Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 02/28/1983 AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL • Regular Meeting February 28 , 1983 7: 30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Invocation Roll Call Public Comment City Council Comments 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 February 15 , 1983 (RECOM- MEND APPROVAL) • 2. Resolution No . 8-83 amending Deferred Compensation Plan (REC- OMMEND ADOPTION) 3. Resolution No . 9-83 designating agent for Federal Disaster Assistance (RECOMMEND ADOPTION) 4. Resolution No . 10-83 accepting work and given notice of com- pletion for the 1983 Overlay Project ( RECOMMEND ADOPTION) - 5. Tentative Parcel Map AT 79-263 , 7345 Encina. Avenue , Gordon Hilchey (Hilliard Surveys) to extend the time allowed to com- plete requirements for an approved tentative map (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 6 . Acceptance of Parcel Map AT 79-263 , 7345 Encinal Avenue , Gor- don Hilchey (Hilliard Surveys) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLAN- NING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1 . Draft Zoning Ordinance , Chapter Three - continued 2. General Plan Amendment GP 821206 : 1 , initiated by Planning Commission , to consider text amendments to the Open Space Element which would revise specific standards for creek set- backs AGENDA - ATASCADERO OTY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 28 , 1983 3. General Plan Amendment GP 820930: 1 - Colima-E1 Camino Real Residential Study Area ; area bounded by E1 Camino Real , San • Benito, Colima and San Anselmo/3555 El Camino Real; Pente- costal Church of God (Cullen) Planning Commission ; to change the land use designation from Suburban Single Family Residen- tial to Moderate Density Single Family Residential 4. City Attorney Report No . 23 5 . Fire Department Quarterly Report C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1 . Ordinance No . 59 - Amapoa-Tecorida Area Development Standards - first reading 2. Volunteer Coordinating Committee - Mayor Nelson 3. Community Development Block Grant Nonentitlement Program D. NEW BUSINESS 1 . Selection of consultant - Construction documents South Atascadero Park and Alvord Field 2. Priority list - Mayor Nelson 3. Preliminary information on Atascadero-SLO bus test • E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT None F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1 . City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. ' City Treasurer 5 . City Manager NOTE: There will be a closed session for personnel matters . • 2 MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL • Regular Meeting February 15, 1983 7 : 30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building -- -- The meeting was called to order at 7: 30 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance. Reverend Terry Butler of the Atascadero Christian Church gave the invocation. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Mackey, Molina, Stover, Wilkins, and Mayor Nelson Absent: None STAFF Present: Murray Warden, City Manager; Steven Rizzuto, City Treasurer; Patsy Hester, Deputy City Clerk; Ralph Dowell, Finance Director; Larry Stevens, Planning Director; Richard McHale, Police Chief; Larry McPherson, Public Works Director; and Skip Joannes, Recreation Director. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1-83 TO ATASCADERO GREYHOUNDS Mayor Nelson presented Larry Welsh and the Atascadero Greyhounds • with Resolution No. 1-83, commending them for their sportsmanship and skill. PUBLIC COMMENT 1. Norman Ted Monson commented that the mentally disabled should have the same privileges as the senior citizens. COUNCIL COMMENTS 1. Councilman Mackey felt that the city' s holidays should correspond with those of other cities and the county. 2. Councilman Molina stated that he did not feel comfortable , with not having legal respresentation at the meeting. Mr. Warden stated that Mr. Grimes has other commitments on Tuesday evenings. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the regular meeting of January 24,1983 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 2. Minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of January 29, 1983 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) • MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 15, 1983 3. Treasurer' s Report, 1-1-83 to 1-31-83 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 4. Finance Director' s Report, 1-1-83 to 1-31-83 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 5. Acceptance of bid for bridge repairs on Santa Lucia Road (RECOMMEND BID BE AWARDED TO YOUNG BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,132 . 70) 6. Acceptance of bid for restroom fixtures for Atascadero Lake Park (RECOMMEND BID BE AWARDED TO P. E. O'HAIR IN THE AMOUNT OF $4, 357. 24) 7 . Claim of Sanchez Equipment Co. for damages in the amount of $2, 302. 32 (RECOMMEND DENIAL) 8. Transfer of $5, 000 from Contingency Reserve to Fire Depart- ment overtime account (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 9. Acceptance of Tentative Parcel Map AT 810820 :1, 3295 San Fernando Road, Gordon T. Davis Cattle Company (Twin Cities (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 10. Tentative Parcel Map AT 810908 : 1, Palo Verde Road, Rudy Ruda (Hilliard Surveys) to extend the time allowed to complete requirements for an approved tentative map (RECOMMEND 'APPROV- AL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 11. Tentative Parcel Map AT 810930 : 1, 2455 E1 Camino Real, Jerry Frederick (Stewart) , to extend the time allowed to complete requirements for an approved tentative map (RECOMMEND APPROV- AL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 12. Tentative Parcel Map AT 811009:1, 4800 Obispo Road, Mark E. Jepson (Hilliard Surveys) to extend the time allowed to complete requirements for an approved tentative map (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS) 13. Tentative Parcel Map AT 820609 :1, generally between San Marcos and Laurel Roads east of the intersection of Laurel and Cenegal Road, Dick Davis (Twin Cities Engineering) to allow division of 144 .1 acres into four parcels (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 14 . Lot Line Adjustment LA 821122 :1, 9505, 9545, 9575 Laurel Road, James Rockstad (Twin Cities Engineering) to adjust existing lot line to create better building sites (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) -2- • MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 15, 1983 15. Acceptance of Lot Line Adjustment LA 820901: 1, 9030 & 9034 La Linia, W. D. & S. S. Tilley/Wayne and Margaret Landrum (Associated Professions) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 16. Business license application, 5940 El Camino Real, Donald Archie Anderson, to establish a card room with two tables (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) Mayor Nelson reviewed the items on the Consent Calendar. Concerning Item A-13, Mayor Nelson questioned Condition 12 . Larry Stevens stated that Conditions 12 and 13 will result in the improvement of portions of San Marcos and Los Altos Roads. Con- cerning Item A-5, Councilman Molina asked if this was an insurance claim. Murray Warden stated that this is damage to the bridge caused by an accident and that because of the danger, it needed to be repaired soon. MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. Request by Don and Norma Brimage for amendment to Zoning Ordinance - continued Mr. Warden stated that the Brimages requested this matter be continued to March 14 , 1983 . MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to continue this matter to March 14 , 1983. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried. 2. Draft Zoning Ordinance, Chapter Three - continued Larry Stevens reviewed portions of Chapter, 3 through the commercial neighborhood zoning. Mr. Stevens requested that the hearing be continued to February 28, 1983, for the remainder of Chapter 3. The Council was concerned with the deletion of the "no animal" zone and requested Mr. Stevens to make a presentation at the next meeting. Anna Marie Bales requested clarification for "no animals" and the R-1 zone. Mr. Stevens stated that this is for farm animals and that the size of lots are based on the criteria of Chapter 6 . Norman Norton stated that people who do not want animals should have the same rights as those who do want them. -3- MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 15, 1983 Elliott Stevenson was in favor of animal regulations . MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved to continue the public hearing of Chapter 3 on the Zoning Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimously carried. 3. Appeal of Frank Mecham (Associated Professions) from Planning Commission denial of Tentative Parcel Map AT 821108 : 1, 7805 Santa Cruz Road, to allow division of 5. 44 acres into two parcels Larry Stevens stated that this is an appeal of Frank Mecham to allow the division of a 5. 44 acre parcel into two parcels. He stated that the Planning, Commission denied the request because it does not conform with criteria of the General Plan governing minimum lot size, the creation of lots near the minimum lot size allowed is inappropri- ate due to poor percolation quality in the immediate vicinity and due to the average lot size now existing in the surrounding area, and the tentative map does not conform with existing zoning regulations governing lot size due to its average slope. Frank Mecham spoke in favor of approving his request. Toby Osgood of Associated Professions presented Council with maps of the parcels and saw no reason for denial. 0 MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to uphold the Planning Commissions decision. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and defeated on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Stover and Wilkins NOES : Councilmen Mackey, Molina, and Mayor Nelson - MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved to refer to Planning Department for preparation of Findings and Conditions to approve Tentative Parcel Map AT 821108 : 1 and bring back to Council on March 14, 1983. The motion was seconded by Councilman Molina and passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Mackey, Molina, and Mayor Nelson NOES: Councilmen Stover and Wilkins RECESS 9 :15 p.m. RECONVENE 9 :25 p.m. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Block grant information -4- i • MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 15, 1983 Mr. Stevens reviewed the Community DevelopmentBlock Grant program. He stated that the basic national objectives are to benefit low and moderate income families, aid in the prevention or elimination of slum and/or blight, or meeting other community development needs having a particular urgency. Healso commented on State objectives, basic eligible activities, and up-coming public hearings. Council consensus was to review the program and for staff to prepare an application. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for street maintenance district - Lobos Lane Murray Warden stated that if Council approves the process, then they should direct staff to prepare the necessary implementation. MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to direct staff continue forming the street maintenance district and to bring back pertinent information and steps. The motion was seconded by Council- man Molina and unanimously carried. Elliott Stevenson stated that road maintenance is very much needed and that he would have signed the petition if he had known about it. Evelyn Bovee spoke in favor of a street maintenance district and was concerned with tree removal. W. H. Anderson spoke in favor of a street maintenance district. Anna Marie Bales asked if there was anything that could be done about paved roads where mud and sand has been washed on them. Larry McPherson stated that the Road Department is working on the roads. 2. Larsen easement - Councilman Molina Mr. Stevens stated that the Planning Department denied a business license to establish an auto repair business based upon the fact that the existing building does not comply with fire-resistive construc- tion requirements. He also stated that the Planning Department reviewed and did not find use of the sewer easement to be acceptable for the yard agreement. John Larsen requested approval of his business' license and Willy Tilley spoke in favor of approval. MOTION: Councilman Molina moved to approve Mr. Larsen' s business . license for a machine shop with the condition that it be recorded on his title that if the sewer easement is abandoned that a fire wall be constructed. The motion was seconded by Mayor Nelson and defeated on the following roll call vote: -5- 0 i MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 15, 1983 AYES: Councilman Molina and Mayor Nelson is NOES: Councilmen Mackey, Stover, and Wilkins 3. Resolution No. 7-83 re: PERS contract amendment, 1959 survivor benefits for police MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to adopt Resolution No. 7-83. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried by roll call vote. E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved that the Council recess and convene as the Atascadero County Sanitation District Board of Dir- ectors. Councilman Mackey seconded the motion and it was unanimously carried. 1. Protest of sewer rates - Danish Convalescent Hospital Larry McPherson stated that there is a discrepancy in the new sewer rates and that in order to modify them, an overall review should be made. Mark Jensen, representing Danish Convalescent Hospital, stated that the new sewer rates are inequitable and unreasonable. He also stated that there was a 540 per cent increase for the hospital. MOTION: Director Wilkins moved to direct staff to review the sewer rate structure. The motion was seconded by Director Mackey and unanimously carried. MOTION: Director Wilkins moved that Council adjourn as the Board of Directors and reconvene as City Council. The motion was seconded by Director Mackey and unanimously carried. F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council a. Councilman Mackey stated that Clean-up Week for the city will be in April. There will be a Beautification Committee meeting on Monday, February 21, 1983, 1 : 30 p.m. at Century Federal. b. Mayor Nelson requested discussion of Council priority list at the next meeting. MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 15, 1983 C. Mayor Nelson requested discussion on budget and capital improvement at the next meeting. d. Mayor Nelson requested an up-date of police attendance at school functions discussed at the next meeting. 3. City Attorney Nothing 4 . City Clerk Nothing 5. City Treasurer a. Steven Rizzuto requested a look into the relationship with Animal Control Regulations . 5. City Manager a. Mr. Warden stated he received an invitation from the Arroyo Grande City Council regarding an open house on Sunday, February 20, 1983, 2 : 00-5 : 00 p.m. at the Women ' s Club to welcome their new City Manager, Bob Mack. b. Mr. Warden stated he received a response regarding distance signs to Atascadero. Caltrans agreed to post signs showing Atascadero next nine exits. C. Mr. Warden stated he received correspondence from the Area Planning Coordinating Council requesting an appointment of the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee. He requested names be given to him for the vacancy', d. Mr. Warden noted sign vandalism is a problem and that approximately $5, 000 worth of signs have been removed within the past nine months. e. Mr. Warden noted storm damage of approximately $35, 000 for road repair, including Santa Ysabel Road. He stated that Mr. McPherson will process a claim under Federal Disaster Relief provisions. f. Mr. Warden requested a closed session for personnel matters. • MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 15, 1983 The meeting adjourned to closed session at 11 : 35 p.m. and returned to regular session at 1: 20 a.m. , at which time the Council adjourned. Recorded by: BARBARA NORRIS, City Clerk By: PATSY A. HESTER Deputy City Clerk -8- i _M_E._M_O_R_A_N_D_U_M_ • TO: City Manager 7"N,. FROM: Finance Director Z SUBJECT: Update of Deferred Compensation Plan DATE: February 23 , 1983 The attached Resolution No . 8-83 and an updated version of the Deferred Compensation Plan is forwarded with a ,; recommendation for adoption by Council . The purpose of amending the original plan is to incorporate changes issued by IRS Code Section 457. Basically, there are two major changes : 1 . Section 2.09 "Normal Retirement Age" . The IRS Code Sec- tion 457 now requires deferred compensation benefits to commence in the year a participant reaches age 70 112. This makes payment provisions uniform with IRA plans. 2. Section 3.01 (b) "The Catch Up Provision" is now re- • stricted to the last three full taxable calendar years prior to the year that the participant plans to retire . Certain minor changes have also been incorporated within Sec- tion 5 . 01 which adds flexibility at retirement or termination for the participant. RALPH H. DOWELL, JR. RHD: ad • ! i RESOLUTION NO. 8-83 RESOLUTION AMENDING EXISTING DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN ISSUED BY HARTFORD VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council authorized entering into a Deferred Compensation Plan issued by Hartford Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company by adopting Resolution No. 27-81 ; and WHEREAS, a requirement exists to update certain portions of the existing Plan due to changes issued by Internal Revenue Code Section 457 ; and WHEREAS, such changes have been incorporated by a complete update of the Deferred Compensation Plan. NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby adopt the updated version of the Deferred Compensation Plan , effective this date , as the current copy of such Plan . On motion by Councilman and seconded by Councilman , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote: AYES: NOES: • ABSENT: ADOPTED: ROLFE NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: BARBARA NORRIS, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1 ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: • MRAY WARDEN, City Manager F CITY OF ATASCADERO DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN ARTICLE I General Section 1 . 01 - Name: The name of this Plan shall be the City of Atascadero Deferred Compensation Plan , which is hereby adopted February 28 , 1983, as amended. It may be , and sometimes herein- after is , referred to as the "Plan" or the "Deferred Compensation Plan" . (The amendment was made substantially to comply with the requirements of I . R. S. Code Section 1457 , as well as allow for other permissible changes . ) Section 1 .02 - Purpose : The purpose of this Plan is to extend to Employees of the Employer certain benefits which ordinarily accrue from participation in a Deferred Compensation Plan . The Employer does not and cannot represent or guarantee that any par- ticular Federal or State income , payroll or other tax consequence will occur by reason of an Employee ' s participation in this Plan. The Employee wishing to participate in the Plan should consult with his own attorney or other representative regarding all tax or other consequences of participation in this Plan . • i ARTICLE II Definitions 2.01 "Administrator" means Employer or its duly authorized designee for that purpose who shall govern the operation of the Plan . 