Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 05/24/1982 r i AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting May 24 , 1982 7: 30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Invocation Roll Call Public Comment A. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC 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 dis- cussion is required, that item will be removed from the Consent Calen- dar and will be considered separately. Vote may be by roll call. 1. Minutes of the regular meeting of May ' 24 , 1982 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) . 2. Acceptance of Tentative Tract Map 999 , 5525 Capistrano, R.P.I.-V (Walker) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. Chamber of Commerce request for funding 2. Public hearing on Zone Change 2820309 : 1, 7400 Morro Road, Reamer Construction, to change the zoning on the rear portion of the property from R-1-B-2-D to R-4-D and to modify the D (532) combining district requirements on the entire property in order to construct an office condominium project with ap- proximately 9600 square feet of floor area 3. Hearing on Halliday appeal 4. City Attorney' s Report No. 19 C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Ordinance No. 52 amending Section Map 12-0-33 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero by placing certain property in the R-4-D Zone - second reading 2. Consideration of 4th of July fireworks display D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of Five Year Capital Improvement Plan 1982 through 1987 2. Consideration of Resolution No. 22-82 authorizing execution of a grant contract with the California Arts Council 3. Annual ratification of the Joint Powers Agreement creating the San Luis Obispo County Area Council of Governments and the Regional Transportation Planning Agency Annual Work Program for Fiscal Year 1982/83 4. Resolution No. 23-82 withdrawing from membership in the Cen- tral Coast Regional Criminal Justice Planning Board 5. Consideration of request of League of Women Voters for sup- port of AB2947, a proposal for an oil severance tax 6. Ordinance No. 53 correcting statutory citations in Ordinance No. 48 (City Clerk functions) - first reading E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT BUSINESS (Council will recess and convene as the Atascadero County Sanita- tion District Board of Directors) 1. Consideration of Ordinance No. 54 , an ordinance amending cer- • tain sections of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code, declaring an urgency, and providing that the ordinance shall take effect immediately (Ordinance provides for an increase in sewage service rates) (The Board of Directors will adjourn and reconvene as City Coun- cil) F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Manager NOTICE: The City Council will hold a closed session after the regular meeting to discuss employee negotiations MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting May 10 , 1982 7: 30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building The meeting was called to order at 7: 30 p.m. by Mayor Wilkins with the Pledge of Allegiance. John Cole from the Atascadero Bible Church gave the invocation. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmen Mackey, Nelson, Stover and Mayor Wilkins ABSENT: Councilman Highland PUBLIC COMMENT (1) Howard Marohn asked Council for information concerning budget hearing and adoption dates. Mayor Wilkins stated that the present Council would review the budget as they normally do. If a budget is adopted prior to the new Council being seated, the new Coun- cil can review and amend the budget as they see fit. (2) Councilman Nelson noted that the Jaycee' s have indicated that they will not sponsor a 4th of July celebration this year . • Bob Sonne, representing the Jaycee' s stated that the project had be- come economically infeasible for them to handle. Last year the pro- ject had cost them more than they took in. Mike Bewsey stated that the North County Contractors' Association is starting a drive to raise the money for the fireworks. He hopes to get businesses and clubs to provide donations Councilman Nelson reminded the Jaycee representatives to submit their request for City support, as far as policc and fire services and use of the park is concerned, to the City as soon as possible if they plan to continue with the July 4th activities to any extent. A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the regular meeting of April 26 , 1982 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 2. Treasurer ' s Report, 4-1-82 to 4-30-82 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 3. Acceptance of Parcel Map AT 810831:1 (82-70) , 8355 San Rafael Road, Dutch Nichols (Hilliard) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLAN- NING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 4 . Acceptance of Parcel Map AT 79-031, 7405 Balboa Road, David M. Renton (Twin Cities Engineering) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF • PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - MAY 10 190 5. Tentative Parcel Map AT 820309 : 2, 7565 Sombrilla Avenue, Z . M. and Helen Walley (Twin Cities Engineering) to allow division of a 1. 59 acre parcel into two parcels (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 6. Tentative Tract Map AT 820224 : 1, 4401 E1 Camino Real, Steven E. Jacobsen (Hohenstein) to allow conversion of existing commercial building into ten commercial condominiums (RECOM- MEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) Mayor Wilkins reviewed all items on the Consent Calendar . MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved for the approval of the Consent Cal- endar . The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimously carried. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. Public hearing on Conditional Use Permit U820331: 1, 6955 Por- tola Road, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, to allow a commercial trailer to be used as temporary classroom space for a period of two years while a permanent building is under construction at another site Larry Stevens reviewed the Planning Commission' s recommendations which approved the temporary classroom trailer subject to certain con- ditions, except that condition 4 requiring handicapped restrooms was • deleted. Dr . R. Dean Robinson, the applicant' s representative, asked for consideration in deleting the fire hydrant and road repair require- ments. Mr . Warden urged consideration of deleting conditions 2 and 3, the fire hydrant and road repair . He was concerned as to whether these conditions were reasonable and fair when applizu to a temporary use. The effect of these conditions is to require a permanent solution to long existing problems because of a request for a short-term, limited use. Allen Grimes reminded Council that the condition imposed by Con- ditional Use Permits requires that the they be reasonable under the circumstances. Council members discussed this matter and questioned Staff about the Water Company' s upgrading of the fire hydrants. Mr . Warden stated that they were in the process of developing that program. MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved that Council grant the Conditional Use Permit eliminating number 2 from the conditions. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover . There was further discussion regarding this matter with Allen • Grimes pointing out that this action did clarify the test of reason- 2 MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - MAY .10, 1982 ableness and did not clearly establish a policy as to applying long- term conditions to a temporary use request. MOTION: Councilman Nelson amended his motion to include deleting number 3 of the conditions. The amendment was accepted by Councilman Stover and carried with Councilman Mackey voting no. 2. Report from Planning Director regarding parcels created in violation of subdivision regulations Mr . Stevens stated that the problem of an illegal lot can be created when an owner divides a parcel by selling a portion of it through a grant deed without following Map Act provisions and a buyer then purchases the property without knowing that the lot was improper- ly created, thereby becoming an illegal lot which could not be built upon. It was suggested that Council direct an amendment to the sub- division ordinance to allow certificates of compliance for illegal lots created after a specified date. Comments were heard from people who have encountered this problem and now cannot build on a lot even though the lot had been in existence for quite some time and had passed through several different ownerships. MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved that Council approve alternate num- ber 2 in the Staff memo dated May 6 , 1982, and set the date of the City' s incorporation as the cut-off date. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimously carried. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Ordinance No. 52 amending Section Map 12-0-33 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero by placing certain property in the R-4-D Zone, Kleinhammer - first reading MOTION: Councilman Stover moved that Ordinance No. 52 be read by title only. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried. Mayor Wilkins read Ordinance No. 52 by title only. MOTION: Councilman Stover moved that this constitute the first read- ing of Ordinance No. 52. The motion was seconded by Council- man Nelson and carried with Councilman Mackey voting no. Councilman Nelson stated that he had voted no at the last Council meeting on this matter because of the two story structure being pro- posed and not because he was opposed to the rezoning. He was now vot- ing yes because he favored the re-zoning. D. NEW BUSINESS None • 3 MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCI 10 L - MAY , 190 E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT BUSINESS MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved that the Council recess and convene a as the Atascadero Sanitation District Board of Directors. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried. The Board of Directors convened with Director Highland absent. MOTION: Director Stover moved that Robert Wilkins be appointed Presi- dent of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Board of Directors and Murray Warden be appointed District Manager and Secretary. The motion was seconded by Director Mackey and carried with Director Highland absent. 1. Offer of the United States of America to purchase up to $1, 300 , 000 of 1982 Sewer Revenue Bond to the Atascadero Coun- ty Sanitation District in order to aid in financing the ac- quisition and construction of wastewater treatment improve- ments for the District Mr . Warden reviewed the latest information by noting that he had been advised by FmHA that the ordinance initiating a rate increase in sewer charges would have to be passed before the loan could be closed, originally scheduled for June 2 or 3, 1982. In order to meet the FmHA dates, the Council will have to pass an urgency ordinance on May 24 , 1982 increasing the rates or take a chance that the contractor will extend his bid. He does not, according to the County Engineering Of- fice, seem inclined to continue indefinite extensions. In order , how- ever , to provide as wide a notification as possible, Mr . Warden sug- gested that the proposed ordinance be published in summary form twice before the next meeting. This should give the public an opportunity to become aware of the rate increase and provide notification that the matter will be heard at the May 24th meeting. Council agreed that an urgency measure should be prepared for the May 24th meeting and that the item be published for public review. MOTION: Director Mackey moved that the District accept the FmHA offer . The motion was seconded by Director Nelson with Di- rector Highland absent. 2. Resolution No. 19-82 - Loan resolution MOTION: Director Nelson moved for the adoption of Resolution No. 19-82. The motion was seconded by Director Mackey and carried with Director Highland absent. 3. Equal opportunity agreement MOTION: Director Nelson moved for the approval of the Equal Oppor- tunity Agreement. The motion was seconded by Director Stover and carried with Director Highland absent. • 4 MINUTES - ATASCADERO*ITY COUNCIL - MAY10 , 1982 4. Non-discrimination agreement MOTION: Director Stover moved for the approval of the Non-discrim- ination Agreement. The motion was seconded by Director Mackey and carried with Director Highland absent. 5. Resolution No. 20-82 selling $1, 300 , 000 principal amount of Atascadero County Sanitation District 1982 Sewer Revenue Bonds MOTION: Director Mackey moved for the adoption of Resolution No. 20-82. The motion was seconded by Director Nelson and carried with Director Highland absent. MOTION: Director Nelson moved that the Board adjourn and reconvene as the City Council . The motion was seconded by Director Stover and carried with Director Highland absent. Council convened as City Council with Councilman Highland absent. 6 . Resolution No. 21-82 determining City compliance with the terms and conditions of the Atascadero County Sanitation Dis- trict 1982 Sewer Revenue Bonds MOTION: Councilman Stover moved that Resolution No. 21-82 be read by title only. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried. Mayor Wilkins read Resolution No. 21-82 by title only. MOTION: Councilman Stover moved for the adoption of Resolution No. 21-82. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried. F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council (a) Councilman Nelson asked whether a response had been pro- vided to Mr . Halliday concerning his complaints. Mr . Warden stated that Mr . Halliday has one appeal scheduled before the Appeal' s Board and one before the Council for the next Council meeting . (b) Councilman Mackey stated that there would be a reception at the Museum on Friday night at 7 : 30 p.m. for the Tree Contest contestants. 2. City Attorney Mr. Grimes had nothing . 5 • MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - MAY 10, 1980 3. City Manager (a) Mr . Warden reviewed the project to clean out a portion of Atascadero Lake near the dam, as proposed by Elliott Stephenson and as approved by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, to see if it is feasible to use dredge material to fill in the eroding banks along the Lake and to clean up the Lake bottom. This will im- prove the fishing and the soil can be used to create a green strip around the Lake. If Council had no objections, Mr . Warden had a let- ter directed to the National Guard requesting their assistance in this project for the Mayor ' s signature. Council had no objections. (b) Mr . Warden stated that the latest estimate from the State Department of Finance for the City' s population is 17,373. (c) Mr . Warden requested a closed session to discuss labor negotiations. He stated that there would not be any announcements at the conclusion of the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9 : 12 p.m. Recorded by: MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk By: Ardith Davis Deputy City Clerk i 6 M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY MANAGER May 18, 1982 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 999 LOCATION: 5525 Capistrano APPLICANT: R.P.I .-V (Walker) On July 27 , 1981 the City Council approved tentative Tract Map 999 to allow conversion of 44 existing apartment units into air-space condominiums subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. • The zoning is R-2-B-2-D and the General Plan designation is High Den- sity Multiple Family. Staff review has determined that all conditions of approval have been met. On May 17 , 1982 the Planning Commission reviewed the matter and recommended acceptance of the Final Map. VffmMu LAWRENCE STEVENSU RAY . WARDEN Planning Director C ty nager /Ps o` ��- I� a6 y���� ly 6��'��l y dye• - r ` � ,� .. z i' Z E7S67" �rI fa � wC I • d I V p � - S32 x,600' tl 530 we -. Z5�02Y1EF7F7.'. a ti 4 �o i j s3s s m� v 4,el S'3c ti � t S17 1 s 39 cM 99 • /5/ M_E_M O_R_A_N_D_U_M_ TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Chamber of Commerce request for funding The attached document is the Chamber ' s work program submitted in response to the Council ' s request of some time ago. Also in- cluded is a budget request for $16,000 to help in the completion of the work program. The request does not specify whether the $16, 000 is being sought for fiscal year 81-82 or fiscal year 1982-83. I have asked that question of the Chamber representa- tives but as yet have not received a reply. Should the request be for fiscal year 81-82, then you must amend our budget by transferring from reserve this amount. I assume , then, that fis- cal year 1982-83 would carry another request for either the same or increased amount depending upon the fiscal year 1982-83 pro- gram of work. As you may recall, our agreement with the Chamber requires submission of their requests in the same manner and time as for all budgeted items in order for the Council to consider its full year budget. If my first assumption ,concerning thei $16 ,000 applying to fiscal year 1981-82 is not correct, then this amount should be folded into the regular budgetary process for fiscal year 1982-83 so that the Council can be assured that they are looking at the total requests or demands made upon the revenues of the City for the next fiscal year. U RAY WARDEN MLW:ad 5-20-82 fasca&ro cfam6erof com e n� 6550 EL CAMINO REAL ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 May 4, 1982 TELEPHONE: (805) 466-2044 TO: ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL FROM: ATASCADERO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE i MAY 5 1 � SUBJECT: CHAFER OF COMMERCE FUNDING _ _r In the Fall of 1981 , the City Council approved an agreement for Com- munity Promotion Services with the Atascadero Chamber of Commerce. No specific amount of funding was included. Please consider this as the official budget request from the Atascadero Chamber of Commerce, along with a Program of Work. Prior to development of exact details to be included in the Program of Work, we feel it is imperative that a survey (market study) be made to determine existing conditions in the local economy, why these conditioro exist, identify problem areas , determine our needs and gather as much statistical information as possible to establish a data base. This survey will provide necessary data in the areas of retailing, tour- ism, industry and services . The survey will gather information on the amount of space devoted to retailing in various categories , as well as the amount of space available for retail stores and industrial expansion. Analysis of this data will allow the Chamber of Commerce to focus on selected goals and objectives to be achieved as time and resources permit. Included in the market study will be a survey of shopping habits, why people do or do not shop in Atascadero. If they do not shop here, what would it take to change their buying patterns and spend money at home. What are we lacking in types of stores and services? What do we need to do to improve the business climate in. Azascadero? One of the primary concerns of the Chamber of Commerce is Economic Devel- opment of our community. We want to work �to improve the retail business , increase tourism expenditures in Atascadero, bring in clean, small light industry and expand on the services available to our residents . A deter- mination of the available work force (labor pool) is an important aspect of this market study. Through a proper program of economic development we can create more jobs for our young people entering the job market , generate more retail sale ,*improve the tax base and provide a better quality of life for the citiz of Atascadero. (continued) Page 2 1 In no way does this proposal indicate that the Chamber of Commerce is proposing to bring in any type of retail or industrial development. All prospects would be properly screened to determine their compat- ability with the General Plan and whether they would fill a need in the community. The Chamber of Commerce is interested in maintaining the rural character of Atascadero as long as possible. This survey will undoubtedly need the expertise of a "consultant" to assist in the planning and analysis . We could probably save money by having Chamber members (volunteers) assist in the gathering of data, by utilizing certain information already gathered by the city and various commercial interestswho have made marketing studies . The Chamber of Commerce would need to work very closely with Larry Stevens , City Planning Director, in this effort. The survey should also include areas that need to be updated in the General Plan, as determined by Larry Stevens , including both long term and short term planning. We need to find out what the people of Atascadero want for the next 20 years and not just for today. Recrea- tion should be one of the subjects covered. After the survey is completed and an analysis is made of data collected, goals can be set. The Program of Work can be redefined in terms of specific activities which need to be carried out within each category and emphasis placed on those items deserving a higher priority. PROGRAM OF WORK 1. SURVEY (Market Study) : As outlined previously. 2. RETAIL ACTIVITIES : Acquisition of new stores , restaurants , etc . Advertising and promotion of Atascadero retailers . Seminars and programs designed to retain existing customers and attract new customers . Improvement of the business climate. 3 . TOURISM ACTIVITIES : Acquisition of new motels and restaurants to handle the needs of visitors . Procure facilities for handling meetings of state and regional organizations . Obtain proper banquet facilities for large groups (both local and - visiting organizations) . Work on development of Atascadero Lake facilities , including the Lake Pavillion renovation pro- ject. Providing brochures and maps for visitors and/or pro- spective visitors . Work on attracting seminars , business meetings and small conventions to Atascadero . Design an advertising and promotion campaign for improving the tourist industry in Atascadero . 4 . INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT: Work on a program to attract clean, small light industry to Atascadero. Provide brochures to answer inquiries , including an economic profile of the city. Work with the city in zoning and providing proper areas for industry, acquisition, etc . (continued) Page 3 (PROGRAM OF WORK - cont ' d) 5. OTHER SERVICES : This would include procuring all types of services needed in the community, including professional • categories . 6 . The Chamber of Commerce would continue with other existing programs such as : Annual Dinner, Maid of Atascadero Pageant, Halloween Window Painting Contest , Business Directory, Float , periodic Mixers , Auction, City Beautification Awards , cooperation with organizations conducting the July 4th and Colony Days celebrations and acting as an information center for the City of Atascadero . BUDGET REQUEST FROM CITY OF ATASCADERO Item Total Supplies Postage Printing Travel Advert. Labor 1 . Survey $12, 000 $ 500 $ 500 $1 , 000 ---- ---- $10 , 000 2. Retail 8 , 900 500 500 300 $ 600 $5 , 000 2, 000 3 . Tourism 5 ,600 500 500 1 , 000 600 1, 000 2, 000 4 . Industrial Develop . 