HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 09/08/1986 'CINDY WILKINS
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
• NOTE: THERE WILL BE A CLOSED COUNCIL SESSION AT 6 :45 P.M. , FOURTH
FLOOR CLUB ROOM, FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING LABOR NEGOTIATION
ISSUES.
AGENbA
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
FOURTH FLOORP . ROTUNDA ROOM
'SEPTEMBER, '8,,"1986
7: 30 P. .M.
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Invocation
Roll Call
City Council Comments
COMMUNITY FORUM - (Only 15 minutes will be allowed for Community
Forum at the beginning of the agenda. Citizens are requested to
keep remarks under 5 minutes, and that a speaker person speak in
behalf. of groups. )
• ** Certification of Appreciation - To be presented to Escuela Del Rio
for Their Participation in Landscaping the "Welcome
to Atascadero" Sign located on El Camino Real at the
Highway 41 Offramp
** Proclamation - Acknowledging International Literacy Day -
September 8, 1986
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar , are considered
to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed
below. There will be no separate discussion 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. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of August 25, 1986
2. Proclamation - Acknowledging Erosion Control Month - September
15 - October 15 , 1986
3. Proclamation - Acknowledging the Month of September, 1986 as
United States Constitution. Observance Month
• 4. Council Authorization for Mayor to Enter into Agreement with
Robert M. Jones for Interim City Attorney Services Beginning
September 9, 1986
1
0 0
• 5. Approval of Proposed Resolution 102-86 - Travel Policy for
Individuals Traveling on City Business
6. Approval of Camino Card Parlour Business License Change of
Ownership from Shirley Butterfield to Mary Johnson
7. Approval of Tentative Tract Map 20-86 - 8305 Coromar Road -
Subdivision of 3. 50 Acre Parcel into 6 Lots of between
.50 and .71 Acres Each - Molina/Twin Cities Engineering
8. Approval of Lot Line Adjustment 9-85 - 9095 La Linia -
Adjustment Between 2 Existing Parcels - Meyers/Volbrecht
Surveys
9. Approval of Lot Line Adjustment 11-85 - 4370/4390 Rosita
Avenue - Adjustment Between 2 Existing Parcels - Jewell/
Costiloe/Dan Stewart & Associates
10. Authorization to Begin Bid Proceedings for 1986/87 Road Overlay
Project
11. Authorization to Begin Bid Proceedings to Purchase Dial A Ride Bus
12. Approval of Proposed Resolution 101-86 - Prohibiting Parking
of Vehicles 6 Feet and Greater Within 100 Feet of Intersection
On. El Camino Real, From San Anselmo to San Gabriel Roads
•
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS
1. Assessment District Number 4 - Separado/Cayucos Sewer Project
A. Motion Accepting Staff Report on Financing of Proposed
Assessment District
B. Proposed Resolution 99-86 - Approving Revised Boundary
Map and Revising the Description of Public Improvements
C. Proposed Resolution 100-86 - Approving Engineer ' s Report on
Proposed Improvements, Appointing Time and Place for Hearing
Protest to Said Improvements and Calling for Construction
Bids
2. Ptopos'ed Resoolutlot104-86- - Approving the County of San Luis
0 ispo Solid Waste Management Plan
C. ' UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Proposed Resolution L03-36 - Compensation for City Clerk and
• City Treasurer Positions (Cont'd from 7/28/86)
2
• 2. Proposed Resolution 98-86 - Amending Sections of Resolution
9-86 - Amapoa Tecorida Development Impact Fee (Cont'd from
8/25/86)
D. NEW BUSINESS
1. Discussion on Request for Proposal and Advertisement for
City Attorney Contract
2. Policy Amendment to Time Extensions for Building Permit
Applications
E. ATATCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
(Coinc l will recess and convene as the Atascadero County
Sanitation District Board of Directors)
1. Developer Request for Special Consideration on Sewer Fees
(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
•
3
•
P R O C L A M A T I O N
INTERNATIONAL LITERACY DAY
SEPTEMBER 8, 1986
WHEREAS the United Nations has proclaimed September 8, 1986 ,
to be International e ations Literacy iteracy Day; and
WHEREAS, the social, political, and economic structure of the
United States is dependent on the ability of its citizens to read
and write; and
WHEREAS, those who cannot read or write English must be in-
formed that help is available through adult schools, public
libraries, community colleges, and volunteer literacy programs;
and
WHERE, significant steps to increase the literacy rate must
involve volunteers to tutor those unable to read; and
• WHEREAS, existing public and volunteer services cannot
entirely address this situation and need the increased partici-
pation of the business community to -. lend financial or in-kind
support;
THEREFORE, I Marjorie Mackey, Mayor of the City of
Atascadero, do hereby urge the citizens of Atascadero to join in
celebrating International Literacy Day, and supporting literacy
efforts throughout the year .
MARJQR E MACKEY, Mayor
City f Atascadero
September 8, 1986
r
•
ITEM: A - 1
•
MINUTES TO THE AUGUST 25TH COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE PROVIDED
t
BY THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT A LATER TIME,
•
•
5
�Tsi�G AG'NOA
, Tr 9/8/86 �� - 2
• P R O C L A M A T I O N
EROSION CONTROL MONTH
SEPTEMBER 15 - OCTOBER 15, 1986
WHEREAS, the well-being of our people depends upon the
production of ample supplies of food, fiber , and other products
of the soil; and
WHEREAS, the quality and quantity of these products depend
upon the conservation, wise and proper management of the soil,
and water resources; and
WHEREAS, our people have a mutual interest in the land and
share the responsibility of preserving its productivity; and
WHEREAS, the Upper Salinas-Las Tablas and Coastal San Luis
Resource Conservation Districts provide a practical and demo-
cratic organization through which landowners are taking the
initiative to conserve and make proper use of these resources;
and
• WHEREAS, the soil conservation movement celebrated in 1985
its 50th anniversary of carrying forward a program of soil and
water conservation in cooperation with numerous agencies and
countless individuals; and
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo County erosion Control Ordinance
recognizes the necessity of preventative measures and establishes
October as the date by which all erosion control measures must be
installed.
THEREFORE, I Marjorie Mackey, Mayor of the City of
Atascadero, do hereby proclaim September 15 through October 15 ,
1986 as Erosion Control Month, focusing public attention on this
critical period of time and urge all residents to participate in
an effort to protect our natural soil resource base, our
properties, and our livelihoods.
i -
MARJORI MACKEY, Mayor
City o Atascadero
� September 8, 1986
f �
• gh V`
I
OLF-11 A-3
LC `7"A
•
P R O C L A M A T I O N
FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States is the result
of heroic efforts and labors of our founding fathers, who be-
lieved that any government is justified ONLY to serve the people
and to enable them to enjoy the natural rights of man; and
WHEREAS, the United States Constitution was conceived as an
instrument for the government "of the people, by the people, and
for the people" ; and
WHEREAS, this inspirational document was framed in order to
"form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic
tranquality, provide for the common defense, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity" ; and
WHEREAS, on September 17, 1787, 199 years ago, George
Washington and 38 other Americans, ordained and established an
immortal document, the Constitution of the United States of
America.
THEREFORE, I Marjorie Mackey, Mayor of the City of
Atascadero, believing all people should be reminded of this
great and distinctive heritage, do hereby proclaim the month of
September, 1986, to be United Stated Constitution Observance
Month in and for the City of Atascadero.
MARJ IE MACKEY, Mayor
City of Atascadero
September 8,1986
'i
•
/8/86 Ao'1lrA ,A-4
DAT--
•
TO: City Council Members September 8, 1986
FROM: Mike Shelton ----
City Manager
SUBJECT: AGREEMENT FOR INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION
By motion, the City Council authorize the Mayor to enter into an
agreement with Robert M. Jones to provide interim City Attorney
services.
BACKGROUND
City Council, at the August 25,1986 Council Meeting, directed
staff to solicit proposals to provide City Attorney services.
The present agreement for City Attorney services expires
September 8, 1986. Proposed attached agreement will provide
availability and continuity of legal services until City
Council appoints a City Attorney. Interim agreement is the same
as was used previously by Attorney Jones prior to his retainer
• agreement with the City with the exception of the hourly fee
increasing from $85 to $90 per hour. The latter fee represents
Mr Jone' s customary fee.
FISCAL IMPACT
It is anticipated that the Interim City Attorney cost will be
covered by regular budget appropriations.
MS:kv
File: MATRNY
•
A G R E E M E N T
• II
FOR
INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES
This agreement is entered into between the City of ATASCADERO
("CITY") and ROBERT M. JONES (ATTORNEY) .
1. CITY hereby retains ATTORNEY to act as Interim City Attorney
as part-time independent contractor .
ATTORNEY shall be paid an hourly rate of ninety dollars ($90)
for legal services rendered, including:
A. Drafting of ordinances, resolutions, contracts, leases,
opinions, and similar documents;
B. Attendance at City Council Meetings and City staff
agenda preparation meetings.
C. Reviewing contracts for legal form and content.
2. ATTORNEY shall provide legal services only as requested by
the City Council, the City Manager , or key Department Heads,
as designated from time to time by the City Manager. •
3. In addition to his hourly compensation, ATTORNEY will be
reinbursed for out-of-pocket expenses for such items as court
filing fees, long distance telephone calls, photo copying,
and -similar out-of-pocket items.
4. ATTORNEY is employed to serve at the pelasure of the City
Council and shall at all times hold himself ready to perform
his duties pursuant to this Agreement. However, it is
understood that ATTORNEY is free to engage in a full-time
private practice for himself, and it will be necessary to
provide adequate notice to ATTORNEY the need for extra-
ordinary service.
5. This agreement may be terminated by either party by service
of seven (7) days written notice upon the other party.
September 8, 1986
ROBERT M. JONES MARJORIE MACKEY
Attorney Mayor •
City of Atascadero
My�'NG AG''�1DA
D 9/A/�6 iIE, A-5
• To: City Council MEMORANDUM
Through: Mike Shelton, City Manager
From: David G. Jorgensen
Date: September 4, 1986
Subject: Travel Policy
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council approve the Travel
Policy as outlined in Exhibit A.
DISCUSSION
One of my department goals this fiscal year is to review
and update the Personnel Rules and Regulations. This will take
some time to accomplish. However, in reviewing the existing
regulations, I noted the lack of a written travel policy for
people traveling on City business, paid for by the City. In
practice, uniformity I believe is necessary to control costs
and minimize potential abuses.
• With this in mind, I prepared a draft of a proposed travel
policy. This policy was discussed at length with the City
Manager and the Department Heads. A draft copy was also given
to the City Council for their comments. The attached policy
reflects a consensus of input from all these individuals.
RESOLUTION NO. 102-86
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
ESTABLISHING A TRAVEL POLICY FOR ALL INDIVIDUALS
TRAVELING ON CITY BUSINESS
WHEREAS, it is necessary for individuals to travel at City
expense on City business from time to time;
WHEREAS, it is necessary to establish standards and fiduciary
control concerning the disbursement of City funds;
WHEREAS, the standards should be able to be applied uniformly
by the City Finance Department;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Atascadero
does hereby adopt the City Travel Policy as detailed in Exhibit A.
ON MOTION BY Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember , the Atascadero City Council hereby
adopts the foregoing resolution in its entirety by the following
roll-call vote:
AYES:
NOES: •
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk MARJORIE R. MACKEY, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MIC B. HELTO , City Manager
r
0 0
issue checks, therefore, if proper requests for such advances are
received by 5:00 p.m. on the Tuesday prior to the week the
trip is to take place.
POST TRAINING
For courses funded by the State Peace Officer Standards and
Training Commission, restrictions currently in effect shall
govern expenditure limitations for meals and lodging. (See
P.O.S.T. Administrative Manual. )
0 EXHIBIT "A"
CITY OF ATASCADERO
TRAVEL POLICY
Purpose
To reimburse City of Atascadero employees, elected officials and
commissioners for their reasonable and necessary expenses
incurred in the conduct of business for the City. Reimbursement
for such expenses will be made subject to these rules.
Any person traveling at City expense is expected to show good
judgement and proper regard for economy in incurring expenses
as he normally would if he were traveling at his own expense.
Eligible Travel Expenses
Costs which are eligible for payment with City funds include:
Meals
Lodging
Transportation (including personal vehicle use)
Parking Fees
Reasonable Gratuities
Safe Arrival Personal Phone Call
Car Rental
Cab Fare
Ineligible Expenses
The following expenditures are ineligible expenses for reimburse-
ment by City funds:
Costs for entertainment (except as part of banquet ticket
or conference registration)
Travel Paid for By Another Organization
Liquor
Valet Services
Meal or Lodging Accommodations for Family or Guests
Non-Business Related Tour Bus Fares or Sightseeing Tours
Personal Telephone Calls (except as noted in the policy)
Mileage if Traveling as a Passenger in Privately Owned
Transportation
Trip Insurance
Any Other Personal Expenditure for Entertainment, Recreation
or Other Purposes
Per Diem
In lieu of submitting receipts for reimbursement, the per diem .
is to be used for meals, gratuities and tolls.
• A per diem will be advanced to a person traveling on City
business. The amount of the per diem will be:
$30. 00 for Conference Days
In order to receive the per diem advance, a purchase order must
be submitted to the Finance Department by Tuesday at 5:00 p.m.
the week before the trip is to take place. A check will then
be processed and will be available the Friday prior to the trip.
Any deviation from this must be approved by the Director of
Administrative Services.
TRAVEL COSTS
ALL REIMBURSEABLE TRAVEL EXPENSES MUST BE DOCUMENTED BY RECEIPTS.
Transportation
The most economical and expeditious form of transportation
should be used.
Travel by air :
Only tourist class air fare is appropriate.
Travel by City Car :
Only City employees and other persons authorized
by the Department Head will be permitted to travel
in City-owned cars.
Reimbursement will be made for repairs, gasoline,
oil, storage, parking and other necessary
expenses for the use of the City car . A paid receipt
must support all reimbursement requests of this nature.
Travel by Private Car :
The use of a private car will normally be confined to
destinations within the State.
Full reimbursement for travel by private car is at the
rate of $. 24 per mile and is paid to the car owner .
Reimbursement will be made on a mileage basis unless
it is more expensive than what it would cost to reach
the same destination by air.
No reimbursement will be made for expenses incurred
in making repairs, except reasonable towing expenses.
Coverage of these expenses is provided in the mileage
rate.
Lodging
Lodging expenses will be paid at reasonable rates, whenever
possible.
• i
Whenever feasible and appropriate, it is suggested that employees
room together.
Expenses for spouses are not allowed. In cases where rates for
lodging are established separately for two or more persons to a
room, lodging at the single rate only will be allowed.
The City will pay reasonable costs associated with conference
recommended lodging accommodations, at the rate of a standard
single room.
Other Expenses
Parking Fees:
Actual expense will be reimbursed. Parking fees to a
maximum of $5 per day are reimburseable without
receipts; anything more than $5 will need a receipt.
Registration:
Registration fees for conventions, conferences and
seminars will be considered eligible for reimbursement
( if not pre-paid) .
Car Rental:
Rental car expense will only be authorized when it is
more practical and/or less expensive than the use of
taxi cabs, other public transportation or hotel 0
supplied transportation.
Cab Fare:
Cab fare while on City business will be considered
eligible.
DOCUMENTATION OF EXPENSES
Expenses shall be properly submitted on a travel expense form.
Each employee is expected to submit his own travel expense
form. If lodging accommodations are shared between two or
more employees, the billing shall be submitted by the employee
paying the bill.
Non-Routine claims for reimbursement shall be accompanied by an
explanation of such charge. All applicable receipts shall be
attached to the travel expense form. Travel expense forms shall
be turned in to the Finance Department.
The completed travel expense form shall be approved by the
Department Head prior to being turned in to the Finance Depart-
ment
Disbursement of Travel Advances
The Director of Administrative Services may approve advances of
estimated travel funds in excess of the per diem amount and
ETfNG AGtiNDA
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council September 8, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager 10 -
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director kms,
SUBJECT: Card Room Business License
LOCATION: 5940 El Camino Real
APPLICANT: Mary Johnson
REQUEST: Consideration for approval of Camino Card Parlour business
license change of ownership.
BACKGROUND:
Chapter 3-5.03.15 of the Atascadero Business License Ordinance re-
quires that all card room license applications be reviewed by the
• Police Chief and, with his finding and recommendation, be forwarded to
the City Council for action.
The Camino Card Parlour is currently owned and operated by Shirley
Butterfield who was granted City Council approval for this operation
on July 28, 1986 . Mary Johnson wishes to purchase the card room oper-
ation from the present owner.
The applicant has successfully completed a standard Police Department
background investigation.
The application is being brought before the Council at this time since
a change of
g ownershipis being requested.
g eq ested.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the change of ownership of the Camino Card Parlour located
at 5940 El Camino Real.
HE:MM:ps
file: tran92
•
�n
Ml: G AGTlDA
DAT- WEE ltEM r -
• MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council September 8, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager '
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 20-86
LOCATION: 8305 Coromar
APPLICANT: George Molina (Twin Cities Engineering)
REQUEST: To allow subdivision of a 3. 50 acre parcel into six lots
of between 0.50 and 0 .71 acres each.
On August 18, 1986 , the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on the above-referenced subject, unanimously approving the application
subject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached staff
• report. It should be noted that after discussion, the conditions were
amended as reflected in the revised conditions of approval which are
attached.
Tom Vaughan with Twin Cities Engienering, representing the applicant,
expressed several concerns with regard to the proposed conditions and
asked that the Commission consider amending Condition #7 as the appli-
cant' s desire is to post a bond for these improvements to be completed
within a year ' s time rather than prior to recordation of the final
map. The Commission felt that all improvements should be installed
prior to sale and/or development of the lots that are being created.
There was discussion among the Commission concerning the need to have
the future private road fully paved to accommodate all of the proposed
lots which will be created.
No one else spoke on the matter .
/p s
cc: George Molina
Twin Cities Engineering
•
City of Atascadero Item: R-1
STAFF REPORT •
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 8/18/86
BY: Steven L. Decamp, Senior Planner File No: TTM 20-86
Project Address: 8305 Coromar Road
SUBJECT:
Proposal to subdivide one parcel containing 3. 50 acres into six lots
ranging in size between 0.50 acres and 0 .71 acres.
BACKGROUND:
Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on
August 8, 1986. All property owners of. record located within 300 feet
of the subject property were also notified on that date.
A. LOCATION: 8305 Coromar Road (Lots 6A and 7, Block 7)
B. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Subdivision of a 3. 50 acre par-•
cel into six lots of between
0 . 50 and 0 .71 acres each.
2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..George Molina
3. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Twin Cities Engineering
4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. 50 acres
5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Coromar is a City-maintained
road with a 40 foot wide right-
of-way.
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-X (Residential Single Family
- High Density)
7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .House and barn
8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RSF-X, residential
South: RSF-X, residential
East: US Highway 101
West: RSF-X, residential
9 . General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Single Family
Residential •
10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Level to gently sloping
0 !
Tentative Tract Map 20-86 (Molina/Twin Cities Engineering)
11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted
July 18, 1986
C. ANALYSIS:
The property proposed for subdivision is located in the RSF-X
zone. The minimum lot size in this zone is one-half acre. Each
of the lots proposed in this application meets or exceeds the min-
imum lot size requirement of this zone.
The subject property currently contains one single family dwelling
and a barn. The new lots being created are located to the rear of
the existing dwelling. Access to these new lots will be by a pri-
vate road from Coromar. If this road is improved to City stand-
ards, it would allow for eventual acceptance of the road into the
City-maintained system. If the road is improved to a lesser
standard, it will remain a private road to be maintained under the
provisions of a road maintenance agreement. The access road will
also serve as a Public Utilities Easement allowing the rear lots
to be connected to the sewer line existing in Coromar .
The entire area surrounding the subject parcel was the subject of
recent General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments allowing for
the establishment of one-half acre lots. The proposal before the
Commission is in conformance with the new General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance provisions. Staff believes that the type and density of
development proposed is appropriate for the neighborhood.
D. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map 20-86
based on the Findings in Exhibit A and the Conditions of Approval
in Exhibit B.
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings for Approval
Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval
Exhibit C - Location and Zoning Map
Exhibit D - Tentative Tract Map
2
Tentative Tract Map 20-86 (Molina/Twin Cities Engineering)
EXHIBIT A - Tentative Tract Map 20-86
Findings for Approval
August 18 , 1986
FINDINGS:
1. The creation of these parcels conforms to the Zoning Ordinance and
the General Plan.
2. The creation of these parcels, in conformance with the recommended
conditions of approval, will not have a significant adverse effect
upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the
project is adequate.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development that
is proposed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development
that is proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will
not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvement will not .
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or
that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474 .6 of the
State Subdivision Map Act as to methods of handling and discharge
of waste.
3
EXHIBIT B - Tentative Tract Map 20-86
Conditions of Approval (as amended)
August 18 , 1986
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company
and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel or its
public utility easement prior to recordation of the final map.
2. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines and other
easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are other
building or other restrictions related to the easements, they
shall be noted on the final map.
3. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, prepared by a regis-
tered civil engineer , shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to
recording the final map.
4. Drainage work and facilities shall be constructed to City of Atas-
cadero standards prior to recording a final map.
5. Prior to recording the final map, a soils investigation (as re-
quired by the Map Act) shall be submitted, recommending corrective
action which will prevent structural damage to each structure pro-
posed to be constructed in the area where soils problems may
exist. The date of such reports, the name of the engineer making
the report, and the location where the reports are on file shall
be noted on the final map.
6. Road improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer
must be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department
prior to recording the final map.
7. Construction of road improvements shall be completed prior to re-
cording the final map, and shall include paving of the entire road
and hammerhead as shown on the tentative map.
8. Construct an Atascadero City standard cul-de-sac or approved ham-
merhead at the terminus of the road where said road serves three
or fewer parcels.
9. Road improvements shall be to one of the following standards for :
a. Maintenance agreement road :
1. 16 foot wide AC traveled way
2. 20 foot wide road bed
3. Minimum 50 foot centerline radius
Tentative Tract Map 0-86 (Molina/Twin Cities Engineering)
or ;
b. City-accepted road :
1. 20 foot wide AC traveled way
2. 24 foot wide road bed
3. Minimum 110 foot centerline radius
4. 40 foot wide right-of-way
10. All road grading shall be completed prior to recording the final
map.
11. An irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Atascadero for
the following right-of-way for future road purposes shall be made
and noted on the final map:
Street Name: unnamed future street
Limits: From Coromar to cul-de-sac
Minimum Width: 40 feet
12. Install all street signs, traffic delineation devices, warning and
regulatory signs, guardrail, barricades, and other similar devices
where required by the Public Works Director . Signs shall be in
conformance with the Public Works Department standards and the
current State of California uniform sign chart. Installation of
traffic devices shall be subject to review and modifications after
construction, and shall be limited to the intersection of Coromar
Road and the unnamed future street.
13. An offer of dedication to the public for the Public Utilities
Easement shall be made.
14. All offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to
or simultaneously to recording the final map.
15. A road maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney, shall be recorded with the deed to each parcel at the
time it is first conveyed, and a note to this effect shall be
placed on the final map. This condition will be deleted if the
road is built to City standards (see Condition 9-b) .
16. A City standard fire hydrant shall be installed at the cul-de-
sac/hammerhead at the terminus of the road prior to recording the
final map.
17. If the future road is to be constructed to City standards, a name
for the road shall be selected and presented to the Planning Com-
mission for approval. Said name shall then appear on the road on
the final map.
18. Obtain encroachment permit(s) from the Public Works Department
prior to recording the final map, and construct improvements as
directed by the encroachment permit (s) prior to final building
inspection.
2
Tentative Tract Map �86 (Molina/Twin Cities Engineering)
19. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways, drive-
way easements and private roads shall be submitted for approval by
the Community Development and Public Works Department in order to
determine average grade and appropriate improvement requirements.
This shall appear as a note on the final map.
20. Wastewater disposal shall be by connection to the public sewer .
21. Obtain sewer connection permits from the Public Works Department
prior to hooking up to the public sewer .
22. All development fees and/or assessments in effect at the time of
building permit application shall be paid at the time of building
permit issuance. This shall appear as a note on the final map.
23. The property owner shall enter into an agreement, acceptable to
the City Attorney, agreeing to participate in the formation of an
assessment district for drainage and related improvements intended
to mitigate flooding in the Amapoa/Tecorida drainage area and in
those areas impacted by that drainage.
24. Participate in eliminating a portion of the flood hazard to the
property by posting a performance security in the amount of
$2,996/cfs or $5,393.00/acre with the City to be used for a drain-
age improvement project for channelizing the outflow from Atasca-
dero Lake to Atascadero Creek. In the event that a future assess-
ment district is formed for the area drainage improvements that
include this project, then credit in the amount of the deposit
will be applied towards final apportionment of the assessment if
allowed by the assessment district proceedings. This shall appear
as a note on the final map.
25. A ten foot wide Public Utilities Easement shall be established
along the northerly boundary of Lot 4 and along the southerly
boundary of Lots 5 and 6.
26. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved
tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth
herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance
with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance
prior to recordation.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created
and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor
shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners
have been set or shall be set by a date specific and that
they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit-
ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
27 . Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted
pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date.
3
• a �y yam• , /
•► I r V` Vim/
,•,: `� �+ ? --r,Qc � �? ;:�' �:� trS•:'Tt a:KY!L !..,.•, . a Y � � � '-wT-9?•sT •' ,IE ...t
XT-t 1 S
JkT
�...' ,,.+ e+ ao •y• ♦ a ? i,j.wi �\ stir , Ar-19-23 12-61
f'3 a .)t'o �.i ' fI♦ \-. ' .+ Y c.` SSet 'AT'81-185 12•b1
�:: -► - +�p,P . �j•++a .Z� t' '*y 1 '• +:•+ ..��j \ AT 81 2X 5.25.82
�... •• ae . G ''gyp•a +• t �• :O Y' 77
K
e ✓✓I•, ' ..
. tai 4 e�• '.��r ti3 r� './.p - �Ip•
♦_'
r Oyr. •"ICS t S s -
'f� ,4 , u .;y!, 44•' Yt.• E REVISION DATE.
O �� . �r •p.•
7r.( + 'y, •S>`{ , \ _ -,
• - .. ` S.A. .� -_O y
• il' :+ re�• .S\.�1 a 1. •' ,�,-
,' �+ I t 3• a iib 'a t i
-
-- F– rF• `. ., �`•`'�- �-'. 44, E N'.
05- G o ro!r►'l Zt r
�F
sf,,+ as a 1•s. ��' 2. saJilla�� U. —
eS :e S. •� I tt +,
+ 1.i f,l•. ,- � +
' NY• O :�\. rf C)ta}_fete .+Se• „y Y 3 1`� .. n ..
• �:"' CO TTW7�fm
16 •. 26 : Vit! +11 ;to
• �. AFP `
:• a 28 is els s \� b•S1 ..
.l}*t • • - _�POptp;`��^og` .` , '''1+'p r^� 7•'f ,.+ s•3D--- •'b • •+\• +e -
`moi .' _ a tnt •�, i � 4
�1 ,JE• ♦(•�' iw' S31 F Z
—� RSF to •r•+ t'..�. . sa'� ,� 't
ss
` ' L' wI ��'Jif'� r•.. . aw i
co
7 ,eoS - �f16 qDr s r' 1• JL��C +r� \ ..
�JC7 POS*- \ •u �'4 �(�V Z.y I r.•� /
..i _ F•DO � Tf•• �.+.(P - N-�y.J' �S •.` t.-..•r• •�" �. ,;4,,�`, _- 7 -j�
it
15
' , -4ao 9• ti '1 � ,Oar. LY I•tl`4�,:••��\ ,,•�J
tLc.�,t•> f `L S•s -ay..• ''3� �\ y
J I Y y i tom` �\
.. •.- �,O:S, t0•A fib. i�g_��i • �r M-•r ,/.o• ryr'
' „♦.•n •�
' w
I ..s.Aw
12
22
,:i - %• ^'..-t 12 �' wVt 1° ,•,•� �i-�,i p.t i,•,."{"9"'+�r L^p+�•a��.'
_ t; ;_,•.•> 34 ia�o ° e�" �`'I�g'�+1aY 3�fia��5•t}rry` �L� �
' i•:'�— I �Y 22 � i�ea•js..+r' tr Nsi•.w....,•.ri.,w..•
l f s t {6'w:.tn..ur.Lrr•r%KL:.i.waw.,s...
.. •,•�_..-- �
RS X2,1
l •i\ 20 �e c, 't2q.L•.crc•>vro•a•'r_'.,.•.•1•♦•n..r
".•'..++t 21 NIA,irt•u.,..t.t.:.•e•�n„•.•�
�:,.• t14
23 �-......• •... ���:�.�. .,.�. .,
4 '
CITY OF ATASCA
Planning Departmf
> �„1l
Exl� ► �T D
ENT i JZAGT MAP
TiM Zo-8�
i
ti c�4• � -... �� aw
/pd $
8. Coromor
--
jr`JEtI3,"
IL
A.---
It
3 10
ti
I ,
,O wy ip a n
�y
Ave
hA
E v
F
C 2 a
M ~ R
,
EET"NG AG7NDA
DATA 9/8/86 nEM A.8
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council i' _ September 8, 1986
lM`
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director l
SUBJECT Lot Line Adjustment 9-85
LOCATION: 9095 La Linia Avenue
APPLICANT: Richard Meyers (Volbrecht Surveys)
REQUEST: To adjust a lot line between two existing parcels result-
ing in a reduction in the size of an existing, nonconform-
ing lot.
On August 18, 1986 , the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on the above-referenced subject, unanimously approving the application
subject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached staff
report.
Alan Volbrecht, representing the applicant, noted his agreement with
the staff report.
No one else spoke on the matter .
/ps
cc: Ed Jewell
Delver Costiloe
Daniel J. Stewart
•
City of Atascadero Item:—B-2 •
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 8/18/86
BY: Steven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: LLA 9-85
Project Address: 9095 La Linia Avenue
SUBJECT:
Request to adjust a lot line between two existing parcels resulting in
a reduction in the size of an existing nonconforming lot.
BACKGROUND:
The. City' s Zoning Ordinance provides a method for accomplishing lot
line adjustments that will result in a reduction in the size of exist-
ing, nonconforming lots. This lot line adjustment procedure is the
same as that required for the review of variance requests. Among the
requirements for this type of action is that a public hearing be
conducted.
Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Aug-
ust 8, 1986. All property owners of record located within 300 feet of
the site were also notified on that date.
A. LOCATION: 9095 La Linia Avenue (Ptn. Lot 6, Block E, Eaglet #1)
B. SITUATION, AND FACTS:
1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Adjustment of a lot line between
two existing developed lots.
2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Richard Meyers
3. Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Volbrecht Surveys
4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.21 acres (APN #30-253-04)
0 .20 acres (APN #30-253-05)
5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .La Linia is a paved, City main-
tained street with a 40 foot
wide right-of-way. El Centro is
paved and also has a 40 foot
right-of-way.
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Y (Residential Single Family
one acre minimum lot size with
sewers, one and one-half acre •
without sewer)
Lot Line Adjustment 9-85 (Meyers/Volbrecht Surveys)
7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Single family dwellings
8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RSF-Y, residential
South: RSF-Y, residential
East: RSF-Y, residential
West: RSF-Y, residential
9. General Plan Designation. . . . .Moderate Density Single Family
10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Flat
11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt (Class 5)
C. ANALYSIS: '
The property which is the subject of this lot line adjustment is
located in the RSF-Y zone. The minimum lot size allowed in this
zone is 1.0 acres where sewers are available. Neither of the
affected parcels meet the minimum lot size and are considered to
be nonconforming. Because one of the lots will be made smaller
(more nonconforming) as a result of the proposed lot line adjust-
ment, Section 9-7.116 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that review
and action on the proposal follow variance procedures (Section
9-1.113) . These procedures require that the Planning Commission
make additional specific findings prior to approving such a lot
line adjustment.
The General Plan provides for the reduction in size of existing
nonconforming lots through lot line adjustment in certain speci-
fied cases. Land Use Policy #10 on Page 62 of the General Plan
provides, in part:
"Reduction in size of existing nonconforming lots shall, how-
ever only be allowed with lot line adjustments to correct
historical and geographical use problems and to facilitate
the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructures or
easements where no increase in overall density will result. "
The lots in question are both developed with single family dwell-
ings. Improvements on the parcel fronting on La Linia Avenue have
been constructed on or beyond the rear property line. These im-
provements include a metal shed, a retaining wall, and a concrete
patio and walkway. Because both lots are very narrow (approxi-
mately 75 feet) , and the existing improvements fill the lots,
there is no opportunity to effect a lot line adjustment involving
an equal exchange of land between the two lots. This method is
normally preferred to avoid any further reduction in the size of
nonconforming lots.
Under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, there are four find-
ings that must be made prior to the approval of the proposed lot
line adjustment. These are the same findings that must be made
prior to the approval of a variance.
2
h .
Lot Line Adjustment 9-85 (Meyers/Volbrecht Surveys)
The first finding requires a determination that the lot line ad-
justment does not represent a "grant of special privileges. "
Although this project would result in the further reduction in the
size of a nonconforming lot, it will not result in any increase in
overall neighborhood density. Thus, even though other properties
would not be allowed to subdivide into substandard lot sizes, they
would be allowed lot line adjustments under similar circumstances.
The second finding requires a determination that "special circum-
stances" exist to justify the action requested. As noted above,
both of the subject parcels are fully developed to the limits
allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Some of the improvements were
placed across a property line and have existed that way for a num-
ber of years. Due to the size and configuration of the lots and
their improvements, there is no feasible alternative lot config-
uration that will meet the intent of the application without re-
ducing the size of a nonconforming lot.
The third finding requires a determination that the approval will
not authorize a use not otherwise authorized in the zoning dis-
trict. The use of both of the subject parcels is residential
which is the allowed use in the zone. No change in the use of
density of the parcels is requested or will be authorized through
approval of the lot line adjustment.
Finally, a finding must be made that the proposal will not, if
approved, adversely affect public health, safety or welfare. The
lot line adjustment requested will not result in any density in-
crease or any new development. The change requested is legal in
nature and will not result in any discernible change to the sub-
ject parcels or the neighborhood character . Thus, there will be
no effect upon the health, safety or welfare.
The proposed lot line adjustment meets the test of the required
variance findings and is in conformance with all of the other Gen-
eral Plan and Zoning Ordinance provisions. In this case, there
will be no detrimental effects from the further reduction in size
of an existing nonconforming lot.
D. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Lot Line Adjustment 9-85 based on the
Findings in Exhibit A and the Conditions in Exhibit B.
SLD:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings for Approval
Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval
Exhibit C - Location and Zoning Map
Exhibit D - Tentative Lot Line Adjustment Map
3
Lot Line Adjustment 9-85 (Meyers/Volbrecht Surveys)
EXHIBIT A - Lot Line Adjustment 9-85
Findings for Approval
August 18 , 1986
FINDINGS:
1. The application as submitted has been determined to be categori-
cally exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
2. The application as submitted conforms with all applicable zoning,
general plan and subdivision regulations of the City of
Atascadero.
3. The lot line adjustment authorized does not constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity and zoning district in which such prop-
erties in the vicinity and zoning district in which such property
is situated.
4. There are special circumstances applicable to the property, in-
cluding size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, and
because of these circumstances, the application of this Title
would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property
in the vicinity and in the same zoning district.
5. The lot line adjustment does not authorize a use which is not
otherwise authorized in the zoning district.
6. The granting of such lot line adjustment, under the circumstances
and conditions applied in the particular case, adversely affect
the health or safety .of persons, is not materially detrimental to
the public welfare, nor injurious to nearby property or
improvements.
4
Lot Line Adjustment 9-85 (Meyers/Volbrecht Surveys)
EXHIBIT B - Lot Line Adjustment 9-85
Conditions of Approval
August 18, 1986
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Prior to recording the lot line adjustment, certificates of com-
pliance shall be obtained and recorded for each of the existing
parcels.
2. The lot line adjustment as generally shown on the map attachment
provided herein shall be submitted in final map format or reflec-
ted in a record of survey to be approved by the Community Develop-
ment Department prior to recordation by the County Recorder ' s
Office.
3. The proposed adjusted lot lines shall be surveyed and monuments
set at the new property corners prior to recordation of the final
map or record of survey.
4. If a final map is to be recorded, all existing improvements and
easements shall be delineated thereon.
5. Approval of this lot line adjustmentshallexpire two years from
the date of approval unless a time extension has been granted pur-
suant to a written request prior to the expiration date.
5
'- x� IBlT G
-- • ti i � < !
< ! Q
l i I L oc-,4-ri ont Z N i m 4
LLA
9385
93'ES
a_
t 93V5
929
,]10'
100 N
C7
11
9Z'SO
1CD
5 r /
ko
\ '' <p� • ; r,gi oda '-♦ _-4
m
CQ ,--
1p
OWN
In
V dos v _
9100 ;.
9095 LA L►�I A AVE. r
s
5Se es55 Or-
Ir\
•t?�" i�� G > , \ - 44
a.
9 ` - 350 `p�
Q n 5
0,0
via
�/_ `1�` I�!•' .hJ (�' spa iA��� 895
tee
C%j
0 ttio
gas- �• e �',� �. '.�o .r `l P
AD
'\/hb �� � m \ ' \,•gt� ,. +�'"F ,ti,off _ �N �'+. v-�
1> ° Nps
t/) s rQ
a/JM A
Cap
A p-6
in Fn
Ile a S s,
`•�� 'A its. �D �
n�
y {A/•�//yL1/"
G�
1
1 �
w '
/ I
Ps
e,
ti0
.s
a
"'E AGENDA
DTE Qj�JR� ITEM # A 9
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council September 8, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager ,
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director AW_
SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment 11-85
LOCATION: 4370/4390 Rosita Avenue
APPLICANT: Ed Jewell/Delver Costiloe (Daniel J. Stewart)
REQUEST: To adjust a lot line between two existing parcels result-
ing in a reduction in the size of an existing, nonconform-
ing lot.
On August 18, 1986 , the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on the above-referenced subject, unanimously approving the application
• subject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached staff
report.
Ed Jewell, applicant, spoke in support of the request and indicated
his concurrence with the recommendation.
No one else spoke on the matter .
/ps
cc: Ed Jewell
Delver Costiloe
Daniel J. Stewart
•
City of Atascadero Item: B-3 •
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 8/18/86
BY: Steven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: LLA 11-85
Project Address: 4370/4390 Rosita Avenue
SUBJECT:
Request to adjust a lot line between two existing parcels resulting in
a reduction in the size of an existing nonconforming lot.
BACKGROUND:
The City' s Zoning Ordinance provides a method for accomplishing lot
line adjustments that will result in a reduction in the size of exist-
ing, nonconforming lots. This lot line adjustment procedure is the
same as that required for the review of variance requests. Among the
requirements for this type of action is that a public hearing be
conducted
Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Aug-
ust 8, 1986. All property owners of record located within 300 feet of
the site were also notified on that date. •
A. LOCATION: 4370/4390 Rosita Avenue (Lots 146 & 147, Block NC)
B. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Adjustment of a lot line between
two existing developed lots.
2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ed Jewell/Delver Costiloe
3. Engineer . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .Daniel J. Stewart
4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lot 146 : 0.32 acres
Lot 147 : 0.34 acres
5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rosita Avenue is a paved street
with a 40 foot wide right-of-way
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .LSF-X (Limited Single Family -
0 . 5 acre minimum lot size)
7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Single family dwellings
8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: LSF-X, residential •
South: LSF-X, residential
East: LSF-X, residential
West: LSF-X, residential
Lot Line Adjustment 11-85 (Jewell/Costiloe)
9. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Single Family
10. Terrain. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gently sloping
11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt (Class 5)
C. ANALYSIS:
The property which is the subject of this lot line adjustment is
located in the LSF-X zone. The minimum lot size allowed in this
zone is 0.5 acres. Neither of the affected parcels meet the min-
imum lot size and are considered to be nonconforming. Because one
of the lots will be made smaller (more nonconforming) as a result
of the proposed lot line adjustment, Section 9-7.116 of the Zoning
Ordinance requires that review and action on the proposal follow
variance procedures (Section 9-1.113) . These procedures require
that the Planning Commission make additional specific findings
prior to approving such a lot line adjustment.
The General Plan provides for the reduction in size of existing
nonconforming lots through lot line adjustment in certain speci-
fied cases. Land Use Policy #10 on Page 62 of the General Plan
provides, in part:
"'Reduction in size of existing nonconforming lots shall, how-
ever only be allowed with lot line adjustments to correct
historical and geographical use problems and to facilitate
the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructures or
easements where no increase in overall density will result. "
The lots in question are both developed with single family dwell-
ings. The fence and driveway for the dwelling at 4370 Rosita both
encroach onto the lot at 4390 Rosita. Because of the size and
configuration of the lots, there is no opportunity to effect a lot
line adjustment involving an equal exchange of land between the
two lots. This method is normally preferred to avoid any further
reduction in the size of nonconforming lots. The proposed project
appears to meet the intent of the General Plan policy language
referenced above.
Under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, there are four find-
ings that must be made prior to the approval of the proposed lot
line adjustment. These are the same findings that must be made
prior to the approval of a variance.
The first finding requires a determination that the lot line ad-
justment does not represent a "grant of special privileges. "
Although this project would result in the further reduction in the
size of a nonconforming lot, it will not result in any increase in
overall neighborhood density. Thus, even though other properties
would not be allowed to subdivide into substandard lot sizes, they
would be allowed lot line adjustments under similar circumstances.
