Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet 07/22/1985
NOTE: THERE WILL BE A CLOSED SESSION FOR PURPOSES OF LABOR NEGOTIATIONS IN THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING CLUB ROOM AT 7 :00 P.M. AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting July 22, 1985 at 7:30 P.M. ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING A. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is required, that item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and will be considered separately. Vote may be by roll call. 1. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of July 8, 1985_ (RECOMMEND • APPROVAL) 2. Treasurer ' s Report - June 1-30 , 1985 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 3. ' Finance Director ' s Report (Summary) - May 1-31, 1985 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 4. Tentative Parcel Map 15-85 - 7850 Portvla Road (Lot 10 Block KC) - Knowles/Stewart (Engineer) (Division of 1.12 Acres into 2 lots of .50 and .62 acs. ) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 5. Annual Maintenance District Assessment Rate Changes A. Proposed Resolution 66-85 - Malaza Maintenance District B. Proposed Resolution 65-85 - San Fernando Maintenance District ' 6. Request Approval Special Funds to Improve Halcon Road 7. Request Authorization to Prepare Specifications and Advertise for Bids for Resurfacing Program 8. Lot Line Adjustment 5-85 - 5430-5440 Olmeda (Lots 59 & 60 , Block QA) - Baer/Kennaly Engineering (Revise Lot Line to Follow driveway and Fencing) • 9• T�^__t+. Parcel Map 3-8 8942 Palomar - Bunyea/Kennaly /14 Engineering (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 1 • 10. Live Parcel Map 22-84 - 9070 La Paz Road - Giessinger/ Volbrecht Surveys (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 11. T Tract Map 25-84 - 3500 E1 Camino Real (portion of Lot 6 , Block 18) - Colony Park Assoc./Kennaly Engineering (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 12. Proposed Resolution 67-85 - Becker an Bell Classification Study Title Changes (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) -&-s-: Oxt B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS Atascadero Unified School District: A. Proposed Resolution 62-85 - Concurring with Atascadero Unified School District' s Findings of Overcrowding B. Proposed Resolution 63-85 - Adopting Fees for "Interim School Facilities" (Ordinance #107) 2. Weed Abatement A. Proposed Resolution 53-85 - Confirming Costs of Weed Abatement • B. Weed Abatement Appeals - Public Hearing 3. Public Hearing to consider Zone Change 4-85 by H.L.S. Properties Ltd. (Associated Professions) to Amend Zoning Map from Residential Suburban to Commercial Neighborhood at 1875 EI Camino Real (Lot 31, Block 49) (Proposed Ordinance No. l�) (FIRST READING) 4. Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit Allowing the Expansion of a Residential Care Facility from 4 to 15 Residents — Levi Barrett - 1950 Traffic Way - PUBLIC HEARING 5. Appeal of Planning Commission Requirements for Curb, Gutter, and Paveout Requirements - Escuela Del Rio - 5940 Rosario (PUBLIC HEARING) C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Ordinance Number 108 Amending Ordinance 105 - Parks and Recreation Rules and Regulations - Usage of Atascadero Lake - (SECOND READING) 2. Continued Discussion on City Development Impact Tax Fees D. NEW BUSINESS 2 2 0 • 1. Award of Bid #85-30 - Soil Amendment - Paloma Creek Park 2. Grant Applications for Recreation Department: A. Proposed Resolution 58-85 - Approving Application for Grant Funds under Regional Competitive Program of the California Park and Recreation Facilities Act - Paloma Creek Park B. Proposed Resolution 59-85 - Approving Application for Grant Funds under Lakes, Reservoirs and Waterways Program of the California Park and Recreation Facilities Act - Atascadero Lake Project E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (Council will recess and convene as the Astascadero County Sanitation District Board of Directors) 1. Atascadero County Sanitation District Sanitary Sewer and Waste- water Study Proposal Recommendation (The Board of Directors will adjourn and reconvene as the City Council) • F. COMMUNITY FORUM G. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5. City Manager • 3 3 MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL VAT ' 22/$S, ;" ;� r Regular Meeting July 8 , 1985 , 7 :30 p.m. •Atascadero Administration Building The Regular Meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to order at 7: 30 p.m. by Mayor Nelson, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. The in- vocation was given by Rev. Doug Cooper, First Assembly of _God. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Molina and Handshy, Councilwoman Mackey and Mayor Nelson. Absent: Councilwoman Norris STAFF Mike Shelton, City Manager; Grigger Jones , City Clerk; Bud McHale, Police Chief; Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director; Bob Best, Recreation Direc- tor; Georgene Kreinberg, Personnel Analyst; Cindy Wilkins, Deputy City Clerk. COUNCIL COMMENT Mayor Nelson related that Councilwoman Norris is absent tonight as she was involved in an automobile accident last Saturday. Councilwoman Mackey ex- pressed Councilwoman Norris's thanks to the local emergency services for their response to her needs at that accident. ID A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 . Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of June 24, 1985 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 2. Resolution 56-85 - Authorizing Mayor to Enter into Agreement With Robert M. Jones for Interim City Attorney Services (RECOMMEND AP- PROVAL) 3 . Proposed Resolution 54-85 - Supporting Assembly Bill 1717 , Outlaw- ing the Use of Video Lottery Machines in California (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 4. Claim by Carol Tice, 4912 Seperado , Atascadero, for damages in the amount of $425. 00 (RECOMMEND DENIAL) 5. Claim by Donn Ragle, 1511 Olive Street , Paso Robles, . for damages in the amount of $6 ,000. 00 (RECOY21END DENIAL) 6. Resolution 55-85 - Authorizing Filing of Claim for Local Transpor- tation Funds in Compliance With the Transportation Development Act (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 7 . Resolution 57-85 - Establishing a Fee for Processing Requests for • Permits to Carry Concealed Firearms COUNCIL MINUTES - 7/8 PAGE 3 John Kennaly, the applicant ' s engineer, stated that they have re- designed the basin according to Mr. Sensibaugh' s criteria and feel that any minor details could be worked out with him. Councilman Handshy asked the applicant if the conditions that the Council is being asked to approve are agreeable to 'him. He res- ponded that he is willing to assume any liability over and above what the City has , but is unclear as to what exactly theirs is . Mr. Sensibaugh clarified that the applicant is being asked to as- sume liability for conditions resultant from his project , not from conditions which may already exist. The agreement is intended as a precautionary measure; the liability question probably isn't as extreme as the maintenance question implied. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to authorize Mayor to enter into mainte- nance and liability agreement, seconded by Councilman Handshy. Passed 3 :0 , with Councilwoman Norris absent and Councilman Molina not voting. D. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey that Council recess and reconvene as the Atascadero County Sanitation District Board of Directors , second- ed by Councilman Handshy. Passed 4:0. 