2.02 "Advisory Committee" shall mean a committee consisting of three (3) persons appointed to operate the Plan according to the guidelines specified in Section 4 . 01 of the Plan document . 2.03 "Annuity Contracts" referred to in this Plan means any annuity contracts qualified for sale in California and approved by the City of Atascadero . Notwithstanding the above definition , annuity contracts actually used in conjunction with the Plan can be altered, amended , changed or substituted for , from time to time by action of the Employer and such alterecd , amended , _ changed , or substituted contracts or contract thereafter may be used in the Plan . 2.04 "Beneficiary" means any person designated by the Partici- pant to receive a pension , annuity, death benefit or other bene- fit under the provisions of this Deferred Compensation Plan . 2. 05 "Employer" means the City of Atascadero . 2 2.OG "Compensation" means all wages or salaries to be paid to an Employer for services rendered, without deduction for any portion thereof deferred under the provisions of this Plan or for any amounts contributed to a tax deferred annuity plan pursuant to I.R.S. Section 403(b) . 2.07 "Deferred Compensation" means that portion of an Employee's Compensation which said Employee has elected to defer in accordance with the provisions of this Deferred Compensation Plan. 2.08 "Employee" means any full-time permanent employee, permanent part-time, or elected official of the Employer. 2.09 "Normal Retirement Date" means that last day of the month in which a participant retires pursuant to the normal retirement practices of the Employer. (Such age may be no later than age 70 1/2 and no earlier than the earliest age at which a Participant has the right to retire under the Employers basic pension plan, without consent of the Employer, and to receive immediate retirement benefits.) - 2.10 "Participant" means any individual who performs services for the Employer either as an Employee or as an independent contractor and who elects to participate in this Plan by filing a duly executed Participation Agreement with the Employer. -3 2.11 "Participation Account" means the book account to which there are credited the Participant's deferred compensation, together with any interest, dividends, gains, losses or the like thereon. 2.12 "Participation Agreement" means the contract by which the Employee and the Employer agree that a portion of the Employee's compensation will be deferred pursuant to the Plan. 2.13 "Plan Year" means the calendar year in which the Plan becomes effective, and each succeeding year during the existence of this Plan. 2.14 "Termination of Employment" means in the case of an Employee, separation from service, or in the case of an independent contractor, the expiration of the contract (or, in the case of more than one contract, all contracts) under which services are performed. 2.15 "Unforeseeable Emergency" means severe financial hardship to the Participant resulting from a sudden and unexpected illness or accident of the Participant or of a dependent (as defined in Internal Revenue Code Section 152(a) ) of the Participant, loss of the Participant's property due to casualty or other similar extraordinary and unforeseeable circumstances arising as a result of events beyond the control of the Participant. Unforeseeable Emergencies do not include any hardships which have not occurred or which are or may be relieved (A) by reimbursement for compensation by insurance or otherwise, (B) by -4- liquidation of the Participant ' s assets , to the extent the liqui- dation of such assets would not itself cause severe financial hardship or (C) by cessation of deferrals under the Plan . 2. 16 "Eligible State Deferred Compensation Plan" has the meaning given it by the Internal Revenue Code Section 457 and the regula- tions thereunder . 2. 17 "Includible Compensation" means the remuneration for ser- vices performed for the Employer which is currently includible in gross income . ARTICLE III Operation of Plan ' 3. 01 Participation : Any Employee may elect to become a Parti pant of the Plan and to defer payment of part of his Compensation by executing a written Participation Agreement and ; filing it in the manner set forth in Article 3 hereof. The dollar amount de- ferred must be at least $10 .00 per pay period or such larger amount as may be designated by the Employer from time to time . 5 (a) The maximum amount that may be deferred under the Plan for the taxable year of a Participant shall not exceed the lesser of (a) $7,500, or (b) 33 1/3 percent of the Participants includible compensation (typically twenty-five percent (25%) of the Participant s gross compensation) . (b) Provided, however, that for one or more of the Participant's last three full calendar taxable years ending prior to a Participants Normal Retirement Date as defined in 2.09 the maximum amount that may be deferred under the Plan shall be the lesser of (1) $15,000 or, (2) the sum of (i) the limitation in (a) above for the taxable year and (ii) the limitation under (a) above for any prior taxable year or years which began after December 31, 1978 and in which the participant was eligible to participate in the Plan less the amount of compensation deferred under the Plan for any such prior taxable year or years. A participant may onlyutilize this subsection b once whether under this Plan or any O , other eligible State Deferred Compensation Plan. (c) For any individuals who are Participants in more than one plan, the maximum amount of compensation deferred for all plans during any _. taxable year shall not exceed $7,500 (as modified by the adjustment provided under Subsection (b) of these definitions. (d) For any individuals who are Participants in an I.R.C. Section 403(b) Plan, the amounts excluded in any taxable year under such plans shall be treated as amounts deferred for purposes of Subsections (a) , (b) , and (c) of these definitions for any year of service shall be treated as amounts excluded under I.R.C. Section 403(b) (2) (A) (ii) . -6- (e) In addition to a Participant's election to participate pursuant to the preceding paragraph, a Participant may transfer to this Plan amounts previously deferred under another Eligible State; Deferred Compensation Plan maintained by an Employer located in the same state as the Employer maintaining this Plan. Such amounts shall be treated as if they had originally been deferred under this Plan and all applicable provisions of this Plan shall apply. 3.02 Deferral of Compensation: Employer and Participant mutually acknowledge that the Compensation of each Employee is as established by Contract or annual salary commitments of the Employer and that said Compensation includes the dollar amount of funds deferred under the terms of this Plan or set aside under any 403(b) tax deferred annuity plan. Employee Compensation shall be paid bi-weekly, or as otherwise provided, except that during each employment year in which the Employee is a Participant in the Plan, that portion of his said Compensation which is specified by the Employee in the Participation Agreement shall be deferred and paid in accordance with the provisions of this Plan. 3.03 Investment Accounts: The Employer shall cause to, be established for each participant an Investment Account to provide a convenient method of measuring the Employer obligations to the Participant, under the Plan. The Employer shall cause to have credited to each account amounts equal to the compensation deferred by the Participant under the Plan. The -7- assets of the account shall be invested in Annuity contracts or other investments as the law may allow. The Employee's statement of investment preference shall only require the Employer to use such preference as an index for determining the benefits to be paid pursuant to Article 4. The Employer shall be under no obligation to invest the deferred amount in the manner requested. 3.04 Employer Responsibility: The Employer may, but is not required to, invest Deferred Compensation held pursuant to agreements between Participants and the Employer, in accordance with the requests made by each Participant at the time of enrollment or change in enrollment. The Employer retains the right to approve or disapprove requests for a specific investment preference. Any investment action by the Employer, or approving of any investment preference, shall not be considered to be an endorsement of guarantee of any investment preference, or shall it be considered to attest in the financial soundness or the suitability of any investment preference for the purpose of meeting future obligations as provided in Article 4 of this Plan. Further the Employer and the Deferred Compensation Advisory Committee shall not be held responsible for any investment results, either gains or losses, from any investment preference used to meet further obligations under the Plan. 3.05 Ownership of Deferred Amounts: The Employer shall establish and maintain a fund (hereinafter the "Investment Fund") to provide a convenient method of setting aside sufficient of its assets to meet its -8- future obligations under this Plan. The Employer shall at all times be the legal and beneficial owner of all assets in the Investment Fund and neither the existence of the Plan nor of the Investment Fund shall be deemed to create a trust or limit use by the Employer of the funds therein for general Employer purposes. The obligations of the Employer to make payments pursuant to this Plan is contractual only, ,and no Participant or Beneficiary shall have a preferred claim or lien on or to the assets of this Investment Fund but shall have only the right to receive the benefits payable under the Plan. Interests of Participant who changes employment may, under certain prescribed conditions, be transferred to the eligible deferred compensation plan of a ';new employer. ARTICLE IV Administration and Accounting 4.01 Administration by Advisory Committee: This Plan shall be administered by the Advisory Committee which shall prescribe such forms and adopt such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the purposes of the Plan. The Advisory Committee may employ investment counsel to provide advice concerning categories of investment, investment guidelines and investment policy, provided, however, that the advice or recommendations of any such investment counsel shall not be binding on the Advisory Committee which shall make the final determination concerning investment categories, investment guidelines and policies. • -9- 4 . 02 Enrollment Periods : (a) When the Plan is first made available , an Employee shall have sixty (60) days from the date participation in the Plan is offered to him to effect an election to participate . Such election shall be effective only for pay periods commencing in the month following the month in which an Employee makes the election to participate in the Plan . (b) Any person who becomes an Employee after this Plan is first made available shall have the option , within sixty (60) days after becoming an Employee , to effect an initial election to participate in the Plan . Such election shall only be effective for pay periods commencing in the month following the month in which an Employee makes the election to participate in the Plan . (c) Any Employee who does not file an initial election , pursuant to (a) or (b) above , shall have the right to elect par- _ ticipation during enrollment periods for the Plan which will be held during the months of March, June , September , and December . Such election will be for pay periods in the first month after the date on which his Participation Agreement is filed with the Employer . 10 • • 4 . 03 Participation Agreement : The Employer shallestablish a form of Participation Agreement and other enrollment forms which shall contain , among other provisions, the following: (a) A provision whereby the Participant specified the por- tion of his compensation which is to be deferred . (b) A provision whereby the Participant shall indicate his investment preference . (c) A provision whereby the Participant shall designate a Beneficiary or Beneficiaries , including one or more continguent Beneficiaries to receive any benefits which may be payable under . this Plan on death of the Participant . (d) An acknowledgment by the Participant that his salary, wage or other compensation is as set forth in any salary ordin- ance or otherwise , without deductions for amounts deferred under - the provisions of this Plan. (e) A provision whereby the Participant together with his heirs , successors and assigns hold harmless the Employer and De- ferred Compensation Advisory Committee from any liability here- under for all acts performed in good faith , including the acts relating to the investment of deferred amounts and/or the Em- ployee ' s investment preference hereunder . 11 4.04 Amendment of Participation Agreement: The Participant may revoke his election toartici ate and may change the amount of Compensation to P P Y be deferred, or his investment preference, by signing and filing with the Employer a written revocation or amendment, on a form approved by Plan Administrator. Any such revocation or amendment shall be effective with the first pay period of the subsequent month. The Participant may amend his statement of investment preference by filing with the Employer a signed amendment on a form approved by the Plan Administrator. If a Participant requests that amounts then held in a Participant'.s Account also be invested in accordance with an amended investment preference, the Employer may, if it deems it in the best interest of the Participant to do so, approve such change. Any such changes shall be governed by the provisions of Section 3.03 hereof. All contracts and other evidence of the investment of assets under this' Plan-shall be registered in the name of the Employer which shall be the sole owner-beneficiary thereof. 4.05 Participation Accounts: A separate account ("Participation Account") shall be maintained for each Participant. Each Participation Account shall reflect the monies deferred, the investment of the monies, and all consequences of the investment. For convenience, and to facilitate an orderly administration of the Plan, individual Participation Accounts for all Participants will be maintained by the Employer showing the Participants name with all applicable debit and credit balances. The Participants deferred account shall be credited each pay period with the amount deferred from the preceding pay period. -12- • I A written report of the status of the Participation Account shall be furnished to Participants at least quarterly. All interest, dividends, i charges for premiums, capital gains, or market changes applicable to each I Participation Account shall be credited or debited to the account as the occur. Credits to the Participant,.s Account shall be subject to the Participants then effective investment preference. All reports to the Participant shall be based on the net fair market value oftheassets as of the reporting date as if the deferred amount had been invested according to the investment preference. a 4.06 Administrative Costs: The Employer shall determine, in a manner deemed fair and equitable, the administrative costs associated with the withholding of Deferred Compensation amounts pursuant to this Plan or in making investments or otherwise administering or implementing the Plan. The Employer ma withhold or collect or have withheld or collected, such �P Y Y , costs, in such manner as he deems equitable either (1) from the compensation deferred pursuant to the Plan, the income produced from the i compensation deferred pursuant to the Plan, the income produced from any investment, whether or not augmented, or (2) from the organization receiving such investment where required by law to collect therefrom or, 3 I i -13- i not so required, where mutually satisfactory to such organization and the Administrator. The Administrator may remit or direct the remission of appropriate amounts so withheld or collected to the Employer. Quarterly statements of accounts distributed to Participants shall specify any such amounts deducted by the Employer, or by any organization contracting with the Employer in connection with this Plan, from Deferred Compensation of such Participants or income derived therfrom. 