5 , 000 300 300 800 600 1 , 000 2, 000 5 . Other • Services 500 100 200 200 ---- ---- ---- $32 , 000 $1 ,900 $2, 000 $3 ,300 $1 ,800 $7 , 000 $16 , 000 The preceding Program of Work and Budget outlined above has been approved by the Atascadero Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors on Tuesday, May 4th, 1982. We respectfully request an allocation of $16 , 000 to assist in the funding of this Program. Sincerely, ATASCADERO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ML/fm MICHAEL LUCAS President M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY MANAGER May 18, 1982 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE Z820309 :1 DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW R820309 :1 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AT 820309 :1 LOCATION: 7400 Morro Road APPLICANT: Reamer Construction REQUEST: To change the zoning on the rear portion of the property from R-1-B-2-D to R-4-D and to modify the D (532) combining district requirements on the entire property in order to construct an office condominium project with approximately 9600 square feet of floor area. • On May 3, 1982 the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on the subject matters adopting a Conditional Negative Declaration and approving the various applications per the attached Staff Reports as follows : 1) Zone Change from R-1-B-2-D and R-4-D (532) to R-4-D 2) Departmental Review for offices subject to Conditions 1-18 (including the alternate Condition #10) 3) Tentative Tract Map for offices to become condominiums sub- ject to Conditions 1-5 There was only brief discussion among the Planning Commission con- cerning access to Navajoa and improvements on that street. Ernie Reamer , applicant, appeared and indicated his concurrence with the recommendation by staff. No one else appeared. -W�1� A4"t'o vt4_� 444�� LAWRENCE STEVENS7ty RAY WARDEN Planning Director M nager i CITY OF ATASCADERO 1918 r [i C A�� �' 1979 Planning Department May 3 , 1982 ,STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE Z820309 :1 LOCATION: 7405 Navajoa/7400 Morro Road (Lot 11, Block RB) APPLICANT: Reamer Construction REQUEST: To change the zoning from R-1-B-2-D to- R-4 on a portion of the property and a change in the "D (532) " combining district requirements for the entire property. BACKGROUND 1. Existing Zoning: R-4-D (532) for the front (Morro Road) portion of the lot and R-1-B-2-D (506) for the rear (Navajoa) portion of the lot, The "D (506) " means setbacks are equivalent to those required by the underlying R z(-ne, while "D (532) " menas : • "a. Departmental Review required for all uses. b. Multiple family projects shall require a minimum building site of 10 , 000 square feet, with the number of allowable units determined by the following table : -No. of Bedrooms Required Area Per Unit 1 2400 sq. ft. 2 3600 sq. ft. 3 4800 sq. ft. 4 5900 sq. ft. c. All developments shall emphasize the use of natural mat erals in exterior finishes, and landscaping to minimize visual impact of structures and soften paved areas . d. All yard areas abutting streets shall be considered front yards requiring 25 foot setbacks, to be landscaped with natural plant materials , with no off-street parking per- mitted therein. e. Maximum building height shall be 25 feet. Page Two Re : Zone Change Z820309 :1 (Reamer Construction) May 3, 1982 f . Six foot screening fencing shall be required on all in- terior lot lines abutting single family districts. g. All developments shall require review and approval of drainage plans by the City Engineering Department to mini- mize potential flooding problems. h. Signing shall not exceed 20 square feet aggregate area without Conditional Use Permit approval.. i. No new lots created less than 10 , 000 square feet. j . Offices are allowable uses in the C-R-D Zone. 2 . General Plan: Commercial Professional 3 . Environmental Determination: An initial study environmental description form has been completed. the Planning Director has issued a Negative Declaration indicating the project will not have a significFnt adverse environmental effect and the preparation of an Environmental Tnpact Report is not necessary. • 4 . Site Conditions : The lot is currently undeveloped and is gen- erally level. Vegetation consists of natural grasses and two trees . Sewer and water facilities are known to be available to the property. The lot is bounded on the north by a vacant lot which is the site of the proposed Kleinhammer office pro- ject; on the east by Morro Road; on the south by single family residences; and on the west by single family residences across Navajoa. There is a slight drainage swale crossing the prop- erty generally in an east/west direction. 5 . Project Description: The applicant proposes to change the zoning from R-1-B-2-D to R-4 on the rear (Navajoa) portion of the property. In addition, the applicant proposes to modify the "D" designation of the existing R-4-D zoning and to incor- porate those modifications into the requested zoning. The changes are requested in order to accommodate the proposed development of an office condominium project. The site plan for the development indicates a 10-foot setback along Navajoa. - This setback represents a deviation from the current 25 foot setback requirement so ;-.the applicant proposes that the "D attachment to the requested and existing R-4 zone be modified to allow such a reduction in setback along Navajoa. Page Three Re : Zone Change Z820309 :1 (Reamer Construction) May 3 , 1982 6 . Prior Actions: In past actions on similar projects (Wabhburn and Kleinhammer) , the "D" was modified such that the 25 foot setback on Navajoa was retained but with building height lim- ited to 15 feet and one story. The Washburn project was allowed to encroach 15 feet into the setback on that basis. The Kleinhammer project was allowed to encroach up to 122 feet on Navajoa and 15 feet on Morro Road. Both projects required landscaping, building architecture, and site design to mini- mize visual impacts on heighboring residences . In setting the "D" standards for the Kleinhammer zone change, it was in- tended to apply those standards to all future Morro-Navajoa rezonings until the Zoning Ordinance was completed. STAFF COMMENTS At the present time, the zoning ordinance does not have a zone which specifically corresponds to the Commercial-Professional land use designation of thF, General Plan. However, as was indicated in the Project Descripton above, this zone change application is submitted in an effort to resolve .:he conflict between the existing zoning and. the General Plan. The intended development is considered consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Commercial- Professional. Until an appropriate zone is developed for the zoning ordinance text, the R-4 zone would seem appropriate on an interim basis . The "D (532) " combining district designation of the existing R-4 zoning currently requires , among other standards, that: "d. All yard areas abutting streets shall be considered front yards requiring 25 foot setbacks, to be landscaped with natural plant materials , with no offstreet parking per- mitted therein. " The intent is to provide a suitable buffer with adjacent single family residential uses by requiring the setback to be identical in treatment to the R-1 Zone (i .e. , 25 feet in depth, parking pro- hibition) . This represents a fair and reasonable means to achieve a suitable buffer and similar approaches are often used when resi- dential and commercial uses share the same road frontage . However, the goal of creating a suitable buffer can be achieved in many ways including building height restriction, vary permissible building height based on setback, landscaping treatment to minimize the appearance of bulk, fencing requirements , access limitations for vehicles and/or pedestrians , parking prohibitions in setbacks , parking encroachments allowable based on specified performance standards, and numerous other similar techniques. Page Four Re: Zone Change 2820309 :1 (Reamer Construction) May 3, 1982 It is important to remember that the selection of appropriate buf- fering techniques must consider not only the impacts on the com- mercial land owner, but also those on the residential land owner. If the "D" standards approved for the Kleinhammer project are ap- plied to this proposed project, minimal redesign will be required. A review of the hearing draft of the new zoning ordinance which is now undergoing public hearing reveals the following: - Section 9-4 . 106 (b) states that there are no front setbacks for office zones . - Section 9-4 .106 (d) allows the applicant to select the set- back for a double frontage lot unless 500 of the lots are developed with the same front yard orientation in which case all remaining front setbacks are to be with the maj- ority. The full front setback is required and the remain- ing setback of the double frontage lot is to be one-half of the front setback. - Section 9-4 . 107 (b) states that there is no side setback for commercial zones but does not mention office zones . - Section 9-4 . 108 (b) states that there is no rear setback for commercial zones except when abutting a residential zone where the setback is 15 feet with a one foot increase in the setback for each three feet of building height over 12 feet. Office zones are not mentioned. Using the above, if adopted in the draft ordinance, no setbacks would be required for the project, but it is evident that the late addition of the office zone due to the recent General Plan Amend- ment resulted in offices being lumped into the same setback cate- gory. Staff intends to make some revision to these Sections in that regard. Without getting into a detailed rewriLng of those Sections here, the following guidelines nevertheless seem appropriate : - a lesser front setback than the R-4 zone now requires seems appropriate (probably 15 feet) - a rear setback (or double frontage adjustment) which pro- tects the residential area - allow minor encroachment of parking and one story buildings if adequately buffered - provide for reasonable setbacks in commercial-residential transitional areas Page Five • Re : Zone Change Z820309 : 1 (Reamer Construction) May 3, 1982 -FINDINGS 1. The project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 2 . The recommended rezoning is consistent with the Commercial Professional designation by the 1980 Atascadero General Plan. 3 . Adequate provision has been made to assure that the transition between the commercial and residential areas will be buffered in an appropriate manner. -RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above Findings , the Planning Department recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of Zone Change 2820309 :1 from R-1-B-2-D and R-4-D (532) to R-4-D with the "D" to mean: 111. Development of the property shall be limited to business and professional offices, single family dwellings , public utility offices, parks and playgrounds , personal services and home occupations. 2. Provisions shall be made to develop a suitable screening buf- fer which may include landscaping, fencing or similar between an office development and surrounding residential uses. 3. Access shall be provided to the property only from Morro Road. 4. Six foot screening fencing shall be required on all interior lot lines abutting single family districts . 5. A 25 foot setback shall be provided along Navajoa provided, however, that building (s) not exceeding one-story and fifteen (15) feet in overall height and offstreet parking may encroach into said setback not more than 122 feet if appropriate land- scaping, building architecture, and site design is utilized to minimize visual impacts on adjacent residential properties . 6. The front yard setback on Morro Road shall be fifteen feet. Page Six Re: Zone Change 2820309 :1 (Reamer Construction) May 3, 1982 ACTION The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff as deemed appropriate. REPORT PREPARED BY:_ JILL KOLLMANN Planning Intern REPORT APPROVED BY----,--, Z'.7�®'' LAWRENCE STEVENS , Planning Director • /Ps ,F • lig _ �� Fill AM � � - � ♦cam 7 YI v► .�. ' ift •• /ol — Tom,` f •:�=a.. �sd ® � . •.yam:- �y,. ;• •��,;���,� ,,�� • � ���i %'� �`� ���� can • q e C • C • fz-A -� ,A, 5 -2 t - L G- ry rIj N e P Q n AT 9 20309 : I - p `� LOT 11, SL0C- R[3 J ` QP • qo-o" a I , i � � D La ►; cao W. I 1 ! _XT i �'m A.K - m"*cr 1D` s c,H, �,na, 1 r*,c arw cWc �zx �Q a 5 , � k cr 'aucr3 — '�I ( 4{I LIh+ f - 3 i , 1�-i�-i r i app t r { Ell , ILEI u.___1 s { b 3,> 4 " ;! in O t r' L J�° IM 79 , O .I. _ jf' FlF! CITY OF ATASCADERO 1918 �" 1979 Planning Department May 3 , 1982 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW R820309:1 LOCATION: 7400 Morro Road (Lot 11, Block RB) APPLICANT: Reamer Construction REQUEST: To construct a 12 unit commercial office project with approximately 9600 square feet of floor area. BACKGROUND 1. Existing Zoning: R-4-D (532) and R-1-B-2-D(506) . Zone Change Z820309: 1 has been filed in conjunction with this application. 2. General Plan: Commercial Professional • 3. Environmental Determination: Ar initial study environmental de- scription form has been completed by the applicant. The Planning Director has prepared a Draft Negative Declaration for the project indicating that no significant adverse effects are likely to occur if the project is implemented as proposed. 4. Project Description: The applicant proposes to develop the vacant site with an office condominium project. Offices range in size from 800 to 1200 square feet each, divided among four buildings with two to four units per building. The exterior will be off- white stucco with stained wood fascia and Mission Tile roof. Ele- vations also show a small decorative tower , the top of which is 20 feet above finished grade. The rest of the buildings are ap- proximately 15 feet high. Thirty-one parking spaces are provided, two of which are for the handicapped. Other features include a decorative water fountain and a project identification sign near the driveway off of Morro Road. Landscaping will consist of lawn areas near both frontages and five planters adjacent to the park- ing area, plus two planting areas between buildings . Plans also indicate a six foot high fence along both sides and the rear of the property. • DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW R820309 :1 (Reamer) STAFF COMMENTS The ability to review this project is complicated by the need to grant • a zone change affecting certain development standards, especially the Navajoa and Morro Roads setbacks. The existing zoning would require each of these two setbacks to be 25 feet. Conformance with these re- quirements would necessitate redesign of the project. Plan review is based on the recommended zoning (by Staff) , which takes into account the modified requirements for similar projects in the area, particu- larly the one on the adjacent property. There is also reason for concern related to drainage due to the swale traversing the property, and partly on the adjacent Kleinhammer prop- erty. Staff would recommend that the two projects be coordinated in their approach to dealing with drainage problems. Staff would also recommend that •the applicant develop a master signing program for the project. This will probably require separate approval at a later date , such as a Conditional Use Permit. FINDINGS 1. The site of the proposed commercial office complex can be adequate in size and shape to accommodate said offices and all yards, fenc- ing, parking, landscaping and oth,_.r features required by the Atas- cadero Municipal Code. • 2. Streets in the vicinity of the proposed use are adequate to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated. 3. The proposed use will have no adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof. 4. The establishment and conduct of the commercial office complex for which the Departmental Review is sought will not be detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or improvements in said neighborhood. 5 . The project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above Findings, the Planning Department recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration and approval of Departmental Review R820309 : 1 subject to the following conditions: 1. Site development including buildings, aisles, parking, landscaping and other features shall be consistent with plans submitted in- cluding modifications required herein. 2 DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW 020309 : 1 (Reamer) • a. The building with Units J, K, and L shall be relocated to • provide for a 12 1/2 foot landscaped setback along Navajoa and said building shall be maximum height of 15 feet. b. The landscaped setback along Morro Road may be reduced to 15 feet. 2. Submit two copies of detailed landscaping and irrigation plans indicating size, type and spacing of plant materials proposed for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits. a. Raised concrete curbs or similar shall border each planter area. b. Plant materials shall be sized to achieve a mature appearance within three years. C. The type of irrigation system shall depend upon the plant materials used and the watering needs. d. Special attention shall be given to landscaping along Navajoa and in the five foot sideyards adjacent to R-1 zoning in order to soften the visual impact of the commercial building. Landscaping shall be designed to prevent pedestrian movement from Navajoa into the office comple7:1 (i.e. mounding, fencing, • etc. ) . The entire 12 1/2 foot setback adjacent to Navajoa shall be landscaped and paving proposed there shall be deleted. 3. Lighting fixtures shall be designed to minimize onsite and offsite glare. 4. All new utilities and utility connections shall be placed under ground. 5. Submit two sets of grading and drainage plans indicating grade of building pads, pavement elevations, flow lines at top of curb, etc. , for review and approval by the City Public Works Department prior to issuance of any permits. a. Drainage from the site shall not be allowed to flow directly across public sidewalks and driveways. (NOTE: Drainage plans should be coordinated with the proposed Kleinhammer project on the adjacent lot.) 6. Parking and access areas shall be provided generally as shown and be paved with minimum 2" AC on adequate base and spaces shall be striped. Wheel stops or approved functional equivalent shall be provided. • 3 DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW • (Reamer) a. Parking spaces shall be 9 ' X 20 ' except for the 12' wide handicapped space, but may be reduced in depth approximately three feet where adjacent to sidewalks or planters with the sidewalks or planters correspondingly widened thereby elim- inating the need for wheel stops. This adjustment shall only apply if a grade difference exists between the parking area and those sidewalks or planters. b. The two spaces encroaching into the 15 foot setback on Morro Road shall be revised to eliminate the encroachment. - c. The two spaces and turning area encroaching into the 12 1/2 foot setback on Navajoa shall be revised to eliminate the encroachment. d. No driveways shall be permitted along Navajoa. 7. Obtain an encroachment permit from Cal Trans to allow access to Morro Road (Highway 41) prior to issuance of permits . 8. The project shall be connected to community water and sewer sys- tems. Submit evidence from the Atascadero County Sanitation Dis- trict and Atascadero Mutual Water Company indicating that the agencies are willing and able to prrvide service to the project prior to issuance of any permits. 9. Six foot high fencing, of a type and design approve' by the Plan- • ning Department, is required alon'I property line common with R-1 zoned property. a. Said fencing to be reduced to three feet in height or elim- inated in the setbacks. b The six foot fence proposed along Navajoa shall be reduced to three feet in height, or shall be deleted, or shall be relo- cated to the setback line. 10 . Install concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Navajoa frontage as required by Title 19 of the Atascadero Municipal Code. Said improvements are to be constructed under an inspection agree- ment and encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. a. Street improvement drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Departments for approval and any dedications necessary to accommodate required street widths shall be made. (NOTE: A waiver of the curb, gutter and sidewalk requirement may be granted by the Planning Commission upon request if said im- provements are deemed incompatible with ultimate development of the area. The following alternate condition is suggested if a waiver is granted: 4 DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW'020309 : 1 Reamer (Alternate) 10. An asphalt or similar berm and a 10 foot wide • all-weather surface shall be provided along the Navajoa frontage. No curb, gutter , and sidewalk improvements are required on Morro Road. a. Improvements required herein to be constructed under an in- spection agreement and encroachment permit issued by the Pub- lic Works Department. b. Improvement drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for approval and any dedications necessary to ac- commodate required widths shall be made. C. With the approval of the Planning and Public Works Depart- ments, the 10 foot width may be reduced in order to allow ad- ditional landscaping. ) 11. Building architecture shall be consistent with elevations submitted. a. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from adjacent streets and properties in a manner ap- proved by the Planning Department. 12. Provision shall be made for a paved and enci.osed trash storage area in a location approved by the Planning Department. The pro- posed trash storage area shall be relocated from t}-! front setback. a. No outside storage or any accumulation of trash or debris shall be permitted. 13. Onsite signing shall be limited to an aggregate area of 20 square feet for the entire project not to exceed the height of the build- ing unless a Conditional Use Permit is secured. a. It is recommended that a master signing plan be submitted. No signs are approved at this time. 14. The applicant shall share in the cost of the fire hydrant required for the Kleinhammer project on Morro Road, or shall install said hydrant, with the size and manner of installation subject to ap- proval by the Fire Department, if construction proceeds prior to that of the Kleinhammer project. 15. In the event that archeological resources are discovered on the subject site during construction of this project, said resources are to remain undisturbed after discovery and construction acti- vity shall cease immediately. The Planning Department is to be notified so that proper disposition of the resources may be ac- complished. Construction may resume only upon authorization by the Planning Department. • 5 DEPARTMENT • AL REVIEW R820309 : 1 (Reamer) 16. This Departmental Review approval is granted for a maximum period of one year from the date of final approval unless a time exten- • sion is granted by the Planning Director pursuant to a written re- quest filed a minimum of ten days prior to the expiration date. 17. All conditions of approval established herein shall be complied with prior to occupancy of the buildings by the proposed use. 18. This Departmental Review shall become null and void if Zone Change Z820309 : 1 is not approved in a manner which will allow the pro- posed design. No permits can be issued until the zoning becomes effective. ACTION The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff as deemed appropriate. REPORT PREPARED BY: t(iP� / i ,r1 e ) JILL KOLLMANN • Planning Intern REPORT APPROVED BY: LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director /Ps • 6 1 CITY OF ATASCADERO \ S�DERp� Planning Department May 3, 1982 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AT 8-20309 : 1 LOCATION: 7400 Morro Road (Lot 11, Block RB) APPLICANT: Reamer Construction REQUEST: To create the proposed offices as air-space condominiums BACKGROUND 1. Existing Zoning: R-4-D (532) and R-1-B-2-D (506) - A zone change request has been filed in conjunction with this application. 2. General Plan: Commercial Professional . 3. Environmental Determination: The subdivision application is ex- empt from the requirements of C.E.O.A. (Class 1) . Environmental review is being conducted in conjur..:tion with the Departmental Review. 