appear that the proposal does not meet criteria estab- lished by the general plan for evaluating a proposed change. The applicant has pointed out that the site was established as a multifamily area prior to this date. Some confusion exists in this due to the two different designations presented on the pre- vious County zoning maps. In reviewing the proposal as to actions taken establishing the present single family designations, due notice was given as required for both the general plan and the zone change. With regard to the question 'of redesignation of _ the site or any other sites, the courts have determined that redesig- nation is legal and is not a taking if reasonable value is still left in the use of the property. In establishing a specific zoning designation for a specific site, the same criteria would be used as for the general plan with more specific attention to the site' s conformity to the general plan and the site' s specific characteristics. Again, the site ' s lack of sewer, surrounding designations of single family, and potential for growth inducement would be major obstacles to this redesignation. The applicant is requesting that they be granted a lesser density than could be allowed in the general plan. The RMF/4 designation would reduce the maximum number of units but would not change the overall observations, and analysis of the redesignation. 3 . General Plan Amendment 1C-86/Zone Change 3-86 (Warren) D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of General Plan Amendment 1C-86 and Zone Change 3-86 based on the findings contained in Exhibit G. JM:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Existing General Plan Map Exhibit B - Existing Zoning Map Exhibit C - County Zoning Map Exhibit D - County Zoning Map Exhibit E - Sewer Map Exhibit F - City Engineer ' s Memo Exhibit G - Findings for Denial 4 ii %ii i■ Q■■Nw ■�.N...■■■ \ I{ — _1 .■w■■■■■■■■......■.■■NN'.■■ IMNM■1 ■■.--�� ,t■■N■■■N■■=-T.rWr.'_ — am. �i�.■■.1 N■ � ■N■■N■ •■ NAY■■■■■. ^+....,•,y " � 7 ■ r ATA CA-"nT!RO GETITEIR Y r -t- X11 •11 ' '� I i ! • A PLAN L s AND :S ' gT•77-236 IL•61 VJK i Civ j 12-8I ,DK •s 9 3 ; ,AT 8L 12 5.25-8L �C 4y 1 I .. s•jt _ +' � a �pgC•a'•t• a r•.]]./ ., CR RMF/10 c.�,N f,,,, 3• I RE':I510N SPN "•.el. �,,.-� .;fti°." ,, vu s, RMF/16 30" to w•Ic .•»... •Y "i ,..::+ . - w �fi �q .s•:�rr`4 a° f ti+Y'! •• q< a�,.k:'�` '.� .t '>A ., �•:•� e Ap i° ,�[, .K. If 4 (�f0 i�� ♦ ti o � �]l. • Q '��°jOr� '"'7+�� CR. 6 � -'J.t4 ;\rsR] ,a>s•° �. In 14 .� • w 4t hie.,�, ..�:5 .4 tv o +�o ✓\\. - T'ra• 5� " >A ;•.1`•J '; •.,`� �•S a s n. ,• a i• , tpy .y{7t ``.sws s •'L'. ` Il f' y �)ro o z0 _. f+1� ;� 3 '•0 5t}5 .11 i m za a �� N a :.rid n4 3` •;Tf;> It's.Ir s tp S� 'S2'10 ry .11 o is S. a•°6 ._f- s2.o 11 7. Ls /�, a >� [�] fir•� • _-!'- iFF-� - 5H5' s ice' �wi` W, / ie rs 4 ei l e O �f Q f L— IT)�' /Fltty i• .. ,^<` 2c .. b5 jos, `.�. �sdti► •� . ti`++ 11 y 6�zo �a�' >,-^>ts. + ••5 © a�•��.r � 4\•s�, �t ��t� bo5�•� ./ss ,. ,,,,+tit t+ h t0 t1 t• W>� N5 • c 5.-49 i••<ag `` `t° •}`tie�t•. nM1 - ♦T LSF ti,•.. a� vc 5, �.a ` • > 5ti •. •,tie �� t ». +a • •,�.6 S •'•�- �o 4°•5 a'+ AG' ''� hr4 nz u]... t]t' > ,] +�g ''+.+ .• 4 a4h°i Its 12 sans'.. A Il.A m Y T o• Y s ] s .`, Ci's ^c° LSF--y 13 15 6 C. ';,' •O -f1 B` cit• ^ •>oo -�}� .. gg � � y s - a• a fi• ?^'aV� V • • Ott�r.}'••�`�°�IS g -66. ]• ]c ]y]t '•s tom. '[s 'V .�.,o ,w/ � . _ 4 CC>5�66 i0 4"Y' b°2]•-^.,t 7[`[lr N� ]] ]o [ [I. his i.t •1 �p •1 to . IS •ot./.1` I�y�If A IO Se, 67 `nn ]:Q9 a' r,H ]•o .i]o st a >� 1 :l \ wro D 9 J ''`Ip0 '`'•SI•n5 ' �Nt1 .SN. ^•1 1� 1 _;•, a 11•f .s�4Y, as r 10 - Ef a - .. 14 s f b' .ta • ��. - 4� y9�] �� we•I{ Z s •'°ts' J �.• S � ..,.. w,1 `�• 't "`t •t +• °'•-' '° �.r LSF 34 15v2 0� Y>• .`.F Y�IS + _o'r+ • °" y • v s Ir L(FH. V a s• _ y•' '.� ;• 4 6A •��°r, C ' S. s;' , • >ka ;�;� ''ss .. y.�> 7•+� Vyoi� — - a n a+ ai o �•1 r'1+ ,••U •is • .� ro 'ice >>s /O /// S L(I / L Se �� u4n1 4 •',_•A _ E7)o ++ >,Jcr.`n at:< " '3 ,." nO5 . `` _>]s FE �S� . 6 0; A�,h� , ,N�° !31.0 .+• >1 tS 1 •> ••i•° � : ay =z>S • � 7(� +] u u59 eo ' s `Y i A-t` ''`v=>o •rn .. y^,1 /fa •'>> ]" •> [, >.e'b ;o us • 61oy u' , A r,•• ` V ny6 • D�t-'b 1"I�.;,i•1. + '2 �y`S T .CG a>,, vj,t• t 47�.�' v0or's •°�• �ptRJ °~ e�,\d ♦ s •• s t�° 'r°s ��ay - - ' �s{'��tt�' �°•�' a�,C �j�1ac�0 �-' 11�Q t � �"A ,;��r' `Jrr J � '�e�'P RX �ts> $. nAn�05 ='s a✓• o Q�T�crt CITY OF ATASCADERO 2 GEmCflf L FLAN AMM LIT GY'IC YL Planning Department �N1 g De p .�. 7fUE DIAM&E(MAF 3 �6 .]Y( .,LII;I C•i( .u.s 1.].n. � X1.1- .. ..:_,. Ys',. _. ..•.t.-]a� 1 .. .. ..._-. .. ... EYISn A)6 NN 1 NG MAP cd o• �P IV ,�� v •1 10 rim •.C� { ^\ '� / � > � N IV �F10 6s rn N cl, 40 _-- - CIV —' ca — l \ N \ L \ N ^ Ca N /^(\J Q:) M M \ ` W) ••. S• N d M N a M — - OD N - N t INa) N N N LO O N M tb ,r m k4v �r d — �a \ N 4� a) � \T t I w t` �C H I$IT- C - Q ca GDUCULTLAN AMCVQMDJT O 1C& � - 7ME CMIC:VM") ZC-3 -E)(, N � os � cv M ' • r J /O 6' X s Cb s F s s s B s s n O s a M to C4 CNI IR co cli 103 NP a d U '• N N s� NCD tD to to N`� _ M N p) ci N U N N O O To d' NCL Lb ~ N M N OD t0 N ti N M ti LO O ` �` r• Q a cpco ` U �m C-iENUML YLAlq' AMOMMEVf�[-ILL, o ZOME LR)'Y� MW Z('•3-[�6 `•�: N "� 1 � � �SP� V�)4� • LUI�fZL�N O Q �-1 Zai)I �Z m K? �' r � E. � I 1} -' �'--�-�f'_ i .F � t a�� _ F �-•'= t �.t y+ is°_ '\t p ;1.7 G ` a:a IL. t \ �/ y`7 '.r = � • � � y t .•tel.'. j ya- �/?- - � II_= � r+�f >ir� �� t��i• 'i Illif� / nC�t,f •' ';. r a JL � _ s.r� yr��r ,��tn/ �t ^� �' zi'•. / ^�n r�j� L _L" a Y' '•d�//. ii �'t s i�7,It.'- r�R t�:i���\f.•��'4V o LC- _• / , (1 - , _ �/� z� . t, i :yl,; � x sem'. � __ ,�; �. ';' . `e=��/ _,` e � lis: I �� sY.``� �c �j •\� ;s .�" —�� ;�y�✓�� �\�`�� 9 � �� �.. ,ct" -f o ���o�i.� /^-'' s � ��• •/ 1 �IL •• v� 'r✓ f.�.�f ..-/ a:t1 e t aF 1 .?� SCUD UDV U3 — 5/=- �' `� �a'- si k-•rY � l.: V[O � ^\r x I y'� I .Fj f.;ite�11//�,z�3 ++��`—"-b'_°Q�'` �' I• « `x C / - •-a-.•y.• _ `�."�° A `�� G�i=tir it ! p•�.-"- .Y"C. T \ --' /.• r.� +/ r r �1�.f � «�F r y b _ �•�e •�'T>".�/YrI �'/1 - �� ♦ i� VOINAt"'Ov ,"l;'�-.1�i." :.`i -{�-U\• =l"x : �::� / .� r' ` •. cf �.\ `,//s s�/ C �v• � s x •'u�� �+r`I'('i r.',.1'.` ` '"'r�, �s _ iE-=t� / �,,�i..�c�` �, %' ` - ' 11 � •.�� = tC�.'r7.��".c = " z ail � u - , tit X4PqQl y;: i is�- y r �' ���� � /-�. 1� ~ _ar/,'�y, n •_X��. r..i`_ GW A' •�.�1^ -T• �a //�[�'J,�/��/�/` �.-. (ems o° �_ /0� ��•�_ _ _ ���/i/ •� '� ,./ a .d` cr ag �/� 1 �,`� /r f a.. ` •Io /�� -�.Z :Y��. �(o^��'tY" °t \_ s �'* _ate- /. $ �_r � �`t-\ .s9� -, ,k`!•ti "7 `^ •y � �e a _- �y,l- to � , o r s _�,n��,�� . .,fi`�� 3= ,, -LT�"\ ;� xl< VA - 7 x _�__. � -���✓ 7• +�' Y• n:/3: fIt�•..� �rtC�( _ \ Fri \. F .moi'1 / / �/ i -�. . s i / / / i/• •• � �/ �' � �� \ c �`, � •% GLJML R,J11J A1UO1"EUrGP-ICBG, : VL.+ L.X1.i1J V UA'VI.0 $ -��4 -:.ti -ir - . s � s �vf�3"'.'f"le,} '-G4 t� �y �Si ' :~ y,l}�. ♦ �. :._ }3�f � t, 4� .; tlt°4 -.i.+.,yf's'�t�y .'M•'>�C?;+s ��}i.2 55�b..ti--`t� '.: �IrVVV tC�YVYI 1 1 ', ,. `?• is: s...-'"�- ,.x3 Jli``i. .`�.YF .. ?.....-, x••�'`f,*.�y . - :<-7p kr.'.•`s i,•1 3^f.7C-,• t w�F. R.i+,N. -.•.�:✓�t+3::?�. i+li4F�+. jl:., r'l r ,�i• �;^'a awa�r�''>':�: � M E M O R A N D U M TO: Henry Engen, Director of Community Development FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Sewer Study & Fees DATE: February 25, 1986 Just a note to address the recent sewer study with respect to General Plan changes. While the study doesn't pick and choose specific locations it is understood that these changes will .increase the number of sewer lines that will be surcharged, so will improvements inside the I.D. No. 1 that evolve due to normal buildout. No one knows exactly where growth will hit next except that the south side, of course, is now showing much activity. Our policy will be first-come, first-serve, but pay your way as you go to provide for line and plant adequacy. The sewer fees now being proposed cover the buildout of I.D. No. 1 as per the Wallace Study and the buildout of the ACSD (or USL) . The fees do not address areas outside the USL and if such line is extended different fees or mitigation may be necessary to provide adequate service. We can, however, address those cases seperately and individually by use of the new computer program provided with the study. If you have any questions, please notify me. a/II E2LE F ZGVt_c4m r ZG• 3•EL t� Ub1JI5QD • G(XTV Wk) C,M LAIIVEEV9 AWW n t General Plan Amendmot 1C-86/Zone Change 3-86 tarren) EXHIBIT G- - General Plan Amendment 1C-86/Zone Change 3-86 Findings for Denial March 3, 1986 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The proposed general plan land use map revision would not be con- sistent with existing policies contained in the general plan land use element due to the proposed project' s inconsistency with the general level of land use intensity on adjoining the site. 2. The proposed land use designation would be a spot designation and would be inconsistent with existing land use patterns in the area. 3. The site is not within the sewer improvement district and sewer services are not yet available to the site. 5 f Minutes- - Atascadero Planning Commission — March 3 , 1986 a a. Chairman LaPrade concurred with Commissioners Bond a Mic 'elssen. In revi ing the General Plan concerning retail commercia Com- missioner Hatchell referenced a section of the Plan egarding commercial tail areas which still remain to be dev oped and stated that this does not seem to hold true now a it did when th"e section was ritten. Further discussion sued. The motion was defeate ith a roll call vo , as follows: AYES: Commissioner Kennedy NOES: Commissioners Hatchell M' hielssen, Nolan, Bond, and Chairman LaPrade. MOTION: Made by Commissioner atchel and seconded by Commis- sioner Nolan to re mmend appr val of General Plan Amend- ment 1A-86 and Z e Change 1-86. The motion carried with a roll call vo , as follows: AYES: Com ssioners Hatchell, Nolan, ond, Michielssen, a Chairman LaPrade NOES- Commissioner Kennedy Staff wil ring back proposed language for approval. Mr . E en pointed out that the Commission could, at the next en- era plan amendment cycle, initiate an amendment which would c - s ' er a larger overall study area for this north El Camino Rea orridor. 4. General Plan Amendment 1C-86 and Zone Change 3-86: Request submitted by Norvell and Stella Warren to revise the general plan from Low Density Single Family to Low Density Multiple Famly and related zone change from RSF-Z to RMF/10. (Applicant is requesting RMF/4) . Subject property is located at 5800 Venado, also known as Lot 15 of Block LB. Mr. Moses presented the staff report and noted that this request is based on the fact that the County had previously zoned this property multi-family residential. He provided a background on the history of the property and noted staff' s recommendation for denial of the request. Ron Von Feldon, attorney representing the applicant, stated that several neighbors of adjoining property between the site and Santa Lucia appear to be in favor of the request and may join on their own to submit an application to change the general plan for their properties. He felt that in view of the recommendation, he re- quested that the matter be continued to the next cycle. He stated 4 ell r. Minutes - Atascadero Planning Commission March 3, 1986 that when the applicant purchased said property, he was advised that the zoning was RMF/16. Mr. Von Feldon further explained the* zoning designations in the area in relation to this site and noted that if the two adjoining property owners were to also apply for the same zoning designation, it would, in effect, offer a transi- tional type of zoning which would all fit together. Lowell Lampman, 5900 Venado, stated he and his family have lived at this adress for 19 years and have thoroughly enjoyed the resi- dential character of the neighborhood. He talked about this area' s development of high-density dwellings and his opposition to that but stated he is favoring more low density multi-family dev- elopment. Mr. Lampman further stated he would like to develop his property into a duplex and is in the process of making an applica- tion for the necessary change in designation. Bob Berg, 5764 Venado, talked about his opposition to this request and felt that if this application is approved, it will destroy the nature of the single family residential area. Dwight MacCurdy, 5655 Venado, stated he has lived there for 25 years and would hope the Commission give consideration to the fact that this area is single family residential. Frank Platz, 5305 Venado, stated this area is developed with nice homes and large lots and there is a problem with the traffic at Santa Lucia and Venado. He felt there is plenty of multi-family areas already in town to be developed. Dennis Clifford, 5670 Venado, felt that if this change in density is inevitable, that he would like to be given the opportunity to change with it as well. Arloda Berg, 5764 Venado, believed that in 1980 , the City rezoned this property from high density to low density and that is where this designation should remain. She further stated that all of the sites on this street are single family Betty Bennett, 5630 Aguila, stated that this area is all single family residential and asked for clarification on what size area is proposed for the redesignation. She .stated she is in favor of denial of the project due to the area's character. Jane Clifford, 5670 Venado, spoke about the applicants purchasing the property with the feeling that it was a designation for multi- family as opposed to single family and felt that if a change in density is going to be made, that it should be kept consistent. John McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista, stated his opposition to the re- quest noting there is multi-family property which already exists in Atascadero and pointed out the vast amount of building of mul- ti-family dwellings which has taken place. He pointed out con- cerns for adequate traffic flow, police and fire safety. 5 Minutes - Atascadero Planning Commission - March 3, 1986 Commissioners Bond and Kennedy both concurred that the area should not be rezoned to the single family nature because of the concerns expressed in the public testimony. Chairman LaPrade noted that it has been the Commission's policy to grant requested continuances. Commissioner Hatchell stated he would not consider a continuance at this time as he felt that even with the continuance, the ap- plication has to change any way. Mr. Engen added that the differ- ence with this request is that a continuance is being asked to expand the study area. Even with the two lots that are suggested, it would provide some linkage to Santa Lucia, but would be a "finger" of land penetrating into the neighborhood and- would trig- ger some reasonable concerns on the part of the neighborhood. Commissioner Michielssen stated that there may already be too much RMF/16 zoning and the character of the town should studied in this light. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond, seconded by Commissioner Kennedy and carried unanimously with a roll call vote to deny General Plan Amendment 1C-86 and Zone Change 3-86. hairman LaPrade called a recess at 8 :55 p.m. Meeting 775' d a 9: 08 p.m. 5. Gen al Plan Amendment 1F-86 and Zone Change 6-86: Reque submitted by Jaime Lopez-Balbontin to re se the gen- eral pl from Suburban Residential to Moderat Density Sin- gle Famil and related zone change from RS t RSF-Y. Subject property is ocated at 4155 Carrizo Road, so known as Lot 4 of Block 49. Mr. Moses presented the staff report and ted that this request is based on the existing and use patter s (lot size) and a de- sire to construct a new res 'dential u ' t on the property. He pointed out staff' s recommen tion r denial of the request due to overall neighborhood charact d general plan policies. Jaime Lopez-Balbontin, applic t, s ke in support of the request and explained the history a ciated ' th this property. Mr . Engen read a letter 'n opposition to a proposal from a res- ident at 4200 Carr ' o Road who would unable to attend the meeting. Mac McGuinnes, 4 5 Carrizo, sated he would not a against the proposed cha a if the applicant would go ahead wit his plans to clean up his other property. Commissi her Kennedy stated she has viewed the property a felt the c nge would improve the property. She did not think th was an u easonable request. Commissioner Bond concurred with Com s- s ' her Kennedy' s statements but expressed concern over the way t of would be split. 6 ;Vs V77'"7 , _ 7 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council March 18, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: General Plan 1I-86 and Zone Change 9-86 (Colorado Study Area) RECOMMENDATION: Concur with Planning Commission' s recommendation to deny the above- referenced applications based on the findings contained in Exhibit G of the attached staff report. BACKGROUND: On March 3, 1986, the Planning Commission conducted a " public hearing on the requested redesignations to the general plan and zoning ordi- nance as referenced in the attached staff report. On a 5:1 vote, the Commission recommended denial of the general plan amendment and zone • change. There was considerable public testimony given as reflected in the attached minutes excerpt. HE:ps ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report - March 3, 1986 Minutes Excerpt - Planning Commission - March 3, 1986 cc: Mr. and Mrs. David Roberts Mr. and Mrs . Neil Steil Sandra Jagger • General Plan Amendment GP 1I-86/Zone Change 9-86 4. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban, 2 1/2 to 10 acre minimum lot size) 5. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Partially developed single fam- ily residential area 6. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RS South: RS (FH) East: RS West: County Ag. Preserve 7. General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Single Family 8. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • .Gently south from San Rafael with steeper slopes falling away to Atascadero and San Diego 9. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. ANALYSIS: The applicants have submitted the proposed application in an ef- fort to bring the general plan land use map into conformance with the existing land use pattern in the area (lot size) . This would also allow for the splitting of properties they own. A review of the area shows that the average lot size in the study area is 1.48 acres. A review of the area also notes that a potential of three to four new lots could be created as a result of the change in designation. (If sewer becomes available, this could increase to approximately 15 new lots. ) The existing general plan land use map (Exhibit A) shows that ex- isting adjoining designations are Suburban Single Family with the exception of the County area to the southwest that is designated agricultural and is currently under a Williamson Act Agricultural Preserve contract. One area of moderate density single family is located to the northeast of the study area. The area is outside the present Urban Services Line. It is not expected that sewer services will be extended to the area. Soils in the area are considered to be severe for the establishment of septic systems. Overall topography in the area varies with a somewhat level area in the northeast dropping off steeply to Atas- cadero Road and dropping off about two-thirds of the way from San Rafael Road to a low area along San Diego Road with adjoining flood hazard areas. The general plan lists several policies that bear on the proposed revision. Policy No. 3 (page 57) notes that all "properties out- side the Urban Services Line shall be evaluated for lot sizes based on Suburban Residential range (2 1/2 to 10 acres) until sew- ers are available" . As noted earlier , the area is outside the Urban Services Line. The Planning Commission will be reviewing revisions to the Urban Services Line under General Plan Amendment 2 General P A • - - Plan Amendment GP 1I-86/Zone 86/Zone Change 9 86 GP 1L-86, but it is not envisioned by staff that this area will be included. The City Engineer has submitted a memo setting forth a policy on the extension of sewer services (Exhibit E) . The general plan also contains policies noting the desirability of "elbow room" (Policy No. 4, page 58) ; the increasing of lot sizes as one goes out from the center of the community (Policy No. 5, page 62) ; and that attention be paid to the aesthetics of lot splits (Policy No. 11, page 63) . In looking at this area, it ranges from 12, 000 to 15, 000 feet from the center of the communi- ty. This would place the area near the outer reaches of the com- munity (Exhibit F) . Indeed, Atascadero Road is on the existing City boundary in this area. In relationship to the other two pol- icies, the potential for splits on existing lots would require the use of flag lots as has already been done in the area (Exhibit C) . This has created a pattern of continuous driveways and access problems. The City has reviewed and approved several lot splits to the south of this area in accordance with the zoning ordinance. These lots were determined to have minimum lot sizes of 4.0 acres. Using the "best" possible set of standards applied to this area, a minimum lot size would be 3. 