The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 08/25/1986 *INDY WILKINS DEPUTY CITY CLERK A G E N D A ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting ATASCAERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING Fourth Floor , Rotunda Room AUGUST 25, 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. ) 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 11, 1986 2. Approval of Finance Director ' s Monthly Report - July, 1986 3. Approval of Treasurer ' s Monthly Report - July, 1986 4. Approval of Grounds Maintenance Service for Parks Bid #86-39 to McCaa' s Yard Maintenance 5. Proposed Resolution 97-86 - Placement of Cross Walk at West Mall and El Camino Real & Elimination of Cross Walk at East Mall and El Camino 6. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 - 7100 Serena - Redesign of Previously Approved Parcel Map - Harrell/Stewart 7. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 19-86 - 2470/2500 San Fernando - Division of 2 parcels into 4 parcels of 3. 69 , • 3.64, 3.48 , and 3.45 Acs Each Davis/Twin Cities Engineering 1 • • 8. Approval of Tentative Lot Line Adjustment 4-86 - 7205 Santa Cruz Road - Davis/Twin Cities Engineering 9. Receipt of Communication from P.G.& E. - Removal of Signs from Utility Poles 10. Employee Recognition Program Funding Request B. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Status Report on Assessment District #4 - Separado/Cayucos Sewer Project 2. Staff Report on Multi-Family Moratorium (Cont'd from 8/11/86) C. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1. Discussion on Proposed Joint City and Atascadero Mutual Water Company Special Meeting to Receive Presentation on the County Master Water Plan Update. • D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Discussion Regarding Proposed Amendment to the Amapoa- Tecordia Drainage Development Fee Ordinance and Resolution 2. Appointment of Citizen Member to the Traffic Committee E. COMMUNITY FORUM F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTIONS 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5. City Manager • 2 AGI NDA OrTz"'j8/25/86 ------------- • ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1986 The regular meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Mackey, followed by the pledge of allegiance ROLL CALL Present: Council Members Norris, Handshy, Borgeson and Mayor Mackey Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Molina. STAFF Mike Shelton, City Manager , Dave Jorgensen, Administrative Services Director, Robert Jones, City Attorney, Boyd C. Sharitz, City Clerk, Bud McHale, Police Chief, Mike Hicks, Fire Chief, Henry Engen, Community Development Director , Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works • Director, and Karen Vaughan, Deputy City Clerk Mayor Mackey announces that Invocations will again be presented at Council Meetings in the near future. Jay Von Bargen, new Police Officer with the City is introduced by Chief Mc Hale. Jay began employment with the City in March, 1986 . Recognition plaques are presented by Mayor Mackey to outgoing Planning Commission Members Nellie Kennedy (1985-1986) and Wayne La Prade (1981-1986) . COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS Council Member Norris notes for the record that she changes her "no" vote to a "yes" vote at the July 28, 1986 Council Meeting regarding funding of the Atascadero Chamber of Commerce for the 1986/87 fiscal year . Mayor Mackey speaks to the issue of imposing a city-wide moratorium on multiple-family dwelling units. She notes that Council Member Molina is absent at this meeting, but is aware of her desire to dis- cuss this subject in open forum. Mr. Jones, City Attorney informed Council that in order to enact an • urgency ordinance, a 4/5 vote would be required. Since Councilman Molina was absent, a unanimous vote and a finding that there is an im- mediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare caused by approval of additional building permits for multiple-family dwelling units is required for passage. It is noted that an urgency ordinance would, if approved, become effective immediately. w i Mr . Jones states that if there votes for approval, he suggests Council continue this item to a future date and request staff to research Council' s desires and return with alternatives. He also states that. simple majority vote would require initiation of public hearings a proposed moratorium measure. Mayor Mackey stipulates that the ordinance, if passed, would affect only future multiple-housing building applications NOT projects already in the planning/building process. Councilwoman Norris expresses her concerns regarding additional multiple-family housing in Atascadero and its impacts to school overcrowding and local traffic congestion on streets. Mayor Mackey feels impacts caused by additional multiple-housing pro- jects are cumulatively creating impacts that are not mitigated by the individual project's development fees. She feels this issue needs to receive priority attention by staff over the next 45 days. Mr. Jones discusses possible deficit impacts on the 1986/87 City budget if a moratorium ordinance is established. Councilman Handshy expresses his concerns related to additional multiple-family dwelling units and its effects on traffic congestion, but feels the present development fees imposed by Council can mitigate the impacts. He also states that the present availability of funding for such projects is being somewhat curtailed by lending institution which will in itself reduce the amount of future projects with imposing a moratorium. Councilwoman Borgeson expresses her concerns as to socio/economic impacts to the community caused by additional multiple-family housing projects. Mr. Engen, Community Development Director , states that recent State Department of Finance figures on rent vacancies are lower than local estimates are. MOTION: Mayor Mackey moves that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, and that the approval of additional building permits in a multi- family housing zone would result in a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, and declare an immediate moratorium on multiple-housing units, with all proposals already in the process not affected, but would affect any other project that has not had any paperwork done on it; Councilwoman Borgeson seconds; Motion fails 3 to 1 with Councilman Handshy voting no. Staff is directed to present at the August 25 , 1986 Council Meeting alternatives to implement a moratorium on multiple-family dwelling units with particular emphasis on: • Current sewer capacity, water availability, future development impacts on schools, current acreage in the City, number of people versus acreage in the City, existing vacancy rate in multiple family dwelling units, amount of current multiple family proposals being processed by the City, amount of multiple family units currently existing in 0 ! the City, Fire and Police Department impacts on response timing, and any other pertinent statistics. A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of July 28, 1986 2. Approval of Appointment of Bonita Borgeson as Member Rep- Resentative to San Luis Obispo Counties and Cities Area Planning and Coordinating Council 3. Approval of Proposed Contract Extension - Margaret L. Williamson (Morris) - Temporary Full Time - 7/1/86 to 6/30/87 4. Recognition of City Employee of the Month for July by the Employee Recognition Program Committee —Alan Metzler 5. Proposed Resolution 92-86 - Establishing a Stop Intersection at the Intersection of Barrenda Avenue and Honda 6. Proposed Resolution 93-86 —Establishing a Stop Intersection at Los Lomas Avenue and E1 Bordo 7. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 18-86 - Division of 10.37 Acres into 2 parcels of 5.0 Acres Each - 11505 Santa Ana Road - Davis/Twin Cities Engineering 8. Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 10-84 - Santa-Ana and San Fernando Roads - Dennis Bethel 9. Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 20-85 - 9100 L_a .Paz Lane - Cini/Cuesta Engineering 10. Approval of Proposed Resolution 79-86 - Deeding Atascadero Library Property on Morro Road (Hwy. 41) to the County of San Luis Obispo 11. Approval of Proposed Resolution 94-86 - Prohibit Parking on a Portion of _Navajos Avenue (125 Lineal Feet at Lot 24) MOTION: Councilman Handshy moves Approval of Consent Calendar , as presented; Councilwoman Norris Seconds; motion Carries unanimously. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES , AND REPORTS 1. Appeal of Planning Commission Denial for Time Extension to Conditional Use Permit 6-85 - 8870 West Frontage Road - 114 Unit Motel Complex - (Request previously denied by Community Development Director and appealed to Planning Commission) Mr . Engen, Community Development Director summarizes historical events of the above 114 unit motel proposal (Santa Rosa Road) , since approval of the Conditutional Use Permit on April 15 , 1985 , and issuance of the Building Permit on September 30 , 1985 . The Conditutional Use Permit • 0 expired April 15, 1986 and applicant did not file a written requ for extension of the permit till after the expiration date in Ju 1986, which is not in conformance with City ordinance conditions. The Planning Commission upheld the Community Development Director ' s denial of extension, as the applicant' s request was not made in a timely man- ner. Mr. Engen also notes that proceedings with the Building Permit have not occurred in a timely manner. Mr. Jack Campbell, appellant/applicant representative, summarized recent complications related to construction of the motel and the need to coordinate the closing of escrow on the property after the closing of escrow on an adjacent commercial construction proposal (Madrid Plaza) for economic reasons. Mr. Campbell expressed his ignorance of expiration date on the Conditional Use Permit, although it is stip- ulated in the permit, but felt that his ongoing involvement with miti- gating drainage conditions, and other on-site complications shows his intent to continue with the project even though no physical develop- ment has transpired. When asked if time extension is approved, would construciton of the project begin, Mr. Campbell responded, not until the escrow closes on the Madrid Plaza project. It is clarified by Council that action to be taken on this appeal does not discriminate against the project proposal, but only the matter of procedures. Council discusses an alternative of allowing a time extension of 1 0 days for the Conditional Use Permit, thus not slowing down the project timing by requiring it to go through the process again. Public Comment: Ms. Diedre Casparian, adjacent property owner , requests Council to make a project condition of requiring screen planting to create a visual barrier at the rear property line. Mr . Engen advised that Council has the discretion to alter conditions the conditions of approval and could require an obscuring wall. MOTION Councilwoman Norris moves DENIAL of the appeal for Conditional Use Permit 6/85 time extension, per staff findings; Councilwoman Borgeson Seconds; Motion fails 2/2 MOTION: Councilman Handshy moves to UPHOLD the appeal of Conditional Use Permit 6-85 and extend the expiration date to April 15, 1987 , and Building Permit Time Extension of 180 Days, and require Applicant to pay all additional development fees imposed on the Building Permit as of July 1, 1986 and con- struct an obscuring wall along the rear lot line; Council woman Borgeson Seconds; motion carries unanimously. is Council directs staff to modify the conditions of approval of the Conditional Use Permit to include the installation of a 6 foot wall along the rear property line that will be compatible to the Madrid Plaza required wall and drainage improvements with screen planting. 2. Business Licenses - Resolution 95-86 , Revising Businesss License Fees (Amending Resolution 108-85) and Ordinance 138, Adopting a new Business License Ordinance (Second Reading) Mr. Engen, Community Development Director , stated that the proposed ordinance has been modified from the existing County ordinance, which was adopted when the City incorporated. He also elaborated on pro- posed fee revisions for Business Licenses affecting solicitors, pro- fessional firms, garage sales, business relocation fee, background checks, and separate businesses. Public Comment Clarification was given to Mr. Terry Graham as to fees charged to in- town and out-of-town Construction Contractors ($75 .00 per year or $50 per job) . It was clarified that out-of-town contractors could also purchase a yearly permit if they felt they would be performing more than one job per year. Mrs. Maggie Rice, Chamber of Commerce, disagreed with the proposed charge for change of business location fee, and feels it is covered in the initial business license permit fees. Mr. Jerry Bond feels there should be a time element imposed related to out-of-town Construction Contractors one-time fee. MOTION: Councilman Handshy moves to ADOPT Ordinance 138 as second and final reading, to be read by title only; Councilwoman Norris seconds; motion carries unanimously MOTION: Councilman Handshy moves to APPROVE Resolution 95-86 amending the Business License fees of Resolution 108-85; Councilwoman Borgeson seconds; motion caries unanimously C. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of Study Areas for General Plan Amendment Requests for Cycle 2, 1986 Mr. Engen, Community Development Director , states the Planning Commission recently reviewed the proposed General Plan Amendment applications and recommends the study areas to Council for review during Cycle 2, 1986 . Areas for study consideration are generally located in south Atascadero and the north E1 Camino Real corridor , with requests for extension of urban service lines, and zoning amendments from single family to commercial, multiple family, and increased density single family. Mr . Engen further recommends a third special general plan cycle be formulated to consider the south Atascadero proposals if Environmental Imapct Report timelines dictate such due to the large size of the study area. Public Comment Mr . William Roberts requests Council to also consider his property, Lot 26-A,B,C & D, adjacent to the Hawkins request on 9240 Atascadero • 0 Road, allowing .5 acre parcels. Mr. Dennis Lochridge, 8935 Atascadero Avenue, expresses concerns to Council on the proposed General Plan Amendment by Hawkins Atascadero Avenue to . 5 acre lots, and the impacts of increase. densities by reducing minimum lot sizes in this particular area, and requests Council to dismiss the request. Mr. Kirk Pearson, Business Improvement Association representative, voices his concerns regarding the effect the proposed general plan amendments pertaining to commercial land use would have on the com- munity, if approved, in that it would increase "strip" development already existing along El Camino Real and create a detrimental posture for revitalizing the already existing "downtown" area. Ms. Judy Bishop, 8335 Atascadero Avenue expresses concerns of in- creased traffic impacts to school children attending school in the area if the gene al plan 4mendment roposal on 9420 Atascadero Road, .5 acre minimum lot size is approveR. Councilman Handshy clarifies that the item tonight is a preliminary review of the proposals and concerns should be addressed at the par- ticular public hearings at the Planning Commission and City Council Meetings. He also clarifies that proposals can not be dismissed at this time, but will follow the general plan amendment processing guidelines. Mr. Engen clarifies the purpose of presenting the proposals to Council at this time is to generally consider constricting or expanding the study -area' s boundaries and for policy change. 0 MOTION: Councilman Handshy moves to INCLUDE the Roberts property at Lot 26-A,B,C, & D to General Plan Amendment 2H-86 ; seconded by Mayor Mackey; motion carries 3-1 (Councilwoman Borgeson voting no) MOTION: Councilman Handshy moves to ACCEPT staff recommended general plan amendment proposals, as amended by the City Council, to the Planning Commission for the second cycle 1986 general plan amendment review; Councilwoman Norris secnds; motion carries 3-1 (Councilwoman Borgeson voting no) ADDED ITEM 1. Crosswalk at El Camino and West Mall versus East Mall Mr . Sensibaugh, Public Works Director , states that the crosswalk on El Camino is presently located at East Mall intersection. He also elaborates that Caltrans is proposing to install a traffic signal at the intersection of West Mall and E1 Camino related to State Highway improvements to Highway 41 (West Ma He recommends relocating the existing crosswalk to the We Mall intersection with E1 Camino and abandoning the East Mall crosswalk even though it is more directly aligned with the freeway pedestrian tunnel at E1 Camino. Installation of a crosswalk at the West Mall Intersection would allow school children to cross with a signal light instead stead of theP resent crossing guard. It is suggested that reflective markers be placed along the crosswalk to help draw attention to its existance, and to communicate the change to the School District for school children education. MOTION: Councilman Handshy moves to APPROVE the relocation of the crosswalk at E1 Camino to the intersection of West Mall and eliminating the existing crosswalk at the intersection of E1 Camino Real and East Mall; Councilwoman Norris seconds; motion carries unanimously Staff is directed to present a resolution stipulating the above to Council at its August 25, 1986 Meeting so as to codify the action into the Municipal Code. D. COMMUNITY FORUM Mr. Terry Graham, 6205 Canojo Road, reviews Cuncil ' s actions in recent months by: raising taxes due to poor financial planning in business taxation and special assessment district formation; having funded over $1 million dollars for a police facility the public voted no on with- out public hearings; raising the 1986/87 Chamber of Commerce funding with a presently failing business district; and urges Council to reconsider the rehiring of the City Attorney this fall. Mr. Jerry Bond suggests not relocating the crosswalk at the intersection of E1 Camino and East Mall to El Camino and West Mall till after the proposed installation of a traffic signal at West Mall due to an already established traffic pattern set over the last several years by school children. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION Councilwoman Borgeson encourages support of local merchants by spend- ing money in Atascadero. City Clerk Boyd Sharitz expresses his thanks and appreciation to everyone who sent well wishes to him during a recent hospital stay. He also expresses his unhappyness with comments condemning Council actions, and suggests to forgive and forget. Also, all salaries of City employees is a matter of public record and open for public review. Mike Shelton, City Manager presents the new City base maps, which were funded last fiscal year . MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10 : 05 P.M. MINUTES PREPARED BY: KAREN VAUGHAN, Dety City Clerk . OEVNG AGENDA OATZ 8/25/86 uEm A - 2 • August 19, 1986 To All Council Members: The breakdown detail on all accounts is available for your viewing in the Finance Department. J( David J g nsen Admin. er ices Director • 3 • CITY OF ATASCADERO FINANCE DIRECTOR' S REPORT JULY 1, 1986 TO JULY 31, 1986 BALANCE AS OF JUNE 30 , 1986 66,549.71 DEPOSITED BY TREASURER, SEE RECEIPTS, TREASURER'S REPORT, PAGE 1 547 ,046.59 TOTAL 613,596.30 HAND CHECK REGISTER DATED 07/31/86 86,222. 60 CHECK REGISTER DATED 07/03/86 27,200.98 CHECK REGISTER DATED 07/11/86 120 ,787.09 CHECK REGISTER DATED 07/18/86 15,821.31 CHECK REGISTER DATED 07/25/86 88,982.51 EXPENSE LISTING 146 ,674.67 TOTAL 485,689.16 BALANCE AS OF JULY 31, 1986 127,907.14 PETTY CASH 540 .00 TREASURY INVESTMENTS SEE TREASURER'S REPORT, PAGE 2 1,930,000.00 TOTAL 2,058 , 447.14 • I, DAVID JORGENSEN, do hereby certify and declare that demands enumerated and referred to in the foregoing register are accurate and just claims against the City and that there are funds available for payment thereof in the City Treasury. DATED: August 19, 1986 DAVID JOP, NSEN Admin. 4e vices Director 4 • CITY OF ATASCADERO FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT JULY 1, 1986 TO JULY 31, 1986 EXPENSE LISTING PAYROLL DATED 07/09/86 CHECKS #36738-36860 74,258.15 PAYROLL DATED 07/23/86 CHECKS #36861-36968 74 ,383.18 VOID CK#30279 CK. REG. DATED 06/27/86 (1,655.69) VOID CK#30281 CK. REG. DATED 06/27/86 (187.97) VOID CK#30402 CK. REG. DATED 07/03/86 (25.00) VOID CK#30574 CK. REG. DATED 07/18/86 (98.00) TOTAL 146 ,674.67 5 *EIEINGiAG�NDAT8/25/86 ITEM# CITY OF ATASCADERO • TREASURER'S REPORT JULY 1, 1986 TO JULY 31, 1986 RECEIPTS TAXES Property Tax 14,179.58 Cigarette Tax 3,424.80 Motor Vehicle "In Lieu" 44,827.11 Sales Tax 73,500.00 Franchise Tax 4,473.60 Livestock-Head Day Tax 10.92 Occupancy Tax 15,577.33 Development Impact Tax 12,921.50 LICENSES/PERMITS/FEES 36,261.95 GAS TAX 41,883.44 REVENUE SHARING 42,074.00 PARKS & RECREATION FEES 34,056.21 LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND 115,000.00 TRANSPORTATION SB-325 2,391.00 • STREET ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 10.50 MISCELLANEOUS Narcotics Officer 2,739. 66 South Atascadero Park 13 ,199.00 Plan Check Fees-Public Works 41.30 Sale Maps/Publications/Reports 438.20 Special Police Services 96. 00 Fines & Penalties 1,804.82 Planning Permit Deposits 3,017.33 Bails/Bonds 426.00 Traffic Safety 8,016.95 Reimbursement to Expense 964.19 P.O.S.T. 3,688.51 Business Improvement Assn. Tax 96.25 Weed Abatement 371.90 Investment Earnings 40, 267.53 Rents/Concessions 23.03 Refunds 3,104.45 Miscellaneous (120.95) Appeals 200.00 Sanitation Reimbursement 27,861.77 Off-Highway Vehicles 218.71 TOTAL 547,046. 59 ® 1 CITY OF ATASCADERO • TREASURER'S REPORT JULY 1, 1986 TO JULY 31, 1986 INVESTMENTS LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND $1,930,000.00 TOTAL INVESTMENT DEPOSITS $1,930,000. 00 • Charles Bourbeau City Treasurer 2 A 8/25/86 A - 4 MEMORANDUM • August 13 , 1986 To : City Council Via: Mike Shelton , City Manager From: Bob Best , Parks and Recreation Director4.t- Subject : Bid Award for Grounds Maintenance Services INTRODUCTION The City currently contracts mowing and watering services for all parks areas to Robert Moore of Atascadero. His contract expires on August 31 , 1986. The department , on August 5th, received bids for services for the next year. RECOMMENDATION Award Bid 86-39 to Chuck McCaa, 8005 Marchant Ave . , Atascadero , for grounds maintenance services in the amount of $18 ,000 per year. In addition, .Mr. McCaa prior to August 31st shall have a City of Atascadero Business License , and liability insurance with a Certificate of Insurance naming the City as additional insured. BACKGROUND Bid 86-39 includes mowing of all park areas including softball fields , trash pickup prior to mowing, edging, trimming , and watering. A total of nine bids were received. SUMMARY OF BIDS Bid results were as follows : 1 . Lawn Barber - $12 ,250 yearly ( low bid was withdrawn on 8/8/86 at Harold Oldson the request of Mr. Oldson) Creston , CA 2 . Chuck McCaa - $18 ,000 yearly McCaa' s Yard Maintenance Atascadero , CA 3. Juli ' s Gardening Service - $20 ,000 yearly Atascadero , CA 4 . Moore ' s Yard Maintenance - $31 , 500 yearly • Atascadero , CA 5 . Jay ' s Tractor Service - $33 ,600 yearly Atascadero , CA n 6. Gilbert ' s Lan • - 96 Landscape and Maintenance $33 ,696 yearly Atascadero , CA 7 . Tom Flynn and Sons - $36 ,000 Paso Robles , CA • 8. TCT Landscaping - $46 ,200 Cambria, CA 9. Michael Barry - $46 ,851 Paso Robles , CA ALTERNATIVES In the event Mr. McCaa does not meet all requirements prior to August 31 , 1986 , award contract to Juli' s Gardening Service of Atascadero for $20 ,000 yearly. FISCAL IMPACT The bid of $18 ,000 yearly is below the figure charged by the City ' s cur- rent contractor. As a result of the bid process , the City will have a cost savings for this service during the next year. • 1, •MEMNG AGNDA DATE 8/25/86 ITEM # A 5 • MEMORANDUM TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Resolution Eliminating the Crosswalk at East Mall and Establishing a Crosswalk at West Mall DATE: August 19, 1986 Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council approve Resolution No. 97-86 eliminating the school crosswalk at East Mall and installing a school crosswalk at the north side of the intersection at West Mall, both traverse to E1 Camino Real. Background: Historically the school crosswalk (painted yellow) has been at the intersection of East Mall and E1 Camino Real, appar • ently placed at that location for alignment with .the tunnel under 101. Discussion It is anticipated that the traffic signal at El Camino Real and West Mall will be installed during this fiscal year and that installation will include a signalized pedestrian crossing. The preferred location for the school crosswalk will be at this signal. The present school crossing guard will be reassigned to the new location until the new signal is operational. Additionally, a sign prohibiting pedestrian crossings will be erected at the old location. Council passed a motion at the August 11 regular meeting establishing the above crosswalk. Fiscal Impact: The cost of repainting the crosswalk will be paid by Caltrans. • 2 I `� RESOLUTION NO. 97-86 • RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO TO ELIMINATE THE CROSSWALK AT EL CAMINO REAL AND EAST MALL AND INSTALL A CROSSWALK AT THE INTERSECTION OF EL CAMINO REAL AND WEST MALL WHEREAS, Section 4-2. 