4.07 Employer Participation: Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Plan, the Employer may make deposits into the Plan as compensation for services rendered by a participating Employee during an employment period in which the compensation would be earned. Also, the Employer may make other additional deposits to the Plan as he may deem advisable subject, however, to the limitations on deferrals stated in Section 3.01 hereof. ARTICLE V Benefits 5.01 Benefits Generally: The Participant is entitled to have paid to him the benefits created by his participating in this Plan, in accordance with the provisions of this Article. The benefits payable to the Participant will be the equivalent of the total benefits that would have been created had the deferred amounts been invested in the Annuity -14- i as specified by the Participant from time to time taking into I consideration losses and gains where applicable and any deductions authorized in Section 4.06 above. Amounts paid to a Participant shall be reported on appropriate tax reporting forms to a Participant as wages subject to withholding for federal income taxes. In the event of death of a Participant prior to the commencement of benefits as called for under the Plan, the named Beneficiary of Participants Account shall have the right to designate that payments to such Beneficiary shall be in accordance with one of the available options provided under the Plan. Such selection must be made within thirty (30) days prior to the time any f payments commence. k (a) Retirement: Upon the Participants reaching the Normal ! Retirement Date or the Deferred Retirement Date, he may receive the benefits provided under this Plan. Such benefits shall be paid in accordance with the Payment Options 1 through 7 as selected by the Participant pursuant to Subsection (f) of this section. Any credits remaining in the deferred account of a Participant receiving benefits under this paragraph who dies, shall be paid in accordance with Subsection (c) of this section. (b) Termination of Employment: If the Participant incurs a Termination of Employment (other than for retirement) benefits shall be paid in accordance with Payment Options 1 through 7 as elected by the Participant pursuant to Subsection (f) of this section. However, a -15- ^.ter Participant may elect to have previously deferred amounts transferred to another Eligible State Deferred Compensation Plan provided that (1) the Employer sponsoring the other plan is located within the same state as the Employer maintaining this plan, (2) such other plan provides for accepting such amounts, and (3) the former Participant has become a participant in the other Eligible State Deferred Compenation Plan. A transfer of previously deferred amounts will automatically be made, at the time benefits would have commenced under Section 5.01(f) if no transfer were being made,. if a Patticipant incurs a Termination of Employment in order to accept employment with another employer maintaining an Eligible State Deferred Compensation Plan and the conditions of (1) , (2) and (3) above are met. (c) Death: Benefits otherwise payable under this Plan will be paid to the Participants Beneficiary as provided in Payment Options 1 through 7 below, whichever is applicable. Provided, however, that in the case of benefits payable to a Beneficiary, other than the spouse of the Participant, under Option (2) or (4) or 5.01(f) for a period which exceeds fifteen years, the entire amount payable shall be paid out over fifteen years. (1) Before benefits are paid for retirement, disability or termination of service. If the Paticipant dies while employed with the Employer and before the payment of retirement or Termination of Service benefits to -16- him under this Plan, the benefits otherwise payable under this Plan shall be paid to his designated Beneficiary pursuant to Payment Options 1 through 7 as selected by the Participant pursuant to Subsection (f) of this section. (2) After benefits are being paid for retirement or termination of service. r If the Participant dies while benefits are being paid to him under this Plan pursuant to.Payment Option 2, 4, or 6 and before such benefits have been exhausted, then the remaining benefits payable shall be paid to the Participants designated Beneficiary in accordance with Subsection (3) of this section. -(3) Designated Beneficiary. The Participant has the right to name and file with the Employer, a written Beneficiary or Change of Beneficiary form, designating the person or persons who shall receive the benefits payable under this Plan in the event of the Participant'.s death. , The form for - this purpose shall be provided by the Employer. Itis not binding on the Employer until it is signed, filed with the Employer by the Participant, and Accepted by the Employer. If the Participant dies without having a Beneficiary form on file, the payments shall be made to the properly appointed fiduciary of the Participant's probate estate. However, if a fiduciary has not been appointed and qualified within one hundred twenty (120) days after the -17- death, the payment may be made first, to a surviving spouse, second, to a surviving child or children, and third, to a surviving parent or parents. The Participant accepts and acknowledges that he has the burden for executing and filing, with the Employer, a proper Beneficiary designation form. (d) Commencement of payment: The payment of benefits to the Participant shall begin on the first day of the month next following forty-five (45) days after the occurrence of the event that gives rise to the beginning of the payment of benefits, except that payment of benefits to an independent contractor on account of Termination of Employment, for other than retirement, shall not commence until the first day of the month next following a twelve-month period after Termination of Employment and then only if the Participant has not performed services for the Employer as an Employee or Independent Contractor within such period. (e) Short term or lump-sum settlement: Notwithstanding anything - in this Article to the contrary, except Section 5.01(e) , if at any time the total amounts held under this Plan in the account maintained for the Participant or his Beneficiary, total to a credit of $5,000 or less and for any reason the Participant has incurred a termination of employment, the Employer is authorized to deviate from the restrictions imposed by the paragraphs in this Article and effect a lump-sum settlement. -18- (f) tions: The following options are available for selection by Participant. However, any option selected must be such that benefits payable to a Participant will exceed one-half of the maximum that could have been payable to the Participant if no provisions were made for payment to a Beneficiary. If, at the time of his election to participate in the Plan, the Participant fails to select a payment option for any event which causes payment of benefits to begin, he shall be deemed to have elected to have the benefits payable upon occurrence of such event as if he had elected payments for a specified period of ten (10) years as provided for in Option 2. (1) Payment options: As provided in Subsections (a) through (d) of this section, Participant may select: i tion 1. Lump-sum Payment. The total benefits payable in one cash payment. Option 2. Payments for a Specified Period. Amounts payable in equal installments over a period of a three (3) to thirty (30) years. tion 3. Life Annuity. An annuity payable during the lifetime of the Participant or his Beneficiary if this option is selected over subsection (d) of this section. -19- Option 4. Life Annuity with Period Certain Guaranteed. An annuity payable during the lifetime of the Participant, or his Beneficiary, if this option is selected under Subsection (d) of this section, with the guarantee that if at his death payments have not been made for the guaranteed period as elected, payments will continue to the Beneficiary. The guaranteed period to be elected mast be either ten (10) , fifteen (15) or twenty (20) years. Option 5. Joint and Survivor Annuity. An annuity payment during the lifetime of the Participant and a secondary payee named by the Participant. Option 6. Designated Amount. A method of account liquidation of a specific dollar amount monthly until account funds are exhausted. Option 7. Freeze. Notwithstanding any provisions of this article, a terminating Employee may elect to leave the funds, assets, and a accumulations in his Participation Account until such time as he would otherwise receive the benefits in accordance with his stated preference as provided in Article 4 of this Plan. (2) Method of Payment Options. If the Participant has elected a payment option requiring installment payments, the Participant may also elect to have such payment made either monthly, quarterly, semi-annually or annually -20- 0 0 5.02 Notwithstanding any other provision herein, for "financial hardship", a Participant may apply to the Advisory Committee to withdraw, in whole or in part, from the Plan prior to retirement or any other termination of his employment with the Employer." Benefits to be paid upon any withdrawal shall be limited strictly to that amount necessary to meet the emergency situation constituting financial hardship. Any remaining benefits shall be paid upon retirement, termination of employment, disability or death in accordance with Section 4.01, above. Withdrawal for "financial hardship" shall be limited to real emergencies beyond the control of the Participant which would cause him great hardship if early withdrawal were not permitted. "Financial hardship" shall include but not be limited to the following: personal bankruptcy; unexpected and unreimbursed major expenses resulting from illness or accident of the Participant or any dependent thereof; major property loss or any other type of unexpected and unreimbursed personal expense of a major nature that would not normally be budgetable. Foreseeable personal expenditures normally budgetable, such as a down payment for a home, the purchase of an automobile, college or other schooling expenses, etc., will not constitute a "financial hardship". The decision of the Advisory Committee concerning "financial hardship" shall be final as to all Participants. -21- ARTICLE VI Miscellaneous 6.01 Leave of Absence: If a Participant is on an approved leave of absence from the Employer with compensation, participation in this Plan will continue. If a Participant is on an approved leave of absence without compensation and such leave of absence continues for more than six (6) months, said Participants will be deemed to have terminated participation in the Plan as of the end of such six (6) month period. Such termination of participation will not cause distribution of benefits. Upon return from such leave of absence, the Participants full compensation on a non-deferred basis will be thereupon restored. Such employee may again become a Participant by meeting the requirements for eligibility as herein provided. 6.02 Retirement System Integration: Benefits payable by, and deductions for Employeecontributionsto, any retirement system of the Employer, including Social Security, shall be computed without reference to amounts deferred pursuant to this Deferred Corrpensation Plan and shall instead be based upon gross compensation the Participant would receive if he had not elected to participate in this Plan and to defer compensation. 6.03 Amendment: This Plan may be modified, amended or terminated in whole or in part (including retroactive amendments) by the Advisory -22- Committee at any time. No amendment or termination of the Plan shall reduce ori air the rights of an Participant or his Beneficiary which impair gh Y P have already accrued. Upon termination of the Plan, the Employer shall distribute all amounts credited to each Participation Account in accordance with the Participant's payment option selected pursuant to Section 5.01. All Participants shall be treated in the same manner. 6.04 Creditors: A Participant may not assign, transfer, sell, hypothecate, or otherwise dispose of any or all of his investment account or any right which he may have under the Plan, and any attempt to do so shall be void. i 6.05 Emplovment: Participation in the Plan shall not be construed as giving any Participant any right to continue his employment with the Employer. t a 6.06 Successors and Assigns: The Plan shall be binding upon and shall insure to benefit of the Employer, its successors and assigns, all -r participants and Beneficiaries and their heirs and legal representatives. 4 -23- • • e r E.^? Written Notice: Any notice or other communication required or permitted under the Plan shall be in writing, and if directed to the Employer shall be sent to the designated office of the Employer, and, if directed to Participant or to a Beneficiary, shall be sent to such Participant or Beneficiary at either his last known address as it appears on the Employers record or to his work site, at the Employer -s option. 6.08 Facility of Payment: If any Participant terminates his employment with an upaid debt owing to the Employer, and neglects or refuses to liquidate the debt by any other means when due and upon demand, the Employer shall be entitled to collect the amounts due from the deferred compensation owed to the Participant under the Plan. 6.09 Total Agreement: This Plan and the Participation Agreement, and any subsequently adopted amendment thereof, shall constitute the total agreement or contract between the Employer and the Participant regarding e Plan No oral statement regarding the Plan ma be relied upon by the the eg g Y Participant. 6.10 Gender: As used herein, the masculine shall include the neuter _ and the feminine where appropriate. -24- 6.11 Controlling Law: This Plan is created and shall be interpreted under the laws of the State of California as the same shall be at the time and dispute or issue is raised. IN WITNESS MiEREOF, The Employer has executed this Plan document this day of 19 By: Title: Attest: City Clerk -25- M E M O R A N D U M r T0: Murray / ' FROM: Larry McPherson SUBJECT: Federal Disaster Assistance 117 `!�✓ It is recommended Council designate the City Manager and the Public Works Director as the authorized contacts with the State of California and the Federal Emergency Management Agency in coordinating efforts to obtain Federal Disaster Relief Act funds to compensate for storm damage to public property during the series of storms starting January 21, 1983. The Disaster Relief Act (Public Law 288, 93rd Congress) requires a resolution appointing a representative or representatives from the • agency seeking relief funds. Since the recent storms have caused ex- tensive damage to public roads and the County has been declared a disaster area, Atascadero may apply for reimbursement for qualifying road repairs. The Federal funds pay up to 75% of qualifying expenses. The agency representative is responsible to meet with State _ and Federal representatives to survey storm damage and also to write and sign applications for Federal funds. LAWRENCE McPHERSON LM:vh 2-23-83 • RESOLUTION NO. 9-83 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING AN AGENT FOR • MATTERS PERTAINING TO FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE The Council of the City of Atascadero resolves as follows : 1 . That Murray L. Warden , City Manager or Lawrence McPherson , Public Works Director are hereby authorized to execute for and in behalf of the City of Atascadero, a public entity es- tablished under the laws of the State of California , this application and to file it in the appropriate State office for the purpose of obtaining certain Federal financial as- sistance under the Disaster Relief Act (Public Law 288 , 93rd Congress) or otherwise available from the President ' s Disas- ter Relief Fund . 2. That the City of Atascadero , a public entity established un- der the laws of the State of California , hereby authorizes its agent to provide to the State and to the Federal Emergen- cy Management Agency (FEMA) for all matters pertaining to such Federal disaster assistance the assurances and agree- ments as set forth in "Applicant ' s Assurances" attached here- to . On motion by Councilman and seconded by Councilman • , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its en- tirety on the following vote : AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ROLFE NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: BARBARA NORRIS, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO ORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: �Z/.e Y-0 ALLEN---G 1ME , City Attorney M Y L RDEN, City Manager The Applicant herebv assures and certifies that he will comply with the FEMA regulations,policies,guidelines,and requirements including OJIB's Circulars No. A-95 and A-102,and FMC 74.4,as they relate to the application,accept d use of Federal funds for this Federally- assisted project. Also, the Applicant ssurance and certifies with respect to and as a conditr the grant that: I. It possesses leeal authority to appI r the grant,and to finance 15. It will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act which limit and construct the proposed facilities;that a resolution,motion or the political activity of employees. similar action has been duly adopted or passed as an official act of the applicant's governing body, authorizing the filing of the 16. It will comply with the minimum wage and maximum hours ,r application,including all understandings and assurances contained provisions of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act,as they apply to. therein, and directing and authorizing the person identified as the hospital and educational institution employees of State and official representative of the applicant to act in connection with local governments. the application and to provide such additional information as may be required. 17. (To the best of his knowledge and belief)the disaster relief work described on each Federal Emergency Management Agency 2. It 'will comply with the provisions of: Executive Order 11988, (FEMA) Project Application for which Federal Financial as relating to Floodplain Management and Executive Order 11990, sistance is requested is eligible in accordance with the criteria relating to Protection of Wetlands. contained in 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 205, and 3. It will have sufficient funds available to meet the non-Federal applicable FEMA Handbooks. share of the cost for construction projects. Sufficient funds will 18. The emergency or disaster relief work therein described for be available when construction is completed to assure effective which Federal Assistance is requested hereunder does not or operation and maintenance of the facility for the purpose will not duplicate benefits received for the same loss from constructed. another source. 4. It will not enter into a construction contract(s)for the project or 19. It will (1) provide without cost to the United States all lands, undertake other activities until the conditions of the grant pro- easements and rights-of-way necessary for accomplishment of the gram(s)have been met. approved work; (2) hold and save the United States free from 5. It will provide and maintain competent and adequate architec[ur• damages due to the approved work or Federal funding. al engineering supervision and inspection at the construction site 20. This assurance is given in consideration of and for the purpose of to insure that the completed work conforms with the approved obtaining any and all Federal grants,loans, reimbursements, ad- plans and specifications;that it will furnish progress reports and vances, contracts, property,(discounts of other Federal financial such other information as the Federal grantor agency may assistance extended after the date hereof to the Applicant by FEMA, that such Federal Financial assistance will be extended in 6. It will operate and maintain the facility in accordance with the reliance on the representations and agreements made in this as- minimum standards as may be required or prescribed by the surance and that the United States shall have the right to seek applicable Federal, State and local agencies for the maintenance judicial enrorcement of this assurance. This assurance is binding and operation of such facilities. on the applicant,its successors,transferees,and assignees,and the 7. It will the the agency p person or persons whose signatures appear on the reverse as au- g grantor a enc and the Comptroller General, thorized to sign this assurance on behalf of the applicant. through any authorized representative, access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the grant. 21. It will comply with the flood insurance purchase requirements of Section 102(x) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 8. It will require the facility to he designed to comply with the Public Law 93-23.1, 87 Stat.,975, approved December 31, 1973. "American Standard Specifications for Making Buildings and Section 102(x)requires,on and after March e 1975,the purchase Facilities Accessible to, and Usable by the Physically Handi- available as a cflood lodetrancein communities where such insurance is capped," Number A117.1-1961, as modified (41 CFR 101-1 i• avonddition for the receipt of any Federal financial 7031). The applicant will be responsible for conducting in- assistance for construction or acquisition purposes for use in any A g area that has been identified lhy the Director, Federal Emergency t spections to insure compliance with these specifications by Management agency as an arra having special flood hazards.The 'a the contractor. phrase "Federal financial assistance" includes any form of loan, 9. It will cause work on the project to be commenced within a grant, guaranty, insurance payment, rebate, subsidy, disaster g assistance loan or grant, or any other form of direct or indirect reasonable time after receipt of notification from thea inFederal agency that funds have been approved and will see that Federal assistance. work on the project will be prosecuted gence. to completion with 22. It will comply with the insurance requirements of Section 314, reasonable diliPL 93-288, to obtain and maintain any other insurance as may be 10. It will not dispose of or encumber its title or other interests in eeassonable,adequate,and necessary to protect against further loss r the site and facilities during the e property which was replaced, restored, repaired, or Gon- g period is Federal interest or structed with this assistance, while the Government holds bonds, whichever is the longer. 