1 acres: Distance from center of community (12, 000-14,0001 ) .40 Septic suitability (severe) 1. 50 Average slope (0 - 10%) .50 Access (City-accepted) .40 Neighborhood character (1.5 average lot size x .2) .30 3.10 acres This would be well above the requested minimum lot size of 1 1/2 acres. In viewing the proposed revision, the City would be extending a higher density development potential into the lowest density des- ignation area allowed. An intervening designation of low density single family would set the designation of a minimum lot size of 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 acres. The .new designation would, in essence, be an island of higher density surrounded by lower density designations. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of General Plan Amendment 1I-86 and Zone Change 9-86 based on the findings contained in Exhibit G. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Existing General Plan Map Exhibit B - Existing Zoning Map Exhibit C - Existing Ownership Map Exhibit D - Sewer Map Exhibit E —City Engineers Memo Exhibit F - Distance from Center of Community Exhibit G - Findings for Denial 3 i (1J { 1.•\_t-1 1 1 �••` .� :7t it :•r''• ,, , •-.�-,.moi 'j.�!t ..� 'l h'\ N '•' •... C [.,1' E J: . f• . . • •. ... . .., .• .: 10850 COLORADO ROAD . �. . :. v _ �.. COLORADO STUDY AREA .. f. .•. •• y1ly Y Y i• • ::.... .. ::� � � G .. �'r ............ C �. �� `� c j t j 0 v > • ol ... . ( `J :! t� .� �1' Y- 3.03 . � �, �; � 4 � 4 4,� 4400 ,1w ...• .•.• .�' I 1 V//�\ll ��(L I('tel /w, .. ... ...: (-..`J J�V• r\JJ JJ J C~t. �J C�.�E,• V LJ��Il61T / 1 f .. ... I� .t�`:�v�,4 _ r`',,°;��,J,� "o,o CY-'fCW)LTLkt4_ANI��JULIXGP11-U ZDUE :. ............... (,• c . ST Q L•QL9L� •JAiYL y �/ -n wb G a)DUL R fes! 11P o ATASCADER 0 a ``• G.LwXE--R AL PLAN -MAP r' j LAND USE AND CIRCULATION HIGH DENS MULT, FAM. 1 HEAVY CO"•'MERCIAL AGRICULTURE LG'N GENS MULL FAM, RETAIL COMMERCIAL RECREATION _:': HIGH DENS. SidGL. FAM. ' COMMERCIAL PARK SPECIAL RECREATION MOD.CENS. SNGL. FAM. ! I SPECIAL COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL DrvloECI LOW DENS. SNGL.FAM, r""'.. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ` ARTERIAL UNDIVIDED ••"'•••••••••••••...... COLLECTORS - SUBURBAN SNGL. FAM. , INDUSTRIAL PARK URBAN SERVICES LINE PUBLIC INDUSTRIAL URBAN RESERVE L.NE CITY BOUNDARY •1 +,r f;5..� � � }, .Imo. RSFto 17 .1,, :y Da4D is nr:` r �. . . 17 ��/ � ,. !��_ •S �:•. 4`. s b'. -�"s� lY'��.�ti}.>. r.�Mro • • 4 ,,t,`°CR, ,r'° >�a ,.•` •t ; ' -- �. �1. ,`a• ° 2• ".4 .+a��,a":'i ,•3RSF to rr r�'/` '� \; J, �,.' r,•b ./+ � •'f,],r ,.:i— .';.,� .` fa -Y I r � ]. .Y A ` •. ^.f 1.sti Ca llEKID 7 l V iJ ! /T YL/LQv f 1 .tj=d� \ r.f• Sn •eye• -.a. .. ,+' A.: :c. 7 40, .w- • o p --ate, >: e $ ,K -• � "-: ,tY _;> :,� ,� •,;•ry r.- C ...°�� 8 6 i Y � $, � L Nu•' w T,` "t" __--_ + `Ae'' ° a y f�*i§"� ` i° .. ''.• /�. E ''J r � \ psi. r F,(.f�r.,.o �° '• _ 0`33 i$'r' •.e' 33 "•',• '__ n S�4 a�` u '• • n;e 35 A/ CIT Y tsMba as "r,✓� ao '. WO 1 V 1 ! ' M1 1i //- gyp-/7�(1 �r/�y�/y� •may- �b n _. d e�2 ie • !t 41 C/ /�• to —7� 66 ice,:'• `p C-EU eu L TLAN ANILMMaff Er 11-fL zLc�e - � STTrI I, P 'BTS •J AU CZ EX ,; Nb Z(J\11 V1JL r�yCITY OF ATASCADERO ,!�Planninl- Department =• - •','�t cls,'�tEL1��i)�l r - �y RS FH) \t r.— � Man Nn. P.R V U.0 SAN RAF AE o ...ROAD ---�-- s a �- ' ZD m � m � o o � is 7t• /GJ r n�,,,� N �J a N _ 1 Wn z � N N a n cn z `C y cn m y ;asc T N i b Iq I O ✓S.�`SE >oJ fD . O (nn r O � I Y a a •�� a �'iQ 11 N A N cn va Q , a 3 O n W '6> m w g " 0`J3111 o � EMITSlT C 6LMV41LRll u A MDIDIYlA f' CsP I i�Yb ZDK.L-: C"V6b: . ZC 7 tL - 5TLIL•U 1�M-S JfKCLM :�-r __ � -,/,�l�i� - .x�_ I ` y�.t�tY-� `a _ L r' E �1rJ F -.�_ = t �'•=r}rr.: •S'\� � Il r �t � a 7 �`�;� �./:/,/`���,,�� a:r' nS�1 j/ i•ls, ••I I a ti•. i, �� f a ��i •/ '- ,�" r i� ��l9 a 31�„1*1.��•�' '� -II��-'� ,\4y-tn, . s-'f�•__�U�•, r��'. J'_) ,"—F� + 6 1.\ � - ,� � -t�l+f'- s _ �\�-a $• —�T.{{!I w.�1�.•�\Sr ` �1i� Pti� Li •• � , -�/� .. sax lW" 'a � � y ���y j �� s� \ r �i a aZ F °��'i: \- xt�% •x+ _ :�� a J'� "�'.1}"'�•�,,•�r f j',�4 C2, , r' r �� �\' - ,o \ - 't //-�- •�,�,� `\ a,_ : : �r ��r ' .,+ n".y,��r-p r/C�',°,,,n �7. �. a ;' f - T' •`Y 'tis a 1 1 Y\ _ / o i= _° yi "I n+ �� • ' >'/�'s �_ c/% � �-� :oa` a �s ����i-� _ ^r• _ r � Y � _ �� IL t��'r✓ i` ZZ �+J n�I = {2( l .� �''. Y�I t �'—s �. _ N =I ��,= Ii�' •Jl ^\' a 1 "I I i• �1 �YCJ}��=',r•n-�*^'f�� t �. '�!! 0 IES- x Y �," -rte -� - - • .J� .t a ," x _ __ Fi ttai'���,/��i= �Tw•'�E rs,�,�,j��yi,r�u t ;a_. 0 or ;' ,\�,� � S • �- _ z� a. � Y e a x �: � to�'f��y���-kit 0� _.a .(� D,o G r /r, x J• _ y'a•x ,,.) L I t �ti ~✓�' t .C_ e I iY ''� "'' "_- c�if��.l♦ _ _ •�'�i/J{j� 1�"'1' � D � \;-- �'. r�r.riy f+�� �... �: � c '.� - `/' •� "- Y x,\i ��i:- •!�r�l-1 ^' .a��'� ; r•= > 'o .r ���-'i�'a7 � r } E ♦ i 'Yf -s: E \ � xY~ xl,'i./ =�� •.i�/�F1"�CT� r � �- r, ".;tF ��s�� � '� FVA. .1"1� i. _" �F� 4' mat./ ^ ` � I _'. .R,• I+y+ �3 -e... a ` '.e� m /� xx i �/,\a "/"�! kms• �j /-'f I i N }����/ 1111M x'?F•1. r` /` [$m A ��`l Y � �•�"H� '� / `�: a\ : \ Icy"-- ^��" ,> �'�,r2`• :Y�'S���a qui aA •/a, ti�5 .�a' .o,' x°� :�_�\_"•g ���`L, `.9� �• ``k` �'' ry\ t . iC / \ �•►' - �� � � Y 1 i �r s i'11:t' � I ;R`�.� �\'�7.•o'/ n r- r�, r.�/`w•r ^4 ./ryws� i•44 , .- /t _ ti 9 I �'�• �"P / fit/ -;y ';:. d \� VI av .+ ' Y _ Y —Y_� •' _ (,� _ xx `lf,� xo -Y' './t: �_�se`s' � r-- .T= d / - ,� �� 4i r 2 0 / e x% - �`� - -+ £� jf -\\�, _ ' 177$ =lei �t�1;�'T•,. �� -�' � ///�r t' v+ , — I i I E IT' D iii;- fCL zr _.?E7 "2 r, '�t i-Y,�. n ;-.�-r-r 5TL-I L•EMT5•JAS r. t; ��e. +-2 •a a Th r e a r'�.C`.�.v y.i.4 s.C-4 �y d�i � r+ y,}� � ..�f ... - 1'iT+ �1.lVb"f M A f - ,_ M E M O R A N D U M TO: Henry Engen, Director of Community Development FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Sewer Study & Fees DATE: February 25, 1986 Just a note to address the recent sewer study with respect to General Plan changes. While the study doesn't pick and choose specific locations it is understood that these changes will .increase the number of sewer lines that will be surcharged, so will improvements inside the I.D. No. 1 that evolve due to normal buildout. No one knows exactly where growth will hit next except that the south side, of course, is now showing much activity. Our policy will be first-come, first-serve, but pay your way as you go to provide for line and plant adequacy. The sewer fees now being proposed cover the buildout of I.D. No. 1 as per the Wallace Study and the buildout of the ACSD (or USL) . The fees do not address areas outside the USL and if such line is extended different fees or mitigation may be necessary to provide adequate service. We can:, however, address those cases seperately and individually by use of the new computer program provided with the study. If you have any questions, please notify me. OV-1 EFF E ZOLE/ CA 11j__E ZC 9-LL SML EC EWS J Pf-KLNZ GIT/ CXY!RAIT�� Arte} D '�,,� • \ I, �` II yam.� / �,�. .%� � 1/ -�•- .__/'}y, � .���, h �t.J l/'a � �� 1}..�'i.1._. `� i _.- /�r•_:� y`��zx I •,� ' � ( li ..�- __ _r-•��° /•[-J/. •(' � tl FI I',' y 'r {'+ '- �1;- — �� k `- �'••,�'/a, I- .�r - t • 'j! ./ i` J Yt'•.' 1�:�/r,,, _•''• I a .h C � \ \ / V�' i `V ./ - G,� z (~� J• ' a a , _ ��.tl \ ..y / J'r. � }'� a .,'i J._3 IX ,- N / - �:. vet,.-,n'• +1 S'ri I !'�\ . /•.�• `(\ :_.=� ;l••• e�=_ � - °a , as s, H --e _ r a. �\t i_� '�, _ � f'1'cp t- 'le:l( `- ^ \� � �`.i i'I yI r // - a ![ 1 kir��k - •��.� .. \ ` � \ .> �; � r•Ff'' � �•- �-I.' ,'/f'� ,}— YC-c �: =� t -4- Tl Tltj�10�)'~4,�� �..•'� �I. i 3: \ 45 \ :1 va ��- :C:•••� - ��.}i/ �=1�u'i. -1•`x.1 a'`L. .�'•I;i�Yd�•`��.:•.,����-. ��\ '� I� U _�� � � �.\ T r' ��. •. `,�� :� / yam]/I�;rr,L\ ��lyyD-�.�,�/�°C'�a�`�o /,//'`�`` �.� \ �, �r�°s t; $'\`.` rd a �_ �-,'\ i I � =r •+� .`�_,"�_(�o,�� FPL4`y �i� / 1v� �'. -r s. u • a' .��\ - '"� •' ! �'"6 �zf�,,,�. a '��. ski -C6,.�rta�/� <' krsx,�l � / - '� �� LL�� (.t+ �%,f��`; ��t9Q �4 Y��• 6rjie7 ��.3��r�✓✓ � i { -a ,y �a�'- /\ '., _°G •�-` f- >t .� CaaL^ �i .y t k._.1• � �•. 1. y / �` % ~• .=.'r� �Sim.. • .t�- •.�.�'a:.a..t't.:4 r1<';l/ . '�' y, ... J� \Ji a � �l`Yr �-j •I�VS �� ink, y� � • t� s\°.. rc - .1. �' n \\\ ,Il1r i•'.r•-¢ `\� w _ �_� + -� I ''�'1��/ %X�'��G :// ��yL �.-ter _.. / )J. ij� I�/� f ;-_yL 0.• '����� � �. �'F K >f I F 8 -, f`, T rp`lty , CDt.(J1Z 1� 51U�`1 P�1Z Ll'1' � .���,��;�:.�\•;::��?.y:_ ,-��T-°_.->�"�,,••,�•-'-��..;��, A�jl.:.�� -� _ ? �,-L�; �l + r•l.43rd a --:<'�f r t- `� 4e r l arm .�fj: I •\`a\• •`�.T���17•!••r'a •' ( - ; •� \ / \ ala \�� 9,�a � � /1 ,.' / •r �`` -f, N • a / ` 1 O • 14 Zpl 1s 't + ` _/' \ it �_� I ! �, �{ \ �''' / / 11-3 O CTJ I L'Ti / tlJ /lk \ •_ / \ •! �[ e=! r�-'�:: �,':��a;� .'.ice / JX \/ I '�\:, a.-, ,i�.-�� �� ��,s. � �',�- ' � f `��' r--.,� 711NG'Gl'(�hY� Z� 9•f�L, General Plan Amendment GP 1I-86/Zone Change 9-86� EXHIBIT G _- General Plan Amendment 1I-86/Zone Change 9-86 Findings for Denial March 3, 1986 FINDINGS: 1. The proposed general plan land use map amendment would not be in conformance with existing policies contained in the general plan due to its location outside the Urban Services Line. 2. Sewer facilities are not available at the present time for the area nor are there specific plans to expand services to the pro- posed area. 3. The proposed general plan land use map amendment would be an island designation inconsistent with adjoining designations. 4. The proposed general plan land use map amendment could induce sig- nificant growth pressure through further requests for redesigna- tions to higher density uses in adjacent areas. 5. The proposed designation would not conform to minimum lot sizes established by criteria of the zoning ordinance. 4 Minutes - Atascadero Planning Commission- March 3 , 1986 airman LaPrade expressed concern relative to this propert ' red nation becoming an "island" of different density. H aid it woul of be a liability to let this go through but pressed reservation ecause of the zoning situation. Commissioner Hatch also expressed concern ith the "island" concept, but because the existing us f adjacent properties, this would not be a proble and would in favor sof approval. Mr. Engen explained the Commis 'o ay want to consider continuing this matter to the next ge al plan cle when it could be con- sidered as part of a xpanded study a to change the designa- tion of the other standard lots of recor n that corner on both sides of street. MOTION: ade by Commissioner Bond, seconded by Co sioner Kennedy and carried unanimously with a roll callto to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 1F-86 d Zone Change 6-86. 6. General Plan Amendment 1I-86 and Zone Change 9-86: Request submitted by Mr . and Mrs. Neil Steil, Mr. and Mrs. David Roberts, Sandy Jagger (with expanded study area initia- ted by the City) to revise the general plan from Suburban Residential to Moderate Density Single Family and related zone change from RS to RSF-Y. Subject property is located in the area between Colorado Road, Atascadero" Road, San Diego Road and San Rafael Road (Colorado Study Area) . In presenting the staff report, Mr. Moses noted the applicants are basing their request on the existing land use pattern (lot sizes) in the area. He pointed out that this area is outside the Urban Services Line and noted staff' s recommendation for denial. Dave Roberts, one of the applicants, thanked the Commission and staff for all the effort and work that has been done. He noted he purchased the property over two years ago and noted his efforts to split the property and stated his desire to maintain the aesthetic values for the neighborhood. He spoke about the lot sizes in the area and did not feel this request was unreasonable. Gary Powers, 10705 Atascadero Avenue, stated this area is very beautiful and would be reluctant to see an increase in the density of the area, especially ,in relation to the increase of septic systems in the area. Sandra Jagger, one of the co-applicants, explained that this re- quest is one from low density to moderate density. She stated that a total of four more residences could result if this redesig- nation were approved. She then pointed out on the overhead pro- jector other densities in the area that range from . 8 acres to 1.3 acres and noted that this request being asked to bring into con- formity what already exists in the neighborhood. 7 � Minutes - Atascadero Planning Commission - March 3 , 1986 Arly Thompson, corner of San Diego and Atascadero Avenue, expressed concern that he would like to see the density kept as it- presently exists. John Daly, Colorado Road resident, expressed his opposition to the redesignation in zoning. He commented on the poor septic systems in the area and pointed out a parcel in the area which appears to be large is actually part of a drainage swale. He further ex- pressed concern that Colorado Road is in need of road maintenance and thinks it would be difficult to install an adequate septic system for the property. Alice Roberts, one of the applicants, spoke in support of the re- quest and pointed that necessary soils tests and studies have been performed on both portions of her property. She stated that all they are trying to do is bring this property into conformance with the rest of the area and try to recoup some of the financial losses to the property. Roseann Alderson, 10570 Colorado Road, spoke in opposition noting that this area is a swampy one and asked the Commission to con- sider the effects that creation of new lots would have on the adjoining properties (i.e. , grading, drainage) . Neil Steil, 10805 Colorado, one of the applicants, stated that adequate engineering methods would be employed to properly channel the drainage away from any lots. Statements in opposition to the proposed redesignations were also heard by Dorothy McNeil, 8675 Sierra Vista; Nancy Hyman, 10760 Colorado Road; Barbara Sims, 10835 Colorado Road; Kathleen Daly, Colorado Road resident and Barbara Dirx. Bernice Hart, area resident, stated people are having problems with their septic tanks in this area and pointed out that Color- rado Road is very curvy and narrow with no shoulders. She stated this road does not need any increase in traffic. Commissioner Hatchell stated there are 43 lots of which 35 are less than 2 1/2 acres according to his maps. He noted he under- stands the concerns addressed by the public, especially with re- gard to drainage issues, but did not feel there would be a great increase in lot divisions in this area due to the existing lot sizes in the area. Commissioner Michielssen asked if staff had any information on sewer failures in the area. Mr. Moses replied that it was his understanding that two or three systems had failures that he could recall. There was further discussion concerning the issues of drainage in the area, validity of percolation tests. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy to recommend denial of General Plan Amendment 8 n ', Minutes - Atascadero Planning Commission March 3 , 1986 1I-86 and Zone Change 9-86. - The motion carried with a roll call vote, as follows: AYES: Commissioners Michielssen, Nolan, Bond, Kennedy and Chairman LaPrade NOES: Commissioner Hatchell Mr. Engen stated that hearings would be scheduled for the City Council on the Commission' s recommendations. 7. General Plan Amendment 1K-86: Request initiated by the City of Atascadero to revis the general plan to allow for a reduction in the size of a i.sting substandard lots as a result of lot line adjustments S e DeCamp presented the staff report on this matter He noted that a review of planning literature was undertak and contact was ma a with various city and county agencies w' respect to the al wing a reduction in lot size for existing nonconforming lots. Th response to these contacts was unive ally negative. Commissioner aPrade stated that there is a ajority of lots in the city whido not conform to the zo ng, and he would be in favor of having n ordinance such as this proposal. Commissioner Hatch 1 asked how t s proposal was initiated le originally. Mr. D Camp explaine the background involved and pointed out that the Ci Attorney as not had an opportunity to respond to the staff rep t. Doug Lewis, area resident, s ested that perhaps there could be some limitations on how reduction could be permissible and set some sort of standards to t is regard. Ed Jewell, 4370 Rosita spoke in f or of approving this proposal and proceeded to expl in his efforts nd frustrations -with noncon- forming lot lines o property he owns an effort to resolve the lot line situatio with his and his nei bors ' properties. Discussion ens ed on this issue with the po sibility of handling as a sort o variance type situation, and th re was discussion on prescriptiv rights. Debra K kiewicz, 11455 Viejo Camino, stated that hen she lived in Or gon, there was a law that if a fence line wa changed after seve years and that fence was there, then that is wh a the new li was. r. Engen suggested that the Commission continue the mat pr for recommendations from the City Attorney. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Hatchell, seconded by Commissione.. Bond and carried unanimously to continue the hearing o 9 �� M E 14 O R A N D U M • TO: CITY MANAGER MIKE SHELTON AND COUNCIL MEMBERS F, FROM: CHIEF OF POLICE Mit SUBJECT: SELECTION/RECOMMENDATION FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES - POLICE FACILITY DATE: MARCH 18, 1986 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that we contract with the San Luis Obispo firm of Ross, Levin and MacIntire for architectural services to include: site analysis/selection, design and budget for the Atascadero Police Facility. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED By motion, authorize the City Manager to sign an agreement con- tracting with the architectural firm of Ross, Levin and MacIntyre for complete planning and architectural services to encompass all elements described in the RFP released 1-27-86 at an initial cost not to exceed *$31, 700. . BACKGROUND In keeping with Council direction, thus far the following stages have been completed toward the police facility project: 1. Council authorization to request proposals - Jan. 27 , 1986 . 2 . Requests for proposals (eight) mailed out Jan. 29, 1986 . 3 . Pre-proposal meeting held with architectural firms on Friday, February 14 , 1986. 