2
Lot Line Adjustment 11-85 (Jewell/Costiloe)
The second finding requires a determination that "special circum-
stances" exist to justify the action requested. As noted above,
both of the subject parcels are fully developed to the limits
allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Some of the improvements were
placed across a property line and have existed that way for a num-
ber of years. Due to the size and configuration of the lots and
their improvements, there is no feasible alternative lot config-
uration that will meet the intent of the .application without re-
ducing the size of a nonconforming lot.
The third finding requires a determnation that the approval will
not authorize a use not otherwise authorized in the zoning dis-
trict. The use of both of the subject parcels is residential
which is the allowed use in the zone. No change in the use of
density of the parcels is requested or will be authorized through
approval of the lot line adjustment.
Finally, a finding must be made that the proposal will not, if
approved, adversely affect public health, safety or welfare. The
lot line adjustment requested will not result in any density in-
crease or any new development. The change requested is legal in
nature and will not result in any discernible change to the sub-
ject parcels or the neighborhood character . Thus, there will be
no effect upon the health, safety or welfare.
The proposed lot line adjustment meets the test of the required
variance findings and is in conformance with all of the other Gen-
eral Plan and Zoning Ordinance provisions. In this case, there
will be no detrimental effects from the further reduction in size
of an existing nonconforming lot.
D. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Lot Line Adjustment 11-85 based on
the Findings in Exhibit A and the Conditions in Exhibit B.
SLD:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings for Approval
Exhibit B - 'Conditions of Approval
Exhibit C - Location and Zoning Map
Exhibit D - Tentative Lot Line Adjustment Map
3
i 0
Lot Line Adjustment 11-85 (Jewell/Costiloe)
EXHIBIT A - Lot Line Adjustment 11-85
Findings for Approval
August 18 , 1986
FINDINGS:
1. The application as submitted has been determined to be categori-
cally exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
2. The application as submitted conforms with all applicable zoning,
general plan and subdivision regulations of the City of
Atascadero.
3. The lot line adjustment authorized does not constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity and zoning district in which such prop-
erties in the vicinity and zoning district in which such property
is situated.
4. There are special circumstances applicable to the property, in-
cluding size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, and
because of these circumstances, the application of this Title
would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property
in the vicinity and in the same zoning district.
5. The lot line adjustment do o authorize� es not a thori e a use which is not
otherwise authorized in the zoning district.
6. The granting of such lot line adjustment, under the circumstances
and conditions applied in the particular case, adversely affect
the health or safety of persons, is not materially detrimental to
the public welfare, nor injurious to nearby property or
improvements.
4 ,1
I
0 s
Lot Line Adjustment 11-85 (Jewell/Costiloe)
EXHIBIT B - Lot Line Adjustment 11-85
Conditions of Approval
August 18 , 1986
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The lot line adjustment as generally shown on the map attachment
provided herein shall be submitted in final map format or reflec-
ted in a record of survey to be approved by the Community Develop-
ment Department prior to recordation by the County Recorder ' s
Office.
2. The proposed adjusted lot lines shall be surveyed and monuments
set at the new property corners prior to recordation of the final
map or record of survey.
3. If a final map is to be recorded, all existing improvements and
easements shall be delineated thereon.
4. Approval of this lot line adjustment shall expire two years from
the date of approval unless a time extension has been granted pur-
suant to a written request prior to the expiration date.
5 , ;
-c, EX14I 81 T p
t,LA 11 b5'
•rh
At
v4
•-t• 1 v
o "ILof
n c
` M
are
A zo• •.
Ic�� a�
o
-01
Ilk
a
° G
ox �xI LAA
DO 0 2 2
6 Lp
CP
y$ s 4p�s \Du �. 22 � -i �. y`+2 '• 4�:,t fl
00
�� �. ✓ d�• 1��i "-' app 1' 22t ^v��29 �"• � / C
+�o� A g ass- R,� 21712 'elf,
3nN ' "N
e A _ A A r P!
*y U
220 V s
A0�11e h216 Na 21
� z�
01
ew
e Dk`e" j18z 2p5cv, Sl
0 Ap
20g y$ 9 �0.
.+�Grr g4Z�i —` \6e`
\ �►p` a
tot
b }• 1n Af �9
fs
L S /\ G ••5°915
Q- \S
19� S1zS
P; sioot ( 201
v 0 ,tf,, h�ti� F
n
�!l�:y .+X''z P/; •�ai•� V' V z 1 r� � �'„ �g(c�Z7 "S�$150��513�i q*�" 183 �5 ��"
194 S
J ` !
4 3 0 40�4 79a X05 t TA AVE'v
y
Ns
jo
C,` v� eo- ; 5'1zo4
.`sti �s�F ',,� "•or`s�Q �� �� �F�. '- a��k sA��, a�s�sgs� IZo ` � ..
Ak
'` �p\ � �5jp �� A`, aA 6z� �6,iSpN ,r4� r'IfT'o ylf ;`47•p.1+''-S�}
M O
LZ' ," } ul
a r • INS j,�°\ AR-� �' o• `� iA°` _� �. �..c..^✓
CR � �,C' yy`O • N ; > `h yn� � ; .•' "a4M�,�,Y�.r `' �`\ , 7 90,
I F �. A ''sr �o A�? �-'.1 ' el�tPr.S�
seg •� � �''� 3` •s p�p`
5 ..
(6r.
x 'L
t. MM �n ��i�q\• � I'
N
r,�F 9/8/86 AGZMA q_10
` I:EM
MEMORANDUM
• TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager OLL .
FROM: Paul,Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
t�7
SUBJECT: Authorization to Bid - 1986/87 Overlay Project
DATE: September 2, 1986
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Council authorize staff to prepare
plans and specifications and advertise for bids for the 1986/87
Overlay Project.
Background:
The project proposed to be let out to bid includes
an asphalt overlay of various city-maintained streets and the
surfacing of the Cayucos and Falda Avenue Maintenance Districts
approved previously.
• Discussion:
The work proposed is part of our annual resurfacing program and
has been previously approved during -the budget process.
Fiscal Impact:
Funds are budgeted in the F.Y. 1986-87 budget for this project.
•
ANG AG,-:NDA
DATE- V_8L8 r ,v,A # A-11
r
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager - L
FROM: Pain ensibaugh, Director of Public Works
Z
SUBJECT: Authorization to Bid - Transit Bus
DATE: September 2, 1986
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Council authorize staff to prepare
specifications and advertise for bids for the purchase of a
new bus for the Dial-A-Ride Transportation System.
Discussion:
This year , as in the past years, we have requested and
received a grant for the purchase of new buses for the Dial-
A-Ride system. Authorization has been received from the
State Department of Transportation to proceed with the bid
• procedures required to purchase the bus.
Background:
At the City Council meeting of September 23, 1985, Council
authorized staff to make application for the purchase of two
replacement 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
Transportation Planning Agency in conjunction with the State
Department of Transportation.
Fiscal Impact:
The grant received for this bus is funded on a matching fund
basis. The total cost of the bus is approximately $40 ,000 with
the City share being approximately $8,000.
•
FETING AG�-Nr�A
� 9/8/86
1,Ern#_A-12
• MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: No Parking of Vehicles 6 ' in Height or Greater
within 100 ' of an intersection on El Camino Real
from San Anselmo (East) to San Gabriel Road
DATE: September 3, 1986
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution No. 101-86
which prohibits the parking of vehicles that are 6 ft. high
or greater, within 100 ' of an intersection on E1 Camino Real
from San Anselmo (east) to San Gabriel Road.
Background
• This issue, as well as the issue of establishing 2 hour
parking within the same limits, were the subject of the January
13, 1986 Council agenda. The request at that time was to hold
a public hearing and to hold the items for budget considerations.
A public hearing was held on January 22 at 5:00 p.m. and
no one from the public attended to discuss either issue. The
budget presentations included both issues and Council
appropriated $8,000 for the materials for both projects combined.
Discussion
Staff suggests that of the two issues the above resolution
would be both less controversial and less costly. The passage
of the resolution would allow implementation as soon as the cash
flow would allow.
Sight distance at intersections and driveways are a problem
on E1 Camino Real. This action would improve sight distance at
intersections and would alleviate some driveway� visability
problems as well. The issue of 2-Hour Parking will be
approached later in the year as funds become available.
Fiscal Impact
This item is estimated at about $2500 and is included in the
• $8,000 budgeted from the $0. 50 development mitigation tax.
Attachments
Resolution 101-86
Background Data
RESOLUTION NO. 101-86
•
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO PROHIBITING THE PARKING OF VEHICLES
6 ' IN HEIGHT OR GREATER FROM PARKING WITHIN 100 '
OF AN INTERSECTION ON EL CAMINO REAL FROM SAN
ANSELMO (EAST) TO SAN GABRIEL ROAD
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.1101 et sequence of the Atascadero
Municipal Code allows the City Traffic Engineer to determine the
location of No Parking areas, and to place and maintain appro-
priate signs or markings indicating the same; and
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Traffic Committee has recommended
that prohibiting the parking of vehicles 6 ' in height or greater
within 100 ' of an intersection on E1 Camino Real from San Anselmo
(east) to San Gabriel Road will relieve a hazardous sight dis-
tance condition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Atascadero
directs the City Traffic Engineer to place and maintain appro-
priate signs or markings that the parking of vehicles 6 ' in
height or greater within 100 ' of an intersection on El Camino
Real from San Anselmo (east) to San Gabriel Road is prohibited.
On motion by Councilman ,and seconded
by Councilman , the foregoing resolution is
hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
UNON
BOYD C. SHARITZ MARJORIE R. MACKEY
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT APPROVED AS TO FORM
PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH ROBERT M. JONES
Director of Public Works City Attorney •
3
i
! •
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Request Authorization to Hold Public Hearing on Traffic
Committee Items
DATE: January 7, 1986
Recommendation:
Staff is recommending that a Public Hearing be held to discuss
items that have been brought to the attention of the Traffic
Committee. Public Hearing, if approved, to be held January 22, 5:00
p.m. at the regular meeting of the Traffic Committee in the Council
Chambers.
Background:
It has been brought to the attention of the Traffic Committee
that the parking of tall vehicles near driveways causes a severe sight
distance problem. The Traffic Committee is recommending prohibiting
the parking of vehicles 6 ' in height or over within 100 ' of
w
Additionally, the Traffic Committee is recommending establishing
2-Hour Parking on El Camino Real from San Anselmo to San Gabriel
Roads. This action is to alleviate reoccurring problems connected
with long term parking.
Discussion:
While both of these recommendations appear warranted, it is
felt that the impact would be sufficient to justify holding a Public
Hearing on both matters.
The Public Hearing would be held by the Traffic Committee and
a report of comments and recommendations would be sent to the City
Council for action.
Fiscal Impact:
Approximately 170 signs would be necessary to complete the
above recommendation and 2 men with a vehicle would be tied up for
approximately 2 weeks could cost up to $15 ,000 and could not be taken
from the present budget without sacrificing other projects.
TRAFFIC COMMITT Agen j t ;s. C �
y '
` /ACTION_ REQUEST Request Date
Problem: r� �f;:;'r/ Cr e/7z
/ V
U
Location:
Action Requested By:
Signature
Sketch Below 0 See Attached Sketch ElRefer to Drawing
Existing Proposed
Recommended Solution: ''�Ioc, /7`//ive
117,
C. �0;-, ✓�?
l
Committee Decision:
Estimated Cost.
Necessary Action: Council F]Director of Public Works 0 Chief of Police F-]None
Controlling Ordinance or Resolution:
Approved by Traffic Committee
Chairman Date
Disapproved by Traffic Committee
Chairman Date
F] Approved by Council Denied by Council
Date Date
Work Completed by Public Works Superintendent -
Date Initials
Director of
White - Public Works Canary - Chief of Police Pink - Planning Director Goldenrod- - City Manage
1
§ 22506 -438- Div. 11
+� (3) In areas within one-half mile of the boundary of any unit of the state
+ park system which the county health officer has determined are areas where or h
a substantial public health hazard would result if camping were allowed, pen
upon notification of the .,Department of. Transportation of such c
determination by the county-health officer: -vehi
(b) No person shall park any vehicle in violation of the restrictions stated T)
on such signs or markings.
issui
c This section shall nota 1 to any of the following:
apply A
1 Public utility vehicles while performing a work opera tion-
( ) tl' P grl
(2)' The driver of any vehicle which is disabled in such a manner and to. Pa
j d.
such extent that it is impossible to avoid stopping-and temporarily leaving An'
the disabled vehicle on the roadway.
Th.
Amended Ch:888,Stats.1963.Effective September 20,1963. follov
i Amended Ch.515,Stats.1970.Effective November 23,1970. fo
5.
Amended Ch.5 Stats.1974.Effective anu 1,197
2. January Loco
:
Local Regulation of Slate Highway Parking 2.2
22506.. Local authoritiesmay>by ordinance or resolution prohibitor autk
sC restrict the parking-of,vehicles on a state highway, in their respective .'or st
jurisdictions,if the ordinance or resolution is first submitted to and approved bets
in writing by the Department of Transportation, except.that where prol
maintenance of any state highway is delegated by the Department.of in a
Transportation to a city, the department may also delegate to the city the vehi
1 powers conferred on the department. rela
s` Amended Ch.545,Stats.1974.Effective January 1,1975. a sy
1F . . .. - .rest
Local Regulations resit
'22507. Local authorities may; by ordinance or resolution, prohibit or lack
restrict the parking or standing of vehicles,including vehkies which are six rela
feet or more in-height (including any load thereon) withlh 100 feet of nay dist(
intersection,on certain streets or highways,or portions thereof,during all or mak
�'. certain hours of the day. ( )1 The ordinance or resolution may include a any
designation of certain streets upon which preferential parking privileges the
i' ( )'are given to residents and merchants adjacent to ( )�t the streets for re
their use and the use of their guests, under which ' the residents and P
po
merchants may be issued a permit or permits which exempt them from the
pre,
1 ; prohibition or restriction of the ordinance or resolution.With the exception Ad
of alleys,no such ordinance or resolution shall apply until signs or markings An
giving adequate notice thereof have been placed. A local ordinance or An
t resolution adopted pursuant to this section may contain provisions which are
Lace
reasonable and necessary to insure the effectiveness of a preferential
parking program.
!. Amended Ch.1070,Stats.-1963.Effective September 20,1963. rest
t; Amended Ch.541,Stats.1969.Effective November 10,1969.- higl-
Amended Ch.1102,Stats.1976.Effective January 1,1977. ordi
Amended Ch.140,Stats.1980.Effective January 1,1981. veh:
Amended Ch.181,Stats. 1984.Effective January 1,1985. Corr:
The 1984 amendment added the italicized material and at the point(s) indicated deleted the
following.: mer
' I-Such stre
a-
"shall bethe
Permit Parking:Private Driveway stru
22507.2. Notwithstanding. subdivision (e) of Section 22500, a local ordi
authority may, by ordinance,authorize the owner or lessee of property to Port
park a vehicle in front of the owner's or lessee's private driveway when the . sten
vehicle dispplays a permit issued pursuant to the ordinance authorizing such autl
parking..The ordinance shall include, but not be limited to, the following to t
_ requirements: lett(
(a). The name and address of the owner or lessee of the private property hou
' is on the permit. inte
(b) The permit is effective ( ) while the holder owns or leases the for s
' ro art stre
P p y for which the permit is issued,but may be revoked without notice f pari
Ad
An
j:
MUTCD NUMBER NONE CODE R28B
(Lt.) or (Rt.)
1/4 1-1/4 R
1/4
I 1.1/8
4.7/8 3.1/2 B
7/8
1/4
z 2C
O RKING T
F„
1/4
0 18 2 C
0
a
to VEHICLES
a 1/4
cc
I—
LL 2C
O OVER 6 FT
z --1/4
w
2C
ccQ HIGH
CL
uj
� --- 1.1/4
I 2-1/4
I
z �--- 6-3/8cc 2
z
O
LL
J
Q
U
LL
O COLORS
w 1-3/8
Q BORDER & MESSAGE• RED
N BACKGROUND•WHITE 1/8 R
t
7/8
t
3/4
� 7/8
4
1/4
ARROWHEAD DETAIL
DIMENSIONS IN INCHES
{4` THE POLICY FOR INTENDED USAGE OF THIS SIGN IS SHOWN ON REVERSE SIDE.
CJ _ 10l10� $4-
CHIEF,DIVISION OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DATE REVISION REVISION
DMO-T-69(REV.12-80)
'1EETING AG1DA. ..
DATE 9/8/36 B=1=.R'
• MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Sewer Charge for Cease and Desist Areas "C" & "E"
DATE: September 2, 1986
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council approve Option B, but would not
be uncomfortable with the adoption of Options C or D.
Background
Council has made several efforts to reduce the cost of sewer
Assessment District No. 4 and at the same time maintain the Sanitation
and General Fund monies that are earmarked for capital improvements
that affect the entire City. This has been done by:
i1. Instructing the Engineer to reduce design costs as low as
practicable without sacrificing good engineering judgement. Such de-
sign considerations were outlined in the staff report at the last re-
gular meeting (copy attached) .
2. Requesting a time extension from the RWQCB to June 30 , 1987.
It appears that the staff for the Board will recommend to the Board to
extend the construction deadline to September of 1987 , if the City
proceeds immediately with the project.
3. Exempting Cease and Desist areas from the new sewer charge
and new annexation fees, and only requiring them to pay the old annex-
ation fee of $850. This represents a savings of nearly $335,000 to
Assessment District No. 4.
4. Allowing two (2) years to connect to the mainline to provide
time to line up funds and contractors for improvements on private pro-
perty. If the RWQCB accepts the September , 1987 deadline, the time
limit for connection will be September , 1989.
It should be noted that the assessments themselves, if the
measure passes this October , will not be placed on the tax rolls until
August of 1987 . Therefore, one-half of the annual installment (about
$250 for Seperado area and about $300 for the Cayucos area) will not
be due until December , 1987 . The assessment on a monthly basis will
• be about $42 for Seperado and about $50 for the Cayucos area, if
current estimates hold up.
5. Researching any and all applicable grants and/or to
available to the city and/or owners. There are some programs ava
able for the elderly and low income sectors, but otherwise no help '0171S
been found. (refer to attached report. )
6. Providing City participation or ownership in the portions
of the system for which associated costs, plus interest, can be re-
couped at a later date. This action will reduce the burden to the
property owners by approximately $300 ,000 .
The purpose of this report is to present options regarding the
collection of the annexation fee to further assist the owners with
their financial burden. The following options do not affect the
Engineer ' s Report or the Spread of Assessments. The construction and
related costs are not expected to change significantly going to bid.
The job is expected, however , to be competitive and perhaps the bids
received will be favorable.
Option A:
Owners to pay the full $850 annexation fee upon
connection (or September, 1987)
Option B:
Allow 5 years to pay off the $850 annexaiton fee at no interest.
This would not be a loan, just a delay in payment. The loss to
ACSD would be the interest that would not be earned on the fee dur
that period. It is . proposed that a lein be taken on the property and
that the issue be placed on the first August 10 tax roll after the
mandatory 2 year connection date. That would make one half of the
first one-fifth (or 10% of $850 = $85) due in December of 1990.
Option C:
Charge Areas "C" & "E" the new sewer charge instead of the old
annexation fee. When the new sewer fees were adopted, the council was
working on the formation of the Marchant Way Sewer Assessment District
No. 3 (Cease and Desist Area F) . Council at that time exempted Cease
and . Desist areas from the new fees and set their fee the same as the
old annexation fee.
Staff concedes that areas "C" & "E" are unique since those are
the only areas that are under a direct order that is date specific.
Indeed, in some ways the areas can be compared to the vacant lots in
Assessment District No. 1. The plant was sized at 1.4 mgd to accept
the flow from Improvement District No. 1, plus the Cease and Desist
Areas. The lines in Improvement District No. 1 were also of adequate
size to handle the above flow, but annexations over the years, which
have paid heavily into the system, have utilized some of the capacity
originally intended for others. The annexation fees charged, however ,
will provide the oversizing of existing lines or new lines necess
due to that development.
2
•
The build-out of Improvement District No. 1 itself, however ,
without consideration of annexations, will provide flows in excess of
the original calculations. The biggest factor contributing to the
problem is the above normal inflow and infiltration of storm waters
entering the system. Therefore, those prooperties that have paid the
assessments for the lines but did not develop,and therefore, did not
connect to the sewer , must pay the new sewer charge of $573 upon con-
nection. New annexations pay that charge plus the new annexation fee
of $1210 ainsince they are placing a demand on the system above and
beyond original design.
It can be argued that it may be appropriate to allow areas
"C" & "E" to pay the new sewer charge ($573) instead of the old
annexation fee ($850) . Although the ACSD would not collect the same
amount of money it would be the normal annexation process, it can be
rationalized that if annexations for these areas were allowed to take
their natural course, in leiu of the forced annexation now in process,
the fees would dribble in over many years and perhaps never equal in
total the $573 per parcel collected in mass.
The additional savings to the owners would be approximately
$100 ,000 for this option and would not involve the expenditure of any
existing City funds.
Option D:
Combine Option C with the theory of Option B. This would allow
the $573 in Option C to be paid over a period of 5 years beginning in
december of 1990 ($58) .