23. It will defer funding of any projects involving flexible funding 11. It agrees to comply with Section 311, P.L. 93-288 and with until FEb1A makes a favorable environmental clearance, if this Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 83-352) and in is required. accordance with Title VI of the Act, no person in the United - States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be 24- It will assist the Federal grantor agency in its compliance with excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or as amended, (16 U.S.0 470), Executive Order 11593, and the activity for which the applicant receives Federal financial as- Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. sistance and will immediately take any measures necessary to 469a-1 et seq.) by (a) consulting with the State Historic Preser- effectuate this agreement. If any real property or structure is vation Officer on the conduct of investigations, as necessary, provided or improved with the aid of Federal financial assist• to identify properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the ance extended to the Applicant, this assurance shall obligate the National Register of Historic places that are subject to adverse Applicant, or in the case of an-v transfer of such property, any effects (see 36 CFR Part 800.8) by the activity, and notifving transferee, for the period during which the real property or the Federal grantor agency of the existence of any such structure is used for a purpose for which the Federal financial ties, and heod bpby by (b) complying with all requirements establishe assistance is extended or for another purpose involving the the Federal grantor agency to avoid or mitigate adverse effects provision of similar services or benefits. upon such properties. 12. It will establish safeguards to prohibit emplovees from using 'a. It will, for any repairs or construction financed herewith, comply thein positions for a purpose that is or gives the appearance of with applicable standards of safety, decency and sanitation and being motivated by a desire for private gain for themselves or in conformity with applicable codes, specifications and stan- others, particularly those with whom the% have family, business, dards; and, will evaluate the natural hazards in areas in which or other ties. the proceeds of the grant on loan are to be used and take ap- 13. It will comply with the requirements of Title II and Title [[I of propriate action to mitigatesuch hazards, including safe land use and construction practices. the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Propertv Acqui- sitions Act of 1970 (P.L. 91.646) which provides for fair and equitahle treatment of persons displaced as a result of Federal and Fec:erally-assisted programs. 14. It will comply with all requirements imposed by the Federal STATE ASSURANCES grantor agency concerning special requirements of lawrogram pP requirements, and other administrative requirements approved in The State agrees to take any necessary action within State capabilities accordance with OMB Circular A-102, P.L. 93-288 as amended, to require compliance with these'assurances and agreements by the and applicable Federal Regulations. applicant or to assume responsibility to the Federal ment fo any deficiencies not resolved to'4 the satisfaction of othen Regional Director. • P4 RESOLUTION NO. 10-83 • RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND GIVING NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE 1983 OVERLAY PROJECT (CONTRACT NO. 82-07) WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council did, on November 22, 1982 award a contract to Ventures West, 1048 Barstow Avenue, Clovis, CA, for the 1983 Overlay Project, (Contract 82-07) ; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has certified that said work has been completed in accordance with the provisions of the contract. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said work is accepted as completed on February 23, 1983, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a notice of completion in the office of the recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo. On motion by and seconded by Councilman the Atascadero, City Council hereby adopts the foregoing proposed resolution in its entirety on the following roll call votes AYES: NOES: • ABSENT: ADOPTED: ROLFE NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: BARBARA NORRIS, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: M RAY WARDEN, City Manager NOTICE OF CONTRACT ?S4&&UKX/Complet ion • Date February 23, 1983 TO: City Manager FROM: Public Works Department 1. Contract No. 82-07 dated 12-16-82 for South El Camino Real Overlay 2. Contractor Ventures West 1048 Barstow AVenue Clovis, CA 93612 ' 3. Work to commence by • Commenced work on Contract completed on Total days Contract days allowed extensions Total 4. Remarksacl 004 CWftj-v ice. 7'�4-2 �vc��✓►.s�w+ G' t�cof �o '7b �`�i'r✓Is Signe cc: Contractor Finance • lqs M E M O R A N D U M • TO: CITY MANAGER February 23 , 1983 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AT 79-263 LOCATION: 7345 Encinal Avenue (Lot 28, Block E) APPLICANT: Gordon Hilchey (Hilliard Surveys) REQUEST: To extend the time allowed to complete requirements for an approved tentative map. On February 22 , 1983, the Planning Commission reviewed the above referenced subject matter , and unanimously approved a time extension to December 21 , 1983 as outlined in the attached Staff Report . There • was no discussion as the matter was considered as a Consent Calendar item. No one appeared on the matter . LAWRENCE STEVENS R RAY WARDEN Planning Director oty M ager ps F1 F3 r- CITY OF ATASCADERO Iola a 1979 • Planning Department February 22, 1983 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AT 79-263 LOCATION: 7345 Encinal Avenue (Lot 28, Block E) APPLICANT: Gordon Hilchey (Hilliard Surveys ) REQUEST: To extend the time allowed to complete requirements for an approved tentative map. BACKGROUND 1. Existing Zoning: R-A 2. General Plan: Moderate Density Single Family 3. Site Conditions: The roughly three acre site is steeply sloping and is currently developed with a single family dwelling located • on proposed Parcel 1. The site is vegetated with scattered oak trees, natural brush and grasses and induced landscaping in the area of the existing residence. Access to the existing dwelling is via a private driveway off Valle Avenue. Sewer lines exist in the vicinity of the property in the following locations: a) In Sombrilla at its intersection with Sendero, a paper street. - b) In Valle Avenue approximately 600 feet northerly to the property. 4. Project Description: The applicant proposes to divide the subject property into two parcels : Parcel 1 which encompasses the exist- ing residence is proposed to be 1 . 99 acres and Parcel 2 is pro- posed to be 1.00 acre. Access to Parcel 2 is proposed to be off Encinal, an unimproved cul-de-sac. The applicant proposes to ex- tend sewer lines from either Valle Avenue or Sombrilla to Parcel 2 in order to obtain the one-acre lot size. 5. Prior Action: On December 22, 1980 the Planning Commission con- ducted a public hearing and approved Tentative Parcel Map AT 79- 263 subject to eight conditions. On December 20, 1981 an appli- cation for a time extension to allow completion of sewer require- ments was received. That application was approved on January 25, 1982. This request is for a second time extension for this Map • for the same reason. The letter requesting the second extension was received December 7, 1982. Re: Tentative Parcel Map AT 79-263 (Hilchey) STAFF COMMENTS This matter was discussed with Mr . Hilliard who indicated that addi- tional time was required due to the sewer line hookup. Staff indi- cated that this is the last time extension that could be permitted by State law. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department recommends approval of the time extension subject to the conditions set forth at the time the project was ori- ginally approved. Approval of this one year time extension shall ex- pire at 5:00 p.m. on December 21, 1983. ACTION The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff as deemed appropriate. REPORT PREPARED BY:C=i' � FRED BUS Associate Planner REPORT APPROVED BY: VC4� �� LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director Ps 2 -- _ co-74-65 - 59 ,i . 58 60 c 71 6 7d/.'t61 - 57 P-321 LNA b ♦ /" _ _ - / , y rAo 2 17 <v i C6 / oe AN s p\trJ. ' J i ,. r` � Qo � � v I •< X23 In M .� v`�. 1-4 - 4 P t x W l• o�� � > ¢� ` o c V No ° o N V Q eV v \h = e� m CC �O i¢ Oe 2 o W 4 �i V WC� h NO �• Q h p h o Z ,� = 2 v OV 4t C �Ca ��~� m °Q. �W CQ in W . � Cl) h m atoo � oh � �pa W3 e °�tiv '" y h`�Q � e� ppe °ev2z k oma �h 2 i v j ~ h 01. 2 ct Z W O V Z @ o Q v) Q Zt\Q�Q �/1 1\�Qvv� Z 11 ° Q , OIAI>nn 'vt N W W ♦, � A �. W ti7VN/2N3 xw no ti Q °e Q u o 14 O \ O � t V Q O }} O C a P 4 Y A � V U t Q Py 4 y-• /ivE �� � W R o c,E�DE�oCo) �=3,t V \ M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY COUNCIL February 23 , 1983 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF PARCEL MAP AT 79-263 LOCATION: 7345 Encinal Avenue (Lot 8, Block E) APPLICANT: Gordon Hilchey (Hilliard Surveys) On December 22 , 1980 the City Council approved Tentative ParcelMap AT 79-263 subdividing three acres into two parcels of 2 and 1 acres each , subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the rec- ommendation of the Planning Commission . On January 25 , 1982 , a time extension to December 20 , 1982 was approved. A second time extension is being processed concurrently with this final map . . The zoning is R-A and the General Plan designation is Moderate Density Single Family Residential . Staff review has determined that all con- ditions of approval have been met. On February 22 , 1983, the Planning Commission reviewed the matter on its Consent Calendar and recommended acceptance of the Final Map. IaV4� W1.1elf ZCV�44 LAWRENCE STEVENS M MAYA. WARDEN Planning Director C ' ty anager ps • i g0� v m w b° a e a Mn nc, W2AA QbV � y O�yt ��w SFA 3 A my hoW� VV y RNA � fl ' I lb a s 0` 1: y u p i �2�A y ;�� �► a S �sl6 W q 10 ec • �� a$ aT h 3. V N p O �Yr r�d -. F E r y — — -- se.yi N�;�• t 0 Z —0-4m o� j � 41 �i O AA ° i v V o f 04t 0� 4� C tj 0 y it 5Ur`p� tell • V $ u • Z �' P i' y ; � n !✓ � 1 Q.. n Nom. b 5 h � � M ° m ° m �� e�zt a • � v wyL V 'enZ h y o .a 0 a "d s,98 tyle °: v d�Q K V V � • A��6 .°/�� 2 0 � 1 J v i c O ! IV a ° q `v V' f1"\ g+ cab 4' 3� o C I r My T 55,�AS1 Y hsw v • Ob � Qat f >/ •, i M E M O R A N D U M • TO: CITY MANAGER February 23, 1983 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE - Chapter 3 (Zoning Districts) On February 22 , 1983, the Planning Commission continued its review of the Chapter and completed its review through page 3-40 (the Public Zone) . Discussion focused on the following issues: LSF Zone (i .e . "No animal" zone) was the subject of considerable discussion again and the Commission reversed its decision of February 7 requesting Staff to examine criteria for implementing this zone (SEE COMMENTS LATER IN THIS MEMO PER COUNCIL DIRECTION OF FEBRUARY 15) - CP Zone to be amended by allowing food and beverage retail sales ; general merchandise stores ; personal services; building materials and hardware ; and furniture , home furnishings and equipment as conditional uses when greater than 2500 square feet of use area - review IP and I Zones to make sure allowable uses are consistent with "clean , light industry" criteria in the General Plan which may result in some heavier uses being moved from allowable to conditional uses _ incorporate minimum lot size standards into LS Zone since single family residence is a primary allowable use There was also some discussion from the public on several uses in various zoning districts , but no changes were made. The Commission continued its hearing to March 7 to finish the remain- der of Chapter 3. At its last meeting the Council requested additional information on the LSF Zone . Concerns which should be considered in including a "no animal" zone are as follows: Is there sufficient desire on the part of the public to have a residential zone which prohibits animals? (At the February 22 Commission hearing , seven or eight people spoke in support of • such a zone pointing out that there has always been a "no ani- mal" zone (the R-1 Zone of the County Ordinance) and pointing out that many areas desire such a prohibition) . Draft Zoning Ordinat - Chapter 3 (Zoning Distr�i.cts) - Can private deed restrictions , voluntarily imposed on them- selves by residents of an area , be used in lieu of zoning regu- • lations to enforce an animal prohibition? (It has been sug- gested that this is a better way to implement "neighborhood choice" in this matter . This shifts the burden of enforcement to the neighbors rather than the City. The effectiveness of deed restrictions would depend on the willingness to take nec- essary civil actions to uphold the restrictions . ) - Is zoning for no animals by neighborhood choice appropriate? (Clearly, zoning is a legislative act which cannot be delegated to a majority of the residents of an area. A requirement that a majority of the residents most want the prohibition could place Council in a difficult position in hearing the matter especially when there is a nearly equal-sized group who might want animals) - Can reasonable criteria be established which would allow for selection of appropriate areas for such a zone? (Concern has been expressed that "neighborhood choice" can be arbitrary since the neighbors can change and , hence, the desire to have or not have animals could change . If this occurred , the zoning could also be changed solely based on a change in choice rather than on the characteristics of the land or public necessity on which zoning should be based . This "arbitrariness" is perceived as a major difficulty. It would not seem so arbitrary if certain small lot areas were so zoned as that could be a reasonable • criteria , but large lot areas present more of a problem.) - If there is a "no animal" zone , where should it be placed? (It has been suggested that existing R-1 areas be used as a starting point but this creates a quandary in that many of these areas have maintained animals in violation of zoning regulations in the past . Part of the reasoning behind the Chapter 6 perform- ance standards approach was to minimize these past problems for appropriately sized lots and to thereby treat everyone equally. If, on the other hand , neighborhood choice becomes the primary basis for determining the location of the zone , it would be ex- tremely difficult to determine as part of the City-wide rezoning where to place the zone. It has been pointed out that the "no animal" group has had that right in the past and that the burden of change should be on the "animal" group. ) - Can reasonable criteria to determine logical neighborhood boun- daries be established? (This is probably not too difficult as streets , topographical features , etc . could be used but prob- lems will likely result at the perimeters of such areas which similar land will be zoned differently solely based on the animal issue . ) This discussion serves to summarize the major issues that have been discussed on the LSF Zone . It seems apparent that further Staff work should focus on developing criteria to evaluate where the zone is to • be applied and on deciding where the LSF Zone should be imposed in the upcoming City-wide rezoning program. Unless it is Council ' s desire to 2 i M E M O R A N D U M I • j TO: CITY MANAGER February 23 , 1983 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP 821206: 1 APPLICANT: Initiated by Planning Commission REQUEST: To consider text amendments to the Open Space Element which would revise specific standards for creek setbacks . On January 1-7 , 1983 , the Planning Commission conducted a public hear- ing on the above-referenced subject matter and unanimously directed preparation of a Resolution approving the General Plan Amendment as outlined in the attached Staff Report. Attached Resolution 2-83 was adopted on February 22 , 1983• • Items of discussion among the Commission related to this request included: - how the proposed elimination of setbacks would affect the creeks - specific distances for creek setbacks - possible zoning techniques for establishing the setbacks No one appeared on the matter . LAWRENCE STEVENSU AY 'iJARDEN Planning Director C ty M ager ps pFR_n a i r s I CITY OF ATASCADERO r. 79Planning Department January 17, 1983 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP 821206:1 APPLICANT: Initiated by Planning Commission REQUEST: To consider text amendments to the Open Space Element which would revise specific standards for creek setbacks. BACKGROUND 1. Introduction and Reason for Study: During the preparation of a Staff Report on Tentative Parcel Map AT 820504:1 (Hann/Stewart) , conflicts between the possible siting of dwelling units on the proposed parcels and a specific setback standard from the Atasca- dero Creek stated in the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan were noted. The Policy Proposals in the General Plan specifically require a 50 foot setback for all structures from the bank of the Creek or River . The setback standard was • overlooked in two previously constructed projects. 2. General Plan: See attachments - pages 83 and 85 of the 1980 Atascadero General Plan - Atascadero Creek: Creek Policy Proposals and the Salinas River. 3. Environmental Determination: The Planning Director has issued a Negative Declaration indicating the project will not have a signi- ficant adverse environmental effect and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 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 General Plan is intended as a general guiding policy statement for the City. Technical development standards should be addressed in the zoning ordinance which is the instrument that sharply de- fines the physical requirements necessary to comply with General Plan policies. • General Plan Amendme#GP 821206: 1 • RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above Findings, the Planning Department recommends ap- proval of General Plan Amendment GP 821206:1 with the following changes: A) Page 83, Creek Policy Proposal #2 (as underlined in the attach- ment) - delete the second sentence and attach the following phrase to the first sentence: " . . .and ensure access to and recreational use of the creeks when developed. " B) Page 85, number 3 (as underlined in the attachment) - delete the phrase: .. . . . . . .of not less than 50 feet. " ACTION The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff as deemed appropriate. (NOTE: Adoption of a Resolution is required to amend the General Plan. ) REPORT PREPARED BY: FRED BUSS Associate Planner REPORT APPROVED BY.: LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director Ps 2 Areas of open space available for recreation that shall be preserved are listed below: The banks and bed of Atascadero Creek The inundation area of the Salinas River Atascadero Lake and its surrounding park The Sunken Gardens Chalk Mountain Regional Park The three Little League baseball fields The banks and bed of Graves Creek Pine mountain (in part) The Wranglerette Arena Areas of open space that shall be considered for acquisition by a public agency and/or preserved for recreation are listed below: Chandler Parkland Pine Mountain Amphitheater County-owned lots fronting on Lakeview adjacent to Atascadero Lake Both categories are shown in Table VI-4 . The Creek Reserves, actual and potential, are shown on Map VI-4 . Atascadero Creek bisects the Colony on a west to east line, running along the southern portion of the Central Business District and the administrative-civic center complex. Portions of the Creek Reserve already are in public owner- ship. Natural vegetation and scenic quality are abundant along both creeks. Creek Policy Proposals 1. Possible purchase of privately owned portions, or negotiation of easement rights , shall be considered in order to develop the whole area as recreational land. These actions can be financed through public subscrip- tion, general obligation bonds, revenue-sharing funds or operating surplus. 