HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 10/27/1986 �TNDY WILKINS
EPUTY CITY CLERK
• A G E N D A
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
Fourth Floor Rotunda Room
OCTOBER 27, 1986
7:30 P.M.
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Invocation - Reverend Rolland Dexter
Roll Call
City Council Comments
** Introduction of Ann Banks- New Employee - Police Department
** Introduction of Edward Limon - New Employee - Public Works
Department
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 October 13,
1986
2. Approval of Finance Director ' s Monthly Report- September , 1986
3. Approval of Treasurer ' s Monthly Report - September, 1986
4. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 28-86 - 8500 Corriente -
Subdivision of 2 parcels at 10.0 Acres into 3 Parcels of
3.20, 3. 20, and 3.60 Acres Each - Dodson/Twin Cities
Engineering
5. Approval of Tentative Tract Map 6-86 - 10705 El Camino Real -
Creation of 140 Residential Condominium Units (88 Units
Constructed & Occupies, 52 Units Not Constructed) - Casa Camino
Property Owners/Bethel and Associates
1986
1
•
6. Acceptance of Final Tract Map 3-86 - 5550 Traffic Way
• Mulholland/Twin Cities Engineering
7. Acceptance of Final Tract Map 14-84 - 9805 El Camino Real -
Nelson/Jensen-Lenger Surveys
8. Acceptance of Final Tract Map 2-86 - 9650 Las Lomas - Sherer/
Lee/Twin Cities Engineering
9. Acceptance of Final Tract Map 7-85 - 7700/7800 Balboa - Rich/
Twin Cities Engineering
10. Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 14-86 - 8205 Coromar Road
Lopus/Cuesta Engineering
11. Adoption of Proposed Resolution 119-86 - Supporting
Proposition 57 - Retirement Benefits for Non Judicial and
Non Legislative Elected State Constitutional Officers
12. Adoption of Proposed Resolution 120-86 - Opposing
Proposition 61 - Compensation of Public Officials, Employees,
and Individual Public Contractors
13. Adoption of Proposed Resolution 121-86 - Opposing
Proposition 62 - Taxation of Local Governments and Districts
• B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS
1. Sewer Assessment District Number 4 - Separado/Cayucos Sewer
Project:
A. Property Owner Protest Hearing
B. Proposed Resolution 116-86 - Confirming Assessment and
and Ordering Proposed Improvements; Providing for Notice
of Recording of Assessment; and Designating the City
Treasurer to Collect and Receive Money
C. Proposed Resolution 117-86 —Awarding Contract for the
Constructionof Public Improvements for the Separado-
Cayucos Assessment District
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Ordinance 139 - Amending the Plumbing Code to Allow Sewage
Disposal Systems on Slopes of 30% or More (SECOND READING)
(Cont'd from 10/13/86)
• D. COMMUNITY FORUM
2
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
• 1. City Council
2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk
4. City Treasurer
5. City Manager
NOTE: THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED TO A JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ON NOVEMBER 5 AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE
FOURTH FLOOR CLUB ROOM
3
��T3�tC
DATZ L
(TiM _/
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
October 13 , 1986
Atascadero Administration Building
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.
An invocation was given by Councilwoman Norris.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers Borgeson, Handshy, Molina, Norris and
Mayor Mackey
Absent: None
STAFF
Mike Shelton, City Manager ; David Jorgensen, Administrative Services
Director; Bud McHale, Police Chief; Mike Hicks, Fire Chief; Henry
Engen, Community Development Director ; Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works
Director; Bob Best, Recreation Director; Boyd Sharitz, City Clerk;
Robert Jones, City Attorney; Cindy Wilkins, Deputy City Clerk.
COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
Councilwoman Borgeson announced that the next meeting of the SLO Area
Coordinating Council is scheduled for Oct. 17th, and she hopes to make
a report at the next Council meeting.
Councilwoman Norris read a prepared statement expressing concern that,
although the authority to hire City department heads belongs to the
City Council, their powers are usurped (by City resolutions) when dis-
missal comes into question, and the decision rests mainly with the
City Manager. Councilwoman Norris proposed Ord. 24 (and any necessary
resolutions) be amended to return usurped powers to the City Council.
Mayor Mackey appointed an ad hoc committee of Councilmembers Borgeson
and Norris to meet with the City Manager and City Attorney to review
Ord. 24 and report back findings.
Mayor Mackey made several comments: _
- Urged citizens to attend Colony Days festivities this weekend
- Announced that some Councilmembers will be attending League of
California Cities meeting next week in Los Angeles
- New City newsletter has been mailed to residences throughout City;
she -urged citizens to respond to the economic redevelopment survey
• attached to it
- Announced the next meeting will include the sewer protest hearing
(Improvement District No. 4 - Separado/Cayucos)
1
- Issued proclamation, "Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention in Commu�
ity Schools"
- Issued proclamation, "White Cane Safety Day - October 15, 1986"
COMMUNITY FORUM
Pastor Godfrey, Faith Baptist Church, asked Council to review the let-
ter sent to each of them regarding the church' s request contained
therein.
Joe Knyal, resident on Alta Vista, read a prepared statement ques-
tioning recent remarks by City Manager Shelton related to rumors
circulating having to do with Police Chief McHale. Mr. Knyal ques-
tioned why the Police Chief's salary is less than that of the Fire
Chief and why the Becker & Bell Salary Survey was ignored when setting
the salaries for the two chiefs. Mr. Knyal proposed Consent Calendar
Item #3 be pulled from consideration.
Greg Mann, President of Santa Rosa Road School PTA, expressed concern
for student pedestrian safety at El Camino Real and Santa Rosa Rd. ,
requesting that crossing guard services be reinstated at that loca-
tion; Mayor Mackey responded that the matter will be referred to the
Traffic Committee, suggesting that Mr. Mann attend their next meeting
to relay his concerns.
Councilman Molina suggested a committee be formed to look into tO
Faith Baptist Church concern; Mayor Mackey appointed Councilmen Molina
and Handshy to meet with Henry Engen, Commun. Devel. Director , and
Mike Shelton, City Manager, to review the matter.
Councilman Handshy expressed concern that, since the crosswalk at East
Mall & El Camino was moved to West Mall & EI Camino, there are no
clear signs to direct students to cross at W. Mall; Paul Sensibaugh,
Pub. Works Director , responded that the traffic control signs have
just arrived and, once in place, should remedy the concern.
Councilwoman Borgeson requested copies of Traffic Committee reports;
Paul Sensibaugh, Pub. Works Director , responded that minutes will be
forwarded to the full Council, as well as a report of the issues the
committee has addressed in the past, hopefully ready for presentation
to Council at their first meeting in November.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of September 22,
1986
2. Proposed Resolution 108-86 - Adoption of Salary/Classification
Schedule for City Management Employees
3. Proposed Resolution 112-86 - Amendment to Resolution 21-85 -
City Manager Terms and Conditions of Employment
2
• 0
4. Authorization to Declare 1979 Dodge Dial-A-Ride Bus as Surplus
Equipment
5. Approval of Proposed Resolution 111-86 - Accepting an Irrevoc-
able Offer of Dedication of an Easement for Road Purposes on 2
Parcels Adjacent to Proposed Sycamore Bridge by the Atascadero
Mutual Water Company
6. Acceptance of Bid Number 86-42 - Purchase of New Transit Bus to
Wide One Corporation
7. Acceptance of Bid Number 86-41 1986/87 Street Overlay Project
to Madonna Construction Company
8. Approval of Proposed Resolution 113-86 - Establishment of Stop
Sign on Balboa Avenue at San Fernando
9. Approval of Lot Line Adjustment 5-86 - 4685 Lobos - Watkins/Twin
Cities Engineering
10. Approval of Lot Line Adjustment 6-86 - 10755/10855 Atascadero
Road - Garcia/Cuesta Engineering
11. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 13-86 - 7300 San Gregorio Road -
Subdivision of 12.12 Acres into 4 Lots of 2. 85, 3. 10, 3.10 and
3.10 Acres Each & Establish Private Street Name of Ropa Court -
Langille/Dan Stewart & Associates
12. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 22-86 - 5120 and 5300 San Benito
- Subdivision of 10. 26 Acres into 4 Lots of 2. 74, 2. 52, 2. 50 and
2. 50 Acres Each - St. Clair/Cook/Bland/Volbrecht Surveys
13. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 23-86 - 5100 San Benito Sub-
division of 5 Acres into 2 Lots of 2. 50 Acres Each - St. Clair/
Cook/Bland/Volbrecht Surveys
14. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 25-86 - 8375 Portola Road - Lot
Line Adjustment and Subdivision of 2 Acre Parcel into 2 Lots of 1
Acre Each - Wright/North Coast Engineering
15. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 15-84 - 1875 E1 Camino Real -
Extension of Time to Complete Conditions of Tentative Map - HLS
Properties/Associated Professions
16. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map AT 830325 :1 - Lots 14 , 15, 16,
17 and 33 of Block 24 - Balboa and Ardilla Roads - Time Extension
to Complete Conditions of Tentative Map - Dovica/Central Coast
Engineering
17. Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 33-85 - 7355 Sombrilla/7350 Encin-
al - Parsons/Cuesta Engineering
. 18. Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 10-86 - 10885 San Marcos Road -
Hale/Cuesta Engineering
3
• !
19. Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 12-85 - 9250 Santa Luci
- Hawkins/Cuesta Engineering
20. Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 31-85 - 10800 Santa Ana Road -
Davis/Twin Cities Engineering
21. Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 25-85 - 11160 Atascadero Road -
Curtis/Twin Cities Engineering
22. Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 9-85 - 11955 San Marcos Road -
Davis/Twin Cities Engineering
23. Approval of Consultant Contract with David W. Griffiths for SB 90
Services
Councilwoman Borgeson requested Item # ' s 2 & 3 be pulled for discus-
sion.
MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to approve Items Al-23 , minus Items 2 &
3, seconded by Councilman Molina; passed unanimously by roll-
call.
Councilwoman Borgeson, regarding Item #2, reviewed the proposed com-
pensation (percentage figures) for department heads, speaking in
opposition to 'merit' increases in the 9% range in view of the current
rate of inflation (which she noted as approx. 3.5%) ; she propos
Council authorize a 6% across the board ' total' increase to departme
heads, followed by Council discussion.
Councilman Molina suggested Council recess for a brief caucus. City
Attorney Jones commented that the law allows closed session discussion
regarding the merits of personnel and suggestions as to increases
based on merit; however, discussion of specific salaries must be done
in open session.
Councilman Molina spoke in favor of increases on the basis of merit as
opposed to 'blanket' increases.
After making the following motion, Councilwoman Borgeson questioned
Councilman Molina as to possible conflict of interest in voting for
salary increases to any department heads; he stated there was none,
posing the same question to Councilwoman Borgeson, who responded no,
followed by further related discussion. (It is noted that, on the
advice of City Attorney Jones, the Councilmembers addressed their
questions to one another via Mayor Mackey. )
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson to approve adoption of a salary
classification schedule for City management employees, with
an amendment that the increase be a 7% total across the
, board, seconded by Councilwoman Norris; passed by 3:2 roll-
call, with Councilmembers Molina and Handshy voting NO.
4
0 0
City Manager Shelton, for the benefit of the audience, explained the
basis for the proposed increases as being a combination of (County-
wide) salary survey and merit evaluation (which was established and
utilized last year in determining salaries) . Mr . Shelton clarified
that the increases, as adopted, are retroactive to July 1, 1986 .
Regarding Item #3, Councilwoman Borgeson spoke in opposition to a
three-year term of the City Manager ' s contract.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson to amend Res. 21-85, City Manager
Terms and Conditions of Employment Agreement, to limit the
length of the contract to two years, seconded by Councilwoman
Norris; passed by 3:2 roll-call, with Councilmembers Handshy
and Molina voting NO.
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS
1. Presentation by Architectural Standards Review Committee
Henry Engen, Commun. Devel. Director , gave staff report, followed by
the Architectural Standards Review Committee' s draft report given by
committee member , Gary Harcourt (see agenda packet) .
Council referred this item to the Planning Commission for review and
formal recommendation.
2. Proposed Ordinance 139 - Amending the Plumbing Code to Allow
..Sewage Disposal Systems on Slopes of 30% or More (FIRST READING)
Henry Engen, Commun. Devel. Director , gave staff report and responded
to questions from Council.
Public Comment
Mike Sherer , long-time Atas. resident, urged City Council to give
builders the opportunity to prove that some lots having steep slopes
are good home sites and will accept septic systems with good percola-
tion, noting that many such lots are beyond the Urban Services Line
and may never have sewer available; he also noted that the Regional
Water Quality Control Board has very strict guidelines for private
sewage disposal systems on steep slopes.
City Attorney Jones commented that the RWQCB has preempted the field
in this area and are in charge of inspecting problem areas (i.e. ,
Cease & Desist Areas) to determine acceptance of a septic system;
however , the City must adopt an enabling ordinance to allow their
review oaf designed systems (which may or may not be acceptable) .
. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to read Ord. 139 by title only, seconded
by Councilwoman Norris; passed 4 :1, with Mayor Mackey op-
posed. Mayor Mackey read Ord. 139 by title.
5
0 0
MOTION: By Councilman Molina that this constitutes the first readi
of Ord. 139, seconded by Councilwoman Norris; passed 4:
with Mayor Mackey opposed.
COUNCIL RECESSED FOR FIVE-MINUTES AT 9 :38 P.M.
C. Proposed Resolution 115-86 - Opposition to Measure "A" - Permit
Processing for Onshore Oil Processing Facilities
Councilman Molina, who introduced this item at the last Council meet-
ing, summarized the message behind this proposed resolution.