Option E:
Pay no annexation fee or sewer charges.
Additional Considerations
Since the last regular meeting, staff has been approached on
all sides with ideas from citizens and consultants regarding help with
the problem. These ideas . range from Community Development Block
Grants to fronting only the costs for the elderly. Staff is not tak-
ing any suggestion lightly but is discarding those that they feel do
not warrant council' s time.
Staff itself has unvieled a couple of new code sections that
should be brought to Council' s attention as protection against criti-
cism of not exploring all avenues.
The first is Health and Safety Code Section 6120 , et seq.
(Chapter 11) , Assistance to Small Rural Communities. This involves
technical assistance for the development of community facilities. The
limit to any one community is $7 ,500 and Assemblyman Seastrand' s
office advises that the prospect for such a grant does not look good
for our situation.
3
The other program, as outlined in Health and Safety Coo
Section 5464 , allows a property owner that is involved in an assesle
ment district to request the City to construct "all necessary plumb-
ing" to connect to the sewer main, take a lein on the property and
recover the costs over a maximum of 15 years at a maximum interest
rate of 6%.
This procedure, while appearing attractive on the surface
could be a monumental undertaking which- would be more costly to the
owners than the alternatives.
The project would be handled seperately from the assessment
procedure, could involve one or many contractors, would require pre-
vailing wage provisions, would involve financing costs and would re-
quire seperate plans and specifications and engineering costs.
This concept would be an administrative nightmare which
could involve over 300 parcels, thus over 300 individual situations
which all involve the encroachment onto private property. The in-
dividual tastes of owners, the problems with disturbing landscaping
and the inspection time required,coupled with those items mentioned
above could easily tripple the cost to the owners. Doing or hiring
the majority of the work themselves over the extended time period be-
ing offered by council appears to be a more viable concept.
Staff does not approve of this program but brings it to
council' s and the homeowner ' s attention. If there is sufficient i
terest in a project of this nature, and if council directs its impl
mentation, staff will provide the necessary guidance to make it work.
Recommendation
Staff recommends tht Option B be adopted but understands the
attractiveness of Options C and D and would not be uncomfortable if
Council decided to adopt either of those proposals.
Editorally, staff would be very disappointed, that if Option
C or D is selected, if a majority protest would occur on October
27. There are no more rabbits. Staff time alone has been a
major contribution to the project. A 10% to 15% administrative charge
to the new assessment district is both warranted and fair . Such
charges, however , are not a part of this project.
In excess of $60 ,000 has been invested to date in engineering
and legal fees. These are real dollars and will be lost if the dis-
trict is not formed.
Council is reminded that the consequences in not forming the
district, or in not overriding a majority protest if such protest
occurs, are very serious and may cost all of the sewered population
dearly. Besides imposing fines and placing a septic tank use mora-
torium on the lot owners, the RWQCB will most likely be directed
EPA to recover the $3 million grant received by the ACSD. This is nNo
a bluff. The RWQCB clearly holds the ace in the hole.
4
The Sanitation fund will front nearly $500, 000 in the Seperado-
Cayucos and Marchant Way areas based on staff recommendations. All but
a small portion of these costs will come back to the City, including
interest and financing costs, and, therefore, only a temporary loss of
the use of these funds will be experienced. Additionally, no sacri-
fice is being made to the operation and maintenance of the system and
the 1986-87 Capital Improvement budget involves projects that will
provide an adequate infrastructure for several years to come.
However , Cease and Desist Areas G, I and F (portion) have not
been sewered. The scheduling for such sewering is a requirement of
Order 81-60 . What concessions, if any, will be made for these areas
are unknown at this time, but some provisions should be anticipated in
the future.
Fiscal Impact
Nothing new addressed in this report is expected to have a
significant impact on City funds, but the same could mean an additi-
onal savings of as much as $100 ,000 to the property owners and should
allow adequate time to meet the obligations of paying any required
fees.
The overall savings to Assessment District No. 4. , as
contained in this report, could reach $735,000 , not including the pos-
itive affect of design considerations, interest savings, staff time
and valuable time extensions.
5
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh,' Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Status Report Sanitary Sewer Assessment District
No. 4 - Cease and Desist Areas "C" & "E"
DATE: August 18, 1986
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council proceed • with the adoption of
the Engineer ' s Report and Plans and Specifications for the above pro-
ject at the September 8 regular Council meeting and that the time
schedule for subsequent actions be adjusted from that date. This
action will not require a formal motion, but staff direction is re-
quested on the issue of City participation. Council is also requested
to acknowledge that the CEQA requirements have been met and that a
negative declaration has been prepared for the project. Such docume
will be noticed for 10 days, and final action will be requested
September 8.
Background:
After passage of the Resolution of Intent, Council directed
staff to research every possible avenue to decrease the assessments to
the parcels in areas "C" & "E" , without sacrificing the integrity of
the project. The following is a report on staff ' s findings with re-
spect to City participation, cost reductions, title notifications,
environmental considerations, availability of grants, private loans,
assistance to the elderly, and alternative financing. Finally updated
assessment costs are discussed which incorporate the City parti-
cipation concept.
Staff has made a major conceptual change in recommended cost
•allocations within the last week, and therefore, has removed the Engi-
neer ' s report from this agenda in order to incorporate these changes
in the proposed assessments, and to ask Council ' s guidance on the new
approach.
City Participation
Staff has been researching ways to accomplish fair participation
by the City. The key element is to begin to talk about
"participating" in improvements for which the City could
reimbursed through future users of those improvements. Deleting cos
that would not directly benefit parcels in "C" & "E" , if the complete
sanitary sewer system for the entire drainage basin was con-
J
structed all at time, appears to be a fair and equitable approach
There are some improvements that are required that should,however , be
proportionately cost allocated to "C" & "E" . Portions of the lift
station and the force main, and the gravity trunk line along
Traffic Way may be constructed at City expense, the cost of which
will be recouped when adjacent properties are connected. (See Exhibit
A) Similarily, one-half of the San Anselmo trunk line could be
constructed mostly at City expense. The Urban Services Line, a plan-
ning line outside of which no public sewers are anticipated, runs
up the centerline of San Anselmo. Therefore, at the present time the
northerly adjacent frontage cannot be assessed as would normally be
the case. (See Exhibit B)
The change on Traffic Way would require an amendment to
Resolution 69-86 that established the assessment district boundary to
eliminate those parcels that are not in the cease and desist area but
that front the new trunk line. These parcels would be required to
connect to the sewer main within two years of the line becoming avail-
able. Therefore, the associated costs would not be born by areas "C"
& "E" , but would on the other hand be returned to the City upon
connection. One half of San Anselmo would be treated similarily, ex-
cept that no boundary line adjustment is required. Engineering and
other processing costs would be proportined to allow the City to
finance the "non benefiting" portions of the project.
S.taff would need to bring back a resolution after the protest
hearing that would set a line extension cost on those properties
that would be required to reimburse the City for their fair share of
the project over and above the annexation fees and sewer charges in
effect at that time. This procedure is common in the midwest and some
parts of California, and is a cousin to the old in-lieu-of
assessment charged by the ACSD in the early days of incorporation.
The City will have an option at a later date to pay the City
participation cost within the 30 day period, or finance it through a
bond issue.
Other Cost Savings
Many hours have been spent by staff and our engineering con-
sultant to establish a profile grade on the sewer trunk lines that
would enable the greatest number of parcels to be served by gravity
flow laterals, yet which would not drive up the cost significantly to
the entire district because of excessive trench depths. In one case a
line that would serve only 3 out of 7 parcels at 15 feet deep could
only pick up 4 by going to 20 feet. It was more cost effective,
therefore, to place the line shallow to reduce the cost to the
majority and require the 7 lots to either acquire a private easement
or to pump. Increased depth, that would affect everyone, would in-
crease the cost to some lots more than the cost of the pump that might
be saved. Construction costs to about 12 feet deep increase somewhat
• linearly, but costs over 15 to 20 feet deep increase exponentially.
2
• i
Pumping by private parcels is looked upon as an additional bur
that the majority does not incur. On this project, however, t
minority group has chosen to construct at locations that are not com-
patible to public sewer service, and the majority, the gravity served
lots, argue that they should not bear the burden of pumping costs for
which they derive no benefits.
Costs along Traffic Way, San Anselmo and a few other streets
have been reduced due to the redesign of "the alignment to avoid pave-
ment replacement where possible. For the most part, existing
utilities on either side of the road prohibit the installation of the
sanitary sewer outside of the pavement. Additionally, the cost of
manholes at the angle points that redirect the sewer to the outside
often outweighs the savings due to pavement replacement reductions.
Trees or tree root systems also can be endangered if the edge of the
road is utilized for deep sewers. Therefore, avoiding pavement re-
placement is not an automatic savings.
On narrow streets with utilities on either side, engineered
curves were used for the sewer alignment to avoid excessive manhole
requirements at angle points.
It is beyond the scope of this paper , of course, to elaborate
on all the typical considerations given to a project by a competent
engineer to reduce the costs of construction. There is, however, one
other .. suggestion from the homeowners that deserves consideration, b
cannot be pursued by the City. There may be cases where a group
lot owners can obtain easements sufficient to serve several properti
and use a common lateral to connect to the main sewer. These ease-
ments cannot legally be obtained by the City unless the land is made
public and the maintenance is accepted by the same; neither of which
is acceptable to staff. It is also against City Ordinance to allow
common laterals, unless a waiver is granted by the City Engineer.
Such a waiver may be given for apartments or condominiums, or common
ownership properties.
If a group of lot lowers can obtain appropriate and sufficient
easements, without an environmental impact that may challenge the neg-
ative declaration received, and if a maintenance agreement is recorded
with such properties, then staff will consider an addendum or change
order to the project to accommodate such a design. It should be noted
that the majority of easements considered by the consultant may have
required the elimination of several trees and other natural surround-
ings.
Title Notification
Much criticism has been received regarding the lack of notice
of the Cease and Desist Order . Staff is pursuing a method by which
the title to the property can contain a recorded notice that such pro-
perty is under a Cease and Desist Order.
3
It is proposed that lots in all other cease and desist areas
will have the Order attached to their title. Staff wants to make
everyone aware, however, that such an action on our part may cloud the
title sufficiently, or place an undesirable stigma on the parcel, that
resale values may be affected, or that legal actions may result from
perceived devaluation or potential reverse condemnation. It is sug-
gested that the Regional Water Quality Control Board is the appro-
priate body to cause notification to be placed on the titles.
If a majority protest is received, and subsequently not
overriden, lots in areas "C" & "E" have indirectly requested that the
titles to their parcels contain such language so that future owners
will not be subject to misunderstandings with respect to this issue.
CEQUA Requirements
Negative Declaration:
Environmental considerations for the project show that the design
is intended to clean up the environment and in doing so will not have
an adverse impact on the same. The Director of Community Development
has given a negative declaration to the project based upon the re-
quired findings by the consulting engineer as contained in the engi-
neer ' s report to be adopted at the September 8 regular council meet-
ing. Council is _ asked to make a motion to accept those findings at
that meeting.
County Findings
Staff has been in contact with the County staff who has indicated
that the RWQCB directed the study to be completed and that the County
and the RWQCB agree tha the results were conclusive and remain valid
to date. There is a strong feeling by those involved that if a
similar study was completed today that the results ould at best be the
same, but most likely would show a worse problem than in 1981.
Staff has requested a proposal from the County Environmental lab
that will indicate the cost of sampling of effluent and tracing that
effluent to private septic tanks. Should it be desired to pursue a
second study, the burden of the cost, assuming confirmation of the
original study, will add to homeowners cost.
Availability of Grants
Staff has researched the availability of grants from as many
sources as practicable.
Regional Water Quality Control Board : Enclosed is a letter
from Ken Jones dated July 21, 1986 stating that EPA or' Clean Water
Grants are not available for Areas C & E since two thirds of the flow
does not come from homes existing prior to October 18, 1972. He re-
ferred us to the Federal Housing Administration.
4
Housing and Urban Development Block Funds: HUD requires t
a specific block or area be designated that meets low income
minority guidelines. Atascadero in general, as well as areas C & E
does not have such areas due to its unique subdivision layout in 1914.
The only available grants at this time are Economic Development HUD
grants, which require that an increase in low income or minority group
jobs will result from economic assistance.
Farmer 's Home Administration: Enclosed is a letter from
Paul Rice dated July 24 , 1986 stating that the medium income in Atas-
cadero exceeds the maximum allowed for grant participation under cur-
rent guidelines and therefore our City does not qualify. Some senior
citizen grants are available on a private basis, but the population in
Atascadero exceeds the maximum population requirement of the FmHA
rural program. However, low income elderly citizens are encouraged
to apply by contacting the Arroyo Grande office at 805-489-6151.
University of Davis Data Base: The University of Davis has
a computer program that apparently has all available grants for any-
thing and everything stored and cross-referenced. Bob Best, Director
of Parks and Recreation, has requested an output specifically for
sewer construction. There had not been a response to that inquiry at
this writing.
Other Grants: A student grantswriter from Cal Poly has been
assigned to Administrative Services Director, Dave Jorgensen recent
to research grant availability and to write specific grants. To d*
no positive results have occurred.
Political Assistance
Enclosed is a letter written to Assemblyman Eric Seastrand
soliciting help with the Cease and Desist problem. Also attached is a
copy of a letter from the Homeowners group, and Mr . Seastrands letter
to Ken Jones. Additionally, there is a short response to the Public
Works follow-up call by Valerie Humphrey, Clerical Technician. A
similar letter to the first was sent to Senator Thomas in Pismo Beach
and Bakersfield. A follow up call indicated that they had misplaced
our letters and requested a copy. No response has been given to date.
Private Loans
Farmers Home Administration:
Enclosed is a brochure regarding Farmers._ Home Administration
Loans. Loans are available for waste disposal system that meets
local health department requirements, . . . " at various interest rates
from 1% to regular rates. The 1% loans are for $1500 to $2500 and
require an adjusted family income of $3 , 000 or less. Any adjusted,
family income exceeding $7 ,000 does not qualify for 3% or less in-
terest rates. Other incomes and interest rates are programmed, b
most likely are not available to Atascadero residents since our po
ulation is 11 shy of 20,000 , the maximum population requirement of
FmHA participation. Interested parties should contact the Arroyo
5
Grande office mentioned earlier .
Other Loans:
Kathy Williams, agent for Security Pacific, the bond underwriters
on this project, have been contacted regarding private loans. Their
information reveals that the applicable loans are second mortage loans
and are available through regular channels and normal qualifying
standards.
Private owners are also encouraged to seek Federal Housing
Administration Loans due to the low interest rates and down payments.
Assistance to the Elderly
Besides those grants and loans already discussed, there is a
State program for the elderly which will loan money for sewer and
other improvements and obtain a lein on the property. When the house
sells, or when the person dies, the State will recoup their monies
from the sale of the premises. Additional information on that program
will be available through the Administrative Services Director in the
near future.
Alternative Financing
Staff has researched Pool Financing, Certificates of
Participation, Revenue Bonds and Privatization.
Pool Financing: The California Financing Corporation and the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) were both consulted re-
garding pool financing. All existing pool financing issues are for
equipment or buildings and involve a lease-buy-back concept. This
type of financing requires the sale of bonds on a group basis, but
is otherwise similar to the bonding program staff has engaged.
Certificates of Participation: Certificates of Participation
offer no advantages over municipal bonds, except that an assessment
district does not have to be formed, and thus a vote of the people is
not required.
Revenue Bonds: Revenue Bonds are similar to municipal bonds
except that future revenues are pledged through sewer rates. Thus
instead of paying assessments the lot owners pay a monthly sewer rate
to reduce the debt. No lein is taken on the property for security,
therefore, collection for bad debts goes through the normal back taxes
collection procedures.
Privitization: Privitization involves the const'ruct'ion , by
private contractor and a lease or purchase back to the owner� (city) .
The County anticipated using this mechanism for the Los Osos project
since the $39,000 , 000 price tag was attractive to the private sector .
However , the California Marks bill requires prevailing wage to be
charged (as do all the other programs discussed above) , and such a
scheme is subject to a referendum within 30 days. Additionally, the
new Federal Tax . Law now disallows tax incentives for the privitization
6
i !
route. Therefore, since interest rates are down and the project
16% grant eligible, the County may opt for Industrial Develop
Bonds. If privitization is used the project is not grant eligibles and
the savings would be minimal. Privitization on smaller projects
is even less attractive.
New Costs:
Revised construction costs are now being generated from the
final design and will be included in the Engineer ' s Report on Sept-
ember 8. The spread of assessments will be estimated from these
figures, but will be revised after bids are received.
A review of the anticipated City participation, the total
project cost, the former assessment amount and the newly proposed
assessments will be given verbally Monday (August 25) during the pre-
sentation of this agenda item.
7
ND SAFETY CODE HEALTH AIV V DAr r,i i t,w"rJ ____ 9:1,Jt t
to the extent such governing board pays the cost or price of said connection, it shall succeed to and
have all the rights, including the lien provided for above, of such person or persons against the real
estate and against the owner or reputed owner thereof.
Kennedy v. City of Ukiah As an alternative power to the enforcement of the lien provided-for in this section, the governing
C.A.3d $45. body of the public agency performing the work of connection to the public sewer may, by order
entered upon its minutes, declare that the amount of the costs of such work and the administrative
- expenses incurred by the governing body incident to the proceedings, together with other charges
uniformly applicable within the jurisdiction of the governing body for the connection of the premises
to the public sewer, shall be transmitted to the assessor and tax collector of the public agency,
whereupon it shall be the duty of those officers to add the amount of the assessment to the next
:rnra were instituted tinder regular bill for taxes levied against the lot or parcel of land.
tes, it was not necessary to The liens provided for by this section shall be enforced in the same manner as those provided for
:rerrtents contained in such by Title 15(commencing with Section 3082), Part 4, Division 3, of the Civil Code. s
Ukiah (1977) 138 Cal.Rptr. .
The governing board may also use the procedures in Section 5474 for levying the costs incurred for
the construction of the improvements for the connection of the premises to the public sewer
tearing - (Amended by Stats.1971, c.'935,p. 1834, § 1; Stats.1973,c. 852, p. 1519, § 1,urgency, eff.Sept. 25,
1973.)
ents" were instituted under -
es,.it was not necessary to § 5464. Request by owner for governing board to connect property to system; lien for work
rements contained in such done
Ukiah (1977) 138 Cai.Rptr.
Any owner or reputed owner,who has his property included within an assessment district for the
construction of a main trunkline or collector sewer lines, may request the governing board to
- construct all necessary plumbing to connect his property to the adjoining street public sewer system.
The person employed by the governing board to do the work shall have a lien upon the property,for
o give notice and provide work done and materials furnished, and the work done and materials furnished shall be deemed to
Jk: 77) 138 Cal.Rptr. have been done and furnished at the request of the owner, reputed owner, or person claiming or
having any interest in the property. The governing board may pay all, or any part, of the cost or
price of the connection to the person or persons who furnished labor,materials,or equipment and,to
the extent that the governing board pays the cost or price of the connection, it shall succeed to and
have all the rights,including the lien,of the person or persons against the property and the owner or
reputed owner of the property.
As an alternative power to the enforcement of the lien provided for in this section, the governing
SEWERS body of the public agency performing the work of connection to the public sewer may, by the power
of ordinance approved by two-thirds vote of the members of the legislative body, fix the cost of
improvement for connection to the sanitation or sewerage facilities, fix the times at which such costs
shall become due,provide for the payment of the costs prior to the construction and connection or in
rcing the Clean-Water Act installments over a period, not to exceed 15 years,provide a rate of interest, not to exceed 6 percent
2 U.S.F.LRev-437. per annum, to be charged on the unpaid balance of the costs, and provide that the amount of the
costs and,the interest shall constitute a lien against,the respective lots or parcels upon which the
facilities are constructed. i
The governing body may use the procedures specified in Section 5474 to implement the levying of
the costs for the construction and connection of the premises to the public sewer.
lien for work done. (Added by Stats.1973, c. 852, p. 1520, § 2, urgency, eff:Sept. 25, 1973.)
of health officer or Library References
Municipal Co !
P Corporations X712.
r other district having C•J•S. Municipal Corporations§ 1805-
iotice upon the owner
ier or reputed owner,
use, together with all - ARTICLE 3.5. BONDS '
ry manner, with the _
arson doing said work
al estate for his work Section
1 be held to have been 5465• Repealed.
.aiming or having any
ost or price of such
nt for the same,and, '
itic* amendment Asterisks •.• indicate deletions by amendment
17
Library References
Municipal Corporations e-918.
G.S. Municipal Corporations§ 1920-
§ 5474.30. Enforcement of chapter
The primary responsibility for enforcement of the provisions of this chapter shall be vested in the
local health officers; county agricultural commissioners may participate in such enforcement. The
State Departments of Health Services, Industrial Relations, and Food and Agriculture may also
enforce the provisions of this chapter.
Any agency enforcing the provisions of this chapter shall report any violation to all field offices of
the • • • Employment Development Department located in the county where the violation occurs.