1. Request for Proposal for Sanitary Sewer and Wastewater Plant Study for the Atascadero County Sanitation District Paul Sensibaugh gave staff report, providing a handout , :for refer- ence purposes, to Council which indicates the scope of services of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Councilwoman Mackey inquired where will engineering consultants be sought from (County? City?) . Mr. Sensibaugh responded that, orig- inally, he felt that requests for proposals be sent to seven qualifiec engineering consulting firms, from which three firms would be select- ed to submit proposals. He stated that, many times , the National Society for Professional Engineers requires the selection of 3-4 consultants , research of their backgrounds associated with the type of design in question and select one to submit a proposal. In this case, he selected the three firms felt to have the most familiarity with the County and Atascadero area, adding that, if Council desires to include other individuals/firms in this consideration, Mr. Sensi- baugh would certainly include them. He didn't , however , want to drag the issue but to the point where the City was looking at so many firm_ that they weren't getting to the task they originally set out for. Mr. Shelton stated that staff feels there is somewhat urgency in this item, in that it has been needed to be done for a long time . He has been waiting for Mr. Sensibaugh to come on board and initiate this study and give it the necessary objectiveness ; this process (of seeking various proposals) would give the staff the ability to rec- ommend a firm which could do the best job for the City at the lowest cost. COUNCIL MINUTES - 7/8 • PAGE 4 MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to give staff the go-ahead to seek engine ing proposals , seconded by Councilman Molina. Passed 4 :0 , with0 . Councilwoman Norris absent. Staff to bring back recommendations to next Council Meeting. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to reconvene as Atascadero City Council, seconded by Councilman Molina. Passed 4 :0. E. COMMUNITY FORUM No public comment. F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council Councilman Handshy commented on the presence of weeds around the City and the concerns of individuals as to the related fire hazard posed. He suggested that, due to the current fire situ- ation requiring the use of City fire personnel , residents look out for their own immediate areas and those of their neighbors in order to eliminate some burden from the Atascadero F.D. City Attorney - Grigger Jones, newly appointed Interim City Attorney , thanked the Council for approving his appointment. City Clerk - NONE City Treasurer NONE 0 City Manager - Mr. Shelton commented on a letter of commendation he had received on behalf of the Atascadero Police Dept. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:08 P.M. RECORDED BY: 'ROBERT M. JONES, .City Clerk PREPARED BY: CINDY WIL ' NS, Deputy City Clerk �7 CITY OF ATASCACERO • TREASURER' S REPORT OAT= 7/22/85 t =, ; A-2 JUNE 1, 1985 TO JUNE 30, 1985 RECEIPTS • TAXES Property Tax 11,011.12 Cigarette Tax 3,832. 55 Motor Vehicle "In Lieu 44,628. 31 Sales & Use 123,940.10 Livestock-Head Day Tax 69.72 Occupancy Tax 0 LICENSE/PERMITS/FEES 35,724.91 GAS TAX 24,243.50 TRAFFIC SAFETY 3,478.09 GRANTS 533, 500.00 RECREATION FEES 17,636.61 RETURNED FROM LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND AND MATURED TIME DEPOSITS 100,000.00 • INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 262.50 TRANSPORTATION SB-325 0 MISCELLANEOUS Rents Concessions 1, 377.91 Sale Maps/Publications/Reports, 194. 70 Special Police Services 81.00 Fines & Penalties 925.82 Dial-A-Ride Farebox 2,012.15 Planning Permit Deposits 2,485 .25 Bails/Bonds 0 Wil-Mar Disposal 0 Weed Abatement 288.60 Reimbursement from Sanitation District 58,412.34 Reimbursement to Expense 2,406.08 Miscellaneous Funds 4 ,281.11 P.O.S.T. 213. 07 Narcotic ' s Officer 7, 861.31 Performance Bonds 650. 00 TOTAL $ 979, 517 .05 1 • <. 7/22/85 • July 16 , 1985 To All Council Members: The break down detail on all accounts is available for your viewing in the Finance Department. R. A. Cassidy Interim Finance Direct • • CITY OF ATASCADERO FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT JUNE 1, 1985 TO JUNE 30, 1985 EXPENSE LISTING PAYROLL DATED 06/12/85 CHECKS #33848-33943 61, 525 .33 PAYROLL DATED 06/26/85 CHECKS #33944-34042 62, 583. 54 VOID CK#24770 CK. REG. DATED 05/29/85 (9.00) VOID CK#24685 CK. REG. DATED 05/31/85 (360.00) VOID CK#24848 CK. REG. DATED 06/10/85 (37:00) VOID CK#24965 CK. REG. DATED 06/14/85 (67.44) VOID CK#33974 CK. REG. DATED 06/26/85 (665 .34) TOTAL 122,970.09 4 R`�J �22/8_5 M''E M 0 R A N D U M • TO: City Council July 22, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Planning Directorlb SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15-85 LOCATION: 7850 Portola Road APPLICANT: Marjory Knowles (Dan Stewart) REQUEST: To allow the division of 1.12 acres into two lots of .50 and .62 acres each. On July 1, 1985, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above-referenced matter, unanimously approving the land division request subject to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report. Ray Wilcox, Carmelita resident, asked how this division would affect the creek area in relation to septic systems, and was advised that a very small sliver of the property was in the 100 Year flood plan. Marjory Knowles and Dan Stewart both appeared and indicated their con- currence with the recommendation. No one else spoke on the matter. HENRY ENGEM MICHAEL SHELTON Planning Director ` City Manager cc: Marjory Knowles Dan Stewart • 2 . Tentative Parcel Map 15-85 (Knowles) 10. ' Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Relatively level with many oak trees. Atascadero Creek lies to the east. 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. ANALYSIS: In the RSF-X zone, the minimum lot size is one-half acre. Thus, these two proposed lots of .50 and .62 acres each conform to the Zoning Ordinance. The lots are in the sewer district and develop- ment of Parcel 2 will require a sewer connection or an in-lieu sewer connection fee. The property is relatively level; however, it is located within the flood hazard area. Development will focus on drainage plans to determine if the proposed construction will limit the capacity of the floodway or increase flood heights to a dangerous level. . Overall, staff agrees that creation of this additional building site will result in a pattern of orderly development. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 15-85 based on the findings and conditions of approval contained in Exhibit A. Additionally, staff recommends that the Planning Commission certi- fy the Negative Declaration as a consistent and accurate document consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . DGD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C - Parcel Map 2 Tentative Parcel Ma 5-85 (Knowles) EXHIBIT A - Tentative Parcel Map 15-85 Findings/Conditions of Approval July 1, 1985 FINDINGS: 1. The creation of these parcels conforms to all applicable zoning and the General Plan. 2. The creation of these parcels in conformance with the recommended conditions of approval will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment, and preparation of an Environmental Impact 'j Report is not necessary. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development that is proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of devel- opment proposed. 5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for ac- cess through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision; or that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474. 6 of the State Subdivision Map Act, as to methods of handling and discharge of waste. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel or its public utility easement prior to recordation of the final map. 2. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines and other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are other building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 3. Drainage and erosion control plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Plan- ning Department prior to issuance of building permits in conjunc- tion with installation of driveways, access easements or struc- tures. All drainage swales shall be shown on the final map, to- gether with area subject to 100 year flooding from Atascadero Creek. 3 Tentative Parcel Map*5-85 (Knowles) 4. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways and driveway easements shall be submitted for approval by the Planning and Public Works Departments in order to determine average grade and appropriate improvement requirements. 5. Applicant shall pay an in-lieu sewer connection fee for each par- cel created, prior to the filing of the final map. 6. All conditions herein specified shall be complied with prior to filing of the final map. 7. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivison Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate by certificate on the final map that corners have been set or will be set by a date specific and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. 8. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years from the date of Planning Commission approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expira- tion date. 4 ►vE - f _05 --i 7a 7 A • .... .-. . ilr55n 'rzaz a .1100 R VZSICN DATE BY 9x75 - '. S 81,7 Iip3 .!19 �, s `•:r pb..rA•--4i E' .d L� 'it.17 . ej t4v. 6Swso +_)6 n•rd' . •7s - - •Y 1 .4'3[-1• T 1,9 9a.0 8' \ - v•.��"!Sr.vs _� 7200 3 1] \ \` GIC -:-� .• }•JyL q _.e'A E, „tb 7.37 a•y. FStG 6 alto I .a i ss�5 ttC— SZS uyvi t0 �,Fj) tv�3 q�• 7-z e51G s I. 14 q N 958.A e'A ,s,,yh .' 10•A -..x- ,i55'-A- .•! K_ �[]��``�S \\, °9 IZ.3•° co 71-142 t / �t25 _— _ 2� ,�y )'• it �iL �; '-vs 18^° - 9855 9 - • - ��tv/// 9� ,y •> - sp Q �� 1555 D i .. �S ID �' n O' 1150 4-s 91x L_ //�.U:•[ . r , _ 14 wn s 1 1605 _ co - - LC, • 9150 !Z��.s.r . 3 7 • 6 fit, s -. - • 16 of - P9 f 91,0 fJ DAY n ' KC 14 1 - IOA hb 20 a aoo '..5 o }-. 109 IOD xa: 9 3oo / Jl" l/ •� z'� 107 7 1� � \ / j3`, • 1 s � co'+>/'09 � 72 61v3 aro x a'� "^,..•. 24 ram• a 2e {.•.. � / •�(r 9 9ti 1y ''/ � h. �3 ,� 7 J�• 31•A /j/,QV I`�\,•! t \ 8&5 71: 8 t0] D.i/ ^.�'.$ h'•i is 3170105 f ° eats 3 / ..••o°, so P/fo •W tt�.503 �. T � 96 �^ S 3 ^ �. �r 14, 29 97 0 8765 gTE set ,...r v '- V •.of � eE e9 J 8 lit.T7 76 .e! 0 94 �.♦ 67E4 •K .'s9a J 93 10 9t z r.�E' i>.• - s 14 s5 _ '65 64 $, S 3 5^ _ /.. •a ITS `� 1 3;= 4 •� uy 9700 2 I4A� ag, 29 37 Ole NIX ee a SI a � 288 740 as 31 3f e490 �n •71 � o wd 3+ y e - 75 6' 33 ,al •' a r: - .. 0 ': ui 2 e9 '•Y a h a gry' it exs 7�A 3 7!rc. - SA eD 97� ? —w+ LXHawr O40 els /`}� -53, y�P g 177 A . la. \ 1 O 21 CITY UI' ATASCADERO _ ,I`-,Planning Department r �. .. C � T.n'• ' G iia,�r 11J�I1 `/ a�•., t .. H+.cs�• v ••+ .`^ 1 0� l(•. 7�t' r. j;11�a" `,✓T S� a�� r J'�'p.� Lf�r-' �..i -�4 00 l c?�Z� 1 .c OG Su f �ca � C NJ�cO iA O ' f y V b® 04 oZ OZ e' • U Y` 4 `� \ \ tea,a� _ £,p _, � a e � 1 ,i h ol °---._7_./2.2/85 A _ r • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paull Senp.ibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Annual Assessment Rate for Maintenance Districts DATE: July 16, 1985 Attached are two resolutions fixing the assessment rate for F.Y. 1985-86 for street maintenance districts on San Fernando Road and Maleza Avenue. It is recommended that these be forwarded to Council for approval of the $20 per parcel assessment as estimated by this office. Street paving was installed in both these districts last fall • under the provisions of the Streets and Highways Code. The estimate of $20 per parcel is based on accomplishing minor maintenance work during the 1985-86 fiscal year. It is required that this special tax rate be established prior to August 10th in order to appear on next year's property tax roll. PMS:vjh cc: Finance • • 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 and seconded by the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote: AYES NOES ABSENT ADOPTED ATTEST ROLFE NELSON, Mayor ROBERT M. JONES City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM ROBERT M. JONES Interim City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH Director of Public Works/City Engineer 2 I MALEZA AVENUE Assessor's Parcel # Property Owner Assessment 29-121-07 J. Hazard $20.00 5360 Maleza Avenue Atascadero 29-121-06 PL & VK Roberts 20.00 5380 Maleza Avenue Atascadero 29-121-05 FL & ME Sumner — 20.00 5390 Maleza Avenue Atascadero 29-121-20 R & HL Trigo 20.00 5400 Maleza Avenue Atascadero 29-121-19 SW Davis 20.00 5420 Maleza Avenue Atascadero 29-131-26 W & PA Koens 20.00 5465 Pialeza Avenue Atascadero 29-131-23 RE & LL Dillon 20.00 5425 Maleza Avenue Atascadero 29-131-25 RE & LL Dillon 20.00 5425 Maleza Avenue Atascadero 29-131-02(vacant) Chevron USA 20.00 2525 North Chester Bakersfield,CA RESOLUTION NO. 65-85 RESOLUTION OF THE 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 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 ($20.00) per parcel as identified in the assessment diagram for Maintenance District 84-1, said special tax to cover the expense of maintaining 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 first day of July, 1985, and ending on the 30th day of June, 1986. 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 be collected at the 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 pursuant to the provisions of this resolution and law, and said transfer shall be made and accomplished as soon as said i Ft`. U 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 and seconded by the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote: AYES NOES ABSENT ADOPTED ATTEST ROLFE NELSON, Mayor ROBERT M. JONES City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM ROBERT M. JONES Interim City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH Director of Public Works/City Engineer 2 SAN FERNANDO ROAD Assessor's Parcel Property Owner Assessment 49-241-08 R. Freiler $20.00 2130 San Fernando Road Atascadero, CA 93422 49-241-12 DR & C Burbach 20.00 2020 San Fernando Road Atascadero, CA 93422 49-241-31 RO & A Churchill 20.00 2040 San Fernando Road Atascadero, CA 93422 49-241-30 EA Pimentel 20.00 2060 San Fernando Road Atascadero, CA 93422 49-241-39 CJ & AM Vreeken 20.00 2100 San Fernando Road Atascadero, CA 93422 49-241-40 BM & R Aggson 20.00 2130 San Fernando Road Atascadero, CA 93422 49-271-15 A. Grimes 20.00 D. Messer 2200 San Fernando Road Atascadero, CA 93422 49-271-16 J & C Gutierrez 20.00 2170 San Fernando Road Atascadero, CA 93422 49-271-17 DG & CA Perry 20.00 2150 San Fernando Road Atascadero, CA 93422 49-251-36 TL & LN Tolbert 20.00 1701 San Fernando Road Atascadero, CA 93422 49-251-37 , WE & LA Dunn 20.00 1731 San Fernando Road Atascadero, CA 93422 Assessor's Parcel # Property Owner Assessment 49-251-38 WE Dunn 20.00 1731 San Fernando Road Atascadero, CA 93422 49-281-01 RG & AL Brewer 20.00 1801 San Fernando Road Atascadero, CA 93422 49-281-03 DA & SA Gehre 20.00 1861 San Fernando Road Atascadero CA 93422 49-281-04 GC Zidbeck 20.00 1869 San Fernando Road Atascadero, CA 93422 49-281-02 SL & SL Thomas 20.00 1876 San Fernando Road Atascadero, CA 93422 49-281-10 MR Rogers 20.00 2005 San Fernando Road Atascadero, CA 93422 49-281-09 EB & M McCoy 20.00 2025 San Fernando Road Atascadero, CA 93422 49-281-07 RL & SE Bellis 20.00 2035 San Fernando Road Atascadero, CA 93422 49-281-08 DB & RE Wilkinson 20.00 2045 San Fernando Road Atascadero, CA 93422 49-281-11 CL & HGE Springer 20.00 2053 San Fernando Road Atascadero, CA 93422 49-281-12 CE Springer 20.00 2085 San Fernando Road Atascadero, CA 93422 r, Alk Assessor's Parcel Property Owner Assessment 49-281-05 C.E. Springer 20.00 2135 San Fernando Atascadero, CA 93422 50-051-01 GH Andrews 20.00 2155 San Fernando Road Atascadero, CA 93422 50-051-22 CW & E Hessick 20.00 P.O. Box 25 Atascadero, CA 93423 50-051-23 CW & E Hessick 20.00 P.O. Box 25 Atascadero, CA 93423 50-051-24 AE & RD Scarson 20.00 2205 San Fernando Road Atascadero, CA 93422 V� 0 MEMORANDUM " TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul M. S,epsibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Halcon Road Paving DATE: July 18, 1985 Halcon Road (off of Viejo Camino) is primarily being used by Union Asphalt to haul aggregate to their designation. This operation has been responsible for developing potholes and forming dust. As developers have built along this road they have been providing security bonds to pay for a residential street. This City is apparently responsible under this agreement to