Public Comment
Sarah Gronstrand, resident, commented that information provided in the
November General Election Ballot Pamphlet pertaining to Measure A is
incomplete in that it contains only literature from the opposition to
the proposition; she urged Council to focus their attention on Atasca-
dero' s more immediate problems, saying the voters in the County will
decide when more fully informed.
Maggie Rice, Chamber of Commerce, related that the Chamber ' s Board of
Directors voted unanimously to oppose Measure A after careful consid-
eration and study.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina to adopt Res. No. 115-86 , seconded
Councilwoman Norris; passed 3: 2, with Councilwoman Borges
and Mayor Mackey opposed.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina to recess as Council and convene as the
Atascadero County Sanitation District Board of Directors,
seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson; passed unanimously.
D. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (ACSD)
1. Developer Request for Special Consideration of Sewer Fees -
Bethel-Messer/Nelson (Cont'd from 9/8/86)
Paul Sensibaugh, Pub. Works Director , gave staff report.
Public Comment
Robert Lilly, representing Daryl Nelson, spoke in support of his cli-
ent being relieved of the current sewer fees, reviewing the history of
the project and dates permits were obtained; he stressed that it' s
fundamentally important that the Board address, up front, projects in
the pipeline when an emergency ordinance is introduced to insure that
permittees are advised as to how they may be directly affected.
r
Dennis Bethel, appellant, supported the comments of the previous
speaker. 0
Henry Engen, Commun. Devel. Director , commented on the application of
the various fees in effect, followed by Mike Shelton, City Manager,
6
clarifying that the purpose of the July l effective date was to allow
sufficient lead time so as not to 'catch' certain applicants, due to _
the potential financial impact of both the sewer and development
fees.
Russ Wright, representing the interests of Don Messer , noted the ap-
pearance of a fundamental breakdown in the Board' s direction (*) to
staff and staff's response. * (See Minutes of 9/8/86 , Pg. 6, Para. 1)
Mr . Sensibaugh responded that direction to staff was that, if the
financial impact was greater than anticipated (in terms of the number
of projects affected) , it should have a bearing on the negotiations
with the developers.
The Board concurred to send this item back to the committee for nego-
tiation with the developers.
MOTION: By Director Molina to adjourn as ACSD Board of Directors and
reconvene as the City Council, seconded by Director Handshy;
passed unanimously.
E. COMMUNITY FORUM
Doug Lewis, resident, submitted prepared comments relating to AB2674 ,
Chapter 641, amending sections of the Government Code pertaining to
the Ralph M. Brown Act and its effect on local agencies; he read
several excerpts from sections of that chapter : Sec. 54954. 2,
54954.3, 54956 , 54956.5, 54960 .1 and 54960 .5.
City Attorney Jones made responding comments to Mr . Lewis's, noting
that the new provisions of the Brown Act are in the process of being
disseminated by the League of California Cities to municipalities, and
the City Council is not in violation tonight.
F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
City Council - Councilwoman Borgeson responded to an earlier remark
by Councilman Handshy regarding her having left a closed session;
she stated she took Sec. 54959 of the Brown Act as her authority to
do so.
City Manager - Mike Shelton commented that the joint Council/School
District Committee has recently discussed the concept of forming a
joint powers authority between the two for the purpose of providing
recreation facilities; Mr . Shelton also spoke about discussions
between staff, the BIA and Chamber of Commerce regarding economic
development in the downtown area. Based on the committee ' s recom-
mendation that two Councilmembers meet regularly with them, Council-
woman Borgeson and Mayor Mackey volunteered to be on the committee.
7
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10 :55 P.M.
MINUTES RECORDED BY:
BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk
PREPARED BY:
CINDY WILKINS, Deputy City Clerk
j
8
M1EEfsNG AG-NDA
DO 6 2 ITEM#--
October 27 , 1986
To All Council Members:
The breakdown detail on all accounts is available
for your viewing in the Finance Department.
G
Davi J g nsen
Admin. r ices Director
3
CITY OF ATASCADERO
FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
SEPTEMBER 1, 1986 TO SEPTEMBER 30 , 1986
BALANCE AS OF AUGUST 31, 1986 (5,999 .42)
DEPOSITED BY TREASURER, SEE RECEIPTS,
TREASURER'S REPORT, PAGE 1 582, 552. 15
TOTAL 576, 552. 73
HAND CHECK REGISTER DATED 09/30/86 114, 228.66
CHECK REGISTER DATED 09/05/86 102,158.64
CHECK REGISTER DATED 09/12/86 50 , 688. 94
CHECK REGISTER DATED 09/19/86 53,364. 25
CHECK REGISTER DATED 09/26/86 42, 534.10
EXPENSE LISTING 150 ,042. 76
TOTAL 513,017.35
BALANCE AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 63 , 535.38
PETTY CASH 540 .00
TREASURY INVESTMENTS
SEE TREASURER'S REPORT, PAGE 2 1,750 ,000.00
TOTAL 1,814 ,075.38
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: October 27, 1986
lS
DAVIDIrvices
ESEN
Admin. Director
4
i •
. CITY OF ATASCADERO
FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
SEPTEMBER 1, 1986 TO SEPTEMBER 30 , 1986
EXPENSE LISTING
PAYROLL DATED 09/03/86 CHECKS #37187-37293 76, 016 . 04
PAYROLL DATED 09/17/86 CHECKS #37294-37401 74,338.39
VOID CK#31111 CK. REG. DATED 08/29/86 (27. 77)
VOID CK#31259 CK. REG. DATED 09/05/86 (120 .00)
VOID CK#31233 CK. REG. DATED 09/05/86 (1. 59)
VOID CK#31294 CK. REG. DATED 09/12/86 (108.00)
VOID CK#31419 CK. REG. DATED 09/26/86 (54.31)
TOTAL 150 ,042.76
5
AGENDA _
IT FAAA
CITY OF ATASCADERO
•
TREASURER'S REPORT
SEPTEMBER 1, 1986 TO SEPTEMBER 30 , 1986
RECEIPTS
TAXES
Property Tax 8,560.70
Cigarette Tax 3, 578. 68
Motor Vehicle "In Lieu" 58,907.72
Sales Tax 145, 696 . 75
Franchise Tax 2,546.59
Livestock-Head Day Tax 106. 68
Occupancy Tax 1,040.80
Development Impact Tax 31,504. 50
LICENSES/PERMITS/FEES 63,717.45
GAS TAX 22,043.40
DEVELOPMENT FEES 12, 518.66
PARKS & RECREATION FEES 32,159.43
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND 140 ,000.00
• TRANSPORTATION SB-325 2,812. 05
STREET ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 10. 50
MISCELLANEOUS
Security Deposit 10,000.00
Contribution-Life Support 1, 800 . 00
Zoo Reserve (500 .00)
Sale Maps/Publications/Reports 649 . 20
Special Police Services 75. 00
Fines & Penalties 831.71
Planning Permit Deposits (3,370.00)
Bails/Bonds 520.00
Traffic Safety 5,971. 27
Reimbursement to Expense 708.98
P.O.S.T. 2,774.10
Business Improvement Assn. Tax 143. 75
Overages & Shortages 1. 24
Weed Abatement 103. 51
Performance Bond 7,700.00
Rents/Concessions 251. 00
Refunds 1,520 .50
Appeals 53.00
Sanitation Reimbursement 20,345.98
CDBG Reimbursement 7,769. 00
• TOTAL 582, 552. 15
1
CITY OF ATASCADERO .
TREASURER' S REPORT
SEPTEMBER 1, 1986 TO SEPTEMBER 30 , 1986
INVESTMENTS
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND $1,750, 000. 00
TOTAL INVESTMENT DEPOSITS $1,750 ,000.00
•
/vim-= Cllr
Charles Bourbeau
City Treasurer
2
•
DA
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council IV- October 27, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director AS
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 28-86
LOCATION: 8500 Corriente Road
APPLICANT: Bruce Dodson (Twin Cities Engineering)
REQUEST: Subdivision of 10.0 acres into three parcels of 3.20 ,
3.20, and 3. 60 acres each.
On October 6, 1986, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on the above-referenced subject approving the land division request on
a 5:1 vote subject to the findings and conditions contained in the at-
tached staff report, along with a side note that the City make the
landowner aware of any infractions of the CC&Rs.
• There was considerable public testimony and discussion by the Commis-
sion as referenced in the attached minutes excerpt.
HE:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Staff Report, October 6, 1986
Minutes Excerpt - October 6, 1986
City of Atascadero Item: B-2
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/6/86
BY:�11Steven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: TPM 28-86
Project Address: 8500 Corriente Road
SUBJECT:
Subdivision of two parcels containing 10. 0 acres into two parcels con-
taining 3. 20 acres each and one parcel of 3.60 acres.
BACKGROUND:
Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Fri-
day, September 26, 1986. All property owners of record located within
300 feet of the subject property were also notified on that date.
A. LOCATION: 8500 Corriente (Lots 10 and 13, Block 45)
B. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Subdivision of 10.0 acres into
three parcels containing 3. 20 ,
3.20 and 3 .60 acres.
2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bruce Dodson
3. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Twin Cities Engineering
4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.0 acres
5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Corriente Road is paved to City
standards and has a 40 foot
right-of-way. Santa Ana Road is
unimproved in this location.
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban - 2. 5
to 10.0 acre minimum lot size)
7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant
8. Adjacent Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . .North: RS
South: RS
East: RS
West: RS
9. General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Single Family •
Residential
c:
r �
0 •
Tentative Parcel Map 28-86 (Dodson/Twin Cities Engineering)
10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gradual slope from west (Santa
Ana Road) to east (Corriente)
11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted
September 15, 1986
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 (13%) 0.75
Condition of access (paved) 0.40
General neighborhood character (5.01 acres) 1.00
Minimum lot size: 3.20 acres
The lot sizes proposed (3. 20 acres and 3.60 acres) 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.
Corriente Road is paved to City standards in this location and has
a 40 foot right-of-way. Santa Ana Road is unimproved in this
area. It, too, will eventually have a 40 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. 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
28-86 based on the findings in Exhibit C and the Conditions of
Approval in Exhibit D.
SLD:ps
2 I �
• 0
Tentative Parcel Map 28-86 (Dodson/Twin Cities Engineering)
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location and Zoning Map
Exhibit B - Tentative Parcel Map
Exhibit C - Findings for Approval
Exhibit D - Conditions of Approval
3
" �= EXE►BIT A
C
R S __-L
L
MpO
11
11
1
1
11
11
0
r
a
z
a �
Q61
2
r
/
i`
� RS �
0
t \
S7
ti
° r>
RS
z
II
J
O° 400
r
2
B Q
R S �
Nt
S�
ah
Fogy
11
\\ 11 �,NE
\\ ill lli
RS
I1 a EIFy i" aNr
A/ P1
r� J Ir ` Oa°'
�j✓bVrbAh,
\\ Q� ♦ 11�
i
cX41 r31-r g
a-Av a, arca M a
R •
—owl
p♦ONS ` � �j �1�-- ��.-`
�I
dO \
�e � .s
14
• ooa-
Cy Z� uQ� n N �3 � �2DN
�` iw� Of O � •'1 � - � � '�tiyv �
c A ` _ ~a Z O
o �i Z
ti iazbttcig r� y 41140
t „ta z tai
Q�r^14J "Qipg�
IA
4� +
• •
Tentative Parcel Map 28-86 (Dodson/Twin Cities Engineering)
EXHIBIT C - Tentative Parcel Map 28-86
Findings for Approval
October 6, 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,
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
4C
• •
Tentative Parcel Map 28-86 (Dodson/Twin Cities Engineering)
EXHIBIT D - Tentative Parcel Map 28-86
Conditions of Approval
October 6, 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.
4. Road improvement plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer,
must be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department
prior to recording the final map for construction of one-half of
the City road section along Santa Ana Road to include 10 foot a.c.
pavement with a two foot graded shoulder .
5. Construction of road improvements shall be completed (or bonded
for) prior to recording the final map.
6. Upon approval by the Public Works Director , the property owner (s)
may enter into a deferral agreement for the construction of the
road improvements.
7. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department.
Sign an inspection agreement and a curb and gutter agreement,
guaranteeing that the work will be done and inspections paid for .
The improvements shall be constructed as directed by the encroach-
ment permit prior to recording the final map. Improvement plans
prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted and
approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of
the encroachment permit.
8. Prior to approval of the improvement plans by the Public Works
Director, either the subdivider shall acquire sufficient 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 Immi-
nent Domain.
5 1 `
• •
Tentative Parcel Map 28-86 (Dodson/Twin Cities Engineering)
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.
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. The applicant shall acquire and offer for dedication to the City
of Atascadero the following rights-of-way:
a) Street Name: Corriente Road
b) Limits: 20 feet from centerline along property frontage
c) Street Name: Santa Ana Road
d) Limits: 20 feet from centerline along property frontage
12. An offer of dedication shall be made to the public for the Public
Utilities Easements.
13. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to or
simultaneously to recording 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 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.
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.
6 , �j
Minutes - Planning Commission - October 6, 1986
2. Tentative Parcel Map 28-86 :
Request submitted by Bruce Dodson (Twin Cities Engineering)
to allow subdivision of two parcels containing 10. 0 acres
into three parcels containing 3. 20 , 3.20 , and 3.60 acres
each. Subject property is located at 8500 Corriente, also
known as Lots 10 and 13 of Block 45 .
Mr. DeCamp presented the staff report noting staff' s recommenda-
tion for approval of the land division request.
Allen Campbell with Twin Cities Engineering, representing the ap-
plicant, noted his concurrence with the staff report with the ex-
ception of the requirements pertaining to the road improvements
and road dedication (Conditions#4, 5, 6, 8, 11) . He noted that
Corriente Road had been paved a year ago and is nearly ready to be
accepted into the City system. Santa Ana Road has been graded
as part of an overall development to serve several parcels and
will also be paved and eventually accepted into the City system.