Such report shall-identify the employer responsible for the violation,the nature of the violation, and
the location of the food crop growing and harvesting operation where the violation occurs. The •
Employment Development Department shall not refer persons for employment to any employer or
food crop growing and harvesting operation identified in such report until the agency reporting the
violation certifies that the violation has been corrected.
(Amended by Stats.1971, c. 1593, p. 3283, § 193,operative July 1, 1973; Stats.1973, c. 1206, p.2612,
§ 33; Stats.1973, c. 1207, p. 2662, § 33; Stats.1977, c. 1252, p. 4392, § 295, operative July 1, 1978.)
i971 Legislation. - Notes of Decision
Operative effect and subordination of amendment by
Stats.1971,c. 1593,p.3424,to other 1971 legislation affect- 1. In general
ing this section,see note under§ 20. Violation notices issued by local health departments pur-
1973 Legislation. .suant to§ 5474.20 et seq. are subject to public inspection.
Conformance with federal requirements of provisions of 53 Ops.Atty.Gen.258,8-19-70-
Stats.1973,c. 1206.and Stats.1973,c. 1207,see note under
._Code of Civil Procedure§ 690.175.
Law Review Commentaries
Scaling the welfare bureaucracy: Expanding concepts of
governmental employee liability. (1973) 21 U.C.L.A.Law
Rev.624. -
§ 5474.31. Violations
Law Review Commentaries
Scaling the welfare bureaucracy: Expanding concepts of
governmental employee liability. (1973) 21 U.C.L.A.Law
Rev.624.
CHAPTER 11. ASSISTANCE TO SMALL RURAL COMMUNITIES
Section
6120- Definitions. ... _
6121. Legislative findings and declarations.
- i
6122. Establishment of rural community facilities technical assistance program; contracts. -
6123- Administration of program.
6124. Purpose of program; funds used with maximum amount of matching nonprogram funds.
6125- Rural community facility grant fund; appropriation.
6126. Conditions for grant of funds by contract with eligible grantees.
6127. Rules and regulations.
Chapter 11 was added by Stats.1983, c. 1152, p. ; § L
§ 6120. Definitions
=Unless the context otherwise requires,the definitions in this section govern the construction of this
chapter.
(a) "Community facility"means a public or mutual water system,or publicly operated waste water
system.
(b) "Department" means the Department of Housing and Community Development.
Asterisks • indicate deletions by amendment
39A Cai-Code-2 23i
1986 P.P.
.' § 6120 .,HEALTH AND...... �:. ......
SAFETY!CODE HE
(c) "Eligible grantee"means a local governmental entity ora private nonprofit organization which
has demonstrated capacity to provide technical assistance on all subjects specified in subdivision(g). § 61
(d) "Low-income community"means a community in which the median income of the persons in the
community, area, or city is less than 70 percent of the median income in the state, T1
(e) "Rural community" means any community, area, or city with less than 5,000 population. (Add
(f) "Seed money" means funds granted by the department
pursuant chapter for project organization and development, test wells, prelim nary engineering, pro of this
fees, ' ' • and other costs which are necessary to get a project a § 61:
state, or federal sources ' ' P J pproved for financing from local,
Th
(g) "Technical assistance" means assistance and advice on all of the following subjects: ensue
(1) Organization, including formation, financing, and operation, of public and private nonprofit
service entities. servic
(2) Community responsibilities, including the conduct of meetings, maintenance of minutes of when
meetings, provic
g , preparation and analysis of budgets, keeping of fiscal records, and supervision of staff. great
(3) Operation and maintenance, including schedules and techniques pertaining to all parts of a
facility, and maintenance control systems and maintenance recordkeeping to assure adequate (Adde
maintenance,.including schedules and techniques pertaining to all parts of a facility,and maintenance
control systems and maintenance recordkeeping to assure adequate maintenance is performed on a § 612:
facility.
(4) Project development, including, but not limited to: The
(A) The preparation of plans for needed expansion,creation of services,and schedules for expected Contin
major repairs or replacement needs. the pr:
_ the pry
(B) Negotiation of contracts for professional services. grant
(C) An examination of various funding alternatives, and packaging applications for assistance. (Addec
(D) Review of engineering plans and specifications for development projects.
(E) Compliance with appropriate regulations relative to funding agencies. § 6126
(5) Financial assistance available from the department in seed money grants pursuant to this
chapter. The
(Added by Stats.1983, c. 1152, tions:
P• § 1. Amended by Stats.1984, c. 744, p,
Library References § 1') (a) T
Words and Phrases(Perm,Ed•) countT
(b) T
§ 6121. Legislative findings and declarations costs cc
The Legislature finds and declares that small rural communities are unable to take advantage of (c)
various local, state, and federal facility development programs due to their lack of technical certifiec
expertise,staff,and seed money. The Legislature finds and declares that changing state and federal
regulations relative to the provision of domestic water and waste water disposal are creating an �d) T,
extra hardship upon rural areas. The Legislature further finds and declares that the provisions of
this chapter are necessary in order to provide assistance to rural areas so that they may take (e) TT
advantage of existingfive hun
the future. Programs and develop self-help expertise enabling them to assist themselves in less.
(Added by Stats,1983, c. 1152, (f) Th
requires
funds.
§ 6122. Establishment of rural community facilities technical assistance program; contracts
(Added t
lish a
which,subject�to the availability ent shall boffunds therefor, contracural Community ties s shall b beal madeAssistance the department
under 1
Public entities and nonprofit corporations for the provision of technical assistance to rural and § 6127.
Y partment with
low-income communities in the,operation, maintenance, and development of community facilities. f
The de
(Added by Stats,1983, c. 1152, p, § 1,) chapter.
(Added b
Underline indicates changes or additions by amendment
>> Asterisks
. - �s
DATA: 9/8/86 E' B-1-b
• CITY OF ATASCADERO
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 4
(SEPARADO-CAYUCAS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT)
RESOLUTION NO. 99-86
RESOLUTION APPROVING REVISED BOUNDARY MAP AND
REVISING THE DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC -IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, in accordance with prior proceedings duly
had and taken, the City Council of the City of Atascadero (the
"City Council" ) has declared its intention to and has
determined to undertake proceedings pursuant to the Municipal
Improvement Act of 1913 and to issue bonds in said proceedings
• under the provisions of the Improvement Bonds Act of 1915 for
the acquisition and construction in and for the City of
Atascadero of certain public improvements in and for an
assessment district in the City designated "City of Atascadero
Improvement District No. 4 (Separado-Cayucas Assessment
District) "; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 69-86, adopted
on July 14, 1986, the City Council approved a map of the
proposed boundaries of said assessment district; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 1986, the City Council adopted
Resolution of Intention No. 70-86, wherein the proposed public
improvements were described; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to revise said boundary map •
and to revise the description of the proposed public
improvements;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the
City of Atascadero, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and
this City Council so finds ,and determines.
2 . The revised map submitted to this City Council,
entitled "Proposed Boundaries, City of Atascadero Improvement
District No. 4 (Separado-Cayucas Assessment District) , County
of San Luis Obispo, State of California" a copy of which is
attached hereto and labeled Exhibit A is hereby approved as
the map of the proposed boundaries of said assessment.
3 . The description of the proposed public •
improvements contained in Exhibit A to the Resolution of
Intention No. 70-86 is hereby revised as shown on Exhibit B
attached hereto and said Resolution of Intention is hereby
amended only as to the description of the proposed
improvements, which description shall govern for the
assessment proceedings.
2
041003-0001-198-4900d
t
r
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 1986,
by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES:
ABSENT:
Marjorie R. Mackey, Mayor of the
City of Atascadero, San Luis
Obispo County, State of California
ATTEST:
Boyd C. Sharitz
City Clerk of the City of
Atascadero, San Luis Obisbo
County, State of California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Robert M. Jones, City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Robert M. Jones, City Attorney
3
041003-0001-198-4900d
R-5
CITY OF ATASCADERO
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 4
(SEPARADO-CAYUCAS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT)
RESOLUTION NO. 100-.86
RESOLUTION APPROVING ENGINEER' S REPORT ON
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS, APPOINTING TIME AND
PLACE FOR HEARING PROTESTS TO SAID IMPROVE-
MENTS AND CALLING FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS
WHEREAS, in accordance with prior proceedings duly
had and taken, the City Council of the City of Atascadero (the
"City Council" ) has declared its intention to and has
determined to undertake proceedings pursuant to the Municipal
Improvement Act of 1913 and issue bonds in said proceedings
under the provisions of the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 for
the acquisition and construction in and for the City of
Atascadero (the "City" ) of the public improvements more
particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and
incorporated herein and made a part hereof, in and for an
assessment district in the City designated "City of Atascadero
Improvement District No. 4 (Separado-Cayucas Assessment
District) "; and
WHEREAS, the City Council by Resolution No. 66-86
duly adopted on July 14, 1986, determined that the
construction of the public improvements is necessary as a
health measure; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution duly
adopted, appointed the firm of John L. Wallace & Associates as
Engineer of Work in and for said proceedings and authorized
and directed said firm to do and perform or cause to be done
and performed all engineering work necessary in and for said
proceedings, including the preparation of plans and
specifications for said improvements and the descriptions of
the acquisitions, together with estimates of costs thereof,
and the preparation of a map of the assessment district, an
assessment diagram, and an assessment, and the supervision of
the work; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution of
Intention No. 70-86 heretofore duly adopted, as amended by
Resolution No. , adopted on September 8, 1986, declared
its intention to order said improvements to be made in and for
said assessment district; and
WHEREAS, the City Council in and by said Resolution
of Intention referred said proposed improvements to the
Engineer of Work in and for said assessment district and
directed said Engineer of Work to make and file a report in
writing containing the matters specified in Section 10204 of
the Streets and Highways Code; and
[WHEREAS, the Engineer of Work has complied with the
• requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act by
2
041003-0001-198-4586d
obtaining the necessary declarations and clearances for the
proposed improvements; and]
WHEREAS, in accordance with said Resolution of
Intention, said Engineer of Work has filed with the City Clerk
of the City a report in writing containing the matters
specified in said Section 10204 of the Streets and Highways
Code; and
WHEREAS, Said report has been duly presented by the
City Clerk of the City to the City Council for consideration
and has been fully considered by the City Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council
of the City of Atascadero, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and
the City Council so finds and determines.
2 . Said report is hereby preliminarily approved by
the City Council, and o' clock P.M. on Monday, October 27,
1986, at the Chambers of the City Council, City Hall,
6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California 93423, is hereby
fixed by the City Council as the time and place for hearing
protests to said proposed improvements. Any interested person
may object to said proposed improvements, the extent of the
assessment district or to the proposed assessment by filing a
written protest with the City Clerk of the City at or before
the time set for said hearing. Each protest must contain a
description of the property in which the signer thereof is
interested sufficient to identify the same and, if the signers
3
041003-0001-198-4586d
• are not shown on the last equalized assessment roll as the
owners of such property, must contain or be accompanied by
written evidence that such signers are the owners of such
property. The City Clerk of the City shall endorse on each
protest the date of its receipt and at said time appointed for
said hearing shall present to the City Council all protests
filed with her.
3. The City Clerk of the City is hereby directed
(a) to cause notices of said hearing to be posted in the time,
form and manner provided by law, and (b) to cause a notice of
said hearing to be published in The Atascadero News in the
time, form and manner provided by law, and (c) to give notice
. by mail of the adoption of said Resolution of Intention for
said proposed improvements and of the filing of said report to
all persons owning real property proposed to be assessed in
the time, form and manner provided by law. Upon the
completion of the mailing of said notices, the City Clerk of
the City is hereby directed to file with the City Council an
affidavit setting forth the time and manner of the compliance
with the requirements of law for publishing, posting and
mailing said notices.
4. Mr. Sensibaugh, City Engineer, City of
Atascadero, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California 93423,
telephone (805) 466-8000, is hereby designated to answer
inquiries regarding the protest proceedings.
4
041003-0001-198-4586d
5 . The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause
notices to bidders inviting sealed proposals or bids for the
making of said improvements, in substantially the form
attached hereto, marked "Exhibit A" and made a part hereof, to
be posted in three (3) public places in the City for two (2)
succeeding weeks and to be published once a week for two (2)
succeeding weeks in The Atascadero News.
6. Sealed bids for making said improvements shall
be received at the times and places and in the manner
specified in the notice.
7. The City Council hereby declares that it intends
to collect liquidated damages in the amount of $100 per day
5
041003-0001-198-4586d
for failure to complete the work as scheduled, as will be
provided in the contract specifications.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 1986,
by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers
Noes:
Absent:
Marjorie R. Mackey, Mayor of the
City of Atascadero, San Luis
Obispo County, State of California
[Seal ]
ATTEST:
Boyd C. Sharitz
City Clerk of the City of
Atascadero, San Luis Obispo
County, State of California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROBERT M. JONES
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
ROBERT M. JONES
City Attorney
6
041003-0001-198-4586d
4549d OH&S
8/25/86
r
CITY OF ATASCADERO IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 4 .
(SEPARADO-CAYUCAS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT)
SUMMARY OF DEADLINES FOR
NOTICES AND FILINGS
Dates
1. City Council of Atascadero Meeting
Resolutions [1-4] adopted July 14, 1986
2. City Council of Atascadero Meeting September 8, 1986
Resolution 5 adopted
3. File copy of Boundary Map of *September 23, 1986
Assessment District with the
San Luis Obispo County
Recorder [per S&H § 3111]
(within 15 days after
Resolution [R-5] is adopted)
4. City Clerk executes Affidavit of *September 23, 1986
. Filing Boundary Map [A-1]
5. Notices of Invitation to Bidders *September 12, 1986
published [per P.C. § 204821 September 19, 1986
(twice in successive weeks per
Gov't § 6066; the bids may not
be opened before 14 days after
the first publication)
6. Request newspaper to mail tear September 12, 1986
sheets for each publication of September 19, 1986
(A) Notice of Invitation to Bid
and (B) Notice of Improvement &
Hearing to Bond Counsel
7. Publishing Notice of Improvement September 12, 1986
& Hearing [N-1,2] [per S&H § 10304] September 19, 1986
(twice in successive weeks per
Gov't § 6066)
8. Request newspaper to mail Proof September 19, 1986
of Publication (3 certified copies,
2 for City Clerk, 1 for Bond Counsel)
of (A) Notice of Invitation to
Bidders and (B) Notice of
Improvement & Hearing
*These represent the latest possible date for completion, not the earliest.
0
i
Dates
9. Contract Bids Opened October 15, 1986
10. Mailing Notice to Property *October 7, 1986
Owners of Adoption of Resolution
of Intention [N-2] [per S&H
§ 10306] (20 days before the
hearing, 10/27/86)
11. Posting Notices of Improvement *October 7, 1986
& Hearing [N-1] [per S&H § 10304]
(at least 20 days before the date
of the hearing, 10/27/86)
12. Engineer executes 2 copies of *October 7, 1986
Affidavit of Posting [A-4]
(1 to City Clerk, 1 to Bond Counsel)
13. City Clerk executes Affidavit of *October 7, 1986
Compliance with Requirements for
Publishing, Posting & Mailing
Notice of Hearing and Affidavit of
Posting Notices Inviting Sealed
Proposals [A-2, 3] [per S&H § 10308] ;
14. City Council of Atascadero Holds October 27, 1986
Public Hearing, 2:00 p.m. and
adopts resolution levying Assessment
[R-6] [per S&H §§ 10312, 10600,
106031 , adopts resolution awarding
construction contract [R-7] ;
15. City Clerk Records Assessment October 28, 1986
and Diagram with the Superintendent
of Streets [per S&H § 10401]
16. Copy of Assessment Diagram October 28, 1986
filed with San Luis Obispo
County Recorder [per S&H
§§ 3114(a) , (c)] , City Clerk
executes Affidavit of Filing and
Recording Assessment Diagram [A-5]
17. Notice of Assessment [N-4] October 28, 1986
recorded with San Luis Obispo
County Recorder [per S&H
§10402.5]
*These represent the latest possible date for completion, not the earliest.
2
041003-0001-198-4549d
Dates •
18. Mailing Notice to Property October 28-29, 1986
Owners of Recording of
Assessment [N-5]
[per S&H §§ 10404, 5070]
19. Request newspaper to send October 31, 1986
tear sheet for each November 7, 1986
publication of Notice to
Property owners to Bond
Counsel
20. Publication of Notice to October 31, 1986
Property Owners [N-6] November 7, 1986
(published twice, in
successive weeks) [per S&H
§ 10404]
21. Request Newspaper to mail October 31, 1986
tear sheets of publication
of Notice of Award of
Contract to Bond Counsel
22. Publication of Notice Award October 31, 1986
of Contracts once [N-7]
[per Pub. Cont. Code § 20484]
23. Request Newspaper to mail November 11, 1986
Proof of Publication of
Notice of Award of Contract
(2 certified copies, 1 to
City Clerk, 1 to Bond Counsel)
24. City Clerk to execute October 29, 1986
Affidavit of Mailing
Notice to Property Owners of
Recording Assessment [A-6]
25. Request newspaper to mail Proof November 7, 1986
of Publication of the Notice
to Property Owners (3 certified
copies, 2 for Clerk, 1 for Bond
Counsel)
3
041003-0001-198-4549d
Dates
26. Underwriter distributes draft November 4-14, 1986
Official Statement and Bond
Purchase Contract to County
and Bond Counsel
27. Comments on draft Official November 18-21, 1986
Statement and Bond Purchase
Contract telephoned to
Underwriter
28. Statutory Period for paying November 7, 1986
or attacking assessment ends
[per S&H §§ 10400, 10402.5,
10403] (30 days after Assessment,
Diagram and Notice of Assessment
filed and recorded)
29. List of Paid and Unpaid November 28 - December 5, 1986
Assessments compiled [per
S&H § 8620] & information
telephoned to Underwriter
30. Resolution Approving December 8, 1986
Amount of Bonds to be issued
adopted; Approving Bond Purchase
Contract and Authorizing Distribution
Official Statement [R-8]
31. Underwriter delivers final December 9-12, 1986
Official Statement to printer
32. Underwriter distributes December 12, 1986
Official Statement
33. Bond Closing December 19, 1986
34. Construction Begins January, 1987
35. Construction Completed Summer, 1987
4
041003-0001-198-4549d
Resolutions
R-1 = Resolution Determining to Undertake Proceedings
R-2 = Resolution Appointing Engineer of Work, Underwriter
and Bond Counsel
R-3 Resolution Approving Boundary Map
R-4 Resolution of Intention
R-5a = Resolution Approving Revised Boundary Map and
Revising the Description of Public Improvements
R-5 = Resolution Preliminarily Approving Engineer' s
Report, Appointing Time and Place for Hearing
Protests and Calling for Construction Bids
R-6 = Resolution Confirming Assessment and Ordering
Proposed Improvements to be Made, Providing For
Notice of Recording Assessment, Designating City
Treasurer to Collect and Receive Money
R-7 Resolution Awarding Construction Contract .
R-8 = Resolution Approving Unpaid Assessment List,
Authorizing Issuance of Bonds, Approving Official
Statement and Approving Bond Purchase Contract
Notices
N-1 = Notice of Improvement ( same form for posting &
publishing
N-2 = Notice to Property Owners of Adoption of Resolution
of Intention, Filing Engineer' s Report and Notice of
Time and Place of Hearing Protests
N-3 = Notice of Assessment (form to be recorded)
N-4 = Notice to Property Owners of Recording of Assessment
(form to be mailed to property owners)
N-5 = Notice of Assessment (form to be published)
N-6 = Notice of Award of .Contract
Affidavits
A-1 = Affidavit of Filing Boundary Map (City Clerk)
A-2 = Affidavit of Compliance with the Requirements of Law
for Publishing, Posting & Mailing Notices of Hearing
Protests (City Clerk)
A-3 = Affidavit of Posting Notices Inviting Sealed
Proposals (City Clerk)
A-4 = Affidavit of Posting Notice of Improvement (Engineer)
A-5 = Affidavit of Filing &Recording Assessment Diagram
(City Clerk)
A-6 = Affidavit of Mailing Notice of Recording Assessment
(City Clerk)
2
041003-0001-198-4549d
1!N AG SNDA
DAT` 9/8/86 t;Em B-1-c
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Engineer ' s Report and Setting of Protest Hearing
Date for Assessment District No. 4
DATE: August 29, 1986
Recommendation
Staff recommends adoption of Resolution 99-86, and
Resolution 100-86, approval of the Plans and Specifications,
authorization to bid, acceptance of the Engineer ' s Estimate,
tentative spread of assessments, related diagram and method of
spread, and the setting of October 27 for the Protest Hearing,
all for Assessment District No. 4.
Background
• The staff report from the last regular council meeting is
offered in this package as background information for this
meeting. The acceptance of the above recommendation is a major
and significant step in the formation of the proposed Assessment
District.
Discussion
The protest hearing is set for October 27 with the bids
being received October 15 for the above project. The
award of bids, selling of bonds, and the establishment of the
assessment will all happen on October 27. Written protests may
be presented up to within one hour of that meeting.