4 . R.F.P. submission deadline: Mon, March 10 , 1986 . (Six proposals received. ) 5. Presentation interviews were held Friday, March 14 , 1986 . Six firms (including four local and two out-of-county) were interviewed by a board consisting of Councilman Bear Handshy, Admin. Services Director Dave Jorgensen, Community Development Director Henry Engen and myself. FINDINGS/CONCLUSION Following the half-hour interviews, and having done a reference check of the recommended, top two firms, Ross, Levin and MacIntyre • *In the event that the City elects to use R.L. & M. Architects for final design (balance of arch. services) for this project, architect will credit $12 ,800 toward the full fee for architectural services. R s Levin, MacIntyre acI tyre Architects JOHN R. ROSS FAIR RODNEY R. LEVIN AIA KENNETH H. MACINTYRE AIA March 6, 1986 City of Atascadero Police Department 6500 Palma Avenue Post Office Box 747 Atascadero, California Attention: R. H. Bud McHale Police Chief Re: Proposal for Police Service Facility City of Atascadero Dear Chief McHale, The Architectural Firm of Ross Levin & MacIntyre Architects in concert with Marion J. Varner and Associates Inc. , together with our Consultants are pleased to respond to your call for proposals to provide professional services for the above. We thank you for meeting with us to discuss the RFP and the guided tour of your present facilities on Monday, March 3, 1986. Ross Levin & MacIntyre Architects is presently designing the 'new Atascadero City - County Library and has completed other projects in the Atascadero area. 1 We appreciate working with the Cities Staff and Commissions and look forward to meeting with your Selection Committee. Ross Levin & Mac- Intyre, Marion J. Varner and our team of Consultants feel confident that we will provide the most efficient, aesthetically pleasing, on time and within budget Police Services Facility for the Citizen of this City. As requested, we include the following scope of proposal information in addition to the design teams individual resumes. Very truly yours, Rodney R. Levin AIA RRL:sk Enclosures 1129 Marsh Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805) 543-1291 Project Title: Police Service Facility for City of Atascadero 1 .00 Applicant: Ross Levin & MacIntyre Architects 1129 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 2.00 Past Record of Performance & Firm Qualifications: John R. Ross & Associates Inc, dba Ross Levin & MacIntyre Architects is owned by two principals, Rodney R. Levin A.I .A. , NCARB and Kenneth H. MacIntyre, A.I.A. , NCARB. We have three licensed Associate Archit- ects, Robert J. Varner, A.I.A. , Daniel E. Clark and Steve Stewart. Since our founding in 1946 here in San Luis Obispo we have gained ex- tensive experience with projects both in the public and• private sectors of our County and coastal region from Montery in the north to Los Angeles in the south. Some projects of importance which RLM has completed within the past few years are: Agriculture Science Building - 1986 California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, California - 5.5 Plillion Energy Efficient Improvements - 1982 Atascadero State Hospital Atascadero, California - 1 .3 Million New Corporation Yard - 1985 City of San Luis Obispo California - 2.5 Million San Luis Obispo City Municipal 50 Meter - 1979-1984 Swimming Pool , Solar System & Bath House San Luis Obispo, California - 1.2 Million New Headquarters Office - 1986 SESLOC Federal Credit Union San Luis Obispo, California - 1 .64 Million Fire Safty Improvements - 1984 SLO County General Hospital San Luis Obispo, California - .400 Million 1 • i Heavy Vehicle Maintenance Facility - 1984 Vandenberg Air Force Base - Vandenberg, California 1.102 Million It is important to note that all of the above listedr came within budget and Architects Cost Estimates and within the time frames planned. At present RLM is designing the new 7 Hundred Thousand Dollar City-County Library, a 3.4 Million Dollar KSBY- TV Broadcasting Facility. A 1 .2 Million Dollar Aquatic and Fitness Center for the Lee's of San Luis Obispo, a new 300,000 Dollar Southern California Gas Company Base Facility in Templeton, 230,000 Dollar extension of the Mission Plaza for the City of San Luis Obispo, 750,000 Dollars Outpatient ICU/CCU Dialysis Addition and Rehab to the San Luis Obispo County General Hospital and a variety of projects for the San Luis Coastal Unified School District. A partial list of projects under design or completed and their re- ferences, RLM Office Brochure and Governmental A-E Standard Form #254 are included at the end of this section of the proposal . Currently the Firm of Ross Levin & MacIntyre maintains $1 ,000,000 of General Liability and $250,000 of Professional Liability Coverage. 3.00 Specialized Experience: Ross Levin & MacIntyre is currently completing the Final Design of the • County of San Luis Obispo Jail and Sheriff's Facility Rehabilitation which includes : Total re-design of the Booking - Control Area, Set Up for a Temporary Booking & Control Space, Remote Locking Audio and Visual Surveillance Systems , Roof Drainage Modifications, Kitchen Equipment Replacement and Alterations, Improvements to Day Rooms and Exercise Yards, Replacement of Emergency Power Unit and Extension of Coverage and Expan- sion of Fire Detection System. In 1980 RLM completed the 552,000 Dollar remodel and additions to the Grover City, City Hall and the design of a new 5200 sq. ft. Police Facility, which included three Holding Cells, Booking Control & Dispatch, a basement for Emergency Operations Center, Evidence & Property Storage Archives and Staff Excersize. The existing Police Facility in City Hall continued operations throughout the remodel and Construction Period. In 1968 Principal Rodney Levin was the Project Architect for the design of the two story 10,000 sq. ft. new Policy Facility for the City of San Luis Obispo located on the corner of Santa Rosa and Walnut. This facility_ provides full services to the Cities 22,000 + population which included space for -Patrol , Investigations, Divisions, Technical Services, 2 Communications. & Dispatch Center, Five Cells, Booking and Salley Port, Covered Parking for City Vehicles was also included. The building ap- pearance had to be inviting, reflect the image of our Community and to 1 provide protection and efficiency of operation. In 1980 RLM and this J Architect provided the Cities Police Department a Master Plan for expan- sion of those same facilities recognizing the original expansion schemes and the Cities anticipated growth. A 5400 sq. ft. building addition with 2400 sq. ft. interior remodeling was planned. This Firm did not complete the Final Design and oversee the construction of this addition & remodel- ing due to our involvement with three other projects for the City. The planning by this Firm was followed with much success. In 1978-79 RLM completed a feaster Plan for the Pismo Beach City Hall & Police Facility Expansion and Renovations. Plans and applications were used to obtain grants for this work which was completed in the early 1980's. This Firm rehabed all of the electrical and some of the structural during this period of time. Much of the interior design was completed in- house. For further specialized experience refer to Police Facility Consultant Marion J. Varner Architects, Section 2 of this Proposal . 4.00 Specific Approach To Design: The Scope of Design Services is separated into Two Phases, the First Phase includes the development of a Design Proqram and selection of a suitable building site. The Second Phase includes the formulation of a Schematic Design and Probable Construction Cost for budgeting purposes. The Architects approach to these phases are as foll-ows: .01 Phase I : a ' a. 1st meeting with Police Department Staff to review space and equip- ment needs as they relate to projected City-County-State growth. In- ventories of. Personel , Furnishing and Equipment are logged. b. Architect and Consultants prepare design program draft outlining general goals, specific objectives, space needs and relationships and desired site requirements. c. Design program draft is presented to Police Department Staff for review and comment. Revisions and corrections are made. Conceptual bubble diagrams depicting spaces and relationships are completed. d. Presentation of Final Design Program Draft is made to Police Department Staff for approval and shared with City Administrative Officer. 3 Lf 1 e. Prospective sites for the proposed new Police Service Facility are visited by Police Department Project Manager, Architect and Consultants. Analysis is made of each site and advantages and dis- advantages weighednumerically to established preference. f. Graphic Presentation of recomended site (conceptaul building and parking foot print) and design program is submitted to the Cities Council . g. City Council approves site selections and design program and pro- ceeds with site aquisition if required. .02 Phase II • a. Architect and Consultants begin Schematic Design Phase. City obtains 1 Soils Investigation Topographical Map and Boundry Survey of Selected Site. b. Schematic Site & Floor Plan drafts are presented to Police Department Staff for review and comments. c. Schematic Design is completed depicting site, floor plans, exterior elevations, building sections , colored renderings and probable .con- struction cost to establish budget. Coordination with Public Works, Planning and Utility Companys and Cities Architectural Review Process. d. Final presentation of Schematic Desion with established budget to City Council with recomendations to proceed with project is proposed. Phase I & II Services Complete 5.00 Resumes of Design Team: .01 Ross Levin & MacIntyre Architects Mr. Rodney Levin who joined the Firm in 1958 and is President of the Corporation will be the Principal-In-Charge, refer. to enclosed copy of resume at the end of this section of the proposal . Mr. James R. Varner is an Associate and member of the Firm for seven years will be the Project Architect. Mr. Varner, not to be confused with our Specialist Police Facility Architect Consultant, Marion Varner, is a Graduate of California Polytechnic State University with a Bachelor of Architecture in 1972 and also holds a Bachelor of Arts and Sociology from San Jose State University. He shares his broad experience with Governmental , Industrial and Utility projects. He is presently acting as Director of Legislation for the CCCCAIA Chapter of the A. I.A. 4 • s RLM's support to the Principal-In-Charge and Mr. Varner is a Staff of four other licensed Architects, draftpersons and Secretary. Is.02 Police Facility Consultant - Marion J. Varner and Associates Marion J. Varner and Associates , Architectural-Planning-Engineering Mr. Varner, with his extensive background in civic architecture and emphasis on public safety facilities, was selected as the specialist team member. The need for expert guideance for a project of this scope where funds and site size may be limited to a qreat extent, dictates correct dicissions regarding the important needs and provisions for future growth. Refer to Section 2 for a more complete resume. .03 Structural Engineer Consultant - Hans F Mager Inc Mr. Mager has served as RLM Structural Engineer for the past seven years. His knowledge of Structural Engineering and the efficient use of building .materials in our opinion is unmatched in this coastal region. A keen understanding of the local soils conditions and available building materials together with the ability to solve the many structural solutions posed by Architects is excellent. 0 Refer to Section 3 for more complete resume. .04 Electrical Engineer Consultant - Jack D Todd Inc Jack D. Todd Inc. has provided RLM continued Professional Services for over twenty years with projects ranging from Police and Security Systems, Hospitals, Schools and highly technical communication fac- ilities. This Firm has maintained a highly skilled permanent staff and has an awarness of our central coasts natural beauty and lifestyle. Jack D. Todd Inc.' s recent experience in Police and Governmental Projects are: a. Monterey County Sheriff's Building & Offices Salinas, California Currently Under Construction 5 " w b. Salinas Public Safety Building Salinas, California Completed in 1972 - Four Hundred Thousand Dollars c. Addition to Salinas Public Safety Building Salinas, California Two Hundred Thousand Dollars d. Grover City Police Department Grover City, California Completed in 1980 e. San Luis Obispo Police Department San Luis Obispo, California Completed 1968 f. San Jose Police Building Training Unit San Jose, California Completed 1979 - Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars Three story building & basement with gun range g. San Jose City Hall Annex San Jose, California Completed in 1970's Five story addition to existing City Hall h. Salinas City Hall Salinas, California Completed 1971 Two story building i. Cupertino City Hall Cupertino, California Two story Refer to complete resume in Section 4. .05 Mechanical Engineer Consultant - Gurries & Okamoto Inc Gurries & Okamoto Inc. has provided R.L.M. with over 20 years of continued successful service, a Firm which maintains a large a well experienced staff at their office headquarters in Cupertino, California and a sub-office in San Luis Obispo. This Firm is es- pecially aware of our local environment due to their high activity with most of the Architect, Developers, City and County Planning Departments. a. Arvin- Police Station & Firing Range Paso Robles Police Station Addition Design of Complete Facility -15,000 sq. ft. 6 b. Mountain View Police Station & Facilities Mountain View, California Design of Complete Facility - 30,000 sq. ft. c. Study of San Luis Obispo Police Facility San Luis Obispo California d. San Luis Obispo County Fire Station at Airport San Luis Obispo California - 5,000 sq. ft. e. San Luis Obispo County Jail Remodel San Luis Obispo California f. San Luis Obispo City Corporation Yard San Luis Obispo California g. Mamoth Lakes Fire Station Mamoth Lakes, California Design of Complete Facility - 4000 sq. ft. Refer to complete resume in Section 5. .06 Landscape Architect Consultants - The Environmental Collaborative Dave Farmer of The Environmental Collaborative (T.E.C. ) has also served RLM for the past eight years and is well known and respected by the Cities various commissions, staff and and other professional designers in this area. His knowledge of plant material , and our many micro climates is highly respected. Refer to complete resume and his letter in Section 6. .07 Planning Consultant - The Planning Mill Rob Strong of The Planning Mill is no stranger to this area having served as Planning Director of the City of San Luis Obispo, together with maintaining a private practice which reaches from the San Francisco Bay area to -Los Angeles. His extensive knowledge with planning as it relates to site analysis and selection lend credibility to our design team. Mr. Strong has been assisting RLM far the past 15 years. Refer to complete resume in Section 7. 7 6.00 Proposed Sub Consultants Refer to Consultant Sections 2 through 7 7.00 Proposed Project Schedule Refer to Attached Time Schedule Exhibit "Be' 8.00 Estimated Fee Ross Levin & MacIntyre Architects and its Consulants propose to furnish planning and architectural services to the City of Atascadero for the proposed Police Services Facility as des- cribed in the request for proposal dated January 29, 1986 and as outlined below. Phase I: , A. Develope a Design Program & Related Presentations $ 8,797.00 B. Formal analysis of three building sites & related presentations $ 4,853.00 ' Phase II : Schematic Design of project includes site, floor plans, exterior elevations building section, two colored renderings, landscaping & probable construction cost 4$18,050.00 - Total 18,050.00Total Fee $ 31 ,700.00 1 ' Note: In the event that the City of Atascadero elects to use Ross Levin & MacIntyre Architects for the Final Design (balance of Architectural Services) for this project, Architect will J credit $12,800, (Twelve thousand Eight Hundred Dollars) to- ward the, full fee for Architectural Services. Rodney R. Levin, A.I.A. , President of John R. Ross & Associates Inc. dba Ross Levin & MacIntyre Architects Ross Levin & MacIntyre Architects JOHN R. ROSS FAIR RODNEY R. LEVIN AIA KENNETH H. MACINTYRE AIA CLIENT REFERENCES & RELATED PROJECTS Agriculture Science Building California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, California Douglas Gerard - Executive Dean 805-546-2581 Begin Construction March 1986 Corporation Headquarters Office SESLOC Federal Credit Union Los Osos Valley Road & Royal Way San Luis Obispo, California Mrs. Bertha Foxford - Executive Manager 805-543-1816 Begin Construction January 1986 New Broadcasting Facility - KSBY-TV Blair Broadcasting San Luis Obispo, California David Cox, Vice President Ken Reid , Chief Engineer 805-544-2224 Schematic Design Complete ' Heavy Vehicle Maintenance Facility Vandenberg Air Force Base Vandenberg, California Army Corp. of Engineers Bob Parkins 916-440-2555 Completed 1984 1129 Marsh Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805) 543-1291 County of San Luis Obispo Jail & Sheriffs Facility Rehabilitation County Department of General Services John Hancock 805-549-5200 Ready for State Review Grover City Hall Re-Model & New Police Facility Grover City California Chief David Brown Administrative Officer Arnold Dowdy 805-489-4040 Completed 1980 San Luis Obispo Police Facility Santa Rosa & Walnut Drive San Luis Obispo, California Chief Donald Englert 805-549-7320 Completed 1968 San Luis Obispo County General Hospital Rehabilitation & Expansion of ICU/CCU Dialysis Nursery & Outpatient Wing Addition John Hancock - Project Coordinator 805-549-5200 Completed 1984-1986 Atascadero City - County Library Atascadero, California County Department of General Services Kathy McNeill - Project Coordinator 805-549-5200 Schematics Complete San Luis Obispo City Community Swimming Pool Complex & Solar System Sinsheimer Park, San Luis Obispo, California Jim Stockton - Director of Recreation 805-549-7110 1979 - 1985 t,;t City of San Luis Obispo Corporation Yard Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, California Dave Romero, P.W. Director 805-549-7210 Completed - 1984 Atascadero State Hospital Energy Rehabilitation Atascadero, California Completed - 1982 Mission Plaza Expansion City of San Luis Obispo Broad to Nipomo Streets Jeff Hook - Project Manager 805-549-7176 Completed Schematics PROJECT TIME SCHEDULE ATASCADERO CITY POLICE SERVICES FACILITY MARCH 1986 City Administrative Estimated Date Proposal Due 3/10/86 Consultant Interviews 3/14/86 Notice to Architect to Proceed 3/24/86 Design Phase I : Consultants meet with P.D.Staff develop & present Rough Draft Design Program 3 weeks P.D. response to Draft Design Program 1 week Final Draft Design Program to P. D. Staff 2 weeks Field visits to prospective sites, Graphic Presentation & Analysis of Sites to P. D.Staff 3 weeks Presentation of Selected Site, Analysis & Design Program to City Council for Approvals 1 week Phase II : Notice to Architects to Proceed 6/2/86 City Proceeds with Site Aquisition if Required Architect Developes Schematic Design & Probable Construction Cost Review with P. D. Staff 3 weeks 6/23/86 P.D. Staff response to Schematic Design 1 week Architect & Consultants present final Schematics to City Council 3 weeks 7/21/86 Scope of Services This Contract Completed City Administrative Select Architect to Complete Final Design of Project Unknown Phase III Notice to Architect to proceed with Design Development - Construction Documents Phase 8/21/86 PROJECT TIME SCHEDULE ATASCADERO CITY POLICE SERVICES FACILITY MARCH 1986 continued Phase III (continued) Estimated Date Architect Complete Design Development Review with City P.D. Staff, Planning & State Department Corrections Public Works 6 weeks 10/10/86 Presentation of Completed Construction Documents Probable Construction Cost to City Council for Approval to Go To Bid 5 weeks 11/14/86 City Plan Check 2 weeks 12/01/87 Phase IV - Bid Negotation Phase City Advertise for Bids, Distribute Bid Package (Extend Bid Time for Holidays) _ City Review Bids ( Architect Issue Addendum ) 6 weeks 1/15/87 Phase V - Construction Phase City Notice to Proceed to Contractor 2 weeks 1/30/87 Architect to make periodic field visits, issue Certificates of Payments & Change Orders Architect conduct Final Inspection issue Certificate of Completion (270 day construction) 39 weeks 10/30/87 Architect to follow through processing record drawings, assisting P. D. movein etc. November 1987 IT 2�A l4l;— • TO: Honorable City Council March 24, 1986 FROM: Mike .Shelton, City Manager SUBJECT: PROPOSED JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 27, 1986 BACKGROUND: In October, 1985, at your special joint meeting with the Planning . Commission, it was requested that another joint meeting be scheduled after the first of the year. Accordingly, it is pro- posed that the City Council adjourn its regular meeting of March 24, to 1986, a special Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting on March 27th. Mayor Nelson, Chairman La Prade, and City staff met and prepared a tentative agenda for this meeting, which has been submitted to you and Planning Commission members under separate cover. As a major item on the agenda, an educational presentation on the formation of. a Redevelopment Agency in the downtown area is pro- posed. As background to this item, on March 5, 1986, a com- mittee, consisting of representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, • property owners in the downtown area, a B.I.A. Formation Com- mittee representative, a School District representative, City Council representatives (2) , citizens at large, and City staff, met to brainstorm the concept of a Downtown Redevelopment Agency. Without any outside influence, the committee unanimously felt the merits of a Redevelopment Agency warranted further consideration and study. The committee felt the Joint Council/Planning Com- mission Meeting would be an ideal forum to further learn how re- development might assist Atascadero. As basic information, more than 50% of California Cities have Redevelopment Agencies, which serve as a financial and planning tool to stimulate and revitalize businesses, create new property tax values, increase local tax revenues, and create new jobs. State law enables Redevelopment Agencies to focus tax money, that normally would be distributed more broadly. (i.e. to various State and local agencies) on specific local problem areas. Thus, Redevelopment Agencies have been a popular means for Cities who wish to revitalize blighted areas without raising taxes. . To assist in the redevelopment presentation at your Joint City .Council/Planning Commission Meeting, I have been in touch with Mr. Milton Farrell, Executive Director of the California Rede- velopment Association, who is willing to attend the joint Meeting and present a short "nuts and bolts" slide presentation on the tools of redevelopment. Mr. Farrell has an extensive background • in redevelopment, and would be available to answer questions. The only cost required by Mr. Farrell would be his nut-of-pocket expenses traveling from Sacramento. 