pay for the difference in cost to bring the road to an industrial use standard. Union Asphalt has offered to donate the asphalt material to upgrade the road above a residential use and has asked the City to initiate the paving and use the donation for the City portion of the financing. The property owners that put up security bonds have been contacted and their money has been released. The total amount is $20,281.00 from the following contributers: Mr. Calkins $3,838; Mr. Davis $4,742, Mr. Rodda $5,900; and Bella Vista Investments $5,801. Staff would like to begin this project and use the security on a force account project without advertising for bids. The major items will be less than $10,000 including the price of the paving operation. The amount of asphalt over 2 inches and the shoulder grading will bring the classification above the normal residential design. The donated material will allow the project to be built without the use of City funds. The work will be approximately 2000 feet in length to the last lot line past the park and 20 feet wide with 2 ft. graded shoulders. The potholes will be repaired first and the intersection of Viejo Camino reconstructed prior to paving. Due to the dust problem sited by EPA, staff recommends that Council declare this matter an urgency and authorize staff to proceed as soon as practicable. PMS:vjh • 2`� 7/22/85 „ • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul �sibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: July 16, 1985 The resurfacing program is slated to be completed prior to the rainy season. The bidding process therefore should be started as soon as possible. The capital improvement portion of the budget has not been adopted at this time. Prior to the award of the contract staff will request authorization to use gas tax funds if the capital improvement budget is not passed. Staff recommends that Council authorize staff to draw up plans and specifications and advertise for bids for resurfacing or seal coating city streets. PMS/vjh • M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council July 22, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager iU FROM: Henry Engen, Planning Director L SUBJECT: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 5-85 LOCATION: 5430/5440 Olmeda APPLICANT: Milton Baer (Kennaly Engineering) REQUEST: To revise the lot line to follow the driveway and fencing. On July lst, the Planning Commission considered the above-referenced matter on its consent calendar, unanimously approving the request sub- ject to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report. • No one spoke on the matter. .ra HENRY ENGEN; MICHAEL SHELTON Planing Director City Manager cc: Milton Baer Kennaly Engineering 2�; Lot Line Adjustment 5-85 (Milton Baer) C. ANALYSIS: The current lot sizes of Parcel A and Parcel B are .38 acres and .53 acres, respectively. Parcel B is an existing nonconforming lot of record in a RMF/10 zone. The minimum lot size in this zone is one half acre. City policy has been to permit lot line adjustments in such cases provided the degree of lot size nonconformity is not increased. The acreage exchange amounts to 427 square feet or .01 acres. The result of this adjustment would neither reduce Parcel A below min- imum lot size or increase the degree of nonconformity of Parcel B. The applicant is proposing a lot adjustment which would create an equal exchange of acreage between the two parcels. The adjustment would not conflict with City policies. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Lot Line Adjustment 5-85 based upon the findings and conditions of approval contained in Exhibit A. DGD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C - Lot Line Adjustment Map 2 Lot Line Ad 'ustmentl85 Milton Baer 7 ( ) EXHIBIT A - Lot Line Adjustment 5-85 Findings/Conditions of Approval July 1, 1985 FINDINGS: 1. The application as submitted has been determined to be categori- cally exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. The application as submitted is consistent with the General Plan and conforms with all applicable zoning and subdivision regulations. CONDITIONS 1. The lot line adjustment as generally shown on the map attachment provided herein shall be submitted in final map format to be ap- proved by the Planning Department prior to recordation by the County Recorder ' s Office. 2. The proposed adjusted lot lines shall be surveyed and monuments set at the new property corners prior to recordation of the final map. 3. The location of all improvements and easements shall be delineated on the Final Map. The deeded lot line to be removed that divides Parcel 1 shall be shown on the final map. 4. Approval of this lot line adjustment shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless a time extension has been granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. 3 ;J; FXH I NT Q` 5" LOT ANE ADJUSTMexr - -0 0 L A j LCCA-r i ®N MAP -/7� %��C,�J �� �L-'��, � � ���- s ° �/zn� -� it t ° tt\� \`1? )ti�q.'�� \ 1 •� �"`�7`„N-C•T"1 V ��F l2� 4 Vit,'. f""S � j��..r1 t � � ``` �.,� �`-�•✓�r{�>rt � r. "- 'i s: O� � `mss �'' �s�,5�`T s.^ _s�-� a >a�L��.J >t�(' ' •! , �'✓ /as.+S�CD rtY' t F 1, � \\\ >, \ .l T,r'1 5 �--T r. � }•�,� i "—�".. �,. �(•�r < s'-. ,y ^^� �' q a �,:�+ s}S..- � �I 4,» lG:SI �/.i ft � �� w\,w`V tet( �. +' /ti �S� ���C��.`1t l,i-',e� .��� +`�`*�r.c�1 + y, 1 '�.�' t' � �•f»J�r•,'1 ' .,n L7b o. �•.Lfi r'• �;i',' - �"'?r' I \'^L//�'�N ��>' w�i i.• Yf, \ ��,s` „ic � ��+a c gar °'S" ��F.�.��.��/<�y �'f` �'✓�'�3-.,✓y'�.�•�•_�� �'ns'4> �osi tz4`� �tag�"ytiq a:. .>�„ •!.+ �',:•,..��� < .-'�F.�,l r``,' • .�� �' <.tSaw �fi I,o S��• j _ V � t w•Is l���',\\ )���tr�ti�/� •'r1•,� ,r'r \f �"!.� b� � .✓ N- �\ 01 �4y .-, •o�'J�, s<:rr�l✓� !)� i /'%�'4{�--�F=Y�� `�.��.lV `-SO, / _t� ,� �r,•ZS�'(c-'+4� �3,, Iv I Wit„•l�fs,e�. �til.-! ,• 7 ;�`•✓ ~ ` � ,�{'� �-' >> ':'\/ ,��....--cc' 21�:;:f• NO ,,tl `—•ss �•-L 4J° c eC s �' t !•� i +1, �\ r°�. + `� \'�°f,,°J'lYr�'^,j ss,o `'1��I `b 1.....s n.•'Jf.� r>�.i; 7 •_..�:,4�.'+` `C ' .C;'�'.i�f/ o P~, 4� •r.�f"+'eieb L.1 F �.`_t�`..'�� CR . `�t� `��-. .��'t/,c. r��� °_"Pa ii` �t^g 7 SC � ( ll,.�i t•ss..� ..©CAT' ' U X,, '°>;' tip '�.. �rr� x �? <" a�t,•�� �...�:y. `,;�rl. 1 SAH •es if G Nw• :.'yn• 7``T f��/L 'l �`ltll•i /. Ilk lo 14 ^ 1 2 f ' 1. P -S rya 1 e �F4 :•'C `^' °:, i° ,�; �' a �w .?t H ` t-' y � t � 4 �\ �1•• 11 ° 1. AROLt t ncr rr,a►,v o� w :IS c° � w 1 ..i: ••�/ `�.tc '.'[/�a� ,y1 t t< •'s �,,3, �s0 S ,Y w 1.+~ LJ J • ? > �,:» ^ 4 F�Ftl�`���� a .,, a�e Rs• S`° , '. ta+ e7oy. ` ,' y si'i�D .� C a zr It ., L♦ +•++>0`i` _.y,i: t,. •tIt • y � "lo o ze .�,u'a S� ,rr.;..-I ' �/��Z� � _ ,4. ,/ _ ``// •o f"' S1�5 Al � O1 Zti .i N 'J 'f/•vim S ffI Ir R! t 4 a tTw l•p 79� C�C�to �'o\ _p •w /aro �{ •.i•mss• �� ' 6705 �. p 5,75. ;ry° $It to av �" ' sG= Sleo It 0 17 r ♦N RI^: ;�, i X406 ,`f' szs.p 14 1 1 .LES ` ,5... " 7� ^ t.•Y \ .. •'�� 1 5 f�i 10 °r .a irzp 14 ,1 S'_-/e �. 5 Z rt. -+ '•sem' -`.:;-0,�, �e°�'�' •'� vy`� ytib"0 �Mti _ `� ``� tE3- L/ .., ✓r.•7 \�;,,,, ���,� j 'ry,rS ,t': +- -•1' �, II,t0. / ti _ s � �',c �'�� �,8 `• t-T ry�s i 54c4 �� a S ,,j ::'1-e• r3(.SF tr, �>c ti .Y, '.i i 4 c ' � •4 Qui'„ '� •1 •,l t°n• J ie' +6 •� � �' 1 S• 1t `. Wf 5CY ° , 1}, .,,e•- Yr' , T f Fo, �6 y ^ •�- Y-` 17 LSF-y r 66 a tw y �� ase � n�•o °���� � Q ' � - I M =N o i i N8 y .PFS... r _ I ' 1 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council July 22, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Planning Director -'' SUBJECT: Acceptance of Tentative Parcel Map 13-85 LOCATION: 8942 Palomar APPLICANT: John Bunyea (Kennaly Engineering) On May 6, 1985, the City Council approved Parcel Map 13-85, sub- ject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommen- dation of the Planning Commission. The required conditions have been complied with and the final map is recommended for approval. HENRY ENGEN F MICHAEL SHELTON Planning Director City Manager HE:ps • _ �L i MEMO RAN D U M TO: City Council July 22, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Planning Director SUBJECT: Acceptance of Tentative Parcel Map 22-84 LOCATION: 9070 LaPaz Road APPLICANT: Donald & Mary Jane Giessinger (Volbrecht Surveys) On October 8, 1984 , the City Council approved Parcel Map 22-84, • subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission. The required conditions have been complied with and the final map is recommended for approval. `^a M let,J HENRY ENGEM MICHAEL S L ON Planning Director City Manager HE:ps • 7/22/85 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council July 22, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Planning Director SUBJECT: Acceptance of Tentative Tract Map 25-84 LOCATION: 3500 El Camino Real APPLICANT: Colony Park Association (Kennaly Engineering) • On November 5, 1984, the City Council approved Tract Map 25-84, subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission. The required conditions have been complied with and the final map is recommended for approval. 