Diane Donalies, Corriente Road resident, stated she is upset with
the negative effect of these lot splits and the resulting "tract"
homes in relationship to the number of custom-built homes in the
area. She commented on the area' s poor percolation rates and the
need for an extensive engineered septic system. She. noted the
area' s poor substandard roads.
Michelle Whitehead, San Fernando Road resident, concurred with
Mrs. Donalie' s concerns and noted these are shared among the
neighbors in the area. She stated that the homes being built by
the developer are substandard in nature and of a tract quality.
She- expressed concern with the amount of grading on this property,
potential flooding and drainage problems, and adequate setback
requirements for the development. Mr . DeCamp responded to her
concerns.
There was discussion concerning the review of the C.C. & R.s and
it was pointed out that the City only reviews C.C.&R.s for condo-
minium projects (i.e. , adequate on-site parking, maintenance of
open-space areas) . In the case of single family development with
pre-existing C.C.&R.s, the City does not have any enforcement
capabilities.
Commissioner Copelan felt that perhaps lot splits should not be
allowed in areas such as this one until the General Plan is re-
viewed when neighbors would then have input in determining lot
sizes for the area. Mr. DeCamp responded to the general neighbor-
hood character determination within 1500 feet of the subject site.
In response to question from Commissioner Nolan, Mr . DeCamp re-
sponded to staff' s concerns with not wanting to delete the condi-
tions as requested by Mr . Campbell, and noted these improvements
are not being required now, but can be deferred with an agreement
between the developer and the Public Works Department.
3
0 •
Minutes - Planning Commission - October 6 , 1986
MOTION: Made by Commissioner H'atchell and seconded by Commis-
sioner Nolan to approve Tentative Parcel Map 28-86 based
on the findings and conditions contained in the staff
report, with a side note that the City make the landowner
aware of any infractions of the C.C.&R.s and what he
might do with regard to that. The motion was carried
with a roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Commissioners Hatchell, Nolan, Kidwell, Lopez-
Balbontin, and Chairman Bond
NOES: Commissioner Copelan
01
3. Tentative Tract Map 6-86:
Request submitted by Casa Camino Property Owners (Denn '
Bethel and Associates) to allow the creation of 140 r siden-
tial condominium units (88 units constructed and oc pied,
units not yet constructed) . Subject property located
at 0705 E1 Camino Real (Jornada Lane) .
Mr. DeCamp esented the staff report on this con minium conver-
sion request ecommending approval subject to ce tain conditions.
Chairman Bond qu tioned Condition #3 (betwe the difference of
fees for apartment and single family resid ces) , to which Mr.
DeCamp explained tha there is a differen in the ordinance be-
tween a multiple fami project and sin a family project, and the
condominium project is nsidered a si gle family project because
of the ownership.
Commissioner Kidwell expresse co ern with Finding #1 pertaining
the parcels conforming with the oning Ordinance and General Plan
land use element in relation ordinance covering occupied
apartments wanting to be con erted.
In response to question f om Commissio er Nolan, Mr . DeCamp noted
there has been no respo e in oppositio to the conversion from
the current renters a explained the pro dure for notification
of the tenants.
In response to q stion from Commissioner Nolan relative to ade-
quate fire acce s, Mr. DeCamp noted this project as been reviewed
by the Fire D artment under the precise plan revi as well as
during the ilding permit review.
Dennis B hel, representing the applicant, concurred wit the re-
port w" h the exception of Condition #2 (requiring a soil report)
to w 'ch he noted that a soils report has already been subm ted
for he entire project previously. Mr . DeCamp explained the tate
r uirements in fulfilling this conditions and noted that the
oils report previously submitted would be sufficient.
4
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council October 27, 1986
VIA• M'
ichael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director .%AX
SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 6-86
LOCATION: 10705 E1 Camino Real (Jornada Lane)
APPLICANT: Casa Camino Property Owners (Dennis Bethel)
REQUEST: To allow the creation of 140 residential condominiums (88
units constructed and occupied, 52 units not yet construc-
ted from a previously approved apartment complex)
On October 6, 1986 , the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on the above-referenced subject approving the tract map request on a
4:2 vote, subject to the findings and conditions contained in the at-
tached staff report, with minor modification to Condition #3 to add
"condominium" between "additional" and "units. "
There was considerable public testimony and discussion by the Commis-
sion as referenced in the attached minutes excerpt.
HE:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Staff Report - October 6, 1986
i
Minutes Excerpt - October 6, 1986
City of Atascadero Item: B-3
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/6/86
BY: Joel Moses, Associate Planner File No: TTM 6-86
Project Address: 10705 E1 Camino Real (Jornada Lane)
SUBJECT•
To allow conversion of the existing lots containing a partially dev-
eloped multiple family residential complex of 140 units (88 units
occupyable, 52 not yet constructed) into air space condominiums.
BACKGROUND:
Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Fri-
day, September 26, 1986. All property owners of record located within
300 feet of the subject site were also notified on that date.
In accordance with state law, the owner of the subject property has
provided written notice to all tenants of the project prior to the
filing of the proposed tract map.
A. LOCATION: 10705 E1 Camino Real (Jornada Lane)
B. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To allow the creation of 140
residential condominiums (88
units constructed and occupied,
52 units not yet constructed
from a previously approved
apartment complex)
2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Casa Camino Property Owners
3. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dennis Bethel and Associates
4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.75 acres
5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .El Camino Real--divided arterial
Jornada Lane--private road
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF/16 (Residential Multiple
Family - 16 units per acre)
7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Partially constructed multiple
family complex (140 units)
• •
Tentative Tract Map 6-86 (Casa Camino/Dennis Bethel)
8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: County, State Hospital
South: RMF/16 , single family
East: County, State Hospital
West: RMF/16, multiple family
9. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Multiple Family
10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gentle rolling slopes draining
toward El Camino Real
11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Class 1 (k) exemption
C. ANALYSIS:
This application proposes the creation of 140 residential air-
space condominium units. The project consists of the conversion
of 140 apartment units, 88 units which have been constructed and
are occupyable, and 52 proposed for future construction, to indi-
vidual ownership. This will allow individual ownership of the
dwelling units and common ownership of the parking and open space
areas.
This development was previously reviewed and approved as a precise
plan (PP 11-84) and a parcel map (TPM 12-84) . The precise plan
approved the construction of 140 apartment units and the parcel
map approved the creation of four lots.
Due to the conversion of existing units that are occupied by ex-
isting renters, several procedural requirements of state law need
to •be followed. These include notification of tenants and offers
to sell the units to existing tenants. Fees charged previously as
to sewer connections will also need to be modified due to the
change in status (changing from apartments to condominiums) .
D. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map 6-86
based on the Findings contained in Exhibit C and the Conditions
of Approval contained in Exhibit D.
JM:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location and Zoning Map
Exhibit B —Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit C - Findings for Approval
Exhibit D - Conditions of Approval
2
19
r Q
V I� :.i o}•%a+M IOWw , `,VtV ',.j t_�+ •i'.
Y r S
2w.
LZ Clavi�NJD 2f.'19'L ,. -
`C cr6A ct"I IUD Ffz. PCTTTi'` GI UI / .
J Dom§. q'• \ � 1
O ♦0 7 taw r. R - .16
\O i\ y <
Fps,
11"
16IS� 13
RMF/16
14
RS
♦♦ '.r. a. n S 35
34 4o NN ' 35 It y� Yrp H 03 /1
. ♦ �' W _ •pa bN J0
0
+',•� 3 i�♦1 1� '. �', a"rN tf �r �,,.. wt
`.,.,: '• t♦SI Y'SI 1,:. 17- \a M 4N ♦♦N♦ (^\ •,i,t ;
� ty �'
-c w••t'• 1�' t�`,at,' :30 % t'y�. ♦dt~N tf >: �/.:� .'y\ , --A
], s? �-~� l.' �� V�'♦NSS�2 '-,+\ �J a \\ P .. t :,t r '.I,x�yT%twa� rw
49 • wf,, ♦e °, _ ;i yl
ct, s. 'IS'i"L •=V (? .+if f ]Os-+➢..y1, a
♦s>
:r.♦. ; a' 9 e.nt .37' t ►7;�Yf 1 ♦r 4yt♦ - �J is IS
20 5
. lr i'tOO♦ A� ♦ 39 3t a:a o� ya p l'ti
{� 43
x, nn/
t \l21 42 4 0 Ia .telt'• _ 4
w a S t
44
$d'221
`/ Jryrs 24 'ro 22 20 _ '•
ct- 23 46
f'
21 66
w. ^ 23 =4 - - O
4]
] 29 27 ? 4 J 44
UCPO 20
70,
96 42
29
Y —7j0 94o a _ 43 2S li
4t �,oM.3 1'' t
BF� t ' 30 co 7G•J09 o ii=zea 41 �it1
3 / t4•N \\� 32
tt22 1 Q+2 MR.G 'Z7
40
�, 31
FAR.l
- ( ds ♦♦ 1� _ p� 32 39 _
8o nu d 38 9i=S
+*
�,' 4
-
.11 10 ..lt 1 1.aW ltS.t„,. W,N/Rlw Hri rl.,•
33 11p0.
• ll.a4aa• na!!••aaaw.av,Onr<r+1 ul.6 MH',`'
1!
1y�w.J.+�<27,H1J.l..l.uH.al.a..ra. .Iva.ra.. ♦ :
-1;.�.; 4 - T r. \ 20
y ss
21
"An 2 I r 13
CITYCITY OF ATASCADERO
I Planning Department _•
EX!-F 16 FF A LCLNno
10 7 05
L-Z CO'h J UD MrL•J07-WftPR
Man NO. P.. CIAGW CA-M) UD F 9FM`l aiUVL�LS
KO lJU iT EE�511CGA M f7L C!/-CO
1 .
IS$Div I--
s ® Q i
lei
i
® a
® t
41
e �
I I I I
zl O p l � cc;
K
3
gl.r
t lm OI
w II O O
�,�
r .
--=rte---
.'��rr TE UPM L/ 11/1 Al- b--b&
1`r �f -- -- 10705 ELCl1 X1/1 VD 2CY1L �YXZNl4G
-- - CPn A- C"I UD WP/= U.(i /MC3
--- - ,: l-qD UA-)JT =IDI.-U U)1 . Cly
! •
Tentative Tract Map 6-86 (Casa Camino/Dennis Bethel)
EXHIBIT C - Tentative Tract Map 6-86
Findings for Approval
October 6, 1986
FINDINGS:
1. The creation of these parcels conforms to the Zoning Ordinance and
the General Plan land use element and adopted land use policies.
2. The creation of these parcels is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Section
15301 (k) ) .
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development that
is proposed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development
that is proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will
not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvement will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or
that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474. 6 of the
State Subdivision Map Act as to methods of handling and discharge
of waste.
0
3
• 0
Tentative Tract Map 6-86 (Casa Camino/Dennis Bethel)
EXHIBIT D - Tentative Tract Map 6-86
Findings for Approval
October 6, 1986
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and Restric-
tions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control of nuisances
and architectural constrol for all buildings.
a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval by the
City Attorney and Community Development Department prior to
approval of the final map.
b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by a Condominium Homeowners
Association.
2. Submit a soils report or engineer ' s certification that existing
soils on the site are adequate to support proposed structures per
Chapter 70, subsection (e) of the Uniform Building Code.
3. The applicant shall pay all appropriate fees in force at the time
of recordation of the final map or construction of additional
units. This shall include the difference between the fees for
apartments and single family residences.
4. All requirements of state law (Subdivision Map Act) concerning the
conversion of occupied residential units to air-space condominiums
shall be complied with.
5. All conditions of approval herein specified are to be complied
with prior to the filing of the final map.
6. A final map, in compliance with all conditions set forth herein,
shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the
Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to
recordation.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created
and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor
shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners
have been set or shall be set by a date specific and that
they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit-
ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
7. Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted
pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date.
4
I�
Minutes - Planning Commission - October 6 , 1986
MOTION: Ma by Commissioner Hatchell and seconded b ommis-
sioner lan to approve Tentative Parcel 28-86 based
on the fin ' s and conditions -containe in the staff
report, with a 'de note that the C ' make the landowner
aware of any infra 'ons of the C .&R. s and what he
might do with regard that. a motion was carried
with a roll call vote as ows:
AYES: Commissioners chell, No , Kidwell, Lopez-
Balbontin, d Chairman Bond
NOES: Commi loner Copelan
3. Tentative Tract Map 6-86 :
Request submitted by Casa Camino Property Owners (Dennis
Bethel and Associates) to allow the creation of 140 residen-
tial condominium units (88 units constructed and occupied,
52 units not yet constructed) . Subject property is located
at 10705 El Camino Real (Jornada Lane) .
Mr. Decamp presented the staff report on this condominium conver-
sion request recommending approval subject to certain conditions.
Chairman Bond questioned Condition #3 (between the difference of
fees for apartments and single family residences) , to which Mr .
DeCamp explained that there is a difference in the ordinance be-
0
tween a multiple family project and single family project, and the
condominium project is considered a single family project because
of the ownership.
Commissioner Kidwell expressed concern with Finding #1 pertaining
the parcels conforming with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan
land use element in relation to an ordinance covering occupied
apartments wanting to be converted.
In response to question from Commissioner Nolan, Mr . DeCamp noted
there has been no response in opposition to the conversion from
the current renters and explained the procedure for notification
of the tenants.
In response to question from Commissioner Nolan, relative to ade-
quate fire access, Mr. DeCamp noted this project has been reviewed
by the Fire Department under the precise plan review, as well as
during the building permit review.
Dennis Bethel, representing the applicant, concurred with the re-
port with the exception of Condition #2 (requiring a soils report)
to which he noted that a soils report has already been submitted
for the entire project previously. Mr . DeCamp explained the state
requirements in fulfilling this conditions and noted that the
soils report previously submitted would be sufficient.