4. Site Conditions: The lot is currently undeveloped and is general- ly level . Vegetation consists of natural grasses and two trees. Sewer and water facilities are known to be available to the prop- erty. The lot is bounded on the north by a vacant lot which is the site of the proposed Kleinhammer office project; on the east by Morro Road; on the south by single family residences; and on the west by single family residences across Navajoa. There is a slight drainage swale crossing the property generally in an east/ west direction. 5. Project Descrip-ion: The applicant is requesting to create 12 air-space office condominiums for the purpose of individual sales. The applicant intends to formulate an association of office owners and prepare CC&Rs for the purpose of governing the use and main- tenance of the common area around the units . STAFF COMMENTS On Thursday, April 8, 1982 the Subdivision Review Board met with the • applicant, Ernest Reamer , to discuss the project. Also attending the meeting were : Mike Sherer , Planning Commissioner ; Larry Stevens , Planning Director; Fred Buss, Associate Planner ; Joel Moses, Associate Planner ; Jill Kollmann, Planning Intern; and Patience West, Engineer- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AT 820309 : 1 (Reamer) ing Aide. The following items were discussed: • 1. Treatment of the swale to confine drainage may be a joint effort with the Kleinhammer project on the adjacent property. 2 . Setback requirements along Navajoa may be modified under certain conditions. 3. Access to Navajoa from the property is not permitted. 4. Modifications to the "D" requirements may be appropriate. FINDINGS 1. The application is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. The application conforms to all of the applicable zoning and sub- division regulations and is consistent with the 1980 Atascadero General Plan. RECOMMENDATION • Based upon the above Findings, -..he Planning ?'oepartment recommends ap- proval of Tentative Tract Map AT 820309:1 subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and Restric- tions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control of nuisances and architectural control of all buildings. a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney and Planning Department prior to approval of the Final Map. b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by a Condominium Homeowners Association. 2. That all conditions of approval herein specified and any public improvements required by Departmental Review 820309 : 1 are to be complied with prior to the filing of the Final Map. 3. Approval. of this Tentative Tract Map shall expire two years from the date of this approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. 4. 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 City Ordinance prior to recordation. 2 4 i TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AT 820309:1 (Reamer) a. Monuments shall be set at all property corners and a Regis- tered Civil Engineer or licensed land surveyor shall submit a letter certifying that the monuments have been set prior to recordation, unless certification is received that corners are already monumented. b. A final title policy (CLTA or ALTA) shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the Final Map. 5. This Tentative Tract Map shall become null and void if Zone Change Z820309: 1 and Departmental Review R820309 : 1 are not approved. The Tract Map shall not be recorded until the zoning becomes effective ACTION The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff as deemed appropriate. REPORT PREPARED BY: JILL KO I�LMANN Planning Intern f REPORT APPROVED BY: _ '_ • �` -lam-�.�' LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director f ^' /ps • 3 • • 1:�) i _M_E_M_O_R_A_N_D_U_M_ TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Hearing on Halliday appeal The Halliday appeal addresses specific issues; that of the proper calculations for a proposed driveway culvert and deletion of the requirement for sandbagging. Although these issues are normally not appealable because they are resolved through appli- cation of standard engineering practices, they are being referred to you in order to avoid any apperance of denying an applicant his or her right to be heard. In doing so, however , it is sug- gested that you follow a process which in essence is as follows: The Staff report should be reviewed and Staff information presented to the Council. In the present case, that information will constitute testimony from the Planning Director , the Public Works Director and Mr . John Kennaly of Twin Cities Engineering. Council should , if it wishes, address questions to each of the parties providing testimon, . Upon completion of the Staff pre- sentation, Mr . Halliday should be allowed to present any evidence and witnesses he may care to produce to z -.pport his view. Again, questions by the Council should be addressed to any aspect of the applicant' s information. If the Coun;!il wishes, they could then ask for a summary of each position after receipt of all direct testimony. After Council has completed its considerations and discus- sion, it should establish definite findings and conclusions. Those findings and conclusions could be in the form suggested by staff or as suggested by Mr . Halliday or a wudiiivation of these. If, however , the Council is not prepared to make such findings and determinations at this meeting, then the matter could be con- tinued to a later date with a request that written findings be provided to Council for adoption at a subsequent meeting. This would require Council to give general guidelines as to what their findings and conclusions should be. (Incidently, if additional witnesses or testimony are required, the matter can be continued to another date. ) Although our Code sections do not specifically address the time period in which the Council must render its judgment, an omission which perhaps we should correct, you should attempt to resolve the issue as expeditiously as possible assuming you are satisfied that you have heard all pertinent information. • M RRAY WARDEN MLW:ad 5-20-82 i9 r 71 .«.o..m9 13 1 C [, r^ C' 97 CAD CITY moOF ATASCADERO o; STAFF REPORT May 19 , 1982 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS LOCATION: 7900 San Clemente (Lot 12, Block YB) APPLICANT: Edward Halliday REQUEST: To allow use of a formula other than the rational method to calculate drainage for a proposed driveway culvert and to delete the requirement for sandbagging at each end of the culvert. BACKGROUND 1. Applicable Engineering Standards: Section 11-351.1500 (P. 17-32) of the San Luis Obispo County Standard Improvement Specifications and Drawings establishes the standards used by the City of Atas- cadero for storm drainage. These standards are administered by the Public Wr,ks Department. Section 11-351.1504 (P. 19) indi- cates that: " . . . . solution of hydraulic design problems commonly encountered for areas not to exceed 200 acres may be made by the rational formula. . . . " The standards (P. 16) also provide that: "While it is intended to permit alternative mzthods of analysis and solution of drainage problems and to provide for other methods for those situations which do not lend themselves to solution by the following criteria, such alternative methods shall be based upon accepted engineering principles and shall produce results which achieve the products intended by the following specifications. " The recommendation for slope protection (i .e. rip-rap, sandbag- ging, etc..,) is based upon the velocity and amount of drainage flow' and is intended to provide erosion control around the culvert inlet and outlet and minimize hydraulic pressure which could dis- lodge the culvert. 2. Site Considerations: The subject property is approximately 17 ,000 square feet in size and is located in a single family residential area of similarly sized parcels. The site slopes upward from San Clemente at an approximate slope of 15% and is traversed by a • natural watercourse across its frontage near the roadway. The watercourse continues along and across San Clemente to San Marcos towards Atascadero Creek. (See attached map) Appeal of Drainage Requirements (Halliday) S3. Project Description: The applicant proposes to construct a single family residence on the property. A grading plan was submitted and it shows the proposed driveway traversing an existing natural watercourse. 4. Prior Action: a) On November 9 , 1981 grading plans were submitted. A plan check was made and corrections given to the applicant on November 16 , 1981. One of the corrections stated "Secure City Engineering approval for drainage control shown on plans. " The applicant submitted to the Public Works Depart- ment his drainage plans with calculations using a method com- mon to the Soils and Conservation Service (Note: The calcu- lations were done by a SCS employee who is not an engineer) . Several unsuccessful attempts were made by Public Works Staff to secure documentation necessary to verify the accuracy of the applicant' s submittal . After that lack of success , Staff performed the necessary calculations on their own initiative sizing the Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) at 22" with 18" of head and recommended rip-rap (sandbagging) on both the up- stream and downstream side of the culvert. The applicant was requested to submit revised plans per Staff' s calculations since there was a considerable difference between the appli- cant' s submittal and Staff' s calculation. • b) On February 4, 1982 a letter of appeal was filed objecting to the drainage requirements (method of calculation and sand- bagging) . The letter indicated that it was not in the ap- plicant' s interest to have his appeal heard by City Council and he requested to be advised when the Appeals Board was appointed and seated so he could file an appeal. c) On March 18 , 1982, in conjunction with other items also being appealed, the Planning Director , by certified mail, advised the applicant that the drainage requirements could only be appealed to the City Council since they were not part of the Uniform Building Code and were not within the purview of the Appeals Board. The applicant was advised of the 15 day ap- peal period (copy of letter attached) . d) On April 2, 1982 a letter appealing the above determination was submitted by the applicant. The applicant requested ad- ditional time to prepare supporting materials before the ap- peal was scheduled (copy of letter attached) . e) On May 6, 1982 a letter scheduling the appeal was sent to the applicant after he verbally indicated that he was prepared to have the matter heard. The letter requested that the appli- cant submit any supporting evidence for inclusion with the Staff Report, but none has been received to date. • 2 Appeal of Drainage Requirements (Halliday) DISCUSSION It seems very evident that the applicant has no grounds upon which to base his appeal. The City standards clearly specify that the rational method is the preferred alternative but that other calculation methods can be used if they include adequate documentation to verify the ac- curacy of their results. No such documentation has ever been submit- ted. There is also a significant discrepancy in the results between the rational method applied by Staff and the SCS method employed by the applicant. This discrepancy can only be resolved in favor of adopted City standards especially when no verifying documentation is forthcoming. The sandbagging recommendation is to protect the pipe from hydraulic uplift during higher flooding, but a number of rip-rap or anchoring techniques may also be employed. No reason why this recommendation is inappropriate has ever been supplied by the applicant. The Council should also be aware that Ordinance No. 10 provides that appeals from administrative decisions shall be allowed only where there is the exercise of administrative discretion or personal judge- ment with regard to City ordinances. In this case, it seems evident that such discretion or judgement was not applied in this situation, but, rather , the Public Works Department has evaluated the drainage requirements based solely on established standards • FINDINGS 1. The application of drainage requirements including the use of the rational method and the recommendation for sandbagging, is proper- ly based on City standards as set forth in the County of San Luis Obispo Standard Specifications and Drawings Manual. 2. The applicant' s submittal using a different method to determine run-off flow did not include sufficient documentation to verify the accuracy of the method as required by City standards. 3. Calculations submitted by the applicant produced results which varied significantly from those achieved by using the rational method which is contrary to City standards requiring such alter- natives to achieve products consistent with specifications set forth in the Manual. 4 . The application of City standards to this project did not involve the use of administrative discretion or personal judgement. 3 Appeal of Drainage Requirements (Halliday) • RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above Findings, the Planning and Public Works Directors recommend that the appeal be denied. LAWRENCE STEVEN , Planning Director l RENCE MCPHERSON, Public Works Director /Ps • 4 \ ,k 9{n O cj) t '= f3T1 e � Cr��bY� P OPERI r �► tia D,� M' A ICON� E - i O fericc m all -fill 41V ' O 4 •" c •�/ �E �Jrr COS A� 4 N` M 1 ro s))J �• __ __Z___ f.: � to „ � � - ��O -• ''� i —•* i 'BNXrrl>•.t7:. t C%2;�Or] - E -- $' Q �'• �� A rE O ARME IT 1 ^ T. b )o j O_ _ O .I n a1�� .._ to)) •..-\ 1 e• I: H,o i. N 1 l QTgsc 4,0 it /IAC - �f Yp•Yr > w� aF,t� ,r�..�� as� '�*,.e tv {�'' rr,� .,�U- i i r � 44 IN M'�' ���.a.-c.„�, i�•iy f moi}$ ;y,R,rC�,�,"M� .pmt +.t s,. x,a1-„ 1 f .n 9i ]�S'.s.F -� ", .. fz. ~� rr ,r.. {f'•!x',.f*}t s•A t i �k�.y �. •�. .s. -P ps" 1}`w .pt.ri7 -�2•Y� :r .- ! .•t{.a�z f` 5 3 ,Z"'�.ti �'� •t�£',r .,fit�.�"r', ��, yy�' t� 3` "c" T- I"e 2�i +•:-}:. �"� „-� �_..s�'!•r" - .r.r s�� �'�tT _.. b¢ '�`y` s� f � , -t" - ; xA 1 Y,,,. a �.x#• Es:-.,,. <t ..� a 3' 4 S` .f�1„�7�,'`,..,ii i;� 4 �iE 'W� �� :�re<..°ci{•'� -,�� i�ee�� it''�a a x � y�i.` �t Z��,�� �"� 4�. :e.'s(¢P,!.r..`1' S1,� �(}Y '".'q ate•$°.: ca. i>,• sa'a T -t 4+5��.F.-ts?s :r�.°Y y, k 'Y: ate rF 5k��a r�=+„.Sx. S��% �� �-1 •+.,�,�„+><�i'r�sy Y,�,�.w-_.''a�' a� `! �.1i� �a ,�{�� � �CJ�'lt. gf 5,"t r r 't�t��a-St -`x^v �•, .PaC.�+4L'�'.�.�+ .iy - � ..: .r��j .may 1 { >>t 'fY .* 4 ,,r � 'F X -i i i f J f� � s fr• f 1�"�. ».�"`� ��Y.rt''�'+,' �t z x. - a ?" ,. .girt 4 �" Y4� f.y�3 s„ :�pq.y -}3'.,x- rv7� .;q, �- '• Sa ',Y ;a..• -rn -t `� R �' �"7. •..,.5.,�! +;f' `_ ,.3r a i".t,�; � pf a:. -41 �}'�`.`��f ya*F-i,y '' , - ?' Y� i+J�1����.. f ?'"t,c."'f ;�itx�- 7 fq� .:!•�•�.�r'� {r-N�. � e 3 Jr i•'is _a � c� � '�+ro- �r ,.: � ': �. '. � 4 r_ s *-,w.�t., Ar _ f N4 D FRA N F f)E J -TDFQF F', V o c i SEP 1c Wi.� .iv �T./'^ltK . .rte - •• �� _ � - � - MI P. 47pti1S L-tN- KTfLE 11 r s ROBERT J.WILKIN I.JR. • • MAYOR CITY ATTORNEY I 1 P. O. BOX 749 WILLIAM H.STOVER ATASCADERO. CA 93423 MAYOR PRO-TEMPORE 18051 466-5678 GEORGE P. HIGHLAND ` MARJORIE B. MACKEY INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 _ ROLFE NELSON - POLICE DEPARTMENT (805) 466-8600 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING MURRAY L.WARDEN A CITY MANAGER/CLERK POST OFFICE BOX 747 - ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 FIRE DEPARTMENT PHONE (805) 466.8000 6005 LEWIS AVENUE ATASCADERO. CA 93422 (805) 466.2141 March 18, 1982 Mr. Edward Halliday 8250 San Clemente Atascadero, CA 93422 SUBJECT: Building/Grading Permit 7900 San Clemente Dear Mr. Halliday: I have reviewed your objections to certain requirements estab- lished by the Planning and Public Works Departments in conjunc- tion with the above-referenced permits being processed for a proposed single family residence. I_ is my determination after careful consideration that these req-iirements are consistent with adopted City standards and ordinances . Your letter objects to culvert size and sandbagging around the corrugated metal pipe (CMP) . Drainage calculations to determine the culvert size were performed using the rational method by the Public Works Department. This method is the only approved one set forth in City standards . While the City Engineer indicated that you could use the method employed by the Soil Conservation Service, it was contingent upon your submittal of sufficient sup- porting evidence to justify the calculations. After repeated efforts to secure this substantiating material from you or SCS, it became evident that the information would not be forthcoming so Staff, in order to expedite the review, designed the culvert for you even though this is not formal practice, The use of sand- bagging or similar measures is frequently done to provide erosion protection around drainage culverts to prevent their loss during high flood waters and is allowed by the adopted City standards. These drainage standards, even though imposed through the building permit process , are not established in the Uniform Building Code and are not within the purview of the Building Board of Appeals. These technical engineering standards are within the jurisdiction of the City Engineer and- may only be appealed to the City Council . If it is your intention to appeal these two requirements , then it would be necessary to submit a letter of appeal to the City Clerk. The letter should state any reasons in support of the appeal. • I3 , ( • i March 18, 1982 Mr. Ed Halliday Page Two I Your letter also objects to any requirements pertinent to the stream (or water course) which runs through the subject property. This primarily affects the location and design of the private sewage disposal system. The Uniform Plumbing Code provides that such systems be located 50 feet from any stream. Obviously, the intent is to prevent downstream pollution by effluent affecting other properties . In the review of numerous private sewage dis- posal systems, the 50 foot separation has also been applied to natural watercourses. Plans submitted are not in compliance with these standards. The Planning Department has previously suggested that you contact an engineer to discuss this situation and to con- sider an alternate design (i.e. an engineered system with a liner might be acceptable to accomplish the intent of the UPC even though less than 50 feet) , I have consulted with several knowledgeable persons familiar with the property to determine if the stream determination is a reason- able one and each has concurred with our conclusion. In addition, you recently submitted a "Statement Regarding Streambed Alteration Notification" froi . the Department of Fish and Game wherein it is indicated that you "intend to abstantially divert or obstruct the natural_ flow o`, or substantially change the bed, channel , or bank of, or use material from thE! streambed of. . . . .a tributary to Atas- cadero Creek. " Subsequent discussion with the local Game Warden confirms the el.etermination that has been made concerning the stream. There is little doubt that several obstructions (i .e. fences and streets) reduce the effectiveness of this water course in reaching the Atascadero Creek, but it is also evident that the protections intended in the UPC by the 50 foot separation or by an acceptable alternate designs are necessary and appropriate in this case. If you still feel that the stream-related requirements are not proper, then you may within fifteen (15) days file a letter of appeal with the Planning Department. The letter shall indicate any grounds in support of the appeal. Your letter also indicates that the appeals process was not avail- able subsequent to the adoption of Ordinance No. 44 . This is most definitely not the case since the City Council has been available to act in that capacity. You should be aware that the previous County ordinance which was adopted by the City upon incorporation established the legislative body as the appeals board. This ap- peals process was previously used on one occasion as evidence of its existence. • 23 March 18 , 1982 Mr. Ed Halliday Page Three Cities have the authority with certain limitations to modify provisions of the Uniform Codes and frequently do so especially with administrative mechanisms such as the appeals process . I am hopeful that this will answer your objections. If not, the foregoing provides you with available appeal options. I would strongly recommend that you consider an alternate private sewage disposal system design using a liner or some similar approach if the 50 foot separation cannot otherwise be attained. Do not hesitate to contact the Planning Department should you have any question regarding this matter. 7Si erely, l b��/ L / Lawrence Stevens Planning Director LS:ps 3/3 :� .._._ __ _._ _ .. ,'�S" %*!4T.3^z:€"ya;:m�"..�..:.P +:,'+�ss:.x��c.'1�.+ezmem.-.,�,s•f.-.^en�ac+.+w�--o,.::;..