3M HENRY ENGEN MICHAEL SHELTON Planning D rector s._ F- City Manager HE:ps • -s7/22/85 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM: Georgene Kreinberg SUBJECT: Resolution 67-85 DATE: July 17, 1985 As you may recall, upon completion of the classification portion of the Becker and Bell study, employees had the opportunity to appeal classification recommendations. That process has been completed, and the appeals resolved. Therefore, I am recommending that the Council, through adoption of Resolution 67-85, establish a Classification Plan for Fiscal Year 85-86, which is based on Becker and Bell' s recommendations and which incorporates changes resulting from the appeals process. Attached to the Resolution is Exhibit I which is an alphabetical listing of the job titles which comprise the Classification Plan. When labor settlements have been reached and approved, salary plan • adjustments will be made and the Classification Plan will be intergrated with the salary plan and presented to the Council for adoption. The Classification Plan is being presented to Council now, so that the correct titles will be in place when the settle- ments are approved. 0 • a� • EXHIBIT I CITY OF ATASCADERO Classification Plan Fiscal Year 1985-86 City Manager Director of Community Development Director of Parks and Recreation Director of Public Works Fire Chief Police Chief Administrative Secretary I Administrative Secretary II Assistant Civil Engineer Assistant Finance Director Assistant Planner Assistant to the -City Manager Building Aide Building Inspector Building Maintenance Worker Chief Building Inspector Chief Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator Clerical Assistant I Clerical Assistant II Custodian Deputy City Clerk Engineering Aide Engineering Technician I Engineering Technician II Finance Clerk I Finance Clerk II Fire Captain - Prevention Fire Captain - Suppression Fire Engineer Fire Fighter Maintenance Worker I - Drainaae Maintenance Worker I - Parks Maintenance Worker I - Sanitation Maintenance Worker I - Streets Maintenance Worker II Maintenance Worker III Plan Check Engineer Police Officer Police Sergeant Records Dispatch Coordinator Recreation Coordinator Recreation Supervisor Senior Building Maintenance Worker Senior Civil Engineer Senior Park Maintenance Worker - 1 of 2 - EXHIBIT I - cont. Senior Planner Superintendent of Public Works Supervising Maintenance Worker Support Services Aide Wastewater Plant Operator-in-Training Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator I Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator IT Zoo Curator - 2 of 2 - M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council July 22, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Planning Director ,., RE: Proposed Resolutions to implement Ordinance 107 relating to fees for interim school facilities and concurring with the school district' s findings of overcrowding RECOMMENDATION: Following review and discussion - including the relationship of school impact fees with City-wide development impact fees approve with/ without amendments the attached Resolutions 62-85 and 63-85 which: 1) Concurs with the school district' s findings of overcrowding conditions and infeasibility of alternative means for mitigating conditions; and 2) Provides for fees for residential developments to be collected by the school district to mitigate overcrowded conditions. BACKGROUND• On June 24, 1985, the City Council approved a SB 201 Ordinance to pro- vide for the payment of fees for interim school facilities. This came at the end of a lengthy process of study by the City/School Committee and public hearings before the City Council. RESOLUTION HIGHLIGHTS: Resolution 62-85 accepts the findings of the Atascadero Unified School District Board that conditions of overcrowding exist in their atten- dance areas which cannot reasonably be mitigated other than by estab- lishment of fees to be devoted to interim school facilities. Resolution 63-85 establishes a fee schedule that has been in effect in the Lucia Mar Unified School District for a number of years. It was established as a compromise figure and has been adopted by the County and south County cities within that school district. The fees would range from $300 to $900 depending on the number of bedrooms and square footage of the residence. They would be collected by the school dis- trict and prior to applying for a building permit in the City of Atas cadero. The County has adopted the identical schedule in their ordi- nance which goes into effect 60 days after their June 11th action. Effective date for the collection of fees would be July 23rd, 1985. They would not apply to applications that had been submitted prior to that date. In addition, there is provision for semester reports to the City Council on the status of the fees collected and expended for RESOLUTION NO. 62-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO CONCURRING IN FINDINGS OF OVERCROWDING, MADE BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has enacted Government Code Sections 65970 and following in order to provide a means to alleviate overcrowding in public schools caused by new resi- dential development; and WHEREAS, that statute provides that whenever a school district finds schools will be overcrowded as the result of proposed residen- tial development, and the City concurs, no further residential devel- opment may be approved until an ordinance is adopted and implemented, providing for the payment of fees or dedication of land by residential developers to the school district; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Atascadero Unified School District (hereinafter the "Board") has made and presented to the City Council of the City of Atascadero a Resolution attached hereto and incorporated as Exhibit "A" containing findings, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that (a) conditions of overcrowding exist in the attendance area of the District within the City of Atascadero which will impair the normal functioning of educational programs in- cluding the reasons for such conditions existing; and (b) that all reasonable methods of mitigating conditions of overcrowding have been evaluated and no feasible method for reducing such conditions exist; and WHEREAS, on June 24 , 1985, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 107 known as the "Interim School Facilities Ordinance" ; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero held a public hearing on May 28, 1985 and July 22, 1985 on the finding of overcrowd- ing of the Board. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does find and resolve as follows: Section 1. This Council hereby concurs in the findings of the Board that (a) conditions of overcrowding exist in the attendance area of the District within the City of Atascadero which will impair the nor- mal functioning of educational programs including the reasons for such conditions existing; and (b) that all reasonable methods of mitigating conditions of overcrowding have been evaluated and no feasible method for reducing such conditions exist. v Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA ROLFE NELSON, Mayor ATTEST ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: A'114�-'A, (--2kT,SHELTON, City Manager PREPARED BY: A� HENRY ENGEN, Planning Director 2 �\ u EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 12 (To City Resolution 62-8 1 ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD Or' z EDUCATION RESOLUTION REGARDING CONDITIONS OF 2 OVERCROWDING LOCATED IN SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO 3 4 R E C I T A L S: 5 WHEREAS, this Board on December 17, 1984 adopted a Reso- 6ilution making those findings required by Government Code Section 7 65971 requesting that the Board of Supervisors of the County of 8 San Luis Obispo and the City Council of the City of Atascadero 9 impose fees as specified in that Resolution as a condition of 10 approval of residential development within the District; and 11 WHEREAS, this Board has been informed that the City i 12Council of the City of Atascadero will hold a public hearing on 131May 28 , 1985 on the findings of overcrowding made by this Board in 141that Resolution after which the City Council will be asked to take �- 15actionconcurring in those findings; and 16 WHEREAS, the Superintendent of this District as well as 17 representatives of this Board have met with officials and members 18 of the City Council of the City of Atascadero, at which meetings 19 the Superintendent and Board representatives have indicated their 20lwillingness to enter into voluntary agreements with persons seek- 21 ing approval by the City Council of the City of Atascadero of 22residential development within the City, which agreements will 23 provide for the payment of money to alleviate overcrowding in this 24 district which would be caused by such development in amounts not 251 to exceed those specified in this Board's Resolution of 26iDecember 17, 1984 and to immediately inform the City Council of 27i the City of Atascadero when the findings contained in that Resolu- SLH: r23 tion cease to be valid; and ` L/3004-85 i -1- II ry i 1 WHEREAS, the Superintendent of this District has recom d 2 mended that this Board affirm that it is willing (pending adopt * ' 3 b the Cit Council of the Cit of Atascadero of an ordinance ur- 1 Y Y Y p 4 suant to Government Code Section 65970 , et seq. and application of 5 that ordinance to this District) to enter into voluntary agree- 6 ments gree-6ments with persons seeking approval of residential development 7 within the City of Atascadero, and that it will immediately inform 8 the City Council of the City of Atascadero when any of the find- 9 ings contained in this Board' s December 17, 1984 Resolution cease 10 to be valid. 11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Education 12 of the Atascadero Unified School District as follows: 13 1. The above recitals are true and correct. 14 2. Pending adoption by the City Council of the 15 City of Atascadero of an ordinance pursuant to Government 16 Code Section 65970, et seq. and application of such ordinance 17 to the Atascadero Unified School District, this Board agrees 18 to enter into agreements substantially in the form of Exhibit 19 � "A"A attached hereto with persons seeking approval by the City 20 Council of residential development, which agreements will 21 permit such persons to pay ( in the case of applications for 22 building permits ) or promise to pay ( in the case of requests 23 for rezoning property for residential use or approval of ten 24 tative subdivision maps for residential purposes ) those 25 amounts specified in Exhibit "A" in consideration of the Dis- 26 trict' s representation to the City Council that the over- 27 crowding expected to be attributable to said residential 28 development is or will be mitigated by such payments. -2- ' 53 1 3. This Board also agrees to immediately inform 2 the City Council of the City of Atascadero when it becomes 3 aware that the findings made in the December 17, 1984 Resolu- 4 tion cease to be valid. The Board hereby directs the Super- 5 intendent to report to this Board and the City Council of the 6I City of Atascadero quarterly as to the amounts of money 7 received under these agreements , the amount and object of i 8 expenditures made with the money so received and whether the 9 findings in that Resolution continue to be valid. i0 4. This Board resolves that a School Overcrowding 11 Fund shall be established into which any payments received 121 pursuant to these agreements (or pursuant to any school 13facilities ordinance ultimately adopted by the City Council 14 of the City of Atascadero) shall be deposited and hereby 15 authorizes the County Auditor and the County Treasurer to 16 establish said Fund for the District. 17 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE Board of Education of the 18 Atascadero Unified School District at its regular meeting of 19 May 6 , 1985 , by the following vote: 20 AYES: Baer, Beck , Boche , Brown , King, Merrick, Thiebaud . 21 NOES: ,None . 22 ABSENT: None . 23 ABSTENTIONS: 24 DATED: Mav 7 , 198S 25 26 /i, ,/?!�U , ANTHONY AVINA, S br'in•tendent 27 Secretary to th oard of Trustees 28 -3- , • 0 1 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and 2 correct excerpt from the Journal of the Board of Trustees pertal' 3 ing to the adoption of the foregoingResolution at a meetinghe 7 4 on May 6 , 1985 5 N ,H/3NY AVINA, ' per-fin, e'ndent 7 Metary to Board of Trustees 8 9 10 11 { 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 I 28 -4- r-/ EXHIBIT "A" *(To School Resolution N0.12 1 AGREEMENT 2 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 3 day of 19 , by and between the ATASCA-- 4 DERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ( "District" ) and 5 ( "Developer" ) . 6 W I T N E S S E T H 7 WHEREAS, the Developer is an applicant for approval of 8 residential development within the meaning of Government Code Sec- 9 tion 65972 relating to certain property known as i0 11 II 121 ( "Property" ) , which is located within the boundaries of the Dis- i 13trict and the City of Atascadero; and 141 WHEREAS, the District has found that proposed residen- 15ltial use of the Property would either cause conditions of over- 16 crowding to exist or aggravate existing conditions of overcrowding 17 in its school or schools serving the Property; and 18 ! WHEREAS, the District has further found no feasible 19 method for reducing such conditions of overcrowding which now 20 ; exists; and 1 211 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero, on 22i adopted a resolution concurring in these find- 23 .ings; and 24 WHEREAS, the Developer contemplates that, unless the 25 District represents to the City Council of the City of Atascadero 26 that a feasible method for reducing such condition of overcrowding 27 exists , the Developer ' s application may be denied pursuant to SLH: r28 Government Code Section 65972 or the Developer may be required to L/3004-85 -1- ' (l rr "J, 1make dedications and/or payments pursuant to an ordinance enacted 2 pursuant to Government Code Section 65974; and 3 WHEREAS, a feasible method for reducing such condition { 4 f overcrowding would exist if the Developer were to voluntarily 5 contract to pay to the District certain sums to be used for capi- 6 tal expenditures, including, but not limited to, those for addi- 7 tional classroom facilities in accordance with the following 3 8 schedule: 9 0-1 Bedroom Dwelling Unit , 849 sq. ft . or less $300 .00 i0 0-1 Bedroom Dwelling Unit, 850 sq. ft . or greater $500.00 11 2 Bedroom Dwelling Unit , 1349 sq. ft . or less $500 .00 12 2 Bedroom Dwelling Unit , 1350 sq. ft . or greater $700.00 13 3 Bedroom Dwelling Unit , 1949 sq. ft . or less $700.00 14 3 Bedroom Dwelling Unit , 1950 sq. ft . or greater $900.00 15 4 or more Bedroom Dwelling Unit , regardless of sq. ftg. $900 .00 4V 16 1 . EITHER (check and initial applicable blocks) 17 a. Developer is applying for an entitlement for residential development (including, but not limited to, precise plan, 18 conditional use permit , or subdivision approval) and agrees to pay to District voluntary fees in the. total amount of 19 $ (computed per the schedule above, to be used for capital expenditures ) , unless the City of Atascadero has 20 adopted an ordinance pursuant to Government Code Section 65970 and following prior to issuance of a building permit or 21 permits, in which case the Developer shall pay such amount as is computed per the then applicable schedule adopted by 22 the City Council of the City of Atascadero pursuant to that ordinance and to have payment of those fees established by 23 the City of Atascadero as a condition of entitlement for residential development . 