4
0 i
Minutes - Planning Commission - October 6, 1986
With regard to condition #3, Mr . Bethel asked that the word "con-
dominium" be added between the words "additional" and "units. "
Mr. DeCamp noted this was more of an informational note.
There was no public testimony given on the matter.
Commissioner Kidwell expressed her concern with the number of con-
dominium units being established since she has been on the Plan-
ning Commission.
Commissioner Hatchell stated he was impressed with the state
requirements on notification to tenants and noted it appeared
there did not seem to be any concerned tenants present to voice
any concerns on this conversion.
Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin asked for clarification that if
an individual owns multiple family zoned property, what would be
the difference with this owner applying for condominium construc-
tion or apartment construction, to which Mr . DeCamp responded
how the procedure works.
Chairman Bond asked for clarification on the construction differ-
ences between an apartment unit and a condominium unit. Mr. De-
Camp explained.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Nolan and seconded by Commissioner
Copelan to approve Tentative Tract Map 6-86 subject to
the findings and conditions contained in the staff report
with modification to condition #3 to add "condominium"
between "additional" and "units. " The motion carried
with a roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Commissioners Nolan, Copelan, Hatchell, and Chair-
man Bond
NOES: Commissioners Kidwell and Lopez-Balbontin
Road Abandonment 2-86 :
quest submitted by Dr . Greenleaf and Dr . White to aban-
don alleyway along the rear of properties nting on East
Mall t llow the encroachment of an offic uilding. Sub-
ject prope is located at 59015 East 11 also known as
Lots 12, 13, a 14 of Block OL, " ndment N" .
In presenting the staff re t, . DeCamp explained the findings
that must be made in order to ermine the General Plan conformi-
ty with this matter , and e ab o the General Plan with regard
to creek development p icies. He no staff ' s recommendation to
deny the requested eyway abandonment.
In answer to uestion from Commissioner Lopez-Ba ntin, Mr . De-
Camp not that the senior citizen center encroaches etween 8-10
feet ' to the alleyway.
5 �1
7iiR .271�'c_
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council M3 October 27, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director.
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Tract Map 3-86
LOCATION: 5550 Traffic Way
APPLICANT: Gary Mulholland (Twin Cities Engineering)
• On May 12, 1986 the City Council approved Tract Map 3-86, sub-
ject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommen-
dation of the Planning Commission. The required conditions have
been complied with and the final map is recommended for approval.
HE:ps
cc: Gary Mulholland
Twin Cities Engineering
��G
151 t- !�
Prz vpo�� i 2 cT MAi�
y ori` l 7M 3 — 8ia
o $,,,, a 2 ops,? �ja3.a S �:•
L` V P F•v e
.h a��l�li+ � .•i�i � ��y. �— ~ ca.:a�e a e2� : .; `@o
U coT�
Ova,T
O li " J• II ' y .c E jl: o.FF v. '� ��' � ` 8 1 a -
on
44
�
o.
r
• a°'Yr �-�, \`moi. �
o,
Y � —
o �
K I3 ti
i I a � � a �\• �'
.f
cc n�
AG7ND
DATA
!!/() LNITEM A
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council October 27, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Tract Map 14-84
LOCATION: 9805 El Camino Real
APPLICANT: Daryl Nelson (Jensen-Lenger Surveys)
On September 10, 1984 the City Council approved Tract Map 14-84,
t subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the rec-
ommendation of the Planning Commission. The required condi-
tions have been complied with and the final map is recommended
for approval.
HE:ps
cc: Daryl Nelson
Jensen-Lenger Surveys
V J
Lij,/f ao�vv e�acvv,s � 79ra.►:�f�r'vnvr V.J
+i ooz .r„oo sr.sr rr
'X �...� 00 a--
It
�It
� 1rti1s1Hr/w � V �
riri 091HYM `C i
a
W
vv h
_ K J a's1"ny asno'x�rHsoiS cv o�Savoas i
7N3& ON< O X73\`
----------
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council 0October 27, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Tract Map 2-86
LOCATION: 9650 Las Lomas
APPLICANT: Michael Sherer/Jeanne Lee (Twin Cities Engineering)
• On May 8, 1986, the City Council approved Tract Map 2-86, subject
to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommendation
of the Planning Commission. The required conditions have been
complied with and the final map is recommended for approval.
HE:ps
cc: Jeanne Lee/Michael Sherer
Twin Cities Engineering
2�
s
CX4IF31 T
ProTraC-- M a�
= ai 1 T 11/l Z -$6
O I ` j
d ,y
:o'i`
. i
Q
Un;4 S _
� I
Uili 3
Q
.��
S!r�a
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council V4. October 27,1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Tract Map 7-85
LOCATION: 7700/7800 Balboa
APPLICANT: Marc Rich (Twin Cities Engineering)
On April 28, 1986 the City Council approved Tract Map 7-85, sub-
ject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommen-
dation of the Planning Commission. The required conditions have
been complied with and the final map is recommended for approval.
HE:ps
cc: Marc Rich
Twin Cities Engineering
i
f - - C).-
CX a
oZi a
`2� LU `ill
\ I /
/ rV
DA,„
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council k�, October 27, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director }
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 14-86
LOCATION: 8205 Coromar Road
APPLICANT: John and Dorothy Lopus (Cuesta Engineering)
• On July 28, 1986 the City Council approved Parcel Map 14-86 , sub-
ject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommen-
dation of the Planning Commission. The required conditions have
been complied with and the final map is recommended for approval.
HE:ps
cc: John and Dorothy Lopus
Cuesta Engineering
ll`'�
Cxt�r i D
i E�{i• FA K GF—L Nl A P
i PM 1-4 - 8 �
i� O �WW
IR
CL
�W t
Q �
O
W ►� � V n I
V �h V
�
vz? � 2 � a
Q o? o2F 3r
to W
hoo
An �� � _ r-a W Z ;�o
h
Z �ptv�4��� �r� 2 h °iovO
OSO
N �
21 nt �� \\ / •
xi
IN
��' 1\�/ .•I. -moi' �j ��''\ ���'/yam✓ � �\
CA-
• RESOLUTION NUMBER 119-86 - -- -- ---
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 57
RETIREMENT BENEFITS FOR NON JUDICIAL
AND NON LEGISLATIVE ELECTED
STATE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
WHEREAS, this measure would preclude the retirement benefits
of any non legislative or non judicial elected State consti-
tutional officers from increasing or being affected by changes in
compensation payable to their successors beginning November 5.
WHEREAS, in the past, some constitutional officers have been
entitled to exorbitant salaries as a result of poorly written
statutes dealing with pensions, which increase retirement pay
when incumbent' s salaries rose.
WHEREAS, Proposition 57 deals affectively with a problem the
Gann Initiative (Proposition 61) was intended to deal with, but
it does so without the serious drawbacks of the broadly written
Gann initiative.
• NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Atascadero City
Council hereby supports Proposition 57; retirement benefits for
non judicial and non legislative elected state constitutional
officers.
On motion by councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember ,
the Atascadero City Council hereby adopts the foregoing
resolution in its entirety by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
BOYD C. SHARITZ MARJORIE MACKEY
City Clerk Mayor
•
Page 1 of 2
i
NG AGENDA
mftD
t 7 ITEM
RESOLUTION NUMBER 120-86
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
OPPOSING PROPOSITION 61
COMPENSATION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS,
EMPLOYEES, AND INDIVIDUAL PUBLIC CONTRACTORS
WHEREAS, this measure sets the Governor ' s salary at $80,000
per year and limits the pay of all state and local elected
and appointed officials to no more that 80% of the Governor ' s
salary; and
WHEREAS, it also limits pay for work done by contractors to
$75.00 per hour and among other provisions it requires that state
and local government employees use their sick leave and vacation
time during the calendar year in which they are earned or loose
those benefits; and
WHEREAS, the State Legislature estimates that this last
provision would carry a price tag of $7 billion dollars, in the
likely event that state and local governments were required to
buy out such benefits under the provisions of current labor
contract; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 61 does not take into consideration the
reality that state and local government must compete with the
private sector for top management, technical, and professional
personnel to run organizations which are in effect multi-million
dollar corporations; and
WHEREAS, government saves money by contracting for a range of
categories of intermitent work, which requires costly specialized
equipment or expertise. However , the $75 per hour limit on
contract work will force government to buy heavy equipment
often costing hundreds of thousands of dollars simply because
such machinery would not be available for rent at $75.00 per
hour ; and
WHEREAS, the requirement that sick leave and vacation leave
be used within the calendar year which it is earned rewards
malingerers while penalizing the most dedicated government
workers.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Atascadero City
Council opposes Proposition 61, Compensation of Public Officials,
Employees, and Individual Public Contractors.
On motion by Council Member
• and seconded by Council Member
the Atascadero City Council hereby adopts the foregoing
resolution in its entirety by the following roll call vote:
Resolution 120-86
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
BOYD C. SHARITZ MARJORIE MACKEY
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROBERT M. JONES
City Attorney
TING 10/2 7/8 6AGENDA A - 13
DATE REM
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NUMBER 121-86
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
OPPOSING PROPOSITION 62
TAXATION LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, this measure would require a 2/3 vote of the govern-
ing board and a majority vote of the electorate before new
general taxes could be imposed; and
WHEREAS, proponents failed to circulate the measure as a
constitutional amendment rather than a statute, the proposition
would not apply to charter cities, including 82 of the state' s
largest municipalities; and '
WHEREAS, the measure removes the last remaining area of
flexibility in local government home rule financing, leaving
city councils with all the responsibilities of meeting community
needs but none of the authority to get the job done; and
WHEREAS, the measure targets the state general law cities
which include mostly small-to-medium-size cities, which have
shown considerable restraint in using their general tax
authority; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 4 , the expenditure limitation initiative
includes the proceeds of general law taxes as proceeds of taxes
and limits revenues received in accordance with inflationary and
population growth.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Atascadero City
Council opposes Proposition 62, taxation. local governments and
districts.
ON MOTION BY Councilmember
and seconded by councilmember
the Atascadero City Council hereby adopts the foregoing
resolution in its entirety by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
D,
0 To: Council
u b�-
Through: Mike Shelton, City Manager '
From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineeer
Re: Sewer Assessment District No. 4 (Separado/Cayucus) Protest Hearing
Date: October 21 , 1986
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council (1) approve Option B for the
annexation fee, (2)approve the formation of Assessment District No. 4,
including the overriding of a protest if such protest occurs, (3)
award the construction bid to Beaver Construction in the amount of
$957,350.33, (3) approve the sale of bonds in the ammount of
$1,271,060.23 and (4) adopt the appropiate resolutions as presented by
bond counsel .
Backround:
The October 27 meeting is the culmination of many months of
proceedings for the above assessment district. Any protests will be
received prior to the hearing and certified by the City Clerk. The
formation of the district can become final , bids can be awarded and
the sale of bonds completed. The last formal action on the district
was the approval of the Engineer's Report on September 8. Therefore,
staff encourages the review of the August _18, August29 and September 2
staff reports which are included in the agenda package.
-
Bids:
Bids for the above project were received on October 15.
Following is the bid tabulation results:
Beaver Construction-Tulare. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 957,350.33
Pestana Construction-Danville. . . . . . . . . . . . . $1, 469,825.00
ENGINEERSESTIMATE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$1, 494,000.00
Gates and Fox-Nipoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1 , 771,785.00
Band Sons-Oxnard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$1 ,986,990.00
The engineer of work has investigated the apparant low bidder and
finds the bid to be the lowest responsible bid, and therefore,
recommends award to Beaver Construction in the amount shown.
•
rL,
0 0
The low bid is 36% under the Engineer's Estimate. The has a very
favorable impact on the assessments as indicated below. The bid is
not only a reflection of the importance of competitive bidding but
also speaks to the concentrated effort by John Wallace and Associates
to reduce construction costs in the manner outlined in the August 18
staff report.
Assessments•
The assessments have been recalculated to reflect the low bid. A
20% contingency factor is being carried forward in normal fashion to
handle potential change orders, any deletions of parcels at the
protest hearing or from anticipated lot mergers both of which would
drive up the cost of the individual assessments, and to cover other
unexpected elements such as easement litigation, etc.
Additionally, the City Engineer has requested full time
inspection by the Engineer of Work. The extent of the inspection
requirement has been only briefly discussed previously. Due to the
amount of difference between the low bid and the next lowest bid, even
though the contractor has the qualifications and bonding capabilities
to satisfy requirements, staff recognizes the importance of adhering
to the specifications and is not equipped with the manpower to watch
over a nine month project.
Other parameters involved in the assessments are the bond
discount, the bond counsel fee, the bond reserve fund, construction •
management fees, and miscellaneous fees such as the printing and
handling of the bonds. Many of the above parameters that help make up
the total banded cost are a function of the total cost. Therefore, a
change in any parameter results in the need to adjust all other
parameters that are a function of the total cost. Anticipating last
minute adjustments in the bond discount fee or potential deletion of
double fronting lots, an algebraic formula has been programed into the
computer in the City Engineer' s office. If changes are made a recess
may be called to recalculate the assessments in leiu of postponing the
hearing to another date.
Following are the newly estimated assessments taking into
consideration all of the above discussion. The exact assessments
which may vary slightly from below will be announced at the hearing.
Area Bonded Amount Cash-30 Days
Seperado $3650 $3300
Cayucus $4250 $3850
The monthly payment based on 8% over 20 years would be about $31
for Seperado and $36 for Cayucus. The assessment would be placed on
the August 1987 tax rolls, thus making the first half payable in
December 1987. That payment would be approximately $186 for Seperado
and $216 for Cayucus. •
The average of the above assessments is $3950. By comparison,
the assessments for the Merchant Way Assessment District No. 3 are
$4150.