1 • ea _�O_H - _ I M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Sewer Amendment Ordinance DATE: March 20, 1986 A verbal report will be given on this item. Also, enclosed per your request is a memo from Dave Jorgenson, Administrative Services Director, regarding pay-off procedures for Sanitation District Bonds. M_E M_0 R A_N_D_U M_ TO: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: David G. Jorgensen, Administrative Services Directo SUBJECT: Procedure for paying off Sanitation Bond Assessment early DATE: 3/18/86 The question came up in the Council meeting of March 10, 1986 regarding whether there was a procedure for paying off the assessment for the Sanitation Bond for District No. 1. The following procedure has been established by the county to accomplish this: Assessments can be paid off at any time. A property owner can call the County Controllers office at 549- 5031 and ask for Debbie. She can give them the pay off amount. If the assessment is paid off before April 11, 1986 , a property owner can save six months of interest. There is a five percent penalty for paying off early. This is calculated on the unpaid principal. There is also a $5. 00 adverting fee that the property owner must pay. Since this is administered by the County, I would suggest that any interested citizens contact them directly to determine what the costs versus the savings would be for their individual circumstances. DGJ:dt cc: Paul Sensibaugh MEMORANDUM TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Sewer Charges - Amendment Ordinance DATE: March 6, 1986 Recommendation: Staff recommends passage of Ordinance No. 121 amending certain sections of the ACSD Ordinance Code and establishing new connection charges. Background: Enclosed is the staff report regarding the fee changes and policy statements. Discussion: Council directed staff to bring back the above ordinance based on the staff report with the following changes: a) That vacant lots not rezoned or split or changed in use since the formation of Improvement District No. 1, or those paying the stand-by charge that have been given a 12 month grace period have an effective date of July 1, 1986 as proposed. (Items 5 thru 7 on pg. 13 of the report) ; b) That all other categories have an effective date of 30 days after passage. (Items 1 thru 4 or other possible scenarios. ) c) That the designated Cease and Desist area and adjacent areas covered by a Health Officers Letter be exempt from the new fees, but will pay the old fees. Fiscal Impact: The new charges are expected to raise $1,700 ,00 within Improvement District No. 1 and $2,398, 643 outside Improvement District No. 1, but inside the ACSD or Urban Services Line, during the build- out time of the respective areas. No figures have been estimated for areas outside the USL that may be annexed in the future. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STATE OF CLAIFORNIA ORDINANCE NO. 121 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ArITD ADDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT ORDINANCE CODE The Board of Directors of the Atascadero County Sanitation District ordains as follows : SECTION 1 : Article 2 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amended to add Sections 2. 38 , 2 ,39 , and 2. 40 as follows : "2. 38 . ' SEWER TAP CFARGE ' : - a charge by the Sewer District for the actual physical connection from a building sewer to the main-line sewer. " 2. 39. ' SEI-,'ER CONNECTION CHARCE ' : - the charge levied y the Atascadero Sanitation ict for connection to the main-line sewer. " "2 . 40 . 'Condominium Unit ' : - a residence occupied or suitab e or occupancy in whole or in part as a home or living quarters either permanently or temporarily by a single-family, their guests and servants , but not including an apartment or other unit of multiple- family dwelling as defined herein. " SECTION 2 : Section 4 . 4 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amended to read as follows : "4 . 4 . The following fees shall be cr_arged for sewer permits : (1) When the work to be performed involves the connection of a building sewer to the public sewer , the fees shall be five ($5 . 00) dollars . (2) When any portion of the work to be perform- ed is within the limits of a public right-of- way or public sewer easement , an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department of the City of Atascadero , the appli- cant shall pay such fees as shall be set by the Council of the City of Atascadero . -1- Tj • 1 • (3) The applicant shall pay the following sewer connection fees according to the cate- gory of building sewer: (a) $573 . 00 per unit for single-family residences ; (b) $533 . 00per unit for multi-family residences ; (c) $451 . 00 per unit for mobil homes ; (d) $20 . 50 per fixture unit for commer- cial, industrial and other non-residen- tial units . " SECTION 3 : Section 4 . 7 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amended to read as follows : "4 . 7 . For each connection of a building sewer to a public sewer, a ' sewer tap charge' shall be collected by the District before the permit for the construction is issued. " SECTION 4 : Section 4 . 8 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amended to read as follows : "4 . 8. A ' sewer tap charge' in the amount of $250 . 00 shall be charged for each physical connection to the public sewer except that: (1) No charge shall be made when the owner of the lot has already paid for lateral sewer in- stallation by assessment or otherwise; (2) No charge shall be made when a "T" fitting has already been installed at the public sewer at the property owner' s expense , and the lateral sewer is to be installed from said fitting. " SECTION 5 : Section 4 . 9 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is added to read as follows : "4 . 9. Any parcel which was assessed during an Improve- ment District Assessment proceeding for a collection system, but on which the assessment was not paid because the parcel was deeded to the State for non- payment of taxes , shall incur an additional sewer con- -2- 0 0 nection fee equal to the particular assessment involved for that parcel , at the rate established pursuant to this Ordinance. SECTION 6 : Section 4 . 10 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is added to read as follows : "4. 10 . There s'-tall be a sewer connection fee charged to each and every unit served based upon the follow- ing applicable category. The fee shall be paid at the time the permit for sewer connection is issued: (a) $573 . 00 per unit fora single-family lot; (b) $533 . 00 per unit for a multi-family lot; (c) $451. 00 per mobile '-ome unit for a mobile home park; (d) $20 . 50 per fixture unit for a commercial, industrial or non-industrial use lot . " SECTION 7 : A new Section 4 . 11 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is added to read as follows : "4 . 11 . In addition to such fees as shall be assessed for sewer connection and sewer_ taps , applications for sewer service shall be assessed a sewer_ annexation fee , subject to the exceptions and applications of Section 4 . 12 , as follows : (a) $1 ,210 . 00 for a single-family lot; (b) $1 ,123 . 00 per living unit for a multi- family lot; (c) $950 . 00 per mobile home unit for a mobile home park; (d) $43 . 20 per plumbing fixture as defined in the 1982 Edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code , for a commercial , industrial , non-resi- dential lot . " SECTION 8: A new Section 4 . 12 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is added, and the pre- vious Section 4 . 12 is deleted, the new to read as follows : -3- "4 . 12AT ption to and applicati of annexation fees as follows : (1) A vacant lot presently inside Improvement District dumber 1 where sewer is available , will be exempt from payment of an annexation _ fee. (2) Where a lot inside Improvement District Number 1 is subject to a lot-split , and the annexation fee has not been previously paid, the applicant shall pay an annexation .fee for one lot only, in addition to such other fees as shall be required according to the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code. " (3)Areas designated Cease and Desist and adjacent areas covered by a Health Officers Letter will be exempt from new charges and increase in annexation fees, but will pay the fees in effect prior to passage of this amendment ordinance SECTION 9 : A new Section 4 . 16 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is added to read as follows : "4 . 16. Fees assessed pursuant to this Article IV for annexations and permits shall be payable at the time of the application f or annexation and permit , and fees for the sewer connection and tap charge shall be pay- able upon actual connection of th.e building sewer to the Atascadero County Sanitation District. " SECTION 10 : Section 4 . 17 is hereby added to the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code to read as follows : "4 . 17 . In the event of a re-zone of a lot or change of use , applicant for a building sewer shall pay such fees as shall be required pursuant to this Article IV, in- cluding sewer connection, annexation tap charge , and permit fee , except that such annexation fee may be waived if previously paid and the applicant has connect- ed to the sewer within a timely manner pursuant to this Ordinance Code. " SECTION 11 : Section 5 . 1 (3) of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amended to read as follows : "5 . 1 (3) . The person requesting said extension shall ex- ecute and file a written Sewer Extension Performance Agreement the terms of which shall be subject to approval by the District Board, whereby said person agrees to complete all required improvements at his expense and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer , within the time period specified within the agreement. Said person -4- fi 0 further agrees to provide the City Engineer with a detailed cost break-down of his actual expenditures for any improvements authorized in the agreement . The agreement shall also provide for inspection by the City Engineer, or his designated representative , of all improvements , and reimbursement of the District by the requestor, for the costs of the inspection. The District will invoice the requestor for such inspection costs and any amount unpaid thirty (30) days from the date of the District ' s invoice shall bear interest at ten (10%) percent per annum beginning within thirty (30) days after the date of the invoice. The Sewer Extension Performance Agreement may also provide: (1) for the construction of the improvements and units ; and (2) for an extension of the time under conditions that are unspecified. No extension of time shall be granted except upon certification by the City Engineer that such extension is justified, and upon approval of the Board of Directors . In addition to the requirements of this Section 5 . 1 (3) said person shall provide the District with a bond or other suitable security as deemed appro- priate by the City Attorney not to exceed fifty (50 ) percent of the cost of improvements. The District Board may waive such requirements for a bond at its option. " SECTION 12 : Sectiazs8. 3 , 8. 4 , 8 . 5 , and 8 . 6 of the ascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code are hereby deleted. A new Section 8. 3 is hereby added to the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code to read as follows : "8 . 3 . The annexation fees shall be paid before a permit is issued for a sewer connection_ pursuant to this Article in that amount as set forth in Article IV. For the pur- poses of this Article , lot splits or changes in uses of lots shall be considered an annexation for the payment of the annexation fee. SECTION 13 : Section 11 . 9 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is hereby added to read as follows : "11 . 9 . The revenues derived from the rate set forth in Article XI of this Ordinance Code, shall be allocated to specific categories in such amounts and percentages as follows : (a) The annual sum of $76 , 000 . 00 s?iall be alloca- ted to debt service on existing bonded indebted- ness of the District . (b) Seventy-three (73%) percent of the revenues derived from sewer service rates shall be allocated to operation and the maintenance fund of the Dis- trict. -5- ' ' (c) Twenty-Seven (27%) percent of the revenues derived from the sewer service rates shall be allocated for replacement or expansion of facil- ities in the District. SECTION 14 : Article 12 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is hereby amended and a new Article 12 shall read as follows : "The former Article 12 shall be renumbered as Article 13 . ARTICLE 12 POLICYSTATE' tT' TS The following Policy Statements are hereby adopted by the Atascadero County Sanitation District Board to be a part of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code: 1 . All sewer main . extensions are to be funded by those re- questing annexation. 2 . Annexations must be contiguous to the existing improvement District , however, for a problem sewer area, the District Board may annex public areas to provide continuity. 3. In consideration of the annexation requests , the City Engineer may be required to furnish an Engineer' s evaluation of adequacy of existing sewer mains effected by the service extension. This would include an evaluation of the down- stream line capacities as well as any possible up-grading of existing life stations . 4 . On-going 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 as amended. 6 . Annexation fees, based on use , will be due and payable upon application for annexation or lot splits or use change or rezoning. 7 . Should the proponent of the annexation wish to receive reimbursement for any sewer main extension by those connect- ing within the annexed area, then the proponent shall file a reimbursement map with the City upon completion of the ex- tension. 8 . Annexations become void if connection is not made within twelve (12) months from the application, and fees will be deemed forfeited after that time. '?e-application shall re- quire such new fees as are set forth in this Ordinance Code. -6- ;:..i 9. Within the District , if sewer is available on the boundary of Improvement District Number 1 , it shall be deemed available to the lots outside of Improvement District Number 1 as well as to those inside said Improvement District. 10 . Sewer connection fees and tap charges shall be paid upon connection to the sewer system. 11 . Sewer lines shall be brought to the far property line un- less otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works where future extensions are not practical due to perimeter or pro- blem lots . 12. For the purposes of this Ordinance Code , condominiums shall be treated the same as single-family lots . 13. Where there is a change of use from apartments to condo- miniums , the applicant shall pay the difference in fees and rates as established by this Ordinance Code upon the approval of such change. 14. Where there is a change of use from one commercial use to another, the applicant shall pay the difference in fees per fixture unit in addition to the applicable rate for the new use. 15 . User rates shall 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. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect as it pertains to increases in fees for annexations , sewer connections , and tap charges for applications for sewer service for lots presently out- side the Improvement District Number 1 whether previously annexed or annexed but not previously connected, or outside Improvement District Number 1 , but where sewer is presently available and for all lot splits , re-zones and use changes,within thirty days after its adoption. In all other cases , the new fees as s°et forth in this Ordinance, shall be effective on July 1 , 1956 . Before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the passage of this Ordinance , it shall be published once in the Atascadero News , a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circula- ted in this District , and the City Clerk shall certify to the adopt- -7- ,j ion and publication of this Ordinance and its certification, togethe� with proof of publication to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of this District. The foregoing Ordinance was introduced, adopted, and ordered publish- ed at a meeting of the District Board of Directors held on 1986 , by the following vote: ' ATTEST: AYES NOES ABSENT: MIKE 1-01,4 ' Secre y ROLFE NELSON, President APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: PAUL SENSIBAUGH RO M_J A_ S , City Attorney -8- i ** BE A SED COUNCIL SESSION AT 6: P. M. IN THE THERE WILL C CLUB ROOM REGARDING PERSONNEL MATTERS • AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM MARCH 10 , 1986 7 :30 P.M. DEPUTY CITY CLERK Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Invocation Roll Call City Council Comments ** Proclamation of Appreciation to Rose Hebron on Her Departure from the Police Department ** Proclamation of Appreciation to Carla Sanders on Her Departure from the Atascadero Planning Commission ** Proclamation Acknowledging March 22-29, 1986 as "Zoo Week" ** Proclamation Acknowledging March 16-22, 1986 as "Camp Fire Birthday Week" ** Introduction of Jeffery Fredeicks - New Employee - Police Department 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 24 , 1986 2. Finance Director ' s Report - January 1-31, 1986 3. Treasurer ' s Report - January 1-31, 1986 4. Approval of $5, 000 Funding for Alvord Field Proposed Improvements 5. Proposed Resolution 25-86 - Authorizing Public Works Director • to Sign UMTA Section 18 Contracts 1 • ! • 6. Claim by William K Allen (unspecified amount) (RECOMMEND DENIAL) 7. Proposed Resolution 22-86 - Amending Resolution 79-85, Appointing Alternate to the Central Coast Cities Joint Powers Agreement Board of Directors 8. Proposed Resolution 23-86 - Establishing Maximum Settlement Authority to Risk Management Associates for Settlement of Workers' Compensation Claims 9. Consideration of General Plan Conformity Report for City Acquisition of Real Property at 9185 Morro Road (Cont'd from 2/18/86) 10. Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 10-85, 1300 Garcia Road, Dulitz/Moore 11. Proclamation Acknowledging April 30 , 1986 , as Tri-Counties Small Business Opportunities Days B. NEW BUSINESS 1. Administrative Building Renovation - Status Report • 2. Amapoa Tecorida Drainage Plan - Status Report 3. Discussion - Reappointment of Planning Commission Vacant Position C. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (ACSD) (Council will recess and convene as the Atascadero County Sanitation District Board of Directors) 1. Proposed Ordinance No. 121 - Amendments to Sewer Service Fees (FIRST READING) (Cont'd from 2/24/86) (The Board of Directors will adjourn and reconvene as City Council) D. COMMUNITY FORUM: E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION • 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5. City Manager 2 PROCLAMATION OF THANKS AND APPRECIATION • TO ROSIE HEBRON SERGEANT OF POLICE WHEREAS, Rosie began employment with the City of Atascadero on January 13, 1982 , and has since established an impressive record of excellent police service; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to acknowledge Rosie ' s contribution to the Police Department and the City of Atascadero, including her tenure as Youth Services Officer in 1983 and 1984 , her promotion to Sergeant of Police in April , 1985, her special assignment as Traffic Supervisor beginning August, 1985; and WHEREAS, Rosie has continually endeavored to enhance her participation in law enforcement through education and training; and WHEREAS, the City has received many commendations and letters of praise from the public regarding Rosie ' s performance; and WHEREAS, Rosie has consistently shown a high standard of • professional dedication, loyalty, and hard work encompassing many hours exceeding what is expected of her, and has contributed greatly to the betterment of the City of Atascadero; THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that .the Council and employees of the City of Atascadero do hereby acknowledge Rosie Hebron' s committment, interest, and contribution to the City of Atascadero, and contratu ate her for a job well done. BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that the Council and employees of the City of 'Atascadero extend their best wishes to Rosie in her future endeavors. ROLFE EL ON, '1AYOR City of Atascadero, CA march 10 , 1986 • PROCLAMATION OF THANKS AND APPRECIATION TO , CARLA SANDERS CITY OF ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSIONER MAY 1985 TO MARCH 1986 WHEREAS, Carla has served as City Planning Commissioner from May, 1985 through March, 1986 ; and WHEREAS, Carla has shown a high quality of professional dedication and hard work encompassing many hours, and has con- tributed greatly to the betterment of Atascadero; and • WHEREAS, Carla was chosed out of 30 applicants by City Council based on her qualifications and background and her demon- strated interest in the community; and THEREFORE, be it proclaimed that the Council, Planning Commission, City staff, and the people of Atascadero hereby acknowledge Carla' s commitment, interest and contribution, congratulate her for a job well done, and wish her well. ROLFE `IELSON, ?ayor City of Atascadero March 10 , 1986 i P R O C L A M A T I O N Z 0 0 W E E K March 22 - 29, 1986 WHEREAS, The Charles Paddock Zoo, located in Atascadero, is celebrating its 30th anniversity; and WHEREAS, the Charles Paddock Zoo is the only zoo between Santa Barbara and San Francisco, and one of seven in the State; and WHEREAS, the Charles Paddock Zoo provides an educational opportunity for students and a tourist attraction; and WHEREAS, the Zoo is expanding in its collection of rare exotic animals, and involved in ongoing renovations; and WHEREAS, the goal of the Zoological Society is to offer a safe and natural home for endangered species and encourage reproduction in capacity; and THEREFORE, I Rolfe Nelson, Mayor , and the City Council proclaim March 22 - 29, 1986 as "Zoo Week" , and invite the public to visit the Zoo during this week and to participate in activ- ities such as Pancake Breakfast, barbecue, and entertaining animal and bird acts, and celebrity guests. ROLFE N SON, Mayor City of Atascadero, California P R O CL A M A T I O N "CAMP FIRE BIRTHDAY WEEK" March 16 - 22, 1986 WHEREAS, Camp Fire, Inc. , national youth organization, will be celebrating its 76th birthday on March 17, 1986 ; and WHEREAS, the Chumash Camp Fire Council, in Atascadero offers young people the opportunity of informal educational programs which combine group activities with the development of individual talents, as well as offering flexible programming focused on encouraging life skills education for young people to age 21; and WHEREAS, as a community organization, Camp Fire is concerned • with preserving the environment, adapting to social change, the application of democratic standards and stimulating, and guiding young people; and WHEREAS, in Camp Fire, recognition of accomplishments is combined with the encouragement to use developing skills to serve others in the community; and WHEREAS, Camp Fire is commended for the opportunities its programs offer young people and for the many services these young people perform for their communities as Camp Fire members; THEREFORE, I Rolfe Nelson, Mayor of the City of Atascadero, do hereby proclaim March 16 through 22, 1986 , as "Camp Fire Birthday Week" . ROLFE E ON, Mayor City of Atascadero, California • MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting, February 24, 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, Norris and Mayor Nelson ' Absent: None STAFF Mike Shelton, City Manager; David Jorgensen, Admin. Svcs.. Director; Robert rr< Jones, City Clerk/City Atty. ; Bud McHale, Police Chief; Mike Hicks , Fire Chief; Henry Engen, Community Dev. Director; Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director; Cindy Wilkins, Deputy City Clerk. COUNCIL COMMENT e Councilman Molina proposed that the Council consider taking some action to correct the drainage problems in the Azucena/Amapoa area, now that the x $. 50 development fees are in place. Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Dir. , responded that one of the fees on the agenda tonight addresses the drain- age in that area; if the fee ordinance is adopted tonight , staff will report back with plans to correct the flooding problems. Mayor Nelson Cdirected Mr. Sensibaugh to report on the City's 'plan of attack' at the r_ext Council meeting. Mr. Sensibaugh noted that corrective action is planned to be taken before next winter. STAFF COMMENT -Fire Chief Mike Hicks introduced members of the Fire Dept. full-time and reserve staff, who presented a 20-minute EMT-II demonstration of their capabilities with newly acquired equipment. Chief Hicks stated the Fire Dept. has a goal to provide a 24-hour medic service , 365 days a year, in cooperation with Atascadero Emergency Medical Services. Participating, in the exercise were: Fire Capt. Fred Motlo and Firefighter_Mike Messina, both certified EMT-II medics; reserve firefighters Bob Collinsworth, Kurt Stone and Tom Vandermolen. A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the Regular 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.P. (RECOMMEND DENIAL) C 5. Accept Proposal for Atascadero Lake Feasibility Study from Alderman Engineering. 7. Authorization to Purchase Parks Dept. Truck through State Cooper- ative Fleet Plan (Proposed Res. No. 19-86) COUNCIL MINUTES , 2/24/86 ' PAGE TWO 8. Resolution Authorizing Parks & Recreation Director t X � 5- T-11t { C Animal Loan Agreements _ 9. Award Contract for Asbestos Removal to P.W. Stephens iCDxad=&cCb=s, Inc. , So. El Monte, California (Bid #86-35) #"i{ MOTION: ".-By Councilwoman Norris to 'adopt Consent Calendbb-- Rtamm 1-9, sec-' onded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimousIlg lies mmi1-call 4, B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS z 1. Consideration of Adopting Development Impact Ordinaac. : HEARING) (Cont'd from 2/11/86) a. Amapoa-Tecorida Development Area (Proposed Ord..Mm- ILII READING) (Resolution Addressing Fees, No. 9-86 , T"n -A 9 Meeting) br. Lewis Avenue Bridge (Proposed Ord. No. 118 - SECaM R22DI=)) r : (Resolution Addressing Fees, No. 11-86 , Introdum-I c. 'General (Proposed Ord. No. 119 - SECOND READING1) (k uYtumm Addressing Fees, No. 10-86, Introduced @ Meetinjt) Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director, gave staff repot zm_vd!29_r_ aS tt- e recommendations for the proposed Development Impact Feer,. Public Comment . Herb LaPrade, resident, spoke in opposition to levying tih-_, Mmwii:z awe_ Bridge fees on only new development in the identified dawittmzraan �rz�m_ Mike Lucas , resident, spoke in favor of the Lewis Ave. Br _re 1=JE±ct and of the business people within the defined area contribu ihzrnq tim Il.tt„ he in- quired if certain recent projects were preconditioned t-N&_ t±eT w d be required to contribute as well, to which Mr. Sensibaugh rm%zmiiuffed, :Yes, some projects are aware of such a requirement. Mr. Lue-zm Sur prise that the BIA was not notified in order to be press tt=E#ht speak for or against; staff clarified that the BIA was 3toff the map designating the boundaries of the area proposed to b e ass d_ Mr LaPrade spoke again, inquiring how long it will be h-a,. ,. ttl e l r1_dge is completed; staff responded that the fees are intende- t Im =aw±Le tthe financing mechanism toward getting the project started. Terril Graham, 6205 Conejo , inquired if there is any prcx=ft_d_-. .M­Uxi ,as to how the BIA funds are to be spent; City Atty. Robert Ja aas madx-_,a that the BIA is set up under the Streets and Highways Code , : mam-dmttes definite purposes as to how monies are to be spent - maiina-y 3�s 'e ad- vertising and promotion of the downtown area. If the B3M du-sa±r_e:�s tt-o use funds for capital improvements , the issue would have to LbE tmia#ht. 'before the City Council and, specifically for parking, would hrrve tn) torn. an assessment district: The BIA has no authority to spend m=ney ffbr bridge improvements. COUNCIL MINUTES, 2/24/86 PAGE THREE )Richard Shannon, 4820 Obispo , requested and received clarification that additions or remodelings to buildings in both the Amapoa . and downtown are exempt from the fees; Henry Engen, Commun. Dev. Director, noted that the ordinances are patterned after the $. 50 tax, which does exempt addi- tions and is applied only to the principal square footage on new con- struction. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to read Ord. 117 by title only, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously. Mayor Nelson read Ord. 117 by title only. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to adopt Ord. 117, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed 4: 1 by roll-call vote, with Councilwoman Norris voting NO. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to adopt Res. No. 9-86 , seconded by Coun- cilwoman Mackey; passed 4: 1 by roll-call vote, with Councilwoman Norris voting NO. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to read Ord. 118 by title only, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously. Mayor Nelson read Ord. 118 by title only. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to adopt Ord. 118 , seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed 4: 1 by roll-call vote , with Councilwoman Norris voting NO. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to adopt Res. No. 11-86 , seconded by Coun- cilwoman Macke passed 4: 1 b roll-cal Y P 1 vote with Councilwoman Y cilwoman Norris voting NO. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to read Ord. 119 by title only, seconded by Councilman Molina; passed unanimously. Mayor Nelson read Ord. 119 by title only. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to adopt Ord. 119 , seconded by Councilman Molina; passed 4: 1 by roll-call vote , with Councilwoman Norris voting NO. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to adopt Res. No . 10-86 , seconded by Councilman Molina; passed 4: 1 by roll-call vote , with Council- woman Norris voting NO. 2 . General Plan Amendment 2G-85 - Lopus (8205 Coromar) /Coromar Study Area (PUBLIC HEARING) Councilman Molina stepped down from discussion and vote due to pos- sible conflict of interest. Henry Engen, Commun. Devel. Director , gave staff report and responded to several questions from Council with regard to density issues. COUNCIL MINUTES, 2/24/86 PAGE FOUR Public Comment C John and Dottie Lopus, the applicants, spoke in support of their re- quest based on their desire to acquire affordable housing to upgrade the living conditions for members of their family. Tom Gouff, whose property fronts on Portola Rd. , stated he did not receive notice of the Planning Commission hearing and was unable to represent his family' s interests at that time; he spoke in favor of the 2-acre zoning designation, and has been trying to get his pro- perty zoned so since its purchase in 1977 in order to achieve afford- able housing for his children. Mike Lucas , resident, spoke in favor of allowing the applicants their lot split; however, he expressed concern over why so much adjacent property has been attached to the request in view of density and traf- fic issues. He proposed Council limit the 2-acre designation to either study area #1 or areas 1 and 3 , since so many residents in area #2 ex- pressed opposition at the Planning Commission meeting; Mr. Engen re- sponded that the area was expanded in order to include requests from property owners. Herb LaPrade spoke in favor of 2-acre lots and feels Coromar is ideal for that zoning designation. Debbie -Sullivan, owner of 8730 Coromar and 25-year resident , spoke in C favor of the 2-acre designation based on her desire to provide indi- vidual affordable housing as an alternative to apartments in view of Atascadero ' s current rate of population growth. Vince Sullivan, 8730 Coromar , pointed out the number of smaller lots- surrounding the study area and feels 2-acre zoning would straighten out an earlier zoning mistake made by the County; he ' s especially in favor of the Lopuses being granted their request. Tim Lopus, son of applicants, spoke in favor of his parents ' request. Stacy Phillips , daughter of Mr. Gouff (who spoke earlier) , and part- owner of his property fronting Portola, reiterated that they were not notified about the Planning Commission hearing; she spoke in support of including their parcel in the 2-acre zoning, should it be adopted. Bob Stoner , 8635 Coromar , spoke in favor of 2-acre zoning in order to provide the opportunity ortunit PP y for affordable housing (less than $100 ,000) . Phoebe Watson, 8055 Coromar, spoke in support of 2-acre zoning in the Coromar area without further delay. Terril Graham, 6205 Conejo , spoke in support of the 2-acre zoning in view of the community/neighborhood support for it. He offered a Public apology to Councilman George Molina for statements previously made to him regarding "a car coming down the road" . COUNCIL MINUTES, 2/24/86 PAGE FIVE Dennis Lockridge, 8935 Atascadero Ave. , though sympathetic to the people in support of h-acre lots, pointed out the several lots ad- joining the study area that are zoned 1+ acres, which owners bought with the promise that the area zoning designation would not change. He favors a well-planned, if any, zone change, expressing concern over school overcrowding issues. Claire Barbieri, 8660 Coromar, spoke in support of h-acre lots. MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to adopt the Z-acre zoning designation in the Coromar study area to include areas I , II & III in order to have both sides of Coromar in conformity with #-acre lots, sec- onded by Councilwoman Norris; passed 3: 1 by roll-call vote, with Councilwoman Mackey voting NO, and Councilman Molina not voting. COUNCIL RECESSED FOR A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK AT APPROX. 10 : 00 P.M. Mayor Nelson announced a follow-up item of business has come to the Coun- cil' s attention: Henry Engen, Commun. Development Director, reported that, since the previous General Plan action (Item B-2) was a resolution with a modified exhibit per the motion acted upon, it ' s suggested the City Council formally initiate a rezoning to RSF-X to implement that General Plan change (item would go to the Planning Commission before coming back to Council for final approval) . There was no public comment. MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to accept staff ' s recommendation (as sum- marized above) , seconded by Councilwoman Norris; passed 3: 1 , with Councilwoman Mackey voicing NO. C. NEW BUSINESS 1. Zoning Ordinance Procedures Evaluation Henry Engen gave staff report. There was no public comment. MOTION: By Councilwoman to direct staff to go ahead with the ten items (as listed in the staff report , dated 2/24/86) , seconded by Councilman Molina; passed unanimously. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to recess as Council and convene as the Atas. County Sanitation District Board of Directors , seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously. D. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 1. Introduction of Proposed Amended Sewer Ordinance Adding New and Re- vising Sewer Service Fees Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director, gave brief staff report re- viewing recommendations which will be brought forward in ordinance form at the next regular meeting. COUNCIL MINUTES, 2/24/86 PAGE SIX Public Comment Doug Lewis suggested that the Board has the power to address the issue of not penalizing the people who 've been paying the sewer charges al- though not hooked up to the system (relating to Director Mackey' s comment that the ordinance does not address this) ; Mr. Sensibaugh re- sponded that those people , theoretically, will have the same impact as a new annexation at this point in time even though they did pay their original assessment. MOTION: By Director Molina that the Board recess and reconvene as the City Council, seconded by Director Mackey; passed unanimously. E. COMMUNITY FORUM No public comment. F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION _ City Council - Councilwoman Norris said she believes the Council should review, through public hearings , the zoning ordinance regarding mul- tiple dwellings to consider less than 16 per acre zoning; Mayor Nelson suggested specific areas be proposed for consideration. Councilman Molina suggested the news media assist the Council by noticing the public of the Council' s desire to find out how many people that own property would like to have it down-zoned. City Attorney/City Clerk - Robert Jones , as City Atty. , reported that ' an appeal has been made to the Planning Dept. for referral to the Board of Appeals , of which three members terms have recently ex- pired. MOTION: By Councilman Molina that the City Council make interim appoint- ments of John Edens, Kenneth Lerno and David Walters to the Board of Appeals until 4/1/86 , and direct staff to advertise that there are positions available on that Board, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously. City Manager - Mike Shelton briefly responded to Council ' s questions regarding the various processing and scheduling in changing t'_-:` uses of the Administration Bldg. , with related comments from Mr. Sensi- baugh, Public Works Director. City Council concurred that the issue of whether the Rotunda Rm. should be a dedicated room for use by the City Council and Commissions or a multi-purpose room should be brought back as an agenda item for discussion of alternatives . MOTION: By Councilman Molina to extend the meeting past 11 :00 p.m. , sec- onded by Councilwoman Norris; passed 4 : 1 , with Councilman Handshy voicing NO. COUNCIL MINUTES, 2/24/86 PAGE SEVEN Mr. Shelton recognized the efforts of the Dep. City Clerk, who filled in as his secretary during the absence of Karen Vaughan on maternity leave , and he expressed his appreciation by presenting her with six beautiful long-stemmed roses; Councilman Handshy, as spokesman for the Deputy Clerk, indicated that flattery will get you nowhere , but that Cindy would like to negotiate fora wage increase. (Thank you Mike -- nice try, Bear) . MEETING ADJOURNED AT APPROXIMATELY 11 :10 P.M. RECORDED BY: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk PREPARED BY: CINDY WILKINS , Dep. City Clerk T'�.