401 et sequence of the Atascadero Municipal Code allows the City Traffic Engineer to determine the location of Traffic Control Devices, and to place and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating the same; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that a traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of El Camino Real and West Mall during Fiscal Year 1986/87 , and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the appropriate location for the crosswalk will be at the signalized inter- section. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Atascadero directs the City Traffic Engineer to place and maintain appro- priate signs or markings indicating a crosswalk at the north side intersection of El Camino Real and West Mall, said marking being traverse to El Camino Real. • On Motion by ,and seconded by ,the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote : AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ,City Clerk MARJORIE R. MACKEY, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH, Director of Public Works • ADMII::STRATION BUILDING • CITY ATTORNEY POST OFFICE BOX 747 POST OFFICE BOX 606 ATASCADERO,'CALIFORNIA 93423 _ ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93423 PHONE: (805) 466-8000 PHONE: (805) 466-4422 CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERKaseadet's POLICE DEPARTMENT 40 CITY TREASURER POST OFFICE BOX 747 CITY MANAGER INCORPORATED JULY 2, 1979 ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93423 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805) 466.8600 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93422 ��• PHONE, (805) 466-2141 August 19, 1986 Dr. Anthony Avina Superintendent Atascadero Unified School District 6800 Lewis Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 O AJ Dear Avi a, In keeping with our discussion at your school administrators meeting last Friday, the following information is furnished regarding the pedestrian school crossing on El Camino Real . As you know, El Camino Real (Highway 41) has been resurfaced at the intersections of East I'Mall & West Mall , therefore, obliterating the old pedestrian striping. As Cal-Trans prepared to repaint the striping, we reminded them that sometime during this fiscal year, a traffic signal is to be installed at El Camino Real and 'Nest Mall through a State- City shared funding formula. As this is the case, it is our intention to eliminate the school crossing guard at El Camino Real and East Mall (near Santa Barbara Savings and Loan) . Our plan is to transfer the school crossing guard from the old location at East Mall to the new route at West Mall until such time as the new intersection signalization is installed during the 1986-87 school year. Once the signal and attendant electronic pedestrian controls are in place, the crossing guard will be eliminated at El Camino Real. The signalized crosswalk will provide a safe route for students travelling to and from Lewis Ave. Elementary School and Atascadero Junior School, and there will be a savings realized by the reduction of one school crossing guard. (Please refer to attached diagram for recommended school route for A.U.S.D. students. ) As we discussed in our meeting with you last week, we will work cooperatively with you and your staff to insure that this change is well understood by all who may be affected during the next few weeks. Additionally, our Public Works Department will install a directional sign at the old crosswalk location which will indicate clearly the new school pedestrian route at West Mall. As an aside, we as City staff are quite aware that there are other intersections ;within our city which also warrant electronic signalization. The West Mall intersection is given a high priority at this time inasmuch as the State is willing to pay more than half the cost at this state highway location. Should any problems develop as a result of this change, please contact me or any other appropriate City staff member. Yours truly, RICHARD H. McHALE CHIEF OF POLICE RHM: sb Attach: cc: Lt. Chuck Hazelton/B.O.L. City Manager Mike Shelton Public Works Director Paul Sensibaugh Tom Valentine, Director, North County Christian School 14 L cw�S AV6 LLC—/''It'Nr+3R`> � Gr1oo L �C(Lo351 N(s \64 A(2 0 L� L. EW IS A V42, I I I Sc I C IrY p�srRl�r 0 Nv�LL C.c I i I I �v6 i I J J I SuNKe--9 Q I � Q„a3InQn I I I I C Ross w AL✓. ' NEW i C2o5Sl�Cs 7-;f I Gum 00 A r -rN I S C 14-S T- M �L NEW S CNeaL � NG AG'7N^A 8/25/86 STEM # A - 6 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council August 25 , 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 (Reconsideration) LOCATION: 7100 Serena (formerly Pinal) APPLICANT: David Harrell (Daniel J. Stewart) REQUEST: To reconsider a previously approved tentative parcel map specifically focusing on lot size configuration. On August 4, 1986 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above-referenced request, unanimously approving the requested • revision subject to the findings and conditions contained in the at- tached staff report. David Harrell, applicant, appeared, but did not make any comments on the reconsideration. There was no public testimony given. /p s cc: David Harrell Daniel J. Stewart • City of Atascadero Item:—B-1 • STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 8/4/86 BY: Doug Davidson, Assistant Planner File No: TPM 12-85 Project Address: 7100 Serena (formerly Pinal) SUBJECT: To reconsider a previously approved tentative parcel map, specifically focusing on lot size configuration. This request is to allow the div- ision of the 4. 52 acre parcel into four lots of 1. 00 , 1. 08, 1.22 and 1.32 acres each. BACKGROUND: After two continued hearings in April and May of 1985, this parcel map was approved on February 3, 1986 as a division of the 4. 52 acre parcel into four lots of 1. 52, 1.00 , 1.00 and 1. 00 acres each. The discus- sion at those hearings centered on the alternatives available for road improvements and provision of services. Notice of public hearing for this current request was published in the• Atascadero News on July 25, 1986 and all property owners of record lo- cated within 300 feet were notified on that date. ANALYSIS: In the RSF-Y zone, the minimum lot size is one acre with sewers, one and one-half acre without sewer . These proposed lots are within the sewer improvement district. Thus, the proposed lot sizes of 1. 00 , 1.08, 1.22, and 1.32 conform to the Zoning Ordinance. Development of site: The average slope of these lots is approximately 35%. Grading on these sites will require precise plan approval to determine that the extent of the proposed grading is appropriate and that it will not result in erosion or other adverse effects to life or property. The primary reason for this reconsideration is to provide more suitable building sites. Staff agrees that this proposed lot size configura- tion does provide for better building locations. The proposed access, means of sewer connection and fire protection measures remain the same. The only change to the prior conditions of approval relates to the amount for sewer annexation fees of Condition #12-c. In summary, this proposed parcel map creates the need for substantial• infrastructure improvements before lot divisions would be acceptable; however , staff believes the revised parcels with the conditions of approval will result in a pattern of orderly growth. • • Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 (Harrell/Stewart) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 based on the findings and conditions of approval contained in Exhibit A. DD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Revised Findings and Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C - Revised Site Plan Exhibit D - Staff Report dated February 3, 1986 with original conditions of approval 2 • • EXHIBIT A - Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 0 Findings/Conditions of Approval (REVISED) August 4, 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. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel or its public utility easement prior to recordation of the final map. 2. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines and other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are other building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 3. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, prepared by a regis- tered civil engineer , shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to issuance of building permits in conjunction with installation of driveways, access easements or structures. Prior to final build- ing inspections, said engineer shall submit to the City written certification that grading is in compliance with said codes and 9 • Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 (Harrell/Stewart) standards. a. Drainage facilities shall be constructed to City standards. b. All drainage work shall be completed (or bonded for) prior to recordation of the final map. 4. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways and driveway easements shall be submitted for approval by the Communi- ty Development and Public Works Departments in order to determine average grade and appropriate improvement requirements. This shall appear as a note on the final map. 5. Two City standard fire hydrants shall be required: 1) one on Serena at entrance to private drive; 2) the other on the corner of Mercedes and Serena. 6. Provide a preliminary soils report and if said report indicates that corrective measures are necessary to prevent structural dam- age, then a note acceptable to the Public Works Director shall be noted on the final map. 7. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department and construct improvements (or bond) as per permit requirements, prior to recordation of the final map. 8. Obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans and construct road im- provements per permit requirements. These improvements should be compatible with the proposed improvement of Highway 41 extension. 9. The applicant shall submit road improvement plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, for review and approval by the Public Works Department. These shall include: a. The construction of a City standard cul-de-sac or hammerhead on Serena Avenue. b. The applicant shall agree to participate in the formation of an assessment district for road improvements along Serena Avenue. C. Prior to approval of the improvement plans by the Public Works Director, either the subdivider shall acquire suffi- cient title or interest in the off-site land to allow the improvements to be made as required by these conditions; or the City Council, upon request by and at the expense of the subdivider, shall have made all appropriate findings and adopted a Resolution of Necessity as required by law so that the City may exercise its power of eminent domain. d. Construction of road improvement plans shall be completed or bonded for prior to recordation of the final map. 10. The applicant shall make an offer of dedication to the City of Atascadero to the following rights-of-way and/or easements: 2 • s Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 (Harrell/Stewart) a. The sanitary sewer easement, ten feet each side of the sewer main line. b. 25 feet from the centerline of Serena and right-of-way for cul-de-sac along Serena Avenue frontage (Parcels A, B, C) . C. Public utilities easement. d. These offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to recordation of the final map. 11. A road maintenance agreement for the private drive, in a form ac- ceptable to the City, shall be recorded with the deed to each par- cel at the time it is first conveyed, and a note to this effect shall be placed on the final map. A common egress and ingress easement for private drive (minimum 30 foot right-of-way, 16 foot traveled way) shall be provided and shown on the final map. 12. A sewer connection permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department prior to hooking up to the public sewer . a. Plans for the sewer main extension, prepared by a registered civil engineer , shall be submitted and approved by the Public Works Department. b. Construction of sanitary sewer facilities shall be completed (or bonded for) prior to recordation of the final map. The IW main line extension shall be compatible with future develop- ment needs. C. A sewer annexation fee of $1,210 .00 per single family lot shall be due in addition to the usual connection, tap-in, and installation fees, prior to recordation of the final map. 11. 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. 12. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. 3 • • Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 (Harrell/Stewart) 13. All conditions herein specified shall be complied with prior to filing of the final map. 14. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate by certificate on the final map that corners have been set or will be set by a date specific, and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report current within six months shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 15. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. 4 1)( P 113 IT B LC�CA-C"I O N M A P C l7' Y MA IIV 7"A i N�FD Sr IS 40 IV IMPROUED 00, ISE R ENA ff'1{ Q ^��' '� rfa ti -' .a - VVV i • + ,�J �- •�- y •,�•�i I IS � - ter- cr ''t:+ 33i /� i .�` •� PAPERIT RC*AD 3`-;' z �?a - -sem -•!:� ; � �� , �; �� - • ,' � �\, - . �� '�"� •� `.;� �- ,-� / - _ /• A•Xi1 t � ✓�. -- ..�I•,�^ �. F-�f• 1SctT. ..r'i3 '^y�• �'1 9a � - \" it' '� :� ` _- 43 PA ;�'�, ' - . til , f`. - 1; •J '. '�,'' �1 - '-`�\\,-V _ AND RF c3 • . `` •' •_ ,O )Ctt".%�\,7 `•� s' _ - •�•'�•`:_ '' ` - -- - ---- _ -- .. _ -' .tic •� by CALIF,,- AJ WY_ --4f-- RESERVATION W se /. i4d. a N / f, _715•x. '�h. .. tih \ \ `, .. °f a �� ► � �- `�-moi �, n.. . . \ \ . , z �a �W \`\i � \ r9 9 \\ �. It m rn ph ti �pvp 7�'p 4N9 w - \\ 1 + li \ 11I 0 �b•f \ �,� 1 yji ��pgw - \ � I I � 1 1 �• � N �Nq ` o0 O So loo iso SCALE:/"ASO' D X ca � ill �i ?� M ? 10 c`al ° b1 ya rs N Dum V � tj C 1 G •c- �'i o ao� �0 a� NfYZiO _ City of Atascadero Item: B-2 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 2/3/86 BY: 'Doug Davidson, Assistant Planner File No: TPM 12-85 Project Address: 7100 Serena (formerly Pinal) - SUBJECT: To allow the division of a 4. 52 acre parcel into four lots of 1.52, 1.00, 1. 00, and 1.00 acres each. BACKGROUND: This ;natter was originally heard at the Planning Commission meeting of April 15, 1985. At that time, staff requested a continuance in order to evaluate road improvement alternatives. At the May 6, 1985 hear- ing, the item was continued to allow the engineer to redesign the par- cel map following meetings with staff. Staff has received a redesign of the parcel map and all affected City agencies, as well as CalTrans, have reviewed the project. Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Jan- uary 24, 1986 and all owners of record property located within 300 feet were notified on that date. A. LOCATION: 7100 Serena (Parcel l of Parcel Map CO 74-185, Stad- ium Park) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To allow the division of a 4. 52 acre parcel into four lots of 1. 52, 1. 00 , 1. 00 and 1.00 acres each. 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .David Harrell 3. Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Daniel Stewart 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. 52 acres 5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Serena Road is a private, unim- proved road. Mercedes Avenue is unimproved and the alignment of the proposed Highway 41 expansion. EXHiFIT D STAFF KEPORT - 21 - 3 - A Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 (Harrell/Stewart) 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Y (Residential Single Family - minimum lot size one acre with sewer, one and one half acre without sewer. 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RSF-Y, vacant South: RSF-Y, vacant East: single family residence West: RMF/16, County Hospital 9. General Plan Designation. . . . .Moderate Density Single Family 10. Terrain. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Steeply sloped with many large oak trees. 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declarationa C. ANALYSIS: In the RSF-Y zone, the minimum lot size is one acre with sewers, one and one-half acre without sewer. These proposed lots are within the sewer improvement district. Thus, the proposed lot sizes of 1. 52, 1.00, 1.00 and 1. 00 acres each conform to the Zon- ing Ordinance. - DEVELOPMENT OF SITE - Staff has several concerns regarding the development of these par- cels. The average slope of these lots is approximately 35%. Grad- ing on such slopes will require a precise plan approval by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any grading or build- ing permits. This review will seek to determine that the extent and nature of the proposed grading is appropriate for the use and that the proposed grading will not result in erosion or other ad- verse effects to life or property. Sewage Disposal: Septic systems are not allowed on slopes over 30%. For this rea- son, as well as the fact that these lots are located within the sewer improvement district boundary, the parcels are being pro- posed to be required to connect to the sewer system. Condition #12 of the conditions of approval addresses sewer conection. Staff' s main concern is that this sewer main be placed in Serena, as opposed to where it is shown on the proposed parcel map. Access: The proposed lots are currently served by two unimproved access roads. Serena Road is an unimproved private road which is located directly to the north of proposed Parcels A, B, and C. Mercedes Avenue is also unimproved and Parcel A fronts Mercedes on the west. Mercedes Avenue is the proposed alignment of Highway 41 and is currently under Caltrans jurisdiction. To adequately serve the Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 (Harrell/Stewart) parcels, off-site road improvements are proposed. Condition #9 of the conditions of approval states the specific requirements. Compatibility with CalTrans' plans for future development of High- way 41 is addressed in Condition #8. Additionally, a private drive is proposed off Serena to serve these parcels. Standards for this are addressed in Condition #11. Fire Prevention: Additional fire hydrants are required. Their type and location is contained in Condition #5. In summary, this proposed parcel map creates the need for substan- tial infrastructure improvements before lot divisions would be acceptable; however, with the recommended conditions of approval, staff believes that the parcel map will result in an orderly pat- tern of growth. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 based on the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit A. DGD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C - Parcel Map �Q Tentative Parcel Mapi12-85 (Harrell/Stewart) EXHIBIT A - Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 Findings/Conditions of Approval February 3, 1986 FINDINGS: 1. The creation of these parcels conform to all applicable zoning and the General Plan. 2. The creation of these parcels in conformance with the recommended conditions of approval will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment, and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development that is proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of dev- elopment proposed. 5. The design of the subdivision of the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivi- sion; or that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474.6 of the State Subdivision Map Act, as to methods of handling and discharge of waste. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel or its public utility easement prior to recordation of the final map. 2. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines and other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are other building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 3. Grading, drainage and erosion control plans, prepared by a regis- tered civil engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to issuance of building permits in conjunction with installation of driveways, access easements or structures. Prior to final build- ,,�� Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 (Harrell/Stewart) ing inspections, said engineer shall submit to the City written certification that grading is in compliance with said codes and standards. a. Drainage facilities shall be constructed to City standards. b. All drainage work shall be completed (or bonded for) prior to recordation of the final map. 4. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways and driveway easements shall be submitted for approval by the Planning and Public Works .Departments in order to determine average grade and appropriate improvement requirements. This shall appear as a note on the final map. 5. Two City standard fire hydrants shall be required: 1) one on Serena at entrance to private drive; 2) the other on the corner of Mercedes and Serena. 6. Provide a preliminary soils report and if said report indicates that corrective measures are necessary to prevent structural damage, then a note acceptable to the Director of Public Works shall be noted on the final map. 7. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Department of Public Works and construct improvements (or bond) as per permit requirements, prior to recordation of the final map. 8. Obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans and construct road im- provements per permit requirements. These improvements should be compatible with the proposed improvement of Highway 41 extension. 9. The applicant shall submit road improvement plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, for review and approval by the Public Works Department. These shall include: a. The construction of a City standard cul-de-sac or hammerhead on Serena Avenue. b. The applicant shall agree to participate in the formation of an assessment district for road improvements along Serena Avenue. C. Prior to approval of the improvement plans by the Director of Public Works, either the subdivider shall acquire suffi- cient title or interest in the off-site land to allow the improvements to be made as required by these conditions; or the City Council, upon request by and at the expense of the subdivider , shall have made all appropriate findings and adopted a Resolution of Necessity as required by law so that the City may exercise its power of eminent domain. 5 I' Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 (Harrell/Stewart) d. Construction of road improvement plans shall be completed or bonded for prior to recordation of the final map. 10. The applicant shall make an offer of dedication to the City of Atascadero to the following rights-of-way and/or easements: a. The sanitary sewer easement, ten feet each side of the sewer main line. b. 25 feet from the centerline of Serena and right-of-way for cul-de-sac along Serena Avenue frontage (Parcels A, B, C) . C. Public utilities easement. d. These offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to recordation of the final map. 11. A road maintenance agreement for the private drive, in a form ac- ceptable to the City, shall be .recorded with the deed to each par- cel at the time it is first conveyed and a note to this effect shall be placed on the final map. A common egress and ingress easement for private drive (minimum 30 foot right-of-way, 16 foot traveled way) shall be provided and shown on the final map. 12. A sewer connection permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department prior to hooking up to the public sewer. a. Plans for the sewer main extension, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted and approved by the Public Works Department. b. Construction of sanitary sewer facilities shall be completed (or bonded for) prior to recordation of the final map. The main line extension shall be compatible with future develop- ment needs. C. An in-lieu sewer connection fee of $850.00 per single family lot shall be due in addition to the usual connection, tap-in, and installation fees, prior to issuance of a building permit. 13. All conditions herein specified shall be complied with prior to filing of the final map. 14. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate by certificate on the final map that corners have been set or will be set by a date specific, and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. 6 Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 (Harrell/Stewart) b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit- ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 15. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. MP1131T B LCATIDN MA4� L IT v A4 lti1 7-A i N!t-7D Sr i 21 '-,p, z24 s .�•' � `• \,:v ;\�•,�,� �` rte_�Ii—t. �' _3`l ��y i 1E`'3 ��\' ; 1 7 -07 yz � 3y1• '� � ' ani `ys k. �y^ '. \. r az 14 `'" �fl. ?%/� � /\. _ 73: •.• C c' ' '♦ POR I iOLX �\ -� � , � � I 'r�- --"' , I y d- tt�6 �, fi �•� ry'\�� 'S�"�C N^ i /�- 'Z •, •\j'` C� 7E ROA-A. }--JIZY. •-- .