2. Building set-back requirements shall be established along the banks of both creeks to insure the uninter- upted natural flow of the streams . Access to and recreational use of the creeks shall be assured by establishina building setbacks of not less than 50 feet from the bank of the creek. 3. The bacteriological content of the water in both creeks shall be monitored at appropriate intervals, to insure against contamination by inflow of effluent from nearby septic tank leach-lines. This possibility may exist along Atascadero Creek from the Capistrano Avenue Bridge � - to the railroad overpass . 83 2. Recreational trails shall be encouraged, particularly along the western banks of the river. 3. Public access to and recreational use of the Salinas River bank adjacent to the light industry reserve shall be assured in the future by appropriate develop- ment regulation including the possible establishment of a substantial industrial building setback from the top of the bank of not less than 50 feet, where land- scape treatment could blend with the setting. It is shown on Map VI-2. Atascadero Lake The 25-acre Atascadero Lake and its surrounding 10-acre park not only provide a home for aquatic and bird life but also serve as the primary recreational area for the Colony and, indeed, for surrounding portions of the entire County. The park is so heavily used that additional areas will have to be acquired to keep pace with the patronage. A park developmen- plan approved by the Board of Supervisors foresees acquisition and construction of a greater variety and number of recreational facilities . A long-term Capital Outlay Program is necessary to properly allocate construction+ funds for these projects. During summer, the lake water becomes quite warm,, resulting in a tremendous bloom of microscopic plant life., Current chemical methods of controlling the groWth. 'are not compatible with the existence of fish. in the same water. No chemical action shall be taken to discourage the periodic plant life. The lake and park. shall remain in public ownership. Pine Mountain Amphitheater or Stadium Park served as a important cultural and recreational site for the original community of Atascadero. Pine Mountain i's characterized by dense growth- and steep slopes where recreational activities would logically be of a varied nature. It provides a grand central setting for a large community park, This twenty_ -six acre area shall be developed for its original purpose , It is detailed in Map VI-1. The City shall consider purchasing it if it appears necessary to assure such a development. Funding for such acquisition and development could be accom- plished through public subscription, general obligation bonds , revenue-sharing funds, operating surplus or purchase and. donation. The Sunken Gardens are another attractive reminder of the caliber and tone of E. G. Lewis ' vision of 60 vears aqo. The portion of the original Sunken Gardens east of the Veterans ' i4emori_al Buildinq, now part of the Junior Hiqh School campus, shall be considered for acquisition and t restoration (see SEDES Creek Plan, Appendix B) . Further 85 . RESOLUTION NO. 2-83 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP 821206:1 AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT CONCERNING SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR CREEK SETBACKS. WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the subject matter; and, WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65352 provides that a general plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and, WHEREAS, the project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary; and, WHEREAS, the General Plan is intended as a general guiding policy statement for the City. Technical development standards should be sharply addressed in the zoning ordinance which is the manual that sharply defines the physical requirements necessary to comply with General Plan policies . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero Planning Com- mission does hereby recommend approval of General Plan Amendment GP 821206 :1 amending the text of the General Plan Open Space Element to read as follows: 1. - Page 83, Creek Policy Proposal #2 - delete the second sen- tence and attach the following phrase to the first sentence : . .and ensure access to and recreational use of the creeks when developed. " - 2. Page 85, number 3 - delete the phrase : " . . . .of not less than 50 feet . " On motion by Commissioner Summers and seconded by Commis- sioner Sherer , the foregoing resolution is adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote : AYES: Commissioners Moore, Wentzel, Summers, Sherer, LaPrade, Lilley, and Carroll NOES: None Resolution No. 2-83 ABSENT: None DATE ADOPTED: ROBERT LILLEY, Chairman ATTEST: LAWRENCE STEVENS, Planning Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney 2 /L /57 3 M E 0 R A N D U M • TO: CITY MANAGER February 23 , 1983 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP 820930 : 1 - Colima-E1 Camino Real Residential Study Area LOCATION : Area bounded by El Camino Real , San Benito , Colima , and San Anselmo/3555 E1 Camino Real APPLICANT: Pentecostal Church of God (Cullen) Planning Commission REQUEST: To change the land use designation from Suburban Single Family Residential to Moderate Density Single Family Residential On December 20 , 1982 and January 3 , 1983 , the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on the subject matter and directed prepara- tion of a Resolution denying the General Plan Amendment on a 5-2 vote (Commissioners Sherer and Laprade dissenting) . Attached Resolution 1-83 was adopted on February 22 , 1983 • Staff reports (dated December 20 and January 3) are also attached. At the December 20 hearing, the Commission directed Staff to prepare findings and text amendments to the General Plan which would allow approval of the request but , upon reviewing this alternative on January 3 , the Commission concurred with the Staff recommendation. The Commission discussed the following matters related to this request - the underlying purpose of the Urban Services Line (USL) - impacts on future sewer service to the area if the USL was changed - existing lot sizes in the area - City-wide effects of proposed text changes Robert Smith and Clayton Cullen , applicant ' s representatives , appeared and requested approval of the land .use change so that they could cre- ate one acre lots on the rear of the property. They pointed out that the property was different since it was in the Improvement District and that the Moderate Density designation would be consistent with • existing lot sizes. General P1Amendment• Ge n a GP .820930 : 1 The following persons also appeared and commented on the matter : • - Bill Graham (adjacent property owner) favored the higher density Victor Parker (adjacent property owner) inquiring about sewer district effects of the land use change - Robert Anderson ( adjacent property owner) inquiring about what the change would do to his property - Harry Russell (nearby resident) opposing increased density in the area - Joe Wolders (area resident) opposing the project due to its topography and increased traffic - Linda Mole (area resident) opposing the project due to increased density and traffic - Cathy Robinson (area resident) opposing the land use change 1MW,0,X A441) LAWRENCE STEVENS M RAY . WARDEN • Planning Director ty M ager ps • 2 CITY OF ATASCADERO iris l " iaza Planning Department January 3, 1983 CADS // STAFF REPORT Revised SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP 820930: 1 - Colima-E1 Camino Real Residential Study Area LOCATION: 3555 El Camino Real (Lot 102, Block 19) APPLICANT: Pentecostal Church of God (Cullen)/Planning Commission REQUEST: To change the General Plan land use designation from Sub- urban Single Family Residential to Moderate Density Single Family Residential (outside the Urban Services Line) . PRIOR ACTION On December 20 , 1982 the Planning Commission conducted a public hear- ing on the general plan amendment and directed Staff to prepare al- ternatives which allow approval of the request. Those alternatives were to include possible text changes. BACKGROUND 1,. Existing Zoning: A-1, C-1, R-1-B-2-D, R-1-B-3-D 2.. General Plan: Suburban Single Family Residential and Retail Commercial I. Environmental Determination: An initial study environmental de- scription form has been completed. The Planning Director has pre- pared a Negative Declaration indicating no significant adverse environmental effects will result from the approval of the project. 4. Study Area Conditions: A review of the existing land use pattern shows that a majority of the land within the study area is pre- sently made up of residential lots generally from one to one and one half acres in size. Several large lots do exist in the area with some undeveloped at present. The area is outside the Urban Services Line and is not part of the Sewer Improvement District or the Sewer District itself, with the exception of Lot 102 that was annexed to the Improvement District in 1977. Soils in the area are rated as soils with slight to moderate septic limitations. The topography of the area is generally sloping up and away from E1 Camino Real. GENERAL PLAN AMENDM* GP 820930:1 (Pentecostalehurch of God) 5. Project Description: The applicant is requesting a change in the General Plan Land Use Map from Suburban Single Family Residential to Moderate Density Residential for a five acre parcel at 3555 E1 Camino. Real. This would reduce the minimum lot size from 2 1/2 acres and up to 1 1/2 acres without sewers and one acre with sewer . 6. Prior Action: On October 18, 1982, Staff presented General Plan Amendment GP 820930 :1 as a part of the General Plan amendment Cycle 1 (1983) . Staff proposed and the Commission agreed that the application could and should be expanded to cover a larger area, bounded by El Camino Real, San Benito, San Anselmo and Colima. STAFF COMMENTS During General Plan Amendment Cycle 2 (1982) , the Planning Commission and City Council considered General Plan amendment GP 820330 :1 (Dunn/ Smith) . The application covered the same specific site that is now proposed for revision (lot 102, Block 19) . Mr . Dunn was requesting a ' revision from Single Family Residential to High Density Multiple Fam- ily Residential to allow for the establishment of a senior citizens housing project. After receiving considerable public input, the pro- posed revision was denied. During the public hearings Staff noted that it could not support a revision to allow multiple family but could possibly a general plan revision to a higher density single fam- ily residential designation based on the existing land use patters (lot sizes) in the area and the fact that the specific site was within the sewer improvement district. But further study and consideration would be needed before Staff could make a definite recommendation. Land Use Policy Proposal No. 3 (page 57) states that "properties out- side the Urban Services Line shall be evaluated for lot sizes based on the Suburban Residential range (2 1/2 to 10 acres) until sewers are available. The primary consideration in establishing the Urban Ser- - vices Area was the Sanitary Improvement District (page 54) . The Sub- urban Services Area is characterized as being provided with similar services to the Urban Services Area with the exception of sewer and drainage. The General Plan goes on to note that "in the Suburban Ser- vices Area, lot sizes should be 2 1/2 acres or greater , generally graded toward larger lots further from the Central Business District. It seems essential to modify the text if this application is to be favorably considered. If the general plan designation is changed as requested and no text revisions are made, the effect will likely be much confusion concerning the appropriate lot size. The designation could be changed and the Urban Services Line redrawn to include this area. This would solve the text problem and would allow for the crea- tion of 11 new lots in the area, and if sewer is made available, a total of 23 new lots could be eventually developed. Ultimately, the City could possibly be making a commitment to serving these lots with sewer , and at present, the City cannot make any commitment on expand- ing sewers to such areas due to constraints with capacity and with other commitments (to serve areas with septic system failures) . 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMEOGP 820930:1 (Pentecostal 46rch of God) Another option would be to eliminate or modify the text requirements for lot size criteria outside the Urban Services Line. The following text modification alternatives could be considered: 1) Elimination or modification of the Urban Services Line and all related policies. 2) Expanding the Urban Services Line and changing the land use des- ignation for only the applicant' s property. 3) Revising the existing General Plan text to eliminate the text references to minimum lot sizes outside the Urban Services area. The major concern that confronted the Planning Commission was the desire to make the General Plan conform to the existing pattern of lot sizes in the area. It was noted that if the Urban Services Line was extended, the City could be committing itself to providing sewer ser- vices to the entire area. This possible commitment is based on def- initions of Urban Services Area and Suburban Services Area in the General Plan (pages 54 and 57) . A possible solution would be to eliminate the Urban Services Line. This could be a way to simplify the General Plan and remove some inac- curate conceptions of the relationship between the Sanitation Improve- ment District, the Sewer District and the Urban Services Line. Ac- • cording to the General Plan, the Urban Services Area is to approximate the present Sanitation Improvement District, but in reality, the two areas do not approximate each other . It is apparent that some modifi- cation is needed but the time requirements to satisfactorily complete such a project would delay the applicant' s request. Further informa- tion might be needed on the sewer capacity. A simple elimination could also be a major undertaking and would require not only modifica- tion to the General Plan but also the Draft Zoning Ordinance. The expansion of the Urban Services Line and a change to Moderate Density Single Family for only the applicant' s property could be ac- complished with little difficulty. The problem is one of making a General Plan site specific and encouraging spot zoning. The General Plan is to be general and that the City' s ordinances are to be the specific implementation tool. This approach gives the applicant' s property special treatment on possible lot size which is not available to other property in the area which possesses similar characteristics to that of the applicant' s. The availability of sewer services should not be sufficient in itself to warrant this special treatment. The third alternative is that of revising the existing text to allow for designation other than Suburban Single Family (minimum 2 1/2 to 10 acres lot size) and allow for the smaller than 2 1/2 acre lots out- side the Urban Services Area. These modifications would allow for not only any future request to bring the General Plan into conformance with land use patterns but for any General Plan revision outside the Urban Services Area for smaller lot sizes. This approach could also affect population capacities now provided for in the General Plan. 3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMO GP 820930: 1 (Pentecosta.0hurch of God) STAFF FINDINGS 1. Approval of this General Plan Amendment, even though it reflects the existing pattern of lot sizes, would not be consistent with policies set forth in the 1980 Atascadero General Plan. 2. It is premature to make any commitment to provide urban services, such as sewer , to this area by modifying the Urban Services Line. 3. Modification of policies concerning minimum lot sizes in the Sub- urban area is inappropriate without additional study of the poten- tial effects on a City-wide basis. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above Findings, the Planning Department recommends de- nial of General Plan Amendment GP 820930: 1. FINDINGS (FOR APPROVAL) 1. A change in General Plan policies to allow use of land use desig- nations other than Suburban Single Family Residential outside the Urban Services Line is appropriate where a significant number of existing lot sizes are below the Suburban range. 2. The Colima-E1 Camino Real Study Area contains a significant number of existing lots which are below the Suburban range. 3. A change in land use designation to Moderate Density Single Family Residential reflects the existing pattern of lot sizes and should not significantly alter population capacity projections in the General Plan due to the small number of lots which are affected. - 4. Changes in the General Plan policies allow for other areas with similar characteristics to seek changes in land use designation based on existing lot sizes. RECOMMENDATION (FOR APPROVAL) If the Planning Commission approves General Plan Amendment GP820930:1, the following is recommended: 1. Issuance of a Negative Declaration. 