24 OR 25 b. Developer is an applicant for a building permit or permits 26 and hereby tenders to the District voluntary fees in the total amount of $ (computed per the schedule above, 27 to be used for capital expenditures) as a condition of issu- ance of that permit or permits. 28 -2- 1 2 . EITHER (check and initial applicable blocks) a 2 a. District in consideration of Developer' s promises in para- graph 1 above agrees to make the representation specified in 3 paragraph 7 below. 4 OR 5 b. District agrees to expend the voluntary fees, whose receipt is hereby acknowledged, for capital outlay purposes and to 6 make the representation specified in paragraph 7 below. ' 7 3. School Overcrowding Fund. i 8 Moneys received by the District pursuant to this Agree- 9 ment shall be deposited in a School Overcrowding Fund and shall be 10 used by the District solely for capital expenditures for the pur 11 pose of mitigating the effects of overcrowding caused by residen 12 tial development . 13 4 . Sale by Developer of Property Without Improvements 14 Prior to Payment of Fees. " } 15 Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the Devel- 16 oper from selling the Property or any portion thereof either with 17 or without a residence thereon. If the Developer' s application 18 for an entitlement for residential development is granted and the 19 Property or any portion thereof is thereafter sold by the Developer 20 prior to payment of the fees specified above, the Developer covenants 21 that each buyer shall take title with notice of this Agreement and 22 will be required by the contract of sale entered into with the Devel- 23 oper to assume the obligations of the Developer hereunder to make 24 payments specified above. Notwithstanding any such sale and 25 assumption of obligations by the Buyer, the Developer shall remain 26 liable for the payments to be made pursuant to this Agreement and, �.. 27 in the event of any default on any of such payments by any such 28 buyer, the Developer shall , within ten ( 10) days following receipt -3- ' 1 Df demand therefor, remit to the District the amount of such 2 installments in default. The District shall not be required, as - 3 condition precedent to the making of such demand upon the Devel- 4 open, to take any affirmative action to collect such delinquent 5 payments from such buyers . 6 5. Attornev' s Fees . 7 In the event suit is brought by the District to enforce 3 8 the payment of any amount which has become due under this Agree- 9 ment, , a reasonable attorneys ' fee to be fixed by the court shall 10 be paid to the prevailing party by the other party. 11 6 . Developer ' s waiver of Claims. 12 Developer agrees not to seek, and waives any claim or I 13 11rightto recover, the fees paid under this Agreement except to the 14 (extent that they are not used by District for the purposes soeci- 15 ified in Paragraph 3, above. 16 7 . District' s Representations to the City of 17 Atascadero. 18 I The District shall represent to the Cit Council � � y of the 19 City of Atascadero, in such manner and at such time during the 20 term of -this :Agreement as the Developer may reasonably require, 21 that- by reason of this Agreement a feasible method exists for 22 reducing the conditions of overcrowding of schools which would 23 otherwise be caused or aggravated by the construction of resi- 24 dences on the Property which construction is authorized by build 25 ing permits ,issued before or during the term of this Agreement. 26 The District shall be under no obligation to make any such repre- 27 sentations respecting construction authorized by building permits 28 issued after the expiration of the term of this Agreement. -4- 1 8. Term of Agreement . 2 The term of this agreement shall commence on the day and 3 year first above written and shall terminate upon expiration of the i 4 entitlement . 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the . parties hereto have executed 6 this Agreement as of the da and y year first above written. ' ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT a 8 9 By i0 11 DEVELOPER(S) 12 13 14 15 16 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 17 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO) ss, 18 On this day of in the 19 year before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public, per- 20 sonally appeared 21 personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis satisfactory 22 evidence) to be the person(s) whose name is/are subscribed to this 23 instrument , and acknowledge that he/she (they) executed it . 24 25 26 >.,A 27 28 -5- . • RESOLUTION NO. 63-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF • ATASCADERO ADOPTING FEES FOR THE "INTERIM SCHOOLS FACILITIES ORDINANCE" WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero has adopted Ordinance No. 107 known as the "Interim School Facilities Ordinance and WHEREAS, Section 3-06 .11 of Ordinance 107 provides for the adop- tion of a schedule of fees required to be paid by developers. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The following schedule of fees shall be effective July 23, 1985• 0-1 bedroom dwelling unit, 849 sq. ft. or less $300. 0-1 bedroom dwelling unit, 850 sq. ft. or greater $500. 2 bedroom dwelling unit, 1,349 sq. ft. or less $500 2 bedroom dwelling unit, 1,350 sq. ft. or greater $700. 3 bedroom dwelling unit, 1,949 sq. ft. or less $700. 3 bedroom dwelling unit, 1,950 sq. ft. or greater $900. 4 + bedroom dwelling unit, regardless of sq. footage $900. 2. Fees shall be deposited at the Atascadero Unified School Dis- trict offices at 6800 Lewis Avenue prior to applying for a building permit. Proof of payment in the form of a certified copy of the district' s receipt for residential construction at the project address shall be submitted to the building division as part of the application for a building permit. 3. This schedule of fees shall not apply to residential develop- ment building permit applications which were accepted by the Building Division as complete applications prior to July 23, 1985. 4. In addition to the annual report required pursuant to Ordi- nance 107, the school district shall provide the City Council with semester reports on the general status of fees collected and expended for interim school facilities. On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following vote: AYES: NOES: • ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By: ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES, Interim City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager PREPARED BY: �.. HENRY ENGEN, Planning Director 2 ORDINANCE NO. 107 7 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ADDING CHAPTER 6 f TO TITLE 3 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO DEDICATION OF LAND AND PAYMENT OF FEES FOR INTERIM SCHOOL FACILITIES THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTIQN 1 : Chapter 6 is added to Title 3 of the Atascadero Municipal Code to read as follows: CHAPTER 6 INTERIM SCHOOL FACILITIES Sections: 3-6. 01 Title. 3-6.02 Purpose. 3-6. 03 Authority. 3-6. 04 General Plan. 3-6.05 Regulations. 3-6.06 Definitions. 3-6.07 Notification of Conditions of Overcrowding. 3-6.08 Content of Findings. 3-6.09 City Council 's Public Hearing on Overcrowding. 3-6. 10 School District Plan to Solve Overcrowding. 3-6.11 Dedication of Land or Payment of Fees by Developers. 3-6.12 Processing of Application. 3-6.13 Use of Land and Fees. 3-6.14 Exemptions. 3-6.15 Payment of Fee. 3-6.16 Refunds of Paid Fees. 3-6.17 Termination. 3-6.18 Accounting and Annual Report. 3-6. 