� .;* I ice•' 25 ,y3• ;71 W7 PA PE R 1f �.- .\ . .�✓ 3•x'42 1 Z;�9 +sem ':+� ; 1�s �� - A-u '-•s ��/ 'S� / �--- - \� .:,-��EF' . -ko•,. _r.�� 6'� •'3JA :.Z 1�,2' �~'- ,..� ` 'j _ -. ,,t / - -��• - '! Zil `�,iA!-fir' .eY�r h z 1 1 z i PA • _ � ( '•` r � - / P'E`E: 1 C-17.q a --e•1 _ -' In 4 L�l_ L E =' `J `. 1 � _� o • p Cpl-l�� -•{�A:.-..._ �.,. ` - :a� ;' .��i� ,� _,•-__; a po 1 ``�a-Rr��, " ' l� _.4L -- - i - _ -.•Lam '--�'I _ : H G✓i4 W A 1 - . - /�i-� +, � �.` 1 1' �Cy " \ten^ , . -..,i , F-, .. ,�• ,*��•. T ``!tet N ANORfg- _ • • `: , �J-. ,�.Y1\.l—`"4 - ' S sn ifl \; w '• `a� in� as 5p `_a.U+ �� SJt �•� �o Ld Lij No • _ '� . ,`� : : '' ;fie 1 ' ;7b �� . ' . • .j:. � � � Sys 1 � 1 � .� � cow--�a� r .- ,.�,�� \ � 1 V`� a �•� `"off 1U0 ;: � �- �`',.,�� ► ; l Q � Uro � �. 14 It • ; \ 1,'�, iso' 1 \ D Q �i � � _ i. ; � � ��•�/\�� of .. •: V v i� • ,lG G �w h�� 3�\ v \ Doo \\\ ` ' �j�� y I+ Y 0 '"tea ''„ ew _ •I�� •\-^ .. _ 1 NO/lt/At13�`� F?l �_ MFl-��/7b'J , fE` ur, R/�S/86 .� A - 7 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council August 25, 1986 t Y VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 19-86 LOCATION: 2470/2500 San Fernando Road APPLICANT: Gordon T. Davis (Twin Cities Engineering) REQUEST: Subdivision of two parcels containing 14.48 acres into four parcels containing 3.69, 3.64, 3.48 and 3.45 acres each. On August 4, 1986 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing • on the above-referenced request, unanimously approving the land divi- sion request subject to the findings and condition contained in the attached staff report, with modification to condition #7 to delete the words "acquired and" in the first sentence since the applicant already is in ownership of that right-of-way referred to. Russ Thompson, Twin Cities Engineering, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the request andindicated his concurrence with the recommendation. There was no public testimony given. /Ps cc: Gordon T. Davis Twin Cities Engineering City of Atascadero Item: B-2 • STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 8/4/86 BY: Steven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: TPM 19-86 Project Address: 2470/2500 San Fernando Road SUBJECT: Subdivision of two parcels containing a total of 14. 48 acres into four parcels containing 3. 69,3.64, 3.48, and 3.45 acres each. BACKGROUND: Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on July 25, 1986 and all property owners of record located within 300 feet of the subject property were also notified on that date. A. LOCATION: 2470/2500 San Fernando Road (Lots 14, 15 , Block 45) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Subdivision of 14. 48 acres into• four lots containing 3. 69, 3. 64 , 3. 48 and 3.45 acres each. 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gordon T. Davis 3. Representative.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Twin Cities Engineering 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14.48 acres 5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .San Fernando Road and Corriente Road are both paved to City standards. 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban with 2. 5 to 10 .0 acre minimum lot sizes) 8. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 7. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RS, vacant South: RS, residential East: RS, vacant West: RS, vacant 9. General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Single Family • 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Steep slopes with a drainage swale dividing the property • • Tentative Parcel Map 19-86 (Davis/Twin Cities Engineering) 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. ANALYSIS• The property proposed for subdivision is located in the RS (Resi- dential Suburban) zone. Minimum lot size in this zone ranges be- tween 2. 5 and 10.0 acres depending upon the "score" of various performance standards. For this site, the minimum lot size cri- teria are: Distance from center (10 ,000-12,0001 ) 0.30 Septic suitability (moderate) * 0.75 Average slope (21-25%) 1.00 Condition of access (paved) 0.40 General neighborhood character (5.01 acres) 1.00 Minimum lot size: 3.45 acres *Note: Septic suitability based upon on-site percolation tests. The lot sizes proposed are equal to or larger than the minimum sizes that would be allowed. Each of the proposed lots has an adequate building site that is relatively level. Proper siting of building pads and driveways should result in a minimal amount of required grading. Any grad- ing that is required for driveways or building pads on slopes in excess of 20% will require a precise plan review and approval. Precise plan review is done at staff level and is dictated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and this City' s guide- lines for its implementation. San Fernando Road is a City-maintained road with a 50 foot right- of-way. Corriente Road has been constructed to City standards and will be accepted into the City-maintained system at the conclusion of a one-year test period. Corriente Road is also planned to have a 50 foot right-of-way. The property in question should pose few problems for residential development. Adequate building sites are available and access is good. Properly designed septic systems should provide adequate waste disposal. There are trees on the property; however , the building sites are relatively clear so that tree removal should be minimal. Finally, the density proposed for the property appears to be appropriate for the site and surrounding areas. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conditional approval of Tentative Parcel Map 19-86 based upon the Findings in Exhibit A and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B. 2 Tentative Parcel Map 19-86 (Davis/Twin Cities Engineering) SLD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings for Approval Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval Exhibit C - Location and Zoning Map Exhibit D - Tentative Parcel Map 3 ! • • Tentative Parcel Map 19-86 (Davis/Twin Cities Engineering) EXHIBIT A - Tentative Parcel Map 19-86 Findings for Approval August 4, 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. 4 • Tentative Parcel Map 19-86 (Davis/Twin Cities Engineering) EXHIBIT B - Tentative Parcel Map 19-86 Conditions of Approval August 4, 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 issuance of building permits in conjunction with installation of driveways, access easements or structures. This shall appear as a note on the final map. 4. Obtain encroachment permit(s) for construction of City standard driveway approaches from the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit and construct improvements as direc- ted by the encroachment permit (s) prior to final building inspection. 5. All drainage swales on the property shall be delineated on the final map. 6. The 25 foot ingress/egress easement serving Parcel 2 shall also be noted as a Public Utilities Easement. 7. Sufficient right-of-way shall be acquired and offered for dedica- tion to the City of Atascadero as follows: a. Street Name: Corriente Road and San Fernando Road b. Limits: 20 foot radius corner rounding at the intersection of Corriente Road and San Fernando Road 8. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to or simultaneously with recording the final map. 9. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways and driveway easements shall be submitted for approval by the Communi- ty Development and Public Works Departments in order to determine average grade and appropriate improvement requirements. This shall appear as a note on the final map. 5 • Tentative Parcel Map 19-86 (Davis/Twin Cities Engineering) 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. • II 6 41 V Kn 23 40 VIC 3 i l •' ` -- —- ----- 1 ... • !d/Z111- 3ee q,R•t'/ g+i 1 as .010 '\ a' �•`• 2s`\� • co 71-ar t•t rmn-. I } / 37 1: is if 27 ice.• • � - �•� 33 34 .+W •�.R was ti 2• - yt•i °•af ,_• 3 V7 : 29 �� Kl .� 24 b 32 f••'' 1 'i wa.•4 31 44 eiet ,� �• 21 °r4,` � J a 43 13 y •n 20 .� ,�,• 53 40 PO { a '10. •8 41 ,', 1 t a/ \ A `�a 3 i. 9 38 � r �' RS 38 34 336 �4 y • 3 8 - ra 2 A -'2 $ 1 37 19 20 7A 3 21 13A - '�. g. a ♦ \ / , ties et }. 25 E8 . _ 51� • +.f•Y sy 32 -� y;t ., � - .. army 1� �� • �. {v to F:� ?•e> 4 A afh � IS rj1 J�V: �., K. ..� O A, 4 7 �aN do • Zo Z So O 3 ez k i ` • CITY OF ATASCADER,O -Planning Department ment I t F CITY iq�c. j(I 1p.ILj''6 l)J ' +%...�+» •„�:.�..,ti•....�.�-,1. �� r .h� •+••••u•r �. '.a..n�•'.a�i.wrw..vr... ciwit. 1 IiK 7�i 3 ] t .>-•, fI .,•.a—�;ytiyy,Q /-rn�i >.•�fiij ,�� UUU... � !j� �l �, �.t'' �.�. ii .•y�t � .It ,a' ;i •rS J�.��1�yC S�T'��t•Vsrr' �+v''�h S C t•"�� :�/�' •:i r•-.�I f'i�1.�+1 j,:i�:'v:w^t�::�j�!R.:!•.' .�1':'.4 f.-. f 9� ; �L,j*l.t � f .r�r�' reed" K, 4- Mad- . •C'--.;-.-.' , - i fm 11- 06, �n It r� o, ^o b�? i n '� � - � .94�' .moi `,"/;j•�y � '.f� (.';rfli�,• 1' -: Zqo P� j/per SGS Co p4: tiu •h Y � A o y4 VV • 4oOX - deo � <; �-� �� °�/�: a• � � z�,l: {p;; Q� . 0INZ J J u � R , . t• �a i F �� Q W-F j,�.S � „r i•MTI�• .{.O•_.LL[,.�•�,y�_�yyy.�y��t..�' { � 7 '.,F X�'�..fi.1:{fie ...•.....�. < _ .!,: �''t p.z.;..i .. � � :. V l ! I�TING AGTIDA - DATE 8/25/86 ,,,M## A -' 8 • MEMORANDUM TO: City Council August 25, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment 4-86 LOCATION: 7205 Santa Cruz Road APPLICANT: Gordon T. Davis (Twin Cities Engineering) REQUEST: To adjust the property line between two existing lots of record. On August 4, 1986 the Planning Commission considered the above-refer- enced subject on its consent calendar, unanimously approving the ap- • plication subject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached staff report. There was noublic testimony imony given on the matter . /ps cc: Gordon T. Davis Twin Cities Engineering ,,el City of Atascadero Item: • STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commssion Meeting Date: 8/4/86 BY: Meg Williamson, Assistant Planner File No: LLA 4-86 Project Address: 7205 Santa Cruz Road SUBJECT: Request to adjust the property line between two existing lots of record. A. LOCATION: 7205 Santa Cruz Road (ptn. Lots 9 and 10, Block 51) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .Adjustment to . lot lines between two existing lots. 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gordon T. Davis • 3. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Twin Cities Engineering 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.31 acres 5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Santa Cruz Road is a paved, City maintained road with a 40 foot right-of-way. 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban) 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 8. Adjacent Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . .North: RS South: RS East: RS West: RS 9. General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Single Family 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gentle to steeply sloping with many oak trees. There is a well-defined waterway which traverses the site. • Lot Line Adjustment 4-86 (Davis/Twin Cities Engineering) 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt (Class 5) C. ANALYSIS: The subject property is located in the RS (Residential Suburban) zone. Minimum lot size in this zone ranges between 2. 5 and 10 acres depending upon outcome of the various performance standards. For this particular site, the minimum lot size criteria are: Distance from center (14,000-16,0001 ) 0. 50 Septic suitability (severe) 1. 50 Average slope (11-20%) 0.75 Condition of access (paved) 0.40 General neighborhood character (2.99 acres) .60 Minimum lot size: 3.75 acres One of the parcels proposed for this lot line adjustment is al- ready smaller than what the Zoning Ordinance would allow (a legal nonconforming lot of record) . The other existing parcel is a conforming lot with acreage in excess of the required minimum lot size. The proposed lot line adjustment would make the parcels 3.75 acres and 2.56 acres. City policy has been to permit lot line adjustments in such cases provided the degree of nonconformity is not increased. The pro- posed adjustment will not increase the degree of nonconformity; it will, in fact, bring one lot closer to City standards while main- taining the conformity of another lot. The subject parcels are both currently vacant. It is staff' s de- termination that the adjustment of the property line will provide building sites which will be appropriate for single family devel- opment with on-site waste disposal systems. The proposed map, as presented, complies with City policies and standards. D. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Lot Line Adjustment 4-86 based on the Findings in Exhibit A and the Conditions in Exhibit B. MM:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings for Approval Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval Exhibit C - Location and Zoning Map Exhibit D - Proposed Lot Line Adjustment Map 2 • Lot Line Adjustment 4-86 (Davis/Twin Cities Engineering) EXHIBIT A - Lot Line Adjustment 4-86 Findings for Approval August 4, 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 J,. ! 0 Lot Line Adjustment 4-86 (Davis/Twin Cities Engineering) EXHIBIT B - Lot Line Adjustment 4-86 Conditions of Approval August 4, 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. In addition, a note is to appear with the following statement: "Pacific Gas & Electric Com- pany should be contacted prior to any use of the easements shown" . 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. 4 y.M Z C y .0 e. moi^., O•r"- .� .l. ,` a- O �$F,�oyo Z > T �� 3� I� .�•:i�� \gin 0,J v �i :1 .�. i ; :1. �^ham ,��.• tkJ• IZ If � fix. -. •_ . Iri e w OL CD M 'N� A MD R/�5/R6 _I Eti1 . A - 9 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council August 25, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager �- FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director IkE SUBJECT: P.G. & E: Illegal Utility Pole Signs As part of a July 14, 1986 discussion of political signage at the City Council meeting, staff was directed to send a letter to P.G. & E. to elicit any suggestions they might have on abating the practice of posting illegal signs on utility poles. Their attached response in- cludes a news release announcing efforts of P.G. & E. to keep the utility poles free of signs which represent a safety hazard for main- tenance employees. HE:ps Enclosure: P.G. & E. Communication - August ll, 1986 City Communication - July 21, 1986 • PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMIPANY • 617-12TH STREET • PASO ROBLES, CALIFORNIA 93446 (805) 238-0880 BILL J. HOPPERT MANAGER-PASO ROBLES August 11 , 1986 RECEIVED AUG Mr. Henry Engen Community Development Director City of Atascadero P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 Dear Mr. Engen: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the illegal posting of signs, etc. , on utility poles. The State of California Safety "General Order 95,11 Rule 34, states: "Nothing in these rules shall be construed as permitting the unauthorized attachment, to supply or communication poles, of radio antennas, ropes, signs, and any such equipment foreign to the purposes of overhead electric line construction. " • Additionally, nearly all of the existing poles are jointly owned between PGandE and PT&T. We share concerns as to the safety issues raised, as our employees must climb these poles with the nails or other means of attachment left on the poles, creating a hazardous condition. I have authorized and requested all of our employees who observe any signs, i .e. , political , garage sales, or otherwise, to remove the signs and return them to the owner, if practical , or leave them at the base of the utility pole. I am also issuing the attached press release to all newspapers and radio stations in the North County, and I am sending a copy of this letter to the other utilities (PT&T, cable T.V. companies, etc. ). As you can see, anything that would reduce or eliminate these hazards is important. Therefore, we would appreciate any assistance you or your staff can provide. Sincerely, BILL J. H RT BJH:ch Enclosure cc: City of Paso Robles • Falcon Communications Corp. PT&T Sonic Cable T.V. EANolan/DCSmith, PGandE KWWebb, PGandE DRAFT - NEWS RELEASE Pacific Gas and Electric Company is waging a campaign to keep its utility poles free of signs. According to Paso Robles Manager, Bill Hoppert, "Nails, tacks, staples, wires or other fasteners used to affix signs to poles can pose hazards for our crews who climb the poles to make repairs or do maintenance. " Hoppert says the utility is not attempting to inhibit the message of any party, but employee safety has to come first. "Unfortunately, many people treat utility poles like billboards and ignore or forget that they may be creating a hazard as well as breaking the law. We would appreciate everyone's help to provide a safe work environment for our employees", said Hoppert. 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 -cascade ® CITY COUNCIL - CITY CLERK POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY TREASURER INCORPORATED JULY 2, 1979 POST OFFICE BOX 747 ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 9 CITY MANAGER _ PHONE: (805) 466-8600 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT .S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT '.PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT ' 6005 LEWIS AVENUE ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93422 r+-• - PHONE: (805) 466-2141 ;;July 21, 1986 Mr. Bill Hoppert Manager, Paso Robles Office Pacific Gas & Electric 617 Twelfth Street Paso Robles, CA 93446 Dear Mr. Hoppert: At their meeting of July 14 , 1986, the City Council considered the enclosed staff report which deals with the City's Zoning Regulations as they pertain to political signs. As you will note, one of the issues addressed was the problem associ- ated with people posting illegal signs on utility poles. I had noted the possibility of instructing City crews to routinely remove such signs in the course of work in the field. As part of the discussion, Council asked that I communicate this issue for any suggestions you might have as to how we might protect your property rights while main- taining the City' s appearance standards. - Sincerely, Henry Engen Community Development Director HE:ps cc: Michael Shelton, City Manager Enclosure �,n M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council July 14 , 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director AS SUBJECT: Political Sign Regulations BACKGROUND: Per our discussion, the purpose of this memorandum is to outline the City's political signage standards, both as follow-up to the last election and as advisory information to County-wide candidates in the fall. ZONING ORDINANCE STANDARD: Under the sign section of the City' s Zoning Ordinance, political signs are exempt from the ordinance unless there is need for an electrical or building permit. Normally, this is not the case with political signs. The following is the definition in the ordinance. Political Siqns: "Campaign signs shall not be posted more than 60 days preceeding the election and shall be removed within 14 days following an election. " Hence, by this time, all of the signs from the last municipal election should have been taken down. Notwithstanding the exemption of such signs from conventional city regulations, there is no permission implied to post those signs within street rights-of-way on utility and telephone poles. The City Council Council may wish to give staff direction with respect to routinely removing any such signs during the course of work within the right-of- way. HE:ps C,t STING AGENDA E. 8/25/86 Imm# A - 10 MEMORANDUM August 20 , 1986 To : City Council 1 Via: Mike Shelton, ity Manager From: Bob Best , Parks and Recreation Director Subject ; Employee Recognition Program INTRODUCTION The Employee Recognition Program has been in place since February. During this time the Recognition Committee has asked restaurants in Atascadero to provide a dinner for two each month. This has proved to be difficult and time consuming. Each month a member of the committee has spent considerable time getting a restaurant to donate the dinners . RECOMMENDATION • Authorize the expenditure of up to $30 per month from Council Contin- gency Funds to pay for the dinners awarded the Employee of the Month. ALTERNATIVES Seek community groups who may be interested in funding this program. This , however , will result in additional staff time expenses . FISCAL IMPACT Total cost would be approximately $360 per year for dinners , plus an estimated $100 for the Employee of the Month Plaque (already authorized by Council) . • KHUTING AGEND 8/25/86 - 1 ATE ITEM 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 document • will be noticed for 10 days, and final action will be requested on 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 Y be reimbursed through future users of those improvements. Deleting costs that would not directly benefit parcels in "C" & "E" , if the complete sanitary sewer system for the entire drainage basin was con- structed all at one time, appears to be a fair and equitable appr AV There are some improvements that are required that should,however 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 prote. t hearing that would set a line extension cost on those properties that would be required to reimburse the City for their fair share 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 'n Pumping by private parcels is looked upon as an additional burden that the majority does not incur. On this project, however , this 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, but i cannot be pursued by the City. There may be cases where a group of lot owners can obtain easements sufficient to serve several properties 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 . i 3 �,� 0 9 It is proposed that lots in all other cease and desist ar will have the Order attached to their title. Staff wants to me 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 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 fl does not come from homes existing prior to October 18 , 1972. He r� ferred us to the Federal Housing Administration. 4 Housing and Urban Development Block Funds: HUD requires that a specific block or area be designated that meets low income and 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 recently to research grant availability and to write specific grants. To date 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, but most likely are not available to Atascadero residents since our pop- 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 . 0 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 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 construction 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 charged (as do all the other programs discussed above) , and such scheme is subject to a referendum within 30 days. Additionally, the new Federal Tax Law now disallows tax incentives for the privitization 6 `r� 0 0 route. Therefore, since interest rates are down and the project is 16% grant eligible, the County may opt for Industrial Development Bonds. If privitization is used the project is not grant eligible 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 1 O J A O� =bJJYh1� • 131 O J os 1 '1 �• OI = a i I •�- � H N El •__.. •re3ne p Elz _.. y v i U) 1 i©I a a _ �o t o i r�yyaa--� OOLOSE' ` S: • ." C ! O r ' 1 e 1 1� s IJ 1 = t o 'i n v� • On r f � E+ � . V �y H M �o Crl: F �Q "�' . • O ul a ►� (J ` co O Q _ O • ©` O Z O • a W O PTM h 42) • ,F) � Ea, � t` p32 � h •�) i1• ~ � , .•�. \-§/U, JCS ., O r. �,):,' r(a i'o'. r' • art E �l _ �y•I '•�a (al ti O N O �.°• i ® n p r `e • ® ••O AVIL .. CA ,. •' �'To pit- fo 1" O ••iI lN•, " �P N r ••O , I 15z J •.�r`�r C� C� N �• ''Cry V / P 1 \• •N•••Cr �w' •• AVE. VE , N ✓hd�'�% , �� `gyp`. 92 M O i 8 4 >N NV5 1 w ' •.. a .a�• ; O. .N3WO 3WV ` r... n .,, _ • s G � .. w • rte .. �,.�.+a„•,. � - �� -" -.'� •+,re �. �O � •HOZ' " � ,.. 'd�� N3WpN3WV O •' LQ ,. n 1 ON •» 1 O is 1 .•' t ��po 1 •O � � O O . ,» � --� •,0.... .O tZO f.0 T ,f '�� t n �N •d" I«.' a., - .. .•� • r r 9 'z + I. Vii, � � © • O O' ,.Oz + " -C,� •"•�, :hl-�5 ' s o`P' ' ©• O O Oii " G � � _ s .'�_ �� O ' ,ice • "` v'�oez O `I ° W \+•,G " • i ``�e�y o (DA a' a i O.J• = i�➢� 'y i � V• 1 l7 ------'--_' _ G ® &_ O�Z S•�i..'.Z ,r�'4..� , N C W � 4 4iia.� Q U) q O 0 W 0 En 14 l`-J r:'s y�:��•" O tea--t r `r�, go O .•a.