Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 07/09/1991 PUBLIC REVIEW COPY # PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE FROM COUNTER AGENDA ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR FETING ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 6500 PALMA FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROCK , 1991 7:00 P.M. This agenda is prepared and posted pursuant to the require- ments of Government Code Section 54954.2. By listing a topic on this agenda, the City Council has expressed its intent to discuss and act on each item. In addition to any action identified in the brief general description of each item, the action that may be tak- en shall includes A referral to staff with specific requests for information; continuance; specific .direction: to staff concerning' the policy or mission of the item; discontinuance of consideration•, authorization to enter into negotiations and execute agreements pertaining to the item; adoption or approval; and, disapproval. Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk, available for public inspection during City Hall business hours. The City Clerk will answer any questions regarding the agenda. RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: * Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. * A person may speak for five (5) minutes. * No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so. * No one may speak more than twice on any item. * Council Members may question any speaker; the speaker may respond but, after the allotted time has expired, may not initiate further discussion. * The floor will then be closed to public participation and open for Council discussion. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call City Council Comments COMMUNITY FORUM: The City Council values and encouragesexchange of ideas and comments from you, the citizen. The Community Forum period is provided to receive comments from the public on matters other than scheduled agenda items. To increase the, effectivenessof Community Forum,' the following rules will be enforced: * A maximum of 30 minutes will be; allowed for Community Forum, unless Council authorizes an extension. * All remarks shall be addressed to Council, as a whole, and not to any individual member thereof. * ' No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member, commissions and staff. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent ad hoc or standing committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary. ) : 1. S.L.Q. Area Coordinating Council/North Coastal Transit 2. Solid/Hazardous• Waste `Management Committee 3. Recycling Committee - 4. Economic Opportunity Commission 5. City/School Committee 6. Traffic Committee 7. Downtown Interim Sign Committee 8. County Water Advisory Board 9. Economic Round Table 10. B.I.A. 11. Colony Roads Committee 12. County-wide Fee Study B. CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed 'under Item A. Consent Calendar, are consid- ered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below.: There will be no separate discussion on these items. A member of the Council or public may, by request, have any item removed from the Consent Calendar, which shall then be reviewed and acted upon separately after the adoption of the Consent Calendar: 1 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES IN LIEU OF MANDATORY SOCIAL SECURITY (Cont'd from 6/25/91 agenda) 2. RESOLUTION NO. 66-91 - ADOPTING NEW SALARY FOR CITY TREASURER 3. RESOLUTION NO. 55-91 - AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO ACT AS AGENT FOR THE CITY OF ,ATASCADERO' IN MATTERS PERTAINING TO UMTA SECTION 18 CAPITAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS 2 4. AUTHORIZING THE PLACEMENT OF ANNUAL CHARGES FOR THE FOLLOWING ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS ON THE PROPERTY TAXES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-92: A. Resolution No. 60-91 - Chandler Ranch (Assess. Dist. #5) B. Resolution No. 61-91 - Seperado-Cayucos (Assess. Dist. #4) C. Resolution No 62-91 Marchant Way (Assess Dist. #3) 5. AUTHORIZING ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN IM- PROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 (STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE, SECTION 5830) FOR THE FOLLOWING STREET MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS: A. Resolution No. 52-91 Cayucos Avenue (Dist. #86-4) B. Resolution No. 53-91 - Falda Avenue (Dist. #86-1) C. Resolution No. 54-91 - Male$a Avenue (Dist. #83-3) D. Resolution No. 55-91 - Lobos Lane (Dist. #83-1) -E. Resolution No 56-91 Pinal Escarpa (Dist. #86-2) F. Resolution No. 57-91 - San Fernando Road (Dist. #84-1) G. Resolution No. 58-91 - Sonora/Pinel (Dist. #83-2) H. Resolution No. 59-91 - Aguila Avenue (Dist. #86-3) 6. ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL TRACT MAP 21--90 9375 MUSSELMAN Subdivi- sion of one lot into six airspace condominiums and a common area (Backes/Cuesta Engineering) 7. APPROVAL FOR EXPENDITURE FROM THE LOCAL TDA ALLOCATION FOR TRANSIT STUDY (UMTA SECTION 8) S. RESOLUTION NO. 68-91 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH WHIRLWIND EXCAVATING TO CONSTRUCT ASPHALT CURBS AND DRIVEWAY AT PALOMA CREEK PARR C. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 32-90, 585 Garcia Road - Subdivision of three parcels containing 12.5 acres into four parcels of 3. 12 acres each (Langille/Twin Cities Engineering) (Cont'd from 6/25/91 agenda) 2. PRECISE PLAN 02-91 - Appeal by Mike Messer of Planning Commis- sion action upholding the appeal of Joyce Young and denying proposed single-family development at 9515 Lakeview Drive: A. Sewer Service Issue Including report on Cease and Desist Area requirements 3 B. City Attorney's Opinion - Regarding Planning Commission's hearing on appeal by Ms. Joyce Young C. Precise Plan Appeal 3. SANTA CRUZ ROAD - Reconsideration of June 11, 1991, City Coun- cil action to not participate in the cost of improving Santa Cruz Road, west of San Ramon Road (Kelly Gearhart) D. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. ANIMAL CONTROL PROGRAM Proposed extension of County con- tract/AFAR budget/Status of agreement with Paso Robles A. Resolution No. 67-91 - Renewing agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo to provide Animal Control Services 2. ZONING TEXT CHANGE (ZC 07-91) Consideration of request by Shirley Moore to permit initiation of a zoning text amendment to allow see-through fences E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION MjQR ACTION: 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5. City Manager * NOTICE: THE COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO A CLOSED SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION REGARDING: 1. PENDING LITIGATION, ENTITLED O'KEEFE v. CITY OF ATASCADERO. Said Closed Session is held pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) . 2. LABOR NEGOTIATIONS. Said Closed Session is held pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. 4 { REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: B-1 CITY OF ATASCADERO Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 7/9/91 From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Deferred Compensation Plan for Temporary Employ RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council endorse the concept of using ' a Deferred Compensation Plan for Temporary/Seasonal employees and authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary contracts. BACKGROUND: This issue was first raised at Council ' s June 25, 1992 meeting (see attached report ) . At that time, Counci'imember Borgeson raised a number of questions and the item was continued • in order for staff to respond . A brief response to those concerns follow: 1 . How many Temporary/Seasonal employees are currently on the City ' s payroll? As of the end of June, 1991 , there were 94 temporary employees. Tables One and Two show temporaries by assigned department and job title.< As can be seen. most are in our Recreation Department , serving as Recreation Leaders or Lifeguards. Reserve Firefighters are also used extensively. 2. What is the estimated cost savings to the City, usinq Deferred Compensation? Based on a ' wages budget of $200,000 per year , the savings are listed below Social Security,' a 6.200'1. 12.400 PERS Retirement , a 7.265% 14,530" Deferred Compensation, a 2.500% ($5,000) Pius - Administrative Costs ($984) 5,984 Savings over Social Security 6.416 ' Savings over PERS 8,546 The City saves at least 50% over either option. The employee ' s savings are not as great initially, but once the City ' s 2.5% contribution is added , the benefit to the employee is the same. i 3. How lona have some temporary employees been kept on the payroll? What about returnees? A limited number of individuals have remained on the payroll for overoneyear . Pursuant to our agreement with PERS, any employee who works more than 1 ,000 hours in a' fiscal year must be enrolled in PERS. ' Table Three shows the job classes of `those temporary employees Regarding returnees, a 'fairly high percentage of Recreation Leaders and Lifeguards return each 'summer . The 'same can be said of Seasonal Firefighters. 4.: What benefits do we offer Temporary and Seasonal. employees? A distinctionshouldbe made between temporary and seasonal . ' Temporary employees should be limited to 1 ,000 hours (six months) or less per year , and accordingly have very few benefits. Seasonal employees on the other hand, are expected back , and limited benefits might be in order . Staff has been developing a Seasonal/Temporary Employee Policy that addresses these issues. Once the policy has been reviewed at the staff level , ,it can be presented to Council for consideration. 5. ' Should the employee' s account be closed upon departure or not, particularly if the employee is expected to return? ` Leaving the account open results in higher administrative costs for the City. The flexibility can be included in the contracts; however , staff recommends that the City Manager , upon recommendation from the appropriate Department Head , determine whether or not the individual account remain open. TABLE 1s Temporary EmploYees by fob Title Job Title Filled Positions Account Clerk (Payroll ) 1 College Interns 3 Cashiers 2 Office Worker2 Recreation Leader '1 / II 32 Recreation Program Coordinator 5 Lifeguards 9 Sr . Lifeguards 3 Lifeguard/Instructor b Crossing Guards 3 Reserve Police Officer 3 Seasonal Fire Fighter 4 Reserve Fire Righter 21 TOTAL 94 TABLE 2= Temporary Employees by Department Department Filled Positions Police 6 Fire 25 Public Works 1 Community Development t Community Services/Admin. 1 Recreation 56 Zoo 2 Administrative Services 2 TOTAL 94 TABLE 3: Temporary Employees Covered Under PERS Job Title Filled Positions . Account Clerk (Payroll ) 1 Cashier 1 Office Worker 1 Recreation leader 1/ II 4 Recreation Program Coordinator 4 Seasonal Fire: Fighter 1 TOTAL 12 • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda"-Item: B-5 CITY OF' ATASCADERO Through': Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 6/25/91 From: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Utilizing a Deferred Compensation Plan in Lieu of mandatory Social Security for Temporary/Seasonal Employees. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council endorse the concept of using a deferred compensation plan for temporary/seasonal employees and authorize `the `City Manager to execute an agreement (s) with Great Western and/or the Hartford Companies. BACKGROUND: Effective July 1 , 1991 any employee not covered under` a City ' s retirement plan (e.g . PERS) must be covered under Social Security. In Atascadero ' s case, this refers to all of its temporary and seasonal employees who work less than 1 ,000 hours • in any given fiscal year . IRS regulations were recently issued which allow a Defined Contribution Plan to qualify as a City-sponsored retirement plan and thereby avoid Social` Security. Further , the IRS agrees that a deferred compensation plan would meet the retirement requirements, provided the total contributionisat least 7.5 percent of gross earnings. This contribution amount can come from the employee, the employer or both. PROPOSAL: With this in mind, staff recommends the following plan: The City would enter into an agreement with either Great Western and/or the Hartford ( the two firms that currently offer Deferred Compensation plans to City employees) . Under this plan, any employee not enrolled in PERS would be required to defer 5.0 percent of his/her gross earnings. The City would match this with the remaining 2,.5 percent, as well as pay any administrative expenses. Upon leaving City employment , the Deferred Comp account would be closed out and the employee would receive the full amount, including any interest earned . The advantage to the City is that its costs would be considerably less than Social Security (6.2 percent ) or PERS (slightly over 7 percent ) . The advantage to the seasonal employee is the ,`same, with the additional benefit of receiving the full amount upon departure. • If approved , staff will complete the necessary paperwork and notify all effected employees. The first deductions would appear on the July 17, 1991 paycheck . FISCAL IMPACT Increases were anticipated and included in the Recommended FY 91-92 Budget . Staff ' s proposal is clearly more cost effective than either alternative -- PERS or Social Security. • • • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Items B-2 CITY OF ATASCADERO Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/9191 From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Adopting New Salary for the City Treasurer . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 66- 91 , increasing the Treasurer ' s salary from $50.00 to $200.00 per month. BACKGROUND: Council approved an increase in the Treasurer 's monthly salary from $50 to $200. Sufficient funds were included in the FY 91-92 budget to cover this _increase, but pursuant to Atascadero Municipal Code Section 2-7.03, formal Council action, in the form of a resolution, is also required. i • RESOLUTION NO. 66-91 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING AN INCREASE IN THE CITY TREASURER'S SALARY BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Atascadero that effective July 1 , 1991 , the monthly salary of the City Treasurer "shall increase from $50.00 to $200.00. On motion by Councilperson , seconded by Councilperson the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote': AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO By: ALDEN SHIERS, Mayor ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM; ARTHER MONTANDON City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MARK JOSEPH, Director of Administrative Services REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: ' B-3 • CITY OF ATASCADERO MEETING DATE: 7{9/91 Through: Ray Windsor, City ;Manager From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SIIBJgCT: Resolution authorizing the Director of Public Works as agent for the City of Atascadero in matters pertaining to UMTA Section 18' Capital Assistance Contracts. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approve Resolution No. 65-91 DISCQ88ION: The City routinely applies for Section 18 grants` for the purchase of transit vehicles. • Caltrans regulations for Section 18 applicants require that a resolution be `adopted every three years designating an agent for the City of Atascadero The designated person will be responsible for signing all documents pertaining to Section 18 Contracts. FISCAL IMPACT: The adoption of this resolution does not obligate the City to apply for;grant funds, however, any applications made must contain a copy of this document. • RESOLUTION NO. 65-91 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DRSIOMATING AN AGENT FOR MITT PERTAINING TO UNTA SECTION 18 CAPITAL ASSISTANCE CONTRACTS The Council of the City of Atascadero resolves as follows: THAT the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to execute for and in behalf of the City of Atascadero, a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, all documents required in obtaining UNTA Section 18 Capital Assistance- Contracts UPON MOTION of Councilperson and seconded by Councilperson , and carried, the Council hereby authorizes the above named to sign UNTA Section 18 Capital Assistance Contracts. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: . 'ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO LEE RABOIN, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor` APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER -MONTANDON, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: GREG LUKE' Director of Public Works REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: B-4(A) CITY OF ATABCADERO MEETING DATE: 7-9-91 Through: Ray Windsor, city Manager From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works` SUBJECT: , Assessment District No. 5 Chandler Ranch Annual Payment RECOM'KMMhTIoN: Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution No. 60-91 for the placement of the annual assessment charge for District 5 on the property `taxes for Fiscal Year 1991-92.' BACKGROUND: Assessment District No 5 was formed in -1988 at the request of the property owners. The intent of the District was to improve the roads to a standard acceptable to the City and to offer said roads for acceptance into the city-maintained system. These roads were accepted in July of 1990. There was a period established for payment of the assessment prior to the marketing of bonds and approximately 30% of the property owners paid at that time. The remaining assessments were marketed by Security Pacific Marketing. This charge represents the third installment on these five year bonds. FISCAL IMPACT: Project costs will be paid 100$ by the cash payment of assessments and bonds marketed. ` i RESOLUTION NO. 60-91 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF • ATASCADERO PLACING THE ANNUAL PAYMENT FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 (CANDLER RANCE) ON THE PROPERTY TABES FOR THE 1991-92 FISCAL YEAR WHEREAS, Assessment District No. 5 was initiated by the property owners for the purpose of improving their roads to a standard acceptable to the City of Atascadero; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero adopted Resolution 92-88 declaring its intention to undertake proceedings pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 ,and to issue bonds in said proceedings under the provisions of the Improvement Bond Act of 1915, for the construction of improvements known as "City of Atascadero Assessment District No. 5 (Chandler Ranch)"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Atascadero as follows: Section 1 The foregoing recitals are true and correct and this Council so finds and determines. Section 2. Notices were mailed to each person owning property in the City of Atascadero Assessment 'District #5` (Chandler Ranch) , at his/her last known address as it appears.on the tax rolls of the County of San Luis Obispo, said statement containing designation of the property assessed, the amount of the assessment, the time and place of payment of the assessment and the effect of failure to pay within such time, and a statement that bonds would be issued under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 to represent unpaid assessments. Section 3. Notices were mailed and published stating that all sums assessed were due and payable immediately, that the payment of sums is to be 'made to the Treasurer of the City within 30 days after the date of recording the assessment, and that if any assessments were not paid within the 30 day period, bonds would be issued under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 to represent unpaid assessments. section 4 Serial Bonds representing unpaid assessments have been issued in the manner provided by Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code and the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. Section 5. The adoption of this resolution authorizes collection of the assessment for the fiscal year commencing on the lst day of July 1991 and ending on the 30th day of June, 1992, said assessments as listed on the attached Exhibit A. Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to file a certified, copy of the assessment roll with the County' Auditor, together with a certified copy of this Resolution upon its adoption. Section 7. The ' City Clerk is hereby further ordered and • directedtofile a certified copy of the assessment roll with the County Tax Collector, together with a certified copy, of this Resolution upon its adoption. 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: ATTEST: LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: • ARTHER MONTANDON City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: GREG LURE Director of Public Works • LXMM1 A Resolution 60-91 Item B-4-A CITY Of ATASCADERo IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 LIMITED o6LIGATIOM IMPROVEMENT (CHANDLER RANCH ASSESSMENT DIS ASSESSORiS 1991-92 PARCEL WMER ASSESSMENT 54-231-31 ------'494.48 54-231-32 494.48 54-231-33 494.48 54-231-34 494.48 54-231-35 494.48 54-231-36 494.48 54-231.38 494.48 54-231-42 494.48 54.231-43 494.48 54-241-10 494.48 54.241-25 494.48 54.241-28 494.48 54-241.34 494.48 54-241-35 494.48 54-241-36 494.48 56-402-01 0.00 56-402.03 494.48 56-402-04 494.48 56-402-08 494.48 56-402-13 494.48 56-402-14 494.48 56-402-15 494.48 56-411-03 494.48 56-411-05 494.48 56-411-07 494.48 56-411-08 494.48 56-411-ICF 494.48 56-411-11 494.48 56-411-12 494.48 56-411-13 494.48 56-411-14 494.48 56-411-17 494.48 56-411-20 494.48 56-411-21 494.48 56.411.22 494.48 56-461-02 494.48 56-461-03 494.48 56-461-04 494.48 56-461-05 494.48 56-461-06 494.48 56-471-01 494.48 56-471-o3 494.48 56-471-04 494.48 56-471-05 494.48 56-471-06 494.48 56-471-07 494.48 56-471-08 494.48 56-471-10 494.48 56-471-11 494.48 56-471-12 494.48 56-472-03 494.48 � 56-472-05 494.48 56-481-03 '494.48 56-481-04 494.48 56-481-05 494.48 56-481-07 494.48 56-481-03 494.48 56-481-09 494.48 56-481-10 494.48 56-491-01 494.48 56-491-04 494.48 L00 ' 39dd S9-7Sb,396Iz W0aA SI II iS -n CITY Of ATASCADERO IMPROYEMEHT DISTRICT NO. 5 LIMITED OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT CCHAIWLER MUCH ASSESSMENT DIS ASSESSOR'S 1991-92 - PARCEL NUMBER ASSESSMENT ................. 56.491-05 494.48 56-491-06 494.48 56-491-07 494.48 56-491-08 494.48 56-491-09 494.48 56-491-11 494.48 56-491-13 494.48 56-491-14 494.49 56-491-16 494.49 56-491-20 494.49 56.491-22 494.49 56-491-23 494.49 56-491-24 494.49 56-491-25 494.49 56-491-26 494.49 56-491-27 494.49 56-491-28 494.49 56-491-29 494.49 56-491.30 494.49 56-502-06 494.49 56-502-07 494.49 56-502-08 494.49 56-SO2-09 454.49 TOTAL 41,042.00 800 ' 3eUd e3as ass i z W0a 3 S i i I 16 - -inr REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: B-4(B) CITY OF ATASCADERO MEETING DATE: 7/9/91 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works(D� SUBJECT: Assessment District #4 (Seperado-Cayucos) Annual Payment RECQNMSNDATION: Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the placement of the annual assessment charge for Assessment District 14 on the property taxes for Fiscal Year 1991- 92. (Resolution No. 61-91) BAC,XGROIIND s Assessment District #4 was formed pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and bonds issued under the provisions of the Bond Act of 1915. The bonds have been issued to represent unpaid assessments and the payment terms have been set. Repayment will be over'a period of 20 years at an average interest rate of '7.306%. There was a period established for the payment of the assessment prior to the market of the bands and approximately .14% of the property owners paid at that time. The remaining assessments were marketed by Security Pacific Marketing. This charge represents the fourth installment on the payment of the bonds. FISCAL IMPACT Project costs to be assessed were paid 100% by the bonds issued. City participation items will be reimbursed as additional properties annex into this Improvement District. RESOLUTION NO. 61-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO PLACING THE ANNUAL PAYMENT FOR ASSESSMENT'; DISTRICT NO. 4 (SEPERADO-CAYUCOS) ON THE PROPERTY TABES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-92 WHEREAS, the Council> of the City of Atascadero adopted Resolution 70-86 declaring its intention to undertake proceedings pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and issue bonds in said proceedings under the provisions of the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 for the construction of public improvements known as "City of Atascadero 'Improvement District No. 4 (Seperado-Cayucos"; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has filed in the office of the San Luis Obispo county Recorder a notice of assessment and said assessment has become a lien upon the land on which it was levied; all pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913; and NOW, THEREFORE", BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Atascadero,- as follows: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and this Council so finds and determines. Section 2.. Serial Bonds representing unpaid assessments have been issued in the manner provided by Division 10 of the Streets and 'Highways Code and the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. Section 3. The adoption of this resolution authorizes the collection of the assessment for the 'fiscal year commencing on the 1st day of July 1991 and ending on the 30th day of June, 1992, said assessments as listed on attached Exhibit A Section 4.- The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to file a certified copy of the "assessment roll with the County Auditor, together with acertified copy of this Resolution upon its adoption. Section 5. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to file a certified copy of the assessment roll with the County Tax Collector, together with a certified copy of this Resolution upon its adoption. • Resolution No. page two On motion by` Councilperson and seconded by Councilperson the 'foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: DATE: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO LEE RABOIN, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor . APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT GREG LUKE Director of Public Works ~ O � 0" ly G7 L) 1n M to 1 0 N In G N A M r (r N 1 F R d d' it U1 L) r. r .-) M cn nl N N N Z O O O U O O' O O O U O O C O O U C) Lu • ► • w • • ♦ • ♦ ♦ « w S .ti .• —1 -1• ..+ N N N N N N N N to U) U1 U\ K1 U1 U1 U) U1 to to U1 In J) A J: L N OO O U O O O C! O C O U C'o U 4 C) U w • w ♦ • • ♦ • • w • w • ♦ • N CO co CJ on tv G co G. CO fr' co m C'r C co Cl w C1 N N N N N N N N N mi N N N N N N N Q U O O O O O O O O C] O O O O U U u F to .-1 N to C7 N .n en N ? h- ,O C? S fn It "t U1 U1 c ^'1 fel m fc) r-1 N N N N ll'N (ten O O G C) O G C) O h C7 C. V;.T.. W ..a .r ..t r N N N N N N N N « 3�-W 0 It, Ih Cn U1 U1 U1 Uti M U1 to W. U`. ,0 ,0 A A Ir- C) 8O O U O U O C7 O O h fJ Q • w • w • w • • w ♦ ♦ ♦ • X N (I` ou C) Cd m COR1 cn C1 W d cu W 07 C W to m Q U, Li N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N fJ f_I w O C G C) O U G U O O O t7 ca C, N CT LL >Q O• u«. Q w N cy LU o n- a ul � 1911 w M m m rn m r(1 m ro m i!K aCL co C'j U'. fn U1 M �• Cf .-� n'. z O O O O O fJ O G C) O O U a7 C7 C, fJ 2. N N rti ti N N N N N N N r •� r'+ r+ v n In kn u+ 'n In U1 N In In in N O O O C C7 O O U C9 C ;U w • • w w w w N W m co C) c0 W co W w M W CG CJ cG ca W C? 0 N N N N (14 N N N N H N N N N N N N O d O C) L7 u U C, U Q Li G u U CJ L) G .� Q u 1 a r LU w u u) fn cr .+ o, JF W N O U O O U U1 .-c .� .-t .-c N N N N N N N r.1 •+ .+ .^+ r-r t7 N In U'. In Ul Ul If, tr U� 0 UN 1n Lr. J) Q N U G O G C U f: eJ C C' C O O C: ^ C' (� F- d ♦ • ♦ • • ♦ ♦ • • • • a m co co C7 co, C CO tf, c, C? CJ C.: m COU Il: N N N N (M N N ni N n.l N N hi 1, fJ 1 W C) C: O C, C Ll C! C C:. z O C7 C, U., vj H1'n fY1 [T Ci co • rr nl t "�n 1 Co z ung, 1-s n w L^ Q a W 1 (J N N In O .+ (n r- O- N M" F- n S O O .H .r N N N N rn z o C) o 0 C 0 o c o G o c o o c C) c� w • ♦ N• • ♦ ♦ w f r1 N nl N N N N V) 10 ?0 10 ,0 10 ,0 0 -C' ,0 10 ,0 10 .0 +0 4- 0) 0) O O O U O O O C U G O C' O U W • • • ♦ ♦ ♦ • • ♦ • • N at a7 m Q m at at Q a? CJ © IY a) to G G1 tt: N N N N N N N N nt N N N N (%j N N M N < O O Cl O C.) U O C: O CJ O U U 0 O Q U F- L lJ) n• 01 Na; (!�. N P N G? .+ N s (r. S 2 M J Ci n r+ .r .r N N N N n n s U G 0 w N H n c o o r G o C, c1 o o v r� c- Ct C) t, r►- cn . • N ZUl .w l4 N N N TUI V) 10 0 •C ,6 ,A ,0 r, ,0 ox N C) C Co C7 O O Cv h O U O O U G to N a • • r* w ♦ • ♦ w x h P m in m a, w m JS! mm (q Q W \ W N N N N rJ N N rJ N N N tJ N N N fJ n) F-N UJ O O O O O O O Q O V O V U G C O ti • N P W T.s a 2 J O Q 4 O.-• Q w T O R. dN J ;a �z (r u( Q o_ co ►- M �}' W U r-1 -d r.+ N N N fJ n M Ml .� (` i`1 2 q O O G tl G OC O C7 U. ► ♦ • • w w • • ♦ • w S .-1 N N N n) N tJ rJ M N N VI ,ct .O ,0 ,O Js -0 Jn .0 .n d .0 .t, .G NO C O O O C.V C_' G0 O O O 111 • ♦ • • • • w H fn m co m G? co Q! cc m 6'+ V) N rJ N N N n) N N r.l N N N r) N N nJ fa O Q C. L, U O O 0 U U G' C, O O O C:: Y Q U 1 4 F- a z W U1 10 M C r„ -4 r U J .0 10 C, f n V. 2 Y rn J 0 J l --, .-: L nt N r 1 N f,5 r, K. .� t 'r..i W VI U O O C, O O u O C C7 U U CJ G O O t7 h N ♦ ♦ • ► ♦ w ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • W N N N N 10 •0 10 10 ,0 JS I n .* .x. C O C: O O O U O C, o -+ F- Q • • 4 In co b cc a) co m m a) Km W W N N N N N N N M N N r.; N N N n, rJ N 1 W O O O O O G O O O U G O G C, Q C? C: il. 10 c C, cn f.rt ..n \ • G d•m Z f,n LL V-S R.r n F- to U.) Lb a A. Ut 1 q U G P m S 10 O N 0 m In u'. OD O cc, N m .0 f' F N N fry CV O — — .• .r N N N m m m .r .}- 2 O O O O O O O O O O O d CD C% 0 C O W • ♦ • ♦ • ♦ • ► w • • ♦ w N J S .r Ul% U•• u. 0 Ui Jr. N U'. ul in %f'% it, Lr, N — ♦.I N rd .i r-1 ►+ ./ .y rl r1 .+ N .-i rti .-1 W ♦ ♦ ► • ♦ ♦ ♦ ► ♦ w • • ♦ • N m co W a W CD H N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 4 O G G U O O O O O O U O 0 H Z Lu o P m s d O Al IO oe m u•, cc r1 m r m .n T S N N m O O -1 .+ N N N N m m in -t d LLJVI N O O O U O O O C.) Cl C1 (? O G O o 0 F-I.- N ♦ ♦ ♦ • • • ♦ ► Y W N 1 3 S U'. In >n U1 U1 in u1 UI U1 Ul U. In In Ul N$ N ..1 .+ ..+ .r ..1 .J .d .r .-1 .+ ..+ .-4 .-1 .-I -4 .. ..+ X V/ P m m CO a'f m m m G Ki G1 CD ¢'i tl G K, W Q IM \ w N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N f . F-In ^+ ul O O O O O d O U O U U C) U U V) O• LL Y Q P Z J =1 4 co: w Y cm 0. CL N J V) J G.OC CY V S •U " pp -p S- V �Z: LL o a J J w u zce as v, O N IN kA I In m N 1N N U. m C. O r.l N N N m 11 ? a• Z O O O O 0 O C') O O 0 c: O U C] O U w ♦ . ► • • ► ► 44 d' d J• In If, 1 tr. to Ir. IN u". 1f+ Lr. IN y .•� .+ r•l .-1 .4 —I ri 47 a7 W m C W. - N N (IJ NJ N N N N N rJN •`i N N N fJ rJ. •C 0 Ci 0 Ci C:) l l C C: C. U C cd C U CJ f, Y • a L) n a r ni z W w in m Y. / .+ N N N N K. W H U O U J U ( U G L; C7 C) C'. G U c U 43 N ♦ • w w ♦ W — .r r-1 — .-1 r-1 .+ I:- •r .-1 .. .' ... d d U` In 1 VI U`. L to 4r. lr u` W. Ir. U H 3 a ei tl CJ G1 t0 , n♦', u M 4: C CD f0 a'' a:• f' lu N N Ni N N N N N N fJ rJ fJ N rJ t ul 0 o o c n o r; o G cJ a10 r. LL ..m m P C co .N ll c� P 1 U) c, Ar a uj N N a r 0 C U O N tl O t` P .a If% O P O rr1 in m O UN WN LA In ull M tr. Z O O O O O O O O O p U O O G G c iv u1 w ► :w ► w • • w • S ^'� ♦..1 r.1 .-I .i N C4, N N N N N N N N M N UN Ul N Ul M U'. Ul N In Ul U1 Ul UN InN U''. In N .+ N r-1 ri rJ '+ .-1 .-1 r.l ♦J r-1 r-1 .: — .-1 W ♦ ♦ w • • • • • w w ► • ♦ w N tl W 1: N CD co Ci C) T CD co 4) co Cn tl [r7 O in N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Ni Q U O O O O C G O O O O O O O U C' Cl H Z UJ O N JF 10 co O r P in O Cl C: In In czi r 1 xN N U. Ul UM in if, .0 O O .y .-1 N N r d' -t ftIj F-•- N O• • O C• C• ► • C► Ow • • ♦ c♦ ) ♦ C'.Z LLJ ..I H .y .y 4 �-1 N n1 N N N N N N N N N >•ul h Ul In U1 Ul U\ ill in N Ul Ul Ul In. Ul Ul In 0. in N N •t w • ♦ ♦ • ♦ w • w X V) P a) m co tl co W tl CJ W tl tl tl tb L1J m C, m �t W ul N N N N N N N N N N N N N n1 nJ ^i nJ f"N '+ W O O O G O U C Q O U O C O O U U cj H P LL ci Q oC G«+ Q w y 0a CL N J Ow NH O uj •LD • • • • ••�j • • • • • • • • • V• .p 3J LL `� VI US N NUS W u m K) m Z fL m Qa N m .-I M in n P d m O m P r O N It .0 Cf M d 1n In in U1 In O 0 rJ .-/ - N rr1 r .J- J J' 2 O O O O U O O 0 G O O O O O O O u 1. ♦ ► • • • w ♦ • • w w S � ♦J � � � N N N N N N N N N N N In in in Ul N Y) U1 N Ul Ul U'. L9 Ir. Ul In !n In V. Vl r-1 I-C r-J rr .-1 ►� .-1 ..+ -4 N .-r E/9 tl m {p N IL co tl Ci CO W W m W C a tl tl (n N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N rI O O O O r) G O O G U O U Ci U C) C.) U c� Y Q L) 1 oc z W uJ m .-d m in r P 10 tl G rrl 0 4 O N .t ^O O• a Y .t Ul in In UM UN r1 C 1 r+ N (r J' r r r w N U O O G C 6 U C C G U O C) N in w • w • ♦ w ♦ ♦ ♦ w • W N '-I ..1 r4 r.0 �4 N n1 N N N 1: N nJ N N r.l Vi N Ul Ul U1 N U1 Ul U'I Ul In ir Ul P. U^. U'. U' if,, 41 Q C tl tl td CA tl tl m C. fn tl C W GC tl w G uJ M N N fJ f.1 N N N P.1 nl r I N N N N f: N 1 u O U O C G p C) O O O O O O O C? C. U- .4 .4 Co Z u u1u - i-r c i= U, m lU a a C , r 0 u u+ o 10 m o m s ,+ a r a r an o m c• .D 4 r O U N N fn O - - .-. n. 2 O O O O O O O O O O C) O O O U O U W • • ♦ • • • • • ► • ♦ w w ► f N N N N U1 In LA U\ U\ 10 z ID �0 Ua 10 D, N ..r ♦+ W w I • • • • w • • r r w • • r N tl 1a CO 4i cc,, a q w q to tl CD ¢) K' P C r-. C7 rJ N N N N r'•) nl N N rJ N N N N N rJ N Q O O O CU O U O U G) O C) U O O U U C? H Ill U1 C1 10 GU t 1 M S .-/ ,1' n P J U) N G p1 C, S T Ul -D 10 r U .+ N O N N m Q — f.l LU0 V1 o a C, o a c n o 0 0 0 c o C> C LIZ ll: fJ N N S Cn .d ♦+ N N Q w I ► ♦ r • r X N P m co GD W U) W*♦ q q q q co, ►-I/I ..1 U, N N N N ri N N N N N nl N N N (14 N N h W U O O• O O O O O U U U U C O U O C) C,) >4 P 7 Q tY D� a ca h C3 S O or S Q 0 z ac win s oLD LL wLU iz 2 cc a D. u, �+ z U\ U`. N L co O H 4. m .+ .A I" U` UN nl N m O r+ O 2 O O O O O O O O O O O U O U W r • w ► • s w ♦ w ♦ • • - 3' N N N N N •+ .+ .4 .4 N .r .-1 fV N N N N N U\ U1 In 1A uti N .4 r+ .d .+ .-+ rd .+ r-i N N N N N U U 0 W • w • • • • w w ♦ w N C.7 m q W C CO q Cn W cc q C.. G P? P P N Y7 N N N N N N N r) N N N N r fJ rJ N N C.i U O O U C] U U C t C. U } Q u I a r- ce z LL1 UM r C* H v 1C, N J) q G U1 W h n u 0 0 (1. c ra b c a 0 C, o u o u o N N ► ► • • • w •. LL! N N N N N .+ �+ .+ .+ .-� + Vi H U\ U) .0 J) 4 v7 J) n, P ..1 -4 Q L� -4 r.0 N N N N N (Ij C C. Cl Q q tl q LO tl G' tl P. q co fi C tl m P P O W 11 N N N N N N N N r`I N N N N N N N 1 W O C O C') 0 O 0 O C G O O O O Cr c) LL �0 m on crN .+n � • O t)C) M U .0 H C F N rl w Q Q V O N r c c z P rn r r 2 O O O O O O O O O O O O n O O O o W • • ♦ • N • ► • • • w • •. ► • N N N VJ N N N N N N N N N N N .A 0 O O O V O O O O O O a N N N N N N W • • • • ► • • • • • w • ► ► ► ► N P P P P P P P R P P P P R O P R R N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q O U G O O O O O O C U O U a G G V f 2 ri JJ P f'1 r r .+ r d' O• r I U S O N O U N C N N O a O •-1 N .•a W N H O O O O O G O O O a C) r` w w N N N N N N ff1 en 1 N T H N N N N N N N N N N N .+ N N ..[ N .r O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N rd N N Q ♦ • w w w ♦ w • • w • 4ul O+ a` P P R fJ P P P P R R P P O• R tl HN ") N N N N N N N N N N N N N rl N N nI 0 O O O U O O O a O U U O U O U C7 O • H P LL cc ' N J �M W Y "" Oa e a cc p4 z cc W • i� Y W U � Q•' 2 r: Q d N N m 1 N tr. G 4 G d O^ N r N u`• en I" N a C-1 z O O O O O 0 O a O O a O O O O [7 O 3• N .• .J N N N 1 N N rJ fV N N tq O O O O O O O G U p is CJ N N N N N to • • w • w w • w ► w w • ► w ► N P P P P P Cl P R D^ P O• C R O a C N N M N N N N N N N N N N N N N rJ `J at C.l C: li C� U p {..� V G a C.• Ci LJ U Cl :j a U s ►- a 2 w to .w CO 1 N N C r rJ w S. N f f N f• C1 N fJ f.• 1 .� N 1 1 .-1 N w rn o v c o c v G o p i G o a c N h w w w w ► ♦ ► Li N .•+ N N N N rJ [ff 1•M .Y 1 •-+ .•� N N H N N .1 N N N N N N N N N N N .••� N Q N O G O O C) CJ /^ Q ► w w • • w • w w w w • • C► P R R O cr W N N N N N [V N N N CJ rl N N. N rl N N 1 W o C c o _ C O a v C c, p C c k.� .1 LL �O f[1 R1 P G co .r• N C1 • Q 1 fll z • f'tfl J U- ni U. a.. G H N JA, inu u a a O O 4 4 4 r 0 u v, a r+ r o C� o n c rn G N 1 O a V1 f' h rJ N H1 K1 .-1 N O D -4 ^I .ti -1 N n, z o 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G o uJ ► . ► � �'+ .+ N r1 N N N r•. ,-� .� N N N N tV N N N ^+ "'1 "y •• N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Ww • w • • w ► • • ♦ ♦ • • • • w N JT a a a a a a a P a a a a a a a a f!. N N N N M N N N N N N N N N N N N a o 0 o n o 0 0 0 0 v c o o G o CJ 0 F- 7 Ul Jn a -4 d C G .o Ul CJ (n n N r .0 O N' p G p c -1 "r N NJ 0 O O C) t4 n 0 O O h Fr C. N 2 W .-1 : •: .+ N N .+ .+ N : N N N N N ml N }UJ N .+ •J ,•1 •4 .4 H N N N N N N rJ rJ N N N NY y N N N N N N N NJ N N N nJ N N N N N N N Q • • • w w • ♦ • • • • YC VJ a O• a a a a a a a a a O$ a a a a a P d W \ W N N N N N N rJ N N N N nl N N N N �"N '+ 1L O O O O (:.1 ci G O C) O p O O O U O Q U N a LL • }Q a h .