�� - //0/8 i;E+� Z CITY OF ATASCADERO • FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT JANUARY 1, 1986 TO JANUARY 31, 1986 BALANCE AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1985 8,490. 11 DEPOSITED BY TREASURER, SEE RECEIPTS, TREASURER'S REPORT, PAGE 1 549,916 . 45 TOTAL 558, 406. 56 HAND CHECK REGISTER DATED 01/31/86 236, 068.49 CHECK REGISTER DATED 01/03/86 15,427.70 CHECK REGISTER DATED 01/09/86 2,179.75 CHECK REGISTER DATED 01/10/86 35,124.02 CHECK REGISTER DATED 01/17/86 27, 519.71 CHECK REGISTER DATED 01/24/86 29,027.80 CHECK REGISTER DATED 01/24/86 2,632.75 CHECK REGISTER DATED 01/31/86 50 ,721.91 EXPENSE LISTING 123,741.17 TOTAL 522, 443.30 BALANCE AS OF JANUARY 31, 1986 35 ,963. 26 PETTY CASH 540 .00 • TREASURY INVESTMENTS SEE TREASURER' S REPORT, PAGE 2 1,530 ,000 . 00 TOTAL 1,566 ,503.26 I, DAVID JORGENSEN, do hereby certify and declare that demands enumerated and referred to in the foregoing register are accurate and just claims against the City and that there are funds available for payment thereof in the City Treasury. DATED: February 24 , 1986 FAVI Jte7vices RNSEN Admin. Director , 4 • MEETNG Q-1-0-Lk AG-NE)ATZLZ Em DA I T CITY OF ATASCADERO • TREASURER'S REPORT ` JANUARY 1, 1986 TO JANUARY 31, 1986 RECEIPTS TAXES Property Tax 31, 201.33 Cigarette Tax 5,441.17 Motor Vehicle "In Lieu" 36,835.88 Sales Tax 85, 500 .00 Franchise Tax 2,039.03 Occupancy Tax 13,630.88 Livestock-Head Day Tax 26.88 Development Impact Tax 4,637. 50 LICENSE/PERMITS/FEES 34 ,652.47 GAS TAX 82,599.44 STREET ASSESSMENT 100 .50 RECREATION FEES 16,784. 80 GRANTS 44,357.00 TRANSPORTATION SB-325 95,149.50 • MISCELLANEOUS Miscellaneous 1,722.14 Donations 169. 68 Rents/Concessions 504. 72 Sale Maps/Publications/Reports 278 .30 Special Police Services 108.00 Fines & Penalties 1,017 .12 Planning Permit Deposits 4,330.72 Bails/Bonds 1,923.00 Traffic Safety 5,136 .45 Reimbursement from Sanitation District 30 , 682. 87 Reimbursement to Expense 1, 518. 29 P.O.S.T. 1, 621. 54 Refunds 1,713.62 Appeals 50. 00 Overages & Shortages 1.00 Traffic Safety Officer 3 ,948.90 Investment Earnings 33 , 014.66 Weed Abatement 1,179. 53 Off-Highway Vehicles 165 .13 Use of City Crews/Equip. 226 . 40 Storm Damage-Emer . Svcs. 48 . 00 Performance Bonds 7, 600.00 TOTAL 549,916. 45 • 1 FEBRUARY 24,1986 To All Council Members: The breakdown detail on all accounts is available for your viewing in the Finance Department. Davi or ensen Admini tr tive Services Director 3 E 1NG r":vct DA M E M O R A N D U M 31io P6 ; EPA# -----_.rl._.. February 26 , 1986 To : City Council Via: Mike Shelton , City Manager From: Bob Best , Director of Parks & Recreation .Department Subject : Alvord Field INTRODUCTION At the mid-year budget review, Council directed me to obtain more information regarding the needs for improvements at Alvord Field. I have since met with Mr. Jim Gibbons concerning the needs of the Babe Ruth baseball program regarding this facility. BACKGROUND As Council is aware , the Babe Ruth program utilizes Alvord Field for several months during Spring and Summer. Current goals of the organization are to request being the host for state and • regional tournaments . These would bring in many teams from outside the Atascadero and San Luis Obispo County areas , necessitating overnight loding and expenditures of funds for many differenct activities . The Babe Ruth organization informs me that , in order to host these tournaments , Alvord Field must be brought up to standards which would qualify Atascadero to be the host city for these youth tournaments . This would include the addition of dugouts , a con- cesssion/storage area, and additional seating. Mr. Gibbons informs me that he has contractors already committed to do the necessary work to construct the dugouts and the conces- sion building. He is also seeking donations for as many materials for these projects as possible . He has committed the organization to completing the dugouts and concession stand with volunteer labor if the City can help with the cost of plans and materials . This would would not exceed $5 ,000 . In addition , he understands that any plans for this facility must be reviewed by City staff . RECOMMENDATION Authorize the expenditure of a maximum of $5 ,000 from Council • Contingency Fund for materials and building plans , to be used at Alvord Field. E�TING AGT�DA _ ATI: JTEM • MEMORANDUM TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: UMTA Section 18 Capital Assistance Contracts DATE: March 4, 1986 Recommendation: Itis recommended that Council approve the attached resolution authorizing the Director of Public Works to execute all documents required in obtaining UMTA Section 18 Capital Assistance Contracts. Background: UMTA Section 18 funds are available each fiscal year for the purchase of buses for the Dial-A-Ride transportation. system. These funds are on a matching basis and the cost to the city is approximately $8,000. per bus purchased. • At the City Council meeting of September 23 , 1985 Council authorized staff to make application for the purchase of two re- placement buses, one bus to be funded out of Section 18 funds and the other out of State Discretionary Funds, both administered by the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council and Regional Trans- portation Planning Agency. • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mike Shelton FROM: David Jorgensen\ l SUBJECT: Claim of William K. Allen DATE: February 25 , 1986 RECOMMENDATION City Council deny claim submitted on August 23 , 1985 , by the above-named claimant ' s attorney. BACKGROUND • Claimant alleged false arrest by Atascadero Police Department. City' s adjustors, Carl Warren & Co. , have reviewed this claim and have advised that it be refected at this time. DGJ/cw i Pr'�Ti 3//O / (. • _M_E M_O_R_A_N_D_U_M_ TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager1 FROM: David G. Jorgensen, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Appointment as Alternate to Central Coast Cities Join Powers Authority RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council appoint the Director of Administrative Services as an alternate member of the Board of Directors of the Central Coast Cities Joint Powers Authority. DISCUSSION Currently the City Manager is the City' s Board Member on the Central Coast Cities Joint Powers Authority. It is not always • possible for him to attend the board meetings. In order for the City to maintain participation and disseminate information from the JPA as well as represent the City' s position on board issues, it is necessary that an alternate board member be appointed to attend in the absence of the City Manager. Since part of the responsibilities of the Director of Administrative Services i risk isk managem enand personnel, it seems logical that he be appointed as alternate board member in the City Managers absence. • 1,G7`;DA M_E M_O_R A N_D U M_ TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: David G. Jorgensen , Administrative Services Directo SUBJECT: Establish ' Settlement amount for Workers Compensation Claims RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council establish $5, 000 - as the maximum Authority that Risk Management Associates , as Claims Administrator, can setthe workers compensation claims and that any amount over $5, 000 must have City Council approval before settle- ment is made. DISCUSSION In Section II Workers ' Compensation Plan under item D-1 of the Central Coast Cities Insurance Fund Policy and Procedures it • states, "Each City grants to the Claims Administrator a level of discretionary settlement authority. All settlements in excess of the discretionary authority of the Administrator requires prior approval from the City. " Apparently the actual dollar amount of the settlement authority level has never been established. It is important that an amount be established that will help facilitate the settlement of claims. It is equally important that this settlement authority amount be substantial enough to make settlement a viable option in negotiating claims. I feel that we now have a Claims Administrator, Risk Management Associates , who will agressively pursue the settlement of claims and who is actively looking out for the best interests of the City. Sometimes a claim that might be settled immediately for a reasonable amount may cost more if settlement authority is delayed waiting for a vote of the governing body. However, I do feel that it' s equally important for the governing body to have absolute control of proposed settlements that are excessively large. Hence my recommendation of up to $5, 000 settlement authority be granted to the Claims Administrator and anything over $5, 000 be done only upon the approval of the City Council. • N1E �+ =HIDA r D, M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council March 10, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager A _ FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: General Plan Conformity Report LOCATION: 9185 Morro Road REQUEST: General Plan conformity report for City acquisition of real property located near Atascadero Lake. On February 18, 1986 , the Planning Commission considered the above-referenced subject. After discussion, the Commission rec- ommended that acquisition of the referenced property be found • to be in conformance with the City adopted General Plan (see attached staff report) . No one else spoke to this matter. HE:ps General Plan Conformity Report ort 9185 Morro Road) quisition as "recreation" . _ RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council that the acquisition of Lot 6, Block JC be found to be in conformance with the City' s adopted General Plan. SLD:ps ATTACHMENTS: A - Vicinity Map B - General Plan Excerpts C - General Plan Map D - Government Code Excerpt 2 Ai TOA U-IMeN A PTN. 'CITY OF �4TASCAI�E�� , i 1 * Q POW- 3N 33 ° � x Ow f _► @ mo o FIEL. p 2 � o 38 N 6 00 CD 3 t �^ 7� 3 , 11Zi T c lq 'FR. JC ' 3 30 35 10 !'123 N67 50W1 +r - 3 9362 f � n • 7 56 W 1 < S54° 22 /3"6ld 81.75 154.91 ` 150 i SITE 0 Q � N6� ' a Z civ 3 ' PAR.K L.. 'N . p � .• �r - �� ao PARKING 1 F ,�, ` N63 .29 w LOT = Q OWNED 4rl) , Lu N � LU t �' _ 0 1l3R.bL.> .'Q 7C1,. ' " ' 1 90 jpl.b4 6660 71 h1 /' LN5�°';Y►. ABAN 1 f G tTY Z no A► ClefT GENEItAL PLAN 1wXcee-F rd Open space for outdoor recreation includes areas of out- standing ut-stan ing scenic, historic or cultural value., areas parti- cularly outstanding for park and recreation purposes, 6. 8Z including access to lakeshores, beaches, rivers and streams, and areas which serve as links between major recreation and open space reservations, including utility easements, banks of rivers and 'streams,, trails,, and scenic highway- corridors . Areas of open space available for recreation that shall be preserved are listed below: �J The banks and bed of Atascadero Creek The inundation area of the Salinas River Atascadero Lake and its surrounding park The Sunken Gardens Chalk Mountain Regional Park PC. 83 The three Little League baseball fields The banks and bed of Graves Creek Pine Mountain (in part) The Wranglerette Arena Areas of open space that shall be considered for acquisition by a public agency and/or preserved for recreation are listed below: Chandler Parkland Pine Mountain Amphitheater County-owned lots fronting on Lakeview adjacent to Atascadero Lake Atascadero Lake The 25-acre Atascadero Lake and its surrounding 10-acre park not only provide a home for aquatic and bird life but also serve as the primary recreational area for the Colony and, indeed, for surrounding portions of the entire County. The Dark is so heavily used that additional areas will have $5 to be acquired to keep pace with the patronage. A park development plan approved by the Board of Supervisors foresees acquisition and construction of a greater variety and number Of recreational facilities . A long-term Capital Outlay Program is necessary to properly allocate construction- funds for these projects. J � 4 a lb is _ ` ✓✓✓ 1 vin f � � � � m b A � � � •I � A S � A y A j @• m f A b A A �M � .•` � A a s s A b y A •�` Ir � �. md� m ,aAA � m � � A m m ® � ® A s\•p A y e ® o l� A A • A A 6. i 4 & A ��..' A d �� 8• m �/c� A b A A A d� A A B ! A d, A A 9 A A m m A A m b b ® A m m A A A m A m b m ® m m A f 4 A A S A A A A A A m A A A A b b a A a a • A A A b A b a • A s b I m A b 9 GGGGiGoi low ouuou/■ 410 A i'A GN A1 .D _:: _ �aVC�NMENT CaI�E ,EXc��ep7`_ (a) Investigate and make recommendations to the legis- lative body upon reasonable and practical means for putting into effect the general plan or part thereof, in order that it will serve as a pattern and guide for the orderly physical growth and development and the preservation and conserva- tion of open space land of the county or city and as a basis for the efficient expenditure of its funds relating to the subjects of the general plan; the measures recommended may include plans, regulations, financial reports, and capital budgets. (b) Render an annual report to the legislative body on the status of the plan and progress in its application. (c) Endeavor to promote public interest in and understand- ing of the general plan, and regulations relating to it. (d) Consult and advise with public officials and agencies, Public utility companies, civic, educational, professional and ` other organizations, and citizens generally with relation to carrying out the general plan. (Amended by Stats. 1970, Ch. 1590.) Annual review of public 65401. If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted, works projects for within such time as may be fixed by the legislative body, conformity with plan each county or city officer, department, board, or commis- sion, and each governmental body, commission, or board, including the governing body of any special district or school district, whose jurisdiction lies wholly or partially within the county or city, whose functions include recommending, preparing plans for, or constructing, major public works, shall submit to the official agency, as designated by the respective county board of supervisors or city council, a list of the proposed public works recommended for planning, initiation or construction during the ensuing fiscal year. The official agency receiving the list of proposed public works shall list and classify all such recommendations and shall prepare a coordinated program of proposed public works for the ensuing fiscal year. Such coordinated program shall be submitted to the county or city planning agency for review and report to said official agency as to con- formity with the adopted general plan or part thereof. (Amended by Stats. 1970, Ch. 1590.) Restrictions on acqui- 65402. (a) If a general plan or part thereof has been sition and disposal of adopted, no real property shall be acquired by dedication real property or otherwise for street, square, park or other public pur- poses, and no real property shall be disposed of, no street shall be vacated or abandoned, and no public building or structure shall be constructed or authorized if the adopted general plan or part thereof applies thereto, until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition or disposi- tion, suchstreet vacation or a an onment, or such public building or structure have been subFFi—tted to and reported upon by the planning agency as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof. The planning agency shall render its report as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof within forty (40) days after 44 the matter was submitted to it, or such longer period of time as may be designated by the legislative body. If the legislative body so provides, by ordinance or reso- lution, the provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to: (1) the disposition of the remainder of a larger parcel which was acquired and used in part for street purposes; (2) acquisitions, dispositions, or abandonments for street widen- ing; or (3) alignment projects, provided such dispositions for street purposes, acquisitions, dispositions, or abandonments for street widening, or alignment projects are of a minor nature. (b) A county shall not acquire real property for any of the purposes specified in paragraph (a), nor dispose of any real property, nor construct or authorize a public building or structure, in another county or within the corporate limits of a city, if such city or other county has adopted a general plan or part thereof and such general plan or part thereof is applicable thereto, and a city shall not acquire real property for any of the purposes specified in paragraph (a), nor dispose of any real property, nor construct or authorize a public building or structure, in another city or in unincorporated territory, if such other city or the county in which such unincorporated territory is situated has adopted a general plan or part thereof and such general plan or part thereof is applicable thereto, until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition, disposition, or such public building or structure have been submitted to and reported orted u on by the planning agency having jurisdiction, as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof. Failure of the planning agency to report within forty (40) days after the matter has been submitted to it shall be conclusively deemed a finding that the proposed acquisition, disposition, or public building or structure is in conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof. The provisions of this paragraph (b) shall not apply to acquisition or abandonment for street widening or alignment projects of a minor nature if the legislative body having the real property within its boundaries so provides by ordi- nance or resolution. (c) A local agency shall not acquire real property for any of the purposes specified in paragraph (a) nor dispose of any real property, nor construct or authorize a public building or structure, in any county or city, if such county or city has adopted a general plan or part thereof and such general plan or part thereof is applicable thereto, until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition, disposition, or such public building or structure have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency having jurisdiction, as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof. Failure of the planning agency to report within forty (40) days after the matter has been submitted to it shall be conclusively deemed a finding that the proposed acquisition, disposition, or public building or