••• � e I alt � A 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- NTRAL COAST REGION �- A LAUREL LANE SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 (805) 549-3147 July 21 , 1986 Mr . Paul Sensibaugh Director of Public Works City of Atascadero P.O. Box 747 Atascadero , CA 93423 Dear Mr. Sensibaugh Subject : City of Atascadero , CWG Project No . C-06-2927 ; Funding Potential As requested on July 17 , 1986 , the following is a statement regarding potential funding for a collection system in the unsewered areas of the City of Atascadero. The attached letter dated December 22 , 1983 , from the Division of Water Quality , contains the denial for funding for this collection system. EPA ' s 40 CFR 35 .2116 (b) requires 2/3 " . . . of the expected flow will be from the resident population on October 18 , 1972. " An analysis of the unsewered area indicated the majority of the area was populated after the October 18 , 1972 , date . You may want to refer to your files for more specific information on this issue . Another source for funding may be Federal Housing Administration loans , or Housing and Urban Development Block Funds. If you have any other questions regarding Clean Water Grant Funding , please address them to Jim Nicholas , with the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Clean Water Grants . His phone number is 916-322-6556 . Very truly yours , KENNETH R. JONES , 1 Executive Officer FJD: lh Attachment cc : Jim Nicholas , DCWG ki, STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,Governor STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY i•`-•�. R.BONDERSON BUILDING 30� 12 STREET -` P.O. BOX 100 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95801 (916) 322-6556 December 22, 1983 In Reply Refer to: 512:JN Mr- Murray L. Warden City Manager P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 Dear Mr. Warden: PROJECT NO. C-06-2927; REQUEST FOR DEVIATION The City's request dated May 5, 1983, for deviation from 40 CFR 35.2116 of the construction grant program regulations , has been denied by the U. S. En- vironmental Protection Agency (see attached letter dated November 29, 1983) . Pursuant to this denial , new collection system work proposed by Project No. C-06-2927 is ineligible for Clean Water Grant funding. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Jim Nicholas at (916) 322-6556. Sincerely. 01910.11,TAL SIGNED BY JAi'IES COnidELIUS =s FRINOOIFAL ENGINEEgi James Cornelius, Chief j Facilities Planning and Engineering Branch y `� Clean Water Grant Program Attachment cc: Mr. Ken Jones, Executive Officer Regional Water Quality Control Board 3 1102A Laurel Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 bcc: Eric Torguson f Gager Briggs - RWQCB(3) Howard Whitver JNICHOLAS/josella/12/19/83 ':\ SURNAME ,�1M, /Z��C/ '? / _ 12-1 `�- �� l4 ->> Til 1 • , �• `_ Ti I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY f WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 NIA' 2 9 rW OFFICE OF ADMINMTRATIOH MEMORANDUM TO: Frank M. Covington, Director Water Division (W-1 ) Re ion IX, )8)n Branco 7 '�.�'' FROM: Harvey �s pen% pr;�D' ctor t Grants �Ab"ministration vision (PM-216) SUBJECT: 3a = vta"t "' This memorandum responds to your July 22, 1983 , request for a deviation from the construction grant program regulations. ACTION I am not approving a deviation from 40 CFR 35. 2116(b)( ) of the construction grant program regulations for the City of tascadero, California's, proposed project C062927. This eviation would have waived the requirement that the collection system serve a resident population located in the area on or before October 18, 1972. BACKGROUND _ Section 211 (a) (2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 stipulates that "no grant shall be . - made for a sewage collection system under this title unless such grant . . . is for a new collection system in an existing community with sufficient existing or planned capacity adequate- ly to treat such collected sewage. . . . " This provision was designed to assure that the costs of collection systems for new communities developing after October 18, 1972, be included as part of development costs and not be supported with Federal funds. 40 CFR 35. 2116(b) implements this provision by requiring that the bulk (generally two-thirds) of the expected flow ( flow from existing plus future residential users) Will be from the resident population on October 18, 1972. " Since only 30 to l�� • y -2- n 40 percent of the flow from the project area would come from resident population in existence on October 18, 1972, the project falls far short of the section 35. 2116(b) requirement. We do not see any rationale that would support a deviation from EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 211 (a) (2) . Therefore, we are not approving this deviation request. The Regional .Office in San Francisco and the State of California both recommend that we not approve this deviation request. 0 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,Governor STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD ° AUL R.BONDERSON BUILDING - o 1 P STREET �� .BOX 100 -„ t . ; SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95801 (916) 322-6525 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD NOTICE OF WORKSHOP DATE AND TIME: THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 - 1:30 P.M. FIRST FLOOR HEARING ROOM 901 P STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 SUBJECT: PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR (FY) 1987 CLEAN WATER GRANT PRIORITY LIST KEY ISSUES, REVISION TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION DIGEST: The State Water Resources Control Board held a public hearing on Wednesday, July 2, 1986, for the purpose of receiving public input on seven key issues regarding development of the FY 1987 Clean Water Grant Priority List and on the placement of specific projects on the list. The public hearing announcement was mailed on May 14, 1986 and contained, among other items, a discussion of the key issues and the preliminary staff recommendations. The purpose of this notice is to inform all interested parties that the staff has revised its earlier recommendation regarding use of the 20 percent set- aside for funding major sewer system rehabilitation, construction of new collection system, and combined sewer overflow projects. The following summarizes the new staff recommendation: Original Recommendation: That 20 percent of the FY 1987 allotment be set- aside for the purpose of funding major sewer system rehabilitation and new collection system projects only. Revised Recommendation: hat 20 percent of the FY 1987 allotment be set- si a or urpose of fundin new collection s stem construction onl o y � Y � A/L_cam ajor sewer reha i i ation an com fined sewer overflow correc ion projects �� sf wou no e n fj10 u e i n i s revise recommen a �i on re ec s a ,�z ,dui/G,/,� rmi e e na ion a e maximum funds possible should be made available for D projects required to meet the July 1 , 1988 deadline for secondary treatment. Major sewer rehabilitation projects, in general , are not necessary to meet the 1988 deadline. TO TESTIFY: You may submit written comments and/or give oral statements. ritten comments on this change are due by 5:00 p.m. , August 7, 1986 and should be directed to Mr. Eric Torguson, Chief, Management Support Section, Division of Clean Water Grants, P. 0. Box 100, Sacramento, California 95801. --0 V E R -- &CEI /ED RilL L 8 i9`0 blurb United States Farmers Rm. 213, Federal Building Department of Home 777 Sonoma Avenue Agriculture Administration Santa Rosa, CA July 24, 1986 Paul M. Sensibaugh Director of Public Works P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 Subject: Grant Eligibility for City of Atascadero Dear Mr. Sensibaugh: As we discussed on the telephone on 7/22/86, I reviewed our grant regulations regarding financing of projects in those areas of Atascadero that are under cease and desist orders. In order to qualify for a grant under Farmers Home Administration regulations the median house- hold income must be less thafl $12,669. My review of the 1980 census data for Atascadero shows that the median income is $18,528. As an alternative a special income census could be taken for the residents in the areas to be served. However, it would be for 1986 incomes and likely would be higher than the 1980 figures. The City would not qualify for a grant under our current regulations. I am also following up on our letter of 11/5/85 which dealt with plans to use the remaining $191,900 in funds from the Sanitation District Project. If we do not hear from the city within the next 30 days we will cancel the remaining obligation of funds. If you have further questions please call my office at 707-525-4263. I am also sending you a pamphlet describing our 504 loan and grant program. For further information you can contact our office in Arroyo Grande. Their phone number is 805-489-6151. Your trulr,17 i B. RICE District Director enclosure nr r nn I �UY D, Farmers Home Administration is an Equal Opportunity Lender. n Complaints of discrimination should be sent to: n Secretary of Agriculture,Washington,D.C.20250 � ADMINISTRATION BUILDING CITY ATTORNEY POST OFFICE BOX 747 POST OFFICE BOX 606 ATASCA RO. CALIFORNIA 93423 ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93423 PH 4E: (805( 466.8000 PHONE: (805( 466-4422 CITY COUNCIL �aseadeiC® ~• . CITY CLERK POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY TREASURER POST OFFICE BOX 747 CITY MANAGER INCORPORATED 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 549- 33S1 July 28, 1986 Assemblyman Seastrand 1012 Mill Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Assemblyman Seastrand: The City of Atascadero is faced with a Cease and Desist Order from the Regional Water Quality Control Board which requires the serving of specific areas with sanitary sewers. The project, accord- ing to the County Health Officer, is necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. The project is estimated at $2.1 million and will serve 359 households. The City does not have the funds to construct a project of this magnitude, since we are a post-proposition 13 community of 20, 000. An assessment district has been initiated by a Resolution of Intent and would implement the 1913 Improvement Act using 19 5 P 1 Act Bonds if formation is approved. g The assessments to b a levied could exceed $6000 if construction bids are not favorable. Additionally, each household would have to abandon their septic tanks, run their Private lateral and reconnect to their plumbing all at their own ex- pense, which is estimated at $3,000 each. Although the assessment bonds would be paid over a 15 to 20 year period, the burden is more than the citizens feel that they can bear and that there will not be an increase in equity of the homes to compensate for the loss if and when the home is resold. The City Council would like to pursue any and all possible avenues to grant assistance for either the City to construct the public portion of the project or for grants or other subsidies for the private portion of the project. Any help in finding such assistance through your office would be greatly appreciated. This is one of the single most important pro- jects that will happen in this city for some time to come and the Potential health problem is our top priority at this time. The time schedule set by the Regional Water Quality Control Board is extremely tight and we anticipated the award of bids in October of this year . •1 I might point out that the City has pursued Clean Water Grale, since 1981 and has come up dry. If you can help in any way, please contact either myself or Mayor Mackey at (805) -466-8000 or at 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, 93422. Thank you for your anticipated understanding and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH Director of Public Works/City Engineer MARJORIE QQ. MACKEY Mayor i 7 �- i. 2 n ❑ CAPITOL OFFICE: COMMITTEES: STATE CAPITOL AGRICULTURE SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 FINANCE AND INSURANCE (916)445-7795 a LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT OFFICE: REVENUE AND TAXATION 1012 MILL STREET VICE CHAIRMAN: SAN L(00819-8381 93401 &Idarnta JoElegistaturePU FINANCE AND BONDED LESLIE RAMSEY INDEBTEDNESS MEMBER: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ERIC SEASI RAN ERIC ASSEMBLY RURAL CAUCUS ASSEMBLYMAN,TWENTY-NINTH DISTRICT SUBCOMMITTEES: $TATS ASSEMBLY REPUBLICAN WHIP INTERSTATE BANKING UNEMPLOYMENT ANO DISABILITY INSURANCE W� FAIRS AND EXPOSITIONS JOINT COMMITTEE: FAIRS ALLOCATION AND August 15 , 1986 CLASSIFICATION Mrs. Valerie Humphrey Public Works Department City of Atascadero P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 Dear Mrs. Humphrey: Thank you for your telephone call earlier this week regarding the sewer situation in Atascadero. I have enclosed a copy of a letter I wrote last month to Mr. Ken Jones , Executive Director of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, concerning the matter. As of this writing I have not heard back from him, but as soon as I do I will be in touch with you. I appreciate the difficult position of the city and will do all I can to facilitate an amicable and acceptable solution to all concerned parties. X rely, SEASTRAND ES:rsd Enclosures CAPITOL OFFICE: - COMM n COMMITTEES: $T SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 AGRICULTUREFILT (916)445.7795 COPY Aaartubtu� FINANCE AND INSURANCE LABOR EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT OFFICE: REVENUE AND TAXATION 1012 MILL STREET VICE CHAIRMAN: SAN LUIS 0849.3 CA 93401 &1ifiarnitt T,.1'agistaturt PUBLIC INVESTMENTS. (805)549.3381 FINANCE AND BONDED LESLIE RAMSEY , INDEBTEDNESS MEMBER: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ERIC S EAST RA N D ASSEMBLY RURAL CAUCUS . STA T� ' ASSEMBLYMAN,TWENTY-NINTH DISTRICT SUBCOMMITTEES: ASSEMBLY REPUBLICAN WHIP INTERSTATE BANKING rx 1,y UNEMPLOYMENTAND M DISABILITY INSURANCE rJbO x�� i FAIRS AND EXPOSITIONS 1 JOINT COMMITTEE: • 1 1 �FAIRS ALLOCATION AND - CLASSIFICATION July 30, 1986 I Mr. Ken Jones Executive Director Regional Water Quality Control Board 1102-A Laurel Lane San Luis Obispo, CA .. 93401 Dear Mr. Jones : I have been contacted by a gentleman who represents a group of homeowners in Atascadero regarding the proposed sewage plan for a part of the bity presently on ,septic tanks. I am surg you are familiar with the area, and he Ihas presented a ;'j synopsis of events leading up to the present decision to require sewers to be installed here. His main objection is two-fold: he feels in most instances the septic tanks are adequate, and he feels his group of property owners are unfairly being asked to bear the expense of the installment of the "trunk lines" which other future users of the system will not pay for through their hookup fees. Ultimately, his first objection is based upon a concern for the methodology of the study and is the, only one of the two that directly involves you. I would greatly appreciate knowing what, if anything, could be done to postpone implementation of the sewer plan, at least until these property owners can find some better way to finance it. I understand that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gave $3.5 million to the city of Atascadero to build the treatment plant and that no further money is available to fund the lines to it. I also understand, according to the gentleman who contacted my office, that the original requirements for the EPA grant were subsequently dropped: that is, that the original grant of $3.5 million was conditioned on having 60% of the septic problem areas on the sewer lines by the opening of the plant. This was later changed to within three years of completion of the plant. Mr. Ken Jones July 30 , 1986 Page Two Then, the county health department and the Water Quality Control Board issued a cease and desist order to help the city of Atascadero obtain another grant ffom, the EPA for $4 million to fund the connections, which the city did not get. According to this gentleman, the city was not eligible for this connection grant because 60% of the area to be served was not built prior to 1972 . Then the EPA, because of the cease and desist order, removed the connection requirement on its original $3.5 million grant. The cease and desist order superceded it. Now there are no funds to assist these particular property owners, the cease and desist order runs out in November of this year, and. as a result the city is moving quickly to have properties connected to the sewer system. In light of the financial strain this will place upon certain homeowners, up to $10,000 or perhaps even more, it seems that something could be done either to postpone the requirement or find some way to assist with its financing. I would greatly appreciate the benefit of your thoughts on this issue. Please direct your response to me at my San Luis Obispo district office. Thank you again for your assistance in this regard. Sincerely, ERIC SEASTRAND , ES:rrl STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- CENTRAL COAST REGION 1102 A LAUREL LANE SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 PU a G 1986(805) 549-3147 August 19, 1986 T:'CLERK Assemblyman Eric Seastrand 1012 Mill Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Assemblyman Seastrand: SUBJECT: SEWERING ATASCADERO' S SEPTIC TANK PROBLEM AREAS This letter is in response to your July 30 , 1986 inquiry regarding proposed sewers in Atascadero. The best explanation is to present the history up to today ' s situation , and the alternatives presently available. The Atascadero County Sanitation District received a Clean Water Grant for facilities planning for a wastewater treatment and disposal facility. The District needed to project future flows to provide proper capacity. District consultants identified septic- tank problem areas that would need sewering in the near future and planned treatment plant improvements accordingly. The District received conceptual approval for grant funding for the project, provided 60% of the "Septic Tank Failing Areas" were connected to the sewer system. In addition, these areas were to be further defined by the County. The San Luis Obispo County Health Department subsequently performed a. septic tank survey to define the "failing areas" . Based on this survey,. the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted Cease and Desist on 81-61. This order required the City to prepare work plans for sewering four of the areas, and to sewer two others by a specific date. It is these last two areas which you refer to in your inquiry. Because the Regional Board adopted a schedule to sewer the documented problem areas, the grant condition to provide sewer service to those areas was believed to be redundant , and subsequently dropped. All parties should understand , however, grant money was given to provide treatment capacity, not sewer lines , for septic system problem areas within the City of Atascadero. Failure to provide sewer service to such areas could result in reEaZment demandy e can Water Grant Administrators. Since the City had documentation of failing 0 • Assemblyman Seastrand Page 2 August 19, 1986 septic systems, an attempt was made to secure grant funding for sewering the problem areas . Unfortunately, the City did not qualify for such funding because much of the problem area was developed after 1972, the date the grant program was established for "existing" problems. Because of delays caused by appealing Environmental Protection Agency' s regulations for sewer systems and changes in the City' s Administration, the City is now facing the final compliance date for sewering the two most severe problem areas. In comment to your Constituent ' s objection, "he feels in most instances the septic tanks are adequate" , he seems to ignore the area-wide problem. A system may appear to work by disposing of effluent, but if it surfaces down hill in someone else ' s backyard, a failure has occurred . The only solution is to eliminate all systems contributing to the problem. Sewering only the homes "at the bottom of the hill" will not solve the problem. You've asked what can be done to allow more time before the sewer • must be' installed. There are two possibilities: 1. The Cease and Desist order areas and schedules can be changed by this Board if evidence is presented to warrant such a change. Unless conditions have changed dramatically at the site, however, such a change seems unwarranted . Given the length of time since the Cease and Desist order schedule has been adopted , and the fact no other alternatives seem to be available, extending the schedule for these reasons seems inappropriate. 2. The City presently cannot meet the November 1 , 1986 , construction deadline for the sewers , but it is pursuing completion in a conscientious manner. The City has requested Regional Board concurrence with the completion being delayed to June 1 , 1987 , as this is the earliest date currently feasible given the required lead time and realities of winter construction. Based on the City ' s good faith effort, this Board ' s staff is willing to support an extension ug completion of the sewer by September , 1987 . A time extension can only be grantees y Regional Board members, however. This staff is also willing to accept two years from the s ar Ing o e sop is an sys ems in rne pro em areas. TFiese ime rames s ou p nancing considerations. r� i Assemblyman Seastrand Page 3 August 19, 1986 This Board and its staff truly understands the dilemma faced by the landowners paying for the sewer system. We wish there was a way to reduce costs . A11 parties must understand , however, protection of Public Health is of prime importance. John Goni of my staff has worked with the City of Atascadero staff on this matter and is available to provide additional information if it is needed. Very ly y s, KENNETH R. JONES Executive Officer JG:kd cc: City of Atascadero HOME IMPROVEMENT 7,Soo Very low-income families can receive up to$5,00&LOANS in a loan, a combination loan and grant,or a full grant AND to remove health hazards. Loans up to$1,500 must be REPAIR LOANS repaid within 10 years, loans between $1,500 and AND GRANTS $2,500 within 15 years, and loans over$2,500 within 20 years. The interest rate is 1 percent. A rural homeowner whose house needs fixing up To receive a combination loan and grant, an may be eligible for a loan and/or grant from Farmers applicant must be 62 years or olderand able to pay for Home Administration (FmHA). only a part of the repairs. The agency makes home improvement loans to To receive a full grant,the homeowner must be 62 families who may not need or cannot afford a new years or older,and unable to pay for any repairs on the house, but need some work done on their present house. house to bring it up to minimum property standards. It Families with somewhat higher incomes can borrow also makes loans as well as grants to homeowners to up to $7,000 to improve their homes, but must bring remove health or safety hazards from their dwellings. the houses up to minimum property standards. Loans Grants are made only to low-income elderly are for up to 25 years. Interest rates are based on each homeowners, 62 years or older. family's adjusted income. The interest rate will be 1 A borrower's income is the key to the type of percent if the adjusted family income is less than assistance for which he is eligible. $3,000. If the income is more than $3,000 but less If income is so low as to permit only removal of than $5,000, the interest rate will be 2 percent. If health and safety hazards, a repair loan and/or grant income is between$5,000 and$7,000,interest will be may be available. 