The City will participate in the Traffic Way and San Anselmo
trunk lines and one lift station. The reimbursement for this work
will be derived from lots that front on those sewers when connections
are made in the future. No City contribution is included in the above
assessments.
Regional Water Quality Control Board:
The RWQCB is witholding their decision to grant an extension for
the construction completition date pending the outcome of the October
27 meeting. They are prepared to allow sufficient time-September,
1987-if Council approves the district. If positive action is not
taken it is clear that they intend to pursue both private sector
punishment in the form of fines up to $5000 for each clean water act
violation and moritoriums on occupation of such dwellings, and public
sector actions such as repayment of Clean Water Grant funds for the
wastewater treatment plant.
Annexation Fee:
The options for the annexation fee as outlined in the September 2
staff report are repeated here in brief form.
OPTION A: Owners to pay full $850 cease and desist annexation fee
upon availability (September, 1987) .
�~ OPTION B: Allow 5 years to pay the $850 fee. The clock would
start ticking after the 2 year mandatory connection date. Assuming an
August 1990 tax roll based upon a lein on the property the first
payment of $85 for one half Year would be due in December of 1990.
OPTION C: Pay the sewer charge fee of $573 in leiu of the $850
annexation fee due to the uniqueness of the specific areas.
OPTION D: Same as Option C but payable over 5 years as in Option
B.
OPTION E: Pay no annexation fee or sewer charge.
Staff recommends that council approve Option B. By comparison
the Merchant Way district will pay $850. The time of payment has
never been specified but it is suggested that it will be upon
connection.
The favorable bid results have set the stage for a fair and
equitable assessment value. The bond market is more attractive than
it has been for many years and the interest rates lower than they have
been for several years. Considering the impact of inflation the
assessments for A. D. No. 4 are relatively inexpensive when compared
with the assessments for I . D. No. 1 which had assessments as high as
$5000.
'Z
_) |
|
Editorally, staff would be dissappointed if a majority protest
would occur. It doesn't appear that the property owners will get a
better deal . Four owners on Lobos Court that were going to run the
mainline by using a private contractor to avoid prevailing wage have
since abandoned those plans since the estimate that they received was
approximately $5400 each.
Fiscal Impact•
The City will front the portion of the project that has been
designated as City participation. This amount will not change
percentagewise from the previous report, but the dollar amount will be
less due to the favorable bids. The full annexation fee will not be
collected since the cease and desist areas are specifically exempt
from the new fees and are required to pay the old fee. No City
contribution has been recommended or approved to date.
Proceedings:
Attached are the proceedings as presented by bond counsel which
specifically guide us through the necessary steps that must be taken
to final the district. There is no information concerning the event
of a majority protest. If such protest occurs bond counsel will give
appropiate directions at that time. There is also no information on
the action for the sale of bonds. That information will be presented
at the end of the proceedings. Two resolutions are attached for
council's consideration.
CITY OF ATASCADERO
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 4
SEPARADO-CAYUCAS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1913
PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING
OCTOBER 27, 1986
On September 8, 1986, the City Council of the City
of Atascadero adopted Resolution 100-86, which, among other
things, set October 27, 1986 as the date for the public
hearing on the City of Atascadero Improvement District No. 4
(Separado-Cayucas Assessment District) .
Certain notices and publications were to have been
executed by the City Clerk in preparation for this public
hearing. The following certificates and affidavits are on
file with the City Clerk:
(a) Affidavit of filing boundary map with San Luis
Obispo County Recorder [A-1 ] .
(b) Affidavit of Compliance with the Requirements of
Law for Publishing, Posting and Mailing Notices of
Hearing Protests [A-2 ] .
(c) Affidavit of Posting Notice Inviting Sealed Bids
[A-3 ] .
(d) Affidavit of Posting Notice of Improvement [A-4] .
(e) Affidavit of Publication from The Atascadero News
re: publishing Notice of Improvement and
Invitation to Bidders.
( 1) Mayor announces: "The hour of 8:00 o' clock P.M. having
arrived, this is the time and place of the hearing of
protests, objections or appeals with respect to the
assessment and work under and pursuant to Resolution of
Intention No. 70-86, adopted on July 14, 1986, and to
the report of the Engineer of Work prepared and filed
with the City Clerk on July 14, 1986, and preliminarily
approved by Resolution No. 99-86 adopted on
i
September 8, 1986 and to the Municipal Improvement Act
of 1913 . "
"I now declare the public hearing open. "
(2) Mayor calls Engineer of Work, John Wallace, of John L.
Wallace & Associates, for background report on proposed
improvements in the assessment district, the nature and
extent of the proposed improvements, including areas to
be served, and the method of assessment, including the
method of determining benefit and allocating costs, and
for report on proposed method of financing pursuant to
the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 . Engineer also
reports on status of construction bids. Engineer
states that in his opinion and based upon his
experience "The method of assessment has been applied
in a uniform manner to each and every parcel within the
assessment district, and the proposed assessments are
fair and equitable and are proportional to the benefits
estimated to be received by each parcel of land from
the proposed improvements. "
(3) Mayor calls bond counsel, Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe, for report on legal aspects of the
assessment proceedings and issuance of bonds.
(4) Mayor calls underwriter of bonds, Security Pacific
Capital Markets, for report on financial aspects of the
assessment financing and issuance of bonds.
('5) Mayor directs City Clerk to read in full all written
protests filed with the City Clerk pursuant hereto.
(6) Mayor asks: "Does any person wish to speak in favor of
or against the project?
(7) Mayor specifies that persons responding must state
their names and addresses and assessment numbers.
[Hear all persons responding. ]
(8) Mayor asks Engineer of Work to respond to each written
and oral protest.
[Engineer of Work responds to City Council . ]
(9) Mayor asks Engineer of Work what percentage of lands
within the assessment district is represented by
written protests.
2
041003-0001-198-4600d
(10) Engineer of Work replies that less than per cent
of the land within the assessment district is
represented by written protests.
(11) Mayor calls a recess to allow Engineer of Work to
develop recommendation to be made to the City Council.
(12) Mayor reconvenes and calls for report.
(13 ) Engineer of Work reports on financial requirements of
project in light of bids and recommends approval of
same by the City Council.
(14) Mayor asks Councilmembers whether they are satisfied
with the evidence and testimony introduced at the
hearing.
[General discussion among Councilmembers follows. ]
(15) Mayor entertains motion closing public hearing.
( 16) City Council adopts order determining that a majority
protest is not present.
If the City Council wishes to proceed, the
following resolution is to be considered:
( 1) Resolution Confirming Assessment and Ordering Proposed
Improvements to be Made, Providing for Notice of
Recording of Assessment and Designating the City
Treasurer to Collect and Receive Money [R-6] .
It is then in order to consider the award of the
construction contract.
(1) The City Clerk informs the City Council of the number
of construction bids received.
(2) The Director of Public Works reviews the bids, reports
on the lowest bid received and recommends approval of a
construction contractor.
(3 ) The City Council considers the Resolution Awarding
Construction Contract [R-7 ] .
3
041003-0001-198-4600d
LAW OFFICES
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE
600 MONTGOMERY STREET
SAN FRANCISCO.CALIFORNIA 94111
TELEPHONE (415) 392-1122
TELECOPIER (415) 9S4-3759 TELEX 70-3520
NEW YORK.NEW YORK 10036 SAN JOSE.CALIFORNIA 95113 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95814 LOS ANGELES.CALIFORNIA 90017
1211 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 55 ALMADEN BOULEVARD 555 CAPITOL MALL 444 SOUTH FLOWER STREET
TELEPHONE (212)704-9660 TELEPHONE (408)298-8800 TELEPHONE (916)447-9200 TELEPHONE (213)624-2470
WRITERS DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
October 20 , 1986
MEMORANDUM TO CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
Re: City of Atascadero Improvement District
No. 4 (Seperado - Cayuca Assessment District)
In connection with the proceedings in the above , the
following actions should be taken:
RESOLUTIONS
1 . [R-61 Resolution Confirming Assessment and
•
Ordering Proposed Improvements to be Made;
Providing for Notice of Recording of Assessment,
and Designating the City Treasurer to Collect
and Receive Money is considered by the City Council .
2 . [R-71 Resolution Awarding Construction
Contract is considered by the City Council .
If the above proceedings are duly taken, you must
record the assessment and the diagram with the Superintendent
of Streets on October 28 , 1986 .
NOTICES
Similarly, if all of the above proceedings are
duly taken then the Notices should be handled as follows:
1 . [N-31 Notice of Assessment. The volume and
page numbers must be filled-in on the first page;
Exhibit A - "Assessment Roll" must be attached;
and the last page must be executed by you. On
October 28 , 1986 you must file this notice, as
well as a copy of the assessment diagram at the
San Luis Obispo County Recorder .
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE
MEMORANDUM TO CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
October 20, 1986
Page Two
12 . [N-4] Notice to Property Owners of Recording
of Assessment [form to be mailed] - This notice
must be prepared in form for mailing to property
owners on October 28, 1986 .
. 3. [N-5] Notice to Property Owners of Recording
of Assessment [form to be published] - You must
arrange to have this notice published twice, in
successive weeks, in The Atascadero News, on
October 31, and November 7.
4 . [N-7] Notice of Award Contract - Arrange to
have this notice published once, on October 31 ,
in The Atascadero News.
AFFIDAVITS
1 . [A-5] Affidavit of Filing and Recording
Assessment Diagram. Upon filing and recording the
assessment diagram, the file number of the resolution
must be filled-in on page one; you must then execute
on page two and have it notarized.
2 . [A-6] Affidavit of Mailing Notice to Property
Owners of Recording of Assessment. Upon mailing
notice to property owners, the file number of the
resolution must be filled-in on page one; you must
then execute on page two and have it notarized.
Please send me certified copies of resolutions, copies
of notices as they were published and mailed, and executed copies
of affidavits as soon as they are completed. Also, please
request The Atascadero News to mail affidavits of publication of
Notice of Assessment and Notice of Award of Contract to our office.
Please don' t hesitate to call me with any questions.
Sincerely yours,
Elisabeth H. Feldman
Legal Assistant
EHF:ch
Enclosures
%7
i
CITY OF ATASCADERO
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 4
(SEPARADO-CAYUCAS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT)
RESOLUTION NO. 116-86
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
TO BE MADE; PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF RECORDING OF
ASSESSMENT; AND DESIGNATING THE CITY TREASURER TO
COLLECT AND RECEIVE MONEY
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero (the
"City" ) , by Resolution of Intention No. 70-86 heretofore duly
adopted on July 14, 1986, declared its intention to order the
public improvements more particularly described in and for an
assessment district in Exhibit A, attached hereto and
incorporated herein and made a part hereof, designated "City
of Atascadero Improvement District No. 4 (Separado-Cayucas
Assessment District) "; and
WHEREAS, this Council in and by said resolution
referred said proposed improvements to the firm of John L.
Wallace & Associates as Engineer of Work, and directed said
Engineer of Work to make and file with the City Clerk of the
City a report in writing containing the matters specified in
Section 2961(b) and Section 10204 of the California Streets
and Highways Code, which said report was thereafter filed
with the City Clerk of the City on September 8, 1986, and was
preliminarily approved by this Council on September 8, 1986,
and this Council fixed :3fJ o' clock p.m. on Monday,
October 27, 1986, at the Council Chambers, City Hall, 6500
Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California 93423, as the time and
place for hearing of protests to said proposed improvements,
and provided for notice of said hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk of the City has filed with
this Council an affidavit setting forth the time and manner
of the compliance with the requirements of law for
publishing, posting and mailing notices of the adoption of
said Resolution of Intention and of the filing of said report
and of the time and place for hearing protests to said
proposed improvements, or to the extent of the assessment
district or to the proposed assessment; and this Council
hereby finds that notice of the adoption of said Resolution
of Intention and of the filing of said report and of the time
and place for hearing protests to said proposed improvements
has been published, posted and mailed in the time, form and
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, said hearing was duly convened by this
Council at said time and place for the hearing of all
2
041003-0001-198-4595d
protests to said proposed improvements, or to the extent of
the assessment district or to the proposed assessment, and
all protests thereto received by the City Clerk of the City
were presented to this Council; and
WHEREAS, this Council found and determined that
P
rotests against said proposed improvements were r made by
the owners of more than one-half of the area of the land in
said assessment district to be assessed for said proposed
improvemenVi and
WHEREAS, this Council thereupon proceeded with said
hearing, and duly considered all of said protests at said
hearing, and duly heard all interested persons desiring to be
heard at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing the Engineer of Work 0
recommended that various changes be made in said report, as
more particularly set forth in his revised report dated
September 8, 1986 on file with this Council; and
WHEREAS, upon the basis of all evidence presented
at said hearing, this Council ordered that the assessment and
the diagram contained in said report be modified in certain
particulars, as more fully set forth in the records of this
Council; and
WHEREAS, this Council is fully advised in the
premises;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of
the City of Atascadero, as follows:
3
041003-0001-198-4595d
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and
correct and this Council so finds and determines.
Section 2. All protests to said proposed improve-
ments, or to the extent of said assessment district or to
said proposed assessment by this Council as modified are
hereby overruled.
Section 3 . This Council hereby finds and
determines that all of the several assessed subdivisions of
land in said assessment district have been assessed in
proportion to the benefits to be received by such
subdivisions, respectively, from said improvements.
Section 4. This Council hereby finds and
determines that the total amount of the principal sum of all
unpaid assessments levied against the parcels proposed to be
assessed, as computed by the Engineer of Work in said report,
plus the principal amount of the special assessment proposed
to be levied in the instant proceedings, do not exceed
one-half of the total value of the parcels proposed to be
assessed, as computed by the Engineer of Work in said report.