2. A change in land use designation from Suburban Single Family Res- idential to Moderate Density Single Family Residential for the area bounded by San Anselmo, E1 Camino Real, San Benito and Colima including the Retail Commercial corner at San Anselmo and E1 Camino Real. 4 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMEIDGP 820930 : 1 (Pentecostal lourch of God) 3. A change to the General Plan text on pages 54 , 57, and 59 as shown on the attachment. ACTION Direct Staff to prepare a Resolution to approve or deny the General Plan Amendment. REPORT PREPARED BY: JOEY MOSES Associate Plan er REPORT APPROVED BY- la"tt"I- LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director Ps 5 a. The Area Inside the Urban Reserve Line The purpose of the Urban Reserve Line is to indicate the ultimate boundary for the expansion of urban and suburban uses. It normally relates closely to the provision of future public services and facilities and is dictated largely by topographic considerations, existing land use Patterns and community attitudes. In this Plan the Urban Reserve Line generally coincides with the Atascadero Colony boundary, except for two Agricultural Preserves and a portion of a third (The Eagle Ranch Agriculture Preserve has a total of 5, 975 acres , of which 2, 786 acres are within the Colonv boundaries) that are located on the periphery of the Colonv and except for areas south of Santa Barbara Road and west of the summit of Frog Pond Mountain. These three preserves total 3,907 acres (see Maps V-1 and V-2) . Continued agricultural use of these properties is encouraged. If the properties are removed from preserve status and desired for urban or suburban uses, it will be necessary to expand the Urban Reserve Line and amend the General Plan. A studv will bE made to determine the appropriate land use classification for each. The net area of 20, 253 acres enclosed by this Line is approximately 44 . 7% or 6 , 253 acres greater than the area within the Urban Reserve Line of the 1968 Plan. The justification for this enlarged area goes back to the original concept for the Colony, i:e. , the Colony was subdivided in 1914 as a single development, with water to be made available to every lot by a mutually owned water company, and platted roads fitted to the contours of the rolling terrain. The Urban Reserve Line is indicated on Map V-1. The Urban Reserve Area is further divided into two sub-areas, the Urban Services area and the Suburban Services Area. They are described below. b. The Urban Services Area t ' may The Urban Services Line defines the area that ioSn-be furnished with major public and quasi-public services. The Urban Services Area--3 , 714 subdivided acres--comprises 15. 4 per cent of the Urban Reserve Area. This acreage will be served by some or all of the essential urban services, including: Ambulance Sewers Cultural Facilities Solid Waste Disposal Drainage Street Lighting Fire Protection Street Sweeping Improvement Districts Street Trees Library Streets Parks Utilities Police Water The Urban-SerPiee-s--Area in this Plan appr-e)flma-tis the - present Sanitary 1%preveraent -hesanitary-1%preveraent 91s-tried The Urban Services Area is indicated on Map V-1 . 54 . 0 c. The Suburban Services Area The Suburban Services Area consists of the remainder of the City and the portion of the Eaglet, Tract within the City boundaries. There are 16 ,539 acres of subdivided land in this category, excluding the three peripheral Agriculture Preserves. Services to be provided are similar to the Urban Services Area, except for the exclusion of sewers and drainage. The major water distribution system proposed in the 1968 General Plan is adequate to serve the proposed Suburban Services Area. The optimum population of 33, 388 People was established by the Atascadero Advisory Committee for the Urban Reserve Area. It was developed by using the following procedure: Members of the Atascadero Advisory Committee inventoried the Urban Reserve Area and determined that there are 6 , 424 lots zoned for some sort of residential occupancy. Of these 3, 692 were vacant on October 1, 1975, at the time of the Special Census by the Advisory Committee. * The lots vary in size from one-fourth acre or less to 300 acres. The distri- bution by lot size in each zoning category--R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-A, A and T--was determined from the Zoning M-ap. This General Plan stipulates that in the Urban Services Area no land division creating parcels of less than one-half acre should be allowed except for unusual and compelling reasons. This one-half acre minimum lot size will be permitted in High Density Single Family Residential Areas only. In the Suburban Services Area lot sizes should be 22 acres or greater, generally graded toward larger lots further from the Central Business District' p .vidrJ �iat s—di— /at S.3tesmc bz a��owed r�Sey 1�i� �/7orn of lot s:3cs ;4 ns/`" '1 dc.rr:rf> sm4f/�o,• fats, The negative correction allows for the fact that much of the acreage to the west lies in a region of slope greater than 30 per cent, shown in Map II-1, and in a region of landslides, shown in Map II-2. LAND USE POLICY PROPOSALS 1. The entire Atascadero Colony and the Eaglet Tract, less three Peripheral agriculture preserves shall constitute the Urban Reserve Area of 20 , 253 acres. Urban and sub- urban development shall be recognized within this area according to appropriate use and density standards. 2. The type and extent of services provided within the Urban Reserve Area shall depend on whether land is in the Urban or the Suburban Services Area. 3. ate4 fer let sizes based en the Suburban Residential J 2;i to 10 ates` until sewers are asap}1�le. /�ralpp9�Ti e5 o"/s; e. ['rAe U-4"' fSeir:ces ��.'->e t�/v// 6e evi+�v/a tce( &v rre/ o/7 A� /Gn�\\uJe �CSLiyna/i'on J'N/ �e/ Si2G, /De Su01✓r6aq �R/eripen�a.� /'qn�8 1.2, �D RCn SJ S�o�f 6✓G La p�! tA`� 7� Qf/1 57 di rLfGJ..ltOIJ LT ! 1'�0.� �C r'Yis rJ i�-inYr CXcepL cAc,* ;t has Oetn �eJermrined A— exx:s{n�r leG X"7C'5 CO/JSide,'ranon of Somo o or l9ncs 04-C J'." naJior�. J In much of Atascadero Colony, the original subdivision created lots which are excessively long and narrow, as much as five times longer than wide. Many of these lots are rather small and located in areas destined for urban development. These lots are particularly difficult to maintain in their present form, and taking them down to more usable sizes is sometimes even more difficult. Special studies related to these areas must explore the most practical approach to their highest use, including the need for more stringent standards for re- . view of lot splits . Single-Family Residential The existing and future distribution of single-family residen- tial uses can be partly interpreted from Table V-1. This table indicates that the largest number of developed single- family lots occurs in Octant NE-1 . This octant also has 424 vacant lots, most of which occur in residential categories . Growth potential, however, is greater in Octants NW-0 and SE-0 . Octant NW-0 has 1, 353 vacant lots principally in low- density residential categories. Four classifications of single-family residential density are proposed in this Plan. The principal uses found in each clas- sification are proposed as follows : Land uses shall be limited to single-family dwellings, acces- ' sory buildings and uses , home occupations , public parks and playgrounds, schools, libraries and board and care facilities . Minimum lot size for the creation of new lots shall be one- half acre. This is greater than the one-quarter to one-half acre recommended in the 1968 General Plan.. High Density Minimum lot size for the creation of new lots shall be one-half acre. Moderate Density Minimum lot size for the creation of new lots withi=n the -arm Serviees Areft shall be one acre if served by sewers and 1, acres if not served by sewers . Low Density ser"C ;f,,,E seed by zrwo/S Minimum lot sizes fs� all range from 1%2 to 22 acres while the minimum lot seutsid-e— eb, ==; ^^c T shall be 2 z acres . Deter- mination of appropriate lot sizes should be based on such factors as slope of access road to the building site ; availability of services; distance from the center of the community; general character of neighboring lands; percolation and the area needed for access roads to the building site. 59 . _ -- -- $ I 4 \ P� 2!212019 18.17,16 55� 14 13 12^ �� jZA/L�20t3o Y q3 3 ' t al az 2 �GIF�G �24�2y26',2 ' i 2{ i 25l �'!��� 44 h- /C WAY ----� 1 v�R�i PF a /�7 45 46 22 3 I_ l: 20 4 2 ` C ►u 1, 42 143 +44 ; 47 JI c3__ 19 5 / 1 a I1 47 ' 7 l0 1 2 6 48 L4 1 6 8 5 a ^�- --; 4a Q 25_ 4/ 9 T 6 112 13 fi 1 9K18 716'5 413 t 11 5t 171.-41 5 L tST DY � '`�C i O 9 8 4r j 1� 51 �N OF ISLUGK 19 U=' (1/ 178 175 la 37 a 177172 I80- 6 7 17 1 6 ,\ ;; 2, 2 3 2y ` ro 1�98�' 4 vj � p. . 19 f? n 2 24 X3`3. \ \ �3 e5 ` ` : t9a 2 170 3 0 _ 2 ,8,\4 \ \ 3�.- ti 22 r `60 2 7 zz 1 �� /I 147 ; \ IS t67 6 � , 4` \y .t 21 ` la tab / ( 4 11 5 21 -7` � •/J 139 t 32' '� 31. B `� '\ G, / 8 "/ / L .9 89 /38 231 76 175 '4111 3 72 f / 8 8 IS IJII!) 131 / � + � It 12 90 i 234 233' 7 4l� 15 ?39 2 241 ( i tt ,IQ 91 '92,93;94.- 43 1 ! 1 / 9 6' `� `-24 242 98 X99 00 I itt2 5 44K e _ I _ l01 tlo2 t031o41G; � 7 l I I itl 8 6'S A 5 I I 1 106, r10 6 4 4h4 f / C AAl1 10� 3 9T 1 61 1� -1 \` ,✓� 8 ;6 �5 FO`s Al t1 10 i� 63 65 6T X21 �. p/ 4 T a t Q 6 5 4 3 2 -z� .9 $ 1 :6 5/4 a!6 c� ' .� 2 l✓ 22 ��'\ 3 20 O j -I" �M �' L. 14 117 A S TA TE t �3 32 31 'P4 17 B 19 123 24 �1 25- 35 �q ,� M 20 7 2 1 '�� � 0 34 � 21 23 28 24 24 1 12 3 A ' zo 37 r8 3� 40 k� 15 16 17 17c 17 ( 1 13 d17e ►g, 41 \ d '� c i8 4 / 18 19 I9 19;19j 9 tI 8 7 6 ' ° b �,- LOCATt� 5 N MAP 4 ! ' I8° ' - 3 7 �P820930 6 t t 2 i l8b t8c COLIM / 12 ' �'�� , MON ql EL G4M1u6 ZEAL 1 l 5 'iZEsIDENr'►f4C. s LADY AM ;y A 13 tNAs � f A-I Q_ 3-g-2 t L R-i-r,3-3-� e STUD`/ AlEEA A ib. ¢ 3 a d 3 0 ZvNINGr A-I C-I,R• I•B•2•D12-1-5 R t •�3.3. 17 4 � ��'� ' i u-i s A Z C- 2-D, R-9-8-2 -p 0 c o A R.-A-r3-D�i-p G-Ft 'ZoNINIG MAP COL I MA/U CAM I N 0 94 L ` REsI��TI4L !MDY AZEA t J WON _ v`� ►\rel/ .,,7 /�• Y �� 1 � i� �i 1 iii` L ��iPI,AO•I■1 Durr u . .■■: _ ../tiff.%/�i IN .t mA 4' I �i t A 4 � A A A m � \ ► � A ♦ 8 A ® ���� Vis_ �A � 1 s s • s ��._� � _ /_ly _,U ,.�/., U U 'y�'"•� ,x y��,as �"'�^�-���kyi,•.',' - , 's .:�� ,i^t,z . .wx � .-,.... n^ ie*•M., ;•O \., O f, F p , +1 <_ +f-tom. { D N A yy 2,<IZ T"FS YD NEin ` 4 soo a m O J/O •- of 776« ';Nl0.O �*G. '? CaF.:-w•'^e4 � ;N`7�,�� � �,� g�'1�,�Sd" . ,q• " `,�, "� a •g ROAD _ ; " 4t.`��fc4" '` '$1�c:' '�z ,i•. � •.inP Pte. O a � ro _x\' ..` -D /���_�„ k�w,dvY 9 a'� a+t''ut�`'� ,� to � w �.� •- N �'9 `' �,pf A - sK 3�+-- .•d- .A-. f 'm'�-=h�`.rW '"T S Zp e m t o I 4. � O N �. �/ C��Z?�& w' a•r g 4r >�<i <..-.- � � W i ' - p M P •5 w -! f - 4 C a .s ro-`'�; �O � x r m - '4,. a ..-ex �::�r m n +_ _ ,Yfe�< ..( b GV1 ♦•,� o._v „,Q ��. t � /oe csl se a c N ♦ o S�� ��`A t '- � _ A,r �� @4�1, "&�"� xv 21 n " Ac s. s - � p M Pc3 �r .\1 V - h` - u r✓•.sf o m� , ar.v � •.D � _O �m g' sA- x t„gym., a�����"'�firt ; k ` Y_y. N fid. y 4 _ p ." i - -'. ..--+.:.+'a. :.. .,.�e._,...�a•sw..+vw-swa•s•r�'3er�+.M�*.�'1+."'/.-4..wMhYYr.<a iw-"'Y.+M'^ Kh43tfM•�3'2 WF-1'nln a Qtr ° isCITY OF ATASCADERO 79 � ►SCAD�Ey�/ Planning Department December 20, 1982 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP 820930: 1 - Colima-E1 Camino Real Residential Study Area LOCATION: 3555 E1 Camino Real (Lot 102, Block 19) APPLICANT: Pentecostal Church of God (Cullen)/Planning Commission REQUEST: To change the General Plan land use designation from Sub- urban Single Family Residential to Moderate Density Single Family Residential (outside the Urban Services Line) . BACKGROUND 1. Existing Zoning: A-1, C-1, R-1-B-2-D, R-1-B-3-D 2. General Plan: Suburban Single Family Residential and Retail Commercial 3. Environmental Determination: An initial study environmental de- scription form has been completed. The Planning Director has pre- pared a Negative Declaration indicating no significant adverse environmental effects will result from the approval of the project. 4. Study Area Conditions: A review of the existing land use pattern shows that a majority of the land within the study area is pre- sently made up of residential lots generally from one to one and one half acres in size. Several large lots do exist in the area with some undeveloped at present. The area is outside the Urban Services Line and is not part of the Sewer Improvement District or the Sewer District itself, with the exception of Lot 102 that was annexed to the Improvement District in 1977. Soils in the area are rated as soils with slight to moderate septic limitations. The topography of the area is generally sloping up and away from El Camino Real. 5. Project Description: The applicant is requesting a change in the General Plan Land Use Map from Suburban Single 'Family Residential to Moderate Density Residential for a five acre parcel at 3555 El Camino Real. This would reduce the minimum lot size from 2 1/2 acres and up to 1 1/2 acres without sewers and one acre with sewer . Ails GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP 820930 : 1 (Pentecostal Church of God) 6. Prior Action: On October 18, 1982, Staff presented General Plan Amendment GP 820930: 1 as a part of the General Plan amendment Cycle 1 (1983) . Staff proposed and the Commission agreed that the application could and should be expanded to cover a larger area, bounded by El Camino Real, San Benito, San Anselmo and Colima. STAFF COMMENTS During General Plan Amendment Cycle 2 (1982) , the Planning Commission and City Council considered General Plan amendment GP 820330:1 (Dunn/ Smith) . The application covered the same specific site that is now proposed for revision (lot 102, Block 19) . Mr . Dunn was requesting a revision from Single Family Residential to High Density Multiple Fam- ily Residential to allow for the establishment of a senior citizens housing project. After receiving considerable public input, the pro- posed revision was denied. During the public hearings Staff noted that it could not support a revision to allow multiple family but could possibly a general plan revision to a higher density single fam- ily residential designation based on the existing land use patterns (lot sizes) in the area and the fact that the specific site was within the sewer improvement district. But further study and consideration would be needed before Staff could make' a definite recommendation. Land Use Policy Proposal No. 3 (page 57) states that "properties out- side the Urban Services Line shall be evaluated for lot sizes based on the Suburban Residential range (2 1/2 to 10 acres) until sewers are available. The primary consideration in establishing the Urban Ser- vices Area was the Sanitary Improvement District (page 54) . The Sub- urban Services Area is characterized as being provided with similar services to the Urban Services Area with the exception of sewer and drainage. The General Plan goes on to note that "in the Suburban Ser- vices Area, lot sizes should be 2 1/2 acres or greater , generally graded toward larger lots further from the Central Business District. It seems essential to modify the text if this application is to be favorably considered. If the general plan designation is changed as requested and no text revisions are made, the effect will likely be much confusion concerning the appropriate lot size. The designation could be changed and the Urban Services Line redrawn to include this area. This would solve the text problem and would allow for the crea- tion of 11 new lots in the area, and if sewer is made available, a total of 23 new lots could be eventually developed. Ultimately, the City could possibly be making a commitment to serving these lots with sewer , and at present, the City cannot make any commitment on expand- ing sewers to such areas due to constraints with capacity and with other commitments (to serve areas with septic system failures) . Another option would be to eliminate or modify the text requirements for lot size criteria outside the Urban Services Line. 2 16, 11 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP 820930 :1 (Pentecostal Church of God) FINDINGS 1. Approval of this General Plan Amendment, even though it reflects the existing pattern of lot sizes, would not be consistent with policies set forth in the 1980 Atascadero General Plan. 2. It is premature to make any commitment to provide urban services, such as sewer , to this area by modifying the Urban Services Line. 3. Modification of policies concerning minimum lot sizes in the Sub- urban area is inappropriate without additional study of the poten- tial effects on a City-wide basis. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above Findings, the Planning Department recommends de- nial of General Plan Amendment GP 820930:1. ACTION The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff to prepare a Resolution to approve or deny the General Plan Amendment. REPORT APPROVED BY: LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director ps 3 RESOLUTION NO. 1-83 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP AT 820930:1 CONCERNING A REQUESTED CHANGE IN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM SUBURBAN SINGLE FAMILY RESI- DENTIAL TO MODERATE DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDEN- TIAL WITHIN THE COLIMA-EL CAMINO REAL RESIDENTIAL STUDY AREA WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the application filed by the Pentecostal Church of God, including consideration of the expanded Colima-E1 Camino Real Study Area; and WHEREAS, the requested amendment is not consistent with Land Use and Residential Policy Proposals identified in the 1980 Atascadero General Plan; and, WHEREAS, it is premature to make any commitment to provide urban services, such as sewer, to the surrounding area by modifying the Urban Services Line ; and, WHEREAS, modification of policies concerning minimum lot sizes in the Suburban Services area is inappropriate without additional study of the potential effects on a City-wide basis . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero Planning Com- mission does hereby recommend denial of General Plan Amendment GP 820930:1 concerning a requested change in land use designation from Suburban Single Family Residential to Moderate Density Single Family Residential within the Colima-El Camino Real Residential Study Area. - On motion by Commissioner Suruners and .seconded by Commis- sioner Sherer , the foregoing resolution is adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote : AYES: Commissioners Moore, Lilley, Summers, Wentzel, Carroll NOES: Commissioners Sherer, LaPrade ABSENT: None DATE ADOPTED: Resolution No. 1-83 ROBERT LILLEY, Chairman ATTEST: LAWRENCE STEVENS, Planning Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney 2 w" ADMINISTRATION BUILDING N POST OFFICE BOX 747 • -/ ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93423 PHONE: (805) 466-8000 - CITY COUNCIL - - CITY CLERK CITY TREASURER adei Cs CITY MANAGERINCORPORATED JULY 2, 1979 FINANCE • DEPARTMENT PERSONNELDEPARTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT - - --_- __-- PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT RECREATION DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93422 ..