3 percent. For families with somewhat higher income, a home Other home improvement loans are repayable in 33 improvement loan may be possible to bring the house years. These loans are made at the regular interest up to FmHA minimum property standards. rate,or with "interest credits,"depending upon family size and income. HOW CAN FUNDS BE USED? The ways in which repair loans and/or grants and HOW IS ADJUSTED INCOME FIGURED? home improvement loans can be used are very similar, The county supervisor will help figure it out. and FmHA county supervisors will help each borrower Adjusted income is arrived at by adding up the total determine the type of assistance that best fits his income of all adult members of the family who live at needs and for which he is eligible. home. Substract a standard deduction of 5 percent, Generally, repair loans and grants may be used to plus $300 for each minor child. The result is about remove health hazards by repairing roofs, providing a what the family's adjusted income will be. There are sanitary water and waste disposal system that meets other factors that do not affect all families,so be sure local health department requirements, installing the county supervisor helps with the final arithmetic. screens,windows,orinsulation,or taking other steps to make the home safe. Home improvement loans may include similar WHO CAN BORROW? purposes, but may go further by bringing the home up to minimum property standards,and making changes If you own and live in a home on a farm, in the open for the convience of the family,such asadding a room, country, or in towns of up to 10,000 population, you remodeling the kitchen,or otherwise modernizing the may qualify for a loan and/or grant if you cannot house. secure credit from regular commercial lenders. The homeowner must be 62 years or older to qualify for a WHAT ARE THE TERMS? grant or a combination loan and grant.This assistance is also available in some towns of 10,000 to 20,000 FmHA county supervisors will help families population. Your town may be in this category. To be determine the type of assistance that is best suited to sure, ask the FmHA county supervisor whether this their needs and their income. assistance is available in your town. WHAT SECURITY IS REQUIRED? HOME IMPROVEMENT A real estate mortgage is required for loans of more LOANS than $2,500, and in some instances may be required AND for smaller loans. If the loan is under $2,500, but income is small so that repaying the loan will be REPAIR LOANS difficult, someone may co-sign the loan note with the borrower. AND GRANTS Homeowners who receive a grant or a combination loan and grant must agree not to sell the house on which grant funds are used for up to 3 years. \5s WHERE DO YOU APPLY? Go to the local county office of the Farmers Home Administration.The office address can be found in the telephone directory under "U.S. Govern- ment—Agriculture." Or write directly to the Farmers I ^� Home Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250. I ARE THERE OTHER CONDITIONS? Applications from eligible veterans are given 1 preference. Veterans and nonveterans must meet the same requirements. Each person who applies will receive equal consideration regardless of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, or national origin. I WHAT OTHER CREDIT IS AVAILABLE? Farmers Home Administration can make loans to build homes, buy existing ones, or to build rental apartments for low-income or elderly people. FmHA also can loan money to buy or operate family farms, build water and waste disposal systems, or establish community facilities such as fire stations, clinics, or community centers. It can guarantee housing loans for moderate-income families as well as loans to help establish job-producing businesses or industries. ;—,PAM This publication supersedes "Home Improvement and Repair Loans," Program Aid No.1128,issued October 1975 FARMERS HOME A Rural Credit Agency of the ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT May 1977 Program Aid No. 1184 OF AGRICULTURE EEi' 3 AG7_yDA J RN ATE 8/25/86 tis:nA B - 2 M E M O R A N D U M TO: The Honorable Mayor Marjory Mackey and Members of the City Council FROM: Robert e t M. Jones City Attorney SUBJECT: Proposed Growth Control Ordinance DATE: August 14 , 1986 At your request and by consensus of the City Council at the August 11 , 1986 Council Meeting, I am addressing the issues that you requested of me. Interim Ordinances/Moratoriums Without following the procedures otherwise required preliminary to the adoption of a Zoning Ordinance, the City Council may as authorized by §65858 of the Government Code, adopt urgency measures to preserve • and maintain the status quo by prohibiting land uses that may be in- consistent with a' contemplated zoning proposal. In other words , if the City Council determines that approval of permits for the construc- tion of additional high density multi-family- units would cause a "current intermediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare, they shall have the right to establish an interim ordinance as an urgency measure to prohibit such uses.'. The purpose of the urgency ordinance is to prohibit any uses which appear to be in conflict with the contemplated general 'plan, specific plan or zoning proposal. Such an urgency measure requires a four-fifths vote of the legislative body for adoption and no notice or hearing is required for the first adoption. Such interim urgency ordinances have time limitations and their force and effect and they shall be of no further force and effect forty five days from the date of adoption; provided, however, that after after Notice of Hearing, the City Council may extend such interim ordinance. for ten months and fifteen days subsequently extend such interim ordinance for one year. Extensions also require a four-fifths vote for adoption. Not more than two extensions may be adopted. Alternatively, an interim ordinance may be adopted initially by a four- fifths vote following Notice and Hearing, in which case it shall be of no further force and effect forty five days from the date of adoption; provided, however, , that after Notice and Hearing, the City Council may by four-fifths vote extend such alternate interim ordinances for 22 months and 15 days . • This Statute mandates that findings must be contained in the ordinance that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare. Ten days prior to the expiration of the ordinance , Memorandum Proposed Growth Control Ordinance Page Two • the City Council shall issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the ordinance. Thus the ordinance contemplates the adoption of mitigating measures in the form of general plan, specific plan or zone changes . When a City Council 'is not able to .obtain a four-fifths majority, there is no way. that a moratorium or interim ordinance can be adopted. Instead, the City Council has the right to adopt by majority decision, ordinances which control growth, but which do -not take immediate effect. These ordinances contemplate a change in the zoning code and or general plan which could effect density. The normal processes of a zone change would be followed including the requirement of Notice to Public Hearings , first and second readings , findings of fact regarding public health, safety and welfare justifying the reduction of- regional housing opportuni- ties . '(Government Code §65863:6) , you should be aware that evidence Code §669.5 establishes a rebuttable presumption that ordinances enacted by the governing body of the City which limit residential building permits or lots have an impact on the region. In any challenge to such ordinances, the City bears the burden of proof that such ordinances are. . necessary for protection of the health, safety or welfare of the popula- tion of the City. Indeed, even growth control initiatives or referendums are subject to the Evidence Code presumption. The types of growth controls which have historically been adopted, include tying sequential development to adopted capitol improvement • programs , (Golden vs . Planning Board Ramer 285 N. E. 2nd 291 , a freeze on zoning approvals- -where schools are overcrowded) . ' Builders Association of Santa Clara/Santa Cruz Counties vs . Superior Court 13 C. Tr=5 , moratoriums on residentialcconstruction pending tfie construction of adequate public facilities including schools , sewers and, water systems {Associated Home Builders etc. Inc. vs .- City of Livermore 18 C. 3rd 582 , limitations on number ol—r—esi-aeR-t-i-al developments per year) . City of Petaluma 522 F. 2nd 897 Allocation for building permits (Pardee Construction Company vs . Cit of Camarillo 37 C.Ard 465) , Pacifica Corp. vs . City_o Camari _o �+� C. A. r—Ic-168. Some of the areas of concern that were addressed by the City Council in support of their desire for a Moratorium were: 1 . Increased Police and Fire response time as a result of growth; 2. Street congestion; 3 . Impact on public services such as sewer and water; 4 . Impact on schools . As part of the general plan review process , these items should be closely scrutinized for the impact of growth on them. Obviously any change in the zoning ordinance that would effect multi-family housing must comply with the general plan and the Council should be careful that any ordinances adopted which restrict the construction of -multi- family housing do not violate the general plan' s language as to dens, overall population at build out, or a ratio of' single family residen to a multi-family population. It would be wise to include an amendment l ' Memorandum Proposed Growth Control Ordinance Page Three to the general plan in this area ifCa zoning ordinance limiting growth in the multi-family area is contemplated. Adoption of a growth control ordinance may have a retroactive effect if the proper findings are made. For example, ff after Notice to Public Hearing, the City' Council determines that the corristruction of projects that. had been approved but have not made substantial progress towards completion, would pose a threat to the public health, safety and welfare due to the burdens on existing public facilities , the City Council may revoke their permits . Obviously it is a question of fact as to what is substantial progress and the City Council' s action could face signifi- cant legal challenges. Ordinances cannot be used to stop the operation of uses already in existence and I would advise against attempting a so called "retroactive" effect so as to avoid significant legal challenge: In conclusion, the City Council may by four-fifths vote place a Moratoriui by interim ordinance on the construction of multi-family housing if pursuant to a. proposed zone, specific plan or general plan change. The City Council may also by simple majority, adopt growth control measures so long as the appropriate findings are made and the proper procedures for Notice to Hearings and compliance with applicable zoning laws , specific plans and general plans are followed. ROBERT M. JONE�S�� • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council tk_4 August 25, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Multi-Family Housing Analysis BACKGROUND: At the Council' s August 11th meeting, staff was directed to report on the status of multi-family development within the City at your next meeting. As part of the Council authorization for the General Plan intern work program, priority was given to evaluating the present holding capacity of multi-family zoning, and this report is attached hereto. In evaluating the Council discussion and consideration for a moratori- um at the August 11th meeting, it became obvious that Council concerns are not solely limited to the numbers of units being developed, but also the quality and character of some projects. CURRENT HOUSING COMPOSITION: The following figures have been summarized from the State of Calif- ornia' s Department of Finance Report for January 1, 1986 and allow comparison of the housing mix within the City of Atascadero with other cities within the county. At the present time, the City has the low- est percentage of its housing mix in multi-family and/or mobile home development, i.e. , 27.2% . The City with the highest concentration is San Luis Obispo with 50. 6%. As may be noted, the overall County aver- age is 34. 9%. • Multi-Family Housing'Rnalysis . HOUSING UNIT COMPOSITION - JANUARY 1, 1986 San Luis Obispo County Cities Single Multi Percent City Family Family* Total Multi-Fam. Arroyo Grande 3,932 1, 478 5,410 27.3% ATASCADERO 5,307 1,986 7,293 27. 2% Paso Robles 3,899 1,700 5,599 30. 4% Grover City 2,849 1, 576 4,425 35.6% Morro Bay 3,630 1,872 5,502 34. 0% Pismo Beach 2,172 1,716 3,888 44. 1% San Luis Obispo 8,021 8,232 16,253 50 .6% Incorporated 29,810 18,560 48 ,370 38.3% Unincorporated 21,234 8,758 29,992 29. 2% County 51,044 27,318 78 ,362 34.9% Source: Department of Finance, State of California *Includes duplexes and larger units plus mobile homes. With respect to trends since incorporation, the following figures illustrate the fact that multi-family units have been increasing as a percentage of annual housing starts. HOUSING COMPOSITION TRENDS: 1980 - 1985 City of Atascadero Permits Issued* Single Multi Percent Year Family Family Total Multi-Family 1980 82 34 116 29% 1981 123 36 159 23% 1982 102 41 143 29% 1983 157 107 264 41% 1984 187 168 355 47% 1985 173 328 501 66% Total 824 714 1, 538 46% *Note: Not all issued permits were constructed. Source: Building Division 2 Multi-Family HousinfDAnalysis GENERAL PLAN: POPULATION CAPACITY: The 1980 General Plan of Atascadero, as amended, states as follows with respect to population: Page 57 - "The optimum population of 33 ,388 people was established by the Atascadero Advisory Committee for the urban reserve area. " Page 61 - "The ideal development pattern which shall be promoted is similar to that conceived by E.G. Lewis, i.e. , a population of 20, 000 to 30,000 people living in some 7,000 homes scattered over about 23, 000 acres of the Colony. Residential densities are pro- posed which create a developmental potential that will reach an an ultimate population of about 34 ,000 . " The Plan goes on to contain the following residential policy goals with respect to high density residential land use: Item #3 - "The residential densities proposed in this plan auto- matically insure considerable open space. " Item #4 - "High density residential land uses shall serve as a buffer between commercial and single family residential areas where appropriate. " Item 45 - "Residential density shall decrease as one moves outward from the core, in order to maintain the rural atmosphere of the community. This can be accomplished by a graded increase in lot size and a graded decrease in the permitted density of population. " Item #6 - "Multi-family residential use areas shall have a minimum building site of one-half acre. Smaller lot sizes may be allowed in conjunction with planned residential developments, including planned mobile home developments, and subdivisions, provided that the overall density within the project is consistent with other density standards contained herein. " Item #7 - Multi-residential density areas shall be considered in light of such specific factors as topography, traffic circulation, drainage, fire protection and general level of use intensity at that location. " Item #16 - "New condominium projects, planned mobile home develop- ments and stock cooperatives shall be reviewed on an individual basis as community housing needs, neighborhood character, and site improvements will dictate. " Water Supply Section - "Projected water use at total population of 34,150 people will approximate 8200 acre feet per year . " Educational Facilities Section - "The maximum residential build out for Atascadero was projected at 34 ,150 people, based on the number of units allowed per zoning category and household size. " (Housing Element, 1985) 3 Multi-Family Housinaalysis • • According to the 1980 U.S. Census, there were 6,333 housing units in the City in 1980 of which 1, 391 were multi-family or mobile homes (22% of the total) . As noted earlier , the Department of Finance esti- mates that 27% of the City' s housing stock is now in multi-family and mobile homes. According to data contained in the August, 1984 Sphere of Influence Study, prepared by the Local Agency Formation Commission for the City of Atascadero, the following is the maximum residential build-out by type of housing: Type of Unit Number Percent Single-family 5,962 48% Multi-family 6,549 52% Total 12,511 100% The resultant population holding capacity assumed 2.74 persons per. unit X 12,511 or 34, 280 persons. Hence, the theoretical holding capacity of the City under the 1980 General Plan calls for 52% of the housing units to be some form of multi-family development which is slightly more than the percentage today in the City of San Luis Obispo. MULTI-FAMILY ZONING STUDY: One of the purposes of the multi-family study is to develop an up-to- date analysis of the holding capacity of the City' s present zoning regulations. Zoning regulations are required by state law to be con- sistent with, and implement, the City' s General Plan. Attached here- with are staff reports outlining the findings of the multi-family housing density study, its methodology, existing development, poten- tial development, and probable development. Also included are maps reflecting the usage of land within the 522 acres zoned for multi-fam- ily housing within the City. This acreage represents 0.8 of a square mile of the City' s total area of +26 square miles. The theoretical holding capacity of this amount of multi-family zoning is 7 ,374 units. However, evaluation of the probable holding capacity of this zoning is significantly less: Existing units 1,790 Permitted/under construction 761 Subtotal 2,551 Existing single family in RMF zones 430 Potential on vacant land 1, 099 Additions to developed lots 451 Probable maximum number of units 4, 531 The foregoing probable maximum level of development of 4 ,531 multi- family units assumes that major existing non-multi-family uses will remain, including: churches, medical care facilities, schools, of- fices, motels etc. (see attached report) . 4 Multi-Family Housin$knal sis 0 Y The theoretical/holding capacity figure of 7,374 multi-family units under zoning exceeds the constraints contained in the General Plan. However , the capacity impacts of the probable development scenario would be to reduce the number of housing units in the City to about 10, 500 and the population down to 28,750 , as follows: REVISED POPULATION CAPACITY Housing Unit Type Number Percent Comments Single Family 5,962 57% Assumed LAFCO correct Multi-Family 4,531 43% See above Total housing units: 10,493 100% X2.74 LAFCO figure Total population 28,750 The above figures assume no change in the single family capacity from the figures in the LAFCO study. This will, however , be subject to updating as part of the General Plan inventory program. MULTI-FAMILY STANDARDS - POTENTIAL CHANGES: The majority of the Council at the August 11th meeting favored a mora- torium on new multi-family construction to provide time to address some of the concerns expressed by Council on multi-family development. The purpose of this section is to offer alternatives that can be con- sidered in changing the City' s development standards with respect to multi-family areas. All of the following are standards which may be changed by simply initiating changes to the Zoning Ordinance. These changes would first have to be heard by the Planning Commission who would evaluate detailed staff reports and consider public testimony before making recommendations to the Council for zoning text amendments. 1) Density Standards - Most of the multi-family zoned land is al- lowed to develop at a flat 16 units or 10 units per acre regard- less of bedroom type. The ordinance could be amended to provide for a sliding scale based on number of bedrooms within the project to where 16 units to the acre would only be allowed, for example, for one bedroom units. Two bedroom units might be permitted at 12 units to the acre. Three bedroom units at 8 units per acre, etc. Revision to the standard could bring the theoretical population holding capacity under present zoning in harmony with the popula- tion ceiling spelled out in the General Plan. It would also have the practical effect of reducing the percentage of the population that ultimately could be accommodated within the multi-family zones. 5 Multi-Family Housing Analysis 2) Slope Standards - This concept has already been endorsed in general to provide a sliding scale whereby the steeper the slope on property, the fewer the number of units allowed. 3) Architectural Review - The ad-hoc committee evaluating architec- tural standards is almost finished with its draft manual for pre- sentation to the City Council in the near future. They will be requesting that the Council approve guidelines for the appearance of projects and requesting amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to require findings of conformity to those guidelines for most non- single family projects in the City. This, then, will be the sub- ject for a future Council meeting. 4) Development Standards - The following standards bear on site planning on any given project: a) Minimum lot size - Currently a one-half acre minimum lot size is required in multi-family districts unless planned development rezoning is initiated. The ordinance could be amended to allow for 10 ,000 square foot single family devel- opment within any RMF zone. (This revision would require a General Plan text change. ) b) Percent coverage - There are no maximum percentage coverage limits in the multi-family zones standards. Establishing a maximum percentage of the lot that could be covered by build- ings could serve to reduce massing of projects. c) Storage - A standard could be established to require a mini- mum of, say, 100 square feet for indoor storage per unit. This would serve to discourage use of covered garages for storage which leads to off-site parking problems. It also would lessen the pressure for development of mini-storage facilities which have the negative effect of pre-empting lands that could be used for more beneficial commercial and industrial development. d) Recreation areas - There could be an amendment to require minimum land areas for outdoor recreation use for larger scale projects. e) Tandem parking - Tandem parking could be prohibited which would have the effect of reducing density and site congestion. f) Screening walls - The Planning Commission has already initi- ated for consideration a zoning amendment to require obscur- ing walls where high density uses such as multi-family hous- ing abuts single family zoning. g) Covered parking - The Zoning Ordinance could be amended to require at least one (if not both) parking spaces to be en- closed or covered. 6 Multi-Family HousinjoAnalysis 0 h) Sewer service - The high density RMF/16 area located on E1 Camino Real north of Del Rio is outside the Urban Services Line and outside the Sewer District. This zoning was prema- ture in that it can not properly be developed at the density allowed by that zoning. This could be resolved by either changing the General Plan and down-zoning the property, or by amending zoning text language to make sewer service mandatory before full development can occur. i) Precise Plan Findings - Require the same findings for precise plans as are required for conditional use permits. RECOMMENDATION: Following discussion of the foregoing, it is recommended that the City Council consider initiating amendments to the zoning ordinance with a view to both enhancing the quality of future development and reducing the volume that such development could reach. STAFF COMMENT: In terms of procedure, Council-initiated multi-family zoning text amendments could take the form of either (1) direction to staff to set public hearings before the Planning Commission, with recommendations to come back to the Council for decision, or (2) the Council may wish to review in greater detail text changes that would be proposed for consideration by the Planning Commission before scheduling public hearings. HE:ps Enclosures: Multi-family Housing Density Study Memo Multiple Family Density Study Maps cc: Planning Commission 7 • • MEMORANDUM 0 DATE: August 19, 1986 TO: Henry Engen, Community Development Director FROM: Catherine L. Clucas, Planning Intern RE: Multiple Family Housing Density Study BACKGROUND: This study was requested by the City Council out of concern for the future population density of Atascadero. Its purpose is to determine the pofulation holding capacity of current multi-family zones to provide the basis for evaluation of consistency with the General Plan. I The study areas were all current Residential Multiple Family zoned parcels within the Atascadero city boundaries. 1) North El Camino Real between Carrizo and Traffic Way. 2) South El Camino Real near the State Hospital • 3) East Atascadero between Traffic Way, El Camino Real and the Atascadero Administration Building. 4) Infill areas throughout Atascadero. ANALYSIS : The study generated the following information: Total RMF zoned acres in Atascadero; RMF 4 , 10 and 16 : 522 .67 acres Total units possible if 100% built out: 7374 Total population possible in RMF if 100% built out @ 2 . 25 people per acre: 16,592 Current P24F Housing Situation: See attached sheet Other uses in RMF zones : Several churches Lodge Residential care facilities Pacific Bell Office Head Start Motel Danish Convalescent Hospital Escuela del Rio Dental offices Several small businesses City of Atascadero Staff Report Page 2 Currently Occupied Multiple Family Housing Breakdown: Smaller Units Buildings Units Single Apts. 9 9 Duplexes 87 174 Triplexes 40 120 Fourplexes 34 136 Five Units 9 45 Six Units 9 54 Larger Units Seven Units 2 14 Eight 11 8 64 Nine it 2 18 Ten 3 30 Eleven 3 33 Twelve 3 36 Thirteen" 2 26 Sixteen „ 2 32 Very Large Complexes 1 Each - 17 Unit Building 32 Unit Building 18 it4 0 " 20 It44 22 It45 " 24 " if 54 " If 29 " „ 65 If 11 30 If It Mobile Homes - Park Size 25 Homes 70 Homes 25 if 77 If 62 if 128 If 66 it Breakdown of units under construction: Smaller units Duplexes 8 Bldgs. = 16 units Fourplexes 4 if16 units Seven units 1 if7 units Eleven units 1 If 11 units City of Atascadero Staff Report Page 3 Larger Units 1 Each - 18 Unit Project 100 Unit Project 32 it 11 400 " 36 it if 95 if Single Family Residences with other units built on the property: 8 with Duplexes 3 with Triplexes 4 with Fourplexes 1 with Five units 7 with only One additional unit Several lots have two single family homes. Study Method: All RMF acreage calculations were done by taking measurements from up-to-date Assessors Parcel Maps and finding square footage which was converted into acres. This was done for all RMF 4 , 10 and 16 zones. All information regarding existing units was gathered by field surveys on foot and by car. Units currently permitted or under construction were determined by reviewing all building permits issued since January 1985 and comparing the findings to the field survey to determine which units were completed and which were under construction. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. • i ro r-{ �D r--1 S"+ F N a U. -i r-I •r-I ro r-I O M 44 Ur•-I ::Im II r(5 I'DO ro rn r. Q) 4J Ln U II RS m .N m ro r-I En ::I rl O m If -A r-1 O r r-1 N Q) ; \ m f.4 -H H r r-I � O 3 a) N x U fL O N O U N s~ rd (d : d' N N •,A m �:5 O fz� El w a ri -P 4J -P 4J N la-r rO Q) f". O r--I � w rl ro rt z° a 4 � � r 4 a) rtS U S~ m m O m Ln H +l ro Ln r4-) d S~ A O !