Section S . This Council hereby confirms said
assessment and said diagram as so modified as now on file
with it; and declares that said report of said Engineer of
Work and said assessment and said diagram as so modified are
hereby adopted and confirmed.
4
041003-0001-198-4595d
Section 6. This Council hereby orders said
proposed improvements described in said Resolution of
Intention and in said report to be made.
Section 7. The City Clerk of the City is hereby
directed to transmit the diagram of said assessment district
and said assessment as confirmed to the Superintendent of
Streets of the City, and said person shall record the same in
his office, and shall file a complete list of unpaid
assessments with the Treasurer of the City, and said
assessment shall become due and payable; and the City Clerk
of the City is hereby further directed to file in the office
of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder a copy of said
assessment diagram as so recorded and to execute and record a
notice of assessment in the office of the San Luis Obispo
County Recorder, and said assessment shall become a lien upon
the land on which it is levied; all pursuant to the Municipal
Improvement Act of 1913 .
Section 8. The Treasurer of the City is hereby
designated to collect and receive the money paid pursuant to
said assessment as herein confirmed. The Superintendent of
Streets of the City is hereby ordered and directed to cause
notice of recording said assessment to be given by
(a) Mailing postage prepaid to each person owning
property in said City of Atascadero Improvement District
No. 4 (Separado-Cayucas Assessment District) , at his last
known address as it appears on the tax rolls of the County of
5
041003-0001-198-4595d
•
San Luis Obispo, or on file at the office of the City Clerk
of the City, or to both addresses if they are not the same,
or if no address appears, to General Delivery, Atascadero,
California, a statement containing a designation of the
property assessed sufficient to enable the owner to identify
it, the amount of the assessment, the date of the recordation
of the assessment, the time and place of payment of the
assessment and the effect of failure to pay within such time,
and a statement that bonds are to be issued under the
Improvement Bond Act of 1915 to represent unpaid assessments;
and
(b) Causing to be published once a week for two
successive weeks in The Atascadero News, a newspaper
published and circulated in the City, a notice stating that
said assessment has been recorded in the office of the
Superintendent of Streets of the City and that all sums
assessed therein are due and payable immediately, that the
payment of said sums is to be made to the Treasurer of the
City within 30 days after the date of recording the
assessment (which date shall be stated in the notice) , and
that if any assessments are not paid within the 30-day
period, bonds will be issued under the Improvement Bond Act
of 1915 to represent unpaid assessments.
Section 9 . This resolution shall take effect from
and after its date of adoption.
6
041003-0001-198-4595d
r
Resolution 116-0 0
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of October, 1986
by the following vote:
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
ATTEST :
BOYD C. SHARITZ MARJORIE MACKEY
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROBERT M. JONES
City Attorney
041003-0001-198-4595b
7
CITY CLERK' S CERTIFICATE
I , BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk of the City of
Atascadero, do hereby certify as follows:
The foregoing resolution is a full, true and correct
copy of a resolution duly adopted by a vote of a majority of
the members of the Council of said City at a regular meeting of
the Council of said City duly and regularly and legally held at
the regular meeting place thereof on August 25, 1986, of which
meeting all of such members had due notice, as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
I have carefully compared the foregoing with the
original minutes of said meeting on file and of record in my
office, and the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of
the original resolution adopted at said meeting and entered in
said minutes.
Said resolution has not been amended, modified or
rescinded since the date of its adoption and the same is now in
full force and effect.
Dated: October, 1986.
[ SEAL]
Boyd C. Sharitz
City Clerk of the City
of Atascadero
San Luis Obispo County
State of California
8
041003-0001-198-4595d
• R-7
CITY OF ATASCADERO
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 4
(SEPARADO-CAYUCAS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT)
RESOLUTION NO. 117-86
RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE SEPARADO-CAYUCAS
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero
(the "City" ) , by Resolution of Intention No. 70-86 duly
adopted on July 14, 1986, declared its intention to order the
acquisition and construction in the City of the public
improvements more particularly described in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein and made a part
hereof, in and for an assessment district in the City
designated "City of Atascadero Improvement District No. 4
(Separado-Cayucas Assessment District) ; " and
WHEREAS, this City Council, by Resolution No.
100-86, duly adopted on September 8, 1986, directed the City
Clerk of the City to post and publish a notice to bidders,
inviting sealed proposals or bids for the making of the said
public improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City has obtained public competitive
bids for the construction of said public improvements and is
ready and willing to enter into a contract for the
construction with the lowest responsible bidder therefor;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council
of the City of Atascadero as follows:
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and
correct and this City Council so finds and determines.
Section 2 . The bid for construction of said public
improvements submitted by Beaver Construction Co. in the
amount of $957,350.36 constitutes the lowest bid received by
the City and is hereby approved.
Section 3 . The City Manager is hereby authorized
and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the City,
to execute a construction contract with Beaver Construction
Co. for said public improvements, but only following receipt
of the proceeds from the sale of Bonds to be authorized by
this City Council.
Section 4. This resolution shall take effect
immediately.
2
041003-0001-198-4635d
,v
• •
Resolution 117-86
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of October, 1986,
by the following vote :
AYES
NOES :
ABSENT :
ATTEST :
BOYD C. SHARITZ MARJORIE MACKEY
City Clerk Favor
APPROVED AS TO FORPT:
ROBEPT M. JONES
City Attorney
041003-0001-198-4635d
3
j
CITY CLERK' S CERTIFICATE
I, BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk of the City of
Atascadero, do hereby certify as follows:
The foregoing resolution is a full, true and correct
copy of a resolution duly adopted by a vote of a majority of
the members of the City Council of said City at a regular
meeting of the City Council of said City duly and regularly
and legally held at the regular meeting place thereof on
October 27, 1986, of which meeting all of such members had due
notice, as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
I have carefully compared the foregoing with the
original minutes of said meeting on file and of record in my
office, and the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of
the original resolution adopted at said meeting and entered
in said minutes.
Said resolution has not been amended, modified or
rescinded since the date of its adoption and the same is now
in full force and effect.
Dated: October , 1986.
[SEAL]
Body C. Sharitz
City Clerk of the City of
Atascadero, San Luis Obispo
County, State of California
4
041003-0001-198-4635d
MEETING AG
DATE 9/8/96 7 � B-1 "A
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Sewer Charge for Cease and Desist Areas "C" & "E"
DATE: September 2, 1986
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council approve Option B, but would not
be uncomfortable with the adoption of Options C or D.
Background
Council has made several efforts to reduce the cost of sewer
Assessment District No. 4 and at the same time maintain the Sanitation
and General Fund monies that are earmarked for capital improvements
that affect the entire City. This has been done by:
1. Instructing the Engineer to reduce design costs as low to
practicable without sacrificing good engineering judgement. Such de-
sign considerations were outlined in the staff report at the last re-
gular meeting (copy attached) .
2. Requesting a time extension from the RWQCB to June 30 , 1987 .
It appears that the staff for the Board will recommend to the Board to
extend the construction deadline to September of 1987, if the City
proceeds immediately with the project.
3. Exempting Cease and Desist areas from the new sewer charge
and new annexation fees, and only requiring them to pay the old annex-
ation fee of $850 . This represents a savings of nearly $335 ,000 to
Assessment District No. 4.
4. Allowing two (2) years to connect to the mainline to provide
time to line up funds and contractors for improvements on private pro-
perty. If the RWQCB accepts the September , 1987 deadline, the time
limit for connection will be September , 1989 .
It should be noted that the assessments themselves, if the
measure passes this October , will not be placed on the tax rolls until
August of 1987 . Therefore, one-half of the annual installment (about
250 or Se erado area 300 for the Ca ucos r will not
$ f p and about $ y area)
be due until December , 1987 . The assessment on a monthly basis will
be about $42 for Seperado and about $50 for the Cayucos area, if
current estimates hold up.
� t
0 0
5. Researching any and all applicable grants and/or loans
available to the city and/or owners. There are some programs avail-
able for the elderly and low income sectors, but otherwise no help has
been found. (refer to attached report. )
6. Providing City participation or ownership in the portions
of the system for which associated costs, plus interest, can be re-
couped at a later date. This action will reduce the burden to the
property owners by approximately $300 ,000 .
The purpose of this report is to present options regarding the
collection of the annexation fee to further assist the owners with
their financial burden. The following options do not affect the
Engineer ' s Report or the Spread of Assessments. The construction and
related costs are not expected to change significantly going to bid.
The job is expected, however , to be competitive and perhaps the bids
received will be favorable.
Option A:
Owners to pay the full $850 annexation fee upon
connection (or September , 1987)
Option B:
Allow 5 years to pay off the $850 annexaiton fee at no interest.
• This would not be a loan, just a delay in payment. The loss to the
ACSD would be the interest that would not be earned on the fee during
that period. It is proposed that a lein be taken on the property and
that the issue be placed on the first August 10 tax roll after the
mandatory 2 year connection date. That would make one half of the
first one-fifth (or 10% of $850 = $85) due in December of 1990.
Option C:
Charge Areas "C" & "E" the new sewer charge instead of the old
annexation fee. When the new sewer fees were adopted, the council was
working on the formation of the Marchant Way Sewer Assessment District
No. 3 (Cease and Desist Area F) . Council at that time exempted Cease
and Desist areas from the new fees and set their fee the same as the
old annexation fee.
Staff concedes that areas "C" & "E" are unique since those are
the only areas that are under a direct order that is date specific.
Indeed, in some ways the areas can be compared to the vacant lots in
Assessment District No. 1. The plant was sized at 1.4 mgd to accept
the flow from Improvement District No. 1, plus the Cease and Desist
Areas. The lines in Improvement District No. 1 were also of adequate
size to handle the above flow, but annexations over the years, which
have paid heavily into the system, have utilized some of the capacity
originally intended for others. The annexation fees charged, however ,
will provide the oversizing of existing lines or new lines necessary
due to that development.
2 G�
! 0
The build-out of Improvement District No. 1 itself, howeve
lewithout consideration of annexations, will provide flows in excess
the original calculations. The biggest factor contributing to the
problem is the above normal inflow and infiltration of storm waters
entering the system. Therefore, those prooperties that have paid the
assessments for the lines but did not develop,and therefore, did not
connect to the sewer , must pay the new sewer charge of $573 upon con-
nection. New annexations pay that charge plus the new annexation fee
of $1210 ainsince they are placing a demand on the system above and
beyond original design.
It can be argued that it may be appropriate to allow areas
"C" & "E" to pay the new sewer charge ($573) instead of the old
annexation fee ($850) . Although the ACSD would not collect the same
amount of money it would be the normal annexation process, it can be
rationalized that if annexations for these areas were allowed to take
their natural course, in leiu of the forced annexation now in process,
the fees would dribble in over many years and perhaps never equal in
total the $573 per parcel collected in mass.
The additional savings to the owners would be approximately
$100 ,000 for this option and would not involve the expenditure of any
existing City funds.
Option D:
Combine Option C with the theory of Option B. This would all
the $573- in Option C to be paid over a period of 5 years beginning
O.
december of 1990 ($58) .
Option E:
Pay no annexation fee or sewer charges.
Additional Considerations
Since the last regular meeting, staff has been approached on
all sides with ideas from citizens and consultants regarding help with
the problem. These ideas . range from Community Development Block
Grants to fronting only the costs for the elderly. Staff is not tak-
ing any suggestion lightly but is discarding those that they feel do
not warrant council' s time.
Staff itself has unvieled a couple of new code sections that
should be brought to Council' s attention as protection against criti-
cism of not exploring all avenues.
The first is Health and Safety Code Section 6120 , et seq.
(Chapter 11) , Assistance to Small Rural Communities. This involves
technical assistance for the development of community facilities. The
limit to any one community is $7 ,500 and Assemblyman Seastrand ' s
office advises that the prospect for such a grant does not look goo
for our situation.
3
0 0
The other program, as outlined in Health and Safety Code
Section 5464 , allows a property owner that is involved in an assess-
ment district to request the City to construct "all necessary plumb-
ing" to connect to the sewer main, take a lein on the property and
recover the costs over a maximum of 15 years at a maximum interest
rate of 6%.
This procedure, while appearing attractive on the surface
could be a monumental undertaking which would be more costly to the
owners than the alternatives.
The project would be handled seperately from the assessment
procedure, could involve one or many contractors, would require pre-
vailing wage provisions, would involve financing costs and would re-
quire seperate plans and specifications and engineering costs.
This concept would be an administrative nightmare which
could involve over 300 parcels, thus over 300 individual situations
which all involve the encroachment onto private property. The in-
dividual tastes of owners, the problems with disturbing landscaping
and the inspection time required,coupled with those items mentioned
above could easily tripple the cost to the owners. Doing or hiring
the majority of the work themselves over the extended time period be-
ing offered by council appears to be a more viable concept.
Staff does not approve of this program but brings it to
council' s and the homeowner ' s attention. If there is sufficient in-
terest in a project of this nature, and if council directs its imple-
mentation, staff will provide the necessary guidance to make it work.
Recommendation
Staff recommends tht Option B be adopted but understands the
attractiveness of Options C and D and would not be uncomfortable if
Council decided to adopt either of those proposals.
Editorally, staff would be very disappointed, that if Option
C or D is selected, if a majority protest would occur on October
27. There are no more rabbits. Staff time alone has been a
major contribution to the project. A 10% to 15% administrative charge
to the new assessment district is both warranted and fair. Such
charges, however, are not a part of this project.
In excess of $60 ,000 has been invested to date in engineering
and legal fees. These are real dollars and will be lost if the dis-
trict is not formed.
Council is reminded that the consequences in not forming the
district, or in not overriding a majority protest if such protest
occurs, are very serious and may cost all of the sewered population
dearly. Besides imposing fines and placing a septic tank use mora-
torium on the lot owners, the RWQCB will most likely be directed by
EPA to recover the $3 million grant received by the ACSD. This is not
a bluff. The RWQCB clearly holds the ace in the hole.