«- PR April 29 1982 ' Mr. Larry Stevens Planning Department City of Atascadero Atascadero, CA 93422 Mr. Stevens: On March 19, 19829 I recieved a letter from your office regarding several matters that involve restrictions and re- quirements that your office -has imposed on proposed construe- tion that I have had in the planning stage. One of the matters discussed in that letter concerned limitations you deemed necessary - ith respect to the proposed sewage system I am------ still not satisfied that said restrictions are either proper or even desirable. Therefore, it is my intent to have this letter stand as notice of appeal. In your letter, you imposed a 15 day limit for filing a letter of appeal complete with all supportive evidence. Since an adequate appeal on my part requires obtaining considerable technical data from sources I have no control over, with their inherent delays, it is impossible for me to- collect and organ- ize said data before the stated deadline. In view of this and the consistant slo.rrness of your own office in dealing with matters I have sent to you, it seems a little heavy-handed and inappropriate for you to impose such a demanding time limit on me. Therefore, I Would like to request an extension of that deadline at this time to give me aa�quate time to prepare my appeal. I would appreciate a response from you regarding my re- quest for extension of the deadline as soon as possible. I had hoped to have all of the required information in hand by noir so I would. need no further delay.r- It has not arrived as of yet and that is the reason for this late hour request for an extension. .Thank you for ,your attention. Respectz~slly Submitted, Eduard Halliday 8250 San Clemente Atascadero, CA 93422 466-3341 / ROBERT J.WILKINS,JR. � T MAYOR - WILLIAM H.STOVER �j MAYOR PRO-TEMPORE � s e adet GEORGE P. HIGHLAND MARJORIE B. MACKEY INCORPORATED JULY 2, 1979 ROLFE NELSON ADMINISTRATION BUILDING MURRAY L.WARDEN CITY MANAGER/CLERK POST OFFICE BOX 747 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 FIRE DEPARTMENT PHONE (805) 466.8000 6005 LEWIS AVENUE ATASCADERO, CA 93422 (805) 466.2141 Ali REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY For the Council Meeting of May 24, 1982 No. 19 1. RECENT DECISIONS OF INTEREST a. Prescriptive Easement to Roadway Held Established The C.A. 1st has held that a corporation which acquired by deed sev- eral parcels of land was also entitled to an easement by way of pre- scription across certain adjacent property. The C.A. noted that the elements necessary to establish an adverse use are: (a) open and notorious use; (b) continuous and uninterrupted use; (c) hostile to the true owner; (d) under claim of right; and (e) for the statutory period of five years. Because each of these elements was established at the trial, the burden of showing that the use was merely permissive shifted to the owner of the land, who failed to meet this burden. (Twin Peaks Land Co. Inc. v. Briggs, C.A. lst, Feb. 25, 1982) b. Ordinance Banning "Adult" Entertainment Activity The C.A. 4th has upheld a municipal ordinance banning "adult" enter- tainment activity within 1000 feet of a residential area. (Castner v. City of Oakland, C.A. 4th, Feb. 2, 1982) c. Ordinances on Display of Arousing Pictures Enjoined The C.A. 2nd has struck down municipal ordinances restricting the dis- play of sexually-arousing pictures to minors on the ground that they were constitutionally overbroad. (American Booksellers Association v. Superior Court (Paramount) , C.A. 2nd, Feb. 25, 1982) i REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY No. 19 - Page 2 d. Property Owners Had No Vested Right The C.A. 3rd has held that owners of property in the City of South Lake Tahoe did not acquire a vested right to complete a building project by obtaining a municipal foundation permit and installing a foundation on their property. e. Precondemnation Conduct Was Unreasonable The C.A. 4th has upheld a trial court judgment that the City of Long Beach unreasonably delayed initiating eminent domain proceedings and engaged in other oppressive precondemnation conduct. (Taper v. Long Beach, C.A. 4th, March 8, 1982) f. Precondemnation Delay Damages Reversed The C.A. lst has reversed an award of damages for unreasonable precon- demnation delay on the ground there was no evidence the property owners suffered any loss. (City of Fresno v. Shewmake, C.A. 1st, March 19, 1982) g. Grounds for Firing The C.A. 3rd has upheld dismissal of a correctional officer who refused to work on Thanksgiving Day. (Martin v. State Personnel Board, C.A. 3rd, March .8, 1982) h. Drug Pz.raphernalia Law The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a municipal ordinance of the Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, requiring a business to obtain a license to sell items "designed or marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs." (Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, U.S.Sup.Ct. , March 3, 1982) i. Anti-Cruising Ordinance The C.A. lst has struck down the Los Gatos anti-cruising ordinance, saying it is preempted by the state Vehicle Code. (Aguilar v. Munici- pal Court (People) , C.A. lst, March 24, 1982) j. Interest on Refund of Taxes The C.A. 2nd has held that a taxpayer who recovers a city business tax paid under protest may also recover prejudgment interest under Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (a) . (Todd Shipyards Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, C.A. 2nd, March 25, 1982) k. Racial Quotas Invalid The C.A. lst has struck down an affirmative action hiring and promo- tion program on the ground that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, since it was based on _ racial quotas. (Hiatt v. City of Berkeley, C.A. 1st, March 29, 1982) ....:wren. REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY No. 19 - Page 3 1. Skelly Rights The C.A. 2nd has held that a temporary part-time non-civil service employee of the City of Los Angeles who held her job at the pleasure of her employer had no right to the pretermination procedures outlined in Skelly v. State Personnel Board. (Williams v. Department of Water and Power, C.A. 2nd, April 14, 1982) m. Rehabilitation Assignment The C.A. 2nd has held that a retired police officer was not required to take a "light duty" position created after his disability pension had vested. The court said that even though Winslow was capable of performing his new duties and could have been assigned to a light duty position if one had existed before his disability retirement, once a retirement pension has been granted, the employee's rights to it are vested and cannot be removed or restricted. (Winslow v. City of Pasa- dena, C.A. 2nd, April 14, 1982) n. Condo Conversion Decision Reversed The C.A. 2nd has held that in a proposed condominium conversion case, vacancy rate is "merely a consideration factor" in determining the reasc,nableness of a relocation assistance plan. Although the city found the condo conversion unreasonable because of the low vacancy rate in the area, t, ! court found the evidence did not support the .ouncil's decision. Moreover, there was no particular relationship between the tenancy factor and the interests of special tenants, as low vacancy was not a controlling factor to the legitimate concerns of the tenants. (Krater v. City of Los Angeles, C.A. 2nd, April 20, 1982) 2. WESTERN CITY LEGAL NOTES a. Treasurer's Duties The duty of the City Treasurer to disperse public monies to pay bills is ministerial and mandatory and not discretionary. (City of Redondo Beach v. DeLong, 123 C.A.3d 1035, Sept. 3, 1981) b. Penny Arcades In a proceeding by a city against the owners of a coin-operated motion picture preview booth business that allegedly constituted a "penny arcade" in violation of a local zoning ordinance, the trial court re- fused to enjoin the operation of the business, instead issuing a pre- liminary injunction restraining the arrest of the corporate defendants' employees, where the issuance of such order preserved the status quo until factual issues as to whether the business was a "penny arcade" or a "picture arcade" could be resolved. (City of Los Angeles v. Amber Theatres, Inc. , 123 C.A.3d 715, Sept. 21, 1981) REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY No. 19 - Page 4 c. Picture Arcade Ordinance Upheld A city ordinance requiring visible interiors of viewing booths in pic- ture arcades in places in which the public is admitted did not abridge plaintiff's constitutional freedom of speech as applied to plaintiff's bookstore arcade. The court held that plaintiff's creation of a pri- vate association in which a $1.00 membership fee was required as a condition for viewing films in the picture arcade was a thinly-veiled device to escape regulation by an otherwise valid ordinance. (DeMott v. Board of Police Commissioners, 122 C.A.3d 296, July 31, 1981) d. Bingo Games The C.A. 3rd held invalid a city ordinance providing for a graduated income tax on the gross income generated by bingo games operated by a religious corporation. The court held the subject was preempted by state law. (City of Pomona v. Christian Fellowship Center, 125 C.A.3d 250, Nov. 4, 1981) 3. PENDING LITIGATION a. City of Atascadero v. Daly, et al. The litigation remains on appeal. b. Snow. Atascadero Firefig-ters Association v. City of Atascadero, et al. The appeal has been abandoned and the case dismissed. 4. PROSECUTIONS a. People v. Cal Massey The City Attorney's Office successfully prosecuted a violation of the city sign regulations at the Freeway 101 and San Anselmo overcross against defendant Cal Massey. S. MISCELLANEOUS a. City Attorneys Department Annual Spring Conference The City Attorneys Department of the League of California Cities held its annual spring conference in Long Beach on April 28-30, 1982. Nume ous legal papers of interest to the profession were delivered. Respectfully ubmitted, ALLEN GRIMES City Attorney AG:fr rORDINANCE NO. 52 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING SECTION MAP 12-0-33 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO BY PLACING CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE R-4-D ZONE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. Council Findings. After conducting a public hearing, the City Council finds and determines that: 1. The project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment and the preparation of an Environmental Im- pact Report is not necessary. 2. The recommended rezoning is consistent with the Professional Commercial designa+.ion of the 1980'Atascadero General Plan. 3. Adequate provision has been mac. to assure that the transi- tion between the commercial and residential areas will be buffered in an appropriate :.,anner . Based upon these Findings, a change of zone from R-1-B-2-D and R-4-D (532) to R-4-D with the "D" to mean: "l. Development of the property shall be limited to business and professional offices, single family dwellings, public utility offices, parks and playgrounds, personal services and home occupations. 2. Provisions shall be made to develop a suitable screening buf- fer which may include landscaping, fencing or similar between an office development and surrounding residential uses. 3. Access shall be provided to the property only from Morro Road. 4. Six foot screening fencing shall be required on all interior lot lines abutting single family districts. 5. A 25 foot setback shall be provided along Navajoa provided, however , that building (s) not exceeding one-story and fifteen (15) feet in overall height and off-street parking may en- croach into said setback not more than 12 1/2 feet if appro- priate landscaping , building architecture , and site design is utilized to minimize visual impacts on adjacent residential properties. ORDINANCE NO. 82-52 6. The front yard setback on Morro Road shall be fifteen (15) feet. " Section 2. Zoning Change. Map 12-0-33 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero on file in the City Planning Department is hereby amended to reclas- sify Lot 12 of Block RB of Atascadero Colony from R-1-B-2-D and R-4-D (532) to R-4-D. Section 3. Zoning Map. Map 12-0-33 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero on file in the City Planning Department is hereby amended as shown on attached Exhibit "A" which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Section 4. 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 Secti:,n 36933 of the Government Code; • shall certify t'.-ie 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. Section 5. 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 held on 2 ORDINANCE NO. 82-52 AYES: NOES : ABSENT: ROBERT J. WILKINS , Mayor ATTEST: MURRAY L. WARDE , City Clerk APP VED AS F RM: ALLEN GRIMES , City Attorney 3 i b DoT ►Z��yoc� Ra r I Fmi17 un p I o (Ya fesx,'o M a _ Designed CIV Q o l l -.✓ _ DevelopPnevi / Z got K cK R6 EXH1BIT OR®lIVANCE NO 82-52 s4 Z Sf f f 24- 1 rQ 1-,6 2 D onJ R-q 0(S,;2) /o R-4-/.� w:Y4 7%e Q io mC4n "1. Development of the property shall be limited to business and professional offices, single family dwellings, public utility offices, parks and play- grounds, personal services and home occupations. 2. Provisions shall be made to develop a suitable screening buffer which may include landscaping, fencing or similar between an office development and surrounding residential uses. 3. Access shall be provided to the property only from Morro Road. 4. Six-foot screening fencing shall be required on all interior lot lines abutting single family districts. 5. A 25-foot setback shall be provided along Navajoa pro- vided, however, that building(s) not exceeding one- story and fifteen (15) feet in overall height and off- street narking may encroach into said setback not more than 12' feet if appropriate landscaping, building architecture, and site design is utilized to minimize visual impacts on adjacent residential properties." 6. The front yard setback on Morro Road shall be fifteen (15) feet. _M_E_M_O_R_A_N_D_U_M_ TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: 4th of July fireworks Subsequent to your previous meeting in which the issue of the 4th of July activities was raised, I have talked with the repre- sentatives of the Contractor ' s Asociation and the Jaycees. The Contractor ' s Association has pledged support of the fireworks display and the Jaycees have decided that they do not wish to be involved in the food or activities other than the support for the fireworks display. Accordingly, they have indicated, through the attached let- er , their participation. Please note that they City is being asked to provide assistance which was not requested in past years. The requested City support will cost approximately $3,400 for overtime of police and public works personnel, for rental and placement of traffic barricades, for costs (still undetermined) of manning the barricades through use of supplemental police per- sonnel (Reserves, Explorer Scouts) , police officer supervision, • and clean-up of the park. In addition, added police patrol ac- tivity will be required throughout the City. If the Council wishes to commit the City to these costs, the money will have to be appropriated in the Fiscal Year 1982-83 budget, if adopted, or a supplemental appropriation will be re- quired. MU Y WARDEN MLW: ad 5-20-82 May 18 , 1982 Atascadero City Council c/o Murray Warden P . 0. Box 747 Atascadero , CA. 93423 RE : 4th of July Fireworks Display Atascadero Lake Dear Council : I have been informed by the North County Contractors Association that they have raised the necessary money to purchase the fireworks fo- the 4th of July display through community donations . A meeting t-. day with • Murray Warden, Larry McPherson and Bud Mchale resulted in the following proposal : 1) The Jaycee ' s will post sufficient "NO PARKING" signs in the affeci_ed areas around the lake on July 3rd. 2) The Jaycees will provide two 4 yard dumpsters that will be located near the AARP building. 3) The Jaycees will provide 6 chemical toilets . 4) The Jaycees will provide the fireworks , the pyro- technician, the set-up and breakdown and all related to the fireworks display. We are asking the City of Atascadero to provide the following : 1) All manpower necessary for traffic control, crowd. control and fire safety on the 4th of July. 2) The City will be responsible for the clean-up of the park facilities following this event. If the above conditions meet with your approval , the Atascadero Jaycee' s would like a Use Permit granted to set off the fire- works beg#ffiling at dusk on the 4th of July. Sin e y, 9b - Sonne of July Chairman Atascadero Jaycees RS : dt _M_E_M_O_R_A_N_D_U_M_ TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Capital Improvement Plan You have previously been provided a copy of our draft CIP. I have received comments affecting that draft from Councilmen Mackey and Nelson; a copy of Councilman Mackey' s comments is attached. Council- man Nelson has suggested that under the category of Public Works, Buildings, that we re-evaluate the Administration Building renovation, Phase II ; that we move the Lake Park Pavilion $150 ,000 from 1986-87 to 1983-84 ; move the $25 ,000 for parking lot improvement from 1983-84 to 1984-85; that we move the Administration renovation for Police facili- ties, $100 , 000 , from 1985-86 to 1984-85; that we delete in 1986-87 $40 , 000 for Council chamber renovation; and that we work on the public address system. Under Public Works, Streets, item 3, service shop fuel storage and equipment, $130 ,000 in 1982-83, he suggests that we utilize the present sewer plant and Lucky' s building which, if you will recall, was previously discussed and is included in the $130 ,000 . The cash flora situation dictates the availability of money in any . given year unless additional uonies are made available through chang- ing, deletion, or adoption of some projects . In considering the cash flow commitments presented in the capital improvement schedule, some are not suitable for change because they represent lease purchase or other long-'_erm commitments. However , there are other items which could be deferred in order to complete another project sooner than contemplated under the draft CIP. As you are aware, the CIP provides a device for identifying over- all projects and some indication as to possible times for implementa- tion. The actual commitment, however , does not occur until annual budget allocations are made. This means that some capital improvement projects could change in terms of time of implementation based upon annual budget decisions or might be dropped or added. In short, the CIP is a guide and can be revised, and should be, from year to year as well as during the annual budget implementation process. The CIP has been provided to members of the Planning Commission and of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Thus far , no indivi- dual comments have been received. I would suggest, therefore, that we proceed with your final approval of the CIP recognizing that if any changes are to be made, you can make them at this meeting or , if the Advisory Board or Planning Commission have any additional thoughts at a later date, they could be brought back for later incorporation and amendment. MU Y L WARDEN MLW:ad 5-20-82 • 4-30-82 TO: Murray FROX: Mar j . • Subject: C.I.P. At this time I feel my priorities for Capitol Improvement Plan are as fmllows: 1) Police facility 2) Up-grading roads and streets together with drainage improvement 3) Park creation -and improvements to existing park 4) Some improvement to City Hall (not air-conditioning) 5) Public works building (at sewer plant?) Going into detail on the above, 1)police facilities: I I believe before we spend any money remodeling libraries we should advertise for bids so we know what we are really talking about. (building remodeling came in high two years ago, sewer plant came in low last year) . I realize this would call for plans, s )ecizieations, etc. but remodeling the libraries, one or both, will give us a police facility which would be stop-gap at best. I believe, as do some others, that the people would go for a bond issue to pay for a police station or even salaries • if it was presented to them in the right way. At a chamber mixer right after we discussed the police atation alternatives last fall a contractor said , "I could build you a police station for less than you have projected. " He went on to say that he could build one and leas it back to us but he said it would be cheaper for us to build it for ourselves. I am sure there are others out there who might do likewise. Anyway I think we should explore the idea. In this instance I am not trying to protect the library as much as wanting to exp:.ore all alternatives before spend- ing a lot of money on a short term solution. I feel there could be other uses for those rooms when the library moves out; for instance with a little remod_ .ing they could be Council chambers. 2) Streets and drainage: There are a number of places in town where the poor drainage is eroding the roads away. In others like down town we really need storm drains. Much of this needs to be put on a priority list, doing some jiLmediately and larger projects being phased in when building is done in the area. I have not heard anythi_,g on the Amapoa Morro Flats project lately. What is being done there? I was told wnen we had that hearing that it would take two years if we just went ahead and did it ourselves and assessed the property owners. Has anything been done? I understand Larry is communicating wita the 3-F owners and hopefully that is going anead? C.I.P. List p.2 • • Mar j . 3) Park creation and improvements: This includes the new park for which we have (?) the grant and also the old Lake Park which neeas improvements to the restrooms. I still would like to see soLeone livin in the old Paddock house. If we had a Cal Poly student or State Hospital employee living there for their rent (and maybe free ride on our co.c,mu. .er bus to Cal Poly or hospital)in exchange to sleeping on the pr-mises I believe the vandalism would be reduced. Some kind of alarm system could be installed to alert house resident to notify police, etc. This category could include improvements to Pavilion which could be done in phases. We also could consider lawn bowling site soiLewhere in town if some club or group wanted to put it in like the horseshoe pits. 4. ) City Hall: I certainly want to see the outside landscaped and the lawn improved but I know some of the reasons for it not being done at this time. One of the worst eyesores is the dumpster area. I believe all dumpsters should be screen— ed and kept clear of weeds and spilled garbage. It is a little hard to expect others to shape up when our own is as it is. We still seem to have trouble with the electrical system. Can this be taken care of? I have a lot of misgivings about air—conditioning (I ars opposed to it! ) altho I realize something must be done about the heating system. 5. Public works building (at sewer ?lant? ) I can see some value in having a building to house o�:_r equipment and for a place • where a mechanic can work on cars and other equipment. I am i,�ndering about having a ,1routh worker to wash cars and the busses. Can we get something like this without having to pay all the frin-es? (I would like to see what others are proposing if they sub— mitted them in writing. . .Can we?) • t D ' AFT . l� _M_E_M_O_R A_N_D_U_M_ • TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Five Year Capital Improvement Plan - 1982 through 1987 The Capital Improvement Plan is a document that attempts to iden- tify a progressive capital improvement effort over a five-year plan- ning period, within the City' s projected financial capabilities. Al- though the projections in this plan are estimates, and limited by the uncertainties of current economic conditions , this document provides an approach to planning major capital improvements which must be im- plemented through the normal year to year budget. Projections of revenue and expenditures are now based on almost two years of operating history, allowing for better estimates than in the plan developed last year . However , the current economic uncer- tainties and decreased availability `of State and Federal grants to cities over the next several years have dramatic impact on capital programs. Additionally, the proposed State budget for Fiscal Year 1982-83 could reduce our revenues by approximately $230 , 000 or up to $400 ,000 to $500 , )00 depending upon the outcome of the present delib- erations by the legislature and the governor . The assump` ion made in this document in projecting revenues and expenditures is that there will be an annual inflation rate of 7%. No grants or special revenues are shown beyond those already secured as indicated. if, during the next five-year period, special funds or grants are obtained, revenue projections would be changed accordingly. Revenue and expenditure projections are shown for each of the next five years along with a listing of proposed personnel additions, a five year capital expenditure table listing costs by department, and, finally, a five year capital improvement project list showing project costs and the budget year within which each project could be under- taken. This five-year plan indicates a gradual erosion of allocations to reserves because of a decreased ability to replenish, for example, the equipment replacement reserve at a greater rate than equipment pur- chase and replacement may require. This will have to be handled on an annual budgeted basis . This problem will become significant in the next several years when equipment replacements become necessary. Hav- ing adequate funds to replace depreciating capital items is desired in order to keep the capital plant and equipment from deteriorating to the point of uselessness . The first year (1982-83) of this program shows a substantial capi- tal improvement program due to the fact that several large projects budgeted for Fiscal Year 1981-82 are being held over and because park grant funds will be available to the City during the year . Five Year Capital I*ovement Plan - 1982 throo 1987 Certain capital expenditures are long term commitments and others are restricted expenditures due to statutory limitations or lease-pur- chase agreements which creates a certain degree of inflexibility in this program. For example, approximately $250 ,000 per year in gas tax funds are restricted by State law and must be used for road mainten- ance purposes only. In most years, this one item accounts for over half the capital expenditures and that amount is still not enough to attain a desired maintenance level. Long term commitments consist of lease/purchase payments for capital items already acquired such as police communications, public works equipment or computer hardware. Please note that over 50% of the City budget will go for salaries and benefits , 30% for services and supplies, with under 15% going for capital expenditures and approximately 5% for miscellaneous capital items supporting services. Cutting services or personnel or finding other revenue sources or a combination of these options must be con- sidered if the capital program is to be increased, assuming that the proposals advanced by the Governor do not cut-back City revenues. This assumption seems likely to be invalid. Raising revenues through traditional means does not appear realistic in view of severe restric- tions resulting from existing statutory limits. Establishment of maintenance districts for street maintenance or street lighting or other public works projects may be possible, but will require a strong commitment by the City Council and community support in order to avoid adverse citizen reaction. The Council may be in a position of having to decide whether to stretch out or curtail some projects or seriously consid-r reduction in services or personnel. • A major impact on this plan and upon general City fiscal resources is the decision which must be made dealing with police facilities. A review of the projections of revenues and expenditures reveals that any of the alternatives for police facilities other than within the confines of the Administration Building is financially unfeasible. Renovation of the first floor area to accommodate City needs is the least costly of the police facility alternatives previously reviewed by the City Council. Administration Building --novation will , of course, require a relocation of County facilities and will require agreement with the County if it is to be completed within the next three and one-half years, although a phased approach can be done which will appreciably improve the police facility until the County occupan- cy issue is finally resolved. This option has been previously dis- cussed with you and has been accounted for in the attached yearly pro- ject lists. There do not appear to be grants or other revenues avail- able for the police facility. A general obligation bond is legally permitted, but will require a 2/3 vote for approval. It should be emphasized that the projections in this document consider only known revenue potentials. Should the presently proposed Governor ' s budget become effective, the loss of an additional $250 ,000 or more would make all the projections presented here much worse. This document, therefore , assumes that the police facility will be constructed at the least possible cost, at the earliest possible time and within the re- sources of the City to accomplish. Given these circumstances, only one alternative appears realizable - renovation of the Administration • Building to provide an adequate police facility. Anything else ap- pears to be wishful thinking. 