~ O rl 4-3 bl O Ei rtS 4-) + Q) II U f~ r-i s~ m r-I r-I r-1 rl •H -I•l In CN Vi a) (D N [ 0 H x Ei 'n 4-3 I~ w N 3 a) x Q) Q) U) S: O Q) Q) r-1 �+ O N N �r a) -1 O U) II ro Q) O E --V0 ri ro + U a z 4-) O u O z � � 1° W N m a U D O S~ -P r-1 x CN In �lr� C7 Q) N H to to -P r 4 CO 4-3 C) H �4 m (o O + O N U rd m a) Q) 4-I m O P 4J r-I v 0f24 �4 O r- m rl 0r. Rr II x rU-I U � II rl •I-) Lr m N >4 Qa �J rt-4 m ri m r-I N a O �4 (n I I 4-J 4) •r-I 4-J O r-♦ l l a) +- a) m I~ :� �:: r4 m + a m o +� o x° Q) 0 u 4 -4 `n Ga �4 m N it U •l, Q) ro O Ln Q) - a) +J o — A > a) a Q) N � H 44 U H r "' -P r O 121 rl N O D r-1 �4 Q) rid r-1 m r� H f2 I 00 a) �4 O Q) >~ + � H Ow s~ � � w a m x O �5 .� p m a z a) U w 4-4 4J Ln ao O H + U) Q) O N P-1 N N CN r- r-I O -Pa 0 �4 •H N U) rl O N M SQ m + a) S~ \ Ul -i N O Q) co � t�o ro w Q) 0� w ro m s� Q) x rl S~ m Ln rU-I 4-3U EU-1 :E: I rA UQ) M N I- Q) M r I s:i -P U N m Q) r Q) -P •ro O (d H I z U) •( �4 a, :Q x O a �D 4J + O •N cCO N 3 U z o a r-4 +' ro Q) la4 rl Ln FC O M I ro O (` r 4 + � �" O z + rl r-1 rd 3 O -P O d rti f� b) 4-3 IJ U rl " z ro O r-I m +l m U) -1 Q) rt a m Ei P H 'n '� N O rCt I~ O Ln O N H �4 N U Q) :11 N a Q) l� -IJ 1c: ,l d' o tD 4-I U �4 r-1 34 r- .I-1 m Ei U 44 r� r-I H O ?I w G r ?4 r I S k U a U � k 0 \r 1 00 U r--I 0o U ,1� III MULTIPLE FAMILY DENSITY STUDY Community Development Department City of Atascadero California LEGEND Residential Multiple Family Housing - ❑ Single Family Residential Housing - O Mobile Homes - Q Health Care Facility - Q Residential Multiple Family Zone Boundary Vacant Land - Left blank Other Uses in RMF Zone - Indicated in writing Under Construction - Date : August 12 , 1986 Prepared By: Catherine L. Clucas . Planning Intern k-+ H EAD START CRUZ1000 � � O © Rw Ilo O O i O � O O 00 �Z O O O � O 20 VIII I �� i�Wiiiui �i► z millI�' _ ! S 4� cF sy m Q � Z a� oQ -0 3 tc,2 2 n� O 2 O� 00 Cn �r O NT Y C(U ticc SE c/L-/-ry ` mra _ 4 ur f 4 �Q VQ 1 P SE 10 a y�P oQ�kPA S � v � Cho so P\' i ,��il��llllliI FAAFA i �� i �; , ��u �� IIV' ��JIII°m� . S �q �I//�� sur v P . RNtF •�- tPa °� P II O � J JI O, �._......... , rn Q` LPRINCIP / ROS A AVE 44s� osq Ro � NT M NLo Q VIS TA�e O Rlh� Ilo 0^ Z O D5 i m � 22 OAD m �O-111, 19 � ?IBURON -n- DAS S 15 SE1J10(l�� I I � t'it��►.iC: �� lIO � MAPLEEll o MUbbrzLMAN -o 77 O ?-i a% � I ROAD ai D Z m D it II 03m zs' C:rn . I � D II II i II O O il . 40 4- Ly ISTI KI utioEQ pEW o�! t�-rrE'D Lc,�ISTR�Tl RMF:' !v I I a� O s µ115E O DAtiI'��f-1 0 0 Tz vh cn�v� G 5 9_� 9-0 WJ DE IL m r n t D , Z O f�l � L m 0 QO . Q� M E M O R A N D U M TO: Michael Shelton, City Manager August 25, 1986 FROM: Mike Hicks, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Response Time Analysis In recent weeks, Council has expressed an interest in establishing a building moratorium on multi-family units within the City. During Council discussions, one of the areas of concern has been that of fire and emergency medical response times and what effect multi-family units may be having on response times. The following is my opinion of that effect. I suspect that multi- familyunits do have some effect on response times• however , I don' P , t feel we have the necessary data readily available to be specific on that effect other than increased traffic congestion which certainly plays a major role, and the fact there is an increased demand for service. It would be important to point out when studying average response times, the greatest effect would be that of responding to the more rural areas within the City. Most multi-family units are located more towards the urban area. I have enclosed two tables for your information. Table A illustrates fire calls and Table B illustrates emergency medical calls. Each demand zone represents a zone which accounts for 10% or more of the total calls for service which occur each year . TABLE A - Fire Calls: Demand Zone 1982 1985 203 2. 3 min. 3. 0 min. 30% increase 204 1.9 min. 2. 0 min. 5% increase 304 2. 2 min. 2. 8 min. 27% increase 305 3.1 min. 3. 4 min. 10% increase TABLE B - Emergency Medical Calls: Demand Zone 1983 1985 203 2. 6 mina 2. 5 min. 4% decrease 204 1. 8 min. 2. 2 min. 22% increase 304 2. 3 min. 2. 6 min. 13% increase 305 3. 5 min. 3. 8 min. 9% increase Response Time Analysis • SUMMARY: During this fiscal year we anticipate the opening of Station #2 which will have a direct effect on response times within demand zones 304 and 305, and should allow those responses to remain the same or show a decrease. Yes, multi-family units do have an overall effect on response times, but to what effect I am not sure. However, when averaging times, the greatest effect would be responses to the rural areas. MH:ps Attachment: Map reflecting demand zones 2 p CO a 0 � - my \\ Pd Way do SPPerdtlp l;; Sycamore \ - - �Arizona �ramon State F1.q v 4ja b Estrada m e6es `•°..elC�Sit'.`7.tLL'a:C.e�.'T-_.. '.P.L1 -^'.A�'� �ra9p^ _ tl`erc Cemetery Rd•• V^ Cemetery a%s Gadoa Aurora I �\ 9a s Aye Colter Ce J \ua ca W F I \ F/ ac\ _ s nq m P Casr \ anO b °I o gar endo w Penal o I., a°o v i F anora 7tl lesa Pao 1O9al P Bajada Z CouClub mar 7ranoui y n J ' posll •�,a. y$ To'r Valle ala\\e�rO \� .. a e r obos Olmed � Lc Lobos o Fresno 9 Cayu°os Sombrilla s o G' vta+s P. ^ 3 Ave,j Sa o a o _ y Olrsetld A J+'s = n/a Ysabel v h V Qat 1 Imino Real > ermOs.//a Palm m m� Qi Santa H Palma ° 0 1'sdbel ! El forte w w\ .:.,, .. U.S.101 o Q x - San Paolo ��' °' arehant S c EI Dor l e ado Alcaldara °is Ove F/C EI Cenlrp \/ ` / r Rancho Del'Gordo S lC 2 4 i °nstdncia ea/ \an a o 0 Venatlo MaricOaPq� a u, Sante 9a da ¢`c W Corms Aguila ej r A n o,nar _ a.�a a x Chau Cora San Andres CC? a Q Navarette v Alascadero Ave x c`a k'esr Pr Cuhta 5 C; ¢�- c l� Sada a yx� ,sx 06 p\ 0/ 7 a Lit' � Y v ,pty asca6e/ °s P D Ttl e /a/a 1111a, 4 l u<`a Los Oalos ya eega -s ..Lag° '1 roadPro LPw`� ra �Pw f•Pd'tP 1Co/prod Pism° a ad. San+a Rosa San Va ' Gd6rier c'c San 3 S a • \as O, ar < a P o P/ _;� � .a. ,� -.�.��x u _ `.° - .. ?':�sa��-res:.-e.,..,.- _ ` ° , 9d 0.6 Fasr � 7 y`a Anpraa ,,�� j aca Id" s 9 Sao - Barra Casandva ii Cps Dsos , nc,.hPi9hrs earrdnro ' y 1 i Toluca Rd. Index to ! -- Aqua<ita a a County No 96 A-f,S AGama f Cristoball C a.i _ Alamo e] CuevaU Ce AI<amara C� Curbar,l A.B.GS.C.D-a aiiemanae C 3. � Curvado Circle B-] Alor1raDel Rio Rd C.O I,B,C 1.B-] altos C/ Descanso C a f' Alla Visa 13 Devon Ct Ca All—s Dolores B-] San Marcos s�� m— f�C+'7'D 7 Dul:ura B] N.t1� A"argon .D Durango C 7 ap,\ Andrita E Easi Front Rd. C S Aragon B S EasI Mall M°`r •11� case C S E I Bora,. C a Cly El Camino Real C).+.s.a.D a.la C.mrn C 5 FLCnr�e C S I Oi �� nng V i D�.s<.�w C+♦1 d Mnrro Na ;� \ l� A Co°YlNf11.E M E iK O R A N D U M TO: CITY MANAGER MICHAEL SHELTON FROM: CHIEF OF POLICE SUBJECT: RESPONSE TIME ANALYSIS - POLICE SERVICES DATE: AUGUST 14 , 1986 Following a proposal (Council Meeting of 8-11-86) which called for a moratorium on the construction of additional multiple family units in our city, the question was asked of staff whether and to what degree police response times were impacted as a result of an increase in the number of higher density multi-housing units. It is tempting to summarily assume that police must respond to a disproportionate number of calls for service (C.F.S. ) to areas encompassing higher density housing. Based upon observed day-to-day trends, we in the police department suspect that we are called upon more frequently for service in multi-housing areas as compared to single family residential areas . In the absence of an automated data base, we would need to conduct a hand search of all calls for service in order to determine accurately a com- parison of C.F.S. in single family residential (S.F.R. ) vs. multi- family residential (M.F.R. ) and perhaps commerical business areas. In an effort to arrive upon sound conclusions, the following current data relative to police response is offered for consideration: 1. Calls for police service have increased 11% per year since 1981 (city-wide) . 2 . Our city' s population has increased approximately 4 . 6% per year since 1980-81 . 3. Average response times (city-wide) : 1981 1985-86 *% Increase Emergency Calls 2 . 7 mins. 3 . 88 mins. +44% Non-Emergency Calls 10 . 5 mins. 13 . 69 mins. +300 4 . In 1980, about 22% of the total housing was comprised of multi-family/mobile homes. The ratio indicated in 1986 is 27% multi-family/mobile homes . From the above information, it is clear that the rate of demand for service is exceeding the population growth, and that by virtue of more people making more requests for service, the response time of police is impacted probably as a result of the staffing levels not keeping pace with the population growth and increasing activity levels. *These increased response times, by definition, indicate a significant reduction in service to the public. As indicated above, the ratio of multi-family/mobile homes vs. S.F.R. has grown about 5% from 1980 to 1986, however, I cannot with any certainty suggest that the longer response times reflected are specifically as a result of more multi- housing. I would, however, surmise that a significant increase of multi-housing units in our city would to some degree increase demands for police services. For your information as requested. . . YOI� RICHARD H. McHALE RHM:sb ING AGENDA TE 8/25/86 REM C - 1 • MEMORANDUM TO: City Council K16 . FROM: Mike Shelton, City Manager SUBJECT: DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED JOINT CITY & ATASCPDERD MUTUAL WATER OM PANY IAL UPDATE ING. TO PECEIVE PRESENTATION ON THE COUN'T'Y MASTER WATER DATE: August 18 , 1986 Recommendation: City Council establish a special meeting to meet jointly with Atascadero Mutual Water Company Board of Directors and re- ceive information presented on the County Wide Master Water Plan Update Study. Meeting will be open to the public. This meeting will serve as informational. However , future actions may be re- quired seperately or jointly with the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and may have a significant environmental and fiscal im- pact on the citizens. The City Manager will schedule special joint meeting time with the Water Company and recommend for Council consideration. • Background: The City was originally scheduled to receive an infor- mational presentation by Clint Milne, Deputy County Engineer , at your regular August 25, 1986 Council meeting on the County Wide Master Water Plan Update. A separate informational presentation by Mr. Milne was also scheduled with the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. In discussion with the District Director Frank Platz, it is felt a more meaningful discussion will result if a single presentation is made to both bodies. As a matter of background, Clint Milne is the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Water Resources Advisory Committee and is conducting community meetings in San Luis Obispo County to educate the public on the Master Water Plan Update. Paul Sensibaugh represents the City of Atascadero on the Advisory and Executive Committees. Frank Platz, Director of the Atascadero Mutual Water Company, is on the Avisory Committee, and Fred Hurst, representing the City of Paso Robles, is on both the Ad- visory Committee and Executive Committees. Atascadero and Paso Robles, which utilize the Paso Robles Basin water supply, represent 21% of the county population (13% and 8% respectively. ) The City of San Luis Obispo makes up 26% • of the population. Attachments • A copy of the Executive Summary of the "San Luis Obispo County Master Water Plan Update" is enclosed. The complete work is available in the office of the Director of Public Works for your use. Also enclosed are recent letters from the Department of Water Resources in answer to several questions from Clint Milne and Maggie Cox, Director of Government Affairs San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce. Fiscal Impact The fiscal impact to Atascadero citizens of the State Water Plan is unknown at this time, but it could be significant. • 2 i 0SH LUIS OBISPO COUHTY � COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER • SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408 • (805)549-5252 { GEORGE C. PROTOPAPAS County Engineer CLINTON MILNE DOUTY COUNTY ENGINEER GUY PREW TT COUNTY SK<AL DISTRICTS ADMINISTRATOR ENGINEERING August 8, 1986 DEPARTMENT ROADS TRANSPORTATION TO: Water Resources Advisory Committee Members FLOOD CONMOL WATER CONSERVATION COUNTY SURVEYOR SUBJECT: San Luis Obispo County Master Water Plan Update SPECIAL DISTRICTS Dear Member: Enclosed are two items of interest. 1. A letter dated July 21, 1986 from the Department of Water Resources which answers a number of questions that I had posed to the Department concerning the State Water Project. 2. A copy of a letter to Ms. Maggie Cox of the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce from the Department of Water Resources . With respect to the first item, the questions concern the reliaoility, the allocation of water deficiencies during dry periods if there is not adequate water to supply the entitlements, water quality, and the energy used by the State Water Project facilities . The letter to the Chamber of Commerce concerns the accuracy of the estimates by the Department of Water Resources. I believe that you will find both letters of interest. Sincerely, GEORGE C. PROTOPAPAS County Engineer &4�� Af� CLINTON MILNE, Secretary Water Resources Advisory Committee M/nt Attachments 8526x 0037x � • � lit ,/ (�I STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1416 NINTH STREET, SACRAMENTO 95814 P.O. BOX 388 95802 (916) 445.9248 JUL251986 Cour'"' c`4Li1"y-ER1NG DEPARTMENT Mr. Clinton Milne Deputy County Engineer County of San Luis Obispo Government Center, Room 207 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Dear Mr. Milne: This is in response to your June 25, 1986 request for a written response to the following questions you asked about the State Water Project (SWP): I. How reliable is the existing and the future SWP system in meeting its water delivery commitments? The present firm yield of the existing facilities is about 2.4 million acre-feet per year. This is the level of water deliveries that could be sustained through a sequence of dry years (such as occurred in 1928-34) without temporary deficiencies in excess of those specified in the water supply contract definition of minimum project yield. The SWP firm yield developed by existing facilities is expected to decrease to about 2.1 million acre-feet per year by 2000 as (1) water use in areas of origin increases, (2) Central Valley Project contractual obligations increase, and (3) use of water associated with other prior rights to Northern California water supplies materializes. SWP contractors' requests for entitlement water deliveries will exceed the firm yield of existing facilities after. 1986. Contractors ' requests are projected to total 2.9 million acre-feet per year by 1990 and to approach 3.6 million acre-feet per year in 2000. Thus, if additional water supplies are not secured, SWP contractors will face increasing risks of water supply deficiencies. However, in years of normal or above-normal precipitation, the existing SWP facilities can deliver more than the firm yield. The attached Figure 10 from our Bulletin 132-85, "Management of the California State Water Project" shows that the indicated SWP facilities could supply more water than the firm yield in about 60 percent of the operational years. The contractors' request for entitlement water could be met in about 25 to 35 percent of the years. A number of possible actions are in various stages of study or implementation which would significantly increase SWP delivery capability. These include: (1) addition of four Delta pumps, (2) construction of additional offstream storage facilities south of the Delta, (3) the coordinated operation agreement with the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and (4) a ground water storage program in Kern County to be operated in conjunction with existing surface storage. . . Mr. Clinton Milne Page 3 .A 21 rA ' Project operations in the Delta are scheduled so as to maximize the quality of water that enters the SWP intake. Water is drawn through the control gates at Clifton Court Forebay from Old River during high tides. It is during high tide that the mineral quality of the water is at its best. This is because the better quality Sacramento River flow pushes the more saline San Joaquin River water south of the intake. Operation of the project in this manner results in diverting better quality water, which' is mostly of Sacramento- River origin, into the SWP intake. Asbestos naturally occurs in California's waters and this includes the waters of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Also, significant amounts of asbestos-laden sediments from the flood waters of Arroyo Pasajero sometimes enter the California Aqueduct at a point near Coalinga. As a result, Aqueduct water has had high levels of asbestos, as high as 15,000 million fibers per litre. Fortunately, most of the asbestos settles out of the Aqueduct where it can be removed from the canal bottom using a remote controlled submersible dredge. To provide a more permanent solution, USBR and DWR are now developing a project to provide a solution to the flooding, sedimentation, and asbestos problems associated with Arroyo Pasajero. The draft EIS-EIR is expected to be completed and available for review and comment by mid-1987. Finally, at some future time a Delta water transfer system will be agreed on which will improve the water transfer efficiency and delivery capability of the SWP, and at the same time improve the quality of the water exported from the Delta. A Delta water transfer system would improve SWP water quality two ways. First, it would improve the transfer of higher quality Sacramento River water across the Delta. Currently, water must travel through the western Delta then back up the San Joaquin River to the export pumps. This "reverse flow" is significant because the water becomes saltier as it approaches the western edge of the Delta due to seawater intrusion from San Francisco Bay. Secondly, water quality can be improved by increasing the capacity to divert more water in the winter months which have the highest flows. 4. What percentage of California's energy does the SWP use? Energy use by SWP facilities fluctuates from year to year depending on rainfall and requests for water deliveries. The statewide and SWP r`i �'--•—• • : � `rli fry j; STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,Governor DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES - 1416 NINTH STREET, SACRAMENTO (916)445-9248 P. O. BOX 942836 94236-0001 ,• - i i. JUL 22 Ms. Maggie Cox Director of Government Affairs San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Ms. Cox: During your recent visit to our Department, we agreed to provide you with Information on cost escalation of State Water Project facilities and on the Possibility of accelerating our schedule. The attached table summarizes the engineer's estimates made just prior to advertising for bids, the low bid received, and the actual cost of completion including the cost of change orders. Each line in the table represents the total of many construction contracts. In our planning process, we usually go through a sequence of reconnaissance, advanced planning (feasibility) and design studies prior to construction. The reconnaissance studies for the Coastal Aqueduct were done many years ago. The cost estimates were updated in 1984_85 and used in the cost comparison of alternatives available to the area to meet its future water needs. The advanced planning studies, proposed to start later this year, will provide much more certainty and detail. The environmental impact report, which is concurrent with the advanced planning studies, must be finalized before final design can start. Since there is concern over escalation, you should be aware that In addition to the current opportunity to withdraw from participation in the Coastal Aqueduct, each county has the opportunity to withdraw up until the initiation of final design. The counties will be entering into an agreement on repayment of each others costs in the event that one of the counties withdraws- just prior to the construction contract award. Withdrawal at any time would not relieve the local obligation to repay study costs. In addition, a water contractor that withdraws would remain obligated to repay its share of the costs of State Water Project facilities until other arrangements are negotiated. c , L� JUL 2 5 1986 _r I r DEPARTMENT �ti. Mr. Clinton Milne Page 3 21 1986 Project operations in the Delta are scheduled so as to maximize the quality of water that enters the SWP intake. Water is drawn through the control gates at Clifton Court Forebay from Old River during high tides. It is during high tide that the mineral quality of the water is at its best. This is because the better quality Sacramento River flow pushes the more saline San Joaquin River water south of the intake. Operation of the project in this manner results in diverting better quality water, which' is mostly of Sacramento River origin, into the SWP intake. Asbestos naturally occurs in California's waters and this includes the waters of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Also, significant amounts of asbestos-laden sediments from the flood waters of Arroyo Pasajero sometimes enter the California Aqueduct at a point near Coalinga. As a result, Aqueduct water has had high levels of asbestos, as high as 15,000 million fibers per litre. Fortunately, most of the asbestos settles out of the Aqueduct where it can be removed from the canal bottom using a remote controlled submersible dredge. To provide a more permanent solution, USBR and DWR are now developing a project to provide a solution to the flooding, sedimentation, and asbestos problems associated with Arroyo Pasajero. The draft EIS-EIR is expected to be completed and available for review and comment by mid-1987. Finally, at some future time a Delta water transfer system will be agreed on which will improve the water transfer efficiency and delivery capability of the SWP, and at the same time improve the quality of the water exported from the Delta. A Delta water transfer system would improve SWP water quality two ways. First, it would improve the transfer of higher quality Sacramento River water across the Delta. Currently, water must travel through the western Delta then back up the San Joaquin River to the export pumps. This "reverse flow" is significant because the water becomes saltier as it approaches the western edge of the Delta due to seawater intrusion from San Francisco Bay. Secondly, water quality can be improved by increasing the capacity to divert more water in the winter months which have the highest flows. 4. What percentage of California's energy does the SWP use? Energy use by SWP facilities fluctuates from year to year depending on rainfall and requests for water deliveries. The statewide and SWP r'. • i l STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,Governor DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1416 NINTH STREET, SACRAMENTO (916) 445-9248 4 P. O. BOX 942836 94236-0001 i JUL 22 19� Ms. Maggie Cox Director of Government Affairs San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Ms. Cox: During your recent visit to our Department, we agreed to provide you with Information on cost escalation of State Water Project facilities and on the possibility of accelerating our schedule. The attached table summarizes the engineer's estimates made just prior to advertising for bids, the low bid received, and the actual cost of completion including the cost of change orders. Each line in the table represents the total of many construction contracts. In our planning process, we usually go through a sequence of reconnaissance, advanced planning (feasibility) and design studies prior to construction. The reconnaissance studies for the Coastal Aqueduct were done many years ago. The cost estimates were updated in 1984-85 and used in the cost comparison of alternatives available to the area to meet its future water needs. The advanced planning studies, proposed to start later this year, will provide much more certainty and detail. The environmental impact report, which is concurrent with the advanced planning studies, must be finalized before final design can start. Since there is concern over escalation, you should be aware that in addition to the current opportunity to withdraw from participation in the Coastal Aqueduct, each county has the opportunity to withdraw up until the initiation of final design. The counties will be entering into an agreement on repayment of each others costs in the event that one of the counties withdraws just prior to the construction contract award. Withdrawal at any time would not relieve the local obligation to repay study costs. In addition, a water contractor that withdraws would remain obligated to repay its share of the costs of State Water Project facilities until other arrangements are negotiated. C� LID- G [pi ,JUL 25 1986 DEPARTMENT 2 Mr. Clinton Milne Page 2 _ 5121 M 2. How will the Department of Water Resources (DWR) allocate water supply deficiencies if future facilities are not built to complete the SWP project, or during dry periods? During dry years or dry periods when the SWP water supply is less than the SWP contractors' requests for entitlement water, DWR will allocate the water according to the deficiency provisions of the water supply contracts. Article 18(a) of the SWP water supply contracts contains two provisions to be applied in years of deficient water supply. First, the portion of the contractors' annual entitlement that is used for agricultural purposes would be reduced by as much as 50 percent in any given year or a total of 100 percent in any series of seven consecutive years. Second, if further delivery reductions are required, the deliveries to all contractors are reduced by the same percentage without regard to the uses of such water. 