-1 Z J O,-1 uu W - - - - - - - - W } -' Oa a 0 .� Lon} o O O OQZ C� SiCC w U. 2 fY Qa V, 0 m O N a f ,} r a .+ a .. fr. kn In C „-.J J- N N (n r,1 0 r+ N C, C 11 - N N 2 O O O O O O p G G G O U0 0 O O C N 4 •+ 14N N N N NN N rJ N N N C7 N N N N N N N CJ N N N J`J N N N f`J fJ W w w w • ► ► ♦ w ♦ ► H a a a a U a a a a C a a C a a O v C7 N N N N N ry N N ry N N N N N N N N O +Z O O O O b 0 O CJ U O i) O O C:i G 0 C., } Q u Q h x W W O co O N a a r a •+ M lit O N 4 Y N N M K, n r N C', .-a .-+ .. N U: NQ O G CJ CJ n n O O O O C% Q O Q C. N N • • ► ► w • w w w ► ► ,w u l •+ ,-+ -4 N N N -+ •+ •+ N N N (-,IN N N V% N •+ •+ - r+ M1J N rJ N N N N N r. N Q N N N N rJ N N N N N N N N N N N N N h �1 • ♦ w Q a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a !' ul nt Ni nl N N N N N N N N N N N N r.l rJ uJ p O p C O C Q O 0 C% C, G O C, n C r) LL �rr1 m a O ca .+n J tti Z nn u F-s c�- r1 �I W 0 a at uj a a Q h t:a O Z O O O O O tl $ R! Iti Kl M J N N N ry N N 4 N N N N N N W • ♦ • • Z • Vl P Pa- P " P N N N N N k N 4 G O O O it O H Z Ul T S ulvl N O O O Q O n YW N N N N N N t• tnZ N N N N N ' N QLL \ W N N N N N N W O O O O O O y P LL Y4 P a Ix o l- a ULJ LU o a. o a \y Ns \9 9 Hz c � . •``.-- 1 4 a PJ N K9 N1 ap p OJ Ah ♦° M CA O Z O O O 6 O O U. is a • • • • X: N M M M to N - V: N N N N N n V! N N N N N N tlt w ► ♦ • • Vl P P P P (n P Vf N N N N N N a � A.l z t w r. S' Q F- Vl n Z H W u, fn to ao o ao to w w w O O O C O G W N M to rt1 An N Ln N N N N N N f` U. Q 4Z N N N N N N O F- 4 w • ► • 4 P P O• P O• P a W N N N N N N LL' 1 W O O C C m G d] U. s a M o� w z r \ s p # J G 7 O CI �1 {I {IIIA! - H S R H 1 VC0001VLL6h (88/6Z/C MON) ZOO-4-31 A4TO/IsTO/�dO0 I—I—{ • I—I—I—I—I—I—i—I—I—•f I—{-1-1-1—{—I—{—I—! !-1—`I—I—{ I�i�I •I—I—I—I—i—•l—i—I--I—I {—{-1-1—{—f—f—I—I—I I—i—I-1-1 I--I—I •I—I—i-1—{—I—I—I—I—! I—'I—I-1-I—t—I—i—1—{ 1—i--1—t—{ ip I-�i ' I LI�I.� ! ► ! i—I � ► ISI j Igl�i�l - 1bl �iQl loll �I�I f l 11 C71 ' i:�-I%I bl—{—t—I—i—I—I Icai n! CP51 n 1 j 1 j I-,�;I bI I 751 1,71 (z I-51 j 1 p f S31 71 q"! 1;I T I I I {dI► ,(�I ' I Oji ► i—I—l--I-1—I—I I I ! al l 167 0 I ej I (� •I dj I S I 1—I—I—I—i—I—i 01 j 651 T I ITV I I -E'1-1 1721 1 s31-11 ic7 I (:�Ii �7 i 51 1—I-1--I—I—I-1 I` I U7101�'I S I i f l e l o i 1—i T l $I i I abaey0 xel jagwnN quawssassy sagwnN puna (#Z-#T) (�T-S) . (h-T) - dal 4uawss9ssy TeToadS sa6Je40 xel TeToadS soj quawnoo0 Ajqu3 ege0 30I330 S i 83TUVIN00-NOlIOnv OdSI90 SIM NVS X AlNf100 REPORT TO CITYCOUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: B-4(Q • CITY OF ATASCADERO MEETING DATE: 7/9/91 Through: Ray Windsor, City Nanager From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works J SUBJECT: Assessment District #3 - Marchant Way RECQXKN DATION Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution No. 62-91 for the placement of the annual assessment charge for District 3 on the property taxes for .Fiscal Year 1991-92. BACKGROUND: Assessment District No. 3 was formed in 1986 to provide sanitary sewer service to a Cease and Desist Area located at the southwest end of Atascadero Lake along Marchant Way. • After construction each parcel was assessed $4150 for the cost of the sewer service extension. : At that time residents were,given the option to pay the assessment up front or to make payments for a period of 15 years at 6% interest. This charge is the fifth installment on that assessment. FISC PACT: This District was funded by using the remaining FmHA monies left over after completion of the new Wastewater 'Treatment Plant. These annual assessments go toward repayment of that loan. i RESOLUTION NO. 62-91 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO PLACING THE ANNUAL PAYMENT FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 3 (MARCHANT WAY) ON THE PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE 1991-92 FISCAL YEAR WHEREAS, Improvement District No. 3 was formed by Resolution 3-86 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Board on January 13, 1986; and WHEREAS, Improvement District No 3 was annexed into the Atascadero' County Sanitation District by Resolution 4-86 of the Board on January 13, 1986; .and WHEREAS, the Atascadero County Sanitation District has subsequently been dissolved, and WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has absorbed the former District into the Wastewater Division of the Department of Public Works, giving the City Council all of the powers and fiscal responsibilities of the former District.` NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Atascadero' as follows: Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct. • Section 2 The adoption of this resolution authorizes the collection of the assessment for the fiscal year commencing on the 1st day of July 1991 and ending on the 30th days of June, 1992, said assessments 'as listed 'on,attached Exhibit A. Section 3. The assessment has been determined to be $4150.00 per parcel to be paid at an interest rate of 6% per year for a term of 15 years, said yearly assessment to be $428.00. Section 4. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to file a certified copy of the diagram and assessment roll with the County Auditor, together with a` certifed copy of this Resolution upon its adoption Section 5. The City Clerk is hereby, further ordered and directed to file a certified copy of the assessment roll with the County Tax Collector, together with a certified copy of this Resolution upon its adoption. On motion by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember , the foregoing resolution is adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote:' Resolution No. • page two AYES: , NOES: ABSENT: DATES ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO LEE RABOIN, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: • GREG LUKE. Director of Public Works M I N r •W til Q 0. us cr 4 dq � � N dp �0 ttlq CK u * Q` 1 h V G u P O p • N 1n F Z O V:.. O LIN O O W i w 2 0 M Irl M .:..{► M.. M N1 0 Ci a 0. U to w a n.:. o h N to .4 37 LA 10 Y W N 0~D so OBD OD OD` OND OND Ox X44 0. QW \ w M M M M MM M HN .a w a O 0 O 0 0 a V) a w s< a LiQ a Oti1 � Liu w — — W Y �a- _0.N. J . CA J. rr>. p m ot: a oa a W 'H LL JW AIL A 2 O 0 a a 0 h. to 0 S .d ..1: n/ 'N C6 ao co co Go go to Uj N M fn M M M M M M 4 H 2 N U, !� y 10 H... 0 O Ca C) H 0 W co OD toto OD ao co co LL M' M._.. M M:.. M ,M M': G1 w M M M M M M M M w 1 to a 0 0 0 0 c ca u m tL Z to a nn � Mg)!'... • COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUDITOR-CONTROLLER'S OFFICE Data Entry Document for Special Tax Charges Special Assessment LAI 42L/V� TRA - (1-4) (5-13) (14-24) Fund Number Assessment Number Tax Charge I / I F6 I I 1131 1 13 I�sl i I C�LC�I I 1_1_1_1_1_1_1 III. I �I�% I I_I_I_I_I I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I . I_I_I • V I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I I_I_I_I_I I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I . I_I_I I_I_I_I_I I_i_I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I . I_I_I I_I_I_I_I I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I. I_I_i I_I_I_I_I I_I_i_I_I_I_I_I_I_I I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I . I_I_I I I_I_I_I I I I I I I I_i i_I_i_I_I_I_I_I_I_I. I_I_I • Contact Person - AzliewiV, s,PI on'e, -:zc?/-5c)-9 6 _:. Dept/Dist/City ��-�C'�'C2�C�f G Date -7 TC-F002 (New 3/29/88) 4977A/0003A REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: B-5` (A-H) • CITY OF ATASCADERO MEETING DATE: 7-9-91 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: dreg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Annual Assessment charges for Street Maintenance Districts. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolutions authorizing the annual assessment rate for the following Street Maintenance Districts: 83-1 Lobos Lane 86-1 Falda Avenue 83-2,`Sonora/Final 86-2 Pinal/Escarps 83-3 Maleza Avenue 86-3 Aguila Avenue 84-1 San Fernando 86-4 Cayucos Avenue • BACKOROQND: Street surfacing was done in all of these districts under the provisions of the Streets and Highways Code. The estimate of $20.00 per parcel is based upon accomplishing minor maintenance work during the 1991-92 fiscal year. It is required that this special tax rate be established by resolution in order to appear on next year's property tax roll. FISCAL IMPACT: Pursuant to the provisions of these resolutions, all funds received by the City Treasurer from the Tax Collector shall be deposited into funds established for each specific ' maintenance district. Enclosures: Resolution 52-91 Cayucos Avenue Resolution 53-91 Falda Avenue Resolution 54-91 Maleza Avenue Resolution 55-91 Lobos Avenue Resolution 56-91 Pinal-Escarpa Avenues Resolution 57-91 San Fernando Road Resolution 58-91 Sonora-final Avenue Resolution 59-91 Aguila Avenue RESOLUTION NO. S2-91 • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ;OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 (STREETS AND HIQH11AY8 CODE SECTION 5830) FOR MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 86-4 CAYUCOS AVENUE WHEREAS, The Council has previously approved the formation of Maintenance District 86-4; and WHEREAS,;, certain street improvements were constructed under the provisions of the Improvement Act of 1911; and WHEREAS, it may be necessary for the City to perform routine maintenance of the improvements constructed within Maintenance District 86-4; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of Section 5830 of the Streets and Highways Code it the responsibility of the Council to estimate the cost of maintenance in the district during the ensuing year and to fix a special tax rate for the real property within said maintenance district to raise an amount of money to cover the expense of maintaining said improvements: NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE Council of the • City of Atascadero as follows: Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct. Section 2. Based on an estimate of the Public Works Director, the Council sets a special 'tax rate of Twenty Dollars ($20.00) per parcel as identified in the assessment diagram for Maintenance District 86-4, said special tax to cover the expense of maintaining the road and drainage improvements within said district during the ensuing year. Section 3. The adoption of this resolution constitutes a levy of the assessment for the fiscal year commencing the lst day of July, 1991, and ending the 30th day of June, 1992. section 4. The works of improvement and maintenance performed within Maintenance`District' 86-4 shall be performed pursuant to law and the County Auditor shall enter on the County Assessment Roll,, the amount of the assessment, and said assessment shall then be collected at he same time and in the same manner as the County taxes are collected. After collection by said county, the net amount of the assessment shall be paid to the City Treasurer of the City. Section 5. The City Treasurer shall' place all monies collected by the Tax Collector into the special fund known as "City • of Atascadero Maintenance District 86-4 Cayucos Avenue" ; pursuant to the provisions of this resolution and law, and said transfer . shall be made and accomplished as soon 'as said monies have been made available to the City Treasurer. Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor upon its adoption: Section 7. The City Clerk is hereby further ordered and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Tax Collector upon its adoption. Section 8. Any parcels or lots of land known as public property, as the same is defined in Section 22663 of Division 15 Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code, which are included within the boundaries of the District shall be omitted and exempt from any assessment made under these proceedings.' On motion by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember , the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on :the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: . ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO LEE RABOIN, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT GREG LUKE, Director of Public Works • REFER TO ATTACHED EXHIBIT A s1 sit M G vis Z O3.F 1F C • \ w • •�w • w.:.r in a:o C9 J 0 © O 0 ,:-o. to � 411 '_r.) ro, N >...N N tV ,n.. 70 ,o .0 a a 0 o a w w •-� N N N: m y r) O b Q Q O y30 In b a w w m C to Z h -' m x x t� c, o :Zo ca v s N NN. CA ,0. 10 3 y 1* -0 +... to N N N N N N y O O a ro Na 0 z N v A w h m w S rf 7r` H A O O O O O 71m �tA •pp • • •pp pp• •pp m Ti Z y .per t.. y'd.. 'O D C m t„pt � wwye i Z ,0 n t to 0-4 ca N N N N N y. N aw w w %A N_. In 2 0 3w N." N N N N y . . to N N N N N y. • ♦ + • to w o a �f N ►' N N t W w o a t t t b G+ t t+ N • RESOLUTION NO. 53-91 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 (STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION 5830) FOR MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 86-1 FALDA AVENUE WHEREAS, The Council has previously approved the formation of Maintenance District 86-1; and WHEREAS, certain street improvements were constructed under the provisions of the Improvement Act of 1911; and WHEREAS, it may be necessary for the City to perform routine maintenance of the improvements constructed within Maintenance District 86-1; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of Section 5830 of the Streets and Highways Code it is the responsibility of the Council to estimate the cost of maintenance in the district during the ensuing year and to fix a special tax rate for the real property within said maintenance district to raise an amount of money to cover the expense of maintaining said improvements: NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE Council of the • City of Atascadero as follows: Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct. Section 2 . Based on an estimate of the Public Works Director, the Council sets a special tax rate of Twenty Dollars ($20.00) per parcel as identified in the assessment diagram for Maintenance District 86-1, said special tax to cover the expense of maintaining the road and drainage improvements within said district during the ensuing year. Section 3 . The adoption of this resolution constitutes a. levy of the assessment for the fiscal year commencing the 1st day of July, 1991, and ending the 30th day of June, 1992 . Section 4. The works of improvement and maintenance performed within Maintenance District 86-1 shall be performed pursuant to law and the County Auditor shall enter on the County Assessment Roll, the amount of the assessment, and said assessment shall then be collected at he same time and in the same manner as the County taxes are collected. After collection by said County, the net amount of the assessment shall be paid to the City Treasurer of the city. Section 5. The City Treasurer shall place all monies • collected by the Tax Collector into the special fund known as "City of Atascadero Maintenance District 86-1 Falda Avenue" pursuant to the provisions of this resolution and law, and said transfer shall be made and accomplished as soon as said monies have been made available to the City Treasurer. Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor upon its adoption. Section 7. The City Clerk is hereby further ordered and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Tax Collector upon its adoption. Section 8. Any parcels or lots of land known as public property, as the same is defined in Section 22663 of Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code, which are included within the boundaries of the District shall be omitted and exempt from any assessment made under these proceedings. On motion by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember , the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: • ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO LEE RABOIN, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: GREG LUKE, Director of Public Works • REFER TO ATTACHED EXHIBIT A -1 v7 r•.n min • C rr v • O • r v� m �a C yr T +F O U O O rJ O fn 1 n F. r F F F •s In A o a 10 D o s X- .i c7 w w w w w w N r N CJ O U O O O N > n r -,I o m F m o n z y N ..1 S N Q 1 ...I z L7 \ r7 n 7 7 7 r� D O •P _rr F r F t N • • • • In W W W W W W N J CJ V C7 O Cl N N N N ►+ r . 3, • • • • . m O O Q O O O Z W N 7 U -i F v r O co F N 7v Z �- n m N x r O O O O O O A T =~ • • • • • • r�Tl � zN O O O O O O >O A p� r N r Nv m m n n 70 A C rz o s< O O 0 O O O m r N-i F F r r F r m \ ma D 0 0 O .0 10 .0 N x • . y N N W W W W W W N MW O O 7 O O O N m-( N N N r H r rn ZG1 (n N rn W N V N N O 3 m ,rt C) P .'+ V .! 1 2 n p O O s r F r F F F N O L .0 10 N n W W W W W W N O O N N N N �" r .•� S O O O O O O Z W r O N r O -1 -� VI O P ►+ v v C'1 O Cl V r 1 A N _ �0 N N N N N N y O O O O O OS�A, 0 0 0 0 0 0 t=i �C x H r� s H • c� H rn r O V W • RESOLUTION NO. 54-91 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 (STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION 5830) FOR MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 83-3 MALEZA AVENUE WHEREAS, The Council has previously approved the formation of Maintenance District 83-3; and WHEREAS, certain street improvements were constructed under the provisions of the Improvement Act of 1911; and WHEREAS, it may be necessary for the City to perform routine maintenance of the improvements constructed within Maintenance District 83-3; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of Section 5830 of the Streets and Highways Code it is the responsibility of the Council to estimate the cost of maintenance in the district during the ensuing year and to fix a special tax rate for the real property within said maintenance district to raise an amount of money to cover the expense of maintaining said improvements: • NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE Council of the City of Atascadero as follows: Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct. Section 2 . Based on an estimate of the Public Works Director, the Council sets a special tax rate of Twenty Dollars ($20.00) per parcel as identified in the assessment diagram for Maintenance District 83-3, said special tax to cover the expense of maintaining the road and drainage improvements within said district during the ensuing year. Section 3 . The adoption of this resolution constitutes a levy of the assessment for the fiscal year commencing the lst day of July, 1991, and ending the 30th day of June, 1992 . Section 4. The works of improvement and maintenance performed within Maintenance District 83-3 shall be performed pursuant to law and the County Auditor shall enter on the County Assessment Roll, the amount of the assessment, and said assessment shall then be collected at he same time and in the same manner as the County taxes are collected. After collection by said County, the net amount of the assessment shall be paid to the City Treasurer of the City. • Section 5. The City Treasurer shall place all monies collected by the Tax Collector into the special fund known as "City • of Atascadero Maintenance District 83-3 Maleza Avenue" pursuant to the provisions of this resolution and law, and said transfer shall be made and accomplished as soon as said monies have been made available to the City Treasurer. Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor upon its adoption. Section 7. The City Clerk is hereby further ordered and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Tax Collector upon its adoption. Section 8. Any parcels or lots of land known as public property, as the same is defined in Section 22663 of Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code, which are included within the boundaries of the District shall be omitted and exempt from any assessment made under these proceedings. On motion by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember , the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: • ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO LEE RABOIN, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: GREG LUKE, Director of Public Works PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT A -+o 3 r1 nuu n .•.. • 2 rn.P � O • * ur t W vj. C O n tc n a o 0 o m hl N N N N rV rTi n a .o 4 o a + + a -V p r r r r r y D m W W N N N 0 (n r r r N r m D • r + ♦ ♦ y S y O O O O O y D m P W O J =^ in m y 7 N nr Z =� v y c) O O O D fv N N N N y O O �O0 Q y ♦ • rtt ►� r r N r y W W N N N y r r M-r a . • ♦ + T O O O O V 2 N N P W O .1 Vr (4 D 77 Z h in x rr r He N N N N N 7D m jH O O O O O q) 0 Hy • • • • • m A Z D O w O O O O A .'o�o 1_ y r y V -00 in • m >n D Hp 7o a Z r r� 10 a< m 10 y 0 O O O m r 44-1 ' N N N N fn \ m P. .O C 10 O O y X + ♦ • + D N y r r r r y 2y W W N N y mt r r •+ r m Z to N O O Z y ITI X yr N p P m Z O O O O a N N N N 0 4) 10 D 10 y + m r r r r y W W N N y + + . + rn O O O O Z N O r O --1 -4 %A N cl v r� N r 1 p r M O S O N N N N a O O O O 7p xi Gl H b 40 b b m bd 0 0 0 o F-r H 9 v a cl • m o W W • RESOLUTION NO. 55-91 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 (STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION 5830) FOR MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 83-1 LOBOS AVENUE WHEREAS, The Council has previously approved the formation of Maintenance District 83-1; and WHEREAS, certain street improvements were constructed under the provisions of the Improvement Act of 1911; and WHEREAS, it may be necessary for the City to perform routine maintenance of the improvements constructed within Maintenance District 83-1; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of Section 5830 of the Streets and Highways Code it is the responsibility of the Council to estimate the cost of maintenance in the district during the ensuing year and to fix a special tax rate for the real property within said maintenance district to raise an amount of money to cover the expense of maintaining said improvements: • NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE Council of the City of Atascadero as follows: Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct. Section 2 . Based on an estimate of the Public Works- Director, the Council sets a special tax rate of Twenty Dollars ($20.00) per parcel as identified in the assessment diagram for Maintenance District 83-1, said special tax to cover the expense of maintaining the road and drainage improvements within said district during the ensuing year. Section 3 . The adoption of this resolution constitutes a levy of the assessment for the fiscal year commencing the lst day of July, 1991, and ending the 30th day of June, 1992 . Section 4. The works of improvement and maintenance performed within Maintenance District 83-1 shall be performed pursuant to law and the County Auditor shall enter on the County Assessment Roll, the amount of the assessment, and said assessment shall then be collected at he same time and in the same manner as the County taxes are collected. After collection by said County, the net amount of the assessment shall be paid to the City Treasurer of the City. • Section 5. The City Treasurer shall place all monies collected by the Tax Collector into the special fund known as "City • of Atascadero Maintenance District 83-1 Lobos Avenue" pursuant to the provisions of this resolution and law, and said transfer shall be made and accomplished as soon as said monies have been made available to the City Treasurer. Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor upon its adoption. Section 7. The City Clerk is hereby further ordered and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Tax Collector upon its adoption. Section 8. Any parcels or lots of land known as public property, as the same is defined in Section 22663 of Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code, which are included within the boundaries of the District shall be omitted and exempt from any assessment made under these proceedings. On motion by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember , the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: • ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO LEE RABOIN, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: GREG LUKE, Director of Public Works • PLEASE SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A �o �+r x-+ • G.. U J z CD V. N ! ' r T tP O O O O O O O In 1 M N N N N N N N m A 10 ,0 D O D O N N N N N N N w a n V V d W N N N w Vf N N ►+ r+ N N N m r • • r • • + • N r r O 7 O O O O w O N N r,. O N N r S } m W W 0 r P O oo rn Q vs z w .c r n 7 Z -1 = w CD 0 n o v N fJ N N N N N N d J) 0 BOO '0 .O N N N N N rJ N N N J v W W N N N [A N N r r+ N N N 'x • • • • • • + m 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 z O N N r -4 W W Un " P O 03 N -o a ;Qz .• In In r = rr 0 0 0 0 0 0 o A r 3►+ Gl O ►+N •O O O O O O O In A z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "p O �in r in r wo 00 m t,r, D r.O A D� o a< O O O O O O O m r w-A .O O ADO 0 m�0 10 N X N N N N N N N N in =V! V V W W N N N w m< N N ►+ N N N m z(A N r r W N Q N T r P P W V r• ,O in z -J O O O O O O O a 10 10 4) 10 4 w N N N N IV N N N .1 J W W N N N w N N r+ r N N N = • + • • • • • m 0 0 0 0 0 0 o z N �• h+ r W N N -1 "i r P P W V ra .0 rl O 1 A N n o x n O O O O O O O 7D C b o b b b b b in tr1 x H Cd H o H n � • n N W f'1 • RESOLUTION NO. 56-91 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 (STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION 5830) FOR MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 86-2 FINAL-ESCARPA AVENUES WHEREAS, The Council has previously approved the formation of Maintenance District 86-2; and WHEREAS, certain street improvements were constructed under the provisions of the Improvement Act of 1911; and WHEREAS, it may be necessary for the City to perform routine maintenance of the improvements constructed within Maintenance District 86-2; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of Section 5830 of the Streets and Highways Code it is the responsibility of the Council to estimate the cost of maintenance in the district during the ensuing year and to fix a special tax rate for the real property within said maintenance district to raise an amount of money to cover the expense of maintaining said improvements: • NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, BY THE Council of the City of Atascadero as follows: Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct. Section 2 . Based on an estimate of the Public Works Director, the Council sets a special tax rate of Twenty Dollars ($20. 00)' per parcel as identified in the assessment diagram for Maintenance District 86-2, said special tax to cover the expense of maintaining the road and drainage improvements within said district during the ensuing year. Section 3 . The adoption of this resolution constitutes a levy of the assessment for the fiscal year commencing the lst day of July, 1991, and ending the 30th day of June, 1992 . Section 4. The works of improvement and maintenance performed within Maintenance District 86-2 shall be performed pursuant to law and the County Auditor shall enter on the County Assessment Roll, the amount of the assessment, and said assessment shall then be collected at he same time and in the same manner as the County taxes are collected. After collection by said County, the net amount of the assessment shall be paid to the City Treasurer of the City. • Section 5. The City Treasurer shall place all monies collected by the Tax Collector into the special fund known as "City • of Atascadero Maintenance District 86-2 Pinal-Escarpa Avenues" pursuant to the provisions of this resolution and law, and said transfer shall be made and accomplished as soon as said monies have been made available to the City Treasurer. Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor upon its adoption. Section 7. The City Clerk is hereby further ordered and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Tax Collector upon its adoption. Section 8. Any parcels or lots of land known as public property, as the same is defined in Section 22663 of Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code, which are included within the boundaries of the District shall be omitted and exempt from any assessment made under these proceedings. On motion by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember , the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: • ABSENT: ADOPTED• ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO LEE RABOIN, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: GREG LUKE, Director of Public Works • PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT A -1 O r-+,n I S-1 nnn 'n •• • L 4 4 v n vr, w w • � t co W C w Y T W o 0 o u m 1 N N N N r;I A a ,o 10 n .-1 C w r+ w w (114, D 'Tt P ., w w N N w w w w m a + r + N y N O O O O N w In OD P d` N ill D N (- N i a rn f1 y N n n o c� 0 a ro 'V N N N N • r m w w w w N vr w w N + r + r m U Q q U Z OD P f N N ca �c+z n m .+ x r r D ..0 G1 p r-+to • • • • m A Z o o o o A ACUA - r N r Nro roo • — ... ... — In A DC r;z w y O ai n O N U o O rn N N N m \ mD - + + D N N AO P w w N rn-t w rn Z N r y -1'i n u N N rtt u s s v vl w rtt z 0 o v a N N N N • . + rn P r w N r-• r 3 + + • m 0 0 o z -1 .r VI w n 0 0 1 A w n p X O N N N a • • • M 0 0 0 0 0 0 LT1 �C x ro H b aJ • � H m H .. a p • RESOLUTION NO. 57-91 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 (STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION 5830) FOR MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 84-1 SAN FERNANDO ROAD WHEREAS, The Council has previously approved the formation of Maintenance District 84-1; and WHEREAS, certain street improvements were constructed under the provisions of the Improvement Act of 1911; and WHEREAS, it may be necessary for the City to perform routine maintenance of the improvements constructed within Maintenance District 84-1; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of Section 5830 of the Streets and Highways Code it is the responsibility of the Council to estimate the cost of maintenance in the district during the ensuing year and to fix a special tax rate for the real property within said maintenance district to raise an amount of money to cover the expense of maintaining said improvements: NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE Council of the • City of Atascadero as follows: Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct. Section 2 . Based on an estimate of the Public Works Director, the Council sets a special tax rate of Twenty Dollars ($20.00) per parcel as identified in the assessment diagram for Maintenance District 84-1, said special tax to cover the expense of maintaining the road and drainage improvements within said district during the ensuing year. Section 3 . The adoption of this resolution constitutes a levy of the assessment for the fiscal year commencing the 1st day of July, 1991, and ending the 30th day of June, 1992 . Section 4. The works of improvement and maintenance performed within Maintenance District 84-1 shall be performed pursuant to law and the County Auditor shall enter on the County Assessment Roll, the amount of the assessment, and said assessment shall then be collected at he same time and in the same manner as the County taxes are collected. After collection by said County, the net amount of the assessment shall be paid to the City Treasurer of the City. • Section 5. The City Treasurer shall place all monies collected by the Tax Collector into the special fund known as "City • of Atascadero Maintenance District 84-1 San Fernando Road" pursuant to the provisions of this resolution and law, and said transfer shall be made and accomplished as soon as said monies have been made available to the City Treasurer. Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor upon its adoption. Section 7. The City Clerk is hereby further ordered and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Tax Collector upon its adoption. Section 8. Any parcels or lots of land known as public property, as the same is defined in Section 22663 of Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code, which are included within the boundaries of the District shall be omitted and exempt from any assessment made under these proceedings. On motion by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember , the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: • ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO LEE RABOIN, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: GREG LUKE, Director of Public Works • PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT A 111111 N • � N 0M 0 t 0 F '� f7 O f� O O O O G) m In CJ r r f F r r •F F D m 0 0 .0 a o o a a 10 .0 4 o D r ♦ • . r . ♦ r . • • p ..1 N W co w CC V d \A M .1, l w N r m N r .•• t i l a �.� N .� W W W W la 3 m l N N O co M W N r V W O� .0 a Co fry "n niLI) Z N O o o fJ a o n o D Q v+ M •r o .r r •- r r r r r 41 cn o v o r o a o .o o •o ,o y • • r • + . m O 'J N N N N N N N TJ N N N N N 0 �n po fp CO La co ti v Ut M 1` •1 r y r r N r N 1... .•� N N N w N r H = + ♦ ♦ • . • . • ♦ r . • • m 0 0 z N N w w w w �� 1 0) M W w N V O m .0 a co IA 7D i rr N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N D rtiC O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O A T 2fd • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • p y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m z z O O O o 0 0 o O o O o o O o O A Aca r v1 • _ _ _ �. _ _ _ _ �. ._ m m p m r D H p r ►+ y M Q y u v a o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 o m N y o v p :o .ro .81 r 10 r r t` o m m n 10 •O 4 �O �O �O .O y X + + • + D N y O O N N N N N N N N N N N IV y Zy lA V1 OD a W Co co v J V M i` 41 41 0 R1< N N H r w r t•• N N p. w N N N P11 Z y • • • .W •O ♦ •O • • • . r • .O y ..1,, a Q O O O O a y yn 10 r r lJ O O N N N w .{ w N N0 P V O r N z = Z O O O O O a 0 O 's M Jr 11 •C 41 F l F •F 41 .P -41 .0 y O O 10 10 10 10 -0 O O 10 �o W + + • m O O N N N N N N N N N N N N y M M w 07 03 m W �! �I V M f` 4` P W ♦. • . • • . • ♦ • r • • . r 111 o v o o v 0 0 0 o a o o z O N 70 N n o s .0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O tr • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 171 O O O O o O O O O O O o O O ♦- tx F- H O D rA •O i• • RESOLUTION NO. 58-91 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 (STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION 5830) FOR MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 83-2 SONORA/FINAL AVENUES WHEREAS, The Council has previously approved the formation of Maintenance District 83-2; and WHEREAS, certain street improvements were constructed under the provisions of the Improvement Act of 1911; and WHEREAS, it may be necessary for the City to perform routine maintenance of the improvements constructed within Maintenance District 83-2; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of Section 5830 of the Streets and Highways Code it is the responsibility of the Council to estimate the cost of maintenance in the district during the ensuing year and to fix a special tax rate for the real property within said maintenance district to raise an amount of money to cover the expense of maintaining said improvements: • NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE Council of the City of Atascadero as follows: Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct. Section 2. Based on an estimate of the Public Works Director, the' Council sets a special tax rate of Twenty Dollars ($20. 00) per parcel as identified in the assessment diagram for Maintenance District 83-2, said special tax to cover the expense of maintaining the road and drainage improvements within said district during the ensuing year. Section 3. The adoption of this resolution constitutes a levy of the assessment for the fiscal year commencing the 1st day of July, 1991, and ending the 30th day of June, 1992. Section 4. The works of improvement and maintenance performed within Maintenance District 83-2 shall be performed pursuant to law and the County Auditor shall enter on the County Assessment Roll, the amount of the assessment, and said assessment shall then be collected at he same time and in the same manner as the County taxes are collected. After collection by said County, the net amount of the assessment shall be paid to the City Treasurer of the City. Section 5. The City Treasurer shall place all monies collected by the Tax Collector into the special fund known as "City of Atascadero Maintenance District 83-2 Sonora/Pinal Avenues" pursuant to the provisions of this resolution and law, and said transfer shall be made and accomplished as soon as said monies have been made available to the City Treasurer. Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor upon its adoption. Section 7. The City Clerk is hereby further ordered and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Tax Collector upon its adoption. Section 8. Any parcels or lots of land known as public property, as the same is defined in Section 22663 of Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code, which are included within the boundaries of the District shall be omitted and exempt from any assessment made under these proceedings. On motion by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember , the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: • ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO LEE RABOIN, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: GREG LUKE, Director of Public Works PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT A f-•Y j 1 null 11 •• • G a V w ur k r • \ V �-0 G Vl T u o o a O O a m 1 ffl IV N N IV IV N iV fV N ill .• • • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • b .� O r r «J r r �+ r r r• N n T rD tD (p O (A N N N N r r r rte• r r r r r In CAP 0 to G O O O U U O O O N O 1,J r7 3 t r(1 r VI a P N W r W r m O N 2 A co) -i D s � in V 2 � r 2 w Js O C) in u O n O n a n r N N N N N N N N N N vJD d O O J 10 �D N r N r r r r• r N r N 4'1 S CD W CD J V N N �A o o v o 0 0 o O z �• In O N 'W r W r N vn J�'2 r n m m x rr, N N N N N N N N N • • • • • • • • • m o Z O O O O O O O O O DO o O o O o o O O O A AW O «+ r w r Wo '90 < m D —0 A ac r r H ,0 n c a 4 O a a O O O O m r to N N N N N N N N N m \ m D N X fA JD co co w V 0` N N M-4 �l 40M r r r •- r r r r r m i2 vl O N O O S S y 3 N P r fj` l)1 r N 10 N m a 1 O U O O O U O O O D N N N N N N N N N N 0 .0 10 10 10 O 10 L N r •� r r r r r r f+ N co m CD CD O J -4 O• N N 171 r r r r r r r r r S O O O N O 7 cOi 1 -4 N N (T lJl r N 10 N h O O J 1 A n A x � CrJ N N N N N N N N N A O O O O O O O O O � • • • • • • • • • m ~ O O O O O O O O O y b a T) • m N W r • RESOLUTION NO. 59-91 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 (STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION 5830) FOR MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 86-3 AGUILA AVENUE WHEREAS, The Council has previously approved the formation of Maintenance District 86-3; and WHEREAS, certain street improvements were constructed under the provisions of the Improvement Act of 1911; and WHEREAS, it may be necessary for the City to perform routine maintenance of the improvements constructed within Maintenance District 86-3; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of Section 5830 of the Streets and Highways Code it is the responsibility of the Council to estimate the cost of maintenance in the district during the ensuing year and to fix a special tax rate for the real property within said maintenance district to raise an amount of money to cover the expense of maintaining said improvements: • NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE Council of the City of Atascadero as follows: Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct. Section 2 . Based on an estimate of the Public Works Director, the Council sets a special tax rate of Twenty Dollars ($20.00) per parcel as identified in the assessment diagram for Maintenance District 86-3, said special tax to cover the expense of maintaining the road and drainage improvements within said district during the ensuing year. Section 3 . The adoption of this resolution constitutes a levy of the assessment for the fiscal year commencing the 1st day of July, 1991, and ending the 30th day of June, 1992 . Section 4. The works of improvement and maintenance performed within Maintenance District 86-3 shall be performed pursuant to law and the County Auditor shall enter on the County Assessment Roll, the amount of the assessment, and said assessment shall then be collected at he same time and in the same manner as the County taxes are collected. After collection by said County, the net amount of the assessment shall be paid to the City Treasurer of the City. • Section 5. The City Treasurer shall place all monies collected by the Tax Collector into the special fund known as "City • of Atascadero Maintenance District 86-3 Aguila Avenue" pursuant to the provisions of this resolution and law, and said transfer shall be made and accomplished as soon as said monies have been made available to the City Treasurer. Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor upon its adoption. Section 7. The City Clerk is hereby further ordered and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Tax Collector upon its adoption. Section 8. Any parcels or lots of land known as public property, as the same is defined in Section 22663 of Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code, which are included within the boundaries of the District shall be omitted and exempt from any assessment made under these proceedings. On motion by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember , the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: • ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO LEE RABOIN, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: GREG LUKE, Director of Public Works PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT A • S1 inn( • C pw tY 1 G lD W C N � nt ca o O p n 1 7 W W W rn A r u y • • y -� 'n r r+ fU N N N N m N O Q O N G'1 09 iV N r _S C n O P o (n �+ N z r N ^1 D c IT, a y w s W W W N N r n N + + m O O W N r r r.f N N N r S • • • m O O O z O P O N v T• N z h m N N N D •rC O O O RI A ZN O O O A p W Q « r• N m m n r, rz O Y< O O m w W rn \ rn D Yn x + a N N O O N SLt r r to m< N N m z + + N -1-- O W o m 7 O O D W W N • + rn O O N r r Gf N N x • m O U z O txj . U x A lei s 10 H N N 7p O O O • • rn O O O O 9 I- 0 0 Ml • r+ J V f7 • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda items B-6 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/9/91 File No: TTM -21-90, From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director : SUBJECT Acceptance of final Tract Map 21-90 (subdivision of one lot into six airspace condominiums and a `common area) at 9375 Mussel-man { Avenue (Don Backes/Cuesta Engineering) . RRCOMMENDATION. Acceptance of final Tract Map 21-90 since all conditions of the map have been met by the applicant. BACKGROUND: • On November 27, 1990,, the City Council tentatively approved this map, subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommendation of the Planning Commission.` HE:ps cc: Don Backes Cuesta Engineering • EXHIBIT" A ��-_ .ATION/ZONING MAP i CITY OF ATASCADERO •�•• +� PRECISEPLAN 88-89 ` ''" » , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT `^ DEPARTMENT • f` } t- , s / - '� RSF-X(PD7) :t RMF_ .� �• GRT 1'�� � �, .� CT , cs '�' i l F'JY/ iq , REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: B-7 CITY OF ATABCADERO MEETING DATE: 719/91 Through: Ray Windsor, City (tanager From: Greg Luke# Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Short Range Transit Development Plan RFCOOX ZNDATION: Staff recommends that Council authorize the expenditure of $2,100 from the local TDA allocation'for the cities contribution to this study. D=GROUND The San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council has applied for and received UMTA Section 8' fundng for the preparation of a Short;' Range Transit Development Plan for Atascadero Dial-A-Ride. • The total project costs are set at $16,100 with $8,000 being grant funded and the remaining $2,100 coming from TDA funds, DISCUSSION: If approved, this study will be the first formal transit plan developed for Atascadero Dial-A-Ride. The study is planned to cover the assessment of current operations, developing goals, objectives and service standards, programming service improvement and planning capital improvement for the next five years. FISCAL IMPACT: The contribution of $2,100 would be paid from TDA funds. Enclosures: Project Funding Application r STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) Division of Mass Transportation (DMT) CALTR.ANS/U14TCA SECTION 8 TECI UCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE('TPA) PROJECT FUNDING APPLICATION Fiscal Year 1991-92 Grant No. CA-08-8018 Project Application 1 of- 2 Date Revised May 24, 1991 Application is hereby made to Caltrans,Division of Mass Transportation, for UMTA Section 8 funding not to exceed 80 percent of the cost of the project described;herein. SECTION I-GENERAL INFORMATION Name of Applicant (RTPA) San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council Address CountyGovernment Center San Luis Obisno�CA 93408` Contact Person(RTPA) Dan Herron Phone (805) 549-5711 Contact Person(Other) Phone Brief Title of Project Ataseadern DAR _ Short Range' Transit Development Plan FUNDING' SOURCES OF LOCAL FUNDS UMTA Section 8 8,000 Funds Requested $ State Subvention $ Local`Funds $ 2.100 TDA Funds $ 29100 TOTAL Other (Be Specific) $ PROJECT COST $ 10,100 Please Transmit Completed Applications To: CALTRANS —Division of Mass Transportation Attention: Kimberly Gayle P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 942744001 Page 1 of 4 SECTION II - PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION iA.. Provide a narrative description of the project, and identify all final products. State whether the project has been done previously and, if so, when. A Short Range Transit Development Plan will be prepared for the City of Atascadero transit system, Atascadero Dial a Ride. The system has grown to a 5 van service since initiation in 1979, and is expected to continue to expand to meet the needs of the rapidly growing city of Atascadero. No previous transit plan has ever been developed for Atascadero DAR; the plan will form the first formal guide for system growth and allow for an in-depth assessment of current operations. B. Discuss the need for the planning study and how the final recommendations will be implemented. Briefly describe all public transportation system(s) that will be affected. Atascadero is the 2nd largest city in the region with a population of 23, 517 and an annual growth rate of 4.4%. Transit service is operated under a contract, overseen by the City's Public Works Department. Triennial Performance Audits, augmented by Area Council technical assistance, have been the only source of recommendations for system improvements provided by transit professionals. The proposed Plan will be beneficial for assessing • current operations, developing goals, objectives and service standards, programming service improvements and planning capital improvements for the next five years. Special effort will be given to studying the main commercial service corridor and to devising a capital improvement plan. Implementation of the plan will be a joint responsibility of Atascadero and SLOACC, beginning with technical assistance from SLOACC in preparing grant applications for capital improvements scheduled for FY92/93 . Continued assistance will follow, including monitoring and facilitating progress on actions identified in the plan. C. Describe how TDA and other local funds are being used to support transit needs within your jurisdiction. Compare these with street and road uses. The City of Atascadero has a substantial commitment to public transit, with $277, 000 of $454,400 TDA total funds typically used each year for transit services (61%) . The State Controllers report wi-ll understate this commitment, as excess transit funds were accumulated during fiscal years 85-87, and the Area Council declined to allocate further transit funding until these funds were expended. Attached is a spreadsheet showing regional allocation for TDA, adjusted for Atascadero's Carry Over Balance to show true transit commitment. • Page 2of4 SECTION III -SCOPE OF WORK A. List all tasks needed to perform the project and complete the final product(s). Staff time devoted to . consultant contracts (i.e. RFP and contract preparation), as well as hearings, reviews and board actions, should be included'in the task listing. 1. Issue RFT, form review committee, screen responses, gain city and Area Council concurrence on transit consultant, sign contract. 2. Collect data, review past audits and operating reports, interview key persons in management and policy roles as well as transit users, review maintenance procedures, gather demographic and growth data, review Regional Transit Development Plan. 3 . Prepare Draft in concert with local staff, including current operations assessment, recommended transit standards, goals and objectives, recommended improvements and a financial plan. . for capital improvements. 4. Refine draft by distributing copies for comment to transit staff, Area Council staff, City staff and interested citizens. 5. Present Plan to Atascadero City Council and modify as necessary for approval. 6. Implement Plan, with Atascadero using Area Council technical assistance on grant applications, other steps identified in • the plan. B. Display a table that identifies the costs for each participant (RTPA, consultant, other local agencies) associated with each task listed in Section III-A. ATASCADERO CONSULTANT TOTAL CITY & SLOACC 1) Issue RFP $ 500 —0— 500 2) Collect Data 300 2,000 2, 300 3) Prepare Draft —0— 4,000 4,000 4) Refine Plan 200 1,500 1,700 5) Present Plan 100 500 600 6) Implement Plan 1,000 —0 1,000 TOTAL $2, 100 8, 000 10,100 Page 3of4 C. Show a time line for each task listed in Section III-A. • JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY 1) Prepare RFP/ f----f Contract 2) Collect Data 3) Draft Analysis 4) Review/Refine Draft 5) Present Final �--� Study 6) Implement Plan SECTION IV-ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Use this section to provide additional information in support of the project. It should be used for footnotes, clarification or continuation of information presented in other sections. It can also be used to ask questions that will be responded to during the project evaluation period. FIKCAL YEAR 1989/1990 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT • FLND APPORTIONMENT ******A 1USTED TO SHOW ATASCALIERO TYPICAL ECPENT-1ITLIRES CITIES LTF STA STA TOTAL TDA SLORTA SCAT COMMUNITY TRANSIT TDA TOTAL PERCENT SPENT &COWTY L.P. REV LTF & STA CONSOLIDATED SYSTEMS TOTALFOR STREETS ON TRANSIT ARROYO GRANDE $281,092 $0 $0 $281,092 $27,920 $,,168 $0 $116,085 $165,004 41.30% ATASCADERO $454,423 $0 $0 $454,423 £60,020 $0 'K $217.000 $277,020 $177,403 0.96% 6ROVER CITY $229,381 $0 $0 $229,381 $22,420 $71,867 $0 $94,287 $1'35,094 41.10% MORRO BAY $20'21,62 $0 gr,'; $202,626 $24,:-Kt) $0 $17M6 $202, 26 �+1 1011.00 PASO ROBLES $327,754 V $0 $3 7,784 $51,900 $0 $14 000 $65,900 $261,834 20.10% PISMO BEACH $151,2?4 $0 $0 $151,294 $14,450 $47,418 $'2,400 $64,268 $87,026 4"x.48% SLO CITY ' . $820,401 $0 $0 $820,401 $1''8,590 $0 $324,57. $4-.^-.,IAO $=57,2:?? 56.46% KO COUNTY $1,771,099 $n $i) $1,771,009 $3366,590 $29,51 414c1 1Si; $S'at 2�5 $1,174 804 °1.67% CEREBRAL PALSY $6,000 $0 $0 $6,000 $0 $0 $6,for $6 cOcici $r; 100.00% ---------------------------- --------------------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------ -- TOTAL REGION $4,244,100 $ ; 7 9 a? ^-- 5- �5 0 $l $4, 44,100 $,06 210 $�4E. :68 $: ? 474 r1,a�5.6_�� $2,.�_�h,448 44.43f,- • Page 4 of 4 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: B-8 CITY OF ATASCADERO MEETING DATE: 7/9/91 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: dreg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Construction of asphalt curbing and paving at Paloma Creek Park. Staff recommends Council award this project to the low bidder, Whirlwind Excavating. (Resolution No. 68-91) BACKGROUNDI A`_request for bids was issued June 11, 1991. A total of 4 bids were received (see attached spread sheet) This project includes the installation of approximately 1000 linear feet of asphalt curbing along the Viejo Camino boundary of the Paloma Creek Parking lot and the paving of approximately 6150 square feet of paving for a driveway/walkway through the grass area to the concession stand. Flog" i GT: The cost of this project is $9,200 to be paidfor out of budgeted funds. Attachments: Bid Summary_ Resolution No. 68-91 Whirlwind Bid Request for Bids inc. specifications RESOLUTION No. 68-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADEROj, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN ACRE KENT WITH WHIRLWIND EXCAVATING TO CONSTRUCT ASPHALT CURBS AND DRIVEWAY AT PALOMA CREEK PARK The City Council of the City of Atascadero, California, hereby resolves as follows: 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute an agreement with: Whirlwind Excavating to provide asphalt curbs and driveway at Paloma Creek Park. 2 The City Manager is hereby authorized to make minor corrections or modifications of a mathematical or clerical nature. 3.` The Finance Director is hereby authorized to appropriate funds, if necessary; release and expend funds; and issue warrants to comply with the terms of this agreement. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a `regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Atascadero held on the CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk • BID SUMMARY INSTALLATION OF ASPHALT CURBING AND PAVING AT PALOMA CREEK PARK WHIRLWIND EXCAVATING $ 9,200. 00 3310 TEMPLETON ROAD ATASCADERO, CA 93422 MICHAEL FREDERICK PAVING $10, 616.06 5750 SAN BENITO ROAD ATASCADERO, CA 93422 TOSTE PAVING $12, 376.00 2715 GREEN PLACE ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420 A EXCAVATING $13,466.00 P.O. BOX 554 ATASCADERO, CA 93423 • • FAbI OAULITY WORK Jeff Baxter C ' WHIRLWIND EXCAVATING GENERAL ENGINEERING 3EPAV1 NGNG CSPECIAL STS 5218 •Septic Systems •House Pads @S for the COIIStrLiCtiOn Of • •private Res .utility Trenching k Curb and Driveway 3310 TEMPLETON RD..ATASCADERO.CA 93422 •(805)466-1467 TEM QTY UNITS PRICE AMOUNT 001 A.C. Curb 1000 LF [ 3'00 ] [ loco ] 002 A.C. Driveway 57 5"�-0*Pf. 6-7 a0] 003 Excavation 171 CY 004 Overexcavation 10 ICY *-• [�„ 4 [ ,rte ] 005 Class II Base 114 Si C4. [ V.] [ l BidTotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . / ] Wi eir l s Name Date 10 /e =241t fjg fr(- AcTdress Au orize a ure i er S License NO. Type of organization (Individual, Partnership, Corporation) License ClassCA)rj-cense ��a�10-n�'� Note: Square Brackets ( [ ] ) indicates numerical cost which must be included for the bid to be considered complete. Failure to fill in all the information will disqualify the bid. Kjc31y-- 0r') q &4j � 62 •ZI - 9 � ; 2, t 7t&j u o0 4 PR u'- /Uwrr t S it 2 . 3.5 3, 1 i F-r•-1 1A oo <f TM-))�rL -4 M o%j p-c,T- (S tN c c,v 0 f,o ooZ moo 3 ; Aa-Jt>4,t, 0u rT Pt::.cc,&— An4-- AC.ejj¢,c�;* 4 . ttJ Ak-r QtUC.*— IS A. 32 /,3Q.fr, eAsSo ajj A 16 . 1 /+-(C.0 U0E� . �. 1t-1STA•,- (S 0 ; 1 S gco'4D(-.0 CPf- rKt�K -4cl_:� �D LOr1i1.� PR.t0%. . CI .L."L--_. " a F. 1972'r-7"� ' d� CITY OF ATASCADERO i�'" June 11, 1991 The City of Atascadero is seeking bids from qualified contractors to install approximately 1000 linear feet of asphalt concrete curbing and pave a 6150 square foot asphalt driveway at Paloma Creek Park. I. Scone of Work 1. Install asphalt concrete curbing in parking lot along alignments set by City Staff. The curbing shall conform to San Luis Obispo County Standard Drawing C-1. 2 . Install asphalt concrete driveway. The driveway structural section shall be 2 1/2 inches of type B asphalt concrete on 6 inches of class II base. • II. Provisions and Specifications 1. All bids shall be submitted on a unit cost basis for the complete in place work item. The unit of measurement for final payment of the asphalt concrete curbing shall be based upon the actual quantity in linear feet. The unit of measurement for final payment of the asphalt concrete driveway shall be based upon the actual quantity in square feet. 2. All work - must be completed in a maximum of 10 calendar days after the Notice to Proceed has been issued. 3 . Unless otherwise noted, all material and workmanship shall be in accordance with the current specifications of the County of San Luis Obispo. 4. The City may change the Specifications, character of work, or quantity of work, provided the total arithmetic dollar value of all such changes, both additive and deductive, does not exceed 25 percent of the contract price. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS • 6500 PALMA AVENUE • ATASCADERO, CA 93422 AdrrrinistnttiuniEnyineerirkV: 8051461-5020 0 Wastea-ater Treatment: 461-5077 City FAX: 461-0606 5. Immediately prior to final inspection of the work, the contractor shall remove all debris leaving the • entire site neat, presentable, and in usable condition. This item includes all necessary repair and restoration work required by the Contractor's operation. The cost of final clean-up of the work shall be considered as included in the bid prices and no additional payment shall be made. 6. Horizontal alignment for the construction items shall be established by City Staff. 7. Contractor shall attend all pre-construction meetings required to coordinate work. 8. The successful bidder shall sign a contract with the City of Atascadero which contains various provisions, including insurance, bonds, liability, and obligations. A sample copy of this contract is available for inspection at the department of Public Works, Room 308. 9. Bids shall be delivered on the attached form to: Director of Public Works - Room 308 City Administration Building 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 • Bids must be delivered no later than 2:00 pm, June 18, 1991 Sincere y, Gr e Director of Public Works City Engineer Attachments: SLO County Drawing C-1, Bid Sheet, Site Plan CC: Andy Takata, Director of Parks and Recreation • Schedule of Prices for the Construction of Paloma Park Curb and Driveway #--- M- -ITEM QTY IINIT3M PRICE AMOUNT 001 A.C. Curb 1000 LF [ ] [ ] 002 A.C. Driveway 57 CY 003 Excavation 171 CY [ j 004 Overexcavation 10 CY [ ] [ 7 005 Class II Base 114 CY MBid Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] Bidder's Name Date Address Authorized Signature Bidder's License No. Type of Organization • (Individual, Partnership, Corporation) License Class License Expiration Date Note: Square Brackets ( [ ] ) indicates numerical cost which must be included for the bid to be considered complete. Failure to fill in all the information will disqualify the bid. Revisions A pprovols Deeerio/:on Or Aawovea Dale eoun/r £+e%•eei h•eow.wr.ne•s s 6 /l2 � UE3 JI4"RA4a ms/oN vivr F/L L ER 'o EXAANSiow.of yr MYEMVwr Jw S" J- • 1. W w/OTN TO .1 rots PLANT 10 0 W I A.C. c STRUCTURE o $ACKFI�L a ° ° STRUCTURE r A BACKNLLo TY— RE C AC DIKE PwEM wr WIDTN AwA.tcOWD TO rW PoM/T 6 .. Z k"RAQ I � PAQ IO J w C + W c � _ STRUCTURE BACKFILL � �.• P � L i.TYPE .4 NOTE:(L) TYPE_ A AND C CURB TO BE CC.ASS "8J. P.GO (2.) A G ala TO BE TYPE "S (3.) STR. 8KFL Sect 19-3.06 Gime Std. Specs. Curing Method— Culriny shall be by Me P gmented Cunt7y Compound Method acwrding -b the provisions or-Sect/on S0-T at'the 5�efz .5tana/ar+d Specifications. Curing Compound shall to the white pigment t)•p4• Spoatieotfon Ret eovwrr Or SAN u/is oalsP0 Sew*.' EN6/NEEA/N6 DEPARTMENT /At = 8 N Drainp No. 0 CURBS C-/ e-s 1 P-, reams_ i -i j 'v �j No 54:4Z5 1� v • City of 4tascadero Purchasing Agent 6504) Palma Avenue Atascadero . CA 93422 NOTICE OF 8I0 AWARD Issue Date Bid No . Resolu:ion No . You are hereby notified that the commodities and%or services listed have been awarded to you subject to the terms and conditions of the bid number shown and to the General Conditions of this Notice of Hid Award : V E N D 0 R • I T E`'t QUANTITY UNIT DESCR I PT I CN PRICE Purchasing Department Bv: Vendors Recresentative Fhone • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCAD8R0 Agenda Item:-B-g C-1 Through: Ray Windsor, ,City Manager _Mtg. Date: 6/25/91 & 7/9/91 From: Henry Engen, Community Dev. Di . Wc,, File No: TPM 32-90 SUBJECTS Request to subdivide three lots of 12.5 acres into four parcel's of 3. 12 acres each at 585, 625, and 685 GarciaRoad Conrad Langille/Twin Cities Engineering. RECOMMENDATION Per the Planning Commission's recommendation approve TPM 32-90 based on the Findings and Conditions of Approval. . BACKGROUND: On June 4, 1991, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above subject matter and on a 5:1 vote, approved the parcel map subject to the Findings 'and' Conditions of Approval. There was • discussion and public testimony as reflected in the attached minutes excerpt. HE:ps Attachments: Staff Report - June 4, `1991 Minutes Excerpt - June 4, '1991 cc Conrad Langille Twin Cities Engineering • CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-4 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 4, 1991 BY: Gary V. Raiser, Assistant Planner File No: TPM #32-90 SUBJECT: Consideration of a tentative parcel map application to subdivide three (3) existing contiguous lots of approximately 12.5 acres into four (4) new parcels, each of 3. 12 acres, for single-family residential use. RECONN=DATION s Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map #32-90 based on the Findings contained in Attachment G and the Conditions of Approval contained in Attachment H. A. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . : . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Conrad Langille 2 Representative . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Twin Cities Engineering 3. Project Address. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .585, 625, & 685 Garcia Road .4. Legal Description. . . . . .. . . . . Lots 8, 11, & 14, Blk 5O, AC 5. Site Area. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .approx 12.5 acres 6. Zoning. . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS _(Residential Suburban) 7.`, General Plan Designation. . . . . . . . . . .Suburban Single Family 8. Existing Use. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .vacant 9. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted May 14, 1991 B. ANALYSIS: The applicant requests approval of a tentative parcel map application to divide three (3) contiguous original Colony Lots into four (4) ,parcels, each of 3.12 acres, for single-family residential use (Attachment' C) . The project is located on the east side of the recently-construction portion of Garcia Road (Attachments A` & B) . The site is currently vacant, except for • the overhead and underground utilities discussed below. • Minimum Lot Size: The minimum lot size in the RS zone ranges from 2 1/2 to 10 acres, depending on the results of several performance standards, as described in Section 9-3. 144 of the City Zoning Ordinance. Staff has performed this analysis on the project site, and determined that the minimum lot size for the site is 3.04 acres. Lot Size Factor Distance from Center ( 16,000' - 18,0001 ) 0.60 Septic Suitability (27 min./inch = moderate) 0.75 Average Slope ( 11 - 20 %) 0.75 Access Condition (Paved Road <15% slope) 0.40 General Neighborhood Character (2.69 ac) 0.54 Minimum Lot Size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.04 acres Each of the proposed parcels is to have a net area of 3. 12 acres; therefore, the minimum lot size criteria has been met. Existing Utility Easements: Three (3) utility easements are shown on the tentative parcel map. These easements generally run parallel to Garcia Road, and occupy almost half of the project site. Since the proposed lot • lines are more or less perpendicular to Garcia Road, the utility easements would also occupy almost half the area of each proposed parcel. All three of these easements are for the benefit of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) . Two of the easements are for existing overhead electrical transmission lines, and the third is an existing underground high-pressure gas line (natural gas) . The project has been referred to PG&E for review and comment. No formal written comments were received from PG&E; however, the Land Agent for PG&E, Neil Ballweber, met with planning staff on two occasions and verbally described their concerns. In general, PG&E does not object to the project, nor do they object to the proposed grading and driveway construction within these easements, provided ( 1) there is a provision that PG&E conceptually approves all construction activities prior to permits being issued; (2) PG&E is notified prior to the commencement of any construction activities; (3) all provisions that are contained within existing easements of record are maintained; and (4) all easements, and all building restrictions related thereto, are shown and/or noted on the final map to be recorded. These concerns expressed by PG&E are reflected and adequately • addressed in the attached Conditions of Approval (Attachment H) . 2 v The Preliminary Grading Plan: • A preliminary grading plan, prepared by a registered civil engineer, has been received for the project (Attachment D) . Said grading plan was requested by staff to disclose the potential environmental impacts of the project. The grading plan shows access to the proposed building sites on each of the proposed parcels. Each building site has been carefully positioned to ( 1) stay clear of the overhead utility lines (PG&E easements) , (2) maintain adequate distance between residences, and (3) minimize the need for grading and tree removal. Because of the sensitive placement of building sites on each lot (in relatively flat areas) , and because a common driveway is proposed to be shared by parcels 1 & 2, the extent of grading would probably be substantially the same whether this project is approved or not (four (4) residences on the site verses three (3) residences on the site) . Tree Removals: A certified arborist has reviewed the preliminary grading plan and has prepared a complete and detailed tree report. The tree inventory lists ninety-five (95) trees that would be potentially impacted by development; however, this is only a fraction of the total number of trees on the site. Because of the length of the • report, only the summary sheet has been included as an attachment hereto (Attachment E) . According to the certified arborist, eight ( 8) trees would have to be removed given the preliminary grading plan: seven (7) to facilitate access to each building site; and one ( 1) for development of a residence on proposed parcel 2. Of the eight (8) trees to be removed, three (3) are actually non-native Coffeeberry shrubs (Rhamnus californica) . One of these Coffeeberry shrubs is currently dead. The remaining five (5) trees to be removed are all native Oaks: two (2) are dead; two (2) are described by the certified arborist as being in poor condition; and one ( 1) is a healthy 16-inch Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) . Pursuant to the current Tree Ordinance (Ordinance No. 214) , replacement trees (similar species, native stock, five-gallon size) would have to be planted on the site at a "one per 6-inch dbh removed" basis for non-deciduous Oaks, and at a "two per 6- inch removed" basis for deciduous Oaks. No replacement trees are required for dead trees, however. 3 • 3 • Of the three (3) living native trees to be removed, two (2) are non-deciduous Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia) and one ( 1) is a deciduous Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) . The two (2) non-deciduous Oaks have a total dbh of 24 inches. The one ( 1) Valley Oak has a dbh of 16 inches. Therefore, ten ( 10) replacement trees would be required. In addition, said Tree Ordinance mandates that one ( 1) native tree be planted on a "per residential dwelling unit" basis. Since four (4) residential units would eventually be constructed, the total replacement trees to be planted, given the preliminary grading plan, would be fourteen ( 14) . All other trees on the site can be retained. A tree protection plan has been included in the certified arborist' s report and is shown both graphically and with text on the preliminary grading plan. It is staff' s opinion that impacts of this project related to both grading and tree removal have been minimized and/or mitigated to the point of not being significant. Conditions for Fire Department Access: The preliminary grading plan shows the common driveway serving parcels 1 & 2 to be twelve ( 12) feet wide, with a two-foot wide gravel shoulder on one side. This constitutes an unobstructed • all-weather driving surface of fourteen ( 14) feet. The City Fire Department, upon review of the project, has imposed several recommended conditions of approval (Attachment H) . One of these conditions is that the common driveway, because of its length, be constructed with an all-weather driving surface twenty (20) feet in width. Consequently, more grading than that currently shown on the preliminary grading plan would be necessary for the construction of this common driveway (at least where the driveway is to be located on steeper slopes) . This could, in turn, cause the removal of an additional tree; specifically, the 14-inch Live Oak shown on the preliminary grading plan (tree #50) . Any such additional tree removal would, of course, also increase the number of required tree replacements. Other fire access conditions related to driveway turning radii and turnarounds can easily be met without the need for additional grading or tree removals. Staff maintains that the project, as conditioned, would still minimize site disturbance, including but not limited to grading and tree removals, to an acceptable level. Subdivision Design: With respect to the design of the proposed subdivision, staff offers the following: • 4 1. SOLAR ORIENTATION -- The lots are large enough to allow • proper building orientation and maximum feasible control of solar exposure by the lot owner, regardless of lot orientation. 2. DEPTH-WIDTH RELATIONSHIP -- Proposed parcel 3 slightly exceeds the desired "not greater than 3: 1" rule. However, given the minimum lot size in the RS zone, there is adequate assurance that deep lot subdivision will not occur. 3. LOT LINES -- Proposed lot lines are perpendicular to the street, which is encouraged by the Subdivision Ordinance. CONCLUSIONS: Staff believes that this project, with the attached Conditions of Approval (Attachment H) , is consistent with the General Plan and complies with all applicable provisions contained within the General Plan and Atascadero Municipal Code. Moreover, staff feels that any adverse environmental impacts that may be associated with subsequent development of the proposed four (4) parcels would not be substantially greater than that associated with the development of the existing three (3) parcels. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Location Map (Zoning) • Attachment B - Location Map (General Plan) Attachment C - Tentative Parcel Map Attachment D - Preliminary Grading Plan Attachment E - Arborist' s Summary Sheet Attachment F - Negative Declaration Attachment G - Findings for Approval Attachment H - Conditions of Approval TPM-32-90.sr 5 • CITY OF 1TASCAD EZ O ATTACHMENT A • 1 -- CONLYLT: ij7j 0 EV ELQ F;yl'c�� Location Map ( Zoning) . _ TPM #32-90 r t r rl RS SITE \ R F• 6 8 L Q El ^4Mr�y I �l I L O 101 / „A4Ci� P tFSf 4040 " C/ �KPva POW R --� Q i J 1' ClTy OF -ATA -S FZp Ow I• _�- CO�tiLtin,��l p E-,^:-` _ ATTACHMENT B Location Map (Gen. Pla TPM #32-90 • PUBL R E C4 TR RETAV COM Citi 11 i EN SI Y J I / U TI-F 1 / ti , d � E R � ? Z 1 /o, • —_ CIA v d / l R MM i I ao'0 I 1, CITY OF RTAS CAD El`O ATTACHMENT C . MUNI t DE-V LQP;NIy 1, Tentative Parcel Map • N ^ .�n1+ TPM #32-90 • - D E �iri'yl��i' i � i �i' ' g �� S s F-Q ( 1 1 t � J • ,I 1 E 1 1 t SMI 1 � y r ( i � ' I t I t t � A , �h ' '7 CITY F ATAS GSD FiZO ATTACHMENT D CCNOvfLT,Ti t 0E'� OF�,l,�y 1 Prelim, Grading Plan ,. Z TPM #32-90 - D E? Zt_y�i • :=r 7 ���� SII '�. i�� ; �' %�._ .�`��`\11 �►Ifl�t� % f Of �1 CITY OF ATA5 CAD DER 0 ATTACHMENT E ' r CONLtiIL.�Ti^I DE—LOP ,j�ti� Arborist ' s Summary sheet _ D A-77M i TPM #32-90 • Twin Cities/Langille -8- April 9, 1991 Arborist Report 91 . Double 8" diameter Talley Oak. Fair to good condition. To be reained. Install tree protection fence at the line of encroachment. 92. 6" diameter Live Oak. Fair to good condition. To be retained. Install tree Protection fence at the line of encroachment. 93. 15" diameter Valley Oak. Fair to good condition. To be retained. Install tree protection fence at the line of encroachment. 94. Triple 24" diameter Valley Oak. Fair to good condition. To be retained. Install tree protection fence at the line of encroachment. 95. 12" diameter Valley Oak. Fair to good condition. To be retained. Install tree protection fence at the line of • encroachment. COMMENTS: Ninety-five trees will be impacted by the proposed development of this tract and eight trees will require removing. The trees to be removed are trees #17, 43, 47,48, 51 , 52 & 72 of the attached tree inventory. Tree #17 is a dead Coffee berry bush and tree #43 is two Coffee berry bushes in the proposed common drive right-of- way for lots #1 and 2. Trees #47 8 48 are dead Valley Oaks, ad- jacent to the common drive for lots #1 and 2. Trees 51 and 52 are Coast Live Oaks that are in poor condition and are in the cut slope for the common drive for lots 1 and 2. Tree #72 is a healthy 16" diameter Valley Oak located in the center of the proposed building site for lot #2. The removal of these eight trees will have no negative impact on the urban forest in this area. There are many more trees existing in this area than the trees inventoried for this project. The ninety-five trees inventoried will be the only trees impacted by this proposed development and . none of the trees remaining will be impacted significantly. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The proposed building sites and access drives were located so as- not to remove or impact any more trees than necessary. The proposed sites are of adequate size for development and should be of little consequence to the adjacent trees. With the conditions of this • report and the attached "Tree Protection Measures and Requirements", I recommend that this project be approved. 6U (ZA41, . Jack Brazeal Certified Arborist �` CITY OF ATASG4DERO ATTACHMENT F •=�- COitiLl�IL�,Ti''t D E'�i0 P:�i�ti 1' Negative Declaration • 1 DE-7A.TnE.N L TPM #32-90 • CITY OF ATASCADERO Ag- ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEYr DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO.CA 93422 (805)461-5035 APPLICANT: C o N R.Alb yp,N C,.LLX_r 6Z5 �PQIN q JET kt,o Rct s ES� GA PROJECT TITLE: Z PM 3Z-q0 PROJECT LOCATION: s as; 6ZS� �# CGS GAP-ciA P_jcAD f a PROJECT DESCRIPTION: avistot�c 't�QEE C3� ExtSTi►JG CoNT1C�o.xS t_o't:'S rt,9- SkN.f,,Lg-- e->rA _ P.EStDe-t-'TIA -. v to. • FINDINGS: 1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment. 2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited.but comulatively considerable. 4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. DETERKMATION: Based on the above findings.and the information contained in the initial study(made a part hereof by refer- ence and on file in the Community Development Department).it has been determined that the above project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. t E Henry Engen Community Development Director r Date Posted: (AA`i i`-k-) mck 1 i Date Adopted: i E CDDtt-M �• t • ATTACHMENT G - Findings for Approval Tentative Parcel Map #32-90 585, 625, and 685 Garcia Road (Langille/Twin Cities) June 4, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING: The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. MAP FINDINGS: 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. 2. The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. • 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of the development proposed. 5. The design of the subdivision, and/or the proposed improvements, will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of the improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or the use of property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The proposed subdivision design, and/or the type of improvements proposed, will not cause serious public health problems. TPM-32-90.fin • ATTACHMENT H -- Conditions of Approval • Tentative Parcel Map #32-90 585, 625, and 685 Garcia Road (Langille/Twin Cities) June 4, 1991 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. All subsequent development of the site shall substantially conform to the preliminary grading plan contained within the application and included herein as Attachment D. 2. Designated building sites shall be shown on the final map, and shall be placed in the same general location as the building sites shown on the preliminary grading plan (Attachment D) . 3. All available utility services shall be stubbed to the property line of each lot prior to the recording of the map. This shall include water, power, telephone, gas, and cable television. 4. The driving surface of the common driveway serving parcels 1 & 2 shall have a minimum unobstructed width of twenty (20) feet (including shoulders) , shall be paved where driveway slopes are at or in excess of twelve (.12) percent, and all • flatter portions of the common driveway shall, at minimum, be treated with an approved all-weather surface. 5. Access drives to all parcels shall have a minimum inside turning radius of twenty-eight (28) feet and a minimum outside turning radius of forty-eight (48) feet. 6. Approved turnarounds shall be provided along driveways to each residence. The specific design and location of each turnaround shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Fire Marshall and Community Development Department. 7. One ( 1) new fire hydrant shall be placed along the common access to parcels 1 & 2. Said fire hydrant shall generally be located at the point where the common driveway splits to serve the individual building sites on parcels 1 & 2; the specific type and location of the fire hydrant, however, shall be as approved by the City Fire Marshall. 8. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the map. 9. All terms contained within existing easements of record • shall remain in effect and be complied with. (Page 1 of 3) 'l • 10. Evidence shall be submitted to the Community Development Department, prior to the issuance of any and all building permits, that the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) has reviewed and approved, in concept, the work proposed by the building permit application(s) being reviewed. 11. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer. 12. A grading and drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to the issuance of any building permits. This review may effect the proposed location, configuration and/or alignment of the driveways and building sites as shown on the proposed grading and drainage plan. 13. Garcia Road improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and accepted by the City prior to recording the parcel map. 14. Obtain an encroachment permit from the City of Atascadero Public Works Department prior to the start of any construction within the public right of way. • 15. The subdivider shall install all street signs, traffic delineation devices, warning and regulatory signs, guardrails, barricades, and other similar devices where required by the Director of Public Works. Signs shall be in conformance with the current State of California uniform sign chart. Installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review and modifications after construction. 16. All lot grading and drainage improvements shall require written statement by a registered Civil Engineer that all work has been completed and is in full compliance with the approved plans prior to the final building inspection. 17. Offer to dedicate to the City of Atascadero the following right-of-way and easement. Street Name: Garcia Road Limits: Minimum of 20 feet from the centerline of the right of way to the property line. In the area of the cul-de-sac the offer of dedication shall include all of the pavement and shoulder area. The shoulder area shall be a minimum of 4 feet off the edge of the pavement. 18. Offer to dedicate to the public for public utility • purposes any public utility easement. (Page 2 of 3) 19. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior • to or in conjunction with the recording of the parcel map. 20. A final map in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City' s Subdivision Ordinance prior to the recording of the final map. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor as required by the Land Surveyors Act and Subdivision Map Act. Monuments set within any road right of way shall conform to city standard drawing M-1. b. Pursuant to section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act the engineer or surveyor shall notice the City Engineer in writing that the monuments have been set. C. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. d. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted • for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 21. Approval of this tentative map shall expire two (2) years from the date of final approval, unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request received prior to the expiration date. TPM-32-90.con (Page 3 of 3) • PC 6/4/91 - MINUTES EXCERPT The motion carried 6:0:1 with the ollowing roll • call: AYES: Commissioners Hi nd, Johnson, Waage, Kudlac, Hanaue , and Chairperson Luna NOES: None ASSENT: ' ssioner Lochridge 4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 32-90: Application filed by Conrad Langille (Twin Cities Engin- eering) to divide 12.5 acres into four parcels of 3.12 acres each. Subject site is located at 585, 625 and 685 Garcia Road. Gary Kaiser presented the staff report which focused on issues including minimum lot size, existing utility easements, preliminary grading plan, tree removals, conditions for Fire Department access and subdivision design. Staff is recommending approval subject to 21 conditions. Commission questions and discussion followed. Chairperson Luna stated he is bothered by the fact that there • were no septic areasoutlined and that further tree removal may occur. Mr. Kaiser responded that each proposed lot was provided with percolation tests and deep borings to verify that conventional leach fields could be placed on each of the sites. Chairperson Luna referenced Parcels 3 and 4 noting that if one went further up the existing driveway and did not cut across, there is a short piece of easement for access to Parcel 3 on Parcel 4. Chairperson Luna referenced the Fire Master Plan concerning wildland and urban interface development and the minimum wildfire protection standards applied, and read a section from the State Responsibility Area Fire Safe Regulations concerning what constitutes the basic wildland fire protection standards of the California State Board of Forestry. Chairperson Luna asked to what extent Garcia is a dead end road and asked if there is an agreement between the City and adjacent property owner as far as emergency access out of these areas. Mr. DeCamp stated that the gate was to be a Fire Department crash gate so there would be emergency access. Chairperson • Luna noted his main concern was that more people may be put in harm's way by subdividing in a wildfire area and not giving them a way- out except for Garcia. He added that the City must PC 6/4/91 - MINUTES EXCERPT make an agreement to provide that Garcia Road is not a dead end road and one has an emergency exit out. • Chairperson Luna noted that there are two main driveways in excess of 20%, and expressed concern that the project could be redesigned so that it would conform to the minimum standards. - Public Testimony - Conrad Langille, applicant, proceeded to address issues raised by Chairperson Luna. He discussed the private easement road which gives access to 4 parcels only noting that Garcia Road does not extend down there on a legal basis. The gate was put up and extended so there would not be a problem with emergency vehicles gaining access. Mr. Langille then responded to questions by Chairperson Luna concerning clarification of the various easements. With regard to the slope issue, one of the primary issues was trying to gain an access that was not too steep but yet would not impact too many trees. He discussed aesthetics involved in designing the site, and noted he did not have any objections to the Conditions of Approval. Ken Romero with Twin Cities Engineering, stated that a 2: 1 slope is the maximum slope that you can get per the UBC based on soils reports, etc. Discussion ensued on this issue. • Mr. DeCamp clarified that the only way they're going to be able to go steeper than 2: 1 is to have a geologic report that shows that there is sufficient stability in the soils and underlying material. Mr. Romero addressed the septic system issues and stated that there will be no problem with placing systems on each of the four lots. - End of Public Testimony - Commissioner Waage noted that Attachment B shows two lots between the site and the freeway area, and asked if a road could be put through there when these lots are developed. Mr. DeCamp reported that CalTrans has had reservations about allowing additional access onto their right-of-way. He emphasized that the City is well aware of the need to establish an additional access out of that area whether it occurs on Garcia or Santa Cruz. In response to question by Chairperson Luna, Mr. DeCamp stated there is a private crossing on San Ramon that CalTrans allowed for agricultural purposes on some of that property. It is not adequate for the type of traffic from this development. He • further noted that the Circulation Element will address this PC 6/4/91 - MINUTES EXCERPT area as it is a major issue at the north end of town. • There was continued discussion concerning minimum driveway standards, along with the replacement of the Garcia bridge. Commissioner Highland remarked that the reality is that full urban services and rural living are not compatible. MOTION: By Commissioner Kudlac and seconded by Commissioner Highland to approve Tentative Parcel Map 32-90 based on the Findings and Conditions of Approval. The motion carried 5:1:1 with the following roll call: AYES: Commissioners Kudlac, Highland, Johnson, Hanauer, and Waage NOES: Chairperson Luna ABSENT: Commissioner Lochridge 5. VARIANCE 01-91: Application filed by Bruce Riehl and Annie B dford to consider a request to establish a six foot f nce within the required front and side yard setbacks. ubject site • is located at 4590 Lobos Avenue. Mr. Davidson presented the staff repor and provided a background concerning the establishment o the fence. Staff is recommending denial of the variance two of the findings for a variance could not be made. Commission questions and discussio followed. Commissioner Hanauer stated tha he did not find that corner to be unsafe. He added th with the way the fence is constructed, one can see any a walking in the street or a car moving, etc. Chairperson Luna comme ed that the fence is not a potential safety hazard. Commissioner John n added that it is difficult to see in either direction n the street between the slats of the fence. He noted that t ere is a big difference between a solid fence and looking t rough a couple of trees. Commissio r Highland emphasized that a variance must be based on hands i,p to the property that prevents the property from being ilized, and cannot be based on hardship to the owners, their lifestyle, etc. He voiced his feeling that this • var' nce is not justified. REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: C-2 (A) CITY OF ATABCADERO MEETING DAT93 7-9-91 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Report of Cease and Desist Area Requirements for thel kewi area. -- INTRODUCTION:' e April 23, 1991 Council meeting, the Council considered the ate of allowing Mr. Mike Messer to connect to the public sewer s stem using a private pump and small diameter force main. The Council determined that an individual pumping system was appropriate, recognizing that the proposed system was an interim I - solution and that eventually 1y atraditional sewer system would have to be built in the area. Accordingly, the applicant was required to pay his fair share of the sewer system that would eventually serve the Lakeview Drive i area as a condition of his approval. While this condition to pay for his fair share of a future sewer system in the: area obligatesthat the applicant to participate in an area sewer system, two questions remain unanswered: (1) how will sewer service eventually be provided to the area, and (2) how much will the sewer service cost each lot, including the applicant? This staff report examines the background of the problem and suggests some conceptual solutions to how the problemi might be solved. It should be noted that the implementation of any long- term solution could take a year or longer to 'plan, design; and construct. The discussion that follows is intended not as an argument for Council to change its earlier decision to allow Mr. Messer to construct an interim wastewater disposal system. This item rather is intended to provide Council with information on the feasibility and methodology for providing a long term solution, with an emphasis on answering the cost question raised above. BACKGROUND: The Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region, adopted Cease and Desist Order No. 81-60 on June 12, 1981. A copy of the Order is included in your agenda. The Order identifies two basic problems which existed as of 1981: (1) an undersized sewage treatment plant which needed replacement, and (2) six areas where sewer service needed to be provided. The new treatment plant has been completed for about 7 years and that portion of the Order is no longer relevant. The work to provide sewer to the six identified areas (known as areas C,E,F,G,'I,and K) has only been partially completed. The major effort in the past has been to provide sewer service for the areas designated as "C" and "E". Finding 08 of the Order identifies these two areas as having , "approximately 80 percent of the system failures . n. The City imposed a sewer Assessment District in this area in 1986-87 (known as the Seperado-Cayucos District),, an action which caused controversy among the residents of the area. The sewer collection system constructed as a 'result of this assessment district has eliminated the septic problems in ureas C and E. Sewer trunk lines have been extended into Area K by private development. Thus the remaining unsewered areas are F,G, and I. Through a combination of assessment district and private sewer line extension, approximately 25% of Area F has been served (see attachment A) . The issue before the Council is 'how to provide sewer service to the remaining portion of Area F. This question is an integral part of the discussion regarding the Messer property. The key point is that the City is under an Order from the Regional Board to provide sewer service to Area F. The matter is not a discretionary decision. If the provisions of Order No. 81-60 are not complied with, the City could facesubstantial fines. In addition, the residents of Area F can expect the City to be making a' concerted effort to meet their legal obligations. That is, the City cannot simply keep the area in a defacto building moratorium' without making any progress towards solving the problem. ANALY8I8 With regard to Area F, a conceptual engineering plan has been prepared by Cuesta Engineering (Attachment B) showing how sewer service can be provided. The plan envisioned the use of an assessment district to fund the sewer line expansion. The per residence cost for the project as proposed .by Cuesta Engineering was approximately $14,500 per residential lot. This is one option which would be available to the Council.' However, recognizing the high per lot cost of this alternative, further examination was made to find a lower cost alternative. Since the original sewer study was conducted, the sewer system has been extended into the Cease and Desist area via private developers. A recent engineering study suggests that an • alternative sewer service configuration can be provided at lower cost. The conceptual plan shown in Attachment C shows the sewer line layout. The engineering cost estimate indicates that sewer service can be provided to the remaining unserved area for $7,300 per lot. Although this is a less expensive alternative, no provision has been made to provide the initial, "up-front", construction cost of $175, 000. One method of financing sewers in this area is for the sanitation district enterprise fund to install the system with the provision that the fund would be reimbursed as future connections are made. It should be noted that City statutes require that a residence connect to a sewer system within two years after it is made available. It is staff's opinion that this requirement is quite onerous on most homeowners and make the task of administering a reimbursement program a rather heavy handed affair. It is recommended that the requirement to connect to the sewer system be delayed until either the house is sold or the septic tank system needs replacement. The reimbursement amount would be increased at a set rate to account for inflation. It should be noted that this project provides for only two of the City's ten lots to be connected to the system. The two lots receiving service front on Santa Rosa. No provisions are made for the City's eight lots on Lakeview to connect to the sewer. Should sewer service be desired for these lots at a latter date, a trunk . line and possibly a small pump station would have to be constructed along Lakeview. FISCAL IMPACT: Initially, staff time plus approximately $5, 000 in engineering and geologic ,investigation will be necessary to bring back a firm work program to the Council. To implement a program to sewer Area F (Lakeview Drive) will encumber the sanitation fund approximately $175, 000, which will be paid back over time. Attachments: A- Cease and Desist Order 81-60 B- Design - Cuesta Equipment C- Cost Calculations - North " ngineering A ., Attachment A (page 1; CALI.F:MIIA RZ:;:.11AL ;:'ATE:' QUALITYCO.I..nT ?UL BOARD ^=:1TRAL COAST REGIG14 1102-A Laurel Lane San Luis Obispo, California 93401 • CENSE A::7 DESIST ORDER NO. 81-60 Order Requiring Atascadaro County Sanitation District and the City of Atascadero to Cease and C:sist from Discharging Wastes Contrary to =equirer„ents Prescribed by the Cali_'ornia P.es_onal ::.Tater Quality Control Board, entral Coast Region. The California Regional t,a_er Quality Control Bocrd, Central Coast Region, (hereafter Regional Board) finds: 1. Atascadero County Sani-ation District (hereafter District) provides municipal wastewater c=llection, treatment, and disposal for the area within the City a= Atascadero. The District's boundary and its sewer service area houndary are shown an Attachment "A” included with this Order. Area: outside the sewer service area utilize septic tank/leaching syster,.s =or wastewater disposal. 2. Responsibility for operation and maintenance of the wastewater facili- ties is to he assured =y the recently incorporated City of Atascadero (hereafter City) . 3. The Board adopted Order No. 75-67, "tdaste Discharge Requirements for Atascadero County Sanitat:an District, San Luis Obispo County" on September 12, 1975, ane: amended it on Aoril 11, 1990. Order No. 75-u7 implements the B^3rd's 'later Quality Control Plan for the Cantral Coastal Basin (Basin -Plan) and provides, in part, that: "A. Discharge Specifications 111. The discharge shall be maintained within the designated land disposal areas without overflow or bypass to adjacent prcpert:es or drainageways. 112. The maxir_= daily dry weather volume discharged shall net exceed 0.933 million gallons. After compl•sticn of proposed additional treatment facilitie_, it shall not exceed 1.57 million vallcrs. "12. The pu liz sh,a11 not hava contact :aith i.naduaua.-cly treated as a r,sult Of treatment alld dis;csal ;Crdtic^.s." Pro7isions 'Sd_:c'__-:•,-._r shd11 cccpJ.y with all itc^s in • tl. �••c:':1:.10;15' dat:a D2cemtcv 7, 1777 ." • i Attachment A page 2 C D Order No. 81.-60 _2_ bn 4. Standard Provision 9.13requi're's the discharger to submit a written retort to the Eoard, when flows exceed 75% of design capacity, outlining present units. a schedule of work needed to provide additional capacity before waste flow equals the capacity of the 5. The District submitted a ?Ian of Study in 1976 and a Facilities Plan in 1977 for expanding treatment plant capacity utilizing Clean Water Grant funds. Concept approval was granted March 15, 1978. 6. A condition of receiving, a grant for construction of the facilities was im;osed on the Districtwhich requires providing service to areas with failing septic tanks. 7. San Luis Obispo County Health Department evaluated septic tank system problem areas and submitted a report titled: "City of Atascadero, Olt-Site Set:a;e Disposal System Survey, January - February - March, 1981." 8. The County Health Depart-ant Report identifies eleven septic system problem areas as shot,n in attachment "A." Areas } designated as C, E, F, G, I, and K, on Attachment "A" have the greatest need for sewers. It was recomcrerded that these areas be severed "as racidly as f,:ndira will allotr " Areas desi=•hated as C and E, have a?prox-=ately 80 percent of the system failures 17 in the six designated areas. 9• Failing onsite sewage systems constitute a threat to water quality and public health. J10. Expansion of District wastewater facilities will be necessary before areas with :ailing septic systems can be severed. 11. On June 12, 1981, after due notice to the dischar-ers and all other affected persons, the Regional Board conducted a hearing and evidence t•:as received concerning the discharger of waste in violation of terms and conditions noted in paragraphs 3. and 4. , above. '12. After reviewing theevi4:t_-. nce, the Regional Board has det_c•-1iaed that the ui.sch,;rge is in violation, or threatencd via!—,tial, of diccharZ-_ specif=icaticns and provisions noted in paragrapac 3. and 4. , above. 13' lhia enf-ircc-ment acticn is bein,, tai ( Attachment A page o. �\+ C E 0 Ordur No. ai 60 -3- IT IS HE iEBY ORD='_rD TF: pursuant to*Section 13201 ofel C - ia Water Code, the tascadera Count; Sanitation District, and th ecitynof Atascadero shall comply with the following: 1. Cease and Desist from discharging wastes contrary to req-=ire-tints lited in Ite 3 I. an.' -. , above, by constructing additional treatment ca.zacity accc_ding to the following time schedule: .Task Ce-uliancz Date Begin construct;cn of Wastewater October 25, 1981 s,.sr- sro%vi `81 Treatment Plant Progress Report September 1, 1982 Complete construction of .:aste:•rater. July 1, 1983 Treatment Plant A report of cc-pliance s=:11 be submitted within 10 days aster the corpliance date. 2. El;.ainate water quality and public health problems asscc:ated with =: failing ind;•:;dual on-site wastewater system discharges '-y providing sewage collection service to problem areas shown On Attachment "All according to the fol_cxing time schedule: Task Cc!ro!iance Date Submit a 'dorkpla:. tine schedule) November 119g1 _ to provide: Sewer Service for Unsewered Areas C and E. Submit a Workolaz (includin; tire schedule) March 1, 1982 to minimize Failing On-Site Sewage Syste.�4 � in Unsewered Areas F, G, I, and X. G � 4 P-rogrgss Report October 1, 1982, Progress 2uport October 1, 1983 Submit a ::orkplan (incl:--. - ti:-_ zchedule) Octcl:cr 1, 1951: to provide Serer service ::cone F, C, I, and X. ucgin deci.En or _T :!wers =-- .=i•aa5 C and E• 1, 1985 :.arc1 C_. Corp;=_c C.asi; n .- :L.- f-- Areas C and BaZ4 ; ccn57r uct:,:n of for Areas�5 c i•�:irrh L, 1.986 and _. • ( Attachment A pag C D Order No. 81-•..0 _4_azi � • J Task Compliance Date.. Complete construction of sewers November 1, 1985 for Areas C and E. '~T ie diSCial1saad ise the Ralgio.al Qcard of compliance by at least one copy of the appropriate documents no later than the date specified. Where tasks do not include completed documents (i. e. , tasks f, h, 'and i) , written reports are duo within ten (10) working days of the compliance date. All retorts shall include sufficient detail to allow deter^inaticn OF whetter satisfactory progress is being made to comply with all to=z of this Order. 3. If, in the opinion of the Executive Officer, the District or City fails to cemPly with the )rovisions of this Order, the Executive Officer _s directed to request the •Attorney General to take the appropriate en_`orcJ-mens action against the discharger, including injunction and civil monetary remedies,* if appropriate. I, KLi;1:1:TH R. J014c:S, Executive Office: of the Regional Uater Quality Cc-trol Board, Central Coast Regicn, do hereby certify that the fore;;oina is a full, true, and correct Cory of an Order adopted by the Regional Fater Quality Control Board on Jure 12, 1581. Executive Gf:icer mff1J( , °� .O Nd5 P� 0 4 vp aft �sR 'ate �a `��•• ATTACHMENT "A'► it ,,0\' �!a ,� page 5 �``•� .,°,I �$ ` ��� ,''��"'\+o �`• 1� n O !�J PN ° SE`�f� lz SA'�a001p9 •ajN+s7 1`e ell v � Y 06 JOt / ��" \a� _� l• •�° .� : l ��,�y ,y,+�•pVE {{�iC�cwwwtpp� .��g �' a 8 , role , Rt ALENnNA J ,s EANrc Al 10 t Vr,fN R°'►'oy 4Y \% `moi .?'` ALL LUCIA 03 ♦ :�,�.�� ,—�7� " �8 ��i�'� /'�c}� ;' �► •: ''�, 4016 \�f4,L •�0+� '"fL 1� `Rp '1. /e \ do,red /ap ��►'t;E� \. � � ,�" ' � � y� T ��� �. p y 1 �y � MIENTO �• T S o �D �•►r '► � AV ..� t d� 1 S pfo ' M4gc l $ •+�M `o�wyvE �9F e` �r+� `; �a = I! Avg POW IV to r ArE, dot , as 't + + � s '^{y d�Pep. `�•Fs+c � O � Nee 3 ' MONnMU° 'ta► pp +" �� a O p9r i cAEoi a! "+� M ISE Qrd D6515 T IAfA AVE ARS4 40CA Tl OA15 .1 O/Al* s p'B AAMA w 9, ROS + i no ` ♦ ay y o T alai s ELM]1100 ,►+� • ;YRO i AM►ST / 0 o ` SAN RAFAEL-NO mix n Att2chment B Page 2 I . INTRODUCTION • Earlier this year we were asked to investigate the available options to bring sewer to a parcel on Lake View Drive recently purchased by a client. Although the subject lot had suitable area for a conventional septic system and leach field, the lot is within the boundaries of a Cease and Desist Order as designated by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board which prohibits septic system installations. The nearest existing sewers are located in Santa Rosa Avenue approximately 1000 feet east of Lake View Drive, in Marchant Avenue at Santa Rosa and in Lake View Drive approximately 1200 feet south of Portola Road. Through our investigation we determined that none of these points could be reached from my clients lot by a reasonably designed gravity sewer. In an effort to find a solution to this problem, my client agreed to furnish to the City Engineering Department a proposed master plan for bringing sewers to the area. Working in conjunction with Gary Sims of the City Engineering Department, we chose a suitable lift station site and designed a collection system from that point . We feel this preliminary design and cost estimate is an appropriate beginning to evaluate the feasibility of establishing an Assessment District to bring sewers to this area. Consideration of extending sewers to this area has been made since the area was identified as a "Problem Area" in the "Facilities Plan Wastewater Treatment Alternatives" project report prepared for the • Atascadero County Sanitation District in 1977. In 1986, I was asked to explore the possibility of serving this, area from the Marchant Way sewer extension on the other side of the lake, but found this option not to be feasible. Since 1987 the City has studied various measures to improve the water quality of the lake. Resulting recommendations included extending sewers to serve the Lake View Drive and MouritF..I n "r:-e - Drive areas . A significant side benefit to this project woulK be tii - resulting increase in value of the surrounding properties, which include many lots owned by the City. Thank you for the opportunity to present this study. The input of the Council and the City Staff is welcome as we continue to pursue this project. Sincerely, Joh n Fal�nstien R.C.E. 33760 Exp. 6/30/90 Attachment B 'page 3 • III . CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES Based upon the plan we have presented in this report, we have developed construction estimates which reflect three project alternatives . Total estimated cost of an Assessment District and prorated costs per lot were calculated for each alternative. The costs have been adjusted for equitable assessment of the seven lots that would not be served by the lift station. Alternative No. 1 includes extending sewers to all lots not currently sewered on Lake View Drive and Mountain View Drive. Alternative No. 2 excludes four lots on Mountain View for which a privately financed sewer extension is currently being considered. Alternative No. 3 considers the extension of sewer to service all City owned lots and only those private lots adjacent to the new main. Alternative No. 4 is presented as an addition to the ASSESSMENT PER LOT SUMMARY. This option involves the same scope of work as Alternative No. 3 without forming an Assessment District. After constuction, the City could establish a reimbursement agreement to collect appropriate shares as other property owners connect to the sewer in the future. This alternative permits project completion without additional cost and • time required to achieve Assessment District procedures. Attachment B page 4 ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 • Construction cost estimate to serve all lots not currently sewered on Lake View Drive and Mountain View Drive. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Schedule of Prices for the Construction of LAKE VIEW SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FACILITIES ------------------------------------------ ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT AMOUNT NO. AND UNIT PRICE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Mobilization allowance Lump Sum of $ 10, 000.00 2. Furnish and install 8-inch diameter PVC sewers 2935 LF $ 40.00 $ 117,400.00 3 . Furnish and install 4-inch diameter PVC sewer laterals to property line 33 EA. $1000.00 $ 33, 000.00 4. Furnish and install precast concrete manholes, frames, and covers 10 EA. $2500.00 $ 25,000. 00 • 5 . Furnish and install standard cleanouts 2 EA. $ 500.00 $ 11000 . 00 6 . Asphalt concrete pavement in roadways over trenches 3-inch thick, aggregate base 6-inch thick, pavement restriping and markers 2470 LF $ 12.00 $ 29, 640.00 7. Construct tie-ins to existing sewers 2 EA. $ 500.00 $ 11000.00 S . Furnish and install pump station Lump Sum of $ 45, 000.00 9. Furnish and install 4-inch diameter PVC force main 650 LF $ 30.00 $ 19, 500.00 SUB-TOTAL $ 281, 540.00 10% CONTINGENCY $ 28, 160.00 TOTAL COST $ 309,700 .00 • Attachment B Dage 5 • ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 Construction cost estimate eliminating service to four lots on Mountain View Drive. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Schedule of Prices for the Construction of LAKE VIEW ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FACILITIES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT AMOUNT NO. AND UNIT PRICE --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Mobilization allowance Lump Sum of $ 10,000.00 2. Furnish and install 8-inch diameter PVC sewers 2550 LF $ 40.00 $102, 000.00 3. Furnish and install 4-inch diameter PVC sewer laterals to property line 29 EA. $1000.00 $ 29,000.00 4. Furnish and install precast concrete manholes, frames, • and covers 9 EA. $2500.00 $ 22, 500.00 S. Furnish and install standard cleanouts 1 EA. $ 500.00 $ 500.00 6. Asphalt concrete pavement in roadways over trenches 3-inch thick, aggregate base 6-inch thick, pavement restriping and markers 2080 LF $ 12.00 $ 24,960.00 7. Construct tie-ins to existing sewers 1 EA. $ 500.00 $ 500.00 8. Furnish and install pump station Lump Sum of $ 45,000.00 9. Furnish and install 4-inch diameter PVC force main 650 LF $ 30. 00 $ 19, 500.00 SUB-TOTAL $253,960.00 10% CONTINGENCY $ 25, 400.00 TOTAL COST $279,360.00 • Attachment B page 6 ALTERNATIVE NO. 3 • Construction cost estimate to provide sewers to City owned lots only. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Schedule of Prices for the Construction of LAKE VIEW SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FACILITIES ------------------------------------------- ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT AMOUNT NO. AND UNIT PRICE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Mobilization allowance Lump Sum of $ 10, 000.00 2. Furnish and install 8-inch diameter PVC sewers 1630 LF $ 40.00 $ 65, 200.00 3 . Furnish and install 4-inch diameter PVC sewer laterals to property line 17 EA. $1000.00 S 17,000.00 4. Furnish and install precast concrete manholes, frames, and covers 6 EA. $2500.00 $ 15, 000.00 5 . Asphalt concrete pavement in • roadways over trenches 3-inch thick, aggregate base 6-inch thick, pavement restriping and markers 1600 LF $ 12.00 $ 19, 200.00 6 . Construct tie-ins to existing sewers 1 EA. $ 500.00 S 500.00 7 . Furnish and install pump station Lump Sum of $ 45,000.00 8 . Furnish and install 4-inch diameter PVC force main 650 LF $ 30.00 $ 19,500.00 SUB-TOTAL $191, 400.00 10% CONTINGENCY $ 19, 200.00 TOTAL COST $210,600.00 • Attachment B page 7 • IV. ESTIMATED COSTS TO PERFORM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ENGINEERING SERVICES For the purposes of preparing this estimate, I have compiled a list of specific tasks we have performed in the past for the City for Assessment District No. 3 , Marchant Way Sanitary Sewer and Assessment District No. 5, Chandler Ranch Road Improvements. As indicated, the cost estimates for some of these tasks may vary with the construction alternative chosen, while others will remain constant. We will be pleased to prepare a formal contract proposal upon your direction of specific tasks to be performed and chosen construction alternative. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FORMATION TASKS TO INCLUDE: Assessment District Boundary Map and Legal Description Prepare Notifications and Circulate Petition •� Calculate Land Area of Each Parcel and Determine Protest Percentage Review Bids and Calculate Preliminary Assessment Spreads Attend All City Council Meetings TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: S 3, 000.00 (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) Attachment B- page 8 CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS • TASKS TO INCLUDE: Soils Explorations Topographic and Boundary Surveying Construction Plans Lift Station Design Construction Specifications Clerical and Reproduction for Bid Sets Determine Lateral Locations with Home Owners Legal Descriptions for Easements and Negotiations ESTIMATED COST: Alternative No. 1 - S 24, 500.00 Alternative No. 2 - $ 22,200.00 Alternative No. 3 - $ 17,500.00 CONSTRUCTION • ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Alternative Alternative Alternative No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 -------------------------------------------------------•-----------___--- Construction Inspection and Administration $ 10, 000.00 $ 91500 .00 $ 7,000.00 Construction Staking S 51000.00 $ 4, 500.00 $ 3,500.00 Soils Testing $ 4;500.00 $ 3, 800.00 $ 2,500.00 FINAL ENGINEERING REPORT Compile Final Assessments $ 11000.00 (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) Attachment B page 94 • VI. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT DISTRICT COST ESTIMATES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Alternative Alternative Alternative No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 ---------------------------; ENGINEERING Assessment District Formation Diagrams, Legal Descriptions, and Hearings $ 3 ,000 .00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.01 Plans and Specifications $ 24, 500.00 $ 22, 200.00 $ 17,500.0, Construction Staking $ 5, 000.00 $ 4, 500.00 $ 3,500.0, Construction Inspection and Administration, Soils Testing $ 14, 500 .00 S 13, 300.00 $ 91500.01 Final Engineering Report $ 1,000 .00 $ 1, 000.00 $ 11000.0 CONSTRUCTION COST $309, 700.00 $279, 360 .00 $210,600.0 • BOND COUNCIL $ 10, 000.00 $ 10 , 000 .00 $ 10,000.0 FINANCING COSTS Bond Discount (4%) $ 14,700 .00 $ 13 , 300.00 $ 10,200.0 Reserve (8%) $ 29 , 400.00 $ 26,700.00 $ 20,400.0 Capitalized Interest (9%) $ 33 , 100.00 $ 30, 000 .00 $ 23,000.0 Administration (2%) $ 7 , 400.00 $ 6,700.00 $ 5,100.0C Miscellaneous (1%) $ 3,700 .00 $ 3 , 300 .00 $ 2,600.00 TOTAL COST OF PROJECT TO ASSESSMENT $456, 000.00 $413, 360.00 $316,40O.0 • Attachment- B page 10 ASSESSMENT PER LOT SUMMARY ------------------------------------------------------------ ASSESSMENT SPREADS APN Alternative Alternative Alternative No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 56-312-14 $ 11, 394.00 $ 11, 495.00 $ 13 , 906.00 2 . 56-312-15 $ 11, 394.00 $ 11, 495.00 $ 13 , 906 .00 3 . 56-312-16 $ 11, 394 .00 $ 11, 495.00 $ 13, 906. 00 4. 56-321-14 $ 11, 394. 00 $ 0 $ 0 5 . 56-321-15 $ 11, 394. 00 $ 0 $ 0 6. 56-322-28 $ 11, 394 . 00 $ 0 $ 0 7 • 56-322-29 $ 11, 394.00 $ 0 $ 0 8 . 56-322-23 $ 57, 884 .00 $ 58.288.00 $ 78 , 480.00 (4 Lots , City Owned) 9. 56-322-16 $ 14, 471 .00 $ 14,572.00 $ 19, 620.00 10 . 56-322-17 City $ 14, 471.00 $ 14, 572.00 $ 19, 620.00 11 . 56-322-18 City $ 14, 471 .00 S 14, 572.00 $ 19, 620.00 12. 56-322-19 City S 14, 471 .00 $ 14,572.00 $ 19, 620.00 13 . 56-322-20 $ 14, 471.00 $ 14, 572.00 $ 19, 620.00 14. 56-322-21 $ 14, 471.00 $ 14, 572.00 S 19, 620.00 15. 56-322-10 City $ 14, 471.00 $ 14, 572.00 $ 19, 620.00 16. 56-322-11 City S 14,471.00 $ 14, 572.00 $ 19,620.00 17. 56-322-06 $ 14, 471.00 $ 14, 572.00 $ 0 • 18 . 56-322-07 $ 14, 471.00 S 14, 572.00 $ 0 19. 56-322-26 $ 14, 471 .00 $ 14, 572.00 $ 0 20 . 56-322-27 $ 14, 471.00 $ 14, 572.00 $ 0 21 . 56-322-24 $ 14, 471 .00 $ 14, 572.00 $ 19, 620.00 22. 56-322-32 $ 14 , 471 .00 S 14, 572.00 $ 1.9, 620.00 23 . 56-321-05 $ 14, 471.00 $ 14, 572.00, $ ? 24 : 56-321-06 $ 14, 471.00 $ 14, 572.04 F u 25 . 56-321-07 $ 14, 471.00 $ 14, 572.00 $ 0 26 . 56-321-08 $ 14, 471.00 $ 14 , 572.00 $ 0 27 . 56-321-10 $ 14, 471 .00 $ 14, 572.00 $ 0 28 . .56-321-12 $ 14, 471.00 $ 14, 572.00 $ 0 29. 56-321-20 $ 14, 471.00 $ 14, 572.00 $ 0 30. 56-321-21 $ 14, 471.00 $ 14, 572.00 $ 0 TOTAL COST $456,000.00 $413 , 360 .00 $316, 400.00 Attachment B page 11 • ALTERNATIVE NO. 4 This alternative shows the costs per lot if an Asses5hlant District is not used for financing. This eliminates the Bond Council and financing costs as well as costs for organizing the District. Engineering $ 30, 500.00 Construction $210, 600.00 TOTAL $241 , 100.00 - COST SPREADS FOR 17 LOTS 56-312-14 $ 10,388 .00 56-312-15 $ 10, 388 .00 56-312-16 $ 10, 388.00 56-322-23 City ( 4 Lots) $ 59, 980.00 56-322-16 $ 14, 995.00 56-322-17 City $ 14, 995.00 56-322-18 City $ 14, 995.00 56-322-19 City $ 14, 995.00 56-322-20 $ 14, 995.00 56-322-21 $ 14, 995.00 • 56-322-10 City $ 14 , 995.00 56-322-11 City $ 14, 995.00 56-322-24 $ 14, 995.00 56-322-32 $ 14, 995.00 $241, 100 .00 • Attachment C page N 0 F"I'll ::C j.AE"ll- EtNIGINEEF-TKIC, F V71 T t 1 T I-IC-z% T Y 1 T F 0 T •E D E E-1—PIATEEZ, RCIF C-F A-r, P,.SfLr-1 F ;f.--, L: T i 0 K L T ERN - L I FT 1-4 J 17 lK.1 f7. 1 D AT F I T E-MI I. 47 1.4 C7 r FT T T j -I-G' D T !7 T T • ....... ........ ..........- ............... ............. ...... i r i�i - r t.,j T; 7., r �7 r t k%1 .... ....... Nj . ..... "i In C 0,I T F:A:C T CD F C T T-! T 1%1 r.:* L rU:7 il-. , i 7 r C. is J! 1: T 9] 1 Attachment C page 2 l�T 57-,47-101,J . L-T-E)f/V A -7-r- � r r C Q A 0 .� s .S y \\ Cpry moi' j 00 ,z o 0 s r !e7- _ WFL L �Tja ATASCADERO LAKE 12 i �f y \Fxisr. MN. • INDICATES DEVELOPED LOT /� !!I INDICATES VACANOwNEo C [A r T ITY JcALe INDICATES LOTOWNED 8Y ME,55ER 49v-rC%, INDICATlES EXISTIAlrj SEWER 1NEETIM 1ATE.Z1.9 REM O C..21i M 8 M 0 R A NII U M To: Chairman George Luna and Members of the Planning Commission From: Arther R. Montandon, City Attorney Subject: Appeal by Ms. Joyce Young of Precise Plan 02-92 (Messer) Dater July 1, 1991 During my review of the Planning Commission's minutes of June 4, 1991, I noticed that members of the Commission had some concern regarding the above-referenced appeal. , I hope this memorandum will help explain my recommendations. First, let me offer my apology for not being in attendance to assist you in this matter. I admit it is a "curious" item. It is unfortunate that, other than the night the City Council meets, the only other 'nights I have a conflict each month are 'the first and third Tuesdays--the nights you meet. if you met on any other day of the week, I would, when needed, personally attend. Even so, when the need arises, we could schedule another attorney to assist, this has been done in the past. Also, if there is ever a need for a written opinion on an item, the 'Planning Commission may, through staff, request one. At last, apologies given, I will address the topic of this memorandum. This project, as you know, presents a unique situa- tion. It is in a' Cease and Desist area, but the developer has presented a design to connect to a nearby sewer. It should be first noted that the City has no ordinance for- bidding construction in a "Cease and Desist,, area. These areas are created by an order of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. This order prohibits, in most cases, septic tanks. Thus, if an acceptable plan to connect to a public sewer is submitted to the City, the "Cease and Desist" order does not prohibit the issuance of the building permit. When staff was presented with Mr. Messer's plans, it eventual- ly showed a. connection to a public sewer. Mr. Messer, thus, is not subject to the Cease and Desist order. A -permit to connect to the public sewer is required by the City Cade (`A.M.C. Section 7-4.001) . Public sewer extensions are authorized under A.M.C. Section 7- 5.001, et seq. Building sewer extensions, or `noa-public sewers, are authorized by A.M.C. Section 7-7.001. Since this plan was unique and the staff had no policy direc- tion from the City Council, it was placed on the City Council agenda. The plan was approved on April 23, 1991. As you know, Ms. Young filed an appeal to the precise plan. An appeal is appropriate for a precise plan (A.MC. Sections 9- 1. 111 and 9-2.108 (5) ) . The only basis for an appeal of a precise plan is "whether the proposed use satisfies all applicable pro- visions of this title [Planning and Zoning] ,(A.M.C. Section 9-2.108 (5) ) . In other words, Ms'. Young could not appeal the application and interpretation of the City Code regarding sewers, which are set out in a different Title, Title 7. The Planning Department staff approached me with the question of the appropriateness of the appeal, given the City, Council's action. After some research and reflection, I concluded that the appeal was valid. Also, I asked that Me. Young be told:' that the sewer connection could not be appealed, that she be given an opportunity to withdraw her appeal, and that she could receive a refund. She decided to pursue her right of appeal under our Code. The reasons for my decision are as follows: I. A right to appeal a precise plan exists in the City's Code. 2. The City Council had not acted upon the whole project with its appropriate environmental review. The City Council, gave staff policy direction regarding the sewer plan. 3. If I had the opinion that the appeal was inapproriate,' not only would I have taken :away Ms. Youngs right of appeal, I would have taken away the Planning Commission's right to hear an appeal within your authority, Zoning and Planning. Since Ms. Young had been advised of the scope of her appeal` and chose to go forward, I could find no logical or ;legal basis to disallow her appeal. I am sorry for any confusion this has caused the Planning Commission. If you have other questions, please contact me. ARM:cw c: Ray Windsor Henry Rugezt Greg Luke 2 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADBR4 Agenda Item: C-2(C) Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. Date: 7/9/91 From: Henry Engen, Community Dev. Dir.4f File No: PP 02-91 SUBJECT: Appeal by Michael Messer of the Planning Commission' s action upholding the appeal of Joyce Young of Precise Plan 02-91, and thereby denying proposed single family development at 9515 Lakeview Drive. 0NNER ATION Uphold the appeal of Michael Messer and approve Precise Plan 02-91 subject to the proposed Findings (Attachment C) and Conditions of approval (Attachment D) . BACKGROUND: • On June 4 1991, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above subject matter and on a 4:21 vote, upheld the appeal of Precise Plan 02-91 ''noting "that the Negative Declaration is inadequate as it has not considered the cumulative impacts of the policy decision -that the ' City Council adopted. " There was discussion and public testimony as evidenced in the attached - minutes excerpt. The Public Works Director has provided an overview of the Water Quality Control Board's policy relative to cease and desist areas in general and the Messer parcel in particular. In addition, the City Attorney has submitted a written opinion on the Planning Commission's prerogatives on the sewer issue given the City Council's April 23rd action allowing a temporary sewer connection in anticipation of full public 'sewering of the area. HE:ps Attachments: Appeal Letter dated June 10, 1991 Staff Report June 4, 1991 Minutes Excerpt June 4, 1991 cc: Michael Messer Joyce Young 1`cpc:�pt � June- 10, 1991 .. . EC.._: . �.:., 364 AN l 1 1991 CCMIMUNW? OLVE1.OWiL" City of Atascade o 65 Palma Avenue Atascadero , CA 93422 Dear Members of the Council : I am requesting an appeal of the decision by the Planning; Commission of June 4, :1991 on Precise Plan 02-91 . As you know, you heardmy case on April 23 , 1991 and granted your approval of my sewer connection at that meeting. Consequently, my precise plan application was approved by the City staff . Just when _I thought I could continue with my home, there was an appeal by a` neighbor . Her appeal is based on three situations , as stated : 1) the other neighbor ' s fence may be located on my property, 2 ) there is a dispute as to the ownership of the fence , and • 3) believes the property should not be hooked-up to the sewer . The -first two items are of a civil matter and , I might add, are being< worked out between myself and this neighbor as we speak. Item #3 ' seems to be an attempt by this neighbor to appeal the decision of the Council . The Planning Commission chose to grant the Appeal saying , in effect, that the issue of the; sewer was not adequately addressed. In my opinion, this is another attempt by the Planning Commission to overturn the 'Council ' s decision. The staff had stated several times during the evening of June 4th that the sewer issue had already been decided by the Council' and was not a point to dispute. The staff had prepared an in-depth recommendation to deny the Appeal I am appealing the decision of the Planning Commission on the grounds that: 1) You , the Council , have approved the sewer hookup , and 2) the staff, after extensive research also recommended approval my project. • City of Atascadero June 10 , 1991 Page 2 My proposed home is the ideal plan for this lot . I am proposing to keep all trees , and excavate as little as possible . I have spent a lot of time designing a layout that meets all the City recommended guidelines and is as environmentally sensitive as possible . Thank you for your time . Regards , Mike Messer MM : ro • CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-2 • STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date : 6/4/91 BY: 60 Steven L. DeCamp, City Planner File No: PP 02-91 SUBJECT: Appeal of Precise Plan 02-91 . RECOZ-MNDATION: Staff recommends that the appeal be denied. BACKGROUND: Precise Plan 02-91 was approved on April 26, 1991 (see Attachment A) . The application proposes the construction of a 2117 square foot, three bedroom, single family residence at 9515 Lakeview Drive. A precise plan was required for the project because the driveway is proposed to be located on a slope that exceeds 10%, and the fact that the property is located in a "cease and desist" area. • The appellant has appealed the approval of the Precise Plan based on: (1) the City Council' s granting of a sewer connection, (2) the possibility that the driveway is actually located on an adjacent lot, and (3) a question regarding the ownership of an existing fence (see Attachment B) . ANALYSIS: Sewer Service - The appellant' s principal stated concern is the issue of the unorthodox sewering" for the proposed residence. Sanitary waste disposal is of particular importance to this project because the property is located within a "cease and desist" area. This issue has been resolved by the City Council however (see Attachment C) , and is not appropriate for further Commission deliberation. Driveway Location - The appellant asserts that " [t] here is a possibility that his [Messer' s] driveway encroaches upon private property . . . " The site plan (see Attachment B to Precise Plan) that was reviewed by staff indicates that the proposed driveway is located wholly on the applicant' s property. The applicant' s surveyor located the northwest and southwest property corner monuments in the field. The locations of the northeast and southeast corners were then calculated based on • record data. The boundaries thus established indicate that the I driveway is within the confines of the subject lot . • Boundary disputes are civil matters and are subject to litigation in the civil courts . Where such disputes exist, a boundary survey and recorded Record c:f Survey should adequately establish the locations of the property corners and avoid the need for private litigation. The applicant has indicated a willingness to have a boundary survey prepared, if necessary, to verify the location of the property corners . Fence Location - In a situation related to the driveway issue discussed above, the appellant states that "Mr. Messer' s claim to ownership of the fence is not clear. " In fact, Mr. Messer does not claim ownership of the fence but does note on the site plan that the existing wooden fence is to be relocated to the property line. As with the question of the proposed driveway location relative to the property line, the location of the existing fence relative to that same property line can best be determined by a boundary survey. CONCLUSIONS: The appellant' s primary concern is related to the method of sewage disposal proposed by the applicant and previously reviewed by the Public Works Department and approved by the City Council . • Technical issue related to the provision of sewer lines and service within the Urban Services Area is not within the scope Commission' s normal responsibilities . The other issues appear to be related to the location of the subject parcel' s eastern property line. These issues can best be resolved after the recordation of a Record of Survey if a boundary survey does not adequately address the issue. ATTACHMENTS : A - Precise Plan 02-91 B - Letter of Appeal (3/14/91) C - City Council Minutes (4/23/91) • Z ATTACHMENT A • .I {M , •� � 101A �;� ,<<h CITY OF ATASCADERO April 26, 1991 Cuesta Engineering Attention: Deborah Hollowell 6717 Morro Road Atascadero, California 93422 RE: PRECISE PLAN 02-91 9515 Lakeview Road (Messer) Dear Ms. Hollowell: • This is to inform you that the City of Atascadero has reviewed the above-referenced Precise Plan application for the construction of a single family residence located at 9515 T akavie:•r Road (Attac u:ment A) . As you will recall, an approved Precise Plan is necessary for any grading on slopes at or exceeding ten ( 10) percent. An Initial Study was conducted for this project, and a Negative Declaration was prepared, in accordance with City of Atascadero Resolution No. 1-86 and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . That is, upon review of the application and the particular characteristics of the project site, a determination was made by the Community Development Director that the project as proposed would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The subject Precise Plan has therefore been approved as shown by the attached grading, drainage and tree protection plan (Attachment B) , based on the attached findings (Attachment C) , and subject to the conditions of approval included herein (Attachment D) . Final approval of the subject Precise Plan will become effective on May 17, 1991, unless an appeal is filed during this appeal period. (NOTE: THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT. ) • if you are dissatisfied with any of these conditions of approval, you may appeal to the Planning Commission within the aforementioned appeal period. Any such appeal must be made in CONLMUNI►Y DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 6500 PALMA AVENUE • ATASC4DERO, CA 93422 ivdii��Y f rits: 805:161-3010 Planning: 161-3035 • fn)urccmr�il: 161-3031 DIrCIYUI: 161-10970 City FIX: 461.0606 writing, along with the appropriate fees, and must clearly state the reason(s) for the appeal. Appeals would then be scheduled . for Planning Commission consideration as a public hearing. You are encouraged, however, to discuss any objections you may have to these conditions with the planning staff prior to filing a formal appeal, as it may be possible to resolve your concerns at the staff level. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, C—B Gary V. Raiser, Assistant Planner Attachments: Attachment A - Location Map Attachment B - Grading, Drainage and Tree Protection Plan Attachment C - Findings for Approval Attachment D - Conditions of Approval • cc: Mike Messer, applicant Margaret Messer-Quick, applicant PP-02-91.let • i -f CITY OF AT.ASCADERO ATTACHMENT A :�-• co Wyll NITY 0EVEL0PNIE..NT Location Map • DEP. 'I'ytE�('T' PrecisePlan #02-91 I ASC V O \4 ERO OP �- Cr X 4 *A Z �P rJ AVE f � r J1 p `1 Q' d r A� 1 • \ i�r� lVF i s VIEW 1 L(F �1aS t L91VE- 15 IrF �,uc6 vi w r Y �P ' I 5 7A • 3 r i O �q44 AN � \ CITY OF ATASCADER0 ATTACHMENT B C0WNILiYM 0EVEL0P: fE.N-r Grading, Drainage, and ` Tree Protection Plan • DE�•�RIE Precise Plan #02-91 • 1i t 'mv t riJ e. fa- MIR � 4 �f rs R,ii; t jy4 !1��jll•'%!� ' $�� ft7ill 1C .I!lI AL 11 fir fill ill fill • if 664ifill Pill I n 'y ATTACNMNT C - Findings for Approval • Precise Plan $02-91 9515 Lakeview Road (Messer) 1. The proposed project, with the conditions contained herein, is consistent with -he General Plan. 2. The proposed project and use satisfies all applicable Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 3 . The establishment, and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use. 4 . The proposed project or use will not be inconsistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its orderly development. 5. The proposed use or project will not generate a volume of traffic beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing • access to the project, either existing or to be improved in conjunction with the project, or beyond the normal traffic volume of the surrounding neighborhood that would result from full development in accordance with the Land Use Element. 6 . The proposed grading is in compliance with the City' s Appearance Review Guidelines. PP-02-91-fin • ATTACM4ENT D - Conditions of Approval • Precise Plan $02-91 9515 Lakeview Drive (Messer) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. All construction shall be in conformance with Attachment B (grading, drainage and tree protection plan) , Attachment D (conditions of approval) , and all other codes and ordinances of the City of Atascadero. Any modifications to the above plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Department prior to being implemented. 2. Plans submitted at the building permit application stage shall include the location of the five-gallon native tree to be planted on the project site in accordance with Section 9- 11. 11(d) of the City Tree Ordinance (Ord. No. 214) . 3. Prior to a building permit being issued, a letter shall be submitted indicating that tree protection measures are in place in accordance with the approved tree protection plan. Said letter shall be signed by the certified arborist who prepared the tree protection plan. 4 . This Precise Plan is approved for a period of one year from • the date of final approval (May 17, 1991) . Upon expiration of this period, this Precise Plan approval shall become null and void, unless: (a) Substantial site work toward establishing the authorized use has been performed, as defined by Section 9-2. 114 of the City Zoning Ordinance; or (b) The project is completed, as defined by Section 9- 2.115 of the City Zoning Ordinance; or (c) An extension has been granted, as set forth by Section 9-2. 118 of the City Zoning Ordinance; or (d) A building moratorium is imposed on the project site. Draft Public Works Department Conditions: 5. The applicant shall agree to tap into any future City sewer line that may be extended along the frontage of the project site, and shall further agree to pay his/her Fair share of the cost of said sewer hook-up. To ensure that ;is agreement is maintained, the applicant shall post an appr.. .riate surety, in a form approved by the City Attorney, prior to the issuance of • a building permit. 6. An easement, or easements, shall be recorded for all portions of the proposed sewer line that fall outside of the public road right-of-way. Evidence that said recordation has occurred shall be submitted to the Community Development and Public Works Departments for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. Separate encroachment permits shall be sought and issued, and all necessary inspections for work authorized thereby shall be obtained and approved, for (1) the connection of the proposed driveway onto Lakeview Drive and (2) the placement of the proposed sewer line within the Lakeview Drive right-of-way. A City Standard D-1 Drive Approach shall be constructed, pursuant to the aforementioned encroachment permit, prior to the final building inspection. 8. A traffic control plan shall be submitted to the Community Development and Public Works Departments for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The intent of said traffic control plan is to ensure that circulation impacts on Lakeview Drive are minimized during construction. 9 . A utility plan, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to the Community Development and Public Works Departments for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Said utility plan shall include details of • the proposed septic tank, pump, pressure line, all sewage disposal connections, and any other information deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works. The utility plan shall also show the precise location of all sewage disposal improvements and trenching. CITY OF ATASCADERO 4 ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINAT NEGATIVE DECILARATIO 6 COMMUNM DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO, CA 93422 (805) 461-5035 APPLICANT: MAKE MEssE� 7,�-iSo Mo2e_c� PROJECT TITLE: G1SE oz•q I PROJECT LOCATION: DiN E PROJECT DESCRIPTION: S AST ce �'>'H'(& lOD/o A StclE,�• �r�, tL l �?•EStp�TtC FINDINGS: 1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment. 2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. • 3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited. but comulatively considerable. 4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly,or indirectly. DETERMINATION: Based on the above findings, and the information contained in the initial study (made a part hereof by refer- ence and on file in the Community Development Department), it has been determined that the above project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. Henry Engen Community evelopment Director Date Posted: APRIL 26, 1991 Date Adopted: MAY 17, 19 91 is CDD 1!•80 CITY OF ATASCADERO ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO, CA 93422 (805) 461-5035 Please type or print clearly in ink. Incomplete forms will be returned. GENERAL INFO MKnON Applicant: _Mike MPccPr FF - Address: _7450 Morro Road Atascadero, CA 93422 Phone #: 466-3600 Project Address: _ Lakeview Drive Assessor's Parcel #: 56-222-19 Legal Description: Lot 32 Block 12 Ata tcadPrn Cnl nny List and describe any other permits or public agency (Federal, State or local) approvals required for this project: Bui 1 di ng Permit • Proposed Use of SiteConstruct Si n91 e-Fami 1 y RPsi dpncP PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1. Site area (in acres): - n-a4 arra 2. Square footage of buildings: 2117 S.F. Living: 846 S.F. Garaae 3. Square footage of parking areas: 324 S.F. Guest Parki na 4. Number of on-site parking spaces: 5 spaces (3 Garage: 2 Guest or tandem) 5. Describe proposed scheduling: _ Single-phase; as soon as permitted 6. Describe associated projects: Preliminary I akPV1Pw SPWPr aCCP,,wPnt di-trict crxtcideratioi 7. If residential. include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, anticipated sale prices or rents, and anticipated household size. 1 Unit; 3-bedroom; 2 - 5 persons 8. If commercial, indicate the type (neighborhood. regional, etc.), and square footage of sales areas. N/A 9. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and products/byproducts produced. N/A 10. If institutional. indicate major functions. estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, and • community benefits to be derived from the project. N/A ENVIRONMENTAL SETnNQ 1. Describe the project site as it exists before the project. including information on topography. soil stability, plants and animals, availability of utilities, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. 2. Describe the surrounding properties. including information on plants and animals, and any cultural. historical, or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of development, and scale of development (building height, setback. etc.). ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Are the following Rater effects of your project? Provide a written response to each item checked 'TM". Y� lYS2 1. Change in existing features of any stream, swale. drainage pattern, or substantial alteration to existing topography? ❑ 2. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas. public lands, or roads? Minor change to view from Lot 35 ® ❑ at rear; their site is already oriented N.W.; this house will appear 1-story 3. Change in pattern. scale. or character of the general area of the to S.W. project? ❑ ® • 4. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter? ❑ 5. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes. or oders in vicinity? ❑ -Construction only- 6. Change in stream or ground water quality or quantity? ❑ 7. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels? ❑ 8. Is the site on filled land or on slopes of 10°x6 or more? © ❑ Slopes exceed 10%; Ex. slopes from 5% to 25% 9. Use or disposal of hazardous materials? ❑ 10. Substantial change in demand for municipal services? ❑ 11. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption? ❑ 12. Is the project related to a larger project or series of projects? ❑ 13. Removal of. or grading within the dripline of mature trees? ® ❑ Minor fill within dripline of oaks; no trees to be removed. • ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Discuss in detail the other development alternatives that were considered for this site or project. Explain why each of the alternatives was rejected. Other houses rejected in favor of this house with full -story split to avoid cut at rear P.L. Provide any additional information that you believe will be beneficial in the analysis of the potential environ- mental affects of your project. Such additional supporting data may include: Maps - Preliminary Plan for Lakeview Sewer District attached Photographs Charts Drainage Studies Soils Reports Geologic Reports Archaeological Reports Traffic Studies • CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the statements furnished above, and in the attached exhibits, present the data and information required for this initial evaluation, to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements. and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature Date CDD 11/8 � J ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING • 1 . Existing site is undeveloped. Slopes range from 5% to 25% in area of proposed work. Several mature oak trees dot property. Pines on property are both native and planted. A minor drainage course runs through the property. The tributary area is only 1 .62 acres. The 100-year flow is less than 3-CFS and can be handled by either a pipe or an open ditch. The proposed pipe is the owner's landscape preference. Water is available from Lakeview Drive with a main extension from Santa Rosa. Gas, phone & electric utilities are available in the neighborhood. Exact service routes are not shown now; plans are being reviewed by utilitiy companies. Septic Systems are not allowed as this property is in a cease and desist area. The owner has provided the Public Works with preliminary design layout for a sewer assessment district in this neighborhood. With the verbal approval of the Public Works Director, this application proposes a private sewer pump with pressure main to an existing manhole in Lakeview Drive. This sewer will serve this property in the interim until public sewer is provided by the future assessment district. 2. Two of the 3 adjacent lots are developed with single-family residences. Lot 33 is vacant. The proposed construction will be within the sight lines of each neighbor, but will only be one-story in height above the existing high point of the lot. • CITY OF ATASCADERO r > ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR INITIAL STUDY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO,CA 93422 (805)461-5035 I. BACKGROUND: 1. Proposal Title: 9St S irAvV."i&—&Q DZ�JE 2. File Number(s): ?VE4s.E 'R�-4--- C)2--q 1 3. Brief Description of Proposal: GcuAo%N6 oto Lcno �&q- sFi?-. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: • a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? ❑ ❑ 0 b. Disruptions,displacements,compaction or overcovering of the soil? © ❑ ❑ c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? © ❑ ❑ d. The destruction,covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical ❑ Q features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,either on or off the site? ❑ ❑ 0 %-� c.oMMGKT f. Changes in siltation,deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of any lake? ❑ ❑ 0 g. Exposure of people or property to geological hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,mudslides,ground failure,or similar hazards? ❑ ❑ 2. Ak. Will the proposal result in a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? ❑ ❑ b. The creation of objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ c. Alteration of air movement,moisture,temperature,or any change in climate, ❑ ❑ either locally or regionally? • ii 3. ate=. Will the proposal result in: ES MAYBE NQ a. Changes in currents,or the course or direction c water movements? ❑ ❑ ❑X b. Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or the rate and amount of • surface runoff? ❑ 0 ❑ c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood water? ❑ ❑ d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ❑ ❑ e. Discharge into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality, ❑ ❑ including but not limited to,temperature,dissolved oxygen or turbidity? F 77 f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ❑ ❑ g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,either through direct additions ❑ ❑ or withdrawals,or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public ❑ ❑ water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ❑ ❑ 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species,or number of any species of plants(in- ❑ ❑ cluding trees,shrubs,grass,crops,aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, X • rare,or endangered species of plants? ❑ E:1 El c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area,or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? ❑ ❑ Q d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ❑ ❑ 0 5. AnimaLLife. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species,or numbers of any species of animals(birds, land animals including reptiles,fish and shellfish,benthic organisms,or in- ❑ ❑ sects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,rare,or endangered species of ❑ ❑ animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area,or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ❑ ❑ 0 6. mise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ b. Exposure of people to severe noise? ❑ ❑ 7. Light and Glare, Will the proposal produce new light or glare? ❑ ❑ © • I v� ES MAYBE NQ S. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? ❑ ❑ is9. Natural Resources..rces Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ❑ ❑ b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? ❑ ❑ 10. Risk of URset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances(including,but not limited to,oil,pesticides,chemicals or radiation)in the event of an accident ❑ ❑ or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ U. Populate Will the proposal alter the location,distribution,density,or growth rate of the human population of an area? ❑ ❑ 12. aging- Will the proposal affect existing housing,or create a demand for additional housing? ❑ ❑ 13. . Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movements? ❑ ❑ • b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? ❑ ❑ c. Substantial impact upon existintransportation systems? El 0 EZ cvw4m rr d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or ❑ ❑ goods? IZI e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? ❑ ❑ 0 f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ❑ ❑ El 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? ❑ ❑ b. Police protection? ❑ ❑ c. Schools? ❑ ❑ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ❑ ❑ El e. Maintenance of public facilities,including roads? ❑ ❑ f. Other governmental services? ❑ ❑ FY• l 1 MAYBE 15. Ene . Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ❑ ❑ ❑ • b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy,or require the development of new sources of energy? ❑ ❑ 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems,or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ❑ ❑ b. Communications systems? ❑ ❑ 0 c. Water? ❑ ❑ ❑ d. Sewer or septic tanks? ® ❑ ❑ e. Storm water drainage? ❑ ❑ f. Solid waste and disposal? ❑ ❑ 17. Human Health, Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard(excluding mental ❑ ❑ health)? J b. Exposure of people to potential health ❑ ❑ hazards? . 18. Apa+._.Y.thot+e. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public,or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ❑ ❑ IRI 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ 20. Cultural Resources, a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric archaeological site? ❑ ® ❑ b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building,structure,or object? ❑ ❑ ❑ c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ❑ ❑ d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ❑ ❑ EE MAYBE NQ 21. Mandatary F'ndin of nif�nce Li" a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, • substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a Plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Ez b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals? (A short term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief,definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future.) C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small,but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? RE ZION On the basis of this initial study: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. • I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: `--7-(,•1 l ngen Community De op �ector/ Environmental Coordma ATTACMdENT$: Explanations Location Map Project Map Environmental Information Form CDD 4W I Initial Study Comments Precise Plan PP #02-91 • 9515 Lakeview Road 1. (b,c) yes The project would involve grading to accommodate the proposed residence and driveway. The proposed house location is appropriate for the site, and the overall extent of necessary grading has been minimized in the design of the project. All grading activities would be subject to the approval of the Building Official, ensuring compliance with the Uniform`Building Code. Therefore, this is not considered a significant impact. 1. (e) no All new cut and fill slopes would be replanted to minimize erosion, as per the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. The City Building and Engineering Divisions have reviewed and conceptually approved the revised engineered grading and drainage plans for the project, which include a cobble dissipator to minimize the effects of erosion at the outlet of the proposed drainage culvert. This is not a potentially significant impact. 3. (b) maybe Absorption rates and drainage patterns may be substantially • altered; however, drainage improvements and additional impervious surfaces are not considered significant and would not result in significant adverse impacts. 13. (c) no A traffic control plan will be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The intent of this plan will be to ensure that circulation is not impacted during proposed construction activities. 16. (d) yes The project involves tapping into an existing sewer line some distance from the subject project site. This connection has been approved in concept by the City Council. Notwithstanding the policy matters that may be, or have been, involved, this is not a potentially significant environmental impact. 20. (a) maybe Although the project is not located in the vicinity of a known archaeological site, ground disturbing activities are proposed. All activities on the project site would be subject to Section 9- 4. 162 of the City of Atascadero Zoning Ordinance, which sets forth adequate provisions for the protection of archaeological resources. Therefore, this is not considered to be a potentially • significant impact. 2 fJ ATTACHMENT B 9425 Lake View Drive • Atascadero, CA 93422 ,�� .� �Df1•� 805/466-7071 s/Jbl4f March 14, 1991 3 M.AY 15 1331 U14,M Honorable Chairman and Commissioners: My name is Joyce Young. I reside at 9425 Lake View Drive, Atascadero. I am appealing the approval of the precise plan 02- 91 on the basis of health, safety, and welfare of the public. I must confess this is the first time I've been involved in matters pertaining to City policy. Like so many other people who live here, I got involved because the action of the City Council • directly affected me in an adverse way. However, I don't think I would have taken the action of appealing a decision of the City if I did not believe that the action would have a negative effect on the City as a whole and adversely affect our quality of life in Atascadero. This is what prompted me to take action. When I called the City to express my opinion of the precise plan 02-91 and ask about procedure for appeal, I was advised not to bring up the issue of sewers because, and I quote, "That is a very political issue. " Gentlemen, I cannot state my reasons for appealing this project without bringing in the issue of the sewers. If Mr. Messer had not been given approval to put in a private line to sewer his property, he could not have built on his property, • which he bought last year in a "cease and desist" area, and I 21 2 • would not be standing before you tonight. I certainly will bring up sewering Mr. Messer's property as well as engineering of his driveway, the cumulative effect of building in a "cease and desist" area, aesthetics and environmental damage. There is also a question of ownership of the wood fence near his property, which he stated he will move. I live in an area of the lake that has a building moratorium in place because the City is concerned about polluting the lake. When we purchased our home, 2-1/2 years ago, we were told that because we were in a "cease and desist" area there would be no further building on lake lots not served by sewer. This area remains under the moratorium, and yet a new house is proposed to be built on a lot that is not sewered and is in a "cease and • desist" area. Mr. Messer's building plans were submitted in February 1991. The plans showed a tank with private sewage pump and a small pressure main line leading into a sewer on the other end of the lake. The Planning Department staff did not consult nor seek direction from the Council about an exception to the building moratorium in the "cease and desist" area. On April 23, 1991, Mr. Messer stated to the City Council that he had been told by a City staff person that he could hook into the sewer system by means of a private 1-1/4" diameter pipe in exchange for a $3,000 engineered study for an assessment district. My overall concern centers around whether other residents in • 2� • 3 the area may also now build their private pump stations and pump uphill to an existing sewer. What happens if a private line develops a leak and contaminates the lake? Is the Planning Department requiring the posting of a bond in case an accident occurs? As more people are allowed to use this method for waste disposal, the chances are proportionately greater that an acci- dent may occur. Lines fail, pump systems break down and pollu- tion of the lake occurs. An engineered sewer system for this area is the accepted prudent way to assure that a health hazard does not exist for the people who use the lake. Such a system, I understand, will cost $14, 000 per lot. In allowing Mr. Messer to use a private waste • disposal system in exchange for a $3,000 sewer plan for the area, not only is the integrity of the lake in danger, but, in essence, the building moratorium in this area is lifted. In addition; as septic systems in the area begin to fail, homeowners in the area, following Mr. Messer's lead, will insist on installing their own Pump stations to carry their sewage uphill, increasing the potential pollution danger. Contrary to the negative findings for approval #3, this can affect the health, safety and welfare of the general public or persons residing in the neighborhood. Contrary to the findings for approval #4, the proposed project is inconsistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood and contrary to orderly development because of the unorthodox sewering. For all the • 4 • above reasons I do not agree that Mr. Messer's project should have received a negative environmental declaration from the Community Director Mr. Engen. Please note: Mr. Messer's sewer line runs through two City lots. Does this not require a public hearing? This is not an isolated building and it does set a precedent of building in the "cease and desist" area by providing small lines and pump stations - certainly much less expensive thalY a sewer assessment district. The General Plan states "priority for prow-i�s sewer service shall be cease and desist areas. " Mr. Messer's pump does not qualify. My second point is the issue of Mr. Messer's driveway. There is a possibility that his driveway encroaches upon private • property as well as. the City's right of way. Until this issue is resolved his project should not have been approved. Mr. Messer notes in his plans "relocation of the wooden , fence. " Mr. Messer's claim to ownership of the fence is not clear. Until that issue is resolved the driveway cannot be built as the plans specify. The City also offered me free advice in suggesting my appeal deal with my loss of view. Yes, I will suffer a loss of view. I will also miss the wildlife that exists on this property, the birds, deer, squirrels, and quail, among others. I will miss the quiet and peace of the lake when bulldozers start up - but, this is the price of growth. And if this area did not have a building moratorium on it, I would resign myself to the inevitable. • �C� • 5 However, as you as Planning Commissioners know, precise plan 02- 91, in getting approval from the City of Atascadero, sends a message to the citizens that there are rules and regulations, but also exceptions to the rules and regulations. I feel very strongly that the rules should not be circumvented in instances where the public health is at stake. We must also be ready to say that the rules apply to everyone. If my neighbor's septic system fails and the neighbor does not know a staff person who, in exchange for a $3, 000 engineered study will bend the rules, what will you say to him when he asks to follow the precedent set by Mr. Messer on Lake View Drive? In conclusion, I wish to say that it may have been the late • hour which caused the Council to accept the Planning Department's report. Please reconsider. Thank you, Joyce Young • �L NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF PRECISE PLAN SUBJECT: PRECISE PLAN 02-91 LOCATION: 9515 Lakeview Drive APPLICANT: :•,.•Mike Messer REQUEST: Construction of a Single-Family residence on slopes of 10% or more NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Precise Plan 02-91 has been approved by the Community Development Director. _ Copies of.. the staff report, plans, and related project information ate available for public review and comment in the Community Development Department (Room 311) , Administration Building, 6500 Palma..Avenue, Atascadero, California. The Community D!,-yalo ment Directo Prepared Ne ative Decla- ration in accordance with t e provisionB of the Cali fornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . The final date for appeal twenty-one (21) days after the decision of the Community Development Director or until 5:00 p.m. on • May 17, 1991. Anyone wishing further information on this proposed project may do so by appearing in person -at the Community Development Department between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. , or by phoning 461-5035. Unless appealed, the approval of Precise plan 02-91 will become effective at 5:00 p.m. on May 17, 1991. Dated: April 26, 1991 HENRY ENG N, Di ector I Community Devpment City of Atasca`dero, California cc: City Council JJ & RC Fernandez WP & MH White, �tal a JJ Dischner � . DW & JL Young JC Deidum Coyote Corp. , Inc. • RL Johnson, etal Judith Ransom, tre INS -r� ui a>erga- oV _PQ.Eusr:=- PLA.#,J 4koZ --,tl wµIC4 Dov M,Essr=�Z. -SI Al E 7-4) OUR- AGtl6WL.CP&E O?zlP—R— /tilp) VI DLX,E.S 1- 1 7W IS - a �rxc-e. (� 4,, ,p�S '-tip c9 ( 1 l C .,..�wu �ea tt Lt 66 s' 7 S 7 O/Q-� l Z///t V, < 7 ' 'Tb -r�te Cov F�,4G t �. ' • 4✓E aPP�O tlE D TD Mi KG, A4E SSZ5; S tVGE 7 DO -S wao I29 Q V X 671E-Z) -Tf10 S4 xwzi- (.A�aer, lDE1t 1,L Q�tE A APR-9 7 7� ,CH �3yo r11,1#7- W,141 y, 47A59--.4PO© 1 4 A W_G -rUZ u "aatz stGr. Pzoi-i—=s-r -tie OZ---Q 4u i.,t v ti, 46 vE p2�N am M t AcG &A S S5Q P, , S N c TO D Q_ K 1�1ov�1C.- D C-rE p-rte. . (til DI�/1 DIjL,C=S t 1�1 "TZ-�tS 4P�d W lW S.7-t-.7 P 't i1F.� ME_tA16Rr lel tG D hi GE, 67 tl4 7- ✓ -�- a..�r"' l = ,,�'U-,1 }'ti1c..,.c, Yl��_. �/ 4 G - / -3 Y 3 now, / -- - G�' ► - `��'�iav__ De - - _ _ . � Q��w�-- � p � S Ltz.�vfeu✓ ;�r�ve- _ x.66 8 3 f�5. q�7s c_A. 'Tb rt'Il� G►-r�j �ju r�1G t L. N/� 'rl-�� V tJ DEi2, S tG-tom AfZC)-TEST 7iA is v {�41/E aPP+�O✓E D To A4E SSrj2- S/�VG-E 7-6 Ji? O-Z J-0 : -�4�� Q y 6G _ 6� !LAA..ac", _ t4lr 44/P vwe 1 ,. ATTACHMENT C to allow grant funds that have come back to the County to remain in a common pot, which will be shared by all the cities in the County for financing future household hazardous waste-related activities. He offered to respond to questions from Council. He noted last year' s one-day collection event proved to be extremely expensive, and SLOACC is trying to structure a mobile collection system for such future activities. There was no public comment. Motion: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilwoman Bor- geson, to agree to leave the City' s pro-rata share in a pool for the future planning purposes of the Area Coordinating Council; motion passed unanimous- ly by roll-call vote. 2. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY MIRE MESSER FOR DIRECTION RE: MEANS FOR PROVIDING SEWER SERVICE TO LAKEVIEW DRIVE PROPERTY Mr. Engen gave a verbal report indicating that Mr. Messer has a precise plan pending on the subject property, which is located in a Cease & Desist area. The applicant, Mike Messer, reiterated the facts as stated in his April 3rd correspondence, which is included in the agenda packet. •ICouncil then asked questions of staff, discussing the request at length. Mr. Luke clarified that staff gave no recommendation as this is an unusual request, because the property is located in a moratorium area. To grant Mr. Messer's request would leave the City in the situation of not being able to serve other lots in that area and raises a number of questions as to whether the Council wishes to explore this subject further. Mr. Luke reviewed a map of the area, indicating which lots are and are not sewered, and which lots are City-owned. Discussion ensued on the subject of possible sewering of the remaining area and its implications relative to the value of City-owned lots and the issue of whether to dispose of some of them. Mr. Messer stated that he feels there will eventually be an assess- ment district, because this is a Cease & Desist area and there will be failing septic systems. He noted that he is prepared to parti- cipate in a future sewer assessment district. Motion: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Dexter, to allow Mr. Messer to put in a small diameter line with the understanding and necessary documentation for his participation in a sewer assessment dis- cc4/23/91 iPage 10 • 10 trict when and if it is established; motion passed by 3:2 roll-call, with Councilmembers Borgeson and • Shiers opposed. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 33-91 - AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 125-90 TO IN- CLUDE FEES FOR, (1) FORESTRY AND WOODLOT MANAGEMENT PLANS, AND (2) ANNUAL PRUNING, TRENCHING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMITS FOR PRIVATE AND PUBLIC UTILITIES Mr. Engen gave staff report and responded to questions from the Council. He noted the annual utility pruning permit fee is a guesstimate at $100 per year and is hoped to both recover costs and encourage public cooperation. Staff will monitor the permit acti- vities and propose fee adjustments accordingly. Motion: By Councilman Dexter, seconded by Councilman Nimmo to continue the meeting past 11:00; motion passed unanimously. Public Comment Fred Frank, 3615 Ardilla Rd. , concurs that the fees should offset costs and should not be so high as to discourage compliance and cooperation; he believes the proposed $50 per acre Woodlot Manage- ment Fee is not fair and would discourage participation. He made note of the requirement in the Forestry and Woodlot Management Plan • i for the services of a Registered Professional Forester, which will ensure compliance with the Tree Ordinance and shift the City's management and administrative costs to the applicant. He suggested a fee schedule which he believes is more realistic, would tend to subsidize the small landowner and perhaps be a bit high for large landowners. Jim Dulitz, 1300 Garcia Rd. , spoke in support of reducing the fees from those proposed, feeling they're rather high. Discussion then came back to Council and focused on the need to set fees which will encourage participation. Motion: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Shiers, to adopt Resolution No. 33-91, subject to staff monitoring and annual adjustment, as neces- sary, with the Woodlot Management Plan modified to: $250/up to 10 acres; $400/10-40 acres; $600/40+ acres. Motion passed unanimously on voice vote. With regard to the proposed annual pruning, trenching and encroach- ment permit fee of $100, Councilwoman Borgeson asked that the cc4/23/91 Page 11 11 • f ag � LIVE FILE Corivert I Access 1, Store THIS SHEET INDICATES THIS SECTION CONTAINS POOR QUALITY IMAGES _ ism 4�j�711 6504" ITY- _._ ..._. _. .-__as-v1.Sc:Irv-a@si-a.staxv:qsc�-tCesw6'>3v-.F.�9:-�.y,r�w.r4'.+a•'•vzlx.var�am _._ —_ -- - _I w_an t - Q sfia ak o aoz-- Takia - X — R tha.._time. ta=—coas14ar -what= .requi_remeats_ are necessary _to serve ..my -Jot -_xi_th.__the;:;public-sewer -,- X1 14— 3e:�taLahare: xfoth Q¢ the fathis date andJ_ 'to ask T: you -.to _ outline _for me the conditions sof _ - - -- - - approval .regarding sewer service to my-.lot. raine3-tfie services o sesta Baeerf� or �fsanfn - towards event al fijMsl approval .-undo r efse:r." a Eoned si oa'� -f�a bui I-dfn _ y g y r g eparEmen -to_ bufld m self a in le- fauil -h ame-. ar-` oonP ss I can` -gthal e ="aa = answer I can to ahead with e" ffn - _AMC. hetechyal._-d.rastint s�=�..._ _ I purchased this lot in fall 1989, at that time I approached;., the _ __ _ public .works dept and asked what the . solution to sewer ____,hook: ug xnnld _be., S,;was . told at ,that time by the dept.'- that the coast - -Iogical solution - ras that I_ should -place a PRIVATE SMALL`DIARBTER PRESSURE .SERLI _ :-toy he =n4artstavailatrle ra�it bfc _. W7z, t - 'ld =that is x�hinge €a It-ro .rzt : :.Pshave an pr are the dr aas an _. for-, the men ray area,, lakeviex, ,Mountainveiw and part aI 1� st�tot noat au eatlx bn sewor. � V• �afl'iTb y � ff.•.y" tMdgl'�.. ...M +I.IMryR.a-�^, N1Hi'A.'..^`Ir �^t Ie ;o'od fail -Y-eontracCid G_nesta Bngineerin �n ecember_ g3r989 t' rn taf=n nd -enR' neez tht sewer systan for-that=-area, a t sa-T ,. vshin�'tr`nced b. r tha''ei;t ` I aid for this` nastar pan and 0 ,�atod t fhe re stf o y ~over three thousand dollars (3 00._00}-- � ad F=�£ MEM/ D3S' 'fes -;_%i. """Zcbtii# that this ISMALL"DIAMETER ° 'PRE SS URE"LINE "- dx 1+s4. Y7►s" - -' 4+1i;,�rm.. _ >sP54 ..s,_..,. a..�.-- _ S 1� ea At 'a r lrho ley. Its a l sb��Cgparea �: that = h > t sxfs'ti douse-east eventuall be. serYe �iiE he -s -� g _y: xtan Eons. of sexar rains. 4 I under'stend Jthat = ;tha Lt te` n aolut _:-A i� �l VWy gexpanaiva and .I aecspt q< r a" ox b } `T}-+�-i tri p- "ha r— is ert a amt hilar! time'' . 7 y Recently Iti have discussed with Greg Luke my requests , he has no .-.problem, with me using -',the small- diameter pre;surelin* to acceaa _ ••Ct'RS_T!f_-u..'.' •S".�'.Sr• '- .� _:� -sm-._ac. :.. �:._. � �=moi ,ate's—_.i�'i _''s'$z£rsrc�"'�" '••' —'�'-� ,y, r.. ^a- I ` teal that _in a_ I lafsness ,I�_ha�re performad lass rsgv�at:ed — - city. I paid �fozandA" provided the en ine'erin cit�r ="wteh a`':c0aP10ta S S' ma's tsr psis _for tht futureserer-_to ..this area�If - a when- the ' ci'ty decides -'_.-to do so?. I have done my Prt now I am asking -yon to--al low- my hook -up.--- _ There is no guarantee that sewer- main will go through, Even --if it _hoes =go through it will- probably- - P y "-take any where from one to`'- - three years to complete. I sincerely don ' t think it is fair to hold me up any longer. - - If you have any questions please don' t hesitate to call - me at 466-3600 and evenings at 466-4521. �INCERELT i lL Z MIKE MESS ER 8833 Arcade , Atasc. - • • \ I PC 6/4/91 - MINUTES EXCERPT 2. APPEAL OF PRECISE PLAN 02-91: • Appeal filed by Joyce Young of Precise Plan 02-91 (appli- cant Mike Messer - project proposes the construction of a 2,117 square foot single family residence) . Subject site is located at 9515 Lakeview Drive. Steve DeCamp presented the staff report which focused on the appellant'.s reasons for the appeal: ' 1) City Council 's granting of a sewer connection; 2) possibility that the driveway is actually located on an adjacent lot; and 3) a question regarding the ownership of an existing fence. Staff is recommending that the appeal be denied. Commission questions and discussion followed. In response to question by Commissioner Waage, Mr. DeCamp stated that if the property line is where the fence is, the driveway could be relocated without significant additional affects on the property. Commissioner Rudlac questioned who made the determination that the driveway is on Mr. Messer' s property. Mr. DeCamp replied that the driveway is on a plan prepared by a civil engineer based on a survey done by a licensed land surveyor. In clarifying other Commission queries, Mr. DeCamp noted that • there was a proposal for a private sewer system at the time the precise plan application was deemed complete. However, the conditions of approval required that that method of sewage disposal be ratified by the City Council prior to issuance of any building permits. Had that not occurred, then the precise plan could not have been completed. It was further noted that there was no written staff recommen- dation to the Council but only a letter submitted by Mr. Messer and an oral report given by the Public Works Director which was based on his review of the improvement plans. He noted that the proposed method of providing sewer was adequate Chairperson Luna stated that this appears to be a policy decision that could impact all of the vacant lots in the area, adding that other lots will desire to take advantage of private sewer hookups as well. He expressed concern that Finding #3 of the Negative Declaration may be inadequate as the cumulative impacts have not bee considered. Commissioner Hanauer questioned why this matter was even being considered by the Planning Commission since the Council has already decided on the sewer issue and the other two matters are of a civil nature. Mr. Decamp referenced a need to exhaust administrative . remedies. The City Attorney, upon review of the appeal letter, advised the Planning Commission to consider the appeal PC 6/4/91 - MINUTES EXCERPT and conduct a public hearing. However, he also advised that the Commission does not have discretion in the matter of the • sewer line extension. Commissioner Hanauer voiced his feeling that the Attorney' s recommendation is a curious one and he would have liked to have had the Attorney present to explain his reasonings to the Commission. Chairperson Luna explained that before one can take this to a higher authority, the individual would have to exhaut their administrative appeals (from Planning Commission to City Council to Court, etc. ) Commissioner Highland concurred with Commissioner Hanauer's statements adding that the Commission does not have any power or authority to rescind the Council's decision on the sewer matter. He, too, is perplexed as to why this item is before the Commission. - Public Testimony - Joyce Young, appellant, read a prepared statement in support of the appeal (Attachment A) and then read her initial appeal letter (Attachment B) explaining the reasons for the appeal. Mrs. Young then responded to questions from the Commission. Commissioner Highland commented that the moratorium in that • area was imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and would not be lifted until sewer is available. In this particular case, Mr. Messer's property will be sewered. He also clarified that individual pumps are not unique and are common throughout the City. In response to question by Commissioner Highland, Ms. Young stated that if her septic tank failed, she would expect that she, or her neighbors, would be able to connect to sewer just like Mr. Messer. She expressed her feelings that to connect one lot to the sewer is a health and safety hazard. Discussion followed. - End of Public Testimony - Commissioner Waage stated his belief that the City Council made a mistake when they granted permission for one person to hook up to the sewer line. He concurred with Mrs. Young in that if you allow one person to hook up, then every vacant lot should have the same opportunity. He added that there is a case to be made for public health and safety. Commissioner Hanauer stated that he is not defending the Council' s decision; however, it was an unfortunate one. But • the Council had one request before them, not the whole neighborhood. PC 6/4/91 - MINUTES EXCERPT Commissioner Highland asked what exactly is the Commission • intending to decide at this hearing? Chairperson Luna surmised that the Commission will either uphold the appeal or deny the appeal and it would be good to adopt some findings if the appeal is granted. He further stated that the Negative Declaration is inadequate because it has not considered the cumulative impacts that this policy decision may have. Commissioner Hanauer conveyed his hope that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and let Mrs. Young take her case to the council where it belongs. Discussion continued. MOTION: By Commissioner Hanauer and seconded by Commission- er Highland to deny the appeal of Precise Plan 02-91. The motion was defeated 4:2:1 with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hanauer and Highland NOES: Commissioners Waage, Rudlac, Johnson, and Chairperson Luna ABSENT: Commissioner Lochridge • MOTION: By Chairperson Luna and seconded by Commissioner Johnson to uphold the appeal of Precise Plan 02-91 noting that the Negative Declaration is inadequate because it has not considered the cumulative impacts of the policy decision that the City Council adopted. The motion carried 4:2:1 with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, Waage, Rudlac, and Chairperson Luna NOES: Commissioners Highland and Hanauer ABSENT: Commissioner Lochridge Chairperson Luna noted that the Commission's action is appealable to the City Council. Commissioner Highland asked that his comment be conveyed to the City Council that the appeal of Precise Plan 02-91 to the Commission is a total exercise in futility. • ATTACHMENT A PC6/4/91 • Honorable Chairman and Members of the Commission: My name is Joyce Young and I am appealing Precise Plan 02-91. The City Staff recommends denial of my appeal. The City Staff states that I based my appeal on 3 items: Council granting sewer connectins, location of the driveway, and ownership of the existing fence. This is their assesment of my appeal, but not my statement nor my intent. On page 1 of my appeal, I clearly state I am appealing on the basis f health, safety and welfare of the public. : d On page 3 of my appeal, I state my disagreement with findings for approval 13 and 14. The text of my appeal primarily deals with the fact that this proposal will result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned use of this area. Mr. Engen, in addressing the environmental impact of this project states this project will have no impact on orderly development of this area. If lifting a building moratorium in a Cease and Desist area for one project is not a departure from orderly development, then what is? Remember, the Council has not made a decision to sewer the lake area. The Staff may have-been premature in directing Mike Messer to have an engineered study done. As septic systems in this area fail, others will have the same • opportunity to connect to the sewer in a hodge podge manner. I have handed each of you a copy of a letter from Coldwell Banker Camino Real Properties of which firm Mike Messer,is a real estate agent. This letter states that Coldwell Banker has no imformation which would indicate the fence on lot 31 encroaches on lot 32. This is the fence Mr. Messer plans to relocate. I have spoken to Mr. Sanzo, owner of lot 31, and he states a problem still exists with the fence and the problem has not been resolved. Mr. Sanzo furnished me with a copy of the letter you have in front of you. Now, I will read my appeal to you in full. Joyce Young A NlM OF7W sws POWAOCIAL MCT MOMt • - .. 7450 MoA+o ROAD ATASCAOERO.CA 95422 ' February 26, 1990 CAMINO REAL PROPERTIES, INC. TO: Peter Alexander u REQ; '� ti4 White House Properties FEB 27 ly90 ' 22151 Ventura Blvd. Woodland Hills, Calif. 91364 FROM: Violet Buenning �O 7:,1 C6' Coldwell Banker Camino Real Prop. co 7450 Morro Road • Atascadero, Ca. 93422 RE: Escrow #7266 Dkpchner .to Sanzo I have checked with the Planning Dept. and- Public Works Dept. of Atascadero and according to them, as of this date 2/26/90, . a home cannot be built on Lot 32 on Lakeview Drive until sewers are brought in to LakeView Drive. At this time the city has no plans to annex LakeView Drive or Santa Rosa (nearest cross st. ) to the sewer district. - We do not have a lot line survey that would indicate that • the fence on Mr. Dischner's property, Lot 31 on LakeView Dr. is encroaching on Lot 32. The only information that we have is in Preliminary Title Report, Amendment Map M3-9C and the topo- map made by Wilson Land Surveys in February 1990 (not recorded) . Mr. Dischner is willing to move the fence to line shown on that map if buyer desires. Moving the fence would only result in the loss of one shrub at the front corner - would not change any other trees etc. However there is no lot line survey indicating this requirement, or any request by the owner of Lot 32. Please have Mr. Sanzo sign a disclaimer stating that we have given him all available information at present to him but could not be responsible for any change that might be disclosed with further surveys in the future. Coldwell Banker Camino Real Prop. , Viojet Buenning, agent for seller and Mr. Jim Dischner have not withheld any information available to them at this time. Hard copy to follow , r An Independently Owned and Operated Member of Coldwell Banker Residential Affiliates. Inc. - _ '•t � -r�il� r • �.IIn nr ' �� �toeAeiNe ntewaTesw 1) 716(u1 U1 i HOMMU MU COPAC.+ 0G%olf0.11O flLr. ti r.f•, t AND MILAN AeaOAoao MAUL Me CetO AND. 'DOC.NO* smi. A/]D/9�]^35 a 1�1d.unwT IL UMLeM OTMt"811 SHORN ea LOM. MAIL TAIL t aTATaMaNTS Tot SAN LUIS OBAM=CA 0 r MICHAEL D. MESSER , AUG 3 0191! MARGARET J. MESSER-QUICK FRANCIS M.GOONEY 7576 CRISTOBAL C TWE 8G sc dM '.'= y•. ATASCADERO. CA. 92422 L Tau omen No._Llnve VAC1 ADM THIS LPN Pall AGCOM A't UN ti�t�YJGt��I t �xED Ie(► uu �;� ic. GRANT DEED L . Tho undersigned grantors)dacbue(s): Documentary transfer tax Is S 77.00 "JL 56-722-19 % ( X)computed on full value of property conveyed.or `•Vis::: R�! ( )computed on full value len value of Hera and encumbrances remaining at time of telt. neJ ��^ ( )Unincorporated a : ( X)City of ATASCADERO - ,and By this instrument datedfar a vshable consideration � NINTH DAY OF AUGUST. 1989 . 4•+-' �'_� KATNFRZYN E. HOWE. A WIDOW rift; hereby GRANTS to MICRfitZL D. MESSER. A SINGLE MAA AND MARGARET J. MESSER-QUICK. All UNMARRIED WOMAN. AS JOINT TENANTS the following described real property in the County of Steil-7f OF ATASCADERO SAN LUIS OBISPO CALIFORNIA LOT 22 OF BLOCK 12 OF ATASCADERO. IN TRE CITY OF ATASCADERO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ACCORDING TO MAP REFERENCE t AMENDMENT G TO MAP OF ATASCADERO COLONY. FILED SEPTEMBER 16. 1929 IN BOOK J. PAGES 9-B AND 9-C OF COUNTY MAPS. -. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN LAKE VIEW DRIVE. WISCONSIN ._ . STATE OF COUNTY OF wmr><en♦ ;�;`' At1CpS� 1�10 F 1M.errrv�.r,•r+. hta: .A he M D. EREYN E. lowit �! KATRZRM Z. HM O M..d M>M as W bub fw seWse er wUwM n�' N U W Mtvw14 stw"erMW sabow#d is the .fatbl ww...L.d�e1�.ddad tb.1 �.�tnwld k •-,�+rY_`"' wrmss ow b.d ed skid 6" My eowleelon expires 1/15/90 f'. •s do win _t. lipwM O •- '. ''' t -1� WIt TAx sTA r a/bMN ON roLIOT►MD LM'IF NO PASTY d tirMW.MAIL Al DIRMSID MOVE s wM 1rM Aeet� Cq•a1w ENO OF DOCUMENT .,:.� 4F RECORDING REQUESTED BY ^r DOC.NO. HOMESTEAD ME CORPORATION OFFICIAL RECORDS SAN LUIS OSISPO Co..CA _„- WHINRtCCA0dDMAILTOt AUG 3 019!9 KATHMADISERFYN K. TREHOWE O 3119 MADISON STREET 'ti'• t"�" F WAUKESHA• WISt:ONSIN 53188 FEY RANCIS�RKKWdW •' TIME 5:00 AM "r ORDER NO1 43079 ESCROW NOt 01-4934-LF t1PACs MOVE THq UNt F0N NoWNDEN7IBB ;. .•`w (s3ZZ..tq SHORT FORM DEED OF TRUST AND ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS r. t• Deed fT�y� teY NINTH DAY OF AUGUST. 19019 •«.yaw MICHAEL 8. NFSSFR. Jl SINGLE MAN AND MARGARET J• NESSER-QUICK. AN UNMARRIED WONAIM�a :Z� {:'�i1: cit AS JOTNT TENANTS. - - . ''.•: ,�; ;f ,Irnbt egOw TRUSTOR.l•Aseg tddnw be 7576 Cristobal• Ataaaadero• CA 93422 ROURST RAD TMA CORPORATION bode wOd TRUVM&wd �`�► KATHEREYN E. HOWE. A WIDOW .,• L. +; ,fir {.•:!'. + , .bfNNmcdWBP1d MIARY. Wfto utb: T11N Tremor IRREVOCABLY AND ATSSIGNS TO TRUSTEE TN TRUST.WITH hi fr +•. POWER OF SA(�,tbttpro fty bt S^" a� ornfti daeefbed i.., _z. �r. LOT 32 OF BLOCK i dFIXTASCADERO. IN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO. CO 0� �. SAN LUIS OBISPO• STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ACCORDING TO MAP REFERENCE AMENDMENT G TO MAP OF ATASCADERO COLONY, FILED SEPTFI(BER 16, 1925 IN BOOK ;. 3. PAGES 9-8 AND 9-C OF COUNTY MAPS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN LAKE VIEW DRIVE. THIS IS A PURCHASE MONEY DEED OF TRUST AND IS GIVEN TO STtCUU A PORTION Of THE PURCHASE PRICE. TOGETHER wrm the Peet%Iwo oM pmts tbeteaf.7UUECT.Note mit.to the$*A,peAr ad eabetRF 81vr le W ON WGRW olrt bwaldw by wwsrb 10 w the peetfsw becer"wed Arrow by eKetellw w maw ad unb eggs me.boon and Pon .4.�: �_ Per me FwFeee w savoloo 1.Fetfwloeoes of tech otewewtt of Trwa bwpegld b f oft - w ewtotaed befeY► L hyseta of 4Y . eM bfineNedes�eeldeo W b glto pQ=600 fret of ww bb bNOW10,rte My UWWM w foal 68104 Is Mt alto Of *: $56,000.00 onwoW N Tawe M sae tf Blerfktiflr w oeew. I.NFreat K Pres Ibnbw trw r tbt 0•ea itlftle f1elw• •;i, ,, :., of rN tWMrb befeeNw frl•f bwlaer Ger aelrlklfeF.erbea efldeeeem b wtbsr sat(w to/ul wdldl M Y eg e•eoloe. • TO Wneeu 003" of Thle DW of Tnw.Tawe A/wn p the tseodo o W dell•p d itis Dred etTnd W ib new nerd bet► •��-j b, ftt pwrlwl•(p w pt1,bldo•Iw.of tb lkts-, aW d Uta roomed wmw mor.In dw boob tee N tb pw of O(Rb1 Roowb 7" . b two Nflee K W ooeNF Ioewew of Iwo top elbwt tW pgwtF Y loeglee.flood►eltlr ePpdr tb ftflw tf tefeb eetotF.elft ;* ,�� " fe1wR Pew MM tweref does eget Cow" MIR NOW room sera Met :�,�. �...y cw orate. .ore M ■reg tet we r\.w, w w •reg as r •r­r of a .w`... /si w Lf•••� m m w.oe. ee•e w e.Iw I/.e w L, erN+rur�..w....r wMr Mn1e IIIrrwry •IoMWeP wNI awerww1.wr1dea•I�s tr .rW Ir w Me r.elr m w t mo. wo.eef fw • as tw� '�>_•...,r-,{_:%.�j•5 }'0 }! ! .,:.fNo 11.1 N IA wSL Aalw .•e _/` ,•'a--, �n�• erg ..e W 11. r an err fl/.re w" r,A fl•• w f. ch" aw MI •.a. w W {{ } r-.r MI •e• 1+...arw r fMON IYI .•e 1e•e M M "'��,r'''� �,•!,: 1... 1.• wft-" w w N.r w w .e e1rf1 tw.►.N 1No • ft-w w•e NI trw 1• +:` >,•ti I poebdee�Idettlrl b fel eooetl•e,w plNd ea tb r•ueg bweeq Mo we d*"W vA bwFwre 1lereh Nld nab t pm "t4 w�: .R'' b•leof N TACT u 0060 rt two bNeb at bISMt am be wm tbwa ed wan fall pefMbwr:ud"100 nh""u w �c• 4'}tib otltQdtll<sold prtie M!elm popltF,e►YwlteM W w+w w fbetll b Plow Doth �'~�"+�^a¢+"� paeYsee old b woRnd to"ft Mob ryE.. .g►. ••.;,;r The edwdPd Tnww Ie/11•el•tbt t wA of ofq HNI"of D01*1111 oM of sq Hotleg of ble boleoda be saw M Meg N W Mira betelabod%a eM notR Few Np etsuel•et"pre"1b Nmlegib"now"bwbf.ftwo " r• +;M fay tbrp Ib teubtew wwM pwhiM b b N tb the of tb fgflem tbwehae o/I'lrelee , - �..�• c. 111TATS OF CAUFORNIA •'�JI /// / : "" ',(.�: collmT 0r SAN LUIS OBISPo 1IL •• /llC-f .,;-F'`-i;i Bee. 3 .;g! Oo AllCusi 2A. 1989 bo�Awregtfpee.tbe.d.n MICHAEL D. M S �`: .w3 n;4 Mc .e.he Margaret`am sw "W'41aiidi-Quit -it O peg.Blease.~,•'t1}r;�b"%stmkts~7OTW.w uUU MAR ET J. ER-QUICK ''-H'.`.•7! »} le M two Fwewlr.be..gore!✓ AUwbNflbd»tb � woo"wtnweN.one t11ot Y otatlloe K 0"04 VA WITNESS07hewedLORI L FILIPPONI NMMFU0ef�11sbw r lltsetoro I 001 t�w•Wohm Ob"M COW" 1e�j,`:.a, Wf fsew M►f ti.w of V M 15%6 1 I f . •/dM•t t.,,,- Agb1e.