Tonights action will trigger the noticing of the protest
hearing and the advertisement for bids. Resolution ammends
the District Boundary due to the deletion of Traffic Way
properties. Resolution adopts the Engineer ' s Report and sets
the noticing for the protest hearing and the advertisement for
bids.
John Wallace, special engineer , will be presenting the
Engineer ' s Report and reviewing the plans and specifications
and the final assessment boundaries. The method of the spread of
assessments and the tentative spread will also be outlined.
Antonia Dolar of Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe, bond
counsel for the project, will be in attendance to present the •
revised time schedule and to advise Council on any. legal
questions that they might have.
Kathy Williams of Security Pacific, bond underwriter for the
project, will also be in attendance to answer questions on
financing.
Financing
Revised Time Schedule
Resolution No.
Engineer ' s Report
Plans and Specifications
File:SetPH
•
2
d
MNG 9/8/86 AGTNDA
DA ITEM B-2
---__
• MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Pau Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works
.�Jy
SUBJECT: Final Draft of the San Luis Obispo County
Solid Waste Management Plan
DATE: September 2, 1986
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council not approve the San Luis Obispo
County Solid Waste Management Plan until it contains language that
(1) exempts Atascadero from mandatory collection without council' s
permission, that (2) insures that Atascadero residents or Chicago
Grande Landfill users will not pay for the Los Osos or Lake Naciemento
transfer stations, or the planning or engineering thereof, or for the
replacement of the Cold Canyon Landfill, that (3) limits be placed on
the funds relating to the planning of resource recovery, that (4)
assigns the cost of expansion of the Chicago Grade Landfill to serve
areas other than the 26 sq. miles of the Atascadero Corporation limits
• to those new areas being served, that (5) assures the acceptance of
the ACSD waste-water recovery plant as a certified septic tank pumping
station and that costs associated to the planning of other such sta-
tions not be paid by . Atascadero residents, that
(6) limits be placed on the funds relating to the planning of the
handling of household hazardous wastes, and that assurance is given
that the implementations of these plans not be mandatory or assigned a
penalty for noncompliance, that (7) assigns a member of the Atascadero
City Council to serve on the proposed Solid Waste Commission, and that
(8) guaranteesthe funding formula either be known in advance, or re-
quires the affirmative vote of the Atascadero City Council prior to
the County Board of Supervisors assigning any costs to our City, ' it' s
haulers, the Chicago Grade Landfill, or the developers within our
territory.
Background
Staff presented a report on May 7, 1986 that supported the Draft
plan excepting specific issues discussed above. (copy attached) This
report was sent to the County to be addressed by the Consultant for
the San Luis Obispo County Solid Waste Management Plan. The final
Draft has softened its language to treat some of the topics in more
general terms and indicate that all items be studied or addressed or
considered.
• Staff does not find this acceptable. While staff agrees with
many of the general goals and recognizes the importance of all the
items addressed, it still appears that our residents may have to pay
an unfair share of the costs of solving someone else's problems. We
R.
agree that perhaps a new position is warranted in the County En
neering Department, and that the monies to support that position c
from sources other than the County General Fund. However , we feel
strongly that those who benefit or impact the problem should pay for
the mitigation of the same.
Summary
The purpose of not adopting the attached resolution would not be
to slowdown the county plan, but would rather be to protect the
citizens of Atascadero from unknown, unforseen or unfair costs. Reso-
lution No. is presented for Councils consideration as requested by
the County Planning Department.
Fiscal Impact
Unknown.
Attachments
Staff Report - May 7 , 1986
SLOCo. SWMP Exerpts (Implementation Recommendations, Funding)
(A complete copy of the Management Plan is available in the office
of the Director of Public Works)
s •
•
2
�! !
RESOLUTION NO. 104-86
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
APPROVING THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the County of San Luis Obispo has prepared a County
Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP) as required by the Solid Waste
Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972; and
WHEREAS, said Plan is an updated policy document designed
to guide future County efforts to provide efficient, sanitary,
economic, and enviornmentally sound methods of waste storage, col-
lection, and disposal through 2005; and
WHEREAS, the California Government Code, Title 14, Sections
17144, 17146 and 14147 require approval of the Plan by a majority of
the cities within the County which contain a majority of the popula-
tion of the incorporated area of the County; and
WHEREAS, said Plan has been submitted to the City of
Atascadero for approval pursuant to the aforesaid sections of the
California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero has
reviewed said Plan, conducted a public hearing, and concurs in the
following:
1. Objectives set forth in the Plan;
2. The method and/or organization for implementation
of the program;
3. Procedures for financing the recommended program; and
4. The role identified in the Plan for the City of
Atascadero.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Atascadero that the CoSWMP is hereby approved.
On motion by Councilman and seconded by
Councilman the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted
in its entirety by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
3
DATE ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
BOYD C. SHARITZ MARJORIE R. MACKEY
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH, ROBERT M. JONES
Director of Public Works City Attorney
City Engineer
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: San Luis Obispo County Solid Waste Management Plan -
Preliminary Draft
DATE May 7, 1986
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council support the above plan in
general, but that it take exception to some or all of the issues
highlighted by staff to not benefit Atascadero users.
Background:
The City is in receipt of the above document for official
comment to the Advisory Committee. (Staff member Sensibaugh sits
on said Committee) . The report is an update of the 1977 plan
which was administered through existing county offices. The new
plan is intended to be self-supported and the revenues are anti-
cipated to come from landfill or collection surcharges, a de-
velopment fee, or related methods. A new administrator will be
hired to oversee the new division and to implement the plan. It
is suggested that one of the priority tasks will be to "determine
how the Incorporated Cities will contribute to the system" .
Consultant Recommendations:
1) General - Board of Supervisors approve plan and forward
to the California Waste Management Board for approval.
2) Waste Collection - Evaluate mandatory collection for the
more densely populated areas.
3) Waste Transfer - Evaluate transfer station at Los Osos
Landfill and in the Lake Nacimento area, and others identified in
the County General Plan.
4) Resource Recovery - Evaluate alternatives to landfill
disposal.
5) Waste Disposal - Evaluate expansion of the Chicago Grade
Landfill, and a possible replacement for the Cold Canyon Land-
fill.
02
6) Special Wastes - Evaluate current disposal of septic tank
pumpings, chemical toilet waste and sewage plant sludge.
7) Hazardous Wastes - Prepare a program for disposal of
household hazardous substances.
8) Management and Funding - Evaluate added personnel to help
administer program.
Implement additional sources of revenue to supplement the
County General Fund for administering the program.
Discussion:
Atascadero Municipal Code Sections 6-4.01 to 6-5.07 provide
authority for the County to act as the Local Enforcement Agency
(LEA) for Solid Wastes Management as required by State Statutes.
Staff agrees with the overall objectives to ensure the
protection of the general public health, minimize the impacts of
solid waste upon the environment, ensure compliance with govern-
ment goals and regulations, provide adequate facilities, provide
for efficient management of the County solid waste system, in-
corporate technology, coordinate with other environmental pro-
grams, develop a feasible plan and maximize the recovery of waste
when cost effective.
Concerns:
There are some concerns by staff, however , that Atascadero
residents may end up paying for work that directly benefits
others, and that non-productive tasks may be emphasized.
Specifically, (1) Mandatory Collection Evaluation. The
layout of our city is not necessarily conducive to mandatory col-
lection. The cost to the customer to be serviced would be
directly proportional to the distance from the center of town.
Many colony roads have fewer than five homes. The City maintains
over 120 miles of streets and there is again that number of
non-city maintained roads. In a typical grid layout or con-
centrated subdivision the cost is normally lowered by the in-
crease in customers. This is questionable, at best, in Atas-
cadero. ; (2) Transfer Stations. Stations at the Los Osos Land-
fill and Lake Nacimento should not be a burden of the Atascadero
Customers. ; (3) Re5ourte Recovery. While an excellent idea and
promoted by our City, this has been studied over and again and is
often not feasible. Limited time should be spend on evaluation,
and the use of existing knowledge is encouraged: (4) Expansion of
the Chicago Grade Landfill. We need more detail on the need for
this, but if the expansion is unrelated to Atascadero, our cus-
tomers should not share in any landfill surcharges for the same;
(5) Replacement of the Cold Canyon Landfill. Again our residents
should not share in this special benefit to other users; . (6)
Special Wastes. The ACSD wastewater plant already provides for
septic tank pumping and we handle our own sludge. Limited value
2
j
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: DrafttInv415ronmental Impact Report for the
San Luis Obispo County Draft Solid Waste
Management Plan
DATE: July 22, 1986
Recommendation:
Approve the Draft EIR with reemphasis on the adverse
economic impact of mandatory refuse collection in Atascadero,
and for household hazardous wastes mitigation. Heavy restric-
tions on the future expansion of the Chicago Grade Landfill may
also have an adverse economic impact to citizens.
Background:
Council was previously presented the Draft Solid Waste
Management Plan and through staff made comments to the County
regarding the same (Staff report attached. ) The Draft EIR for
that plan is now under review and your comments are being sought.
A summary of the findings are attached for your review. A com-
plete copy of the report is available in the Director of Public
Works' office.
Discussion:
This is the second step of several that must be taken to
finally adopt the Management Plan. All cities in the County
will eventually be asked for their stamp of approval. Any pro-
jects that result due to the Management Plan will be required to
have individual EIR' s, the draft EIR discussed herein pertains
only to the Management Plan.
i
f
p�
is seen here for us. ; (7) Household Hazardous Wastes. We are
very skeptical about any programs of this nature. While the
philosophy is ideal, the regulation seems impossible. The sep-
eration of household waste (at higher costs for disposal of
aerosol cans, chemical containers, etc) may lend to dishonesty,
police-state tactics and other off-the-wall administrative night-
mares. Voluntary measures are encouraged but not very practical
for good results.
Time Schedule:
Comments to the preliminary draft plan are due May 12.
Based on comments from all agencies and the Advisory Committee,
the Draft EIR is presented to all of the same, allowing 45 days
for comment. The Draft County Solid Waste Management Plan is then
revised and the final EIR prepared. A county public hearing is
then held where the Board certifies the EIR and approves the
Draft
Draft County solid Waste Management Plan.
The incorporated cities receive the County Solid Waste
Management Plan for review and approval. Approval is required by
50% of the incorporated cities, allowing 90 days for response.
The approved plan is then submitted to the California Waste
Managment Board for review and approval.
Fiscal Impact:
Funding. The citizens of our City no doubt should share in
the general benefit of the plan to the County, including the
items objected to above. We question, however, if . their con-
tribution through their normal taxes to the County General Fund
isn' t adequate for that purpose.
T
3 ��
TO: City Council Members September 8, 1986
FROM: Mike Shelton, City Manager
SUBJECT: CITY CLERK AND CITY TREASURER COMPENSATION
RECOMMENDATION:
Council adopt the attached resolution, increasing the City
Clerk 's monthly salary from $20 to $50 and the City Treasurer ' s
monthly salary from $10 to $25.
BACKGROUND:
In reviewing the 1986-87 Budget, Council appointed an ad hoc
committee to review the City' s pay practice for the elected City
Clerk and City Treasurer positions. Committee members appointed
were Mayor Mackey, Dave Jorgenson (Administrative Services
Director) , and myself. The committee felt a nominal increase was
in order and is so recommended. In making this decision, the
following was taken into consideration:
1. Pay practice for other elected City Clerks/City Treasurers in
the County.
2. Benefit Compensation - The City provide medical and life
insurance coverage for both positions at a monthly cost of
$102.85 each.
3. The City provide full-time City staff to perform the duties
of the Clerk and. Treasurer position.
4. The City budgets and pays for training, conferences, and
other out-of-pocket expenses for both elected positions.
5. By being elected, both positions are of a public service
nature.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The City Clerk' s annual salary appropriation would increase from
$240 to $1,000 ($760 increase) . The City Treasurer ' s annual
salary appropriation would increase from $120 to $300 ($180
increase) .
MS:kv
File: MComp
•
1
•
RESOLUTION NUMBER 103-86
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
APPROVING AN INCREASE OF SALARIES FOR
CITY CLERK AND CITY TREASURER POSITIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council at their July 28, 1986, Council
Meeting, appointed an ad hoc committee to review City pay prac-
tices for the City' s elected City Clerk and City Treasurer
positions; and
WHEREAS, the ad hoc committee reviewed the total compen-
sation of the Clerk and Treasurer positions, including benefits,
conference, travel, and other out-of-pocket expenses compensation
practices of other Cities and other considerations as they relate
to duties and the public service aspects of the positions; and
WHEREAS, the ad hock committee recommends that the data
analyzed
analyzed supports a modest salary increase for both the City •
Clerk and City Treasurer positions.
THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero resolves to
establish the City Clerk monthly salary at $50 per month and the .
City Treasurer salary at $25 per month, with increases
retroactive to July 1, 1986.
On motion by and seconded by
the motion was approved by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO
BOYD C. SHARITZ MARJORIE MACKEY
City Clerk Mayor
•
�F7'NG A07-NDA
ATc 9/8/86 liE,4A C-2
-------�
• MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Amendments to the Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage
Development Fee Resolution
DATE: August 29 , 1986
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council amend Resolution No. 9-86 as
presented. Additionally, it is recommended that Council motion that
the requirement to sign an agreement to participate in a future as-
sessment district for drainage corrections be eliminated from future
permit conditioning if the special drainage development fees are paid.
Background
• Refer to Staff Report dated 8-14-86 (enclosed) for background
information on the fee amendment to Resolution No. 9-86 . change.
At the last regular meeting Council voted to eliminate the
provision that developments subject to the Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage
Development Fee be also required to enter into an agreement to parti-
cipate in a future drainage assessment district.
Discussion
The old condition as stated above was never dropped after the
fees became effective. Staff has reasoned that it was a factor of
safety in case the development fees did not eliminate the problem.
It is unlikely that an assessment district could be successful
since it requires 51% participation by area. Most of the large area
lots are in the upper slopes of the drainage basin and contribute to,
but are not damaged by, rainfall runoff. Additionally, there are many
existing properties that, even though they may have potential flooding
problems, would vote against such a district due to cost.
Assessment districts are based on benefit, whereas development
fees are based on impact. New development is charged an impact fee
since it either causes or magnifies drainage problems. Existing pro-
perties on the other hand cannot be taxed for a share of the miti-
gation unless they are party to an assessment district..
f
Staff cannot locate a general ordinance or resolution stat'
the requirement to enter into an agreement. Only resolutions
specific projects were apparently adopted. Therefore, it is suggest.
that a motion requiring a majority vote would suffice to eliminate a
perceived double committment by developers or new homeowners in the
area.
Fiscal Impact
If the development fee is maintained until the drainage problems
are corrected in the basin, then there will be no impact due to the
motion on the assessment agreement requirement. If the development
fee is eliminated along the way to our goal, then the lack of the as-
sessment agreements could be meaningful.
The fiscal impact of the fee resolution adjustment is covered
in the attached report from the meeting of 8-25-86 .
File:Amapoa3
•
2
i
0 RESOLUTION NO. 98-86
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF
RESOLUTION NO. 9-86 RELATING TO THE AMAPOA-
TECORIDA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero has
adopted Ordinance No. 117 known as the Amapoa-Tecorida Development
Impact Fee Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, Section 3-9 .04 and 3-9.06 of Ordinance No. 117
provides for the adoption of a fee schedule required to be paid
by developers in the specified area.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The following fee schedule shall be effective 30 days after
passage of said Ordinance.
a) The development or construction of residential or non-
residential buildings, and the person causing such to
be constructed, shall pay a fee in the amount of:
Commercial and Multifamily: $3 ,343 per cubic feet per
second of runoff based on 3 cfs per acre, and
Single Family: $2,996 per cubic feet per second of
runoff, based on 1. 8 cfs per acre, on lots one acre
or less.
b) The development or construction of residential or non-
residential additions or accessory uses to existing
buildings, and the person causing such to be constructed,
shall pay a fee in the amount of:
Commercial and Multifamilv: $0 . 58 per sq.ft. of building
addition or accessory use, or the square footage that
exceeds 40% coverage of the square feet of land area,
whichever is less. If the addition or accessory use
plus the existing building (s) does not exceed 40%
coverage ,then no fee ($0) is the minimum fee charged.
For the purpose of this Resolution negative fee
calculation means no fee ($0) .
Single Family: $2. 48 per sq.ft. of building addition or
accessory use, or the square footage that exceeds 5%
coverage (based on one acre maximum land area) of the
square feet of land area, whichever is less. If the
addition or accessory use plus the existing building (s)
does not exceed 5% coverage, then no fee ($0) is the
minimum fee charged. For the purpose of this resolution
a negative fee calculation means no fee ($0) .
c) The development or construction of residential or non-
residential buildings on lots exceeding one acre, and the
person causing such to be constructed, shall pay a fee
in the amount of:
Commercial and MultiFamily: Same as 1 (a)
Single Family: $2,996 per cubic feet per second of
runoff based on 1.8 cfs per acre, for the first acre
only, plus $2. 48 per sq.ft. of building area that
exceeds 5% of one acre of land area (2178 sq. ft. ) . If
the total land coverage is less than 5% of one acre,
then only the first acre fee will be charged.
The Development Impact Fee is hereby identified and incorporated
as a part of this resolution.
d) All developments which were previously conditioned for
deposits pursuant to Resolution No. 42-85 shall pay
this fee as meeting the obligation of contribution to
the future drainage improvements and will be payable
upon notice after passage. Appropriate credits may be
applied as determined by the Director of Public Works.
On motion by and seconded by
the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the
following vote:
AYES :
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
BOYD C. SHARITZ MARJORIE MACKEY
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT APPROVED AS TO FORM
PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH ROBERT M. JONES
Director of Public Works/ City Attorney
City Engineer
2
•�� ��.�1' ?-,S _ .� a , -c��i�r.. '2 ^���'��t �� r ,.+„fir �!� J!► i.. � .•}' � ...
�-s^-.cam•:+� e-:•, ` .�- *1l'' +i �` r,t:. - ._ ,E:1 v+Y'c ��,�..., � # ��' f�. r'+`;' \•,
l *. t11: ii31jlz
•�w. _ t• l io d`�• � fir`:'r�'�� � •• ti /-
�•�~ i - _ ~'r'�+< ,�.,.�•�i:y.- •�r L 'p:,i.•!,.r ���\• �, rjti1 � -'S ' 31.. J.Ir,,.
4,y��n.•S°3 •.�tF'.-' - s• :•yam' •'j.�:' ..'•'r. i +�,�. 'v �'SaI�.X=�sy '+ '.,\...4y • 'a- �- _ 1
•ti.ty ..��\�{���1 c�y��► " �7i���� ��- y +��• x:11, y "� `�•-•'lYv. -:i; �, i.'; �" \�
l�tT. - •�;{� �Y� +,� 'd':-� .r •�,• r'zt �� 'e :'�v � 4y >.: '>,•n ° yvs^t 'c .t+'.'
_> ...t.� ��7pL-v`�: �,,"lW� • s•` !✓ i' %� � ^'r �� _ =`-�:p_. ��. F t rt. � a .v1.T 1-, \1 "
`� v 1a,��Yy ►Z�~�� .:':�� ' Crr �� ��'+�, �L� /.'' �t44�Y '.� � .:�.� T•a.}_a
.r `r:"► ��? � �• ,`" ,,,,, •••ism ' " j•��.':f�;,a.�. :L ,j `c ,•t.... - �' �t
:•r_;s?'�+�- r�'4 .}.'+' ��' •r r7�..•1�;, ,+er la tz j•:kh�.' : �� . .�•s'..�"r`-` �.� �yi � ^a
qpi.. ��� � :• �, t' ',•�`.`i��• ���"i'� .�7•��.L`i•.`� ��`A. � Y•r� %i�, •:�•:l,�1 •jet :i �\4",a.. �.+�
�!_�-r•`X�~/- �`?�::- :•S .its. ,,�j�'�iA.s:� �! �'�• � •�'- � � r
.._ •�� 1 .';:t.:: �i�.f to t • -
ISI
` •. 7 •�`�.� ,, .yr j•. !/��`yK y,� t.egY� `1 �1 � _ � ?_ i •s•s��G •�¢ � I �l 4-�.
'�tC rL �>ry, yr� \~a••. j �'•'�•, 'A�a 7.�.j•\�� _ � •�: '��-.TiwV�\y4r7G
- -�s.�• --1:t� v ,.i Y•���aw1•� -. ., 1. •' ,x-'moi►•:• • -i L 1
��-��,„j"��-�L .+'.r. //•/:� bKl �'•7�Fi:'.�t�✓x..• C\u � •��a1�,3 � '�:•i+�w �. ilk.' t�+r i:s,n Y. ' II ; 1 r
IV
ix�-i4 •��!•'� .;�ti�-1••;`�� �'��t at►'�•'S•. 4•rad .;�`"!,,,° ''-�'+ �` - \ `.
BR.-t
Y .JY-_. •�•�\.-` Y \.qr..�... .-,.1'3 �� rt'•.. ��� -� ' �.