3. What action is DWR taking to ensure the water quality of the SWP with respect to asbestos, pesticides, and herbicides? One of DWR's major responsibilites to the SWP contractors is to deliver a water supply that can be treated at a reasonable cost to meet drinking water criteria and is aesthetically acceptable to the customer. Actions now being taken by DWR to ensure the quality of drinking water supplies include a monitoring program, project operations, and the Delta Facilities Planning program. Since the start up of the SWP, DWR has conducted an extensive water quality monitoring program. This monitoring program is designed to detect water quality conditions that may adversely affect the beneficial uses of SWP water. In July 1983, DWR implemented the Interagency Delta Health Aspects Monitoring Program, which monitors Delta water and tributary streams for pesticides and other toxic substances. Data collected thus far indicate only very low concentrations of pesticides (less than 1 microgram per litre) in the San Joaquin River, the Delta water supplies, and the SWP. However, significant levels of trihalomethane (THM) precursor compounds are present in the water supplies. Water samples are collected from various locations within the Delta and tested for THM formation potential, an indirect measurement of the amount of organic precursors in the water. In over two years of sampling, the Sacramento River had a median of 260 parts per billion total THM formation potential, while the San Joaquin River had a median 390 parts per billion and the intake to the SWP had a mediam of 440 parts per billion. The THM potential of the San Joaquin River is higher than that of the Sacramento River, indicating San Joaquin River water has had more contact with the naturally occurring organic soils present in the Delta. As water flows through the Delta, THM precursors are picked up, resulting in still higher THM formation potential at the SWP intake. Mr. Clinton Milne Page 4 energy use in Gigawatt hours is shown in the following table. The amounts of statewide energy use are from the California Energy Resources, Conservation and Development Commission data. SWP Statewide SWP % 1982 5440 172,000 3.2 1983 2730 173,300 1.6 1984 3650 185,600 2.0 1985 5520 ---- ---- 1986 5000(est.) ---- ---- I hope these responses have been adequate to address your concerns. If you have further questions, please call me at (916) 445-6860. Sincerely, Don Fi lay son, ief Planning Branch Division of Planning Ms. Maggie Cox Page 2 JUL 22 1986 We have reviewed the proposed schedule and have determined that it can be shortened to seven years, from the start of advanced planning to start of operation. Our planning budget has been modified to fit the accelerated schedule. If you need any further information, you may contact me at (916) 445-6860. Sincerely, Don Finlayson, Chief Planning Branch Division of Planning Attachment cc: Mr. Clinton Milne✓ Deputy County Engineer County of San Luis Obispo Government Center, Room 207 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Mr. Jim Stubchaer Flood Control Engineer Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 123 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 �J M-TARISON OF COST. ESTIi-L-'TES AND ACTUAL COSTS FOR Siv? FACIES (Cost in 1 ,000 Dollars SOUTH BAY AQUEDUCT t I I j lea ture i Advertising 11 Engineer's Low i Actual C omp le ; 1 Period I Estimate I Bid 1 Cost 1 Yea 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1960 1962 i — $20,767 – Conveyance , , 47 Facilities i 1968 i 1969 i i 1960 i i i i 1962 i Pumping -- i $ 3,759 i $ 3,641 i $ 4,007 i — PLnts 11 1967 i i i 11 1968 i i r r 1 r I 1959 i i 1961 ; Reservoirs i -- _ $21 ,217 i $20,6¢0 $20,977 1966 i i i i 1968 ; 1962. i i i 1962 t4iscellanous 1 — $ 1 ,558 $ 1 ,2-17 $ 1 ,651 — 1966 ' 1967 I TOTAL ; $45,324 i $43,745 i $47,402 i NORTH BAY AQUEDUCT -- PHASE I Feature i Advertising _ r 1 Engineer's Low Actual Comp le Period Estimate i Bid . { Cost i Year i 1 i i i 1 1966 Conveyance 11 — i $ 1 ,458 ; $ 1 ,270 i $ 1 ,220 i 1968 Facilities 11 1967 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 i 1 1 t I 1 1 Pumping i 1967 i $ 323 i $ 302 i $ 359 1969 P lants 1 I TOTAL i $ 1 ,781 $ 1 ,572 i $ 1 ,579 I I I r r 1 1 COASTAL �gUEDUCT — PHASE I i 1 r i Feature i Advertising Er.7ir_eer'S Low Actual i Completion Period Estimate i Bid Cost i Year i 1 �• - 1 Conveyance -- i 1, r�0 $ 3,995 i $ 4,552 i -- Faciiities i 1=`07 i i i i 1968 i r 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 Pumping 1 W 3,72l 1 19683 3,9206 Plant I 1 1 1 1 1 i TOTAL ; $ 8,225 i $ 7,673 i $ 8,478 ------------ i I Ms. Maggie Cox ' • Page 2 JUL 22 1986 We have reviewed the proposed schedule and have determined that it can be shortened to seven years, from the start of advanced planning to start of operation. Our planning budget has been modified to fit the accelerated schedule. If you need any further information, you may contact me at (916) 445-6860. Sincerely, 14, Don Finlayson, Chief Planning Branch Division of Planning Attachment cc: Mr. Clinton Milne✓ Deputy County Engineer County of San Luis Obispo Government Center, Room 207 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Mr. Jim Stubchaer Flood Control Engineer Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 123 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 `1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Of "San Luis Obispo County Master Water Plan Update" March 1986 Published by SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 4 Q b _ .j C� 1 v N J b 0 s C@M -Blit Brra.w► T�7�84 OPen na -{s 0. s in lt" Ran on. 'a 1 e-F Mw-kr 61:6sr-F" 4t O 'cu('lu+�a u.Ses 8a'To af'�w O_dF�1 s _1 es r � f 0 4 Q eckr PREFACE �°J ° ►� 4 &. 4 1 Recognizing that changing conditions may have rendered its Master- Water as erWater and Sewerage Plan, which had been developed in 1972,- no onger adequate to serve the needs of the County, San Luis Obispo County contracted with the California Department of Water Resources for a study to update the water portion of its master plan. The study, which was completed in 1985, has been described in a Department of Water Resources Southern District Report, "San Luis .,.Qbispo County Master Water Plan Update", published in March 1986. This Executive Summary, which contains the Recommendations, Introduction, and Summary of Findings and Conclusions from the Department of Water Resources report, was published by the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to supply residents of the County with a concise report on the findings made in the update study so that they can make an informed decision regarding the future course of action for the County. George C. Proto apas County Engineer San Luis Obispo County t4� CIO v3 o IA41 4R i 'CO ,$ oZ n VV V VT 0- (i 4 4� ,a 41 -� '� y V) 1;�, RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings and conclusions in this study, the investigators and the Ad Hoc Committee of the San Luis Obispo County Water Resources Advisory Committee offer six specific recommendations for action by the County. 1. Request that the Department of Water Resources conduct a study of implementation of the State Water Project's Coastal Branch for San Luis Obispo County's full �'e =�` Jwa-o( entitlement; this would meet the projected demand (with ��MC��t- �N► conservation) for supplemental water to about year 2010. �ct4 C ti�ld� The study should be coordinated with Santa Barbara County 1104dIA. tgap - to include a more detailed determination of Coastal 6". dtrere-o( Branch alignment, pipe sizes, pumping and power plant capacities, environmental impacts, and economic, wti, financial and water quality aspects. Even if Santa Barbara County chooses not to participate in the Coastal Branch, this recommendation stands. The cr i key reasons for making it are: c © YY � � y o Comparative cost. A comparison of the unit costs to L_ San Luis Obispo County of the various alternative 46 IT ccs!!+ plans evaluated in this study shows that, with Santa Barbara County's participation in the Coastal Branch, the plan that relies on the Coastal Branch (alternative 1 in this study) would be only $20 per acre-foot, or about 6 percent, more than that of the O' least expensive alternatives--3, S, and 6--all of which rely on both the Coastal Branch and the proposed Lower .Jack and Santa Rita Dams and Reservoirs. The cost of the leading alternatives could actually be higher than that of alternative I if: (a) seismic safety requirements result in higher construction Q' costs of the proposed dams and reservoirs, (b) dependable yields of the proposed dams and reservoirs are less than estimated, or (c) unit costs of developing additional conservation storage facilities for the State Water Project are less than $200 per acre-foot. When all the alternatives are compared without Santa ' Barbara County's participation in the Coastal Branch, alternative 1 is still among the least costly. � - h o Availability of future supply. By implementing alternative 1 first, the County would still have 1 available to meet its future water demand (growing at the rate of about 10,000 acre-feet per decade) the local projects evaluated in this study. On the other hand, early development of additional local resources as units of the State Water Project would mean elimination of an equal amount of imported water to the County--water that is expected to be needed as demand increases. o Ease of implementation. The implementation of the Coastal Branch would face fewer obstacles than the proposed local dams and reservoirs. Legal, environmental, and institutional constraints on local projects could cause lengthy delays. The water supply contract, which provides for the construction of the Coastal Branch, has been signed by the Department of Water Resources and the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, whereas none of the local projects identified in this study has been initiated. o Existing contractual obligations. The County's ongoing annual costs for the State Water Project are increasing rapidly--from $547,844 in 1985 to $903,403 in 1991. 2. Implement the water conservation program presented in the Department of Water Resources report "Recommended Water Management Plan for San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District" (December 1983). This would bring an estimated savings in municipal and industrial water demand of about 10,000 acre-feet by year 2010. Without this conservation, supplemental municipal and industrial demand in 2010 would exceed the County's entitlement for State Water Project water. 3. Give added attention to management and protection of all ground water basins in the County. Work with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the County Health Department, and the State Department of Health Services in identifying and correcting ground water quality problems. Develop specific ground water management plans for the Paso Robles, Edna Valley, Los Osos, Arroyo Grande, San Simeon, and Santa Rosa Ground Water Basins. Be alert for other basins which may need to be added to this list. The ground water resources of the County usually offer the most economical option among alternative supplies. They should be protected and used. 4. Evaluate programs for artificial ground water recharge and 2 i i Qnes�w�- d�blz � � osoa capture of subsurface discharge to the ocean. if they are found to be an effective means of increasing yield for + ground water basins, they could be used to meet near term 'YO!?00 M" * water demand. They would be of particular importance to areas located far from the reach of such supply elements as the Coastal Branch and Lower Jack, Santa Rita, and Nacimiento Dams and Reservoirs. V :,o(r�,�o+o�' p�W,"te C�aSt?'�l�s�u 5. Start planning now to develop local resources to meet water demands beyond year 2010. Specifically, consider construction of a pipeline to bring water from Nacimiento .t P"�� 3P"' Reservoir as the next logical step for meeting demand up to b about 2025 and the local dams and reservoirs (starting with Lower Jack and Santa Rita) for the demand to about 2060. The reasons for selecting Nacimiento pipeline before local dams and reservoirs are the same as those for selecting the Coastal Branch: its comparative cost, availability of a future supply, ease of implementation, and existing contractual obligations. However, all the water supply elements identified in this study should be periodically reconsidered for implementation. 6. Create a Water Management Advisory Committee, similar to the Water Resources Advisory Committee that served so effectively throughout this study, to assist in the implementation and periodic updating of the Master Water Plan. 3 1 "c'!,' • ' it� °7 ;W ,15 C� y< P4` N W N . Z a ' J ! S --u a p Z a W Lda ! f ! ! `4 -1a. W , %r A ,• l ca :Lw.. � N v ._a 403 y /d . J ►+ Lq T Ti _J V r W 111 J W o � II �r� � s I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARYF FINDINGS GS AND EO'kLUSIONS Introduction (1) update estimates of current and projected water use and existing water The population of San Luis Obispo (SLO) supplies and determine, in cooperation County has been growing steadily, and with the County, needs for supplemental its water needs have increased water; (2) identify alternative proportionally. To meet these growing projects for providing supplemental needs in an orderly fashion, a master water supplies and determine their water and sewerage plan (CDM, Inc., costs; (3) set priorities for the "Report on Master Water and Sewerage alternative projects or programs; and Plan", May 1972) was developed for the (4) recommend the sequence for staged County in 1972. implementation of water projects as part of the County master plan. Since 1972, a number of changes have taken place that provide sufficient Scope and Conduct reason for reexamining the water portion of the master plan. One of The area of investigation includes all these is the adoption of a new land use San Luis Obispo County (Figure 1). The element of the County's General Plan in planning period extends to the year 1981--reducing the County's estimated 2010. The planning horizon, population absorption capacity from considering the full development of the about 3 million to one-half million. current land use element, is up to year Another is the significant and uneven 2060. inflation of construction costs. The study adopted the County's 13 Also, in 1982, the Department of Water planning areas. The population, water Resources (DWR) adopted the concept of demand, water supply, and estimated constructing local projects as units of costs of supplying water were the State Water' Project (SWP)*. This distributed among these planning areas. concept has been endorsed by the SWP water contractors. Each contract with The County developed population SWP water contractors has been amended estimates and projections by to reflect this concept. distributing the County total population from the California Department of In January 1984, the County and DWR Finance. The urban per capita applied began a cooperative study for updating water, which was estimated on the basis the water portion of the master water of historic water use records, was and sewerage plan. Each contributed reduced to reflect urban water one-half of the funding for the study. conservation goals. Obiectives of the Study The amount of irrigated agriculture by crop was estimated in a land and water The objectives of the study are to: use survey in the summer of 1984. *The SWP is a system of reservoirs, pumping and power plants, and conveyance facilities developed by DWR to deliver water from Oroville Reservoir and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the State's 30 water service contractors. The San San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is one of the the contractors. 5 Projections to the year 2010 were made Committee, consisting of members from with assistance from the County throughout the County, served as liaison Director, University of California with DWR and ensured that the study was Cooperative Extension Service, who kept responsive to the needs of the enlisted a group of successful farmers entire County. Working directly with in the County to work with him in the investigators were members of an ad making the projections. hoc committee appointed by the chairman of the Water Resources Advisory These projections and the estimates of Committee. urban per capita and agricultural unit water use provided the basis for Thus, throughout the study, the estimates of water demand. investigators had the benefit of timely information and advice on local The quantities of dependable water conditions and needs and the County had supplies used in this study were the benefit of up-to-date reports on determined from a review of past the conduct and progress of the study. investigations. The study as reported here reflects the results of this joint effort. Because of the problems of an overdraft condition in the ground water Study Area basins in the County, this study looked into the combinations of previously San Luis Obispo County lies midway identified water supply elements (from between the Cities of San Francisco and the 1972 master water and sewerage plan Los Angeles. It is bounded on the west report) as the supply alternatives to by the Pacific Ocean, on the north by meet the supplemental water needs. Monterey County, on the east by Kern Recognizing that agricultural water County, and on the south by Santa 0 users cannot afford the price of Barbara County. supplemental water supplies and assuming that the municipal and Its average east-west and north-south industrial (MSI) users are willing to dimensions are about 60 miles. Its pay, the supplemental water needs are total area is about 3,300 square those from the MSI sector only. miles. The identified supply elements are the There are five subranges of the SWP water (through the proposed Coastal California Coastal and Transverse Branch) , Nacimiento water (through the mountain ranges--Santa Lucia, Temblor, proposed Nacimiento pipeline) , water La Panza, Caliente, and San Luis. The from development of possible new dams County is divided into three broad and reservoirs, water from enlargement physiographic regions: a coastal of existing dams (raising spillway plain, coastal mountains and valleys, heights) , water from waste water and interior mountains and valleys. reclamation, and water from desalination. Although not called for Major streams are, from north to south, by the contract for this update study, Nacimiento River, Salinas River, San some evaluation of artificial recharge Luis Obispo Creek, Arroyo Grande Creek, projects, interception of subsurface Cuyama River, and Santa Maria River. discharge to the ocean, and demineralization of inferior quality Climate of the County is mild. Its ground water and discussions of weather precipitation ranges from less than modifications and watershed management 10 inches per year in the eastern are provided. portion to more than 40 inches per year at higher elevations in the Santa Lucia The existing Water Resources Advisory Mountain range. 6 1 f. Currently (1985) , about 183,000 persons Summary of Findings and Conclusions reside in the County. The largest population centers are Paso Robles, Findings Atascadero, Morro Bay, South Bay, San Luis Obispo, Grover City, Pismo Beach, 1. San Luis Obispo County population and Arroyo Grande. Agricultural, in 1985 is estimated to be 183,000, recreational, and governmental and in 2010, it is projected to be activities are the major bases of the 303,000--an increase of 66 percent. County's economy. The potential population when all use categories in the adopted land Water demand in the County is met use element are fully developed primarily by local ground water and would be on the order of 530,000 (a by surface water impounded in Salinas 190 percent increase from 1985) ; Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake), Lopez such potential development would Reservoir, and Whale Rock Reservoir. take place in about 2060. The In some planning areas, ground water projected growth rate is generally levels are declining. greater in areas adjacent to the The San Luis Obispo County Flood coast than elsewhere in the County. Control and Water Conservation District 2. Irrigated land (counted for multiple (SLOCFCWCD) has water supply cropping) is surveyed to be 70,600 responsibility for the County. It was acres in 1985 and projected to be created in 1945 b the State tate 74,700 acres in 2010--an increase of Legislature re to: g (1) make water 6 percent. available for irrigation, urban, and other beneficial uses; (2) develop 3. Total applied water in 1985 is necessary distribution works; (3) about 208,000 acre-feet, of which, control and conserve flood and storm irrigated agriculture accounts for waters and streamflows in reservoirs; 174,000 acre-feet (83 percent) and and (4) provide ground water M&I use for about 34,000 acre-feet replenishment. (17 percent) . By 2010, agricultural demand is projected to The Board of Supervisors of the County be reduced to about 149,000 is empowered to act as the Board of acre-feet (72 percent) because Directors of the District. Numerous farmers are expected to switch to water service agencies, both public and lower-water-using crops and to private, are located within the increase irrigation efficiency. M&I District. The District has contracted use, which is growing at the rate of with the State for imported water from about 10,000 acre-feet per decade, the SWP. Its maximum entitlement is is expected to increase to about for 25,000 acre-feet per year. 57,000 acre-feet (28 percent) . Therefore, total applied water for This water would be delivered by the 2010 is projected to be 206,000 Coastal Branch of the California acre-feet. (See Figure 2.) M&I Aqueduct. Only the first phase of the applied water demand at full Coastal Branch has been completed; it development (in year 2060) is provides water to the area in the estimated to be about 100,000 vicinity of Avenal Gap in Kern County. acre-feet. Projections for both M&I and agricultural applied water Also scheduled to receive water from uses reflect water conservation the completed Coastal Branch is Santa goals as outlined in the DWR report Barbara County, which has contracted "Recommended Water Management Plan for a maximum of 45,486 acre-feet per for San Luis Obispo County Flood year. Control and Water Conservation 7 PROJECTED WATER DEMAND 2010 SUPPLEMENTAL MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL 11.2% 16.5% M & I (1985): 34,000 AF 72.3% Supp. M & I : 23,000 AF M & I (2010): 57,000 AF AGRICULTURE Agr. : 149,000 AF ------------------------ TOTAL :206,000 AF DEPENDABLE WATER SUPPLY ESTIMATED WATER DEMAND 1966 1986 LOPEZ ( 5.9%) NACIMIENTO ( 0.9%) MUNICIPAL AND SALINAS ( 3.5%) INDUSTRIAL WHALE ROCK ( 3.2%) 16.3% RECLAIMED ( 1.1%) GROUND WATER AGRICULTURE 85.4% 83.7% Lopez 8,200 AF Nacimiento : 1,300 AF Salinas 4,800 AF M & I : 34,000 AF Whale Rock : 4,400 AF Agr. : 174,000 AF Reclaimed 1,500 AF ------------------ Grd. Water : 118,000 AF TOTAL :208,000 AF ----------------------- TOTAL :138,000 AF (Rounded) FIGURE 2 - PRESENT AND FUTURE WATER DEMAND AND SUPPLY District" (December 1983) . Without to use existing supplies to meet the this conservation, the M&I demand 1985 level of use and can afford to for applied water is estimated to be purchase supplemental water to meet . 10,000 acre-feet greater in 2010. the demand beyond this level. 4. Existing (1985) water supplies and 7. Average annual ground water their dependable annual yields are: overdraft is at present estimated to Nacimiento Reservoir, 1,300 be 70,000 acre-feet. Overdrafting acre-feet, of the 17,500-acre-foot will continue over the years; entitlement; Whale Rock Reservoir, however, the annual overdraft will 4,400 acre-feet; Salinas Reservoir, be reduced somewhat by 2010 because: 4,800 acre-feet; Lopez Reservoir, (a) agricultural water use is 8,200 acre-feet; ground water, projected to decline by 25,000 118,000 acre-feet; and reclaimed acre-feet and (b) return flow of water, 1,500 acre-feet. This gives supplemental water is estimated to a total of 138,000 acre-feet annual be 5,000 acre-feet (20 percent of yield. (See Figure 2.) 23,000 acre-feet) . Because the �d� water in storage in the Paso Robles 5. Water use estimated for 1985 Q` 4-c.,A Basin is estimated to be about 26 exceeds the total current yield of mil�on acre-feet, overdraft in this existing supplies by about 70,00 _ ' basin does not pose critical tical problems acre-feet. This is being met by ms at this time. However, future a overdrafting the ground water management plans must recognize and basins. Although no specific 4��" -(575 'L dress the overdrafting. attempt was made in this study to identify the basins that are in � $ ;4 The potential water supply elements overdraft, Cuyama Valley Basin, )aso 'tN�-for meeting supplemental water Robles Basin, and the Arroyo 4� ?