2 I Five Year Capital Im10ovement Plan - 1982 throup1987 We have continued to include the Lake Pavilion renovation although doing so may mean slipping acquisition of some vehicles by a year . We feel we can do this without penalizing the operation of the City while still being able to meet our previous commitment to the service clubs and other community groups involved in raising matching funds for the Pavilion reconstruction. This plan highlights some of the budgetary constraints which you will be facing when considering the annual budget. Decisions are go- ing to have to be made as to how to stretch our financial resources. Some expectations may not be fulfilled. The Council must determine whether capital projects necessary to keep the City operating are of a higher priority than funding for non-operational items. If the pro- posed State budget becomes a reality, we will have even greater re- straints placed upon our ability to meet our capital and other budget- ary needs. Because of reduced State and Federal participation in so- cial programs, further requests for City support can be expected. Last year , we received requests for approximately $36 , 000 for non- operational uses. There is little reason to believe that requests of this nature will not be made again this year . Unfortunately, the impact of the State budget is not yet abso- lutely identifiable. We do know that the current proposal could re- duce our revenues by approximately $250 , 000. Subsequent proposals would reduce our revenues even further . All this makes it difficult for you to plan with a full assurance that your plans can be realized. Despite this present uncertainty, this CIP can provide a useful tool 0 for budgetary planning. Certainly, the proposals here are not in con- crete and, as you consider this document, I hope that you will have suggestions and ideas. Please provide them to me so that we can pub- lish a final CIP. Please note the supplemental information highlighting the impact of the Governor ' s proposed budget. Should it be adopted, and cer- tainly some version of it will be, we can anticipate a significant reduction in our ability to meet the proposed -anital expenditures. Obviously, circumstances will change, but all indications are that we will need to seriously examine levels of service as well as reduced capital expenditures. It is not beyond the realm of possibility, lacking significant changes in the revenue picture , that personnel levels could also be affected. Any number of different combinations of service levels, personnel and capital projects can be analyzed both in consideration of the Gov- ernor ' s budget and without it. But the overall dollar amounts consti- tute the limiting factors. Unfortunately, additional capital projects may generate a need for additional personnel to maintain them. Simi- larly, additional population growth and service levels may necessitate additional personnel. Despite these variables, the program presented here provides a basis for analysis even though recognition must be given to the multiple variations of people , projects and dollars. 3 Five Year Capital I9rovement Plan- 1982 thro* 1987 After your review, I will revise this draft if necessary and pro- vide the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board with the appropriate information relating to the fixed capital • items affecting their respective areas of interest. If you can get your individual comments to me before May 3, 1982, I intend to sche- dule this item for the May 10th Council meeting. RAY WARDEN MLW: ad 4-13-82 4 • PERSONNEL ADDITION PROJECTIONS F.Y. 1982/83 Proposed Governor's Department Position Forecast Budget Police Department Police Officer $ 26,000 $ 26,000 Planning Department Plan Check Engineer 28,000 _0_ Public Works/Streets Maint. Worker I 18,000 18,000 Equip. Mechanic(-2 year) 12,000 _0_ Recreation Rec. Programmer(Supervisor) 17,000 _0_ TOTAL $101,000 $ 44,000 F.Y. 1983/84 Public Works/Streets Mech. Helper (2 year) $ 10,000 _0_ Public Works/Parks Maint. Worker II 22,000 $ 22,000 Administration Adm. Assistant 20,000 _0_ TOTAL $ 52,000 $ 22,000 F.Y. 1984/85 None F.Y. 1985/86 None F.Y. 1986/87 None • • FIVE YEAR BUDGET PROJECTIONS F.Y. 1982-83 Proposed Governor's Revenues Forecast Budget General Revenue (+7%) $3,644,000 $3,394,000 Unexpended 1981/82 Budgeted Funds 401,000 Reserve Carryover 420,000 821,000 Grants (1982/83) 240,000 240,000 TOTAL $4,705,000 $4,455,000 Expenses Salaries & Benefits (+14%) $2,051,000 $1,994,000 Services & Supplies (+7%) 1,177,000 1,177 000 Misc. Capital Outlay (0%) 100,000 100,000 F.Y. 1982/83 C.I.P. 984,000 742,000 TOTAL $4,312,000 $4,013,000 • BALANCE $ 393,000 $ 442,000 Reserves Contingency $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Equipment Fund 123,000 123,000 Building Fund 120,000 1691000 TOTAL $ 393,000 $ 442,000 BALANCE -0- -0- • SUMMARY - DEPARTMENTAL 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (Proposed Governor's Budget Impacts shown ItaZicized) DEPARTMENT 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 1985/86 1986/87 Fire Department -0 -0- $ 45 , 000 -0- -0- -0- Non-Departmental $ 25, 000 $ 26 , 000 $ 16 , 000 $ 16 , 000 $ 16 , 000 25,000 16, 000 16,000 16,000 16,000 Planning-Building 10, 000 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Police Department 18 , 000 28 , 000 29 , 000 9 , 000 -0- 18,000 18,000 18,000 9,000 Public Works - Adm. -0- 30 , 000 -0- 35, 000 -0- -1 - -0- Bldg. 250 , 000 25, 000 -0- 100, 000 190 , 000 250,000 25,000 -0- -0- Park 270 , 000 25 , 000 -0- -0- -0- 215,000 -0- Street 411, 000 286 , 000 266 , 000 258 , 000 257 , 000 234,000 286,000 216,000 154,000 148,000 TOTALS: $984 , 000 $420 , 000 $356 , 000 $418 , 000 $463 , 000 742,000 345,000 250,000 179,000 164,000 9 M 00 o p 0 o p 0 � O O O O 00 O 01, I ry ry O O O O O Op 0 p 0 00 O O pO p O O O v1 I O O 00 �—I tn- cn- c!r yr O p 0 0 0 O O O N p O 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 N C 1 0 1 p 0 0 0 0 0 O 1 O O •`, O ) I co O ap —4 Orn N O co •r1 1 I ry ry r--I ry r--I N nI � N r I Fy W rte- O W V O Q-) O O O O Q O O O pp O O O O O O O O O O O O I 0 0 O ^ O ! O O H < I 10 p O cp W O 00 N W 00 ry r I N nl r 1 ry r N N W P4 Q1 H W C O CD (Z) O O O O O O s rl oo C- OO 000 pOH O 1 p i O� O O O ^p L p O C)Q) 0()Co 0 (D3 H N � O �O NN PL4 (all a O C� SZ 41 H U O O H H * H H U) r R p u u �4 �4 ctG >4 a a� v v cz � 4-' m 41 b °u v G v ~ ro 6) U G G rz U U P •r4 a' O �4 G N :j p_, cn 4-J� p L b rU C7 RJ I~ E U 9 ro o a � � Hco p � a. 'a) v LI-4 N G A N A G O G I U G m �-4 >! u ro v r- z c°� a P-4 w si • • I� O O 0 00 1 I o 0 00 0 0 00 O O C) I O i p I pl rn Ln rn rrr yr yr �o 0 0 0 0 ao 0 0 0 0 \ C I O I O I p � cn O cn O p p p o OI O� M M O O 1 trr t/} trr cn- ir) \ I I O pl d O O 00rn H Y �t O O ocz, Op O O 0o 0 O O p IS O p l \ O I O I OD Q Q I p0 M 00 Lr) O Cl) M N N QZ N N r-I • M C) C) 0 p0 O p 0 O 0 0 0 O 00 I I 0 O N o O O O O D O D O O D O , O O D00 O� O � O � O � Lr) �Q �^u- I p I p � r-I C tr) Lr) �.O tr) 't r-I r- h. N Q"ZN r-I ry N n OH H o H H H OP�, H a i H N N O •H 4J .0 C G au' —i r U) co aai a 0 0 00 v > v co 0 }4 r (n C. H r N Cl (1) w > •11 N 4J a) b0 O !r 4-1 b0 J-i H ro t:� ro 0 (1) 4.1 4-) w u I~ •1+ O ro t~ sr > IZ) �4 ,-a 0 H rI caH 4J H > H N ro bO x O a) ,c ,n a _q v ro 4-JO b r a co a �4 4J �4 (z •11 v O m (3) > x �4 u a 4-1 'U FY C G r l pC O p ro C TJ O C:' P� N C PQ �4 cd PL, OO O t~ O W 0 �, a a, s4 ro p O I U a) G I✓ 1 ra a) u 4J ' W CLO 6 O H ro b a (n G m m a r+ cn v ro O u ro v x Q) x �I 4-j ro .0 4-1 ro u x �4 �4 b b 0 cd O a � v cn M o a 0 0 —1 a u �4 a0 � ro x x 3 rx � b0 � cn bD +u- 3 w 0 ro Pa u G q (0•1 u b r-i H r-i x L: •rl ,-'� O n O J�.J ,1. a •rte P� 6 a C° P, P4 a ¢ V) a., ro a Ln �O M -t n o: is o Q) O o O O O o 00 0 0 0 0 00 CO O'i u') ri N ry N ry LY V? OO O O O O \0 O O O p O p 00 O O O O O p 00 Ch 00 Lr) ul uJ d, N ry N ry it1 O O O O O O O O - O 000 O O O O 00 V'1 Q— 01 cy� N C1 Cp 01cr) O \O ry r-{ - - N (;Na N N �t O 000 O O O O 00 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M M ^ ^ -+ ^ 00 O O Q Cl) O V) N 0\l ry Ol -4 trl O 00 cl, _ r.i N N N C\� O pO0 O O O O OO M 00000 O OO C0 00 O pO0 O � O � O O 00 I N ri O � N 0 0 � O O C1t 00 H H M r I u) ry r I N-Z N Cl -'t GV <0- df} 4 O w a � H rl co +� H U cd O 34 4-1 U � �4 aJ 41 G Cd E u .0 u uui 1 a G 41 a� �4 ro U co z �4a amCd i a� N 4-1 M O w G w O H I cz 10 rl G O a) ca .� a O m r-+ o a �4 1-+ +� ^ 0 �4ra Ln 3 cri .W o >4 r: �4 ul 4-1 a b a G > v o aa) z �4 u M 41 u w A W w Ln V) H • F.Y. 1983-84 Proposed Governor Fs Revenues Forecast Budget General Revenue (+7%) $3,931,000 $3,631,000 Reserve Carryover 393,000 442,000 TOTAL $4,324,000 $4,073,000 Expenses Salaries & Benefits (+9%) $2,272,000 $2,157,000 (+7%) - Services & Supplies (+7%) 1,259,000 1,259,000 Misc. Capital Outlay (0%) 100,000 100,000 F.Y. 1983/84 C.I.P. 420,000 345,000 TOTAL $4,051,000 3, 861,000 BALANCE $ 273,000 $ 212,000 Reserves un Contingency $ 150,000 $ 250,000 Equipment Fund 23,000 c:J,000 Building Fund 100,000 12,000 TOTAL $ 273,000 $ 212,000 BALANCE $ -0- $ -0- 0 C 0-pC T.B.A. NO. 8.R. NO. • F.Y. 1985-86 Proposed Governor's Revenues Forecast Budqet General Revenue (+7%) $4,501,000 $4,157,000 Reserve Carryover 238,000 84,000 TOTAL $4,739,000 $4,241,000 Expenses Salaries & Benefits (+7%) $2,578,000 $2,470,000 Services & Supplies (+7%) . 1,442,000 1,442,000 Misc. Capital Outlay (0%) 107,000 107,000 F.Y. 1985/86 C.I.P. 418,000 147,000 TOTAL $4,545,000 $4, 166,000 BALANCE $ 19.4,000 $ 75,000 Reserves •Contingency $ 150,000 $ 75,000 Equipment Fund 24,000 -0- Building Fund 20,000 _0_ TOTAL $ 194,000 $ 75,000 BALANCE -0- -0- • F.Y. 1986-87 Proposed Governor's Revenue Forecast Budget General Revenue (+7%) $4,816,000 $4,448,000 Reserve Carryover 194,000 75,000 TOTAL $5,010,000 $4, 523,000 Expenses Salaries & Benefits (+7%) $2,759,000 $2,643,000 Services & Supplies (+7%) 1,543,000 1, 543,000 Misc. Capital Outlay (+7%) 114,000 114,000 F.Y. 1986/87 C.I.P. 463,000 148,000 TOTAL $4,879,000 $4,448,000 BALANCE $ 131,000 $ 75,000 Reserves Contingency $ 131,000 $ 75, T . Equipment Fund --0- -0- Building Fund -0- _ -0- TOTAL 131,000 $ 75,000 BALANCE -0- -0- i M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: California Arts Council The attached Resolution No. 22-82 has been requested by the San Luis Obispo County Arts Council in order to receive monies from the State of California. The program requires an approval by local agencies of the local Arts Council work program. You have previously been provided with a copy of the work program and, if you approve , the resolution should be adopted. It is my understanding that your adoption of Resolution No. 22-82 does not commit you to any funding. MU RAY L. WARDEN MLW:ad 5-20-82 RESOLUTION NO. 22-82 RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A GRANT CONTRACT WITH THE CALIFORNIA ARTS COUNCIL WHEREAS , the California Arts Council and the California State Legislature have established a Local Partnership Program designed to encourage local cultural planning and decision making and to reach previously underserved constituencies; and WHEREAS , a plan for the arts in San Luis Obispo County was submitted to and accepted by the California Arts Council at its public meeting of April 30 , 1982. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero City Coun- cil does hereby designate the San Luis Obispo County Arts Council to execute Standard Agreement Number AC-1951 in the form attached and incorporated by reference herein. On motion by Councilman and seconded by Councilman , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote: AYE: NOES : ABSENT: ROBERT J. WILKINS , JR. , Mayor ATTEST: MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALLEN GRIMES , City Attorney l _M_E_M_O_R A_N_D_U_M_ TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: SLO COG JPA Material regarding this item will be provided prior to the Monday night meeting. MYRRAYA. WARDEN MLW: ads 5-20-82 ' S (1 _ 52 W a O -o CL V M Y 0 0 �•n -o LL. •' 3 o W .30 o � o ,1•o E•r o c O V Ho E •c, M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Withdrawal from the Criminal Justice Planning Board Resolution No. 23-82 is attached and reflects the determina- tion by the Board of Directors of Region P of the Office of Crim- inal Justice Planning to terminate its activities. This decision is the result of elimination of the Federal Law Enforcement As- sistance Administration funding allocations as well as the in- creasingly severe curtailment in local funding resources. Under the terms of the JPA establishing this activity, your adoption of this resolution is necessary in order to terminate the JPA en- tered into some time ago. It should be noted that this action is an indication of the impact of Federal curtailment of funds on long established activ- ities. /1M/RAY L. WARDEN MLW:ad 5-20-82 i RESOLUTION NO. 23-82 RESOLUTION WITHDRAWING FROM MEMBERSHIP IN THE CENTRAL COAST REGIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING BOARD WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council, on October 8, Y78Z; authorized entering into an agreement with the Central Coast Re- gional Criminal Justice Planning Board; and WHEREAS , said Board, at its meeting on February 18, 1982, voted to close down the Region P Office of the Criminal Justice Planning on June 30 , 1982 due to the elimination of the Federal Law Enforcement Assistance Administration with its funding allo- cations and the increasingly severe constraints on local re- sources to continue comprehensive criminal justice planning at the regional level. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero City Coun- cil does hereby dissolve the Joint Powers Agreement with the Cen- tral Coast Regional Criminal Justice Planning Board which was adopted October 8, ±ISZ and that withdrawal be effective as of June 30 , 1982; and /971 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Boird Chairman, Director and Fiscal Officer to perform the tasks neces- sary to pay and perform outstanding obligations, close the books and return any remaining funds to the State Office of Criminal Justice Planning. On motion by Councilman and seconded by Councilman , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ROBERT J. WILKINS, JR. , Mayor ATTEST: MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ Allen Grimes ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: M RAY/.- WARDEN, City Ma ager I E.r t•Al• soN a 01&C (Df `L/U 3,n2)L�'11 A JILIS.LICC Pllan_? ]1no,- REGION o,REGION P THE CENTRAL COAST REGION / .•....... f....°A.... 1 1!i i IS May 17 , 1 982 LINOAHILL Mr. Murray Warden REGIONAL PIANNI MC :IRE-TOR C.AIRNAN City Administrator ROGER NEDMAN F,HIEF OT 101111 6500 Palma Avenue SAN 1U15 Obispo Atascadero , CA 93422 VICE CMAI RNA* THOMAS N. LEMS COUNCIIMAN CARPINTERIA Dear Mr. Warden : NON. FRANK T. ALMAGUEN MAY OP 6UA OAL'JPE PAJL BBKTER As I ' m sure you are .already aware , the Central Coast AOM;N:STRATDR Regional Criminal Justice Planning Board , at its MOR R:'. BAr GARY BL4:R meeting on February 18 , 1982 , voted to close down -- "Du;; AJMI NISTRAT00. $ANT. BARDARq EDDNTY the Region P Office of Criminal Justice Planning on "`ANBD"'' June 30 , 1982 . This action was necessitated primarily .0 JNCIE.AN SAN LUIS OBIS►0 DERRY BOVLES by the elimination of the Federal Law Enforcement ENIEF DF POLICE Assistance Administration with its funding allocations , UN:YF RS:'Y DF CA, AT SANTA BARBARA and the increasingly severe constraints On local re- JOHN .. CAPPINTER SHEP!FR-CORONCR Sources to continue comprehensive criminal Justice SA X�A 5AR'14A COUN'Y ALNNCROGAX planning at the regional level . CHI E° F%5 5 ATION OFFICER - SANTA BAkSAkA COUNTY JERR° O;E:EhOERFER I am bringing this ;natter to your attention so that SSPE kYI�JA SAN :J1. OBISPO COUNTY your counci 1 may t ..ke action toward dissolving the Y.DNI RDAERT ECKY.OFF Joint Powers agreement which wa - established in 1975 H A:C;cAL COURT JUDGE S A',TA MA p: \/ HON. XEBB ELCNATEN copy attached ) We request that a resolution e M4Y R PISM.^ 6EACM passed in which your j uri sd-' cti on withdraws rom mem- ARTHE+P:YE FIYLEY be rshi p i n the Central Coast Regi ona1 Cri mi nal Jus ti ce P05:1C A' ,AP SE GkOYER CITY Planning Board as of June 30 , 1982 , while vesting au- BAR6ARAFDPr'1H thori ty i n the Board Chairman , Director and Fiscal - P __SC AT '_CAGE ` Officer to perform the tasks necessary to pay and per- MAN. GE^R6E HDBBS form outstandi ng obl i gati ons , cl ose the books , and .0" SANTA MARIA DI'HAlNE HOLMDRHL return any remaining funds to the State Office o 50YERV!SOF Criminal Justice Planning . .n.TA BARBARA COUNTY DONALD D. KING CHIEF PP06A•IDN On ICER SAY 1U Is C5:5R0 11.11 Al though the JPA contai ns a cl ause ref erri ng to jure s- H'N `IpFR"TR"` di cti onal withdrawal with 90 days ' notice to the Board SUPER i OF CIIRI J'JO6E SA•. LU15 GBISPO �OUNIY FRANCIS S. IS-Z Secretary , your agreement with the resolution parti cu- SOL' CI`MA' lars cited above would certify the mutual consent to SANTA BARBARA - CHRIS G MONEY the special circumstance of the June 30 disbanding of "_TRIC' :?701111 LOIS D8"PO COUNTY the entire Agreement by all parties . ="!ELMG'NEI C TO: Thank you for your attention to this matter . If you ^R. PARR i SM AD".IN'STRAT I Y E D..IEFA should have any questions , please do not hesitate to \,A BARBARA CJJYTY ST•NIE, M. RDDIN call me at 925-0991 . _ O:STRIC' A'"OKYEr SANTA BA RE:RA CO:NTT J. D. I•IT« Sincerely , CHIEF OF POL:Cf LOMPDC M^}. E C. S:EY ENS A:'�.:NSTRA-:vE OFr ICER 11 SAN U:5.U:S 7BIsPD LDDNTY Linda H i GENE 1. M11LERs Di rector/Board Secretary CiTr Aa.i N:S, ATC.. IO_OC L H s GEPGE S .-:T!NG s PIFF- ­'A-MER E n c . SAM L;:I _e;SPO COUNTY 615 South McCtettar.d Street, Suite B, Santa Maria, Catiborn.ia 93454 (805) 915-0991 SAI? LUIS OBISPO AND SMITA BARBARA COUNTIES CRIB?E CONTROL JOI,lT PO!-JERS AGREENEiJT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the undersigned counties and cities the day and year last written. VI{EREAS , the purpose of this agreement is to improve the Criminal Justice System at all levels of government, including the local level . Administration of this agree hent requires that these cities and counties join together in presenting programs and requests for funds therefor,' and to provide local contribution of matching funds ; and �1t,EREAS , Title 1 , Division 7, Chapter 5 of the California - Government Code, conrencina at Section C500, authorizes the joint exercise by agreement of two or pore public agencies of any power comnon to them, and the Parties hereto all possess the power to study, discuss and i^- olement policies , procedures and programs to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of crime prevention , detection and Protection, and to join associations and expend public funds for these purposes; and UNEP.EAS , the parties hereto desire to improve the Criminal Justice System by jointly forming an association for that purpose within the Counties of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara . NO11, THEREFORE , IN COV!SIDERATIOi1 of - the execution of this AGREEMENT, the parties hereto agree as follows : 1 . Formation Established: A joint association is hereby established to he known as the Central Coast Re- nional Criminal Justice Planning Board and hereinafter ra- ferred to as "BOARD" and this BOARD shall be subject to and shall be governed by the By-Laves to be adopted by said BOARD. 2. i"embership: The Counties of San Luis Obispo and Santa Parbara and the several incorporated cities rtithiin the above-mentioned counties which become signatory hereto constitute the mernbership of this GOA* RD. 3. Ili thdrai•rai : Any party to this Pgreement miay cease to be a party hereto and may withdraw, from membershi , in the BOARD by the adoption by its legislative body of a resolution of intention to wi thdrav, and by giving t:ie Secretary of the GOAP?� •.,ri tten notice t ier-eo i at least ninety (90) days prior to the effective date thereof. 4. nuration : This Agreement shall continue in effect until it is terminated by mutual consent of the parties hereto. 5. Effective Date of Agreement: _ This Agreement- shall be effective immediately upon execution by tvio or more el i chi bl a entities . -2- 6. Composition of Board : The BOARD shall be composed of membership as set forth in By-Laves of the Board. All parties hereto shall prepare and submit their request fcr funds under the Safe Streets Act and Amendments through said BOARD and agree to be bound by their commitment, U any , to provide matching funds or contributions in kind to such programs as may be approved , and receive funds in accordance with said Act. 7. Po!