�.» PHONE: (805) 466-2141 REPORT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY For the Council Meeting of February 28, 1983 No. 23 1. REPORT OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES LEGAL ADVOCACY COMMITTEE The report of the League Legal Advocacy Committee of February 15, 1983 is based on a review of some 40 cases of significance to cities. The Committee urges city attorneys to consider joining as amicus in the cases indicated. a. Peterson v. City of San Diego This case is pending before the Supreme Court upon its own motion to review the case following a ruling by the Court of Appeal (134 Cal. App. 3d 31) which invalidated the city's ordinance authorizing a citywide election conducted solely by mail ballot on the basis that it violated the constitutional requirement that all voting be secret. Amicus participants are invited. b. City of Merced v. State of California This case is pending on appeal by the city following the trial court's rejection of its efforts to be reimbursed for state man- dated costs. The costs are those associated with the1975revision of the eminent domain statutes which provide that a condemnee must be paid for loss of good will. The city's claim for $71,350.00 it paid in the 1979-80 fiscal year for good will was processed through • REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY , No. 23 - Page 2 and approved by the State Board of Control, but the Legislature failed to make an appropriation. Amicus participation is sought. c. County of Contra Costa, et al. v. State of California This is the so-called CSAC class action suit seeking relief from the Legislature's failure to appropriate funds to reimburse public agencies for the costs involved in complying with twenty 'statutes enacted in the 1980-81 Legislative session and three statutes enacted at earlier sessions. A volunteer amicus brief writer is sought. d. City of Rolling Hills 'Estates v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, et al. This case is now on appeal following the granting of the city's petition for a writ of mandate which reversed the ruling of the defendant board upholding the right of a school crossing guard to unemployment compensation for the regular Easter vacation period. The person in question was employed by the city solely to perform the function of a crossing guard at an elementary school within a school district which includes the city and several other adjoining cities as well as unincorporated county territory. The city successfully argued that although the person was employed by the city, her services were rendered exclusively for the school and thus she was not eligible for unemployment compensation because of the exceptions set forth in the Unemployment Insurance Code section 1253.3 (d) . Amicus participation is sought. r REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY No. 23 - Page 3 2. RECENT DECISIONS OF INTEREST a. Regulation of "Adult" Bookstores The U.S.C.A. 9th has directed a preliminary injunction to issue in a case challenging the constitutionality of a city ordinance regulating "adult" bookstores. The City Council of the City of Corona adopted an ordinance restricting sellers of "sex oriented material" to certain commercial zones and establishing an amorti- zation period for nonconforming uses. The city manager told petitioner that she would have to move her store. The court said since petitioner operated the only "adult" book store in Corona and the ordinance did not include a "grandfather" clause, there were "serious questions" as to whether the zoning measure was designed merely to run her and her business out of town. (Ebel v. City of Corona, U.S.C.A. 9th, Feb. 1, 1983.) b. Government Claim Requirement The C.A. 2nd has held that the time limit fixed by 'Government Code section 946.6 for seeking relief from the timely administrative claim requirement for government claim of section 911.4 of the Government Code is mandatory. The court held that the six-month period was a mandatory limitation period as no good reason appeared for holding that a dilatory claimant should not be held to strict compliance with the time requirement for application to the Superior Court for relief. (Lineaweaver v. Southern California Rapid Transit District, C.A. 2nd, Feb. 7, 1983. ) c. Regulating "Adult" Businesses The C.A. 2nd has upheld a Whittier ordinance regulating "adult" businesses within the city. The ordinance established local regulations for "adult"businesses. Those lawfully in existence before the effective date of the ordinance were legal nonconforming uses subject to abatement by administrative process. The operators challenged the ordinance as it prohibited the operation of any "adult" business anywhere in the city. Prior to entry of judgment, however, the city enacted a revised ordinance in response to the court's ob- jections to the old one. The trial court gave no effect to the new ordinance and entered judgment in favor of the "adult" theater. On appeal, the court said that th lower court should have based its ruling on the most recent city ordinance. On that basis the injunction should have been denied. (City of Whittier v. Walnut Properties, Inc. , C.A. 2nd, Feb. 1, 1983.) REPORT FROM THE CITYIPTORNEY No. 23 - Page 4 d. Personnel Regulations: Light Duty Assignment The. C.A. lst has refused disability retirement to a police officer who was found to be capable of undertaking light duty assignments within the police department.(O'Toole v. Retirement Board, C.A. 1st, Jan. 31, 1983.) e. Property Law: Acquisition of Easement The C.A. 2nd has held that equity demands that one who acquires a prescriptive easement in another's property be required to pay a reasonable compensation for the right to use the property. (Warsaw v. Chicago Mettalic Ceilings, Inc. , C.A. 2nd, Jan. 19, 1983.) f. LAFCO: Spheres of Influence The C.A. 1st has held that a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) may approve annexation of territory to a local governmental agency only after it adopts spheres of influence for every local governmental agency that might include the territory in its sphere of influence. (Resource Defense Fund v. Santa Cruz Local Agency Formation Commission, C.A. lst, Jan. 10, 1983.) g. Environmental Law The C.A. 5th has issued a writ of mandate directing the County of Tuolumne to reconsider its General Plan and supporting Environmental Impact Report (EIR) because it was found to be legally, inadequate. (Twain Harte Homeowners Association v. County of Tuolumne, C.A. 5th, Dec. 27, 1982.) h. Elections The C.A. 4th has held that ballots delivered to the city clerk by a candidate's campaign workers were invalid under Election Code section 1013. (Fair v. Hernandez, C.A. 4th, Dec. 23, 1982.) i. Government Claim Requirements The C.A. 2nd has held that the trial court properly determined that plaintiff's delay in presenting a claim against the County of Los Angeles constituted inexcusable neglect. (Shank v. County of Los Angeles, C.A. 2nd, Jan. 18, 1983.) j . Recovery of Overpayment of Employee The C.A. 2nd has held that the state had the right to recoup salary overpayments made to a civil servant and remove her from the pay level at which she had been mistakenly placed. (Geftakys v. State Personnel Board, C.A. 2nd, Dec. 31, 1982.) REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY No. 23 - Page 5 k. Proposition 13 Does Not Limit Bond Interest Rates The C.A. 4th has issued a writ of mandate compelling the executive secretary of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to publish notice of sale of $30 million worth of bonds. The secretary of District had refused to publish notice, for she had contended that the sale would violate Proposition 13 because the bonds r were carrying a maximum interest rate higher than that in effect at the time of the original voter approval. The court held that notwith- standing the bonds constituted "an indebtedness approved by the voters" prior to July 1, 1978. (Metropolitan Water District v. Dorff, C.A. 4th, Dec. 21, 1982.) 1. General Plan Requirements The C.A. 2nd has upheld a general state law providing that ordinances enacted by the City of Los Angeles must be consistent with its general plan. (City of Los Angeles v. State of California, C.A. 2nd, Dec. 23, 1982.) m. Public Employment: Polygraph The C.A. 1st has upheld a state law that permits public employees other than public safety officers to be terminated for refusing an order to take a polygraph examination. (Civil Service Association Local 400 v. Civil Service Commission, C.A. 1st, Jan. 26, 1983.) 3. MORE DECISIONS OF INTEREST a. Council Candidates May Be Elected at Large U.S. Supreme Court has held that council members may be elected at large notwithstanding a contention that they must be elected by districts in order to satisfy the requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. (City of Port Arthur v. United States, U.S. Sup.Ct. , Dec. 13, 1982.) b. Attorneys' Fees in Civil Rights Cases The U.S.C.A. 9th has awarded the attorneys in a civil rights case fees for their services notwithstanding that the claim they pursued was held unsuccessful. (Jordan v. Multnomah County, U.S.C.A 9th, Dec. 16, 1982. ) REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY No. 23 - Page 6 c. Environmental Law The C.A. 5th has held that LAFCO must prepare an EIR for annexation proceedings. A 32-acre parcel was involved on the southern edge of the City of Madera. (Pistoresi v. City of Madera (Trend Homes, Inc.) , C.A. 5th, November 26, 1982.) d. Civil Procedure: Appellate Panels: Alterations The Cal. Supreme Court has held that a presiding justice of an Appellate District may not alter the composition of an appellate panel after it has heard oral argument in a given case. (Moles v. Regents of the University of California, Cal. Sup. Ct. , Dec. 9, 1982.) e. Annexation Law: Elections The Cal. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Government Code's provisions which limit the exercise of the right to vote on annexations to residents of the territory proposed to be annexed. As a result, the citizens of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes were denied the right to vote in a special annexation election to determine whether adjacent territory in Eastview should be annexed to the city. (Citizens Against Forced Annexation v. Local Agency Formation Commission, Cala Sup. Ct. , Dec. 2, 1982. (This same issue was involved with respect to annexation proceedings in both the cities of San Luis Obispo and Morro Bay. The consequences of the opinion are rather severe as applied to the right of cities to exercise home rule.) - f. Retirement System: Financing The C.A. 1st has held that the State Constitution permitted a city to levy and collect additional property taxes to discharge its con- tractual obligation to the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) . The court found that the city's obligation was a "prior voter approved indebtedness" within the meaning of Article XIII. It appears that the decision turned on the nature of the contract between the City of Watsonville and with the predecessor of PERS. (City of Watsonville v. Merrill, C.A. 1st, Nov. 4, 1982.) REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY No. 23 - Page 7 g. Public Works Construction: Submittal of Bids The C.A. 5th has held that Government Code section 4205 prohibited a contractor from bidding on a public construction project again after he had made a mistake in his first bid. (Colombo Construction Co. Inc. v. Panama Union School District, C.A. 5th.) h. Nude Dancing Ordinance Invalid The Cal. Supreme Court has struck down a county ordinance barring nude dancing in public places other than concert halls, theaters, and other establishments "primarily devoted to theatrical per- formances". (Morris v. Municipal Court, Cal Sup. Ct. , Oct. 18, 1982.) i. Ordinance Banning Pornography Parlors Voided The U.S.C.A. 9th has struck down a county ordinance banning pornography emporia as the measure was related to the "suppression of free speech". (Kuzinich v. County of Santa Clara, U.S.C.A. 9th, October 13, 1982.) r REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY No. 23 - Page 8 4. PENDING LITIGATION a. Larrison v. City of Atascadero, No. 56821 This case challenges the validity of the City's administration of employee merit awards. Hearing date has been set tentatively for March 24, 1983, in Department IV, Superior Court, San Luis Obispo. b. Gearhart v. City of Atascadero, No. 57076 This case challenges the City's denial of a petition for solid waste disposal sought by Kelly Gearhart. Plaintiff conceded to City's Motion to Quash and indicated he would file an amended complaint. It has not been served upon the City to date. A hearing on the petition cannot be held until the amended complaint is filed and served. 5. PENDING PROSECUTIONS a. People v. Brimage, No. M53992 This is a pending prosecution for violation of zoning regulations and the Building Code for the premises at 8900 La Linia. In view of the fact that the Council has continued Defendant's request for a consideration of his matter to March 14, Defendant's attorney has asked the court to continue the trial of the matter to March 22, 1983. b. People v. Kirkpatrick This is a business license and zoning violation case. Defendant's Motion for iscovery of Prosecution Records is set for 8:30 a.m. on Friday, Mar h 11,1983 at the Municipal Court in Paso Robles. Respectfully submi ed, 1 AL NRIMES City Attorney AG:fg • 0 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY MANAGER Z ��3 February 23 , 1983 FROM.; PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Ordinance rescinding drainage moratorium in Amapoa-Tecorida area and substituting development standards. Previous direction by the City Council on this matter has been to maintain the moratorium in effect until adequate development standards were prepared and developed . This was being done through a Flood Haz- ard Overlay Zone which is contained in the Draft Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 3) . Since that project has taken longer than anticipated and is not yet concluded , the option of temporarily imposing the standards (which have been generally found acceptable in zoning hearings com pleted to date) through an amendment to the building regulations was explored . The attached ordinance would implement this option . Ulti- mately, the standards will be imposed throug the zoning regulations via the Flood Hazard Overlay Zone , but this technique allows the mora- torium to be lifted sooner . With respect to the attached ordinance , a number of important consid- erations should be pointed out. These include: - the lots affected by these development standards are not the same as the lots affected by the current moratorium. The at- tached map shows the differences but generally the new area is slightly larger . The selection of the affected area is based on the Technical Flood Study prepared by the Public Works Depart- _. ment and reviewed by the City Council. As you are aware , this study included considerable field review of the flooding in the area. - The proposed development standards will not cause area-wide im- provements to be constructed to alleviate flooding. The stand- ards are primarily oriented to protecting new constructions and additions to existing structures from possible flood damage . Most of the engineering analysis which would be required will benefit individual lots only as they are built on. Grading , drainage plan and other standards will have only limited area- wide benefits . Furthermore , allowing development of vacant lots will make establishment of an assessment district to construct area-wide improvements more difficult . - Allowing development in the area will worsen existing flooding problems for many of the developed lots . Development will in- crease the amount of run-off without providing the improvements to direct that run-off . As a result , existing lots and residen- ces on those lots which are located in low or other flood-prone Re: Amapoa-Tecoridorainage Area • areas will be adversely affected by increased run-off to a greater extent than they are now affected . Furthermore , in- creased development will also increase the volume of drainage complaints during the rainy season since more residents will be affected by street and yard flooding. All new developments , including single family residences , will require detailed engineering analysis in conjunction with prep- aration of site plans. In order to comply with the proposed development s an ar s , an engineer will have to be consulted early in the design process. Persons affected by . these stand- ards should understand that these standards are different than for similar development elsewhere in the City and that the dev- elopment cost will be correspondingly higher . Furthermore , only an engineer will be able to provide the data and information needed to process and approve the plans . It will be the appli- cant ' s responsibility to demonstrate compliance with the stand- ards before a permit can be issued . It should be clear that this ordinance , while being a relief to owners and sellers of undeveloped property in the area , is not a panacea to the Amapoa-Tecorida flooding problems. Further action, such as an assessment district , will be needed to even begin to accomplish that task. It is important to recognize the impacts and possible conse- quences of lifting the moratorium. That is the principle purpose of this memo. Consideration should be given to recording a deed restriction on lots affected by the Flooding advising future owners of the flood-prone nature of the area but , after discussing the matter with a number of people , this option was dropped due to unforeseeable legal risks - even if the restriction was advisory only. Consideration was also given to requiring persons developing lots in the area to waive their right to object to the formation of an assessment district , but this has a dubious legal effect and it seems likely that a majority protest will occur at any assessment proceeding once the moratorium is lifted (especially if upstream areas of the drainage basin are included) . ej�W A4to LAWRENCE STEVENS U AY L. AO RDEN Planning Director Ci y Ma ger AWRME N C_E McPHER 3-0 N_ Public Works Director • 2 -� ,•� • ` �\\\ �:�. ���I..mss�I. �i� +_ ��.,:.�_ � .�� of- �'` �_•, •� •�►��� � a•io.wei: 1\��yY� .� _� -'_A'�lf�moi 1 '�' ��- ��•d` .. �,��1���'' ������ ♦ ��, � /�I�- ; - ;,fes � �� �� ► • • .o �,- s.•.� ;��� :;moo � - •d .��fes' i �. � _ _ } � ®�0�'r�� /ate .� • f i h i. ORDINANCE NO. 59 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO REPEALING CHAPTER 19 . 68 WHICH PROHIBITED THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS UPON CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE AMAPOA-TECORIDA AREA AND ESTABLISHING CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INTENDED TO PROTECT NEW STRUCTURES AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES FROM FLOODING HAZARDS OCCURRING ON CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE AMAPOA-TECORIDA AREA. The Council of the City of Atascadero ordains as follows : Section 1 . The Atascadero Municipal Code is amended by repealing Chapter 19 .68 , including all applicable provisions of 'San Luis Obispo County Ordinance No. 1866 , entitled "Prohibiting the issuance of building permits for construction upon those certain properties which have been subjected to flooding in the Amapoa-Tecorida area of Atascadero . " Section 2. Chapter 1 of Title 8 is added to the Atascadero Muni- cipal Code to read as follows: TITLE 8 . BUILDING REGULATIONS Chapter 1 . Development standards intended to pro- tect new structures and additions to existing structures from flooding hazards occurring on cer- tain property in the Amapoa-Tecorida area . Section 8-1 . 01 . Purpose: These development standards are inten- ded to minimize potential hazards to life and property from potential inundation by a 100-year frequency flood or by other flood hazards known to exist in the Amapoa-Tecorida area. Section 8-1 . 02. A22licability of Flood Hazard Development Standards : (a) These development standards shall apply to the following property described by lot and block number , including sub- divided portions of said lots : Block Lot VA 1 -13 , inclusive UA 1-6 and 20-44 , inclusive PB 6-30 , inclusive QB 6-31 , inclusive; and 2 OB 20-32, inclusive Ordinance No . 