4
• 0
• The Sanitation fund will front nearly $500,000 in the Seperado-
Cayucos and Marchant Way areas based on staff recommendations. All but
a small portion of these costs will come back to the City, including
interest and financing costs, and, therefore, only a temporary loss of
the use of these funds will be experienced. Additionally, no sacri-
fice is being made to the operation and maintenance of the system and
the 1986-87 Capital Improvement budget involves projects that will
provide an adequate infrastructure for several years to come.
However , Cease and Desist Areas G, I and F (portion) have not
been sewered. The scheduling for such sewering is a requirement of
Order 81-60. What concessions, if any, will be made for these areas
are unknown at this time, but some provisions should be anticipated in
the future.
Fiscal Impact
Nothing new addressed in this report is expected to have a
significant impact on City funds, but the same could mean an additi-
onal savings of as much as $100 ,000 to the property owners and should
allow adequate time to meet the obligations of paying any required
fees.
The overall savings to Assessment District No. 4. , as
contained in this report, could reach $735,000 , not including the pos-
itive affect of design considerations, interest savings, staff time
and valuable time extensions.
5
0
1VICiN J AG`NDA
DAT.: 9/8/86 s:Em-1 B-1—C
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Engineer 's Report and Setting of Protest Hearing
Date for Assessment District No. 4
DATE: August 29, 1986
Recommendation
Staff recommends adoption of Resolution 99-86, and
Resolution 100-86, approval of the Plans and Specifications,
authorization to bid, acceptance of the Engineer ' s Estimate,
tentative spread of assessments, related diagram and method of
spread, and the setting of October 27 for the Protest Hearing,
all for Assessment District No. 4. -
Background
The staff report from the last regular council meeting eeting is
offered in this package as background information for this
meeting. The acceptance of the above recommendation is a major
and significant step in the formation of the proposed Assessment
District.
Discussion
The protest hearing is set for October 27 with the bids
being received October 15 for the above project. The
award of bids, selling of bonds, and the establishment of the
assessment will all happen on October 27. Written protests may
be presented up to within one hour of that meeting.
Tonights action will trigger the noticing of the protest
hearing and the advertisement for bids. Resolution ammends
the District Boundary due to the deletion of Traffic Way
properties. Resolution adopts the Engineer ' s Report and sets
the noticing for the protest hearing and the advertisement for
bids.
John Wallace, special engineer , will be presenting the
Engineer ' s Report and reviewing the plans and specifications
and the final assessment boundaries. The method of the spread of
assessments and the tentative spread will also be outlined.
Antonia Dolar of Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe, bond
counsel for the project, will be in attendance to present the
revised time schedule and to advise Council on any legal � r
questions that they might have.
Kathy Williams of Security Pacific, bond underwriter for the
project, will also be in attendance to answer questions on
financing.
1�'
�J
Revised Time Schedule
Resolution No.
Engineer ' s Report
Plans and Specifications
File:SetPH
C
2
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 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 approach
There are some improvements that are required that should,however , be
proportionately cost allocated to "C" & "E" . Portions of the lift
station and the force main, and the gravity trunk line along
Traffic Way may be constructed at City expense, the cost of which
will be recouped when adjacent properties are connected. (See Exhibit
A) Similarily, one-half of the San Anselmo trunk line could be
constructed mostly at City expense. The Urban Services Line, a plan-
ning line outside of which no public sewers are anticipated, runs
up the centerline of San Anselmo. Therefore, at the present time the
northerly adjacent frontage cannot be assessed as would normally be
the case. (See Exhibit B)
The change on Traffic Way would require an amendment to
Resolution 69-86 that established the assessment district boundary to
eliminate those parcels that are not in the cease and desist area but
that front the new trunk line. These parcels would be required to
connect to the sewer main within two years of the line becoming avail-
able. Therefore, the associated costs would not be born by areas "C"
& "E" , but would on the other hand be returned to the City upon
connection. One half of San Anselmo would be treated similarily, ex-
cept that no boundary line adjustment is required. Engineering and
other processing costs would be proportined to allow the City to
finance the "non benefiting" portions of the project.
Staff would need to bring back a resolution after the protest
hearing that would set a line extension cost on those properties
that would be required to reimburse the City for their fair share of
the project over and above the annexation fees and sewer charges in
effect at that time. This procedure is common in the midwest and some
parts of California, and is a cousin to the old in-lieu-of
assessment charged by the ACSD in the early days of incorporation.
The City will have an option at a later date to pay the City
participation cost within the 30 day period, or finance it through a
bond issue.
Other Cost Savings
Many hours have been spent by staff and our engineering con-
sultant to establish a profile grade on the sewer trunk lines that
would enable the greatest number of parcels to be served by gravity
flow laterals, yet which would not drive up the cost significantly to
the entire district because of excessive trench depths. In one case a
line that would serve only 3 out of 7 parcels at 15 feet deep could
only pick up 4 by going to 20 feet. It was more cost effective,
therefore, to place the line shallow to reduce the cost to the
majority and require the 7 lots to either acquire a private easement
or to pump. Increased depth, that would affect everyone, would in-
crease the cost to some lots more than the cost of the pump that might
be saved. Construction costs to about 12 feet deep increase somewhat
linearly, but costs over 15 to 20 feet deep increase exponentially.
2
..i
Pumping by private parcels is looked upon as an additional 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
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 waivermaybe given for apartments or condominiums, or common
ownership properties.
If a group of lot lowers can obtain appropriate and sufficient
easements, without an environmental impact that may challenge the neg-
ative declaration received, and if a maintenance agreement is recorded
with such properties, then staff will consider an addendum or change
order to the project to accommodate such a design. It should be noted
that the majority of easements considered by the consultant may have
required the elimination of several trees and other natural surround-
ings.
Title Notification
Much criticism has been received regarding the lack of notice
of the Cease and Desist Order . Staff is pursuing a method by which
the title to the property can contain a recorded notice that such pro-
perty is under a Cease and Desist Order .
3 �.(�
It is proposed that lots in all other cease and desist areas
will have the Order attached to their title. Staff wants to make
everyone aware, however , that such an action on our part may cloud the
title sufficiently, or place an undesirable stigma on the parcel, that
resale values may be affected, or that legal actions may result from
perceived devaluation or potential reverse condemnation. It is sug-
gested that the Regional Water Quality Control Board is the appro-
priate body to cause notification to be placed on the titles.
If a majority protest is received, and subsequently not
overriden, lots in areas "C" & "E" have indirectly requested that the
titles to their parcels contain such language so that future owners
will not be subject to misunderstandings with respect to this issue.
CEQUA Requirements
Negative Declaration:
Environmental considerations for the project show that the design
is intended to clean up the environment and in doing so will not have
an adverse impact on the same. The Director of Community Development
has given a negative declaration to the project based upon the re-
quired findings by the consulting engineer as contained in the engi-
neer ' s report to be adopted at the September 8 regular council meet-
ing. Council is asked to make a motion to accept those findings at
that meeting.
County Findings
Staff has been in contact with the County staff who has indicated
that the RWQCB directed the study to be completed and that the County
and the RWQCB agree tha the results were conclusive and remain valid
to date. There is a strong feeling by those involved that if a
similar study was completed today that the results ould at best be the
same, but most likely would show a worse problem than in 1981.
Staff has requested a proposal from the County Environmental lab
that will indicate the cost of sampling of effluent and tracing that
effluent to private septic tanks. Should it be desired to pursue a
second study, the burden of the cost, assuming confirmation of the
original study, will add to homeowners cost.
Availability of Grants
Staff has researched the availability of grants from as many
sources as practicable.
Regional Water Quality Control Board: Enclosed, is a letter
from Ken Jones dated July 21, 1986 stating that EPA or Clean Water
. Grants are not available for Areas C & E since two thirds of the flow
does not come from homes existing prior to October 18, 1972. He re-
ferred us to the Federal Housing Administration.
4 1
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 .
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 montage loans
and are available through regular channels and normal qualifying
standards.
Private owners are also encouraged to seek Federal Housing
Administration Loans due to the low interest rates and down payments.
Assistance to the Elderly
Besides those grants and loans already discussed, there is a
State program for the elderly which will loan money for sewer and
other improvements and obtain a lein on the property. When the house
sells, or when the person dies, the State will recoup their monies
from the sale of the premises. Additional information on that program
will be available through the Administrative Services Director in the
near future.
Alternative Financing
Staff has researched Pool Financing, Certificates of
Participation, Revenue Bonds and Privatization.
Pool Financing : The California Financing Corporation and the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) were both consulted re-
garding pool financing. All existing pool financing issues are for
equipment or buildings and involve a lease-buy-back concept. This
type of financing requires the sale of bonds on a group basis, but
is otherwise similar to the bonding program staff has engaged.
Certificates of Participation: Certificates of Participation
offer no advantages over municipal bonds, except that an assessment
district does not have to be formed, and thus a vote of the people is
not required.
Revenue Bonds: Revenue Bonds are similar to municipal bonds
except that future revenues are pledged through sewer rates. Thus
instead of paying assessments the lot owners pay a monthly sewer rate
to reduce the debt. No lein is taken on the property for security,
therefore, collection for bad debts goes through the normal back taxes
collection procedures.
t
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 be
charged (as do all the other programs discussed above) , and such a
scheme is subject to a referendum within 30 days. Additionally, the
new Federal Tax Law now disallows tax incentives for the privitization
6
l�
• •
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.
i
7
i
ND SAFETY CODE HEALTH AIN JU nAr r,1 i %,%j"r, X c i-lit
to the extent such governing board pays the cost or price of said connection, it shall succeed to and
have all the rights, including the lien provided for above, of such person or persons against the real
— estate and against the owner or reputed owner thereof.
Kennedy v. City of Ukiah As an alternative power to the enforcement of the lien provided for in this section, the governing
C.A.3d 545. body of the public agency performing the work of connection to the public sewer may, by order
entered upon its minutes, declare that the amount of the costs of such work and the administrative
expenses incurred by the governing body incident to the proceedings, together with other charges
uniformly applicable within the jurisdiction of the governing body for the connection of the premises
to the public sewer, shall be transmitted to the assessor and tax collector of the public agency,
whereupon it shall be the duty of those officers to add the amount of"the assessment to the next
:rnts were instituted under
regular bill for taxes levied against the lot or parcel of land.
'
tes, it was not necessary to The liens provided for by this section shall be enforced in the same manner as those provided for
:rcmrnis contained in such by Title 15(commencing with Section 3082), Part 4, Division 3, of the Civil Code.
Ukiah (1977) 138 Cal.Rptr. ,: •
The governing board may also use the procedures in Section 5474 for levying the costs incurred for
the construction of the improvements for the connection of the premises to the public sewer.
tearing ' " (Amended by Stats.1971, c.'935, p. 1834, § 1; Stats.1973,c.852, p. 1519, § 1,urgency, eff. Sept.25,
1973.)
ents were instituted under
:es,.it was not necessary to § 5464. Request by owner for governing board to connect property to system; lien for work
rements contained in such done
Ukiah (1977) 138 Cal.Rptr.
Any owner or reputed owner, who has his property included within an assessment district for the
construction of a main trunkline or collector sewer lines, may request the governing board to
construct all necessary plumbing to connect his property to the adjoining street public sewer system.
The person employed by the governing board to do the work shall have a lien upon the property,for
o give notice and provide work done and materials furnished, and the work done and materials furnished shall be deemed to
Jk; 77) 138 Cal.Rptr. have been done and furnished at the request of the owner, reputed owner, or person claiming or
having any interest in the property. The governing board may pay all, or any part, of the cost or
price of the connection to the person or persons who furnished labor,materials,or equipment and,to
the extent that the governing board pays the cost or price of the connection, it shall succeed to and
have all the rights,including the lien,of the person or persons against the property and the owner or
reputed owner of the property.
As an alternative power to the enforcement of the lien provided for in this section, the governing
SEWERS body of the public agency performing the work of connection to the public sewer may, by the power
of ordinance approved by two-thirds vote of the members of the legislative body, fix the cost of -
improvement for connection to the sanitation or sewerage facilities, fix the times at which such costs
shall become due,provide for the payment of the costs prior to the construction and connection or in
rcing the Clean water Act installments over a period, not to exceed 15 years,provide a rate of interest, not to exceed 6 percent
z US.F.LRev.437. per annum, to be charged on the unpaid balance of the costs, and provide that the amount of the
costs and the interest shall constitute a lien against,the respective lots or parcels upon which the
facilities are constructed. is
The governing body may use the procedures specified in Section 5474 to implement the levying of
the costs for the construction and connection of the premises to the public sewer.
lien for work done. (Added by Stats.1973, c. 852, p. 1520, § 2, urgency, eff.Sept. 25, 1973.)
of health officer or 1-lbrary References --
Municipal Co a
P Corporations e�71z.
r other district having C•1•S• Municipal Corporations§ 1805.
iotice upon the owner t;
ier or reputed owner,
use, together with all ARTICLE 3.5. BONDS
ry manner, with the
>rson doing said work 1
al estate for his work Section
i be held to have been 5465. Repealed.
.aiming or having any
ost or price of such ,
nt for the same, and, €
it0 amendment Asterisks • ' indicate deletions by amendment
17
Library References
Municipal Corporations 4918.
C,J,S, Municipal Corporations§ 1920.
§ 5474.30. Enforcement of chapter
The primary responsibility for enforcement of the provisions of this chapter shall be vested in the
local health officers; county agricultural commissioners may participate in such enforcement. The
State Departments of Health Services, Industrial Relations, and Food and Agriculture may also
enforce the provisions of this chapter.