•:rers and Authority : The BOARD shall receive or transmit any funds and act as a filter anJ conduit for application for Federal and State funds and shall coordinate and evaluate the programs which receive such funds . Action programs and specialized or specific piann-; .,g projects r4ill be funded through Federal , State , County, and/or City funds dependent upon the sponsoring agency and other relevant factors . The BOARD may employ or contract for help or eiter into a contract with an anoropriate governmental entity for staff assistance. Said staff shall be for the purpose of assisting the BOARD in plannino , coordinating and evaluating programs proposed or funded under the Safe Streets Act. EXInenses incurred for staff assistance to the r:.ARD and other administrative expenses of the BOARD shall be funded through Federal , State , County, and/or City funds , provided that no city or county funds ma,, be used E•r; tho,,t express approval of the noverninq board of the city or county furnishing such funds . -3- The BOARD shall contract +,lith dne of the parties to this ".greement to act as fiscal agent for the BOARD. Said fiscal agent shall receive and disburse all funs pursuant to law. 8. Execution : This Aareenent nay be executed by signature on this page and those following devoted to such execution or by signature of a copy of this Acire3ment, together with a copy of the order of the Board of Super- visors , or Cite Council , authorizing sane and each entity shall receive an executed copy and the original shall be on file viit � said BOARD. All such signatures shall be attested to by the Clerk, Secretary or other appropriate officer of the executing entity and shall, contain the date of such signature. CITY OF SATITA nARB1!'%R Date : Btir J i.;ayor ATTEST : Clerl, CITY OF ATASCADERO F - --. -� Date: 1979 By Robert J. Wilkins-, 'Mayor J ATTEST: "'rray L. Warde City Clerk Approved as to p Approved as to content: //z/vo / Allen Grimes , City Attorney lqu ay Warden , City Man'Ejer v 9,� >> n v/\ , CD _ rJ reveals that comparable states with varying selo- rance tax rates show no differences in price at the pump . This tax will allow the public to share in a small percentage of the substantial redistribution of profits and income to the oil companies and away from other businesses and from consumers . 6 . Real vs . nominal tax rate : Federal windfall profits tax law allows oil companies to write severance taxes off their federal tax liabilities . This write-off , combined with those on federal and state income taxes , means that the real cost of the severance tax to the oil companies is likely to be closer to half of the nominal rate of taxation . 7 . Oil industry profits : Oil industry profits accounted for 40% of profits earned by all U . S . manufacturing firms last year . Cash-rich oil companies are therefore in a powerful position relative to other types of businesses , particularly with the cost of borrowing so high . Profit rates in. the oil industry have continued to increase while those of other businesses have declined in recent years . 8 . Administration : P severance tax is easy to administer in an equitable manner . Wellh ,ad prices and amounts of production are relatively easy to ascer•kain , and returns relatively easy to verify . Adjustments for smill "stripper" wells and other equity problems have been made in other states , and can be incorporated if necessary . 9 . Economics of the severance tax : From the point of view of many economists , this tax makes good economic sense . It is a tax primarily on what is referred to as economic rent . That is , it taxes a part of the value which has increased as a result of the activities of others -- -in this case , OPEC -- which has accrued to the owner of a resource . While it may have a small effect on production at the margin , this will be recovered by future taxes when the marginal oil is brought out of the ground at higher prices . 10 . Costs of deregulation : Deregulaticn and increased production has costs to the state as well as benefits -- costs of increased air pollution and more rapid depletion on a nonrenewable resource . A severance tax will allow the public to share in some of the benefits as well as the costs . SAMPLE RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE CITY OF IN SUPPORT OF AB 2749 (ENACTING A SEVERANCE TAX ON OIL TO SUPPLEMENT THE STATE ' S GENERAL FUND) WHEREAS , the passage of Proposition 13 has seriously limited the ability of local governments -- schools , cities and counties -- to raise sufficient revenues to support basic and essential services ; WHEREAS , the State of California no longer has the revenue to provide local governments with adequate funding to maintain these services ; and WHEREAS , the citizens of local governments need and demand the maintenance of basic city, county and school services such as public safety and education; and W,iEREAS , California is the only major oil producing _ state without a severance tax on oil; and WHEREAS , the experience of those states with oil severance taxes has demonstrated that the tax is not passed on to consumers ; and WHEREAS , the revenues generated by the severance tax on oil would be placed in the General Fund to augment budget needs and comhat on-going fiscal problems in California ; therefore , be it RESOLVED, that the League of Women Voters of the city of go on record in support of AB 2749 which would enact a 6% severance tax on oil produced in California to supplement the General Fund. APPROVED AS TO FORM: For Questions contact ; Jan Dyer Chris Dearth -in- Assemblyman Bate ' s offio 916-445-7554 2y�7 • Resolution No. 24-82 - Support of AB-2-7-4-9- APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MUrAY WARDEN, City Manager • 1 0 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A L I F O R N I A 3 ',ay 13, 1982 - P.'ayor Bob `,dil ins City Nall P.C . Box 747 Atascadero , CA. 9342] Bear ".ayor i,Jilkins , The Teague of '.Jorren Voters of San Luis Obispo is urging your strong support of Asse:rblymember sates ' AB by ? , a proposal for an oil severance tax. Cur position is based on our two year government revenues study or fiscal options available to state and local government in California in the post Proposition 13 era. AB 2947 enacts a 6o tax rate on the gross market value of oil at, the wellhead, with exemptions made for small producers and reimbursement provisions to oil-producing counties for prepe •ty tax losses incurred as the result of a severance tax. The revenues would, )e placed in the General Fund to combat c.^ -going fiscal problems . Since the passage of Proposition 13, schools and local governments no longer have an adequate tax base and sufficient f ;ands to support basic and essential services . The state must be assured of a new tax base to provide for ongoing and dependable local support. It is appropriate for the state 's taxpayers to share in the depletion of its most important non-renewable resource - oil. The idea of a severance tax on oil is by no iiieans new; California is the on!-,7major oil-producing state without a severance tax on oil. For example , Alasfa' s rate is 12 .2J?, Louisiana's is 12..io and : ontana' s is ! I .' taxes on oil iCalifornia are the lowest of the majinor producing; states . In addition, deregulation and increased production of oil have costs to the state as well as benefits -- costs of increased air pollution and more rapid depletion of a nonrenewable resource . n severance tax will allow all of us to share in some of the benefits as well as the costs . 'e are including an information sheet and a sample reso lution which could be used as a model for ex)ressin- your concern and support. A copy of your resolution_ should to V I hope this is not too late. Our entire city council was involved in running for the recent election and I just did not get around to writing earlier. The League of Women Voters asked our Council to endorse the enclosed resolution but it was rejected two to three. I believe this is a previously untapped source of revenue which should be paying. I feel the state must seek out every possible source of revenue which it can legally tap at this time. Those on our council who disagreed with this bill felt that the state has made no attempt to curtail their own budget while forcing us to cut to the bones. As a new city incorporated since Prop. 13 we lack MY of the tax benefits enjoyed by pre-13 cities. aE-appar-en:tly-reeei� 12-% of_ ?� cou yp axywhii-e _aur hbor, Paso Rnb.les-_receives this_-is_sue _ in__the near future but this puts us--in an unfortunate situation. I can agree with - s idea that the state should practice economy in their budgets but I feel AB 2947 should be 5na.ROS 'and that money passed on to the local agencies: cities, schools and counties. (In an aside, those on our council who supported this bill were first and second in the election; those who opposed it fourth and fifth; and the most vocal opponent was No. 10 in a field of 11. ) COMMERCIAL COPY FOR K1kL K&k Firm: 1230 AM 92.5 FM Time: CART No: AM FM Live NEWS-MUSIC-SPORTS ALL STAR COUNTRY P.O. BOX 7 • PASO ROBLES, CALIFORNIA 93446 Date: Copy By: (805) 238-1230 543-2542 238-5772 Remarks: I am'mrjorie r. . Mackey, incumbent councilmember of PRODUCTION AIDS Atascadek�p. I have been proud to be a member'of the fist council and, hope i have done such a good `6b that I will be re-elected. . I have tried to vAe for what I 15 SEC. perceived as the wishes of most of the people. Many told me I was doing what they wanted. We all vote wrong sometime but I hope I 11 be judged by what E I did most of the time. I, am in favor of citizen participation in gover>nixent. I paid for space in 30 SEC. the voters pamphlet so please read it. Thank you. tp 60 SEC. This announcement was broadcast times, as entered in the station's program log. The times this announcement was broadcast were billed to this station's client on our invoice(s) number/dated at his earned rate (with no rebates) of: $ each for announcements, for a total of $ $ each for announcements, for a total of $ $ each for announcements, for a total of $ (Notarized above) Signature of station official Station As an individual I support AB 2947• I believe this is a previously untapped source of revenue which should be paying. I am a council member but our vote was tilRe to txve#ao pass the resolution as invited by The League of Women Voters. "those voting against felt the state has not decreased their budget comparably to what we will have to do in the light of the state situation. If this is passed, they felt the money would just go into the general fund and be mispent (their feelings). I feel if this money is there, our cities could expect to receive a proportionally smaller cut in their state monies. In our motion we added; The income from this SARRd be returned to thosesSh�jlss; and counties from which it was generated. INSTRUCTIONS WHEN AND HOW TO VOTE ABSENT VOTER'S BALLOT (Sections 49,50,251-254,14620-14667,14800,14801,Elections Code.) VOTING OUTSIDE THE OFFICE OF THE OFFICER CONDUCTING THE ELECTION Regardless of whether you are within or without the territorial limits of the United States,you may mark your ballot and transmit it to the officer conducting the election by mail. After marking your ballot you shall place it in the "identification envelope."You shall then fill out and sign the declaration on the envelope and mail it to the office of the officer conducting the election,or you may return it in person to the precinct board of any polling place in the county. VOTING IN THE OFFICE OF THE OFFICER CONDUCTING THE ELECTION You may vote your absent voter ballot in the office of the officer conducting the election as follows: You shall first display the ballot to such officer as evidence that it is not marked. You shall then stamp or mark the ballot with pen or pencil in the presence of such officer but in such manner that he is unable to see how you vote.You shall then fold the ballot (without removing the stub) and enclose it in the"identification envelope" and seal the envelope. You shall then make out, or have made out,and sign the declaration printed on the face of such envelope and deliver it to the officer before whom the ballot is marked. TIME WHEN BALLOT MUST BE RECEIVED All absent voter ballots must be received by the officer conducting the election,or may be returned in person to the precinct board of any polling place in the county, not later than the close of polls on the day of election. (Secs. 14662, 14667, 14801,23310, Elections Code.) NO CHARGE FOR SERVICES No officer of the State of California may make any charge for services rendered to any voter under the provisions of this chapter. (Sec. 14632, second sentence, Elections Code.) VOTING AT POLLS If, after receiving your absent voter ballot, you find yourself able to vote at your home precinct on the day of election, you may do so, but not until you have surrendered your absent voter's ballot to the inspector of the Precinct Board. WAR VOTER'S AFFIDAVIT OF REGISTRATION If a WAR VOTER receives an affidavit of registration he should fill it out and swear to it before the clerk, any notary public, commissioned officer, warrant officer, or non commissioned officer of a grade not lower than sergeant or equivalent rating of the armed forces of the United States or any auxiliary branch thereof,or be- fore any minister, consul or vice consul of the United States. Do this immediately before marking the ballot. YOUR EXECUTED REGISTRATION AFFIDAVIT SHOULD NOT BE ENCLOSED IN THE IDENTIFICATION ENVELOPE WITH THE VOTED BALLOT BUT SHOULD BE ENCLOSED IN THE"RETURN ENVELOPE"SEPARATELY WITH THE SEALED IDENTIFICATION ENVELOPE. ®Printed 10.8-73 by Carlisle Graphics,S.F.4482-0107 FORM NO.443-e This form may not be reproduced without permission. M E M O R A N D U M — — — — — — — — — — — TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 53 Ordinance No. 53 is presented as a first reading to correct the omission of two code section citations in the original Ordin- ance No. 48. Those sections are shown in the first paragraph of Section 2-4. 101 and add reference to Sections 37209 as well as sections 37201-37208 of the Government Code. The only changes to the section can be identified by the italicized print. Basically, these functions are and have been performed by the Finance Director and have only remained in the Government Code to take care of situations where the office of Finance Director does not exist. These involve certification of time cards and payroll registers and are a carry-over from the days when these functions were performed in a different manner . Your action will be first reading and it would be brought back then for second reading and final adoption at a later date. • M RAY L. WARDEN MLW:ad 5-20-82 ORDINANCE NO. 53 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 48 WHICH ESTABLISHES THE OFFICE OF CITY CLERK The Atascadero City Council ordains as follows: Section 1. The first paragraph of Section 2-4.101 of the Atas- cadero Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 2-4. 101. Creation and Functions. The office of the City Clerk is hereby established as provided by Section 36501 of the Government Code of the State of California. The office shall be elected. The City Clerk shall have all of the powers, duties , and responsibilities granted to or imposed upon the office of the City Clerk by the provisions of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 3 of Title 4 of the Government Code of the State (Sections 40801 and 40804) , other general laws of , the State, the provisions of this Code, and the ordinances and resolutions of the Council; pro- vided, however , pursuant to the provisions of Sections 40805 . 5 and 37209 of the Government Code of the State, the financial and account- ing duties imposed upon the City Clerk by Sections 40802 through 40805 and 37201 through 37208 of the Government Code of the State shall be erformed by the Finance Director and further provided that the ex • officio assessor duties provided by Government Code Section 40810 shall be performed by County officers. Section 2. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be pub- lished once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atasca- dero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in this City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Gov- ernment Code; shall certify the adoption of this ordinance; and shall cause this ordinance and its certification to be C,icered in the Book of Ordinances of this City. Section 3. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12: 01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after passage, but shall not repeal the transition provisions of Ordinance No. 5. The foregoing ordinance was introduced, adopted, and ordered published at a meeting of the Council held on , 1982, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ROBERT J. WILKINS , JR. , Mayor Ordinance No. 53 - Amending City Clerk Ordinance No. 48 ATTEST: MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ Allen Grimes ALLEN GRIMES , City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Manager 2 M E M O R A N D U M — — — — — — — — — — — TO: City Council FROM City Manager SUBJECT: Urgency Ordinance regarding sewer rates Ordinance No. 54 is introduced as an urgency measure as pre- viously discussed in order to correct the existing Sanitation District fee structure and other procedural matters not appli- cable to the current situation. Since this is an urgency measure, it will go into effect im- mediately upon passage which will allow us to forward it to FmHA Tuesday so that the schedule for receipt of funds will be real- ized during the week of the 7th of June. As I told you previous- ly, I have recived a letter from FmHA indicating that they will meet that schedule provided that the conditions of the loan are all met, one of which is this ordinance. We will be able to no- tice the contractor as to the award of bid since we now will have a time and amount certain for receipt of the FmHA funds. i �I Y WARDEN MLW:ad 5-20-82 ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STATE OF CALIFORNIA ORDINANCE NO. 54 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ATASCADERQ- OUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT ORDINANCE CODE, DEbCMARING AN URGENCY, AND PROVIDING THAT THE ORDINANCE SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY The Board of Directors of the Atascadero County Sanitation District do ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 4 . 4 (5) of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "4 . 4 (5) When any portion of the work is to be performed within the limits of a public right of way or public sewer easement, an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department of the City of Atascadero. " SECTION 2 . That Section 4 . 9 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is hereby amended to read as follows: • "4 . 9 The ' front area connection fee ' shall be $250 . 00 except that: (1) No charge shall be made when the owner of a lot has already paid for lateral sewer installation by assess- ment or otherwise; (2) There will be no charge when a "T" fitting has already been installed in the public sewer at the property owner' s expense, and the lateral sewer is to be in- stalled from said fitting; (3) A parcel which was assessed during the improvement district assessment proceedings for a collection system, but on which the assessment was not paid because the parcel was deeded to the State for non- payment of taxes, shall incur an additional connection fee equal to the particular assessment involved for that parcel. " SECTION 3 . That Subsection (l) of Section 4 . 10 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (1) "Two hundred-fifty dollars ($250. 00) , and " SECTION 4. That Section 4. 11 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "4 . 11 When an entire lot to which connection is proposed has been charged only a ' rear area' rate under the Assessment District No. 1 assessment proceedings by virtue of its remote location from the proposed public sewers, then Section 4 . 10 shall not apply. The connection fee for said lot, or additional lots created from said lots by subsequent lot divisions, shall be two hundred fifty dollars ($250 . 00) for each connection, except that if public sewers are extended in the future in such a manner as to provide sewer service requiring substantially shorter building sewers, then the connection fee may be increased as provided in Section 4 . 13 . " SECTION 5. That Sections 5. 1 (2) , (3) , and (4) of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) Requestor shall submit improvement plans of the pro- posed extension, prepared b-,, a Registered Civil Engineer • in the State of California, for approval by the City Engineer. (3) The person requesting said extension shall execute and file a written agreement with the District whereby he agrees to complete all required improvements at his expense and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, within the time period specified in the agreement. He further agrees to provide the City Engineer with a detailed cost breakdown of h; s P -tual expenditures for any improvements authorized in the agreement. The agreement shall also provide for inspection of all improvements by the City Engineer, or his designated representative, and reimbursement of the District, by the requestor, for the cost of the inspection. The District will invoice the requestor for such inspection costs and any amount unpaid thirty (30) days from the date of the District' s invoice shall bear interest at ten (10) percent per year beginning from thirty (30) days after the date of the invoice. The improvements agreement may also provide (1) for the construction of the improvements in units, and (2) for an extension of the time under conditions therein specified. No extension of time shall be granted except upon certification by the City Engineer that such extension is justified, and upon approval by the Board of Directors. (4) No hookup to the public sewer will be permitted until all improvement work has been completed to the satis- faction of the City Engineer and all charges have been paid by the requestor in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance Code. SECTION 6 . That Section 7. 2 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 7. 2 The requirements for building sewers as set forth in the latest adopted versions of the Uniform Plumbing code shall apply in the District and are incorporated herein by reference. However, where the regulations of this Ordinance Code are more restrictive than said Plumbing Code, this Code shall apply. SECTION 7 . That Section 7 . 9 be added to the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code to read as follows: 7 . 9 Drainage piping serving fixtures located at an elevation of less than one foot above the nearest upstream man- hole cover in the main sewer serving said fixtures shall drain by gravity into the main sewer, and shall be pro- tected from backflow of sewage by installing an approved type back water valve, and each such back water valve shall be installed only in that branch or section of the drainage system which receives the discharge from fixture lc"sated less than one foot above the nearest upstream manhole cover. SECTION 8 . That Section 8. 1 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is hereby deleted. SECTION 9 . That Section 8 . 2 (1) , (2) and (4) , of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 8 . 2 (1) When an area is annexed to Improvement District No. 1, the requestor shall have an estimate of the cost of extending sewer lines and otherwise providing sewer service to the lots within said annexation prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California. Said estimate shall not include the cost of lateral sewers . This estimate and the proportional share to be borne by each lot shall be furnished to the owners of the annexed property. (2) Requestor shall submit improvement plans of the proposed extension, prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California, for approval by the City Engineer PUBLIC NOTICE The Atascadero City Council, acting as the Atascadero County Sani- tation District Board of Directors, will consider an Urgency Ordinance at their regular meeting on May 24 , 1982, 7: 30 p.m. , in the Rotunda Room of the Administration Building, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California. The proposed Ordinance enacts new sewer service charges as required by the Farmers Home Administration, the Federal agency providing the grant funds. The Ordinance must be passed before Far- mers Home Administration will advance any money to pay for construc- tion of the new sanitation facility. The proposed service charges are calculated to pay for operational and maintenance costs, capital equipment costs, future replacement, and payment of bonded indebted- ness costs. The following shows the current and proposed monthly ser- vice charges: CATEGORY UNIT CURRENT PROPOSED Res•-dence Single Family each $ 6 . 