structure is in 45 4- 10 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council March 10, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager Nom' . FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 10-85 LOCATION: 1300 Garcia Road APPLICANT: James and Sylvia Dulitz (Shirley Moore) • On November 12, 1985, the City Council approved Lot Line Adjust- ment 10-85, subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The required con- ditions have been complied with and the final map is recommended for approval. HE:ps cc: James and Shirley Dulitz Shirley Moore • P R O C L A M A T I O N TRI-COUNTIES SMALL BUSINESS OPORTUNITY DAY TRADE FAIR APRIL 30 , 1986 WHEREAS, business enterprise has been a vital part of this County' s way of --life since its very beginning; and WHEREAS, the Southern California Regional Purchasing Council and its co-sponsor local corporate businesses have joined in selecting April 30, 1986 to emphasize the contributions made to the American way of life by members of the small community; and WHEREAS, entrepreneurship is still the free enterprise system' s gateway to opportunity and the means by which most Americans build a better way for their families; and WHEREAS, small business people of all ethnic origins have developed capabilities which now include a diverse range of products and services; and • WHEREAS, the Tri-Counties Small Business Opportunity Day will provide a forum for these outstanding businesses to interface with their counterparts in majority Corporate America in an on- going effort to develop purchases; THEREFORE, I, Rolfe Nelson, Mayor of the City of Atascadero, do hereby declare April 30, 1986 as "Small Business Opportunity Day" and ask all citizens of Atascadero to thank the local business community for their sponsorship of this worthy event. ROLFE NELSON, Mayor City of Atascadero March 10, 1986 • • MEMORANDUM TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager U FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/'City Engineer SUBJECT: Building Renovation - Staff Report DATE: March 6, 1986 Activity-Description Eng. Estimate Status Phase IIA - Asbestos Removal $12, 000 Contract awarded Begin removal by end of month. Phase IIB — Structural and 90,000 Comments received 3rd Floor Restroom Plans now being revised. Anticipate Bid in April Phase IIC - HVAC and Room 371,900 Under Design • Renovation All Phases - Engineering 73 ,400, HVAC & Room Renov- ation now being designed. Total Project Estimate $547,300 Total Project Budget 570 ,000 Available Contingency Monies $ 22,700 TO: City Council March 10 , 1986 _ • FROM: Mike Shelton City Manager SUBJECT: PROPOSED USE OF ADMINISTRATION FACILITY RECOMMENDATION: City Council endorse proposed Administration Facility Use Plan and designate City Council/Planning Commission Chamber location. BACKGROUND: The City is a recipient of grant funds to renovate the City Hall building. On November 7, 1985, City Council authorized entering into agreement with Fred H. Schott and Associates for engineering and architectural services for the renovation project for City Hall. Current usage of the building will change with the poten- tial relocation of the Police Department and Library to other facilities. Schott and Associates are asking direction from staff for the final room arrangements, including the Council/ Planning Commission Chamber location. It is important to final- ize these decisions to enable final planning and avoid redesign at a later date. Attached are diagrams showing the proposed usage of each floor of the building. The proposal is submitted based on the following assumptions and priorities: * Internal reassignments assume moving out of the Police Department and Library * Convenience to the public is the most important location con- sideration, with departments having the greatest public con- tact being located in areas to achieve ease of access by the public. * Department location must provide adequate space and con- figuration (within the limitations of the building) to provide for efficient internal operations. * Proximity must be planned to enable efficient interdepart- mental contact for departments with need for frequent inter- action. Based on these considerations, staff recommends usage of the first floor by the Community Development Department, Parks and Recreation , and City Clerk/Information functions. Current per- • sonnel are as follows: 1 Community Development ment _ 1 Community Services Director 1 Secretary to Community Services Director 1 Senior Planner 3 Planners 1 Chief Building Inspectors 3 Building Inspectors 1 Plan Checker 1 Building Technician 1 Clerk 13 TOTAL WORK SPACES REQUIRED Parks and Recreation 1 Parks and Recreation Director 1 Senior Recreation Coordinator 1 Recreation Coordinator 1 Secretary 2 Part-time Personnel 6 TOTAL WORK SPACES REQUIRED City Clerk/Information 1 City Clerk (elected position) 1 Deputy City Clerk (part-time) 1 PBX Operator/Clerk (part-time) 3 TOTAL WORK SPACES REQUIRED (Total first floor work spaces required is 22) The second floor usage is proposed as follows: 2 Public Works Department 1 Public Works Director 1 Secretary 1 Senior Engineer 1 Public Works Superintendent 1 Engineering Technician 5 TOTAL WORK SPACES REQUIRED Administrative Services/Finance 1 City Treasurer (elected position) 1 Administrative Services Director 1 Accounting Supervisor 3 Accounting Clerks 1 Secretary to Administrative Services Director 1 *Computer (work space required) 8 TOTAL WORK SPACES REQUIRED City Council/City Manager 1 City Council (elected) 1 City Manager 1 Secretary 3 TOTAL WORK SPACES REQUIRED (Total second floor work spaces required is 16) The Third Floor usage is proposed as follows: Outside Agencies Dial A Ride Genaelogical Society Recreation/Conference Rooms Employee Lounge/Kitchen Other/Storage The Fourth Floor usage is proposed as follows: Council/Planning Commission Chamber/Public Facility Staff requests direction from City Council as to location of the Council/Planning Commission Chambers. Alternatives discussed include: 3 Fourth Floor - Carpet - Exclusive use as Council/Planning Commission Chamers with permanent chairs Fourth Floor - Carpet - Multi-purpose room - Council/Planning Commission Chambers and public use. New chairs or "permanent chairs" on runners. Fourth Floor - As is - Multi-purpose Council/Planning Commission Chambers and public use (no carpeting) First Floor Rotunda - Shared use with Historical Society. Council/Planning Commission Chambers - Alternate site away from Administration Building. . . such as new Police facility "multi-purpose" room. Staff has reviewed the alternative of placing the Council Chambers in either the current Adult or Childrens Library. Due to the long rectangular shape, support columns in the rooms and poor mid-room access, this alternative is not recommended. Council may desire to appoint a subcommittee to review alter- natives of the Council/Planning Commission Chamber concept with staff and report back to Council. MS:kv File: MADMIN 4 �ggs STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGO RECEIVED �`jNR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P.O. BOX 2390 .� SACRAMENTO 95811 February 27, ; 1986° Paul Sensibaugh City of Atascadero P.O. Box 747 Atascadera, CA 93423 Subject: Administration Building Dear Paul: Thank you for submitting an application for grant funds for the above project through the historic preservation component of the California Park and Recreational Facilities Act of 1984, 1896 cycle. I regret to inform you that we were unable to include this project in the list recommended to the Legislature for funding this year. We received 130 applications for a total of $18 million. The $3 million allocated for this year's program has 32 projects recommended for funding, most of them for amounts less than requested. The competetive ranking for this program was such that many good projects ranked lower than others. Your project was not reachable with available funds. Staff in the Office of Historic Preservation at (916) 445-8006 will be glad to discuss your application for possible modifications for resubmittal in the next funding cycle. Your concern and commitment to preserving this important historic resource is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Wm. S. Briner Director STATE OF CALIFORNIA—TME RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,Governor CE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION TMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION POST OFFICE SOX 4390 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 93811 aFIVED February 24, 1986 FEB 2 719861 Rich Kopecky Fred Schott & Co. F^I-7 H. SCHOTT&ASSOC. 200 Suburban Road San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 Dear Rich: Our restoration architect, Tom Winter, has reviewed the Phase IIB revised plans for the Atascadero Administration Building and, in general, finds them excellent. He does, however, have several comments he wishes to have incorporated into the plans. On Sheet A-2 Plan No. B/A2 Women ' s Restroom, show access doors into less significant areas, in this case into the handicap stall opposite door to stall. Justify toilet rooms Sheets A3 and A4. If lowered ceilings in to , ceilings must be lowered, use lath and plaster and match existing finishes at new height. OHP would prefer solving Detail A S2 Low Parapet Brace in another manner. Since the parapet balustrade occurs over landscape areas, and is non-historic our preferences follow in order: 1 . provide no bracing; 2. brace minimally from brick columns (horizontal brace) ; 3, use a similar detail but do not drill holes into the top surface of the concrete parapet. Drill holes into the inside vertical face and slope the holes enough so that water will not stand or flow to the closed end, but to the open end. On Detail B/S2 High Parapet Brace, drill holes into the inside face as shown except holes shall slope to drain water, as noted above (see enclosed xerox) . Please call if you have questions or comments. Thank you. Sincerely, Pamela Carlson 1984 State Park Bond Grants Administrator PaZma""Avenue O O O O O O . . . . . . . #102 " " 171 -ffr-r77T7TT7 ' . ... . . . .� I • • • • • • �� • • •I � lllllllllrl XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX ( . . . . . . • .. . . . . . � XXXXXXXXX ` XXXXXXXXX ... . . . . . . . . . * I I * * * I I . ; . ... . . . . xxiaxxxxxx Atascadero7 xxxxxxxxxx . . . . . . . . . .' �. ' ' .ffivi' ' ' ' '� Historical. xxxxx Nxx • • • • • • • • • • • ; Socie ty xxxxxxxxxx . . . . . . • Q • �' � ). ;/ Xjxxxxxxxxxx xx�xxxxxx . . . . . . . . .. ��tISeZU7t �"XXXXXXXXXX . . . . . . . . . . .4.. \ • :r. : : rxxxxxxxxx \. �XxXxxxxx xx EZe�j)j . C C - - N FIRST FLOOR TABLE : xxxxxx - RECREATION DEPARTMENT . . . . . . - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT PaZma Avenue 0 . 0 0 .0 0 1��i9il'• llll illll� lrlil llllil��rl-rl llrri�lllrr lllll illll. '.lull. llll/ I lllllll l it _ , ur�l�lllll . +1 1141 1 1.1 4--,--- 21/11/ f ' #2, �ii�;++� 7771 J- -I-J- II \ l/,1-ice I F - .. i 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 SECOND FLOOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - PUBLIC WORKS + - CITY MANAGER Palma Avenue ����R1Y1�ow #308 �� C.C.C.G.S. I ��#### k## 1307 I I DIAL-A-RiDd i �, , I �####### k��������������������� ��k������� �########## �########## ###Wlyt #������lplklklr### kik##if##### ########���k ########�k�k THIRD FLOOR - RECREATION DEPARTMENT ###### - COMMON CITY USE I I I CZub l II Room 11l n ° ° 1 Storagell � z 15torage , Rotunda � I Room 11_�I L � � r i O ° r i Kitchen LL-7 J FOURTH FLOOR s ' � 4 B..ASEY. ENT J ,C , 'S l n D. ST' AGE STOLRA DI RT I u L= BOILER SHOP d ZrIl I=. l -CUSTODIAL - - �r Q D,A. R, ST RAGE • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paull Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Amapoa-Tecorida (Azucena) Drainage Plan DATE: March 5, 1986 N Recommendation: Staff proposes the following schedule of events to alleviate the drainage problem at Azucena which is a critical low spot in the Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Basin. Activity 1986-87 Azucena March April May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec Jan-July . Project Receive Contour Mapping XXXXXCXX Call in Dev. Fee Agrmts. Drainage Plan XXXKXXXKXXXX Design XXX KXXX K= Determine Cost, Est. XXXa Financing Advertise & XXX Receive Bids XXX Construction CONTINUE DRAINAGE STUDY Drainage KXXXXKXXXXKXXXY Policy KXXXXKXXXXKXYM Develop Stds. / Existing SysteTr XXXXXXXXXXX onto Mapping TO: City Council March 10 , 1986 FROM: Mike Shelton • SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION VACANCY BACKGROUND: Urgency Ordinance Number 101, adopted April 8, 1985, created a seven (7) member Planning Commission with three (3) members appointed for terms expiring on August 1, 1986 and four. (4) members appointed for terms expiring on August 1, 1988. Section 2-9-05 of the Ordinance states that vacancies will be filled by appointment of the City Council for the unexpired term. Attached Resolution Number 37-85 made the following appointments to the Commission: One year terms which expire August 1, 1986 : Thomas Hatchell Nellie Kennedy Wayne La Prade Three year terms which will expire August 1, 1988 : Jerry Bond • Eric Michielssen Ed Nolan Carla Sanders In making these appointments, the Council advertised and received 33 applications, of which 26 applicants were interviewed. Attached is a letter by Carla Sanders resigning from the Commission as she has moved to the City of San Luis Obispo. COUNCIL ACTION With the resignation of Commissioner Sanders, Council will be requested to discuss the vacancy and give direction to staff as you deem appropriate. MS:kv File: Mplancom • ORDINANCE N0. Page 2 his term as Planning Commissioner shall terminate as of the date of filing. Sec. 2-9.04. Members: Removal from office. A member of the Planning Commission may be removed by a majority vote of all of the members of the Council. Sec. 2-9.05 . Vacancies. A vacancy on the Planning Commission occurring by death, resignation, removal, or any other cause before .the expiration of the term of the member shall be filled by appointment for the unexpired term by the Council. Sec, 2-9.06. Expenses. Planning Commission members shall be entitled to remunera- tion for expenses in accordance with the procedure approved by resolution of the Council. Sec. 2-9.07. Powers. duties. and functions. The powers, duties, and functions of the Planning Commis- sion shall be all those powers, duties, and functions of a Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Adjustment as provided in Chapters 3 and 4 of Title 7, commencing with Section 65100 of the Government Code of the State (the Planning and Zoning Law) , as the same may be hereafter amended. The Planning Com- mission shall perform such other duties and functions as may be directed or designated by the Council not inconsistent with State law. Sec. 2-9.08 . Chairman: Rulese Records and meetings. As of August 1 annually, or as soon thereafter as is fea- sible, the Planning Commission shall elect a chairman and a vice chairman from among its members, shall adopt rules for the transaction of business, shall keep a public record of its resolutions, transactions, findings, and determinations, and shall hold', at least one (1) regular meeting each month. Section 3 . Sections 2-13 .01 through 2-13 .12 of Chapter 13 of Title 2 of the Atascadero Municipal Code, relating to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, are hereby repealed. Section 4 . Chapter 13 (Reorganized) is added to Title 2 of the Atascadero Municipal Code, relating to the Parks and Recreation Com- mission, to read as follows: "'CIL MEETING 5/13/85. ACE`,JA ITEM NO. : C - 1 - B RESOLUTION NO. 37-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Ordinance No.'- 101 relating to the establishment of a city planning commission; and WHEREAS, public advertisements soliciting interest in appointment to the planning commission have been published; and WHEREAS, the City Council did receive 33 applications for consid- eration; and WHEREAS, the City Council aid, on April 29 , 1985 , consider 26 candidates for appointment to the planning commission; and WHEREAS, on May 6 , 1985 , City Council did vote for specific nomin- ations to the planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve to make the following appointments to the planning commission: 1. One year terms which will expire August 1, 1986 : a. Thomas Hatchell b. Nellie Kennedy C. Wayne LaPrade 3. Three year terms which will expire August 1,1988 : a. Jerry Bond b. Eric Michielssen C. Ed Nolan d. Carla Sanders NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does further resolve that this resolution shall take effect immediately. On motion by Councilman Molina and seconded by Council- woman Mackey , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following vote: AYES: Councilwomen Mackey & Norris , Councilmen I:olina & Handshy and Mayor Nelson NOES : None ABSENT: None Resolution No. 37-85 ADOPTED: May 13 , 1985 _ By ; � j , ROLFE ELSgN, Mayor l City of Atascadero, California ATTEST ROBERT/ M. JONES`E.ity Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: bt4J- td� MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager PREPARED BY: AV HENRY ENJEN, Plan ing Director 2 M.=.'R 5 Mr. Henry E�3�en .L.; Atascadero City -Hal, 1 CITY MGR. -Dear i•ir. Engen, lease aCCeyt __y rest-nation 2rC:3 t o -lbas-.^,a:iero i11a1Il1.1 CoLh-Assicn, as I ,no ionror reside 1.1 ;,_ae city c-f asca_',2ro. In affering my resit nation, I iioalu also ii.�C to e= i"ress ';Aat a ed1 i'Kro 1 as Jet'11 to idol . iitl v i you +I:': ---`' 11'ii .J L,all. Iii l,,ec. .st y3a I ii' •-vo Joel Vvr�jT 1 .1'311 `., JJ '.,� .ilv.: ..._.�; .�v.x.',SSic1:.l.liSm s c.i•v .. '- _. and coo, eratica 3"o n to the -,)_'anniY1 � "'-O i-S_--Z , uCel ,''° OSeS, L`aeJ llorrla and Dou- Davidson. v Gari a 3ai2a�r tneE r► ' ^moi MIA 10 / MEMORANDUM • TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager VCU FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Sewer Charges - Amendment Ordinance DATE: March 6, 1986 Recommendation: Staff recommends passage of Ordinance No. 121 amending certain sections of the ACSD Ordinance Code and establishing new connection charges. Background: Enclosed is the staff report regarding the fee changes and policy statements. Discussion: Council directed staff to bring back the above ordinance based on the staff report with the following changes: a) That vacant lots not rezoned or split or changed in use since the formation of Improvement District No. 1, or those paying the stand-by charge that have been given a 12 month grace period have an effective date of July 1, 1986 as proposed. (Items 5 thru 7 on pg. 13 of the report) ; b) That all other categories have an effective date of 30 days after passage. (Items 1 thru 4 or other possible scenarios. ) C) That the designated Cease and Desist area and adjacent areas covered by a Health Officers Letter be exempt from the new fees, but will pay the old fees. Fiscal Impact: The new charges are expected to raise $1,700 ,00 within Improvement District No. 1 and $2,398 , 643 outside Improvement District No. 1, but inside the ACSD or Urban Services Line, during the build- out time of the respective areas. No figures have been estimated for areas outside the USL that may be annexed in the future. Other annexations on the books but not constructed includ two projects consisting of 436 apartment units. The in-li assessment fees for these units will amount to $344 , 100 , not includin 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. AP ortion (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 pai off prior to the projected buildout year . Lot splits, use changes ar. annexations pay in-leiu or substitute 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. l lots. The new Aeriated Laqoons 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 p� .t 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 Chancre Fee is charged for all lot splits within I .D. No. 1. The fee was intended to be similar to the In-Lein 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 0 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 "tu•,l-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 he collected as a "buy-in" to help offset the impact on the existing system which a portion was paid for only by the original I . D. No. 1 parcel but that an annexation fee be high enough to :support future facility improvement as referenced later . It is suagested that this he called 3 �; � 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: O & M 350 000 7 $ r or 6 % of the rates /Y 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 Excenditures Pay off of General Obligation Bonds - $665 , 000 Pay off of FmHA Loan (Assessment 3onds) - $3 , 010 . 