��f s are: Grande-Nipomo Mesa portion of theP4"� �`pW, Santa Maria Basin are believed to es WP water (through Coastal in overdraft. The Edna Valley, San SOD �74Branch) , 25,000 acre-feet; Simeon, and Santa Rosa Ground Water Basins have experienced shortages in o Nacimiento water, 16,200 dry years. acre-feet*; 6. The supplemental water needed for o Artificial recharge of ground 2010 is estimated to be 23,000 water basins and interception of acre-feet and that for 2060 is subsurface discharge to the estimated to be 66,000 acre-feet ocean, not estimated; (the differences between the M&I demands of those years and 1985) , o Desalination of sea water for thus continuing ground water potential users, 9,200 overdraft. These estimates are acre-feet; based on the assumptions that agricultural water users will o Demineralization of inferior continue to use locally available quality ground water, not supplies (mainly ground water) , estimated; because they cannot afford the supplemental water supplies, and o Reclamation of waste water, that M&I water users will continue 5,600 acre-feet; *Of the 17,500-acre-foot entitlement, 1,300 acre-feet has been contracted for use within the vicinity of the reservoir, leaving 16,200 acre-feet for use by any other portion the County. No facilities have been built thus far for delivery of this water. 9 0 unit cost ($/acre foot) 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 o c o 0 0 o O o 0 ca -W C21 04 Desalination of sea water I lorth Coast ( Estero (Morro Bay-Los Osos, Cayucos) a o I. 'L_ o. r ( I ( San Luis Bay (Arroyo Grande-Grover City-Pisco Beach, Oceano, Avila Beach) CPa � u South County o -CP � .+ c o .� r c > Z Waste Nater reclamation •` r Z r .+ �. r Estero I ! C-L W LA F— W San Luis Obispo ( 1 ; o _J UJ .5 W South Count ( l -�c a = IL J Y a.. o u ti - r c - ^ O W w r r •o r s o o or c � Alt. 10 -- Yellow Mill, Reduced Lower L O JL .... ... C %n I.— u .i •O O Jack & Santa Rita, and SVP d °' CU ++ a+ v o a w r w +.r •O w ..0. Alt. 9 -- Santa Rosa, Reduced Lower Jack f- y o �, -W d & Santa Rita, and SVP y -0 : A Z 0 W Alt. 8 m .. d w r W-- San Simeon, Reduced Lower Jack s �. A o o d c 4 a. 6 Santa Rita, and SVP d : o o A a a= i z ` F' �... O w ..C.. > q L Alt. 1 -- Reduced Nacisiento and SVP :° ^^ -� = W 1 W o M t 4, t 'u ar � r+.•� o r ..+ o a.. No as ca a) p�A � C • Alt. o -- Reduced.Lower Jack R Santa Rita and SVP b A °» :r : W s o Cn Alt. 5 -- Lower Jack A Santa Rita-Whale Rock and SVP o C, r o Q u ASL. Alt. -- All local projects (Nacisiento and � Lower Jack A Santa Rita) I I . o 2y Z Alt. 3 -- Lower Jack S Santa Rita and SVP LJ_ : a N am o - 1 a 'C7 M Alt. 1 -- Nacisiento and SVPW) Alternative a Alternative 1 -- State Water Project (SWP) "' "' •--- °° s r Z r+ y LL d+• L O OA Artificial recharge with treatment (removal of nitrate) I ca r u c c s a o •� q F-- u w r � Artificial recharge without treatment o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m 0 unit cost ($/acre foot) 10 ral, o Enlargement of Salinas Dam, 450 to 2004. For the SWP entitlement, �� 1,300 acre-feet; payment began in 1964 with $9 ,089 increased to $547,844 by 1985, and . o Enlargement of Lopez Dam, 640 is expected to be $903,403 by 1991. acre-feet; These costs will continue to increase in the future. o Enlargement of Nacimiento Dam, 3,300 to 4,000 acre-feet; 10. All the streams on which the possible new dams are located are o Watershed management and weather inhabited by steelhead trout. modification, not estimated; 11. Five of the seven proposed dam and o Possible new reservoirs: Bald reservoir sites are under the 46, Top, 10,400 acre-feet; Upper jurisdiction of the Coastal Ragged Point, 17,500 acre-feet; Commission. roP Yellow Hill, 27,300 acre-feet; Sf,%q San Simeon, 18,200 acre-feet; 12. Some of the sites of the proposed Santa Rosa, 11,000 acre-feet; dams and reservoirs may be on sacred 4(A Lower Jack, 6,200 acre-feet; and grounds of the Chumash Indian Tribe Santa Rita, 6,000 acre-feet; or have other archaeological value. 0 1,500 to 2,000 acre-feet of 13. Quality of the identified surface increased ground water use in water supplies is generally good. some small, distant communities In terms of total dissolved solids where the above supplies are not (TDS) concentration, water from the economically available. SWP and Nacimiento Reservoir is the lowest--185 milligrams per litre All the above supply elements can (mg/L) for SWP water (sampled near be considered as local projects Devil's Den, at the end of the that could be units of the SWP, Coastal Stub in Kern County, in with the exception of the SWP 1984) and 250 mg/L for Nacimiento (Coastal Branch), Nacimiento water, water--and that from Santa Rosa is and increased use of ground water. the poorest--330 mg/L (sampled near In addition, the City of Morro Bay Cambria in 1978) . is considering the possible damming of San Bernardo Creek for an 14. In general, ground water quality is immediate water supply. fair; however, a number of water quality problems do exist. For 9. Although it does not yet have instance, high nitrate facilities to take water from either concentrations were found in the project, San Luis Obispo County Arroyo Grande and Los Osos Basins, Flood Control and Water Conservation high level of hydrogen sulfide has District is making payments for its been recorded in the vicinity of entitlements to water from Paso Robles, and sea water intrusion Nacimiento Reservoir and from the has been detected during dry years SWP. For the Nacimiento in the Chorro and Morro Basins. entitlement, payment includes $9 per These problems are being monitored acre-foot as capital repayment for by SLOCFCWCD and concerned water construction of the dam and service agencies in the County. approximately $3 to $4 per acre-foot for operation and maintenance, 15. Desalination of sea water is not, at making the total annual payment this time, cost competitive with about $220,000. The capital portion some of the other supply elements, of the cost will be fully repaid by as shown on Figure 3. Use of 11 reclaimed water for agriculture, alternative, which would use 12,200 landscaping, and certain types of -acre-feet from Lower Jack and Santa industrial uses may be feasible. Rita, 8,800-ac-re-feet from Nacimiento, and an additional 2,000 16. Location of the dam in relation to acre-feet of ground water. active faults and thickness of the alluvium underlying the dam are o Alternative S--Lower Jack and Santa factors that could influence the Rita-Whale Rock and SWP magnitude of the impact of an alternative, which is the same as earthquake on the structure; alternative 3, except Santa Rita therefore, they must be included in Reservoir would be connected to the seismic analysis made before a Whale Rock Reservoir so the dam is constructed. The thicknesses existing pipeline could deliver to of the alluvium under the proposed the City of San Luis Obispo. dam sites, as reported in Bulletin 18,* range from 6 to 60 feet, with o Alternative 6--Reduced Lower Jack Lower Jack (6 feet) and Santa Rita and Santa Rita and SWP alternative, (16 feet) the shallowest and Yellow which is the same as alternative 3, Hill (60 feet) the deepest. Also, except using only 7,000 acre-feet dams must be built and operated to from Lower Jack and Santa Rita and withstand a flood of a specified 13,900 acre-feet from SWP. size, from a return period of 1/1000 to probable maximum precipitation.** o Alternative 7--Reduced Nacimiento and SWP alternative, which is the 17. Ten alternative plans to meet the same as alternative 2, except using supplemental needs (23,000 only 7,300 acre-feet from acre-feet) that proved worthy of Nacimiento and 13,900 acre-feet evaluation are: from SWP. o Alternative 1--SWP alternative, o Alternative 8--San Simeon, reduced which would use 20,900 acre-feet of Lower Jack and Santa Rita, and SWP SWP water and, for distant areas, an alternative, which would add 14,200 additional 2,100 acre-feet of ground acre-feet from San Simeon Reservoir water. to alternative 6, with only 300 acre-feet from SWP and 1,500 o Alternative 2--Nacimiento and SWP acre-feet of ground water. alternative, which would use 14,700 acre-feet from Nacimiento, 6,500 o Alternative 9--Santa Rosa, reduced acre-feet from SWP, and an added Lower Jack and Santa Rita, and SWP_ 1,800 acre-feet of ground water. alternative, which would add 8,000 acre-feet from Santa Rosa Reservoir o Alternative 3--Lower Jack and to alternative 6, with only 6,500 Santa Rita and SWP alternative, acre-feet from SWP and 1,500 which would use 12,200 acre-feet acre-feet of ground water. from Lower Jack and Santa Rita Reservoirs, 8,700 acre-feet from o Alternative 10--Yellow Hill, SWP, and an additional 2,100 reduced Lower Jack and Santa Rita, acre-feet of ground water. and SWP alternative, which would add 14,200 acre-feet from Yellow o Alternative 4--All local water Hill Reservoir to alternative 6, *California Water Resources Board, "San Luis Obispo County Investigation", Bulletin 18, May 1955. **Hydrometerological Report by the U. S Weather Bureau. 12 S with only 300 acre-feet from SWP Barbara, 30,000 acre-feet, and San and 1,500 acre-feet of ground Luis Obispo, 21,000 acre-feet) to water. $410 (Santa Barbara, 0, and San Luis Obispo, 21,000 acre-feet) . 18. The DWR report "Santa Barbara The corresponding increase in the County State Water Project total unit cost (including costs of Alternatives" (April 1985) intra-county pipelines and others) indicates that taking delivery of would be $350 to $450. 30,000 acre-feet of its 45,486 Furthermore, this $450 per acre-feet of SWP entitlement acre-foot of alternative 1 is among through the Coastal Branch is among the least costly of all the the least costly alternative plans alternatives in the case of zero for Santa Barbara County. participation by Santa Barbara 19. Results from the evaluation County. indicate the alternative plans with 21. Evaluation of the results of each the least average unit costs to San alternative plan indicates that the Luis Obispo County are 3,5, and 6 unit costs to each planning area of ($330). These are followed by San Luis Obispo County vary (some alternatives 1 ($350) , 7, and 9 significantly) from the average ($360) . These six alternative plans County unit cost, depending on the include the following water supply amount of delivery (size of pipes) elements: SWP and Lower Jack, Santa and distance from the source to the Rita, and Nacimiento Dams and point of delivery (users) . For Reservoirs. In the third rank are instance, for alternative 1, the alternatives 2 ($420) and 8 ($440) . range of costs (the SWP portion) to Completing the rankings are the planning areas is $140 to $480 alternative 4 ($460) in fourth and per acre-foot and the average alternative 10 ($510) in fifth County cost (the SWP portion) is rank. It should be noted that $360 per acre-foot. these cost figures were computed with the assumption that the 22. Under the criterion of least energy applicable- local projects would be consumption, the rankings and the units of the SWP, that the unit corresponding energy use are:- rank developmental cost of SWP 1--alternative 8 (14,200 conservation facilities would be megawatthours per year--MWh/yr.); $200 per acre-foot, and that the rank 2--alternatives 10 and 9 delivery to Santa Barbara County (15,700 and 16,300 MWh/yr. , would be 30,000 acre-feet. (The respectively) ; rank 3--alternative 3 unit costs shown above were not (17,600 MWh/yr. ) ; rank adjusted for reduced participation 4--alternatives 5 and 4 (20,600 and in the Coastal Branch. If the 20,800 MWh/yr. , respectively) ; rank applicable local projects in either 5--alternative 6 (24,500 MWh/yr.) ; county are financed as units of the rank 6--alternatives 2 and 7 (31,400 SWP, that county will have to and 32,100 MWh/yr. , respectively) ; mitigate the effects of increasingand - rank 7--alternative 1 (38,600 the cost to the other county.) MWh/yr.) . 20. Under alternative 1, if Santa 23. In terms of least capital Barbara County's participation in investment, alternative 2 ranks the Coastal Branch dropped to zero, first with $55 million, followed by the unit cost of only the SWP alternatives 7 with $57 million and portion to San Luis Obispo County 1 with $61 million in the second could increase from $300 (Santa rank. In the third rank, 13 i alternative 6 shows a $71 million 27. If the SWP water supply expenditure. Alternatives 5 with developmental cost'is $100 or less $80 million, 3 with $83 million, per acre—foot-;- alternative 1 (SWP and 9 with $84 million are ranked alternative) would probably be the fourth. The fifth, sixth and least costly alternative. (See seventh ranks are occupied by Figure 3.) alternatives 4 with $91 million, 10 with $100 million, and 8 with $114 28. If the SWP water supply million. It should be noted all developmental cost is $200 per the cost factors and economic bases acre—foot, alternatives 3, 5, and 6 are in 1984 dollars. would probably be less costly than alternative 1 by a small amount. 24. Under the criterion of highest All these alternatives include a flexibility (a measure of the combination of the SWP Coastal amount of water remaining for Branch and Santa Rita and Lower future development after having Jack Dams and Reservoirs. (See implemented the alternatives in Figure 3.) question) , the rankings of the alternatives and the corresponding 29. If the SWP water supply amount of water remaining are: developmental cost is $400 per rank 1--alternative 1 (89,000 acre—foot, alternatives 3, 5, and 6 acre—feet) ; rank 2--alternatives 2 compare even more favorably with and 7 (88,700 acre—feet for each) ; alternative 1; moreover, rank 3--alternative 6 (82,000 alternative 9 (combination of Santa acre—feet) ; rank 4--alternatives 3, Rosa, Lower Jack, and Coastal 5, and 4 (76,800, 76,800, and Branch) would also be competitive 76,700 acre—feet, respectively) ; with alternative 1. (See Figure rank 5--alternative 9 (73,500 3.) acre—feet) ; and rank 6--alternatives 8 and 10 (67,200 30. Use of a Water Resources Advisory acre—feet for each) . Committee (and its ad hoc committee) was helpful in ensuring 25. Rankings of the alternatives from that the investigation was kept least to greatest environmental responsive to the needs of the impacts are: 1, 2, 7, 6, 3, 4, 5, entire County and that the 8, 9, and 10. This ordering investigators were given timely indicates that alternatives information on local conditions and involving only pipeline concerns. construction would have less environmental effect than those Conclusions involving the construction both of pipelines and of dams and Based on the foregoing findings, the reservoirs. following conclusions can be drawn: 26. Ranking the alternatives under the 1. Water supplies identified in this criterion of ease of update study are sufficient to meet implementation involved future MSI demands as projected, if consideration not only of the required storage and transport environmental issues, but also of facilities are built and if ground financial aspects, difficulties in water basins are protected to ensure construction, and legal and continued use. institutional issues. The rankings are as follows: 1, 2, 7, 3, 5, 6, 2. In almost all categories in which 4, 8, 9, and 10. the alternative plans were 14 evaluated--average unit cost, 8. Implementation of the water capital investment, flexibility, conservation program in the DWR environmental impacts, and ease of report "Recommended Water implementation--alternative 1 Management Plan for San Luis Obispo (which relies mainly on SWP Coastal County Flood Control and Water Branch) ranks favorably. Conservation District" would mean a significant reduction in water 3. Alternatives 1 and 2 would require demand. leadtime of less than 10 years; this is less leadtime than the 9. The values used for overdraft of other alternatives because the the ground water basins are based implementation of alternatives 1 on past studies; they may now be and 2 involves mainly pipelines and greater or smaller than reported. would cause the least Overdrafting of the basins needs to environmental, legal, and be managed and controlled by local institutional concerns. agencies in such a way that the economic value of the resources is 4. Seismic safety requirements, not impaired. policies and regulations of the Coastal Commission and Department 10. Ground water basins along the of Fish and Game, and the coast, such as the San Simeon, possibility of areas of Santa Rosa, Los Osos , and Edna archaeological significance being Valley/Pismo Basins could have flooded may increase the cost and quantity and quality problems in time required or otherwise limit meeting the growing water needs. construction of the proposed new dams. Consequently, both 11. Projects for artificial recharge of alternatives 1 and 2 could become ground water basins with local more economically favorable and surface runoff could provide require less time than alternatives additional data for evaluating the 3, 5, and 6 because the latter effectiveness of such projects in three involve the construction of the County. Similarly, dams and reservoirs. interception of subsurface discharge to the ocean may b•e 5. Lower Jack and Santa Rita Dams evaluated for enhancing supplies would probably be the least costly for coastal communities. among the dams studied in meeting seismic safety requirements. 12. In-place treatment (using the ion-exchange process) of ground 6. Water produced by local projects as water with high nitrate problems units of the SWP would be counted can improve the quality as a part of the San Luis Obispo economically ($80 per acre-foot) . County entitlement, thus replacing This could improve the quality an equal amount of imported water. sufficiently to overcome this constraint on the use of ground 7. Unless it sells its entitlements to water in several areas. water from the SWP and Nacimiento Reservoir, San Luis Obispo County 13. Consideration should be given to will have to continue to make the use of reclaimed water for payments for its entitlements, agriculture, landscaping, and whether it accepts delivery of any certain types of industrial uses. of the water or not. In the case Consideration of desalination of sea of the SWP, the payments are water should be deferred until it undergoing sizable increases. becomes cost competitive with other 15 sources of water. 15. The formation and use of an advisory committee,-similar to that 14. The economic advantage for San Luis used during th-is study would be Obispo County if Santa Barbara helpful in the selection and County also participates in the implementation of a master water Coastal Branch of the SWP is plan to ensure that it serves the substantial. needs of the entire County. 16 AIG uA *!!�8/25/86 D-1 • 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: 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 • the above fees, namely Additions and Accessory Uses, and 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 cover"e 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 de- 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 a 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 2178 S.F. , and thus $2.48 per S.F. of building. Commercial and Multi-Family breaks down to 40% .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 . • `ti J . 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. s s Large Single Family Residential Lot: 0 Proposal would be to limit the fee of new construction on 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: 0 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. s 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: i 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. Y aseadei-1 , INCORPORATED JULY Z. 1979 Date Received: 6-3-86 Date Issued: )DRESS OF PROJECT: 8355 San Andres PERMIT NO. 1 f;0 R )Building O{)Electrical ( )Mechanical ( )Plumbing ( )Solar ( )Swim Pool ( ) ' Lessee Mail Address Phone loyd Bobsin 8355 San Andres Atas. CA _ mtractor/Builder Address aner/Builder Phone Li C. No. : 'ch./Engr./Designer Address Phone �lchanan's Draftin Service - Li C. No. ,ilk or other source of loan 1130 Niblick rA - :ntury Federal Savinas Address 6955 E1 Camino Real Atac r'A pe of Project ( )New ( )Add ( )Alter ( )Repair P ( )Demolish ( )Move ( )Install ( )Compliance Survey ( )Change of Occupancy ( )Other 'oject Description: To con tlt'tached Uaraue addition to Y; gal Description: 35, Blk UA Assessor's No. Use Zone Lot Are, 30-292-23 RMF/16 fh 7 AME FOUNDATION EXTERIOR WALL 5 ac ROOF HEATING food Stud ( )Cont. Conc ( )Wood Sdq ( )Stone Vnr ( )Conc T U etal g )Slab T/up (X)Comp Blt-up ( Mec. ( )Wood Trm ( )Brick ( )Metal p g ( )Gas Furr )Timber -( )Piers (X)Stucco ( )Conc Blk ( )Brick Vnr ( )Com Shin le ( )Wood Shgl/Shake ('')Gas Wali pe of Construction: Type No. ( )Metal ( )Tile ( )Solar Occupancy Grouo OU IRE.MENTS: FEES: Value $ 31, 705 Construction: 9 ?q 831 Affidavit Electrical: anning Approval Plumbing: Mechanical: Earthquake: _ 2 22 Issuance: Plan Check: 90 17 Dev FPA i%IT :3 187 gal. septic tank and sq. ft. leach field TOTAL FEES:$ 3 , $3 5 5 6 have read this completed application carefully. Owner ( )Agent Date Paid: Receipt No. : gnature Date ent's Name Printed 1`� 11' w f ', Vis= �� , ,.. •iC��+- - ��t+ 14 mawrL U , na AT AZ lZ CAP ME Fav` �A AA a� •�•`j,,.^ .��l�i�� E.M _ �j� �+� v ' y 1 OT�VI�Lo pwic�_J7 F_61f 5�NGlft Mv1st�E�1� C.Qm.r�,2L.l�Z � TIPM a F FCC M"[VS2)%xj-% g2o0 - t-Ic) P1F._2. u,(i Pru'ofL -ro is.W bbtC cw. 10-7 SaaoL �p4Ltt�H (,�c�cl s maYr�4. YArw\G) cpq; c .46 pvp_2�%-r a.a r � �< iO.TasSal�v.•.r�C.Sc�,01SZ.�__. _1�SOL,:Bf-bcj �,Q � 50 / sc�� ooT c�_�6��5 S C31D6• _ � ��• �� _ _ n)-r% or- 194"6e:su slz�GS. C34 AOATIU4. at RLGG. pF.�r+nn 12FtaL'��4- 85 7102' lc, _N.•.x) '4-w~ -TEGsr S2, 091e3,343 -- '42_.D4Q/•,ra66: base) - #ZAP 00IfllVIZ4:.t TO 4Z.L =EG.r/S IOV&. ate. 1/ua '_41&96E. X-YC-Z.. �''z�►1P? /.9-'��us _fayT o� 6,coU_ L�F.Io �/-8 �V A&JoL�d /O 8fo $0.034/S.F �L 50,073/S.F. 50.141/S.F.• . 7'�pte-; $46.00/cfs S0.001/S.F. $533. /cfs $770. /cfs < $0.18 /ADT $0.022/S.F. $0.500/S.F. $2.27 /ADT $43.46/ADT - $0.080/S.F. $0.126/S.F. $0.157/S.F $13.431ADT 7 $13.29/ADT $13.62/ADT' 4 50.034/S.F- A040l� $0.054/S.F. $0.067/S.F. — $5.76 /ADT $5.70 /ADT $5.34 /ADT f�duL� $0.015/S.F. 50.309/S.F. $0.000/S.F. $0.009/S.F. $0.189/S.F. $0.291/S.F. I $0.009/S.F. I o `- ` --- 50.1.,0 $0.278/S.F. S0.033/S.F. I S0.083/S.F. I $0.083/S.F. I -v $0._65/S.F. I 51.036/S.F. I $1.511/S.F. �• Ho rr! s�..c-,-.C•n»�i?. 573 u�.,-T 539 v,.� ►T 8'�151/v�,� ;.�Ftc�:S J Li�ocn �or,�ec.fivrl ate. J?� .,__ uoor� .01��1a 2s%,, s s rd/ + 4 zsc PE►-m,t F $ s/mow s� s/ ,► r s/ s s,�.4, u,a» . l�-, ^i'.lr ai.-M rill-.�✓ IO i'..� �•ifi}.)� /�' 7 ��/Y�V V�{/�"� �Li1p7c.�r ., ' • `` Ivor s� GAJ /t svOJ£OT 7b f..C-wy AvE, cC'4. 0,Tjc'J of P M�Tc1YZ >otl L im 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 applicable Am Development Prior to issu- Ord. 11 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. $0.500/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 1 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 $0.083/S.F. $0.083/S.F. $0.083/S.F. Subtotal $0.265/S.F. $1.036/S.F. $1.517/S.F. Sewer Fees* Mobile Other Home Connection $ 573/unit $ 533/unit $451/ $20.50 Upon connection Ord. 121 unit fix.un. Annexation $1,210/unit $1,123/unit $950/ $43.20 Unon application unit fix.un. Tax Charge $ 250/unit $ 250/each $250/ $250 Upon connection each each Permit Fee $ 5/each $ 5/each $ 5/ 55.00 Upon application each each * Calculations to be made by Public Works Department. ** Not 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 i WMEETING AGENDA DATE 8/25/86 ITEM# D-2 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works S SUBJECT: Traffic Committee - Citizen Appointee DATE: August 14, 1986 Recommendation: Staff recommends that a citizen of Cbt=ilchoice be appointed to serve a 2-year term on the Traffic Committee, effective Sept- ember 1, 1986 thru August 31, 1988. Background: • The Traffic Committee is made up of 1 council member , 3 staff members and 2 citizen-at-large members, the latter of which serve staggered 2 year terms. Discussion• The open position has been occupied during the last year by Diedre Casparian (one year term) . Diedra has expressed a will- ingness to serve a full 2-year term if recruited. Speaking for the committee, staff salutes Diedra on a job well done, and would consider it valuable to the Traffic Committee for her to serve another term. Fiscal Impact: This is a volunteer position. • r�:. i i � JPUNCIL MEMBERS : THIS ITEM IS BEING PRESENTED i • TO YOU TO BE ACTED ON AS i ITEM D-3 (ADDED ITEM) --------------- ------------- M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: City Council August 25, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 3-86 LOCATION: 5350 San Benito APPLICANT: Jerry Levesque (Volbrecht Surveys) On June 16 , 1986, the City Council approved Lot Line Adjustment • 3-86, subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The required condi- tions have been complied with and the final map is recommended for approval. HE:ps cc: Jerry Levesque Volbrecht Surveys • LIVE: FILE Convert I Access 1 Stare THIS SHEET INDICATES THIS SECTION CONTAINS POOR QUALITY IMAGES v � a o � G.C. •l� �+ Q 't , 'n O � � H C' W � MVV b, h tin�`a � ah�I�ig.C� C�In\�i dal 046 O" C� l 'I Lo. 11 4 W _ i o•b6�-�� 026 acc ozC 11