00 $ 10.54 Apartment Unit each 4. 50 9 . 86 Mobile Home space 4. 50 8. 24 Hotel/Motel Unit each 2. 00 2. 62 Rest Home/Hospital bed 3. 50 8. 26 Commercial Unit each 3. 00 3. 23 Office Unit each 2. 75 3. 21 Restaurant (to 40 seats) each 76 .00 74 .58X R 3taurant (over 40 seats) each 152. 00 178 .89 0 Church/Meeting Hall each 3. 00 92.10 X School Istudent 1. 10 0 .805X Service Station each 16 . 50 23. 28 Laundry/Laundromat each 74. 00 145.85 Car Wash each 50 .00 78 . 17 Fire Station each 10. 00 99 . 26 ? Warehouse/Storage Facility each 2. 75 17 .09 Theater each 13. 00 44. 42 Septage Receiving load 10 .00+ 20 . 00 Dated: May 11, 1982 MU RAY WARDEN, City Cler C y a Atascadero, California y • (4) No hookup to the public sewer will be permitted until all improvement work has been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and all charges have been paid by the requestor in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance Code. Inspection costs shall be paid by the requestor as set forth in Section 5 . 1 (3) of this Ordinance Code. SECTION 10 . That Section 11. 1 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 11. 1 There is hereby levied and imposed upon any occupied premises within the Atascadero County Sanitation District, having any sewer connection with the sewerage system of the District, or otherwise discharging waste water which ultimately passes through the District' s sewerage system or to which a public sewer is available according to Article 3 . 1 of this Ordinance Code, and upon the owner or occupant thereof, a monthly service or standby charge as hereinafter provided. Charge (a) Single Family Residential Unit $ 10 . 54 (b) Apartment Building (per dwelling unit) 9 . 86 (c) Mobile Home Spaces (per space) 8 . 24 (d) Hotel/Motel (per dwelling unit) 2 . 62 (e) Rest Homes/Hospitals (per bed) 8 . 26 (f) Commercial Unit 3 .23 (g) Office Buildings (per office unit) 3 . 21 (h) Restaurants - 40 or less seats 74 . 58 (i) Restaurants - more than 40 seats 178 . 89 (j ) Churches/Meeting Halls 92 . 10 (k) Schools (per student average daily attendance as of March 31 preceding each fiscal year) 0 . 805 (1) Service Stations 23 . 28 (m) Laundry/Laundromat/Cleaners 145 . 85 Charge (n) Car Wash $78 . 17 (o) Fire Station 99. 26 (p) Ware houses/Storage Facility 17 . 09 (q) Theatre 44 . 42 (r) Any Occupied Premises not Connected to an Available Sewer 7 . 00 SECTION 11. Section 11. 5 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 11. 5 Truck disposal of sanitary wastes may be accepted by the District at the treatment plant during normal daytime working hours, or at such other times as the District may elect, for a service charge of: $20 . 00 per load or portion thereof. SECTION 12 . If any portion of this Ordinance or the application thereof is held to be invalid for any reasons , + he validity of all remaining portions and applications shall be unaffected and -.hall • remain in final force and effect. SECTION 13. This Ordinance is an urgency ordinance and is for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety. The facts constituting the urgency are these: The Atascadero County Sanitation District is the beneficiary of a loan from the United States Department of Agriculture, Farmers Home Administration, and in order to become eligible for the funds comprising said loan, the District must immediately adopt new rates and charges . Thus, it is necessary that this Ordinance take effect immediately in order to assure the granting, implementation, and administration of the loan from the FmHA. SECTION 14 . This Ordinance, being an urgency ordinance for the immediate protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, containing a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency, and passed by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the District Board of Directors, shall take effect immediately upon its adoption; provided, however, that this Ordinance shall not become operative until one hundred eighty (180) days after its passage, or on January 1, 1983, whichever occurs first. SECTION 15. The District Secretary 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 this District; shall certify to the adoption and publication of this Ordinance; and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of publication, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of this District. The foregoinc, Ordinance was introduced, adopted,and ordered published at a meeting of the District Board of Directors held on May 24, 1982, by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Robert J. Wilkins, Jr. , Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: /s/ Allen Grimes ALLEN GRIMES, Attornev Murray L. Warden, Secretary ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STATE OF CALIFORNIA ' ' '' x"` CONSOLIDATED ORDINANCES NO. 1 THRU NO. 11 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT ORDINANCE CODE AND SETTING DISTRICT RULES AND REGULATIONS The Board of Directors of the Atascadero County Sanitation Dis- trict do ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That there is hereby established an Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code, pursuant to authority of California Health and Safety Code Sections 4766 and 5470 through 5474.10, to read as follows: N34 <F^ ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS Application: The provisions of — pp this Ordinance Code shall 1.1 apply to any person, or persons, including corporations, and others connected to the Atascadera County Sanitation District waste water disposal facilities. 1.2 Liability for Violations: Any person violating any provision + of this Ordinance Code shall be liable to the District for all dam- ages to District property resulting therefrom. A violation of any provision of this Ordinance Code is a misdemeanor punishable by i fine not to exceed One Hundred Dollars ($100.00), imprisonment not to exceed one (1) month, or both. '•-K.PC�f�3+�a±�aAf�'K:•tj'-,�y :r.;i;�Saa.�t�.e.K.v::�l� ARTICLE 2. DEFINITIONS sa n* .+aiczw= z ti t, 2.1 District: Atascadero County Sanitation District. z a r n M> 2.2 Board of Directors: Board of Directors of the Atascadero County Sanitation District. 2.3 Manacer: District Manager of the Atascadero County Sani- tation District. • 2_4 Building: Any structure used for human habitation or a place of business, recreation, or other activity and containino sanitary facilities. 2_5 Sewer: A pipe or conduit for carrying waste water. 2.6 Building Sewer: That portion of any sewer beginning two (2) feet from any building and extending to and including its connec- tion to a public sewer. 2.7 Public Sewer: That portion of a sewer lying within a public ' right of way or easement, and maintained by, and subjec: to the jurisdiction of, the Atascadero County Sanitation District. s- 2.8 Main Sewer: Those sewers, excluding lateral sewers, whose main purpose is to accept waste water from laterals and convey it >ti - fit^ to the waste water treatment plant. 2_9 Lateral Sewer: That portion of a sewer lying within a public right of way or easement, which connects, or is intended to con- •w* a ,- nett, a building sewer to a main sewer. 2.10 Cleanout: A branch fitting installed in a sewer or other ` ur the for pipe p p_ose of providing access for cleaning. 2.11 Fixture: Any sink, tub, shower, toilet, or other facility connected by drain to the sewer. 2.12 Garbage: Solid wastes from the preparation, cooking, and ' dispensing of food and from the handling, storage, and sale of agricultural products. 2.13 Lot: Any piece or parcel of land, bounded, defined, or shown upon a plot or deed recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San Luis Obispo County; provided, however, that in _ the event any structure is located upon more than one parcel of 01•' land all under one ownership and as herein defined, the term "lot" shall include all such parcels of land. 2.14 Manhole: A structure for the purpose of providing access of x; titi arr +rzS,c r a man to a buried sewer. 2.15 Permit: Any written authorization required pursuant to this Ordinance Code. 2.16 Person: Any human being, individual, firm, company. partnership, association, corporation, government or agent%'. 2 ,< 2.17 Waste Water: Any water-carried wastes from residences, business buildings, public buildings, institutions, and industriai facilities. 2.18 Waste Water Treatment Plant: The arrangement of devices and structures used for treating waste water generated within the „.F District. 2.19 °2H,!: The logarithm of the reciprocal of the weight of hydrogen ions in grams per liter of solution. 2.20 "Shall and"May: Shall is mandatory; may is permissive. 2.21 Residence: A building or portion thereof, or a group of �. buildings, designed as and occupied or suitabie for occupation in whole or in part as a home or living quarters, either permanently �n� �4' " ° or temporarily, by a single family and their guests and servants, rid- iS✓y'iw fit"1�ir".r5'-z•+�J%r.--•.�?p'" i including a house and an apartment or other unit of multiple family dwelling as herein defined. 2.22 Multiole Family Dwelling: A building or group of buildings designed as, and occupied or suitable for occupation as, a home or living quarters, either permanently or temporary, by more than a single family, including buildings designated as apartment houses, apartment buildings, duplexes, triplexes and condominiums, but ' not including motels, hotels, dormitories, or trailer courts as '•* ti-^ herein defined. 2.23 Apartment: A residence, as herein defined, which is part of or located in a multiple family dwelling as herein defined. 2.24 Hotel: A building or group of buildings containing six or more sleeping rooms or suites of rooms designee as, and occupied or suitable for occupation as, a temporary abiding or sleeping F place of persons who, for compensation, are locoed with or without meals, including buildings designed as hotels ar.d boarding, lodg- ing or rooming houses, but not inclucing those defined herein as r' - multiple family dwellings, motels, trailer cour_s, or dormitories, w^ 3 0,. y yys*ami sanitariums, hospitals, asylums, orphanages, cr buildings where persons are housed under restraint. 2.25 Hotel Room: A room or suite of rooms in a hotel as herein defined, designed as, and occupied or suitable -or occucation as. one sleeping or living unit. 3 •`,z/�' -F"�� j T-ori- y,�rni V ... .:$ 2.25 Motel: A building or group of buildings containing two or more rooms or suites of rooms, and designed, intended, or usec primarily for the accommodation of transient automobile travelers; including establishments designated as motels, auto courts, tourist cabins, motor lodges, motor courts, and by similar designations. 2.27 Motel Unit: A room or suite of rooms in a motel as herein i defined, designed as, and occupied or suitable for occupation as, one sleeping or living unit. wt 2.28 Bath: A room containing one or more water closets, bath- t s t ri tubs, shower stalls, and wash basins which are intended and LS ` stem.suitable for human use and are connected to the sewer s Y ^+ _ 2.29 Kitchen: A room, all or any part of which is designed, t x6 - : •t. W-^ --�+�- built or equipped as, and is used or is intended to be used for the cooking and/or other preparation of food for human consump- tion. ..� •�*0` s-;3 2.30 Trailer Court: An area containing two or more trailer spaces a�aM•r r h env Ns�'�*'. - as herein defined, including areas designed as trailer courts, trailer camps, and by similar designations. 2.31 Trailer Space: An area which is laid out and provided with facilities including a sewer connection f"or, and is occupied or is suitable for occupation by, a house trailer as herein defined. f f 2_32 House Trailer or Mobile Home: A transportable structure r designed, built, and equipped as, and occupied or suitable for occupation as, a home or living quarters, either permanently or ' temporarily, by a single family and their guests and servants. 2.33 Commercial Establishment: A building or portion thereof '.va. .rv.7a•;..�':,y'.sC+4. w,a,r:: ,.x...art used for, or intended for use for, commercial, business or govern- mental purposes, including but not limited to stores, markets, theatres, business offices, government offices and other places of business, but not including eating establishments, laundremats, or other business establishments previously defined herein. 2.34 Eating Establishment: A building or portion thereof, upon the premises of which are provided facilities for dining, eating and/or beverage consumption by the public, and which is held out by the owner or operator thereof as a place wnere food and/or 4 beverages may be purchased for consumption upon the premises, including establishments designated as restaurants, cafes, drive- ins, coffe shops, ice cream parlors, bars, and bowling alleys, and other such establishments where food or drink are served. 2.35 Laundromat: A building or portion thereof designed, equip- ped, and used or intended for use as a self-service laundry, where there is no pickup or delivery service and no steam or hand laundry of any type. f Y 2.36 School: An institution of learning which offers instruction in the several branches of learning and study required to be taught in the public schools by the Education Code of the State of California, including pre-school or nursery, elementary, Junior, and Senior High and parochial and private schools and junior colleges, colleges, and universities. 2.37 Garbace Grinder: A unit designed and used to grind or otherwise treat garbage so that it can be disposed of through the sewer system. ARTICLE 3. SEWER CONNECTION REQUIRED: SEPTIC TANK ABANDONMENT 3.1 For the purposes of this Article a public sewer shall be deemed to be available to a building if said sewer is installed in a public right of way or easement adjacent to the lot upon which said building is located. 3.2 Pursuant to authority of Health and Safety Code Section 4762, the Board of Directors hereby finds and declares the maintenance �- �-- or use of cesspools and other local means of sewage disposal within the District to constitute a public nuisance, and finds it to be in the public interest that properties to which a public sewer is available be required to connect thereto. �} r 3.3 When a public sewer becomes available to a building served by a private sewage disposal system, said building shall be con- nected to the public sewer within twenty-four (24) months after said public sewer is available and said private disposal system shall be abandoned as provided in Section 3.6, unless a variance is granted by Board of Directors. 5 3.4 Any newly-constructed building to which a public sewer is available shall be connected to said public sewer prior to its use for human occupancy, unless a variance is granted by the Board of Directors. 3.5 Variances referred to in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 may be granted upon written application to the Board of Directors by the applicant setting forth the basis for such request. Variances may be granted _ only upon affirmative showing that no health hazard, public nui- sance, or inequity to other property owners will result therefrom. 3.6 Where septic tanks are abandoned as a result of connecting f any building with the public sewer, the owner of the property to which connection is made shall fill all abandoned septic tanks y vi �C k:+7„ ;»_ �.f, �s...�•� �,t :. within ninety (90) days from the time of connecting to the public sewer, in the following manner: (a) All sewage shall be removed from the septic tank. (b) Inlet and outlet pipes shall be disconnected from the tank. (c) All wooden materials forming the top of the tank shall be removed. (d) The tank shall be filled with sand, gravel, or concrete, but such filling shall not extend above the vertical sidewalls until inspected by the District. (e) Following inspection. the tank shall be filled to the level of the top of the ground. ARTICLE 4. PERMITS AND CONNECTION FEES ` 4.1 It shall be unlawful for any person other than the District to f make any connection with any public or building sewer, or to construct or alter any public or building sewer, within the dis- trict, without first obtaining a permit from the District for such work. f ;; 4.2 Any person desiring a permit for any work involving sewers shall make application in writing to the Cistrict giving such infor- mation as it may require, on blanks to be furnished for that purpose. If it appears therefrom that the work to be performed 6 thereunder is to be done according to the regulations contained in this Ordinance Code and otherwise provided by law governing the construction of such work, a permit shall be issued upon payment of the required fees. 4.3 Nothing contained in this Article shall be deemed to require the application for, or the issuance of, a permit for the purpose of removing stoppages or repairing leaks in a building sewer, except when it is necessary to replace any part of such sewer. 4.4 The following fees shall be charged for sewer permits: (1) When the work to be performed involves only the alter- ation of a building sewer, and does not involve a con- nection With the public sewer, the fee shall be two and one-half (2.50) dollars. (2)' When the work to be performed-involves the connection of a building sewer to the public sewer, the fee shall be • five (5) dollars for this portion of the work. (3) When the work to be performed involves the abandonment of a septic tank or other private sanitary facility, then the fee shall be five (5) dollars for this portion of the work. (4) When the work to be performed involves the connection of a building sewer to the public sewer, and the build- ing to be served has been connected to a septic tank for sewage disposal, then both of the fees of items (2) and (3) above shall be paid before either permit is issued. (5) When any portion of the work is to be performed within the limits of a public right of way or public sewer ease- ment, an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the County Engineer in accordance with County Code Chap- ter 13.08 of Title 13. ((5) Added by Ordinance #6, February 4, 19 4) 4_5 To encourage immediate usage of the public sewer system, the permit fees set forth in Section 4.4(1), (2), (3), and (4), shall not be in effect for a period of sixty (60) days after public announce- ment of acceptance of portions of the public sewer system for 7 those willing to connect thereto and permits (excluding encroach- ment permits) shall be issued without fee within such period. (Amended by Ordinance #6, February 4, 1974) 4.6 Permit fees shall be deposited in the District's general opera- ting fund. 4.77 For each connection of a building sewer to a public sewer a connection fee shall be collected by the District before the permit for the connection work is issued. 4_8 When the point of connection to the public sewer is to be made at a portion of a lot which was charged the "front area" assessment rate under the Assessment District No. 1 proceedings, a front area connection fee shall be charged, but when said point of connection is to be made at a portion of a lot which was charged the "rear area" assessment rate, then a rear area connectio-I fee shall be charged. 4.9 The "front area connection fee" shall be $125.00 except that: • (Amended by Ordinance #2, August 23, 1971) (Amended by Ordinance #6, February 4, 1971) (1) No charge shall be made when the owner of a lot has already paid for lateral sewer installaticn by assessment or otherwise; (2) There will be no charge when a "T" fitting has already been installed in the public sewer at the property own- er's expense, and the lateral sewer is to be installed from said fitting; (Amended by Ordinance #2, August 23, 1971) (Amended by Ordinance #6, February 4, 1974) (Amended by Ordinance #4, February 5, 1972) (3) A parcel which was assessed during the improvement district assessment proceedings for a collection system, but on which the assessment was not paid because the parcel was deeded to the State for non-payment of taxes, shall incur an additional connection fee equal to the particular assessment involved for stat parcel. (Added by Ordinance #4, February 5, 1972) 8 • 4.10 The "rear area connection fee" shall be the sum of the following two charges: (Amended by Ordinance #2, August 23, 1971) (1) One hundred twenty-five dollars ($125.00), and ; — (Amended by Ordinance #6, February 4, 1974) (2) One of the following two charges: a. Six Hundred Thirty (630) Dollars, which approx- imates the difference between a front and a rear area assessment for a minimum size lot under Assessment District No. 1 assessment proceedings; or b. In the case of a parcel which was assessed during Assessment District No. 1 assessment proceedings, but on which the assessment was not paid because the parcel was deeded to the State for non-payment of taxes, such parcel shall incur an additional connection fee equal to r the front area assessment for a minimum size lot under • Assessment District No. 1 assessment proceedings. (Amended by Ordinance #4, February 5, 1972) 4.11 When an entire lot to which connection is proposed has been charged only a "rear area" rate under the Assessment District No. 1 assessment proceedings by virtue of its remote location from the proposed public sewers, then Section 4.10 shall not apply. The connection fee for said lot, or additional lots created from said lots by subsequent lot divisions, shall be one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125.00) for each connection, except that if public sewers ?>'are extended in the future in such a manner as to provide sewer service requiring substantially shorter building sewers, then the connection fee may be increased as provided in Section 4.13. (Amended by Ordinance #2, August 23, 1971) (Amended by Ordinance #6, February 4, 1974) 4.12 For sewer service to any lot not included in the previous sections, or after a lot split is made or two or more lots or por- tions thereof are combined, the District shall determine the amount • of the connection fee on such a basis as will result in the most equitable result to the applicant and other users. (Amended by Ordinance #4, February 5, 1972) 9 • 4.13 It is the intent of the District to equalize the cost of sewer service throughout the area of the District by the application of these regulations, and, notwithstanding any provisions of the foregoing sections, the District may in any instance increase or decrease the connection fee to be charged for any extraordinary service to achieve such objective. 4.14 Connection fees shall be deposited in the District's Sewer Facilities Fund (Article 10), and shall be used to pay the cost of cutting into and providing the connection to the public sewer. (Amended by Ordinance #2, August 23, 1971) 4.15 Intent of Article. It is the intent of the foregoing sections that in each instance in which connection to a public sewer is desired the property owner make his own arrangements with an approved private contractor to perform the work, and shall submit satisfactory evidence to the District that this has been Cone prior to issuance of a permit pursuant to Section 4.1 of this Cede. • (Added by Ordinance #2, August 23, 1971) ARTICLES. PUBLIC SEWER EXTENSIONS 5.1 Extensions of the public sewer systems of Improvement Dis- trict No. 1 shall be made as follows: (Amended by Ordinance #6, February 4, 1974) (1) Any person desiring an extension of the public sewer system to serve property within Improvement District No. 1 shall make a request in writing to the District for a preliminary investigation of the feasibility of said extension. If said sewer extension is feasible, the District shall prepare a preliminary estimate of the cost of said extension, including any repair to a roadway necessitated by said sewer extension. (2) Requester shall submit improvement pians of the pro- posed extension, prepared by a Registered Civil En- gineer in the State of California, for approvai by the County Engineer. 