�M1lfebM aewf MtIM4 wY ' wrotft •, < END OF DOCUMENT ,' , vo13"1%j 3+�- .L' ATTACHMENT B PC6/4/91 9425 Lake View Drive Atascadero, CA 93422 • 805/466-7071 SC s/�61q� March 14, 1991 rr> _ 3070 ZS „'�rr !7'1�� MAY Is ta3� Honorable Chairman and Commissioners: My name is Joyce Young. I reside at 9425 Lake View Drive, Atascadero. I am appealing the approval of the precise plan 02- 91 on the basis of health, safety, and welfare of the public. I must confess this is the first time I 've been involved in matters pertaining to City policy. Like so many other people who live here, I got involved because the action of the City Council directly affected me in an adverse way. However, I don't think I • would have taken the action of appealing a decision of the City if I did not believe that the action would have a negative effect on the City as a whole and adversely affect our quality of life in Atascadero. This is what prompted me to take action. When I called the City to express my opinion of the precise plan 02-91 and ask about procedure for appeal, I was advised not to bring up the issue of sewers because, and I quote, "That is a very political issue. " Gentlemen, I cannot state my reasons for appealing this project without bringing in the issue of the sewers. If Mr. Messer had not been given approval to put in a private line to sewer his property, he could not have built on his property, which he bought last year in a "cease and desist" area, and I • 2 • would not be standing before you tonight. I certainly will bring up sewering Mr. Messer's property as well as engineering of his driveway, the cumulative effect of building in a "cease and desist" area, aesthetics and environmental damage. There is also a question of ownership of the wood fence near his property, which he stated he will move. I live in an area of the lake that has a building moratorium in place because the City is concerned about polluting the lake. When we purchased our home, 2-1/2 years ago, we were told that because we were in a "cease and desist" area there would be no further building on lake lots not served by sewer. This area remains under the moratorium, and yet a new house is proposed to be built on a lot that is not sewered and is in a "cease and • desist" area. Mr. Messer's building plans were submitted in February 1991. The plans showed a tank with private sewage pump and a small ' pressure main line leading into a sewer on the other end of the lake. The Planning Department staff did not consult nor seek direction from the Council about an exception to the building moratorium in the "cease and desist" area. On April 23 , 1991, Mr. Messer stated to the City Council that he had been told by a City staff person that he could hook into the sewer system by means of a private 1-1/4" diameter pipe in exchange for a $3, 000 engineered study for an assessment district. • My overall concern centers around whether other residents in L ., 3 the area may also now build their private pump stations and pump uphill to an existing sewer. what happens if a private line develops a leak and contaminates the lake? Is the Planning Department requiring the posting of a bond in case an accident occurs? As more people are allowed to use this method for waste disposal, the chances are proportionately greater that an acci- dent may occur. Lines fail, pump systems break down and pollu- tion of the lake occurs. An engineered sewer system for this area is the accepted prudent way to assure that a health hazard does not exist for the people who use the lake. Such a system, I understand, will cost $14, 000 per lot. In allowing Mr. Messer to use a private waste disposal system in exchange for a $3,000 sewer plan for the area, not only is the integrity of the lake in danger, but, in essence, the building moratorium in this area is lifted. In addition, as septic systems in the area begin to fail, homeowners in the area, following Mr. Messer's lead, will insist on installing their own pump stations to carry their sewage uphill, increasing the potential pollution danger. Contrary to the negative findings for approval #3, this can affect the health, safety and welfare of the general public or persons residing in the neighborhood. Contrary to the findings for approval #4, the proposed project is inconsistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood and contrary to orderly development because of the unorthodox sewering. For all the • 2 4 above reasons I do not agree that Mr. Messer's project should have received a negative environmental declaration from the Community Director, Mr. Engen. Please note: Mr. Messer's sewer line runs through two City lots. Does this not require a public hearing? This is not an isolated building and it does set a precedent of building in the "cease and desist" area by providing small lines and pump stations - certainly much less expensive thaffa sewer assessment Prq o L". C'XC, district. The General Plan states "priority for proy-rsrrons sewer service shall be cease and desist areas. " Mr. Messer's pump does not qualify. My second point is the issue of Mr. Messer's driveway. • There is a possibility that his driveway encroaches upon private property as well as the City's right of way. Until this issue is resolved his project should not have been approved. Mr. Messer notes in his plans "relocation of the wooden fence. " Mr. Messer's claim to ownership of the fence is not clear. Until that issue is resolved the driveway cannot be built as the plans specify. The City also offered me free advice in suggesting my appeal deal with my loss of view. Yes, I will suffer a loss of view. I will also miss the -wildlife that exists on this property, the birds, deer, squirrels, and quail, among others. I will miss the quiet and peace of the lake when bulldozers start up - but, this is the price of growth. And if this area did not have a building • moratorium on it, I would resign myself to the inevitable. 5 • However, as you as Planning Commissioners know, precise plan 02- 91, in getting approval from the City of Atascadero, sends a message to the citizens that there are rules and regulations, but also exceptions to the rules and regulations. I feel very strongly that the rules should not be circumvented in instances where the public health is at stake. We must also be ready to say that the rules apply to everyone. If my neighbor's septic system fails and the neighbor does not know a staff person who, in exchange for a $3, 000 engineered study will bend the rules, what will you say to him when he asks to follow the precedent set by Mr. Messer on Lake view Drive? In conclusion, I wish to say that it may have been the late hour which caused the Council to accept the Planning Department's • report. Please reconsider. Thank you, Joyce Young • • NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF PRECISE PLAN SUBJECT: PRECISE PLAN 02-91 'LOCATION: 9515 Lakeview Drive •, APPLICANT: :','.Mike Messer REQUEST: Construction of a Single-Family residence on slopes of 10% or more NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Precise Plan 02-91 has been approved by the Community Development Director. _ Copies of the staff report, plans, and related project information are available for public review and comment in the Community Development Department (Room 311) , Administration Building, 6500 Palma.Avenue, Atascadero, California. The Community Development Director has prepared a,-Negative_ Des.]sa- ration in accordance with the provisionz- of the Cal=orn3.a Environmental_Quality Act (CEQA) . The final date for appeal twenty-one (21) days after the decision • of the Community Development Director or until 5:00 p.m. on May 17, 1991. - : Anyone wishing further information on this proposed project may do so by appearing in person -at the Community Development Department between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4: 00 p.m. , or by phoning 461-5035. Unless appealed, the approval of Precise plan 02-9Y will become effective at 5:00 p.m. on May 17, 1991. Dated: April 26, 1991 HENRY EN�N, Di4ector I Communit Devel1 pment City of Atascadero, California cc: City Council JJ & RC Fernandez WP & MH White, etal JJ Dischner � . DW & JL Young JC Deidum • Coyote Corp. , Inc. RL Johnson, etal Judith Ransom, tre .....-_ i �4✓!/f V� O�.-f �i.+v./��7c�-. ��.�"r•r �.O(� ..r_1, wµlVrr �� {�4.t/� �.PP,�Q✓E D TD A�f K� ME S5�I�. S/�lGE Tv . Dv.P-- ANN) vcj9D674S 077J�AZ. /,Qp1 V/D[ ES It4 77-41S AZ,gra Woo -77JC saxW45 wc.eog DEAD - NQ/uE�,ct tA)%,tK(-R- 7v7 - - V/s/,O-, Ra5l --- 7 �E Qf 51+00 -7I SI SE)zENA , - A i S, -fY04 �li-37o- c J _ --rile C,17--q CO VV9 1-4r,- V 1,4 t>e2- S(c-u PZo Tr=sr- 7UF— �p,55r�� O� PP�C�S� pLA.�J OZ —�i( W I.I�G�•1 '1O U �14.✓E a.PP,�p ✓E D TO �.!r K� iVt E SS�� S/�lGE Tc) �.�iS. �✓!� ,�Q V E 57�D -�1� S�l�a� W�,E DE�Il��7� Gt/z!E A LMAC -./ibI-41S1 CA C I/of. cillglw7' w4 y, 4/-7,S2:Xp,!;fo ell 9dJ4;. '�.'it,,�,�►.�....,n,�L a ck �c��:� J• rl�.—� ��C_�.c� �W�LS(a'de r v ( /= �l/' t,,z� f.�-� �5� sem• � �e.��� �l r �-r17.•� . � >>�z G CO J t�J C,L L.- • _._ 4.vEPeDJ�D -rte MtGMt✓SS � , Sr �cx,-- To _ _..O V TZ._ 1�(�lOv`!L�D Csr✓ d-rt•�>cC.jz. (tai D1 V� Dc.��_5 ! t\1 TLl 1S d W A4b Z.—Q VGS-rM D -r=_S6.Mr✓ WGVZr-- DM n1 tG D - - - ---• 1���5 ---- .------ �c-4o tit E - - -- - - - -- - ..�•_ � c'.�i?r��- -- �or�p Njq�cy,4i��--�- - -—._. .`�G- G - 5/'S'��Z ---. - - - --- --i!<l��<�/J(/�_ .-.-' littiiyy//JJ��•---- �'�� ���'r---�c1��.e ---- ��L_ ?�7/. _. c , --- - - - 77,E ev ct - ) Q.d.v�wti p 9 5- L, v�eti✓ Prfve - 46623 S_ q�7s {yam._ De b-76.7 ���; �� 4' 75 sS Po,p-no A,A Y 6 - 0 sso I/VE Ti-4� V►.1 DEQ. S tG-tai PP.p TEST Tl-!~� !-�4t� a.oP,�c� ✓E D Tc �u�K� wt E SSS� S i�c.E 7-v Ove �;itiv�•vt�DC—E DTu� IZ /tilD� Vl Dt�[�CS �hl Txl/S N4►/uE a, DDzig:sS Pao C--- Q � SDo °�.c,t-�' '7'x!0 Cw__ -- . g2K 6� 9s is L� X 9, oe 44 4—yi S—, f/ J • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: C-2 (A) CITY OF ATASCADBRO MEETING DATE: 7-9-91 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Fron: arsq Luke, Director of Public Works SVWZCT: Report of Cease and Desist Area Requirements for the Lakewiew area. INTRODUCTIONS At the April 23, 1991 Council meeting, the Council considered the mater of allowing Mr. Mike Messer to connect to the public sewer system using a private pump and small diameter force main. The Council determined that an individual pumping system was appropriate, recognizing that the proposed system was an interim solution and that eventually a traditional sewer system would have to be built in the area. Accordingly, the applicant was required to pay his fair share of the sewersystem that would eventually serve the Lakeview Drive area as a condition of his approval. While this condition to pay for his fair share of a future sewer system in the area obligates , that the applicant to participate in an area sewer system, two questions remain unanswered: (1) how will sewer service eventually be provided to the area, and (2) how much will the sewer service cost each lot, including the applicant? This staff report examines the background of the problem and suggests some conceptual solutions to how the problem might be solved. It should be noted that the implementation of any long- term solution could take a year or longer to plan, design and construct. The discussion that follows is intended not as an argument for Council to change its earlier >decision'to allow Mr. Messer to construct an interim wastewater disposal system. This item rather is intended to provide Council with information on the feasibility and methodology for providing 'a long term solution, with an emphasis on answering the cost question raised above. BACKGROOND: • The Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region, adopted Cease and Desist Order No. 81-60 on ,Tune 12, 1981. A copy of the Order is included in your agenda. • The Order identifies twobasicproblems which existed as of 1981: (1) an undersized sewage treatment plant which needed replacement, and (2) six areas where sewer service needed to be provided. The new treatment plant has been completed for about 7 years and that portion of the Order is no longer relevant. The work to 'provide sewer to the six identified areas (known as areas C,E,F,G,I,and K) has only .been partially completed. The major effort in the past has been to provide sewer service for the areas designated as "C" and "E" Finding #8 of the Order identifies these two areas as having ,"approximately 80 percent of the system failures ". The City imposed a sewer Assessment District in this area in 1986-87 (known as the Seperado-Cayucos District) , an action which caused controversy among the residents of the area. The sewer collection system constructed as a result of this assessment district has eliminated the septic problems in areas C and E. Sewer trunk lines have been extended into Area K by private development. Thus the remaining unsevered 'areas are F,G, 'and I Through a combination of assessment district and private sewer line extension, approximately 25% of Area F has been. served (see attachment A)`. The issue before the Council is how to provide sewer service to the remaining portion of Area F. This question is • an integral part of the discussion regarding the Messer property. The key point is that the City is under an order from the Regional Board to provide sewer service to Area F. The matter is not a discretionary decision. If the provisions of order No. 81-60 are not complied with, the City could face substantial fines. In addition, the residents of Area F can expect the City to be making a concerted effort to meet their legal obligations. That is, the City cannot simply keep the area in a defacto building moratorium without making any progress towards solving the problem. ANALYSIS: With regard to Area F, a conceptual engineering plan has been prepared by Cuesta Engineering (Attachment B) showing how sewer service can be provided. The plan envisioned the use of an assessment district to fund the sewer line expansion. The per residence cost for the project as proposed by Cuesta Engineering was approximately $14,500 per residential lot. _This is one option which would be available to the Council. However, recognizing the highper lot cost of this `alternative, further examination was made to find a lower cost alternative. Since the original sewer study was:conducted, the sewer system has been extended into the Cease and Desist area via private developers. A; recent engineering study suggests that an alternative sewer service configuration can be provided at lower • cost. The conceptual plan shown in Attachment C shows the sewer line layout. The engineering cost estimate indicates that sewer service can be provided to the remaining unserved area for $7,300 per lot. Although this is a less expensive alternative, no provision has been made to provide the initial, "up-front", construction cost of $175, 000. One method of financing sewers in this area is for the sanitation district enterprise fund to install the system with the provision that the fund would be reimbursed as future connections are made. It should be noted that City statutes require that a residence connect to a sewer system within two years after it is made available. It is staff's opinion that this requirement is quite onerous on most homeowners and make the task of administering a reimbursement program a rather heavy handed affair. It is recommended that the requirement to connect to the sewer system be delayed until either the house is sold or the septic tank system needs replacement. The reimbursement amount would be increased at a set rate to account for inflation. It should be noted that this project provides for only two of the City's ten lots to be connected to the system. The two lots receiving service front on Santa Rosa. No provisions are made for the City's eight lots on Lakeview to connect to the sewer. Should sewer service be desired for these lots at a latter date, a trunk • line and possibly a small pump station would have to be constructed along Lakeview. FISCAL IMPACT: Initially, staff time plus approximately $5, 000 in engineering and geologic investigation will be necessary to bring back a firm work program to the Council. To implement a program to sewer Area F (Lakeview Drive) will encumber the sanitation fund approximately $175, 000, which will be paid back over time. Attachments: A- Cease and Desist Order 81-60 B- Design - Cuesta Equipment C- Cost Calculations - North Coast Engineering i Attachment A (page 1` CALI- Q:IIA R%:_:7:U L .:ATL:. QUALM C0:172UL 30ARD :1TRAL COAST RCGIG:d 1102-n Laurel Lane :.c • San Luis Obispo, Califcrr.ia 9401 CEASE A-':D DESIST ORDER NO. 81-60 Order Requiring Atascadero County Sanitation .,.i;triC. and the Cit; of Atascadero to Cease and C_sist from Discharging Wastes Contrary to =equirer„ents Prescribed by the California Regional 'later Quality Control Board, entral Coast Region. The California Regional ira_er Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region, (hereafter Regional Board) finds: I. Atascadero County San;-ation District (hereafter District) provides municipal wastewater ccllec zlon, treatment, and disposal for the area within the City c_ :Atascadero. The: District's boundary and its sewer service area boundary are shown on Attachment "A" included with this Order. Area_ outside the sewer service area utilize septic tank/leaching systems :or wastewater disposal. 2. Responsibility for operation and maintenance of the wastewater facili- ties is to be assured y the recently incorporated City of Atascadero (hereafter City) . 3. The Board adopted Order No. 75-67, "t:aste Discharge Requirer..ents for Atascadero County Sani_at-on District, San Luis Obispo County" on September 12, 1975, an' amended it on April 11, 1990. Order No. 75-07 implements the .?^ard's .'rater Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (Basin Plan) and provides, in part, that: "A. Discharge Specifications "1. The disch-^o: shall be maintained within the designate_ land disposal areas without overflow or bypass to adjacent properties or drainageways. 112. The maxir_•:a daily dry weather volu-e discharged shall not exceed 0.933 million gallons. After compl-:tic, of pronosed additional treatment faciliti�; , it shall not exceed 1.57 million gallons. "12. The public --hail not have contact with insduae:a-ely of t tzaument ac;d trea�_ . este::;ter as a resultr disposal ;Craticrs." "B. Provisions TI:c d:Z-c'-ar42r sha11 comply ::ith ;111 i.tc:rs in • ?rc•:is ions' dat,:d Dace:tet• 1, 1077 . . . ." . s Attachment A Page 2 C D order No. 8].-60 -2- 4. Standard Provision 9.13. requires the discharger to submit a »•ritten report to the Board, when flows exceed 75% of design capacity, outlining a schedule of work needed to provide additional capacity before waste flow equals the capacity of the Present units. - S. The District submitted a Plan of Study in 1976 and a Facilities Plan in 1977 for expanding treatment plant capacity utilizing Clean :Dater Grant funds. Concept approval was 1978. granted March 15, 6. A condition of receivinZ a grant for construction of the facilities was imzosed on the District which requires providing service to areas with faring septic tanks. 7. San Luis Obispo County Health Department evaluated se6.tic tank System problem areas and submitted a report titled: "City of Atascadero, Ori-Site Sec,aae Disposal System Survey, January - February - (larch, 1981." S. The County Health Depart-ant Report identifies eleven septic system problem areas as sho,,m in attachment "A." Areas .r .designated as C, E, F, G, I, and K, on Attachment "A" have the greatest need for sewers. ' It was recommended that these areas • be severed "as rapidly as f,.ndir.a will allot " Areas - + designated as C and E, have approx;-ately 80 percent of the systam failures in the six designated areas. 9• Failing onsite sewage systems constitute a threat to water quality and public health. J10. Expansion of Dist:i ct wastewater facilities will be necessary • before areas with failing septic systems can be sewered•ssary 11. On June 12, 1981, after due notice to the dischargers and all other affected persons, the Regional Board conducted a hearing and evidence was received concerning the discharger of waste in violation of terms and conditions noted in paragraphs 3. and 4 , above. 12. After reviewing t`_ evic�T zce, the Rcaional Board has det_rmined that the discharge is in violation, or threatened v1C1a[ion, of dischlrG. srecif icrticns and rrovisions noted in 3. and 4. , move. 13. Thia enfcrccrncnt c _ action �s bpi.^.;; t�..cn for t::c prot,:ct:oa or "the enviror_-_nt and a, ,uta is exempt from the provi::ion of the Cali:crnia Environ.-ental Quality ;ct (Public i?cpcurccs Code, C Section 21000 at -e ) - 3 Ti _ �• In acccrd<:r.cc :•�it;z Sacticn 15121, Ci:.:p i4 1, [�c Ca crZia �rmizis;.r3ti•:c Ccde . . s Attachment A page C b Order Mo. of 60 -3- IT IS HEKF.BY ORD='FD TF: pursuant to'Section - • ection 132 O1 of the California Dater Code, the tascaderc Count; Sanitation District, and the City of Atascadero shall comply ui:a the following: I. Cease and Desist frc.:-., discharging wastes contrary to regi'=irements lited in Items I. and -. , above, by constructing additional treatment ca.acity according to the following time schedule: .Task Cewllance Date Begin construction of n::st::rater October 25, 1981 s.i�r- srv,vi `82 Treatment Plant Progress Report Septembcr 1, 1982 Complete construction of .:'aste:•rater July 1, 1983 Treatment Plant A report of compliance stall be submitted within 10 days after the cocpliance date. 2. Eliminate eater quality and public health problems associated with =T failing ind:•:idual on-site waste:later system discharffes :tl providing o Ing • sewage collection service t0 problem areas shown on Attac::me-It "A" according to the folio:ling time schedule: Task Ccmr,aliance Date* Submit a ':orkpla.. g time schedule) November , 1981 -�to provide Sewer Service for ►.;ns veered Areas C and E. Subnit a Workplan (inclu-4in; tire schedule) March 1, 1982 to minimize Failing On-Site Sewage Systa;E, 4& in Unsewered Areas F, G, I, and K. Pro Jr`: �. `r, ss Report October 1, 1932• S' Progress 2uport Octobcr 1, 1983 Submit a '.:orkplan (;ncl----. - t;,�_ cc!ze^ula Oct ::ter c 1, 19 ;!; to provide- Serer Service fc:, (;n.._..rcred Aroaz F, C, i, and X. %ogin de_i. nor . ::•rcrs fzr .-meas C and E. March 1, 1985 Areas C and ,co:..,tet L, 1 :� • aegb- cc nsZr u'cticn of F r Areas C and Attachment A pag C D Order No. 81-'..0 _4_ � • J l ' Task Compliance Date • r Complete construction of sewers Nove:::ber 1, 1986 for meas C and E. i / J.�iSCidrJ2r shall aL7d52 t,12 R2go;.a1 Board Of cOt11p11dnCe 'i1y at least one copy of the apprcpriate documents no later than the date specified. Where tasks do not include completed documents (i. e. , tasks f, h, 'and i), written reports are due within ten (10) working days of the compliance date. All retorts shall include sufficient detail to allow determinaticn of w:let:ier satisfactory progress is being made to comply with all ter-».s of this Order. 3. If, in the opinion of the E.:ec4tive Officer, the District or City fails to comply with the provisions of this Order, the Executive Officer is directed .o request the Attorney General to take the appropriate enforcement action against the discharger, including injunction and civil monetary remedies, if appropriate, I, KLi:i:ETH R. JONES, Executive Of=ficer of the Regional Water Quality Cc!:trol Board, Central Coast R_aicn, do hereby certify that the fore;-oing is a full, true, and correct copy of an Order adopted by the Rcgicnal Fater Quality Control Board on Jure 12, 1981. Executive Uf:ic_r . I �l m Pt'w d rn \ 4 1,, COON 0 ATTACHMENT "All l � •page 5 lava �i > C 0 1 hA0 H e 7 ?' N5� f 10 SA► 0p��q t+3M�� o I 9 -it ..3 F j 7Laz 7 i A '00P2'oat 7q pj0 ,�. •,f � ' NA�70 �� � ,��tey0 ,.�' �`� 1' , '►'� A ,J �y y±�pVE _soar► ,f' imp ; f won0 Ir^ 'onToy aes'= '.•to 1 `'4 O A �� ��� °+•� .,�� yl IAt" M � r`<;\; •���� ��"�! � r/ i �+s 9 LUCIA a�� `\� ��c3 /app �N��L t� ���t' � "O+y�+��`"•'�,� 'Or s�/� `� -, N ^` s �> I �� ;� � �► Meq ° oA,Art 9 a}+ \ ;Iry = C J $ I / • 9`F• �t`a + no` ►�� i ms`s �� +� �.�1 0 i� / I avt, �'��T a •' ?ate 4.6 ' i-°;'sem s� Da Q/ f� u < �PgP ��fts�� I ; ,, h, �'L-7 ,u. G , a.a o Ar Ql i ln� O I `• In + �►+- n I� �',.► .o s�� +s CE45F oral D►E5/S T 4 >� ARF4 LOCA T/ONS AVE ANTq dRo Ro F 140 r AVE noy4,o taro as Al" 0 �; ; > w 1 ' ° AM ST(02 / a;� Sm no AN IM Attachment B Page 2 I. INTRODUCTION • Earlier this year we were asked to investigate the available options to bring sever to a parcel on Lake View Drive recently purchased by a client. Although the subject lot had suitable area for a conventional septic system and leach field, the lot is within the boundaries of a Cease and Desist Order as designated by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board which prohibits septic system installations. The nearest existing sewers are located in Santa Rosa Avenue approximately 1000 feet east of Lake View Drive, in Marchant Avenue at Santa Rosa and in Lake View Drive approximately 1200 feet south of Portola Road. Through our investigation we determined that none of these points could be reached from my clients lot by a reasonably designed gravity sewer. In an effort to find a solution to this problem, my client agreed to furnish to the City Engineering Department a proposed master plan for bringing sewers to the area. Working in conjunction with Gary Sims of the City Engineering Department, we chose a suitable lift station site and designed a collection system from that point. We feel this preliminary design and cost estimate is an appropriate beginning to evaluate the feasibility of establishing an Assessment District to bring sewers to this area. Consideration of extending sewers to this area has been made since the area was identified as a "Problem Area" in the "Facilities Plan Wastewater Treatment Alternatives" project report prepared for the Atascadero County Sanitation District in 1977. In 1986, I was asked to explore the possibility of serving this. area from the Marchant Way sewer extension on the other side of the lake, but found this option not to be feasible. Since 1987 the City has studied various measures to improve the water quality of the lake. Resulting recommendations included extending sewers to serve the Lake View Drive and MountF-Al n Drive areas . A significant side benefit to this project woul� be UL resulting increase in value of the surrounding properties, which include many lots owned by the City. Thank you for the opportunity to present this study. The input of the Council and the City Staff is welcome as we continue to pursue this project. Sincerely, 4%'c{ Joh n '. John Fal� stien R.C.E. 33760 Exp. 6/30/90 Attachment B 'page 3 III . CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES Based upon the plan we have presented in this report, we have developed construction estimates which reflect three project alternatives. Total estimated cost of an Assessment District and prorated costs per lot were calculated for each alternative. The costs have been adjusted for equitable assessment of the seven lots that would not be served by the lift station. Alternative No. 1 includes extending sewers to all lots not currently severed on Lake View Drive and Mountain View Drive. Alternative No. 2 excludes four lots on Mountain View for which a privately financed sewer extension is currently being considered. Alternative No. 3 considers the extension of sewer to service all City owned. lots and only those private lots adjacent to the new main. Alternative No. 4 is presented as an addition to the ASSESSMENT PER LOT SUMMARY. This option involves the same scope of work as Alternative No. 3 without forming an Assessment District. After constuction, the City could establish a reimbursement agreement to collect appropriate shares as other property owners connect to the sewer in the future. This alternative permits project completion without additional cost and • time required to achieve Assessment District procedures. Attachment B page 4 ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 • Construction cost estimate to serve all lots not currently sewered on Lake View Drive and Mountain View Drive. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Schedule of Prices for the Construction of LAKE VIEW SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FACILITIES ------------------------------------------------ ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT AMOUNT NO. AND UNIT PRICE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Mobilization allowance Lump Sum of $ 10, 000.00 2. Furnish and install 8-inch diameter PVC sewers 2935 LF $ 40.00 $ 117, 400.00 3 . Furnish and install 4-inch diameter PVC sewer laterals to property line 33 EA. $1000.00 $ 33,000.00 4. Furnish and install precast concrete manholes, frames, and covers 10 EA. $2500 .00 $ 25,000.00 • 5. Furnish and install standard cleanouts 2 EA. $ 500 .00 $ 11000. 00 6 . Asphalt concrete pavement in roadways over trenches 3-inch thick, aggregate base 6-inch thick, pavement restriping and markers 2470 LF $ 12.00 $ 29, 640.00 7. Construct tie-ins to existing sewers 2 EA. $ 500 .00 $ 1,000.00 8 . Furnish and install pump station Lump Sum of $ 45, 000.00 9. Furnish and install 4-inch diameter PVC force main 650 LF $ 30.00 $ 19, 500.00 SUB-TOTAL $ 281, 540.00 10% CONTINGENCY $ 28, 160.00 TOTAL COST $ 309,700.00 • Attachment B page 5 • ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 Construction cost estimate eliminating service to four lots on Mountain View Drive. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Schedule of Prices for the Construction of LAKE VIEW ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FACILITIES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT AMOUNT NO. AND UNIT PRICE ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Mobilization allowance Lump Sum of $ 10,000.00 2. Furnish and install 8-inch diameter PVC sewers 2550 LF $ 40.00 $102, 000.00 3 . Furnish and install 4-inch diameter PVC sewer laterals to property line 29 EA. $1000.00 5 29,000.00 4. Furnish and install precast concrete manholes, frames , • and covers 9 EA. $2500.00 $ 22, 500.00 5. Furnish and install standard cleanouts 1 EA. $ 500.00 $ 500.00 6. Asphalt concrete pavement in roadways over trenches 3-inch thick, aggregate base 6-inch thick, pavement restriping and markers 2080 LF $ 12.00 $ 24,960.00 7. Construct tie-ins to existing sewers 1 EA. $ 500.00 $ 500.00 S . Furnish and install pump station Lump Sum of $ 45,000.00 9. Furnish and install 4-inch diameter PVC force main 650 LF $ 30.00 $ 19, 500.00 SUB-TOTAL $253,960.00 10% CONTINGENCY $ 25,400.00 TOTAL COST $279, 360.00 Attachment B page 6 ALTERNATIVE NO. 3 • Construction cost estimate to provide sewers to City owned lots only. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Schedule of Prices for the Construction of LAKE VIEW SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FACILITIES ------------------- UNIT ------------------ ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY AMOUNT NO. AND UNIT PRICE ------------------------------------- ------------- 1. Mobilization allowance Lump Sum of $ 10, 000.00 2. Furnish and install 8-inch diameter PVC sewers 1630 LF $ 40.00 $ 65,200.00 3 . Furnish and install 4-inch diameter PVC sewer laterals to property line 17 EA. $1000.00 $ 17,000.00 4. Furnish and install precast concrete manholes, frames, and covers 6 EA. $2500.00 S 15, 000.00 5 . Asphalt concrete pavement in • roadways over trenches 3-inch thick, aggregate base 6-inch thick, pavement restriping and markers 1600 LF $ 12.00 $ 19,200.00 6. Construct tie-ins to existing sewers 1 EA. $ 500.00 $ 500.00 7. Furnish and install pump station Lump Sum of $ 45, 000.00 8 . Furnish and install 4-inch diameter PVC force main 650 LF $ 30.00 $ 19, 500.00 SUB-TOTAL $191, 400.00 10% CONTINGENCY $ 19, 200.00 TOTAL COST $210,600.00 • Attachment B page 7 • IV. ESTIMATED COSTS TO PERFORM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ENGINEERING SERVICES For the purposes of preparing this estimate, I have compiled a list of specific tasks we have performed in the past for the City for Assessment District No. 3 , Marchant Way Sanitary Sewer and Assessment District No. 5, Chandler Ranch Road Improvements . As indicated, the cost estimates for some of these tasks may vary with the construction alternative chosen, while others will remain constant. We will be pleased to prepare a formal contract proposal upon your direction of specific tasks to be performed and chosen construction alternative. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FORMATION TASKS TO INCLUDE: Assessment District Boundary Map and Legal Description Prepare Notifications and Circulate Petition •� Calculate Land Area of Each Parcel and Determine Protest Percentage Review Bids and Calculate Preliminary Assessment Spreads Attend All City Council Meetings TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $ 3, 000.00 (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) • Attachment B• page 8 CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS • TASKS TO INCLUDE: Soils Explorations Topographic and Boundary Surveying Construction Plans Lift Station Design Construction Specifications Clerical and Reproduction for Bid Sets Determine Lateral Locations with Home Owners Legal Descriptions for Easements and Negotiations ESTIMATED COST: Alternative No. 1 - $ 24, 500.00 Alternative No. 2 - S 22,200.00 Alternative No. 3 - $ 17, 500 .00 CONSTRUCTION • ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Alternative Alternative Alternative No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------__--- Construction Inspection and Administration $ 10, 000.00 $ 91500.00 $ 7,000.00 Construction Staking $ 51000.00 $ 4, 500.00 S 3,500.00 Soils Testing $ 4,500.00 $ 3 , 800.00 $ 21500.00 FINAL ENGINEERING REPORT Compile Final Assessments $ 1,000.00 (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) Attachment B page 9{ • VI. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT DISTRICT COST ESTIMATES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Alternative Alternative Alternative No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL ENGINEERING Assessment District Formation Diagrams, Legal Descriptions, and Hearings $ 3 ,000.00 $ 3, 000.00 $ 3,000.0( Plans and Specifications $ 24 , 500 .00 $ 22, 200 .00 $ 17,500.0+ Construction Staking $ 5, 000.00 $ 4, 500 .00 $ 3,500.01 Construction Inspection and Administration, Soils Testing $ 14, 500.00 $ 13, 300.00 $ 9,500.04 Final Engineering Report $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 11000.0 CONSTRUCTION COST $309,700.00 $279, 360 .00 $210,600.0 BOND COUNCIL $ 10, 000.00 $ 10, 000.00 $ 10,000.0 • FINANCING COSTS Bond Discount (4%) $ 14,700.00 $ 13 , 300 .00 $ 10,200.0 Reserve (8%) S 29 , 400 .00 $ 26 ,700.00 $ 20,400.0 Capitalized Interest (9%) $ 33, 100.00 $ 30, 000 .00 $ 23,000.0 Administration (2%) $ 7, 400 .00 $ 6,700.00 $ 5,100-OC Miscellaneous (1%) $ 3 ,700.00 $ 3, 300.00 $ 2,600-OC TOTAL COST OF PROJECT TO ASSESSMENT $456,000.00 $413, 360 .00 $316,400.0 • Attachment- B page 10 ASSESSMENT PER LOT SUMMARY • ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ASSESSMENT SPREADS APN Alternative Alternative Alternative No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 ----------------------------------------------------------- 1 . 56-312-14 $ 11, 394.00 $ 11, 495.00 $ 13, 906 .00 2 . 56-312-15 $ 11, 394.00 $ 11, 495.00 $ 13, 906 .00 3 . 56-312-16 $ 11, 394 .00 $ 11, 495.00 $ 13, 906.00 4. 56-321-14 $ 11, 394 .00 $ 0 $ 0 5 . 56-321-15 $ 11, 394.00 $ 0 $ 0 6. 56-322-28 $ 11, 394.00 $ 0 $ 0 7 . 56-322-29 $ 11, 394.00 $ 0 $ 0 8 . 56-322-23 $ 57, 884.00 $ 58 .288.00 $ 78 , 480.00 (4 Lots , City Owned) 9 . 56-322-16 $ 14, 471 .00 $ 14,572.00 $ 19, 620.00 10. 56-322-17 City $ 14, 471. 00 $ 14,572.00 $ 19, 620 .00 11 . 56-322-18 City $ 14, 471.00 $ 14,572.00 $ 19, 620.00 12. 56-322-19 City $ 14, 471.00 $ 14,572.00 $ 19, 620.00 13 . 56-322-20 $ 14, 471. 00 $ 14, 572.00 $ 19, 620.00 14 . 56-322-21 $ 14, 471.00 $ 14,572.00 $ 19, 620.00 15. 56-322-10 City $ 14, 471.00 $ 14, 572.00 $ 19, 620.00 16. 56-322-11 City $ 14 , 471.00 $ 14, 572.00 $ 19, 620.00 17 . 56-322-06 $ 14, 471.00 $ 14, 572.00 $ 0 • 18 . 56-322-07 $ 14, 471.00 $ 14, 572.00 $ 0 19 . 56-322-26 $ 14, 471 .00 $ 14, 572.00 $ 0 20. 56-322-27 $ 14, 471 .00 $ 14,572.00 $ 0 21 . 56-322-24 $ 14, 471.00 $ 14, 572. 00 $ 19, 620.00 22 . 56-322-32 $ 14, 471 .00 S 14,572.00 $ 19, 620.00 23 . 56-321-05 $ 14, 471.00 $ 14,572.0 24 : 56-321-06 $ 14, 471.00 $ 14, 572.Gu v 25 . 56-321-07 $ 14, 471.00 $ 14, 572.00 $ 0 26 . 56-321-08 $ 14, 471.00 $ 14 , 572.00 $ 0 27 . 56-321-10 $ 14, 471. 00 $ 14, 572.00 $ 0 28 . .56-321-12 $ 14, 471.00 $ 14, 572.00 $ 0 29. 56-321-20 $ 14, 471.00 $ 14 , 572.00 $ 0 30 . 56-321-21 $ 14, 471.00 $ 14, 572.00 $ 0 TOTAL COST $456, 000.00 $413 , 360 .00 $316, 400.00 • Attachment B page 11 • ALTERNATIVE NO. 4 This alternative shows the costs per lot if an Asses5nant District is not used for financing. This eliminates the Bond Council and financing costs as well as costs for organizing the District. Engineering $ 30, 500.00 Construction $210, 600.00 TOTAL $241, 100.00 - COST SPREADS FOR 17 LOTS 56-312-14 $ 10,388 .00 56-312-15 $ 10, 388 .00 56-312-16 $ 10, 388.00 56-322-23 City ( 4 Lots) $ 59, 980.00 56-322-16 $ 14, 995.00 56-322-17 City S 14, 995.00 56-322-18 City $ 14, 995.00 56-322-19 City $ 14, 995 . 