SA 20
` J.."F�•s '� s a - .F.'. ,fd• t� �e'�yl: �'' -''` •e 1y
v `;'v`�.T^ �"'F``X• ,`eft-��� `�j +•�t`s'!r_:• �y�� ���;� •`rj•uw.�'����_ � •1?�.`S k� �- y rya '�1/i"G.
`1--t .Y �jr•�s.\fK �N�_ ?• ` _�..F AkR i / rt's;�`.s-itd�a 7 �,�C 1��at - ••r�M _ -_ e•� ` �.
y� _ �w.." ''�• � .? .� Jule ���' :7 •�•. ��si� r \. � �`� s '" - } 1�1F .. �"'.
.►t- -���`irr `a ✓ � .^yJ(�JyJ'l� ^-lt F� r•y�,�0.�•`!�l Tt _ /��{- � F`r��'���f•y0. i" •'.• � 1�lr r �t�.� t �t\ �
�''. +�...c � \�// .- ' :M. �jYj. �,.+�. _��:��:�:,� 17• «jam s•. 'va / -�( c� '` f-
�'if J t~_ i',^'�'f-f �.i' L��. _ qui. .r►1.�.♦ sYy�% 2•\� + �.• ��`+' .��:.t '�L `m`0.
��+F•-_ �_�� ��c _ ���i�" �4� i _•!.f•_i�• i Aur", .: 'fi`�' � � k'l'/.•�' � SFr•.^ �•- L r.Q:..,.
�_.� i- '.r.� fly ,• •�s r ` ! •' \ �-"'�",!
' ?.' y't.y yy,,,, l �' �y I jt` s< i; 1l��sj "��►�r.'L.�`,o (9 �[ �Y it
J .�'� 4 �:. -� _�'�a• � �� Y' k ••, •. ;.•Il 1. {- �(' ..X07" `�:
' •f .�� � ����j,rjl E•f;�.r . � t�� � .� �'1i.i � �'• '�'>'�'rr�i,';�:`-s *� �/'.r
����� ���Q•. ?� •k f � J a•_��'�� tap. � •..I'� 3 S _ -moi 'lryyr �!.'.,f���.�•��`+?Ll�'�-� '•►
•
•
.I% :,`
• AG NDA D-1
*AM_�tNG8/25/86ff
EM
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to the Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage
Development Fee Ordinance and Resolution
DATE: August 14, 1986
Recommendation: P v
Staff recommends that Council direct staff to bring back
the appropriate amendment Ordinance and/or Resolution at the next
regular meeting.
Problem:
Staff has encountered two situations that are not
specifically covered in the ordinance or resolution concerning
C the above fees, namely Additions and Accessory Uses,
Large Single Family Residential Lots.
. Background:
Additions and Accessory Uses:
The first situation relates to additions or accessory uses.
It is fair to assume that such development has an impact on drainage
since land area is being covered. It does not seem fair, how-
ever , to apply the full fee since the main structure is existing
and existing structures are exempt from the fee.
Attached is a letter to the Community Development Director citing
an example that would add 400 sq.ft. to a 2000 _ sq. ft. home, (call
this Example #1) . We decided to handle this at an administrative level
and agreed to proportion the addition to the existing and multiply
that percentage by the full fee. This appeared reasonable at the time.
Subsequently, however, a second example (call Example #2) which in-
volved a total of 1166 S. F. was added to an existing coverate of 1480
S.F. This resulted in a high percentage and thus a somewhat high fee.
The unfairness comes not with the fee, necesessarily, but with the
reality that homeowner #2 (with an existing home 25% smaller than
#1) , who brings the total sq. footage to only 10% greater than #1
pays a fee 637% greater than the first. Also lot #2 is 50% greater
than #1 and therefore has a lower density, even though the new
velopment of #2 involves more sq.ft. The example may be per-
ceived by some that the person who cannot afford the larger house to
begin with pays a much higher fee to improve their status equal to
others, even though they have less density than the comparison.
This is somewhat of a philosophical arguement, but it does
lead to a more equitable way of handling these situations as will
demonstrated later below.
Large Single Family Residential Lots:
The second situation relates to larger lots in the upper
part of the drainage basin and deals with lots that are either
zoned at 2-1/2 to 5 acre minimum or that lie outside the City
limits and thus outside city jurisdiction. Even though there are
known drainage problems it is reasoned that if development does
not occur, then there is not significant problem, but if development
does occur that the problem is either caused or magnified by the im-
pact of development. We have a situation, therefore, that since
average situations and parameters were used,a fee for a single family
residence will be charged based on a land area that is mostly vacant
land that has not been and cannot be developed to the density assumed
in the lower part of the basin. As an example, if a homeowner wants
to build a house of any size on a 5 acre lot that cannot be split, it
will cost $26 ,960. The same house on a 1/2 acre lot will cost only
$2696. The larger parcel does contribute more drainage, but, like the
homes in the area, is for the most part, an existing situation.
Discussion:
The theory of the fee calculations, although +-.
specifically identified in the development fee report, applied a
land coverage to single-family residential land. This breaks down o
2178 S.F. , and thus $2.48 per S.F. of building. Commercial and
Multi-Family breaks down to 400 land coverage, or $0 .58 per S.F. of
building. In reviewing the report these assumptions still appear to
be sound and, therefore, can be applied when solving these special
cases. However, it is not reasonable to assume that we can collect
the currently required fee for the large parcels or county parcels
mentioned above. A limit of one applicable acre of land will be in
line with the assumptions and allow a fair contribution instead of a
fee that is simply not affordable.
Solutions
Additions or Accessory Uses: .
Use $2. 48/sq. ft. for new construction of additions or
accessory uses, but allow a 5% total coverage without a fee. The
amount of square footage over the allowed coverage or the actual
square -footage of new construction, which ever is less,would be
charged at the above rate. The examples below should make these
statements a little clearer.
,Jr
Example #1 Example #2
Existing: 2000 S.F. Existing: 1480 Sq. Ft.
Addition: 400 S.F. Addition: 1166 S.F.
Total Coverage: 2400 S.F. Total Coverage: 2646 S.F.
Acreage: 0. 5 Ac. Acreage: 0.75 Ac.
Allowed 5% coverage: 1089 S.F. Allowed 5% coverage: 1633 S.F.
(Existing coverage is greater (Existing coverage is less than
than allowed, therefore allowed, therefore credit)
no credit)
Total Coverage Total Coverage
less Allowed: 1311 S.F. less Allowed: 1010 S .F.
400 S.F. is less than 1311 S.F. 1010 S.F. is less than 1166 S.F.
Therefore, 400 X $2. 48= $992* Therefore, 1010 X $2.48= $2505
Old Method: Proportion $539 Old Method: Proportion = $3835
Example #3 (Fictitious) Example #4 (Fictitious)
Existing: 1200 S.F. Existing: 1000 S.F.
Addition: 300 S.F. Addition: 2000 S.F.
Total Coverage: 1500 S.F. Total Coverage: 3000 S.F.
Acreage: 1.00 Ac. Acreage: 1. 00 Ac.
Allowed 5% Coverage = 2178 S.F. Allowed 5% Coverage = 2178 S.F.
(Existing is less than (Existing is less than
Allowed, therefore credit) Allowed, therefore, credit)
Total Coverage Total Coverage
less allowed: -678 S.F. less allowed: 822 S.F.
-678 S.F. is less than 300 S.F. 822 S.F. is less than 2000 S.F.
Therefore, No Fee applied ($0) Therefore 822 X $2. 48 = $2038
(Since -negative number implies Old Method: $10 ,785
paying developer) (Normal fee would no doubt have
Old Method: Proportion $1338 been applied here at $5 ,392/Ac.
Large Single Family Residential Lot: �-
i
Proposal would be to limit the fee of new construction on k.
parcels exceeding one (1) acre to that of one acre ($5 ,392 per acre)
except that any coverage over the 5% allowed on one acre be charged at
$2. 48/S.F.
This would mean that the fee on a 5 acre parcel for example
would be $5,392, plus overage, and not $26 ,960 . (See examples below)
Example A Example B
(Combination of Problems)
Existing: 0 S.F. Existing: 1000 S.F.
Addition: N/A Addition: 2000 S.F.
Total new coverage: 2500 S.F. Total Coverage: 3000 S.F.
Acreage: 2-1/2 Ac. Acreage: 5 Ac.
Allowed 5% Coverage: 2178 S.F. Allowed 5% Coverage: 2178 S.F.
(Based on one Acre) (Based on one Acre)
Total Coverage Total Coverage
Less allowed: 322 S.F. Less allowed: 822 S.F.
Therefore, overage 822 S.F. is less than 2000 S .F.
Fee: $5392 + (322 X $2. 48) Therefore, 822 X $2. 48 = $2039
_ $6181
Old Method: ($5392/Ac. ) $13, 480 Old Method: Proportion: $6 ,741
Summary:
Since these are significant fees and since they can be
handled on a consistant basis without much need for descretion on the
Director ' s part, staff suggests that the ordinance and/or resolution
be amended to contain these methods of handling these two situa-
tions. The rule for additions could also apply to commercial or
multiple-family, using the proper design parameters of 40% coverage
and a $0 . 58 per sq. ft. The large lot concept would not appply to com-
mercial or multiple family; the $10 , 029 per acre would still apply.
*As you may have noticed Example 1 results in a higher cost
than was actually charged. It would not be staff ' s intent to go back
on those that were previously given a lower fee. Also, if an
application has not been processed yet a fee has been given that
is more than one as now calculated by the above methods , the lower fee
would apply upon issuance of permit.
r Fiscal Impact:
The overall fee was based on the need to correct the
problems. When and if the fees will be available for that purpose is
speculative at best. The present methods may discourage the use of
some single family residential property thus deriving no fee at all.
The new methods are expected to be reasonable and in line with the
intent of the original ordinance, and when collected will help achieve
our goals.
cc: Henry Engen
George Wolfrank
Attachments:
f
MEMORANDUM
TO: Henry Engen, Director of Community Development
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works �•-`
SUBJECT: Application of Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Development `: +- =
Fee for Accessory Uses
DATE: June 10, 1986
The above fee does not carry an exemption for accessory
buildings as do other development fees. The intent is to mitigate
the impact on drainage of any new development. The intent is
not, on the other hand, to apply to existing situations.
Therefore, in the case of accessory buildings or additions,
it is hereby documented that you and I have mutually agreed that the
fee should be based on a proration of the additional square footage
of building to the existing square footage of buildings. . .Thus, if,
for example, a 400 sq: "ft. garage- was added (either attached or
detached) to a 2000 sq. ft. home on 1/2 acre of residential ground,
the. fee would be:
1.8 cfs/ac X 1/2 ac X $2,996/cfs X 400 sq ft = 2000 sq/ft = $539 .00
Again, I suggest that the Engineering Division of the Public •
Works Department either provide or approve .all Amapoa-Tecorida
Drainage Development fee calculations.
1NCO8PO8ATED JULY Z.1979 /tR •
Date Received:
Date Issued: _
)DRESS OF PROJECT: 8355 San Andres PERMIT NO.
)Building OC)Electrical ( )Mechanical ( )Plumbina ( )Solar ( )Swim Pool ( )
mer ( ) Lessee ( ) Mail Address
loyd Bobsin 8355 San Andres Ata-s . , CA Phone
intractor/Builder 4 _ o
aner/Builder Address Phone Lic. No.
'ch./Engr./Designer Address
lchanan's Drafting Service phone Lic. No.
.nk or other source of loan lI3D NibliRd-
3ntury Federal Savinas Address -
6955 E1 Camino i
pe of Project: ( )New ( )Add. ( )Alter
O Repair ( )Demolish ( )Move ( )Install
( )Compliance Survey ( )Change of Occupancy ( )Other
-oject Description: To 01 gry- ft Mi
con
tittLIChud Uaraue addltlon
gal Description:
35, Blk UA Assessor's No. Use Zone
30-292-23 RMF/16 fh Lot Are
AME 7LC
FOUNDATION EXTERIOR WALL
ROOF HEAT
IAg
rood Stud ( )Cont. Conc ( )Wood Sdg ( )Stone Vnr
.etal K )Slab ( )Conc T/Up (X )Comp Blt-up
( )Wood Trm ( )Brick
Timber ( )piers ( )Conc B ( )Metal ( )Comp Shingle
(X)Stucco ( )Brick Vnr ( )Gas Fur
( )Wood Shgl/Shake ('•)Gas Wal
re of Construction: rn— No. O )Tile ( )Solar
ccuoancv Group
OU IRE:-MNTS:
FEES: Value $ 31 , 705
Construction: 200 ?C)
831 Affidavit
Electrical:
anning Approval Plumbing:
Mechanical:
Earthquake: —2 - 22
Issuance:
Plan Check: oQ 7
Dev ^Ao nn
:3 187
gal. septic tank and sq. ft. leach field
FEES:S 3 8 3 5 5�
have read this completed application carefully.
1 Owner ( )Agent Date Paid:
t"
Receipt
^nature
Date
ent's Name Printed
�, � -���1'• ,�` Q°' � urs>. �'< �' - _y"`��77T•������' �~'_, �u� .., ,.ted, /•�
•� /, �.i -yam A• /
,r� '' '< �} •'. . "'(��►`�. tel.) � a.��'
1 a
ro
00
Hig4K h.
17
•:V
POnc
•� J � /
1 39
,l
��\e`� i `'( T � � �,�t, -i - •\u.• / •936. � S ..��"
1 >� b' ;.1 t• .�2 :. anctd5a r+ >✓•�9J�
34
4.7 10
.��..� � ` '`� .,I is To F3: �Lr � •, J• �Yil,,� / �/
�'�\� i _.a -_ '`} � �-i 1-•� •� �'� ';01'x\ ..:F-i ,�-�.i'/
3
.t
LA
�./ �,�J �I y �� ! jr: -�• � -r� -
12002520 ' ��i , 66\
64
��� \ .i _ -il a ��/A•�� �• _ I � � �( JRO ��' �!�•j l
• _ •/ _ -- i � r� C/ tom'�,` / `,_ C���
I 1 11 1 �iC / V ,•r
0 1203
Ir—
Tribuke A/-,-o N An��b/ TCl'ridil L�;na4c ja7 Fac
DEVELOPMENT FEES
City of Atascadero
Single Multiple Commercial
Type of Fee Family Family & Other When Payable Source
Interim School $200-700 per dwelling unit Exempt Prior to issu- Ord. 107
Facilities (includes mobile homes) ance of Bldg. Resol. #81-85
(City-wide) depending on square footage Permit (paid to
& number of bedrooms Atas Unif Sch
Dist)
Development $.50/square foot of gross bldg. area Prior to issu- Ord. 111
Mitigation Tax of principal bldgs. or additions ance of Bldg. Resol. #64-85
(City-wide) Permit
Amapoa-Tecorida $2.996 cfs $3,343 cfs based on Prior to issu- Ord. 117
Drainage Area based on 3 cfs/ac ance of Bldg. Resol. #9-86
Fee* (City 1.8 cfs/ac Permit
Engr. Map) Applies to all Bldgs/additions
Lewis Ave Exempt $1.93/square foot of Prior to issu- Ord. 118
Bridge Devel. gross bldg area or $168 ance of Bldg. Resol. #11-86
Impact Fee per average daily traffic Permit
(BIA Area) if square footage not
f applicable
Development Prior to issu- Ord. Ili
Impact Fees: ance of Bldg. Resol. #10-86
Drainage** $0.034/S.F. $0.073/S.F. $0.141/S.F. Permit
$46.00/cfs $533.00/cfs $770.00/cfs
Traffic $0.001/S.F. $0.022/S.F. 50.500/S.F.
$0.18/ADT $2.27/ADT $43.46/ADT
Bridges*** $0.080/S.F. $0.126/S.F. $0.157/S.F.
$13.43/ADT $13.29/ADT $13.62/ADT
Roads $0.034/S.F. $0.054/S.F. $0.067/S.F.
$5.76/ADT $5.70/ADT $5.34/ADT
Parks $0.015/S.F. $0.309/S.F. $0.000/S.F.
Police $0.009/S.F. $0.189/S.F. $0.291/S.F.
Fire $0.009/S.F. $0.180/S.F. $0.278/S.F.
Bldg/Grounds 50.083/S.F. S0.083/S.F. SO.083/S.F.
Subtotal $0.265/S.F. S1.036/S.F. I $1.517/S.F.
Sewer Fees* Mobile
Home Other
Connection $ 573/unit $ 533/unit 5451/ !S20.501Uoon connection Ord. 121
unit fix.un.1
Annexation $1,210/unit 51,123/unit 5950/ �S43.20IUDon application
unit Ifix.un.j
Tax Charge $ 250/unit S 250/each 5250/ IS250 Upon connection
each eacn
Permit Fee S 5/eachI S 5/each S 5/ IS5.00 IUDon application
each each
* Calculations to be made by Public Works Department.
** Piot charged if subject to Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Area Fee.
***
Not charged if subject to Lewis Avenue Bridge Impact Fee.
Note: Certain projects may be eligible for fee credits where major public improvements are a
condition of project approval.
7-1-86
NG9/8/86 AGENDA DTI
ITEM
TO: City Council Members September 8, 1986
• FROM: Michael Shelton r
City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL - CITY ATTORNEY
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council direct City Manager to advertise availability of
Request for Proposal document for City Attorney services in
accordance with advertising and selection methodology outlined
in this memorandum.
DISCUSSION:
Attached is a proposed "Request for Proposal" for Council
consideration to be utilized in soliciting Attorney proposals to
provide City Attorney services. Upon Council approval, this doc-
ument will be sent to individuals or firms who may be interested
in applying.
In an, effort to obtain several proposals for Council
• consideration, staff will conduct an extensive recruitment,
including a personal mail out to contract City Attorneys serving
neighboring cities, sending proposals to member Attorneys of the
League of California Cities Tri-County Municipal Attorney
Association, advertising in local newspapers, advertising in
Job Finders (a professional municipal publication) , and targeting
Los Angeles and San Francisco legal publications. The purpose of
the latter is not to hire a Los Angeles or San Francisco
Attorney, but rather to make a large legal profession aware of
the City Attorney opportunity here on the Central Coast in the
event they may want to consider relocation.
Due to not knowing all publications to be used and publication
deadlines, staff will present a verbal recruitment/selection/
appointment schedule for Council consideration at -the Council
Meeting.
ALTERNATIVES:
Direct staff to conduct a full-time Attorney recruitment. Such a
recruitment, however , will result in considerably higher costs
due more hours, support staff (Secretary) and supplies (Law
Library) costs.
• MS •kv
File : MAtrnyl
1
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - CITY ATTORNEY
POST OFFICE BOX 747 POST OFFICE BOX 749
..CALIFORNIA 93423
ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93423 ATASCADEROii
PHONE: (805( 466-8000 PHONE: (805) 466-5678
CITY COUNCIL - - �� � � ®
CITY CLERK
CITY TREASURER POLICE DEPARTMEN
POST OFFICE BOX 74
CITY MANAGER INCORPORATED.JULY 2. 1979 ATASCADERO,CALIFORNI0523
FINANCE DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805) 466-8600
PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FIRE.DEPARTMENT
RECREATION DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE.
ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93422
++ PHONE: (805) 466-2141
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
CITY ATTORNEY
The City of Atascadero invites interested attorneys or legal firms
to submit a proposal to provide contractual legal services to
serve as City Attorney. A proposed contractual agreement is to
be included with the proposal.
REQUESTED INFORMATION:
1. Statement of ordinary services to be provided under a flat rate
monthly retainer, and said amount of retainer. Definition of
ordinary services to be provided under retainer include:
A. -Attendance at all regular and special meetings of the City
Council, and other meetings, as deemed necessary and rende
ing advice and opinions with respect to such meeting
Regular attendance at Planning Commission is not required.
However, attendance upon request may be required on an
infrequent basis
B. Provision of routine legal advice, consultation and opinion
to the City Council and staff.
C. Assistance in the preparation of resolutions, notices, con-
tracts, ordinances, leases, and other legal documents.
D. Attendance at two (2) staff agenda preparation each month.
E. Cooperate with and assist the City, its officers, agents, and
employees on all legal matters pertaining to the City, in-
cluding general policies, personnel, zoning, election and
legal procedures, and negotions of leases, contracts, and
franchises.
F. Keeping City Council and staff apprised of court rulings
and legislation affecting legal interests of the City.
G. Performance of legal research and presenting written and oral
opinions to the City Council and staff, when requested.
•
1
s'
2. Definition of extraordinary legal services outside a monthly
retainer and a basis for compensation.
3. Other provisions including:
A. Designation of City Attorney and competent substitute
backup legal services in the absence of the City Attorney.
B. Designation of desired working relationship between City
Attorney and City Council, City Manager, and other members
of City staff.
C. Payment of retainer, billing of extra hours and expenses,
and accounting requirements.
D. Definition of extra expenses and overhead to be either com-
pensated or provided directly by the City.
E. Definition of time frame for response to perform legal
services in a manner that permits the City Council and
staff to meet established deadlines.
F. Degree of availability for quick response to inquiries
that arise from day to day operating questions.