10 (3) The person requesting said extension shall execute and file a written agreement with the District whereby he agrees to complete all required improvements at his expense and to the satisfaction of the County Engineer, within the time period specified in the agreement. He further agrees to provide the County Engineer with a detailed cost breakdown of his actual expenditures for any improvements authorized in the agreement. The agreement shall also provide for inspection of all improve- ments by the County Engineer, or his designated repre- sentative, and reimbursement of the Distirct, by the requestor, for the cost of the inspection. The District will invoice the requestor for such inspection costs and any amount unpaid thirty (30) days frcm the date of the District's invoice shall bear interest at ten (10) percent per year beginning from thirty (30) days after the date of the invoice. The improvements agreement may also provide (1) for the construction of the improvements in units, and (2) for an extension of the time under conditions therein specified. No extension of time shall be granted except upon certification by the County Engineer that such extension is justified, and upon approval by the Board of Supervisors. (4) No hookup to the public sewer will be permitted until all improvement work has been completed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer and all charges have been paid by the requestor in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance Code. 5_2 The District may approve a refund agreement with persons who have paid for public sewer extensions. Said agreements shall provide for reimbursement of the excess cost borne by said per- sons, at such time within fifteen (15) years as money is paid to • the District for service from said sewer extension. (Amended by Ordinance #6, February 4, 1974) 11 5_3 No sewer service shall be provided to any lot by lateral sewer connection to a sewer extension until the owner of said tot has paid a proportional share of the cost of said sewer extension, or has entered into an agreement with the District to pay said share of the costs in annual installments, over a period not to exceed fifteen (15) years, with interest accrued at six (6) percent per year compounded annually on the unpaid balance. ARTICLE 6. INSPECTIONS 6.1 Inspection of Work: All work done under the provisions of this Ordinance Code shall be subject to inspection by the District. Notice must be given in writing to the District by the person, firm or corporation doing said work, or causing same to be done, immediately after said work is ready for inspection. Up to the time of the inspection all work shall remain uncovered and con- venient for the inspector's examination. If any pipes are enclosed • or covered in any way whatsoever, so as to tend to obstruct a thorough inspection of the drainage system, said obstruction must be removed upon notice so to do from the District, before an inspector shall be required to inspect the work. When, upon examination by the inspector, it appears that any such work is defective, either in its construction or material, the same shall be made to conform to the requirements set forth in this Ordinance Code, in default whereof the permit therefor shall be revoked by the District and subject work shall be discontinued immediately. 6_2 Certificate of Inspection: When it appears to the satisfaction of the Distirct that any work authorized by these regulations has been constructed according to, and meets the requirements of, all provisions of this Ordinance Code and other applicable laws, and that all the fees for the doing and inspection thereof have been paid, the District shall cause to be issued to the person, firm or corporation constructing such work a certificate of final inspection, which certificate shall recite that such work as has been done pur- suant to the permit has been constructed according to the Ordin- ance provisions of said District, and that said work is in sanitary 12 condition. The District shall not issue such certificate of inspec- tion unless the requirements of this Ordinance Code have been met. ARTICLE 7. BUILDING SEWERS 7_1 Every building in which plumbing fixtures are installed or located shall be separately and indepentently connected with public sewer or septic tank, except that the District may approve the connection of more than one building to the public sewer by a common building sewer. 7_2 The requirements for building sewers as set forth in the Uniform Plumbing Code, 1970 edition, shall apply in the District and are incorporated herein by reference. However, where the regulations of this Ordinance Code are more restrictive than said Plumbing Code, this Code shall apply. f • 7_3 Building sewers may be constructed only of the following materials: (a) Vitrified clay pipe, extra strength, with either bell and spigot or plain ends. Only approved flexible compres- sion type joints shall be used with vitrified clay pipe. (b) Cast iron soil pipe and fittings, with either bell and spigot or plain ends. Joints of bell and spigot cast iron soil pipe shall be firmly packed with oakum and filled with molten lead to a depth of not less than one (1) inch, and then thoroughly caulked. Approved flexible compression fittings each consisting of a rubber sleeve and a stainless steel compresson band, shall be used to join plain-end cast iron soil pipe and fittings. (c) Asbestos-cement pipe, Class 1500, or heavier. Joints of asbestos-cement pipe shall be made according to the manufacturer's specifications and shall be a sleeve coup- ling of the same composition as the pipe and sealed with rubber rings, or joined by an approved type compres- • sion coupling. Joints between asbestos-cement pipe and other approved pipe shall be made by means of an approved adaptor coupling. 13 7_4 No building sewer shall be constructed with pipe of internal diameter less than four (4) inches. 7.5 Building sewers shall be placed on a uniform slope of not less than one-fourth (1/4) of an inch per foot, except that when it is not practical to obtain this slope, then a slope of not less than one-eighth (1/8) of an inch per foot may be used when approved by the District. 7.6 A clean-out shall be placed in every building sewer within five (5) feet of each building, at all changes in alignment or grade in excess of twenty-two and one-half (22-1/2) degrees, within five (5) feet of the junction with the public sewer, and at intervals not to exceed one hundred (100) feet in straight runs. The clean-out shall be made by inserting a "Y" fitting in the line and fitting the clean-out in the "Y" branch in an approved manner. However in the case of the clean-out near the junction of the public sewer, the "Y" branch shall be extended to a depth of not more than two • (2) feet, nor less than one (1) foot below the surface of the ground before the clean-out is installed. 7.7 No portion of a building sewer, or its connection to the public sewer, shall be covered or concealed in any manner until it has been inspected and approved by the District. 7_8 All piping and all joints in each building sewer are to be watertight and shall be tested by filling the building sewer with water, in its entirety or in sections, in such a manner that no part is tested with less than a three (3) foot head of water. ARTICLE 8. ANNEXATIONS 8.1 Policy: It is the intent of the Board of Directors: (a) to encourage the expansion of sewer service and to assist in the annexation of lands to the District and to Improvement District No. 1 of said District; (b) that properties benefiting from any line extension bear the full cost of such extension, in proportion to the benefits received; and 14 (c) to encourage the use of special assessment proceedings and financing when it is not feasible to otherwise finance a given system improvement or expansion of service. 8.2 Service to Annexed Areas: (Amended by Ordinance #6, February 4, 1974) (1) When an area is annexed to Improvement District No. 1, the District shall prepare an estimate of the cost of extending sewer lines and otherwise providing sewer service to the lots within said annexation, except that this estimate shall not include the cost of lateral sewers. This estimate and the proportional share to be borne by each lot shall be furnished to the owners of the annexed property. (2) Requestor shall submit improvement plans of the pro- posed extension, prepared by a Registered Civil En- gineer in the State of California, for approval by the • County Engineer. (3) The owners of such annexed property shall execute and file an agreement with the District as spelled out in Section 5.1(3) of this Ordinance Code. (4) No hookup to the public sewer will be permitted until all improvement work has been completed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer and all charges have been paid by the requestor in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance Code. Inspection costs shall be paid by requestor as set forth in Section 5.1(3) of this Ordin- arice Code. (5) The District may approve a refund agreement with per- sons who have paid more than their pr000rtionai cost of the sewer service extension. Said agreement shall provide for reimbursement of the excess cost borne by said persons at such time within fifteen (15) years as money is paid to the District for service from said sewer . service extension. 15 • (6) No sewer service shall be provided to any lot by lateral sewer connection to said sewer service extension until the owner of said lot has paid a proportional share of the cost of said service extension, or has entered into an agreement with the District to pay such share of the cost in annual installments, over a period not to exceed fifteen (15) years, with interest accrued at six (6) percent per year compounded annually on the unpaid balance. 8_3 In-Lieu Assessment Fees: Using the rules and formulas which were used in the Assessment District No. 1 proceedings, the District shall determine the amount of an equivalent assessment for each lot annexed to Improvement District No. 1 to which sewer service is to be extended. When the estimate of the cost of ex- tending sewer service to a particular lot, as described in Section 8.2, is less than said equivalent assessment, then an in-lieu assess- ment fee shall be charged for providing sewer service to said lot. • Said in-lieu assessment fee shall be equal to the difference between the actual cost of providing sewer service to said lot and the aforesaid equivalent assessment, except that the estimate of the costs may be used in computing the in-lieu fee, subject to adjust- ment when actual costs have been determined. 8.4 Payment of in-Lieu Assessment Fees: The io-lieu assessment fee shall be paid before a permit is issued for a sewer connection, except that when the in-lieu assessment fee for a property under one ownership exceeds Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00) then this fee may be paid in installments, over a period not to exceed fif- teen (15) years, with the first installment to be made before the issuance of the permit and to be at least ten percent (10%) of the in-lieu assessment fee, with interest accrued at six percent (6%) per year on the unpaid balance. When a property owner elects the installment method of payment, then an installment agreement shall be executed by the owner and the District, and the amount of the fee shall be recorded in the Office of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder as a lien against said lot, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 5474. (Amended by Ordinance #4, February 5, 1972) 16 8.5 Annexation of New Assessment Districts: When a number of lots are annexed to the Improvement District at the same time, and it is intended to form an assessment district to finance the con- struction of sewer collection facilities to serve said lots, then the provisions of Sections 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 shall not apply. If the obligation incurred by the new assessment district results in assessments against the majority of property owners which are less than the costs incurred by property owner originally within Assess- ment District No. 1, the District may levy an in-lieu assessment fee sufficient to make the total obligation commensurate within the two assessment districts. 8.6 Disposition of Collected Funds: All in-lieu assessment fees and deposits for the construction of sewer service extensions shall be deposited in the Sewer Facilities Fund (Article 10). 8.7 Payment of Board of Equalization Fee: In addition tl all other fees, the owner or owners of real property to be annexed to the • Atascadero County Sanitation District and/or to an Improvement District located therein, shall pay to the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission at the time of commencement of any such annexation proceedings, the full amount of any fees charged by the State Board of Equalization for any such annex- ation or annexations. (Added by Ordinance #4, February 5, 1972) ARTICLE 9. PROHIBITED DISCHARGES 9_1 No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged any stormwater, surface water, groundwater, roof runoff, sub-surface drainage, uncontaminated cooling water, or unpolluted industrial process waters to any sanitary sewer. 9.2 No person shall discharge or cause to be cischargec any of the following described waters or wastes to arty public sewers: (a) Any gasoline, benzene, naphtha, fuel oil, :r other flammable or explosive liquid, solid, or gas. (b) Any waters or wastes containing tcxic or ccisonous solids, liquids, or gases in sufficient quantit,., either 17 singly or by interaction with other wastes, to injure or interfere with any waste water treatment process or constitute a hazard to humans or animals, or create any hazard in the receiving waters of the waste water treat- ment plant. (c) Any waters or wastes having a pH lower than 5.5, or having any other corrosive property capable of causing damage or hazard to structures, equipment, and per- sonnel of the waste water treatment and collection. (d) Solid or viscious substances in quantities or of such size capable of causing obstruction to the flow in sewers, or other interference with the proper operation of the waste water treatment-collection works such as, but not limited to, ashes, cinders, sand, mud, straw, shavings, metal, glass, rags, feathers, tar, plastics, wood, unground garbage, paper materials such as newspapers. dishes, . cups, milk containers, and meat processing plant wastes such as animal skins, intestines, fleshings, and paunch materials retained on a screen having eight (8) meshes per inch each way. (e) Any liquid or vapor having a temperature higher than one hundred fifty (150) degree Fahrenheit. (f) Any water or wastes which may contain more than one hundred (100) parts per million, by weight, of fat, oil, grease, or wax. (g) Any waters or wastes containing suspended solids of such character and quantity that unusual attention or expense is required to handle such materials at the waste water treatment plant. (h) Any noxious or malodorous gas or substance capable of creating a public nuisance. 9.3 Grease, Oil and Sand Interceptors: Grease, oil and sand interceptors shall be provided when, in the opinion of the District, they are necessary for the proper handling of Liquid wastes con- taining grease in excessive amounts or any flammaole wastes, 18 sand, or other harmful ingredients; except that such interceptors shall not be required for the private living quarters of dwelling units. All interceptors shall be of a type and capacity approved by the District and shall be located so as to be readily and easily accessible for cleaning and inspection. 9.4 Same; Construction: Grease and oil interceptors shall be constructed of impervious materials capable of withstanding abrupt and extreme changes in temperature. They shall be of substantial construction, watertight, and equipped with easily removable covers which, when bolted in place, shall be gas-tight and water- tight. 9.5 Same; Maintenance: Where installed, all grease, oil and sand interceptors shall be maintained by the owner, at his expense, in continuously efficient operation at all times. ARTICLE 10. SEWER FACILITIES FUND 10.1 A Sewer Facilities Fund is hereby established, to consist of revenue obtained from connection fees, in-lieu assessment fees, sewer extension deposits, and such surplus revenues from the monthly sewer charges as the Board of Directors may authorize to be paid to the Fund annually. 10.2 The Sewer Facilities Fund shall be primarily a sinking fund to finance expansion and replacement of the waste water treatment facilities, and the replacement or enlargement of trunk sewer lines or other sewer lines larger than eight (8) inches in diameter. 10.3 When monies are available from the Fund, the Board of Directors may utilize these monies to construct public sewers in streets or easements to extend service to previously unsewered areas when the costs of such sewer construction are to be reim- bursed by the owners of the properties requesting sucn sewer extensions. Before monies from said fund are so used, the Board of Directors shall enter into an agreement with the owner or own- ers of the properties to be served, which shall provide: • (a) That all monies so expended shall be repaid within a period not to exceed fifteen (15) years. 19 r i (b) That interest on the unpaid balance shaF1 be accrued at a rate of six (6) percent per annum. (c) That failure to repay all monies as stipulated in .said agreement shall result in a lien being placed against the property or properties affected. ARTICLE 11. SEWER SERVICE CHARGES 11.1 There is hereby levied and imposed upon any occupied premises within the Atascadero County Sanitation District, having any sewer connection with the sewerage system of the District, or otherwise discharging waste water which ultimately passes through - -- - the District's sewerage system or to which a public sewer is avail- able according to Article 3.1 of this Ordinance Code, and upon the owner or occupant thereof, a monthly service or standby charge as hereinafter provided. Charoe • (a) Single Family Residential Unit $ 6.00 (b) Apartment Buildings (per dwelling unit) 4._50 (c) Retail Stores 3.00 (d) Hotel/Motel (per dwelling unit) 2.00 (e) Mobile Home Spaces (per space) 4.50 (f) Rest Homes/Hospitals (per oeu) 3.50 (g) Office Buildings (per office unit) 2.75 (h) Restaurants - 40 or less seats 76.00 (i) Restaurants - more than 40 seats 152.00 (j) Churches 3.00 (k) Schools (per student average daily attendance as of March 31 preceding each fiscal year) 1.10 (1) Service Stations 16.50 (m) Laundromat, Commercial Cleaners 74.00 (n) Fire Station 10.00 (o) Theatre 13.00 (p) Warehouses/Meeting Halls 2.75 (q) Any Occupied Premises not Connected • to an Available Sewer 4._50 (r) Car Wash 50.J0 20 (Amended by Ordinance #2, August 23, 1971) (Amended by Ordinance #5, October 9, 1973) (Amended by Ordinance #7, November 25, 1974) (Amended by Ordinance #8, August 11, 1975) (Amended by Ordinance #9, August 9, 1976) (Amended by Ordinance #10, November 28, 1977) 11.2 Unclassified Uses: For premises having a sewer connection but for which a specific classification for sewer service charges has not been set forth in Section 11.1 the District shall charge such rate as in its sole discretion it deems most applicable for the type of use being made of the premises in relation to the uses made of classified premises and the rate fixed for said classified premises. 11.3 Whenever required, sewer service charge rate computation information shall be furnished to the District, on forms furnished by the District, upon written request therefor. • 11.4 In the event of failure to furnish rate comput=tion infor- mation when requested and within the time allowed, the District may compute the rate based on such informaton as it finds reason- ably available and such computation shall be conclusive and final. 11.5 Truck-load disposal of sanitary wastes may be accepted by the District at the treatment plant during normal daytime working hours, or at such other times as the District may elect. Upon the operational date of this Section for loads originating within the District, the following schedule of charges shall be in effect: 1. Seven dollars and fifty cents ($7.50) per load of fifteen hundred (1500) gallons or less. 2. Fifty cents ($.50) per one hundred (100) gallons over 1500. For loads originating outside the boundaries of the District: 1. Ten dollars ($10.00) per load of fifteen hundred (1500) gallons or less. 2. Fifty cents ($.50) per one hundred (100) gallons over 1500. (Amended by Ordinance #3, 1971) 21 11.6 The district may elect to have such sewer service charges collected by any manner authorized in the applicable sections of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California, in which event such charges shall be delinquent on the date indicated in the bills rendered therefor, after which date a delinquent penalty of ten (10) percent per annum of the amount of unpaid charges shall be due and payable with the delinquent charges upon which they are imposed. (Amended by Ordinance #6, February 4, 1974) 11.7 The District hereby elects to have delinquent sewer service charges collected on the County tax roll in the same manner as its general taxes, as an alternative to other methods of collection prescribed herein, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 5,173 through 5473a. 11.3 Collection by Suit: As an alternative to any other pro- cE dures provided for herein, the District may collect any delin- • quent sewer service ci�arges and penalties thereon by suit, in which event judy nent therefor shall include the cost of suit and reasonable attorney's fees arising from such action. i ARTICLE 12. ENFORCEMENT 12.1 Investigative Powers: District representatives shall carry evidence establishing their position as authorized representatives of the District, and, upon presentation and exhibiting these pro- per credentials and identification, be permitted to enter in and upon all buildings and premises within the District for the purpose of inspection, observation, measurement, sampling, testing, or otherwise performing such duties as may be necessary in carrying out the Ordinances of the District. 12.2 Termination: As an alternative measure for enforcing the provisions of District's Ordinances, District may terminate service to the building, structure or property in question. Upon termin- ation, the District Manager or his representative shall estimate the cost of termination and reconnection to the system and the user shall deposit this amount with the District before being recon - 22 t Passed and adopted by the Board of Directors of the Atascadero County Sanitation District, County of San Luis Obispo, State of Cali- fornia, this 15th day of March, 1971, by the following roll call vote, to-wit: AYES: Supervisors Hans Heilmann, Elston L. Kidwell, Howard D. Mankins and Chairman John V. Freeman NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor M. Roland Gates /s/ John V. Freeman Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, Sitting as the ATTEST: Board of Directors of Atascadero County Sanitation District. /s/ Ruth Warnken Clerk and ex-officio Clerk, Board of Directors, Atasca- dero County Sanitation "Ordinance Code Enactment Approval District, County of San as to Form and Codification: Luis Obispo, State of California ROBERT N. TAIT, District Attorney • (SEAL) County of San Luis Obispo By: /s/ Stephen N. Cool Stephen N. Cool Deputy District Attorney DATE: March 3, 1971 I 24