59 • EC 1-20 , inclusive DC 1-40, inclusive CC 23-46 , inclusive ; and 66 JC 1-8 , 25-41 , inclusive ; and 39A, 39B, 40A (b) These development standards shall apply to all development and construction activities , including grading, on property described in Subsection (a) of this Section, except for the following: ( 1 ) Temporary Uses : With the approval of the City En- gineer , the Planning Department may authorize construc- tion of a temporary structure or use without meeting these standards , provided that the structure or use will not be in place from October 15 to April 15 . (2) Emergency Work : Emergency work may be undertaken where necessary to preserve life or property. Within 48 hours after commencement of such work, the City Engineer is to be notified and an application filed with the Planning Department in compliance with the provisions of this Chapter . (3) Existing Uses: The continuance, operation , repair , or maintenance of any lawful use of land existing on the effective date of this Chapter is permitted. Any expan- sion of an existing structure or use , or grading of a site , shall be conducted in accordance with all appli- cable provisions of this Chapter . Section 8-1 . 03. Drainage Plan and Related Requirements: Drainage Plan approval is required for all development activities which are subject to the requirements of this Chapter . Drainage plans shall be submitted with a Departmental Review or Conditional Use Permit appli- cation , when either is required by zoning regulations , or with a building or grading permit application. (a) Drainage Plan Preparation and Content : Drainage plans are to be neatly and accurately drawn , at an appropriate scale that will enable ready identification and recognition of submitted information . Drainage plans are to be prepared by a registered civil engineer . A drainage plan shall contain the following information : ( 1 ) Flow lines of surface waters onto and off the site . (2) Existing and finished contours at two-foot intervals , including location and extent of any grading . (3) Building pad , finished floor and street elevations (both existing and proposed) . 2 Ordinance No. 59 • (4) Existing and proposed drainage channels including drain- age swales , ditches and berms. (5) Location and design of any proposed facilities for stor- age or for conveyance of runoff into indicated drainage channels , including sumps , basins , channels , culverts , ponds , storm drains , and drop inlets. (6) Estimates of existing and increased runoff resulting from the proposed improvements. (7) Proposed erosion and sedimentation control measures . (8) Proposed flood-proofing measures. (9) An evaluation of the effects of projected run-off on adjacent property and existing drainage facilities and systems . ( 10) A normal depth analysis or other equivalent engineering analysis that demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that proposed structures will not be lo- cated in the floodway. ( 11 ) Cross-sections showing the normal channel of the flood- way, elevation of the land areas adjoining each side of the channel , cross-sections of the areas to be occupied by the proposed development and high-water information sufficient to define the 100 year storm flood profile level. ( 12) Where data required by Subsection a of this Section indicates proposed structures are located outside the floodway but within the flood fringe , a structural plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Build- ing Official . The plan shall demonstrate that proposed structures are designed to be flood free or be able to withstand partial inundation , and that proposed uses will not subject occupants to undue risk of flooding . Such structural plans shall include, where applicable , specifications for building construction , dredging, grading, channel improvement, storage of materials , water supply, and sanitary facilities . (b) Dranage Plan Review and Approval : ( 1 ) All drainage plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department . The Planning Department shall coordinate review of the plans which shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer . (2) Where required by the City Engineer , a plan check and inspection agreement shall be entered into. A fee may be charged for plan checking and inspection services . 3 Ordinance No . 59 • • (3) Any required drainage facilities shall be inspected and approved before utilities are released or occupancy is allowed . (c) Drainage Standards : ( 1 ) Drainage systems and facilities that will be located in existing or future public right-of-way shall be designed and constructed as set forth in the City Engineering Department Standard Improvement Specifications and Drawings . Other systems and facilities shall be de- signed in accordance with good engineering practices . (2) Proposed projects may include design provisions to re- tain off-site natural drainage patterns and limit peak runoff to predevelopment levels when required by the City Engineer . (3) Buildings are not permitted in an area determined by the City Engineer to be subject to flood hazard by reason on inundation , overflow or erosion , except where provisions are made to eliminate such hazards to the satisfaciton of the City Engineer . Such provisions may include pro- viding adequate drainage facilities , protective walls , suitable fill , raising the floor level of the building or by other means. The placement of the building and other structures ( including walls and fences) on the building site shall be such that water or mudflow will not be a hazard to the building or adjacent property. The City Engineer in the application of this standard shall enforce as a minimum the current federal flood plain management regulations as defined in Title 24 , Chapter X, Subchapter B, National Flood Insurance Pro- gram, Part 1910. Section 8-1 . 04 . Construction Standards : (a) Construction, General : ( 1 ) No construction or grading is to limit the capacity of the floodway or increase flood heights above that allowed under the Federal Flood Insurance Program. (2) Structures are to be anchored to prevent flotation that could result in damage to other structures , or restric- tion of bridge openings and narrow sections of the stream or river . (3) Service facilities such as electrical and heating equip- ment and utilities such as electrical , sewer , water , • gas , and cable television are to be flood-proofed or constructed at a minimum of one-foot above the 100 year storm flood profile level for the site. 4 Ordinance No . 59 (b) Structures for Human Occupancy: All structures intended for human occupancy are subject to the following standards , in addition to the provisions of Subsection a of this Subsec- tion . These standards are not applicable to garages , barns , unenclosed patios or similar structures not intended for human occupancy. ( 1 ) A structure intended for human occupancy is to be ap- proved only where the City Engineer certifies that all portions of the structure are located outside the flood- way on the basis of the depth analysis submitted in accordance with Section 8-1 . 03(a) (b) . (2) On the basis of structural plans and the depth analysis the ground floor of all structures is to be constructed at a minimum of one-foot above the 100-year storm flood profile level . (c) Storage and Processing : The storage or processing of mat- eria s that In time of flooding are bouyant , inflammable or explosive ; that could be injurious to human, animal , or plant life ; or that may unduly affect the capacity of the floodway or unduly increase flood heights is not permitted. Storage of other material or equipment may be allowed if not subject to major damage by floods and if firmly anchored to prevent flotation , or if readily removable from the area within the time available after flood warning. Section 8-1 . 05 . Flood Elevation Certificate : Prior to release of Utilities or allowance of occupancy by the Planning Department , a Flood Elevation Certificate certifying the lowest floor elevation of the building shall be submitted to the Planning Department . The form :used shall be that specified by FEMA in conjunction with the Federal food Insurance Program and it shall be prepared by a registered civil �e�ngineer , licensed architect or licensed land surveyor . 'Section 8-1 .06 . Special Exceptions : The City Council may, after conducting a public hearing, grant a special exception to the devel- �pment standards set forth in this Chapter and may, in granting such exception , establish conditions deemed necessary to accomplish the purposes set forth in this Chapter . A special exception shall be granted only if the City Council determines that each of the following findings can be met. (a) The exception authorized does not constitute a grant of spe- cial privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity; and (b) There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including topography , location , or surroundings , and because of these circumstances , the application of this Chapter would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity; and 5 Ordinance No . 59 • • (c) The granting of such exception does not , under the circum- stances and conditions applied in the particular case , ad- versely affect the health or safety of person , is not mater- ially detrimental to the public welfare, nor injurious to nearby property or improvements . Section 3. 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 entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City. Section 4 . 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 . The foregoing ordinance was introduced , adopted and ordered pub- lished at a meeting of the Council held on , 1983, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ROLFE NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: BARBARA NORRIS, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALLEN GRIMES , City Attorney A OVE1 AS 0 CONTENT: /I RRA L. WARDEN, City Manager 6 • • M E M O R A N D U M r TO: CITY MANAGER !� February 24 , 1983 �Zd�d2 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Nonentitlement Program On February 16 , 1983 the Planning Department conducted a public meet- ing to gather input for possible projects and activities under the CDBG Program. Four persons attended the meeting. The following acti- vities were discussed as possible alternatives: - flood and drainage improvements in the Amapoa-Tecorida area low interest loan program for housing rehabilitation - sewer line extensions to areas affected by the: "cease and de- sist" order - possible economic development project (i .e . downtown parking) The advantages and disadvantages of each of these alternatives were discussed and the consensus was that a housing rehabilitation program would be most appropriate. Principal reasons for this conclusion w:e r e - appears to be a need in the community - can result in some construction jobs, buildingmaterials sales , etc . - maximum leveraging of available funds ( if done as an interest write-down program) since private money is also used administrative costs and additonal staffing needs would be minimal In considering program alternatives it is important to remember the broad national objectives that are to be achieved : . benefiting low- and moderate-income families ; or aiding in the prevention or elimination of slums and or blight ; • or Re : C.D.B.G. Nonen 0lement Program • meeting other community development needs having a particular • urgency. This is especially true since a couple of the projects may not be eligible due to the need to comply with these objectives. For exam- ple , if the flood improvement or sewer extension projects were con- sidered, the benefiting residents would have to be income eligible (at least 51% and probably more would have to be making 80% of the County median income for their family size) . The only way to deter- mine this is through survey. Staff is doing a random telephone survey to check income eligibility for these alternatives. However , based on Atascadero ' s income characteristics , it does not seem very likely that these activities will be eligible. Unless the surveys yield different than expected results , it is recom- mended that the Planning Department be directed to prepare an applica- tion for hearing on March 14 on a housing rehabilitation program. Copies of CDBG regulations , including listings of eligible activities , are available in the Planning Department. 04JW."_ LAWRENCE STEVENS IRP,q taARDEr1Planning Director y r nager p • 2 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Murray FROM: Larry McPherson SUBJECT: Selection of Consultant - Construction Documents- South Atascadero Park and Alvord Field As a continuing effort to complete the construction and renovation of the subject projects, proposals were sent to a number of firms interested in preparing construction plans and specifications for the two park pro- jects. Proposals for this work were received from the following firms: 1) Takata/Associates, Inc. , Pasadena 2) Site and Environmental Design Services, S.L.O. 3) Dennis Bethel & Associates, Santa Maria 4) Robert S. Vessely, S.L.O. 5) Tartaglia-Hughes, Atascadero 6) Fred Schott and Associates. , S.L.O. 7) Twin Cities Engineering, Templeton 8) Saito Associates, Fullerton The proposed fees for the requested design services varied from a low • of $5,814 to a high of $29,950. Since professional services can be negotiated for price and selection based on the best product for the dollar., the price as submitted in the proposal was not used as a sole guideline in making a recommendation. A committee of the department heads of Public Works, Planning and Recreation screened the proposals and made their recommendations based on the following factors: 1) Completeness of the proposal 2) Methodology in completing the project 3) Quality of previous experience 4) Relevance of experience 5) Overall cost 6) Evaluation of assigned staff personnel 7) Ability to complete the project in a timely manner 8) Recognition of special problems to be addressed 9) Review of previous work with other clients and park development professionals. On the basis of the above criterion, the staff committee recommends Council accept the proposal submitted by Dennis Bethel and Associates of Santa Maria. • isPark Plan Proposals page two • The fee structure proposed for the construction engineering services as submitted by Bethel and Associates is $11,800 for South Atascadero Park - Phase I and $5,700 for Alvord Field for a total of $17,500. This fee is in the midrange of all the proposals submitted. All the cost of design is grant fundable. 4W,4a 41ww LAWRENCE STEVENS, Planning Director if s SKI JO NES Recreation Director NCE McPHERSON, Director of Public Works cc: Finance Director i City Attorney • City of Atascadero Requests for Proposals for Construction Plans and Specifications (A) South Atascadero Park - Phase 'I (B) Alvord Field Improvement Requests for Proposals The City of Atascadero, California has obtained state grants for con- struction of the first phase of South Atascadero Park as well as renovation of a baseball field adjacent to Atascadero Lake Park. The City is seeking a professionally qualified consultant to prepare working drawings and speci- fications for these facilities. The City will accept proposals for such services postmarked no later than Monday, February 7, 1983. These proposals will be reviewed by staff with a recommendation to City Council for the final selection. Final selection may also require a personal interview with a selection committee. Proposals should be addressed to: Public Works Director, P.O. Box 747, Atascadero, CA 93423 or delivered to the City Hall Building, 6500 Palma Ave, Atascadero. Envelopes should be clearly marked on the outside "Park Construction Plan Proposal". Three copies of each proposal should be submitted. Questions concerning the submission of proposals, the scope of work, or project requirements should be addressed to the Public Works Director, City of Atascadero, P.O. Box 747, Atascadero, CA 93423. Telephone (805) 466=8000. Background South Atascadero Park On January 10, 1983, City Council approved a Master Plan for the development of South Atascadero Park. This plan was prepared by Takata/Associates, Inc. of Pasadena, California and shows the construction program being accomplished in three or more phases. The City has received a Roberti Z'Berg grant in the amount of $131,987 toward the cost of constructing the first phase of this 19± acre sports park. Phase I construction is more specifically identified in the Park Master Plan, however, the planned construction includes; grading, irrigation, landscaping, lighting, back- stops, bleachers, and other incidental items required for the development of two multipurpose playing fields. The site is relatively flat and well graded with -- acceptable soil types. The 19± acre site is presently unimproved. Alvord Field - Atascadero Lake Park Alvord Field is an existing baseball and softball field located near the intersection of State Highway 41 and Portola Road and adjacent to Atascadero Lake Park. Although improved, this field is substandard for the current level of play and has no provisions for night play. Under the California Parklands Act of 1980, the City has received a con- struction grant of $60,979 for the renovation and upgrading of this baseball field. The grant covers the cost of the following items: lighting, irrigation, backstops, dugouts, bleachers, and other facilities incidental to the renovation and improvement of this facility. r The consultants will be required to develop base maps from existing information, in the case of South Atascadero Park, or obtain field measure- ments, in the case of Alvord Field. The consultant may be required to obtain utility location and availability information from local utility providers. Proposal Requirements Each consultant is expected to---become-- sufficiently familiar with both project locations to submit a responsive proposal. The Public Works Depart- ment will make available all plans, documents, and information concerning the two projects to aid those interested consultants in submitting their proposals. Proposals shall contain a description of successfully completed projects of a similar nature with a listing of the clients and client representatives familiar with the project. A list of personnel, by name, who will be working on the project shall be included. The project leader should be named along with any supporting, personnel. The naming of a principal of a firm will be acceptable only if they are going to function directly as the project leader'. Resumes and experience background should be included for all personnel working on the project. Consultants shall submit cost and fees for all services contemplated in developing the construction documents. For purposes of grant administration, each project shall be shown separately. It is contemplated that the City Council will approve award of proposals on February 28, 1983. Proposals should indicate a project start date and include a time schedule for completion of various parts of the work. A deadline must be indicated for submission of the final contract documents. 0