Any agency enforcing the provisions of this chapter shall report any violation to all field offices of
the ' ' ' Employment Development Department located in the county where the violation occurs.
Such report shall'identify the employer responsible for the violation, the nature of the violation,and
the location of the food crop growing and harvesting operation where the violation occurs. The ' '
Employment Development Department shall not refer persons for employment to any employer or
food crop growing and harvesting operation identified in such report until the agency reporting the
violation certifies that the violation has been corrected.
(Amended by Stats.1971, c. 1593, p. 3283, § 193, operative July 1,1973; Stats.1973, c. 1206, p.2612,
§ 33; Stats.1973,c. 1207, p. 2662, § 33; Stats.1977, c. 1252, p. 4392, § 295, operative July 1, 1978.)
1971 Legislation. Notes of Decisions
Operative effect and subordination of amendment by
Stats.1971,c. 1593,p.3424,to other 1971 legislation affect- 1. In general
ing this section,see note under§ 20. Violation notices issued by local health departments pur-
1973 Legislation. - suant to§ 5474.20 et seq. are subject to public inspection.
Conformance with federal requirements of provisions of 53 Ops.Atty.Gen.258, 8-19-70.
Stats.1973,c. 1206,and Stats.1973,c. 1207,see note under
._Code of Civil Procedure§ 690.175.
Law Review Commentaries
Scaling the welfare bureaucracy: Expanding concepts of
governmental employee liability. (1973) 21 U.C.L.A.Law
Rev.624.
§ 5474.31. Violations
Lw Review Commentaries
Scaling the welfare burdaucracy: Expanding concepts of
governmental employee liability. (1973) 21 U.C.L.A.Law
Rev.624. �(/"�"� rz
CHAPTER 11. ASSISTANCE TO SMALL RURAL COMMUNITIES
Section
6120. Definitions. _
6121- Legislative findings and declarations.
6122. Establishment of rural community facilities technical assistance program; contracts. _
6123- Administration of program. '
6124. Purpose of program; funds used with maximum amount of matching nonprogram funds.
6125. Rural community facility grant fund; appropriation. f
6126. Conditions for grant of funds by contract with eligible grantees.
6127. Rules and regulations. -
Chapter 11 was added by Stats.1983, c. 1152, P. —, § L
§ 6120. Definitions
-Unless the context otherwise requires,the definitions in this section govern the construction of this
chapter.
(a) "Community facility"means a public or mutual water system,or publicly operated waste water
system.
(b) "Department" means the Department of Housing and Community Development.
Asterisks • • indicate deletions by amendment
39A Cal.Code-2 rf p
1986 P.P. GJ -
I
�i
§ 6120 .. .. ... .,HEALTH AND v......
SAFETY�CODE `
HE_
(c) "Eligible grantee means a local governmental entity or a private nonprofit organization which § 61
E
has demonstrated capacity to provide technical assistance on all subjects specified in subdivision(g).
m
(d) "Low-income community"means a community in which the median income of the persons in the Th
community, area, or city is less than 70 percent of the median income in the state.
(e) 'Rural community" means any community, area, or city with less than 5,000 population. (Add
(f) "Seed money" means funds granted by the department pursuant to the provisions of this
chapter for project organization and development, test wells, preliminary engineering, professional
fees, ' ' ' and other costs which are necessary to get a project approved for financing from local, § 61:
state, or federal sources ' '
Th:
(g) "Technical assistance' means assistance and advice on all of the following subjects: advai
(1) Organization, including formation, financing, and operation, of public and private nonprofit ensu(
service entities. servic
(2) Community responsibilities, including the conduct of meetings, maintenance of minutes-of wheat
meetings, preparation and analysis of budgets; keeping of fiscal records, and supervision of staff. great
provic
(3) Operation and maintenance, including schedules and techniques pertaining to all parts of a (Adde
facility, and maintenance control systems and maintenance recordkeeping to assure adequate
maintenance,including schedules and techniques pertaining to all parts of a facility,
control systems and maintenance recordkeeping to assure adequate maintenance is performed oon a § 6121
facility.
(4) Project development, including, but not limited to: The
(A) The preparation of plans for needed expansion,creation of services,and schedules for expected eo ver
major repairs or replacement needs. Gover:
the prk
(B) Negotiation of contracts for professional services. grant
(C) An examination of various funding alternatives, and packaging applications for assistance. (Addec
(D) Review of engineering plans and specifications for development projects.
(E) Compliance with appropriate regulations relative to funding agencies. § 6126
(5) Financial assistance available from the department in seed money grants pursuant to this The
chapter.
(Added by Stats-1983, c. 1152, tions:
P• § 1. Amended by Stats.1984, c. 744, p. § 1.)
Library References (a) T
Words and Phrases(Perm.Ed) county
(b) T'
§ 6121. Legislative findings and declarations costs cc
The Legislature finds and declares that small rural communities are unable to take advantage of (c) Tl
various local, state, and federal facility development certifiec
expertise,staff,and seed money. The Legislature finds and declares that hat hangingtheir lstate and federal
regulations relative to the provision of domestic water and waste water disposal are creating an (d) TI
extra hardship upon rural areas. The Legislature further finds and declares that the provisions of
this chapter are necessary .(e) Th
advantage of existingry m order to provide assistance to rural areas so that they may take five hun
the future. Programs and develop self-help expertise enabling them to assist themselves in is less.
(Added by Stats-1983, c. 1152, M Th,
P' § 1J requires
funds.
§ 6122. Establishment of rural community facilities technical assistance program; contracts
(Added t
The department shall establish a Rural Community Facilities Technical Assistance Program, under
which, subject to the availability of funds therefor, contracts shall be made by the department with
public entities and nonprofit corporations for the provision of technical assistance to rural and 1 § 6127.
low-income communities in the operation, maintenance, and development of community facilities. f
The de
(Added by Stats-1983, c. 1152, p. — § 1,) chapter.
(Added b
Underline indicates changes or additions by amendment
Asterisks
AGTIDA
ITEM
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 27, 1986
VIA: MICHAEL SHELTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: HENRY ENGEN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 139
BACKGROUND:
AT THE OCTOBER 13, 1986 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, A PUBLIC
HEARING WAS CONDUCTED CONCERNING THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE
TO ENABLE PRIVATE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS ON SLOPES
OVER 300 . AT THAT TIME, A FIRST READING WAS HELD. -
- RECOMMENDATION:
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 139 AND FINAL ADOPTION.
/PS
i •
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council October 13, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director A-W-
SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance to enable private sewage disposal systems
on slopes over 30%.
BACKGROUND:
We have had to reject a building permit application owing to their
having a private sewage disposal system proposed on slopes of 30% or
more which is prohibited by the City' s Title 8, Building Regulations,
Chapter 4 , Plumbing Code.
The City is required to implement the California Regional Water Qual-
ity Control Board' s "Basin Plan" . However , they have advised that
engineered systems may be acceptable on 30% or more slopes subject to
their approval.
ANALYSIS:
Much of the Citv' s more difficult terrain is now being proposed for
single family residential construction. The City' s west side (see
attached graphic) has considerable land areas that are over 30% in
slope. Title 8, Chapter 4 Building Regulations, contains the follow-
ing language:
Title 8, Chapter 4 , Section 8-4.105 (b) (3) (ii) "Private sewage
disposal systems proposed to be installed on slopes of 20% or
more shall be designed by and have their installation inspected
and certified by a registered civil engineer.. The design shall
minimize grading disruption associated with access for installa-
tion and maintenance. Such systems shall be prohibited on slopes
of 30% or more. "
Staff of the Water Quality Control Board have advised that it is pos-
sible to have engineered systems that may be acceptable to them on
slopes of 30% or more subject to their review and approval. Clearly,
the City, on its part, should not be encouraging creation of new lots
on excessively steep terrain, but enabling approval of safe alternate
systems on existing lots of record should be permitted. The City •
Attorney has confirmed that the City may amend the Plumbing Code pro-
vided appropriate procedures are included to comply with the State ' s
Water Code.
! 0
Re: Private Sewage Disposal Systems on Slopes over 30%
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve the attached draft ordinance to amend
Title 8, Chapter 4 to enable consideration of engineered systems on
slopes of 30% or more.
HE:ps
Enclosures: Atascadero Generalized Slopes Map
Draft Ordinance No. 139
file: title8
2 it
ORDINANCE NO. 139 .
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
AMENDING TITLE 8 BUILDING REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 4 ,
PLUMBING CODE, TO ENABLE APPROVAL OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL
SYSTEMS ON SLOPES OF 30% OR MORE
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero' s plumbing regulations currently
prohibit construction of private sewage disposal systems on slopes of
30% or more;
WHEREAS, there are numerous parcels in the City of Atascadero
having slopes of 30% or more; and
WHEREAS, the City is required to comply with the Water Quality
Control Plan, Central Coast Basin (Basin Plan) , adopted by the Calif-
ornia Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Coast Region; and
WHEREAS, said plan enables approval of private sewage disposal
systems on slopes of more than 30% provided that an engineered system
acceptable to both the City and the Water Quality Control Board are
approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain
as follows:
1. Title 8 , Chapter 4 , Section 8-4.105 , Private Sewage Disposal
Systems (b) General Design Standards, (3) , Additional Stand-
ards (ii) is hereby amended to read as follows:
Private sewage disposal systems proposed to be installed on
slopes of 20% or more shall be designed by and have its in-
stallation inspected and certified by a registered civil en-
gineer. The design shall minimize grading disruption associ-
ated with access for installation and maintenance. Disposal
systems proposed to be installed on slopes of 30% or more are
subject to the review and approval of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board prior to the issuance of a permit.
Section 1. Publication.
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once
within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a
newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated
in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of , the Government Code;
shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall
cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of
posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City.
! i
Section 2. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and ef-
fect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced on
and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council a on
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
By:
MARJORIE MACKEY, Mayor
City of Atascadero, California
ATTEST:
BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
— w'�L L4
MICR EL SHELTON, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
HENRY ENGUN, Community Development Director
2 ��
Q2
O O >
w
O v
LW
® C a
a n
2
W
din_
V
13 Ll
L
Q W r j �L� > ►> '�
� W ( Qp i.W d N
a Q� �0 o U) sem, b L - in
w rj (n o
v N a44
;e.;
�.
tfi � A' \�' r•+ 1 �r
QUl
urniP4 &a
* ..
zc
cv
s `` y�+{X,
it✓1�\�.;� -.t,, ki6y4 b t r �.//v 1 F• �\moi/ i 1: r,_� a r {,g
�J .��2�� •F i! Z \1 `�X�/ �� l� 1 i. l � Ci'� •2� f7
( J"'� -� �• �:' - '� ��h I �r/F j s� O�� i y r s, � 4 }� i iY
,� /•. � j 1 �'�-. •r`��i T4��'\�t 7 1 k '�;�tia r / n.rr� k �'
{�,�� �. i \� y+(li phi � _ S rFLr{ 3. ♦ ./, . r � - -. ,y, �
/ )- *`t� \`C�0 r^t - '/ N �� Zr-�� t P Cif .7 �C.y ggY •C> � -: e� � b: m� �� �� ��
� 1 �:�a�\.. •i,,//—�n-h'r `fes. an Y - fin, a -Z I' r. l•"` s 3 c
a r
.� ����� ••� /•y as*k, / - )
♦ �' 7 �- 1 ta.�r'�-'t�N�C, Y .� i I i. 'R• _. 1 .�., sy. r� ." aw
t
\ \ .,r'`- / ♦ FJ� y �. �l�'-•�I`I�f>f � / 1 .'♦ f/ 1`/1 �'- tib.,✓ y 4'^' s
f li;. _ 1 / `♦.• (j . t�: 1✓ i ��.�r. , A _ 1 yH
\� J - "�_ J? S>. � \\ 1 i-1- 1 i���l♦ ( -�� .j �, ti- � — 4 �. ♦ . �� x � 53. t. �$r
\('r•vs 7ti: �-�� ','�•'t'\�• I_L>�� C.71 ,,t� � •'%a + H t � o i �` t.� a{7w S
\I :._ - - -�f r-\♦ 1/ a� �� -�." � /� ♦ C �* i• r: � �` / � ��;fit�''°.t -. tr!". :
f /
Wil'� - s \_'J �� /1 �� :-�•.�- /• � - j`' `.,_ /-�._l ',• � t s .�
♦� ' G� •l, i•✓.r �� 1 -• ice- �-� � T�r � .1 / 'd,�,� '' �'`<,>: hC f
��- \ � ♦ •'r^"w 7'; s 'yy �-.r °1 «..,.vw•x`Q.
�ZM)vt>• Vol 'O ✓;N+t f!ic+ >_' `.'lI '+♦pt` k�' 'S�`r p ,�
--� •\ ., - t `'—a" f FI ( ��
•�`-��� �' �`-ti`s: 9 � �1 � s�. -'� �
hl•-'=`v \'\`t .# '? � x> �•%��s t r�J�: f; � r yt t" ani tyit• ;°� �..
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council October 27, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director Alize—
SUBJECT: Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session
BACKGROUND:
At their October 6, 1986 meeting, the Planning Commission requested
another session be held with the City Council to review areas of
mutual concern and to maintain on-going dialogue between the Council
and Commission.
PROPOSED STUDY SESSION DATE:
The Commission has indicated availability on any Wednesday in November
for a joint study session and, per our discussion, I have reserved the
• Club Room on the Fourth Floor for Wednesday, November 5, 1986 at 7:00
p.m.
AGENDA:
A draft agenda outline will be prepared at our meeting of October 29th
at 4:00 p.m. with Mayor Mackey and Planning Commission Chairman, Jerry
Bond.
REQUEST:
That the City Council adjourn their meeting of October 27th to a joint
study session on November 5th at 7 :00 p.m. in the Club Room.
HE:ps