369 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 : 1allace 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 como_ ared 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 bv founder , E.G. Lewis (This boundary is not a political boundary and i:3 only major significance when playing the _road game puzzle, which is n 0 the pleasure of this report. ) The area emcompased by this line is approximately 38 sq. miles or 24 , 320 acres . Y 5 46 City of Atascadero Corporation Line (1979) - The city is with*_ 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 County 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 0 0 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 Svstem (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 210'2 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 :'.,,HA loan is either paid off earlier or unforseen legal complications enter the picture. Cease and Desist Boundaries - These boundaries delineate major sewer prcolem areas scattered throughout the City. all are within the City but some are outside the ACSD and Tome are outside the 'JSL. These boundaries are expected to exist until the sewers are eventuall•. provided . The Cit", is presently under an Order to sewer three o. these areas by .November of 1986 . 6 New Sewer Connection Fee (A) The buildout of they 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 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 and 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 2060 gpd/apt. unit 32 Then, 26 F.U. X $20 . 50/F.U. =S533 per apartment .:nit Mobile Home: Again, keening proportionate to the original design, 25 X 28 = 21. 88 call 22 F.U. or 220 gpd 3 2 Then, 22 F.U. X $20 . 50 = $451 per mobile unit Commercial, Industrial and Other Non-Residential : Use- $20 . 50 per Fixture Unit 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. 1 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 I [B] :annex. Fee [Cl Tap Charee [0] Permit Fee � r Sinc,le Family S573/unit S 1,210/unit , S250/each j S5/each 'fultiFamily $533/unit I S 1,123/unit S250/each i SS/each �.obile Home $451/unit ( $ 950/unit 5250/each '5/each Commercial $20.50/F.U. S 43.20/F.U. S250/each >5/each < <rnen Payable: Upon Connection Upon app. I Upon Conn. i'non _1pp. � a i Rates: See Rate Table in Ordinance - it is not anticipated that rates will increase in the near future. 4 � 4 R 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 Pav 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 Pav the Annexation Fee . ` (5) Inside I.D. No. 1, Sewer Available, but Building not connected within the required 24 month period. Recommendations: Pav 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 "vailable. Recommendations : This categor.v to not include previous annexations. ',Iot pay the annexation fee but Pav_ the sewer connection charge. : j 9 (7) Inside I.D. No. 1, Vacant Lot, Sewer Not Available, (Rare case) is 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 Jnifor`. Plumbing Code, unless a variance is granted by the Board of Directors. Section 3. 4 Anv newly-constructed building to which a oublic 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 . Thev are as follows: 1. All sewer main extensions are to be funded '--v those requesting annexation. 2. Annexations must be contiguous to the existing improvement District. 10 3 . In consideration of the annexation request, the proponen shall be required to furnish . an engineer ' s evaluation ` 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 chanced 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 Policv Proposals: It is recommended that the Board adoo_ t 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 teemed for-feited. Reapplication will require new fees. 9 . '10-thin 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. L1 11 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. 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. ; 2 1 7 L Summary Table of Fee Recommendations: Applicable Scenario Proposed Fees Total Cost for Old Fees I Notes (max. case) Sin-le�Family l+ (1) Presently outside A,B,C,D $2,038 B,C,D Requires approval ACSD, USL or inside ACSD of annexation bv_ 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 101, 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. #1,but sewer avail. ( within 12 mos. Ior violation (4) Inside I.D. -41, 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) Insi7e I.D. .'1, Sewer A,B,C,D $2,038 I C,D IGrant 12 mo grace Available, buildin; not connected :within reqd 24 ( iaeriod :w/o fine month period. t - (6) Inside I.D. :`1, vacant A,C,D S 828** C,D not to include lot, sewer available previous annex. 1 (7) Inside Z.D. -`1, vacant A,B,C,D $2,038 C,D lot, sewer not avail. � " I :,;ote: For the typical Sin21e fa ,il,: zoned vacant lot in I.D. :;o. i, :•:izich ',,as an ex'istinz, sewer lateral, the total fees will equal 5578. � 3 Conclusion: 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 14 r� oc to p Q UJ VVQ �C� Wcn tabs. Cl ot uC.) `fit` 3 �+ c �5 i -57 � oiw `t= 1Q � `� =•a I � � 3 1 �-� cd v j w o z (4 a +1 all o of Q c e c ins � y T GfO :^v\ aWG � w i is V1 i uj c w rA ' `A , O Mow -1 1 ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATIO'.1 DISTRICT COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STATE OF CLAIFORNIA ORDINANCE NO. 121 AN ORDINANCE AMENDINIG A??D ADDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF T7E ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT ORDINANCE CODE The Board of Directors of the Atascadero County Sanitation District ordains as follows : SECTION 1 : Article 2 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amender' to add Sections 2. 38 , 2 ,35 , and 2. 40 as follows : "2. 38 . ' SE?,JER TAP CHARGE' : - a charge by the Sewer District for the actual p ysical connection from a building sewer to the main-line sewer. " "2 . 39. ' SEWER CONNECTION CHARCE ' : - the charge levied by the Atascadero Sanitation District for connection to the main-line sewer. " "2 . 40 . 'Condominium Unit ' : - a residence occupied or suitab e or occupancy in whole or in part as a home or living quarters either permanently or temporarily by a single-family, their guests and servants , but not including an apartment or other unit of multiple- family dwelling as defined herein. " SECTIO? 2 : Section 4 . 4 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amended to read as follows : "4 . 4 . The following fees shall be c}-_arged for sewer permits : (1) When the work to be performed involves the connection of a building sewer to the public sewer , the fees shall be five ($5 . 00) dollars . (2) When any portion of the work to be perform- ed is within the limits of a public right-of- way or public sewer easement , an encroachment permit shall be obtained -from the Public Works Department of the City or Atascadero , the appli- cant shall pay such fees as shall be set by the Council of the City of Atascadero . • -1- (3) The applicant shall pay the following sewer connection fees according to the cate- gory of building sewer: ' (a) $573 . 00 per unit .for single-family residences; (b) $53_' . 00 per unit for multi-family residences ; (c) $451. 00 per unit for mobil homes ; (d) $20 . 50 per fixture unit for commer- cial, industrial and other non-residen- tial units . " SECTION 3: Section 4 . 7 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amended to read as follows : "4 . 7 . For each connection of a building sewer to a public sewer, a ' sewer tap charge' shall be collected by the District before the permit for the construction is issued. " SECTION 4 : Section 4 . 8 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amended to read as follows : 4 . 8. A ' sewer tap charge' in the amount of $250 . 00 shall be charged for each physical connection to the public sewer except that: (1) No charge shall_ be made when the owner of the lot has already paid for lateral sewer in- stallation by assessment or otherwise; (2) No charge shall be *Wade when a "T" fitting has already been installed at the public sewer at the property owner's expense , and the lateral sewer is to be installed from said fitting. " SECTIO14 5 : Section 4 . 9 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is added to read as follows : "4 . 9 . Any parcel which was assessed during an Improve- ment District Assessment proceeding for a collection system, but on which the assessment was not paid because the parcel was deeded to the State for non- payment of taxes , shall incur an additional sewer con- -2- r nection fee equal to the particular assessment involved for that parcel, at the rate established pursuant to this Ordinance . " SECTION 6 : Section 4 . 10 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is added to read as follows : "4 . 10 . There shall be a sewer connection fee chargee to each and every unit served based upon the follow- ing applicable category. The fee shall be paid at the time the permit for sewer connection is issued: (a) $573 . 00 per unit for asin single-family lot; g y (b) $533. 00 per unit for a multi-family lot; (c) $451 . 00 per mobile home unit for a mobile home park; (d) $20 . 50 per fixture unit for a commercial , industrial or non-industrial use lot . 11 SECTION 7 : A new Section 4 . 11 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is added to read as follows : "4 . 11 . In addition to such fees as shall be assessed for sewer connection and sewer taps , applications for sewer service shall be assessed a sewer_ annexation fee , subject to the exceptions and applications of Section 4 . 12 , as follows : (a) $1 ,210 . 00 for a single-family lot; (b) $1 ,123 . 00 per living unit for a multi- family lot ; (c) $950 . 00 per mobile home unit for a mobile home park; (d) $43 . 20 per plumbing fixture as defined in the 1982 Edition of theTT�.niform Plumbing Code , for a commercial , industrial , non-resi- dential lot . " SECTION 8 : A new Section 4 . 12 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is added, and the pre- vious Section 4 . 12 is deleted, the new to read as follows : -3- 114 . 12. �emption to and applicati of annexation fees wi be as follows : -- (1) A vacant lot presently inside Improvement District Number 1 where sewer is available , will be exempt from payment of an annexation fee. , 0 (2) Where a lot inside Improvement District Number 1 is subject to a lot-split , and the annexation fee has not been previously paid, the applicant shall pay an annexation fee for one lot only, in addition to such other fees as shall be required according to the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code. " (3)Areas designated Cease and Desist and adjacent areas covered by a Health Officers Letter will be exempt from new charges and increase in annexation fees, but will pay the fees in effect prior to passage of this amendment ordinance SECTION 9: A new Section 4 . 16 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is added to read as follows : "4 . 16. Fees assessed pursuant to this Article IV for annexations and permits shall be payable at the time of the application for annexation and permit , and fees for the sewer connection and tacharge shall be pay- able upon actual connection of -the building sewer to the Atascadero County Sanitation District. " SECTION 10 : Section 4 . 17 is hereby added to the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code to read as follows : "4 . 17 . In the event of a re-zone of a lot or change of use , applicant for a building sewer shall pay such fees .as shall be required pursuant to this Article IV, in- cluding sewer connection, annexation tap charge , and permit fee , except that such annexation fee may be waived if previously paid and the applicant has connect- ed to the sewer within a timely manner pursuant to this Ordinance Code. " SECTION 11 : Section 5 . 1 (3) of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amended to read as foJ_lows : "5 . 1 (3) . The person requesting said extension shall ex- ecute and file a written Sewer Extension performance Agreement the terms of which shall be subject to approval by the District Board, whereby said person agrees to complete all required improvements at his expense and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer , within the time period specified within the agreement . Said person -4- further agrees to provide the City Engineer with a detailed cost break-down of his actual expenditures for any improvements authorized in the agreement. The agreement shall also provide nor inspection by the City Engineer, or his designated representative , of all improvements , and reimbursement of the District by the requestor, for the costs of the inspection. The District will invoice the requestor for such inspection costs and any amount unpaid thirty (30) days from the date of the District ' s invoice shall bear interest at ten (10%) percent per annum beginning within thirty (30) days after the date of. the invoice. The Sewer Extension Performance Agreement may also provide: (1) for the construction of the improvements and units ; and (2) for an extension of the time under conditions that are unspecified. No extension of time shall be granted except upon certification by the City Engineer that such extension is justified, and upon approval of the Board of Directors . In addition to the requirements of this Section 5 . 1 (3) said person shall provide the District with a bond or other suitable security as deemed appro- priate by the City Attorney not to exceed fifty (50%) percent of the cost of improvements . The District Board may waive such requirements for a bond at its option. " SECTION 12 : Sectio s8 . 3 , 8. 4 , 8. 5 , and 8 . 6 of the Atasca ero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code are hereby deleted. A new Section 8. 3 is hereby added to the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code to read as follows : "8 . 3 . The annexation fees shall be paid before a permit is issued for a sewer connection_ pursuant to this Article in that amount as set forth in Article IV. For the pur- poses of this Article , lot splits or changes in uses of lots shall be considered an annexation for the payment of the annexation fee. SECTION 13 : Section 11 . 9 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is hereby added to read as follows : "11 . 9 . The revenues derived from the rate set forth in Article XI of this Ordinance Code , shall be allocated to specific categories in such amounts and percentages as follows : (a) The annual sum of $76 , 000 . 00 shall be alloca- ted to debt service on existing bonded indebted- ness of the District . (b) Seventy-three (73%) percent of the revenues derived from sewer service rates shall be allocated to operation and the maintenance fund of the Dis- trict. -5- 0 ! (c) Twenty-Seven (27%) percent of the revenues derived from the sewer service rates shall be allocated for replacement or expansion of facil- ities in the District. SECTION 14 : Article 12 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is hereby amended and a new Article 12 shall read as follows : "The former Article 12 shall be renumbered as Article 13 ARTICLE 12 - POLICY 'STATEME11,TS The following Policy Statements are hereby adopted by the Atascadero County Sanitation District Board to be a part of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code: 1 . All sewer main extensions are to be funded by those re- questing annexation. 2. Annexations must be contiguous to the existing improvement District , however, for a problem sewer area, the District Board may annex public areas to provide continuity. 3. In consideration of the annexation requests , the City Engineer may be required to furnish an Engineer' s evaluation of adequacy of existing sewer mains effected by the service extention. This would include an evaluation of the down- stream line capacities as well as any possible up-grading of existing life stations . 4 . On-going 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 as amended. 6 . Annexation fees , based on use , will be due and payable upon application for annexation or lot splits or use change or rezoning. 7 . Should the proponent of the annexation wish to receive reimbursement for any sewer main extension by those connect- ing within the annexed area, then the proponent shall file a reimbursement map with the City upon completion of the ex- tension. 8. Annexations become void if connection is not made within twelve (12) months from the application, and fees will be deemed forfeited after that time. Re-application shall re- quire such new fees as are set forth in this Ordinance Code. -6- 9. Within the District , if sewer is available on the boundary of Improvement District Number 1 , it shall be deemed available to the lots outside of Improvement District Number 1 as well as to those inside said Improvement District. 10 . Sewer connection fees and tap charges shall be paid upon connection to the sewer system. 11 . Sewer lines shall be brought to the far property line un- less otherwise approved by the Director of Public [,Yorks where future extensions are not practical due to perimeter or pro- blem lots . 12. For the purposes of this Ordinance Code, condominiums shall be treated the same as single-family lots . 13. Where there is a change of use from apartments to condo- miniums , the applicant shall pay the difference in fees and rates as established by this Ordinance Code upon the approval of such change. 14. Where there is a change of use from one commercial use to another, the applicant shall pay the difference in fees per fixture unit in addition to the applicable rate for the new use. 15 . User rates shall be designated in the proportion outlined in the revenue program for the EPA - R- WQCB Grant and allocated to appropriate accounting funds respective to their intended use. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect as it pertains to increases in fees for annexations , sewer connections , and tap charges for applications for sewer service for lots presently out- side the Improvement District Number 1 whether previously annexed or annexed but not previously connected, or outside Improvement District Number 1 , but where sewer is presently available and for all lot splits , re-zones and use changes ,within thirty days after its adoption. In all other cases , the new fees as set forth in this Ordinance, shall be effective on July 1 , 1956 . Before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the passage of this Ordinance , it shall be published once in the Atascadero News , a newspaper of general circulation, priLited, published, and circula- ted in this District , and the City Clerk shall certify to the adopt- -7- ion and publication of this Ordinance and its certification, togethe - with proof of publication to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of this District. The foregoing Ordinance was introduced, adopted, and ordered publish- ed at a meeting of the District Board of Directors held on 1986 , by the following vote: ATTEST: AYES NOES ABSENT: MIKE N, Secr-e y APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FOPM: PAUL SENSIBAUGH ROBERT- M. ;7E}N S , City Attorney -8-