The City contracts separately for liability and workers compensation
legal services.
EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS:
Proposals should be submitted to the City Manager ' s Office by
Proposals should set forth the firm' s or individual' s experience and
qualifications to provide the service with particular reference to
those specific areas of concern already outlined.
Explanation and qualifications related to providing City legal
services should include:
A. Legal training and years of legal practice.
B. Years of municipal or County law practice as a full-time
local government attorney or in a private law office
specializing in local government.
C. Years and statement of other types of clientele represented.
D. Knowledge of and experience with California law.
ie E. Experience and track record in court.
Proposals will be screened by City Council members and City Manager.
2
References and qualifications of top candidates based upon propos;
responses will be verified. The City Council will conduct person,*
interviews of the top candidates and make the final selection. If the
candidate is a firm, the person within the firm who is proposed to be
designated as City Attorney will be expected to be the key inter-
viewee.
A formal contract outlining dues and reimbursement will be entered
into with the successful candidate.
The City Council reserves the right to reject all proposals, to
request additional information concerning any proposal for purpose
of clarification, and to accept or negotiate any modification to
any proposal following the deadline of receipt of all proposals, and
to waive any irregularities, if such would serve the best interest of
the City, as determined by the City Council.
All inquiries regarding this Request for Proposal and current legal
services for the City, including types of legal activities, past and
current litigation, should be directed to the City Manager.
3
• ET;NG A AGCND - 1
D-2
-----------
MEMORANDUM
---MEMORANDUM
•
TO: City Council September 8, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager M6�.
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Building Permit Time Extension Policy/Development Fee
Requirements
BACKGROUND:
The City Council' s recent action with respect to Campbell Enterprises'
appeal for their 114 unit motel at 8870 West Frontage Road focused on
the issue of granting a time extension and whether to impose the new
development impact fees. The action of the council was to grant the
time extension but to subject the project to the development fees
which had gone into effect in the interim.
It can be predicted that there will be other development projects re-
questing time extensions which were accepted for building permit pro-
cessing prior to July 1, 1986 , thus exempting these projects from the
development impact fees which took effect on that date.
This suggests the need to consider establishing a standard policy
routinely granting time extensions but subjecting such extensions to
development fees if they do not have permits issued within 180 days of
the date of application.
ANALYSIS:
The City' s Zoning Ordinance contains language with respect to the
granting of time extensions on precise plans and conditional use per-
mits, which are good for one year . They may be extended for an addi-
tional year by the Community Development Director provided that there
have been no changes to the provisions of the General Plan or Zoning
Regulations applicable to the project or no changes in the character
of the site or surroundings which affected the original project
approval.
With respect to building permit applications (which expire 180 days
after the application date if not issued) , the Uniform Administrative
Code simply states: "The building official may extend the time for
action by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days upon re-
quest by the applicant showing that circumstances beyond the control
of the applicant have prevented action from being taken. "
•
Time Extension PoliccI/Development Fee Requireme s
We can anticipate that some of the building permit applications sub-
mitted before July 1 will seek time extensions. The City Council •
originally allowed a four month grace period before the development
fees took effect, and the City' s capital project needs would suggest
that any future time extensions on permits be conditioned on payment
of development fees.
RECOMMENDATION:
Condition any future time extensions for building permit issuance on
payment of development impact fees.
ALTERNATIVE:
Act upon time extensions without consideration of fee requirements.
HE:ps
•
2 %
AA lt�G AGrTlDA
D 9/8/86 ITPhA E-1.
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Board of Directors,
Atascadero County Sanitatiotrict
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manag
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Developer ' s Request for Special Consideration
on Sewer Fees
DATE: September 3, 1986
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the two developments requests to not
pay the sewer fees now in effect be denied.
Background
Two written requests have been received to not pay the current
sewer fees, but to pay the fees in effect prior to July 1, 1986.
Section 12.3 of the Sef er Ordinance states;
Kee_w+im, 9k�,r = L f r, ,1 #lows t_4"*o k ¢t --41 r
"Relief: Any person, who by reason of special circumstances
believes that the application of any of the provisions of this
Ordinance Code to him is unjust or inequitable, may make written
application to the Board of Directors for relief therefrom. Said
application shall set forth all of the special facts and cir-
cumstances and shall request the specific relief or modification
desired. The Board of Directors upon receipt of such application
and after such investigation as deemed necessary may take action
to grant such relief or modificatin as it finds necessary.
Discussion
Cased - Bethel/Frank/Messer (Precise Plan 55-84) 16 Units.
The developer had a precise plan and grading plan in process
prior to the effective date of the new sewer fees, and believes that
that fact should allow payment of the old sewer fees.
The precise plan conditions for this condominum project states
that "Sewer connection fees are due at the time of hook-up to the
system or before recordation of the final map. " There is no language
discussing the amount of the fee.
No sewer permit was applied for until the last week of August.
Staff set the charge based on the present fees, since no previous dis-
cussion with the de$bloper had transpired relative to said fees and
since the application was not filed prior to July 1.
Although a developer may apply for sewer connection if
legitimate precise plan or building permit is in process, there
nothing in the new fee ordinance that exempted those already in t
pipeline. It was indicated at the public hearing that if application
was made before the new fees went into effect that the old fees would
apply. This matter was the subject of a special news article after
passage.
Case 2 - Nelson (Precise Plan 19-86) (Building Permits
2569 & 2570) - 18 Units
The developer had a building permit issued prior to the July
1 deadline, but did not apply for a sewer permit until the last week
of August.
The precise plan conditions did not address sewer , otherwise
the issues on both sides are similar to case 1 above.
Discussion
Neither developer applied for a permit in a timely manner,
discussed the fees with staff or had any agreements with staff re-
garding the amount of the respective sewer fees.
The rapid development of apartments and condominiums played
a large role in the realization that the sewer fees were not adequate
to mitigate the necessary improvements to the infrastructure requirgh
by such development. Staff feels that there was adequate time giv.,
by Council to apply for a permit prior to the enactment of the new
fees.
Fiscal Impact
The ACSD would not collect about $19,500 if relief is given
to the two developments.
Attachments
Planning Background Information
File:Appeal
2
DENNIS BETHEL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERS
313 B East Plaza Drive,Suite 9 • Santa Maria,California 93454 • (805) 928-7666
August 27, 1986
DB 6267
City of Atascadero
Administration Bldg.
P.O. Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
Attn: Paul Sensibaugh
Subject: Creekside
Dear Mr. Sensibaugh:
In reference to our telephone conversation of August 22, we
understand that your office cannot issue a sewer connection
permit for the Creekside project without collecting a sewer fee
of approximately $9, 000 even though the project was approved
prior to the enactment of the fee. We also understand that the
only way we can avoid payment of this fee is by an appeal to the
City Council. We therefore request that you consider this a
formal request for such a hearing.
There are several reasons why we do not believe it is fair or
just to change this fee to the Creekside project.
1. This project had been approved prior to enactment of the
fee, it was in the plan check process, and it was almost
ready for issuance of final permits prior to adoption of
the fees.
2 . Other fees that have been adopted applied only to
projects submitted after adoption. There was no public
not.ce that this fee would be differenIC. We believe the
City should have notified applicants in the permit
process so that they could make their application
for permit prior to the fee. The Creekside project
would certainly have done this if they had been aware of
the option.
3 . When a project is ready for issuance of permits and has
made all of the financial arrangments it is not fair to
impose substantial increased costs. A project of this
magnitude places burdens on anybody's financial position
and these are fees that the owner doesn't have.
I
ny furthe action we must take to expedite this
ase let us now. Thank you for your assistance.
e ,
DB:jb
i
� I , :. .: , . � .- . I I W -� ��,, --. - - - , , , � � -
I :..4�� .� � , *� . I . I : - ��� , ---�1---��,��-, -, .�,.
Y V
s
:. .. .:
.... - .._ �.. r ..
0 � , EXHIBIT:.C
; Conditions ,of. Approval r
Pp. recise Plan 55-84 &,r 4
5600 fn�est_Mall > `
1. r
(Bethel/Frank)
Y
:( , se t C _
4-1---
s -
. ..
..'. .. ..,:r...
- % a �.Y >
1. All construction - shall be in conformance -with Exhibit A,.(site '1
landscaping) , Exhibit B -(site, plan) and Exhibit C _ (c6nditions of
a royal) .- "
pp along with all applicable codes and ordinances of the
`City of Atascadero. r J 'P,
-, � . '' ..
ll
2. Provisions shall be made for a handicapped parking stall and trasht`,
enclosure. Locations of these will be reviewed ;and approved by
I:-.'`., heiPlanning Department. r= , d
3. Completion of the11 circulation coop shall be required during = Phase z'
I. A temporary hard surface loop is acceptable. t�� a `.V .� ,�r�� �
` t�.. r w` _ its n �cz,:4
L __.�°�tY'� `'F +�'f I�Jr"`�a.
4. Landscape and irr'igation +�plans shall be reviewed ands-,approved Eby
ahe ':Planning 'Department prior to the issuance of -:a building.:per �
mit,"to. Include provisions for maintaining the undeveloped area of^,`_
Phase II in a clean and sightly manner z �`" - ?'x '
t\h ; 1
10 , - -. '.�,:--, �-..,�-1-.�r"-,e,':'��,�� ,1;�:- ,
11.5. Drainage and erosion control plans`` shall be reviewed..arid .approved
b the Public Works Departments prior. to the issuance of a build
ing permit. t�� 4
,,R
6. All easement locations shall be verified -prior to issuance of
building permits. y s
7. Two fire hydrants shall be required one at'the driveway entrance
:and the other at the -landsca ed area at':the center ,the.
project-
project.
Exact location and design shall be determined by the Fire
Department: r
�<
8. Sewer connection fees' are due at the time of hook-up to the sys
tem or before recordation of the fincl map. r. r _-
9. Public improvement plans shall be submitted toJand^`approved :by the
Public ;Works Department.
a. Sewer. improvement plans, including details of:, .manhole con
struction, shall be submitted to and approved by- the Public 1. � ��
,�01Z Works Department` SIF �� r ;
,17, h: , ,-
1
. 11
. .,Y
b. `;Storm drainage and system improvement plans shall be re
,.
viewed and approved by the Public ' Works Department w,,, .��,
I. - } -�
tib. ''� K .: E ='� ._ .- ,x-` Ll -�:`4•r .�yc.�x'�'�„3,Rjn2'x r'�"��e^Fy. 3t"s�" �:1 r '-
ti*.;--- - c. � A five foot wide 'sidewalk shall be constructed along the full �� :
s
frontage. , �� � s }
s ;u •
.�". `rte '* ix E'�'�'q..at e .�- -""<x ' '-,?I,,-,*I , A"ifN.v�• �n
.:> ,�y^Q ;• :,> '.gs �` ^4 1�s c f .r r . i x uF.[^ A,{ 't X i,i.
"4.2
F ."n 4J 7 .+.^," .µ > Y, a-�3�5'ti 4L X s�Y4 ,dy' ��• �-f .•s -.
C it 'r
, I � - - I "I .� I � I
. I � .. .- I I . � I �. I .- . ..* - ,.� . I�,� I::. I - � I .
.�. � I :�.� �- ,-�., � I � � - � ,., - , I � . I � � � ..
I I �. x 11 I I I
� .., .I .� - I I I � � ,
I I . . - , I .. , I I I , " - - , *,
� ,... . .- . . � ,� _ -, .�:� ., -
. ,, , , . , ' a -) '', . � . ..,
... . ,: .� _. I.". I . 1 . 0,01..� 11 I -
� -- , , – , , � � � _ - - .1 .
1 , ,��_ - - - - , -
. _
I . � : . . �� �*� � ��' -__� _.
� .: , ,".,.., , .1 , .1 � ,.: ;_ - � _ - - - .: ._��,-,�,-__,- - —.1 i , I , I - - -,.- - _ .._,_, .
� � � _.". , i - - ,� . , __ . - ��" –,_� , . ", . ,����, _.",- . t� I � o ". I-, .I -7----- -, y-:,�, - " - :,� � , �� --. �,.., � �, I . I � � �:. _ - , , ,Y1- " � , - ,
- "--- , - � . I I I I . . — -,� -- -- I-,-
� - ,- - - .. , , . , - � ... ... -,S
d. , , The 12 inch abandoned sewer main crossing the site is to ,be _.
removed or crushed. t
# �
� x
:;
, e.O"'::,_. permit shall be. secured from , Caltrans to work in their
right of way for sidewalk and sewer line construction.` otic?�
-
.
` 10. ,Development shall be subject ' to any' City wide , .development fee
;.'schedule which may be adopted by the City Council . to mitigate im`
pacts on schools and -other public facilities.
11. All conditions of appI1I roval of Tentative Tract Map :20-",4.6,:
4 shall be
complied "with. ,
12. This precise-plan approval is approved for; one year from the date
of final approval (January '1, 1985) , unless an appeal - fi16d.<-, #t r
_ � � ir Ys�
�� , , 4 .:
i '+.r .s, -f,- t`' c+ 'Fs2 .1try a-.YK^'7,-tri. -"r�i.•$it t'-..
t _
..;__'� -.. r: . + -^ :i ,..,: ; m-Z r x 2•'M '-- -��,.Yi'7'- ,['. x's°"•. '' i•
i .� - y }- 9 x.d z, , '-'k'.r,i. Y'F +�., C - 7'��.tj ,
55 ft
ty, >` I G� ?w 4 4 c fi
- - J.. .. f RS` S
t
{k aY ,
- .. _ ( "
.
r
.. .'' ` ;-
4
b
�: 1 t
}Y
v/
J�
1.
' ,.. - - 4
r hr 4�h _ a t cg.' t.�jF• ,f }� 'ryF`t kaf
�a� �`` �'°�.v-rs „ ��' 111: �+—, s A sas.+v w -t<
. f r3 :S^.Sc ^C'^ Jt >. .,L - F'' C - - z',, F:N1`,' ;I•,i�S,'U",T+ r'Ii-- t
S - 4M .S 1 S - {:-,- V SS '`, - t '( y b' irJ
s
Y
.t. f. C 8:.' 7t �_. r+' "t1' ix ». wi ...dG 'r i
.. � 17 .. :•.
,,,xr f p lriR t t1 r*j.r+iY } i 5f "`' .yr4 ,l i•.+ �#3�a +�L r_z
zr
og,
1. 2 E z ti Y� WK`.Y �l Q �ICI_ `k :�a Y y., ! M1 i M i y�� L
��=$Ih' -,rir�» •ter, �r�c .x rr � {i r .:,�` i ! s,'y� x tas-Y ,v.:
.tri (' ) .. 4 kL-.4 t- 'l, R`1!, `� t C k f Y 4 ,
r a n_`'�, , a, "{�c 'xo: ,rxt µ _;` 5 r i�.','c-ja j„ ,�'� �•��`t"55 a Y�"` -�
. S:� �Jr [ , t !
'`{•r• . f .4a' `{.-�_ i it ,,ti :C °f�,: k 4 �:+
x o $�. a a ,s i* t f'-
7.
L ,4
/ S .y'..
- " i + _ t•.
r M1 ,y 74a p S 'y S Y - }J h t
.- _ - .. ..� 1.. - - ... - .._.._ .r. c'f Ali.:cCa. hA-w+.i f. - ....r.t
R A
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
CITY ATTORNEY
POST OFFICE BOX 747 POST OFFICE BOX 606
ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93423 ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93423
PHONE: (805) 466-8000 PHONE: (805(466.4422
CITY COUNCIL 4aS A eiC®
CITY CLERK `-,��. POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY TREASURER POST OFFICE BOX 747
CITY MANAGER
AZ
JULY 2, 1979 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423
PHONE: (805) 466.8600
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
_-.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422
'�• PHONE: (805) 466-2141
March 20, 1986
Mr. Daryl Nelson
P. 0. Box 95
Santa Margarita, CA 93453
RE: Grading Permit No. 2351
Building Permit Nos. 2569 and 2570
Precise Plan 31-84
(9805 E1 Camino Real)
Dear Mr. Nelson:
I am in receipt of your letter requesting reinstatement of the above-
referenced grading and building permits and precise plan approval. I
must again advise you that we will be unable to reinstate these ap-
provals due to the expiration of the mandated time limits.
As you have previously discussed with Bob Fielding, Chief Building
Inspector,- your grading permit expired in August of 1985, six months
after the last inspection on February 22, 1985. Section 303 (d) of the
Uniform Administrative Code specifies that building (grading) permits
shall expire if work on the permitted project is suspended or aban-
doned for a period 'of 180 days. Failure to call for a final inspec-
tion of your grading within the 180 day time limit is considered aban-
donment of your project.
Our records indicate that building permits #2569 and #2570 for two (2)
nine unit apartment complexes were issued on April 25, 1985. There
has not been a request for inspection of any work accomplished pursu-
ant to these. permits as of this date. The provisions of UAC Section
303 (d) again apply to these permits. Further , the expiration of your
grading permit prohibits reinstatement of these building permits.
Finally, as- you have previously discussed with Henry Engen and myself,
approval of Precise Plan 31-84 expired on August 6 , 1985 , one (1) year
after its issuance. . The City' s zoning ordinance does provide for the
granting of extensions (Section 9-2. 118) ; however , requests for exten-
sions must be submitted and approved prior to the date of expiration
of the entitlement. Further , Section 9-2. 119 provides that "No use of
land or structure, the entitlement for which has lapsed pursuant to
this Section, shall be reactivated, re-established, or used unless a
new entitlement is first obtained. "
RE: 9805 & 9825 E1 Camino Real
Permits #2351, 2569, 2570
DARYL NELSON
1. Grading Permit #2351
A Grading Permit was issued on October 11, 1984 . The last
inspection made re grading was February 22 , 1985 according
to our records. In this case it has been well over a years'
time & per the U.B.C. no longer valid. This was relayed to
Mr. Nelson.
2 . ( 2 ) Nine Unit Apartment Complexes , Permits #2569 & 2570
The structure permits were issued on April 25 , 1985. As of this
date, the job has not commenced.
NOTE: I spoke with Daryl pertaining to these matters & informed
him that the permits would have to be reactivated which is
50% of what was originally paid & that additional fees
would not have to be paid (re: School Fees & Development Fee )
er Bob Fielding.
After I informed Daryl of this particular matter he called
back a few hours later to schedule for a grading inspec-
tion. I informed him I couldn't place him down on the list
since our records showed that it had been over 6 months
since his last inspection.
Also after I went thru the Building Permits , I then let Planning
know the situation & at that time they also checked files
and saw that the Precise Plan had expired on August 6 , 1985
pertaining to this project .
EXHIBIT C
Conditions of Approval
Precise Plan 19-86
9805 _E1 Camino Real
(Nelson)
1. All construction shall be in conformance with Exhibit A (site
Plan) , Exhibit B (elevations) Exhibit C (conditions of approval) ,
and all other applicable codes and ordinances of the City of
Atascadero.
2. Submit a drainage plan, prepared by a registered civil engineer
n ,
providing for mitigating measures relieving any downstream ,drain
age problems or alternatively a stormwater detention basin. If a
detention basin is selected, then the design shall be based upon a
100 year design storm, site developed, with outflow limited to - 10
year design storm, undeveloped site, and as required by the Deten-
tion Basin Policy adopted August 12, 1985. - The alternate selected
must be acceptable to the Director of Public Works.
3. Public improvement plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer,
shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department
prior to the issuance of a structural building. permit for the
site. The plans shall include, but not be limited to, curb, gut-
ter, sidewalk and . paveout along E1 Camino Real.
4. A new fire hydrant shall be provided near the entrance drive of
the project. Exact location and design shall be reviewed and- ap-
proved by the Fire Department prior to the issuance of. 'a structur
al building permit.
5. A'trash enclosure shall be provided in conformance with Section
9-4.129` of 'the zoning ordinance.
6. Parking area construction shall be in conformance with _ Section
9-4.114 and one handicapped parking stall shall be .provided.
7. A landscape plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved .
by , the Community Development Department . prior to -issuance of.,.
building permits.
8. The handicapped . parking stall shall be relocated to` the :area adja
cent to "Unit #18." A twenty (20) foot wide portion of` the paved
areal adjacent to the fence at the eastern property boundary shall
be striped and signed for "no parking" to provide adequate room
for Fire Department turnaround.
9. It shall be the applicant' s responsibility to resolve , '.-conflicts
with public utilities and to relocate poles at his expense..
10. This preciselan is approved for a
P PP period of one year - from the
date of final approval (April 22, 1986) .
r
P. 0. Box 95
Santa Margarita, CA 93453
September 3, 1986
Mr. Paul Sensibaugh
City of Atascadero
Department of Public Works
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero , CA 93422
Re : Elm Estates - Tract 1211
Dear Mr . Sensibaugh :
I am requesting a waiver of the new fee now charged for
connecting to the sewer.
My construction permit was issued in April, 1986, and I
feel the imposition of the new fee is an unjustifiable
charge , and should not be required.
I would appreciate a waiver of the sewer connection fee.
Very truly yours ,
C & S Construction
Carl G. Sjelin,
CS/p