00 56-322-20 $ 14, 995.00 •j 56-322-21 $ 14, 995.00 56-322-10 City $ 14, 995.00 56-322-11 City $ 14, 995.00 56-322-24 $ 14, 995.00 56-322-32 $ 14, 995.00 $241, 100.00 • Attachment C page l NORTH COAST ENGINEERING INC. PRELIMINARY OPINION AS TO PROBABLE COST ESTIMATED FOR PPOJECT: CITY OF ATASCADERO BY: CAC MODIFIED FALKENSTIEN DESIGN\ DATE: 6-20-91 LIFT STATION ALTERNATE- REV. DATE: SERVING 18 LOTS ITEM QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL ======================================================================= 4" PVC/FORCEMAIN (LF) 800 $10. 00 53, 000 6" PVC (LF) 1 , 565 $15, 00 $23, 475 MANHOLES (EA) 5 $2, 000, 00 $10 , 000 CLEANOUTS (EA� 2 $500. 00 LIFT STA. ( INCL WET WELL) (EA) 1 $50, 000. 00 $50. 000 2" AC & 8" CL 2 AGG BASE/ 5' TRENCH PATCH (SF) 6, 500 $1 . 50 AC PAVEMENT EXPORTED (CY) 30 $5. 00 $��O SITE ACOUISTION-15` WIDE 'SF` 12. 300 $1 . 00 LANDSCAPE, FENCE, & TREE REPLACEMENT (LS) 1 $10, 000. 00 z1�, 000 * ACTUAL STREET SECTION TO BE DETERMINED AT TINE CF CONST4=10N 5ASE2 SN ^P ^ '/ALuE C= SUBSOIL AND TFQFFI7 INDEY - ________________________ _ TUE[OTAL s � �4. 675 C007I1GENCY @ 10 ^� $�4^ 077., ---------------------------------- --' _______�_____ SUBTOTAL $ iAm, It� ENGINEERING & ADMINISTRATION @ 15 % $= 442 TQTAL a1��, 05Z SAY $175, 000 THIS PRELIMINARY OPINION AS TO COSTS I5 NOT T1 eE CONST%E7 AS A GUARANTEE OF COSTS. N. C. E. HAS MO CONTROL OVEN THE CO275 QF LABOR, MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, FUTURE MARKET CONDITIDNS �R CONTRACTOR' S BIDDING METHODS, THE ACTUAL COST OF CONSTFUC-73N MAY VARY FROM THE ESTIMATES AND OF THE PROJECT BUDGET. 91130C. WK1 ��p~ Attachment C page 2 �l�T S7-,4TlnI'J 4L-7"E f lV A -7— .7 i ----------;a -- -- .,... ------ -----___-_ O �. r y 1 c Q y �'•alrr� � s �C � . [ED] 1v / 3Y 12 I 31 jo � � + � ❑ � �'` , b /�yah n ©it C �Ty ATASCADERO LAKE M 12 INDICATES DEVE1OP60 LOT III INDICATES VACANTI r C Y OWNED LO r /!! INDICATES COT OWNED 8Y MESSER �, /M044 riiES EXi STIAlCr SEWER • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL` AGENDA ITEM: C-3 CITY OF ATASCADERO MEETING DATE: 7/9/91 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Reconsideration of the Santa Cruz Road Joint Participation' Project. BACKGROUND: The Council considered the matter of participating with Mr.` Kelly Gearhart to construct a portion of Santa Cruz Road. The matter initially failed, but was subsequently voted for reconsideration. The accompanying staff report :discusses the details of a joint participation arrangement. Please refer to that report for a project description. At the June 11, 1991 Council meeting, several key issues were, raised by Council members during the deliberation on this issue. The following discussion examines these issues. ` ANALYSIS Is it e project with a rivate dev212Rer? From a legal` perspective, entering into a joint participation' agreement with a developer is within the City's prerogative. However, the City also has the power to 'impose any condition upon a new development providing it is fair, reasonable and has a nexus with the new development.` It is treasonable to assume that the Council would wish to participate in a joint agreement only under specific circumstances which are favorable to the City. Is the Cityu t' by .contributing to a joint ` PXo ect? Clearly the Council's action indicates a willingness to participate in projects that share the cost of providing facilities; beneficial'to-both the City and a developer. No formal obligation to continue this practice exists. However, .other developers` will certainly be seeking similar arrangements. • What- criteria should the council use to judge whether a ioint agreement is advantageous to the City? i =A&= The following six criteria are recommended as prerequisites for the City when considering a joint participation agreement: Plan..1. The improvement should conform to the goals of the General City.:2. The 'improvement should be of substantial benefit to the 3. The improvement should be of a scale, scope, and cost larger than a developer's fair and reasonable exaction. 4. The City should pay only for that portion of the project which exceeds the developer's full share of the improvement cost. Under no circumstances should a joint improvement project relieve a developer of the obligation to pay the full fair share of public improvements 5. The , joint participation agreement should be the lowest cost method available, to .the City to make an improvement and the cost savings to the City should be substantially greater that any other form of financing or funding available. 6. The City's share of participation in the project should not exceed 40% of the total estimated cost of the project. What ' guarantees will be provided to insure the City's mgnev is fully protected? The developer will be required to post a security guarantee (ie, performance bond, letter of credit, etc. ) for 150% of the full cost of the project. This will insure the City that the project will be constructed by fully securing the developer's 'funds. In addition the City will release funds only after the work is completed. Will other Rro2ertie& in thS area hp, required o public improvements that will be reauired. such as the bridge and other improvements to Santa Cruz Road. No formal program is currently in place to collect funds from properties developing in the area, other than the normal developer fees. With Council's consent, Staff will prepare a program for properties developing in the area to make their fair contribution to the 'unbuilt facilities.` APPLIGABZLITY TO THE SANTA GRUZ PROJECT While the Council must be the final judge of the merits of this proposal, staff is of the following opinion 1. The improvement of Santa Cruz Road is in conformance with the goals of the General Plan, since it will eventually -provide a traffic circulation link to the northwest portion of the City. • 2 . In the relatively near future, the City will have to construct the portion of Santa Cruz Road under discussion. The bridge over Graves Creek is on the 5-year Capital Improvement Plan. Access to the northwest portion of the City is restricted to one road; a safety hazard and a congestion problem. 3 . The road will cost in excess of $50, 000 for the developer to construct. He potentially has the option of using private driveways for access. For two lots, the requirement for the developer to construct Santa Cruz Road to City standards seems unreasonable. 4. As proposed, the developer will pay approximately $30, 000 to construct the road and the City will pay no more than $20, 000. Staff believes that $30, 000 is a fair and reasonable exaction to demand for two lots. Council may feel another proportion is more equitable. 5. If the City were to construct this road, the total construction, administration, and engineering cost would probably reach $75, 000 or higher. For many reasons private construction projects can be accomplished substantially less expensive than public projects. Gas tax is the only source of funding for this project. • 6. The City's share will not exceed 40% of the total estimated construction cost. • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 6/11/91 CITY OF ATABCADERO AGENDA ITEM: D-4 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Public Works Director to enter into an agreement with Mr. Kelly Gearhart to contribute $20, 000 towards the construction of approximately 500 feet of Santa Cruz Road as shown on the attached map. BACKGROUND Mr. Kelly Gearhart is proposing to develop three parcels located at the far north end of San Ramon Road (see enclosed vicinity map) . Two of the parcels front on a portion of Santa Cruz Road which has not yet been constructed. The Public Works Department initially conditioned Mr. Gearhart's project to fully construct approximately 500 feet of Santa Cruz Road and use this road for access to the two • adjoining properties. After engineered improvement plans were prepared, it was determined that constructing this portion of Santa Cruz Road would cost approximately $50, 000. The high cost was due to provisions to protect a regional gas pipeline that crosses the road and the large quantity of fill needed to bring the road to match the grade of the existing San Ramon Road. The high cost of constructing Santa Cruz caused Mr. Gearhart to seek other ways of accessing his property. He subsequently presented a plan whereby several small driveways could be constructed to provide the needed access. While the series of driveways would technically meet his access requirements, this approach would make it difficult for Santa Cruz to be constructed in the future. DISCUSSION The completed portions of Santa Cruz in the northwest section of the City serves a large area. Currently, residents using this road must travel an indirect route to reach Santa Cruz. As the area grows out and traffic increases, direct access to Highway 101 will greatly improve traffic circulation. • • To complete this linkage, Santa Cruz must be constructed on the Kelly property and a bridge constructed across Graves Creek. Other minor road improvements must also be made on the existing portion of Santa Cruz. However, Santa Cruz is 90% complete and only the improvements described above are necessary to create a major new access point to the northern portion of the City. The issue before the Council is whether to participate in a joint effort with Mr. Gearhart to construct the unbuilt portion of Santa Cruz Road. In staff's opinion the $50, 000 cost to construct this road is an excessive requirement to place on a project that would construct three houses, particularly when the applicant has an alternative (and less expensive) means of acquiring access to the properties. As discussed above, the City would realize substantial benefit from the construction of Santa Cruz. The proposal before the Council is for the City to enter into an agreement with Mr. Gearhart to construct 500 feet of Santa Cruz Road, according to City standards, with the City contributing $20, 000 towards the construction cost. Mr. Gearhart would be responsible for all remaining construction costs. Upon completion, the road would be taken into the City road system. The applicant has indicated his concurrence with this arrangement. OPTIONS: • 1. The Council may indicate that constructing Santa Cruz Road is a reasonable requirement of the project and direct staff to condition the project accordingly. 2 . The Council may choose not to pursue the construction of Santa Cruz Road at this time and opt for access by private driveways. FISCAL IMPACT: If staff recommendation is approved, $20, 000 would be expended from the gas tax fund. • i u • SANTA CRUZ ROAD (SITE) -j \ SANTA CRL)Z Ra4D • �,�, •.� - 101 i ��FUTvRE Q 1M10RoVEMENTS O EXISTIA.IG co 1NPROVEMEvr5 W O VICINITY MAP • NO SCALE irf REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: D-1 CITY OF ATASCADERO Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7%9/91 From: Bud McHale, Police Chief el� Mark Joseph , A.dministratiVf Services Director **4.K SUBJECT: Renewing County Contract for 'Animal Control RECOMMENDATIONS 1 ) Staff recommends Council adopt Resolution No. 67-91 , renewing the contract with the :County to provide animal services to the City. 2) Staff recommends Council continue providing funds for the Spay/Neuter Program, but would defer to Council as to which agency should provide that service' -- the County or .AFAR. BACKGROUNDS . • The County has provided animal ser-vices to the Ci ty through a three-year contract , ending June 30, `1991 . The attached resolution includes the new three year contract. The primary difference is the price, virtually doubling from $36,000 to $71 ,000 per year . In response to this increase, the Cities of Paso Robles and Atascadero , have met a number of times to consider providing animal services through a ` joint effort . A `financial analysis suggested each city ' s costs would be less than the County ' s charge. Although financially appealing, more work is required . For this reason, both Cities ' staffs are recommending that the County contract be renewed until we are ready , to proceed . At that time, we would both exercise our option to cancel the .contract with 30 days written notice. In order to keep costs down, staff also recommends we eliminate as many optionalservices as possible. This would be handled through a written letter to County Animal Control (with a; copy forwarded to Councilmembers) A second issue to be addressed is the Spay/Neuter Program. Traditionally, Action for Animal Rights (AFAR) has provided the spay neuter service without charging the City any administrative costs. In FY 90-91 , however , AFAR su99ested the City use the County for the same Spay/Neuter service. Nine thousand dollars were allocated and used . Providing spay/neuter services is still important, and could be provided by either the County or AFAR. Staff recommendsthat two conditions be required of either provider : 1 . ) No administrative costs be charged for the service and. 2. ) Anyone receiving spay/neuter discounts must also have` a valid animal license. The final issue is the role AFAR might play in the City' s animal services efforts, both in the short run and the long-run. At least two roles can be identified: AFAR couldprovide spay/neutering services for the City (as outlined above) ; and AFAR could provide a support role for the Joint Animal Services program. Such a support role could include public education, _fund raising and/or `,providing volunteers for the program. It is up to 'both Council and AFAR to consider whether and to what extent these roles are appropriate. Staff suggests two caveats in closing. First , Atascadero must take into consideration Paso Robles'' position on the issue, ;if any,. especially since we will be embarking upon a joint financial effort with that City. Second, al-though AFAR' s goals are considerably in Tine with the City ' s as it relates to animals, there may be differences and these differences must be recognized and resolved: Staff believes these issues can be worked out , and will strive towards that end . • RESOLUTION 67-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO PROVIDE ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES The City Council of the City of Atascadero , California , hereby resolves as follows: 1 . The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute an agreement with : San Luis Obispo County to provide Animal Control Services, and all other agreements or documents required to effectuate the terms of agreement . 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to make minor • corrections or modifications of a mathematical or clerical nature. 3. The Finance Director is hereby authorized to : appropriate funds . if necessary ; release and expend funds; and issue warrants to comply with the terms of this agreement . PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Atascadero held on the day of 1991 . CITY OF ATASCADERO By: ALDEN SHIERS, Mayor ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk AGREEMENT FOR • ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES This Agreement Is made and entered Into this 1 st day of July, 1991, by and between the County of San Luis Obispo, hereinafter referred to as"County',and the City of , hereinafter referred to as'City'. WITNESSETH: THAT WHEREAS, The City is desirous of contracting with the County for performance of the hereinafter described animal control services within its boundaries by the County of San Luis Obispo through the Department of Animal Regulation; and WHEREAS,the County is agreeable to providing such services in accordance with the provisions of the San Luis Obispo County Code Title 9 which provides for the licensing of dogs,the establishment of a public pound,and for the collection and care of stray, diseased and vicious animals; and WHEREAS,the County of San Luis Obispo has established the Department of Animal Regulation to enforce the ordinances of the County Code Title 9 within the unincorporated areas of the County; and WHEREAS, the City Is desirous of contracting for said Animal Control Service. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Definition a. "Animal' as used In this Agreement means any species of vertebrate creature normally • handled by the department. b. 'Animal transaction for City"as used in this Agreement means any of the following actions taken by County on City's behalf: 1. Search; 2. Seizure; 3. Capture or attempted capture; 4. Bite investigations; 5. Issue of written warning or citation; 6. Pick-up and disposal of dead animal; 7. Cruelty Investigation; 8. Complaint Investigation; 9. Adoption/Redemption/Destruction; 10. Quarantines; 11. Pick up of live animal; 12. Meet officer or other Official; 13. Other necessary responses; C. "Animals sheltered for City" as used in this Agreement shall mean any animal delivered to the animal shelter from within a City's corporate limits and each day shall constitute a separate charge. • d. "Man-hour'as used in the Agreement shall refer to the services of any single County officer, agent,or employee for one hour. Man-hours shall be recorded to the nearest one-half(1/2) hour and shall include but not limited to: 1. Nuisance investigation and proceedings; 2. Court proceedings; 3. Vicious dog prosecution; 4. Immobilization; S. Extended cruelty Investigation; 6. Other necessary responses; e. "Overall Program Costs"as used in this Agreement shall mean total operating costs incurred In providing services of any single component, as hereinafter described, to any unincorporated areas of County together with the total operating costs incurred in providing services of any single component to any incorporated community within County contracting for said component. Such costs shall include the cost of any leased premises, equipment, and those subcontracted services as hereinafter described. f. "Emergency Services"as used in this Agreement shall mean those services provided by one • or more animal control officers during hours other than regular business hours in response to a call concerning animal bites, sick or injured animals, or situations in which animals are constituting an immediate threat to public safety. Emergency services do not Include responses to animal nuisances such as barking or stray dogs. When immediate response is required because of a potential danger to life or property, the department shall respond In an appropriate manner and inform the city designee for ratification. Reports of responses shall be sent weekly in an appropriate manner to the City designee for ratification. Disputes over billing will be settled by the Animal Control Advisory Committee. g. "Court/Proceedings"as used in this Agreement shall mean actual time involved by one or more Animal Control Officers in conducting investigations, preparing documents and/or participating in court proceedings resulting from an incident within a City's corporate limits. 2. Services Components-The County agrees to provide all necessary labor,facilities,and equipment to supply the following animal control service components: a. General Administration - County agrees to provide management and supervision of the animal control program, to keep records and provide statements as hereinafter specified, to operate an animal release annex,to maintain a headquarters with communication center and dispatcher service. These services shall hereinafter be referred to as the "general administration component. • • b. Ordinance Conformity -City agrees to adopt animal control ordinances which conform to and are not in conflict with Chapter 9 of the San Luis Obispo County Code. Changes and modifications to City codes may be conducted with the County Department of Animal Regulation's consultation before adoption. County Department of Animal Regulation may also make recommendations to City for changes or modifications to their City ordinance. This service shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Ordinance Review Component". C. Animal Control Enforcement-County shall enforce all City Animal Control ordinances and State laws within City's corporate limits, investigate complaints, including complaints involving animal bites, and issue citations. These services shall hereinafter be referred to as the"animal control enforcement component, but services under this component shall not include enforcement of City animal licensing ordinances, which is covered under the "licensing component, nor shall it include enforcement of zoning ordinances dealing with animals. d. Animal Shelter -The County maintains a pound and provides for the care, housing, and disposal of animals seized within a City's corporate limits or delivered by City's residents. It is understood and agreed that the County may subcontract the obligations of the paragraph to an independent contractor or at its option undertake to perform these dudes itself. These services shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'animal shelter component. e. Public Education - County shall provide information the public on the necessity of animal • control as recommended by the Animal Regulation and Control Advisory Committee. This service shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'public education component. f. Licensing-County shall collect license fees, issue licenses and receipts for license,enforce City licensing ordinances, and enforce state and local rabies control laws. County may choose to conduct an animal vaccination clinic. These services shall hereinafter be referred to as the "licensing component'. g. Animal Population Control - County may choose to conduct a spay and neuter clinic/or program. 3. Animal Regulation and Control Advisory Committee -There shall be an Animal Regulation and Control Advisory Committee whose responsibility it will be to review and recommend on all matters of Departmental Policy regarding overall program administration,level and quality of service,budget, and ordinance development and amendments. This Advisory Committee shall be made up of: one representative from each City contracting with the County, one representative from the County's Veterinarians' Association, one representation from an Animal Welfare Society, one representative from the County Health Department, one representative of the Highway Patrol, one representative from the Department of Animal Regulation, one representative of the County Administrative Office, and one representative from the County Sheriff s Department. The Committee shall receive staff support from the Department of Animal Regulation. • • 4. Supervision - The rendition of services specified In paragraph 2 of this Agreement, and matters incidental to the performances of said services, and the control of personnel so employed, shall remain In the County. 5. Coo eration -To facilitate the performance of the foregoing functions, it is hereby agreed that the County shall have the full cooperation and assistance from the City, its officers, agents, and employees. 6. Special Sup lies - It is agreed that in all instances wherein special supplies, tools, vehicles, equipment, stationary, notices,forms,and the like must be used in the performance of this contract on behalf of the City, the same shall be supplied by City at its own cost and expense. 7. Em)lovee Compensation and Liability- City shall not be called upon to assume any liability for the direct payment of any salaries, wages, or other compensation to any County personnel performing services hereunder, or any liability other than that provided in the Agreement. The City shall not be liable for compensation or Indemnity to any County employee for injury or sickness arising out of his/her employment. S. indemnification - Nothing in the provisions of the Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties not parties to this contract or affect the legal liability of either party to contract by imposing any standard of care respecting the regulation and enforcement of • laws regarding animals different from the standard of care imposed by law. It is understood and agreed that neither City, nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by the County under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to the County under this Agreement. It is also understood and agreed that pursuant to Government Code 895.4, County shall defend, indemnify and save harmless the City,all officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injuries to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from anything done or omitted to be done by the County under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to the County under this Agreement except as otherwise provided by Statute. It is understood and agreed that neither County nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by the City under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to the City under this Agreement. It is also understood and agreed that pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4,City shall defend, indemnify and save harmless the County, all officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for on account of injuries to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from anything done or omitted to be done by City under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to the City under this Agreement except as otherwise provided by Statute. 9. Employee Status-All persons employed in the performance of the services and functions specified • In paragraph 2 of this Agreement shall be County employees; no present City employee shall become a County employee by reason of this Agreement;and no person employed hereunder shall have any City pension, Civil Service, or any similar status or right. For this Agreement, and for the sole purpose of giving legal status to the performance of the duties and responsibilities herein,every County officer and the employee engaged in their performance of any service hereunder shall, where necessary, be deemed an officer or employee of City while performing the services for City. 10. Prosecution- It shall be the duty of the City Attorney,exercising the discretion vested in his office, to prosecute violations of the City Animal Ordinance,and take appropriate legal action with respect to the abatement of any public nuisance involving animals occurring within City's corporate limits. 11. Term and Renewal - This Agreement shall be effective on the 1st day of July, 1991, and shall terminate on the 30th day of June, 1994. All fees, charges, and payments required by paragraph 12(A-H)and paragraph 15 shall be adjusted each July 1 st of the three year duration of the contract. This adjustment shall be for any increase in County's cost of providing services. The Department appropriation Budget shall be used to determine percentage of increase.This percentage shall not exceed five (5) percent for any one year of the contract period. This contract is subject to cancellation by either party by notification in writing of the desire to terminate contract. Notification shall be required 30 days in advance of the termination date. 12. Allocation of Operating Costs - Charges to City for the services provided by County shall be computed on the following basis: • a. Charges for general administration and ordinance review shall be $6.00 for each animal transaction for City(as defined in subparagraph 1(b) of this Agreement). A$6.00 charge shall also be applied for each animal delivered to the control facility by a resident of the City. The charges allocated to City pursuant to this subparagraph 12(a)shall be added to the charges made pursuant to subparagraphs 12(b) and (c) below when those charges are applicable. b. Charges for animal control enforcement service component shall be$22.00 for each animal transaction (as defined in paragraph 1(b) of this Agreement) in which the service of an Animal Control Officer is involved, but excluding those services where charges are made pursuant to subparagraph 12(f) below. The charges allocated pursuant to this subparagraph 12(b) shall be added to the charges described in paragraph 12(a) above,and where applicable,they may also be added to the charges described in paragraph 12(c) below. C. Charges for the animal shelter services component shall be$6.50 for each animal sheltered for City (as defined in paragraph 1(c) of this Agreement). The charges allocated pursuant to this subparagraph 12(c) shall be added to the charges described in subparagraph 12(a) above and where applicable they may also be added to the charges described in subparagraphs 12(b) and (f). d. Overall program costs(as defined in paragraph 1(e)of this Agreement)for public education • component services shall be multiplied by the City's population percent, and that sum shall be charged to City. In no event shall City'sallocated costs for the public education component exceed $.30 per capita. e. Charges for the licensing component services shall be $6.50 for each one year license issued for City. On multiple year tags, the charge shall be$4.50 for the second and/or third year as a processing/renewal fee. f. In payment for those emergency services (as defined in paragraph 1(f) of this Agreement) provided to City when only standby animal control officers are on duty, City shall be charged$66.00 per man hour. This charge shall be on a portal-to-portal basis,and when applicable, may be added to the charges imposed pursuant to subparagraphs 12(a) and (c) above. 9. Charges for Court/Proceedings (as defined in Paragraph 1(g) of this Agreement) resulting from an incident within the incorporated limits of a City, shall be charged to that City at a rate of $65.00 per man hour. h. Charges for unrecovered fees, band checks,and veterinarian services shall be on an actual cost recovery. 13. Revenue from Fees and Impounds - Revenue from impound charges collected on animals taken • from within City's corporate limits will be credited against City's allocated costs. 14. Revenue from Licensina -Revenue collected In licensing animals owned or adopted by residents of City shall be credited to City's allocated costs. 1s. Deficits - City shall pay County any deficits between total revenue credited to City and City's allocated costs. City agrees sum of$ `71 f e-Tb represents a reimbursement which shall, within the conditions of this contract, be maximum under which County shall be excused from any further performance. When in the calculation of charges incurred, the Animal Regulation Department costs equal said amount this clause shall act as a condition subsequent excusing the County from any further service under the terms of the contract. Said payments shall be made on or before the 31st day of August of each year of this Agreements's existence. 16. Enforceability-The invalidity and unenforceability of any terms or provisions hereof shall in no way affect the validity or enforceability of any other terms or provisions. 17. Modification - This contract constitutes the entire understanding of the parties hereto and no changes, amendments or alterations shall be effective unless in writing and signed by both parties. 18. Assignment of Personnel -The number of Animal Control Officers assigned to any activity shall be within the discretion of the Department of Animal Regulation of The County of San Luis Obispo. 19. Optional Reduction in Services - Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, after notification of low funds, City shall have the option to select a reduced level of service for the remainder of the contract period. The option shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the • County. The Department will provide a quarterly report of financial status of City's program in a format acceptable to the Animal Control Advisory Committee.Said reports are ordinarily provided at the end of the third, sixth, ninth, and twelfth months of each calendar year. City may notify Director of its election to reduce services within any two weeks after receipt of said report. Upon receipt of notice said election Director will provide a reduced level of service, Including emergency services. it is the Intent of the parties to provide a continuation of mandated,emergency services to the community under this paragraph as an alternative to service termination as provided in paragraph 14 above. 20. Books and Records - County agrees to keep such books and records and In such form and manner as County Auditor-Controller shall specify. Said books shall be open for examination by City at all reasonable times. 21. Notices -Any notice required to be given pursuant to the terms and provisions hereof shall be in writing and shall be sent by certified or registered mail to the County at: Department of Animal Regulation P.O. Box 3760 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 and to the City at: • • IN WITNESS THEREOF, City of by resolution duly adopted by its City Council causes this Agreement to be signed by its mayor and attested by its clerk, and County of San Luis Obispo by order of the Board of Supervisors causes these presents to be subscribed by Chairman of said Board and seal of said Board to be affixed hereto attested by clerk of said: CITY OF COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO By: By: Mayor Chairman, Board of Supervisors ATTEST: ATTEST: By: By: • City Clerk , Board of Supervisors By: County Counsel Date: REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: D-2 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. Date: 7/9/91 From: Henry Engen, Community Dev. Dir.. t File No: 8C 7-91 SUBJECT: Request to initiate Zoning Ordinance text amendments See-Through Fences. RBCOLDGMATION: Initiate consideration of the ,requested `zoning text amendment and authorize staff to 'prepare the matter for review and public hearing' before the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council, BACKGROUND: Requests q s to amend the zoning text apply to all properties in the City and, therefore, the ordinance wisely requires that there be either City Council or Planning Commission authorization before` proceeding to analyze the request and bring it to public hearing. ` In the attached request, Shirley Moore is seeking an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to enable construction of see-through fences within required front yards. Currently, fence height is limited to 3 feet in required front yards. - Ms. Moore is proposing allowing 6 foot see-through fences in required front yards subject to depart- mental review through an adjustment procedure. Specific adjustments are permitted in the Zoning Ordinance subject to appropriate findings and require an application and payment of a $50.00 fee to process. The requested change recognizes the need to allow for safe sight distance to residential properties, and appears to offer a reason- able solution to a `prevailing problem in the community. HE:ps cc: Shirley Moore Enclosure: Zoning Text Amendment Request _ ZONING ORDINANCE BOOK PAGE 4-2 9-4.104 Exceptions to Setback Standards: The minimum setback requirements of this Title apply to all uses except the following (see also Section 9-4.110 Projections Into Required Setbacks) : a. Fences, hedges or walls six feet or less in height above site finish grade, when located in a required side or rear setback. b. Fences; hedges or walls three feet or less in height, when located in a required front_se back . c . Uncovered decks, terraces, steps, earthworks and other similar landscaping or design elements placed directly on finished grade that do not exceed an average height of 30 inches above the surrounding finished grade, provided that ;no such wootd structure shall extend closer than 18 inches to a property line, I PURPOSE TO ADD THE FOLLOWING: (1) HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT: THE HEIGHT LIMIATION SPECIFIED BY SUBSECTION a. & b. OF THIS SECTION MAY BE ADJUSTED BY DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW, FOR SEE THROUGH RESIDENTAL TYPE FENCES. THE BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED AS A RESULT OF THE ABOVE TEXT AMENDMENT ARE THAT THE TEXT WILL GIVE THE DEPARTMENT A VEHICLE TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL SEE-THROUGH FENCES,' WHICH WILL NOT RESTRICT SIGHT, AND WILL ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND ALLOW THE OWNERS THE OPPORTUNITY T4 KEEP' THEIR ANIMALS IN, AND OTHERS ANIMALS OUT. ALSO WILL ENHANCE SECURITY FOR THE HOME OWNERS In my immediate neighborhood, approximately one half are not in compliance`with the present ordinance, including the parcel I am concerned with, which has a 5 foot horse fence around the entire parcel , built 40 years ago. We purpose' to replace this fence with 16" slumpstone pillars 20 ft centers, and 2 ten foot wrought iron pannels between, five foot high . This will allow containment of our animals, as we are still allowed to keep small animals on the unused part of the two acres. Also, as 1 drive around in the new section:, of residential building, I see 'hundreds of attractive fences built which enhance the structures, but are not in `compliance with our present fence heights. Enclosed please find my check for 6825.00 to initiate the changing of the text: - �..j:'4. _ � :414_•