01 Title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Interim School Facilities Ordinance. " 3-6.02 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a method for financing interim school facilities necessitated by conditions of overcrowding caused by new residential developments. - �rL 3-6. 03 Authority. This chapter is adopted pursuant to . the provisions of Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. 3-6. 04 General Plan. The City's General Plan provides for the location of public schools. Interim school facili- ties to be constructed from fees or land required to be dedicated or both shall be consistent with the General Plan. 3-6.05 Regulations. The City Council may from time to time, by resolution, issue regulations to establish fees, administration, procedures, interpretation and policy direction for this ordinance. 3-06. 06 Definitions. The following terms shall have the following meanings when used in this chapter: (a) "Attendance area" means that _. area established by the governing board of the school district, within which children must reside to attend a particular school; (b) "Building permit" means a building permit for residential development, an application for which was not accepted for processing by the Planning Department of City on the effective date of this ordinance; (c) "City Council" means City Council of the City of Atascadero; - "Conditions Of overcrowding" means that the total(d) • enrollment of a school, including enrollment from proposed development, exceeds the capacity of such school; (e) "City Clerk" means City Clerk of City; (f) "Developer" means any person, association, firm, partnership, corporation, other business entity, or public agency establishing, installing, or constructing a residen- tial dwelling unit; (g) "Dwelling unit" means a building or portion thereof, or a mobile home, designed for residential occupa- tion by one person or a group of two or more persons living together as a domestic unit. Dwelling unit shall not -mean remodels or room additions to existing residential struc- tures nor shall it include hotel or motel units; (h) "Interim school facilities" means temporary classrooms not constructed with a permanent foundation and defined as a structure containing one or more rooms, each of which is designed, intended and equipped for use as a place for formal instruction of pupils by a teacher in a school; temporary classroom toilet facilities not constructed with a permanent foundation; and reasonable site preparation and installation of temporary classrooms and toilet facilities; (i) "Planning Director" means the Planning Director of City; -2- (j ) "Reasonable methods for mitigating conditions of overcrowding" include, but are not limited to: r (1) The use of all available revenues, including general fund, to the full extent authorized by law; (2) Attendance area boundary adjustments; (3) The use of school district property for temporary use buildings; (4) The temporary or permanent use of other schools in the district not having overcrowded conditions; (5) The use of student transportation; (6) The use of existing and proposed relocatable structures (7) The full use of funds whish could be avail- able from the sale of surplus school district real property; (8) Eliminating non-mandated school programs and facilities; (9) The use of classroom double sessions; (10) The use of year-round school programs; and (11) The pursuit and use of available tax, bond, state lottery allocations and other revenue procedures to the full extent authorized by law; (k) "Residential development" means a project requir- ing a building permit for residential dwellings, including mobile homes, of one or more units. 3-06.07 Notification of Conditions of Overcrowding. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 65970 et seq. , the governing board of any school district operating an elemen- tary or high school may, with respect to any of its atten- dance areas located in whole or in part within the City of Atascadero make and file with the City Council written findings supported by clear and convincing evidence that: (a) Conditions of overcrowding exist in the school or schools of such attendance area which will impair the normal functioning of educational programs, including the reasons for such conditions existing; and (b) All reasonable methods for mitigating conditions of overcrowding have been evaluated and no feasible method for reducing such conditions exists. 3-06.08 ContQnt of Findincga. Findings filed pursuant to Section 3-06.07 shall contain the following: (a) A precise description of the geographic boundaries of the attendance areas to which the findings relate; (b) A list of the mitigation measures evaluated by the governing board of the school district and a statement of the reasons why such measures were found to be infeasible; - (c) The evidence upon which such findings were based; and -3- \C (d) Such other information as may be required by the . Planning Director or City Council to carry out the purposes of this chapter. 3-06. 69 City Council's Public Hearing on Overcrowdina. Within thirty (3) days of receipt of a school district's complete notice of overcrowding pursuant to Sections 3-06. 07 and 3-06.08, the City Council shall commence a public hearing, and shall thereafter do one of the following: (a) Concur in the school district's findings of overcrowding; (b) Request additional information to verify the school district' s findings of overcrowding; or (c) Reject the school district' s findings of over- crowding and inform the school district of the reasons for such rejection. If the City Council concurs with a school district's findings that conditions of overcrowding exist within an attendance area, it shall adopt a resolution specifying its concurrence based upon the evidence provided in the school district's notice and findings. 3-06.10 School District Plan to Solve Overcrowding. After the City Council' s adoption of a ,resolution of concur- rence with the school district's notice and findings, the governing body of the school district shall submit a de- tailed plan or schedule specifying for such affected atten- dance area how it will use land or fees, or both, to solve the conditions of overcrowding. The schedule shall include, for each attendance area, the school sites to be used, the classroom facilities to be made available, and the times a when such facilities will be available. In addition, the school district shall provide data showing the least expen- sive methods for financing the district's plan, including the cost of leasing for a maximum period of five (5) years interim use facilities. In the event the governing body of the school district cannot meet the schedule, it shall submit modifications to the City council together with the reasons for the modifications. The City Council shall review such plan at a regular meeting, and shall approve or disapprove it. If the City Council disapproves the plan, it shall provide the school district with written notice of its reasons for disapproval. 3-06.11 Dedication- of Land or Payment of Fees by Developers. After the City Council 's approval of the school district' s plan, no building permit shall be approved in the attendance area described in said notice and findings, until the developer has either dedicated land, paid fees, or provided both dedicated land and fees or agreed to dedicate i land, pay- fees, or provide both dedicated land and fees to the school district as hereinafter provided. (a) Fees. The City Council shall establish fees by resolution and may amend such fee schedules from time to time. If the City Council does not concur with the amount of fees to be paid requested by the governing board of the school district, the City Council shall, by resolution, adopt such amount of fees as it may deem proper in lieu of that requested. The City may require the school district to provide updated information to the City Council from time to time which the City Council may utilize in electing to adjust fees. Such information may consist of, but is not limited to, new census data for the City or portions thereof, school census data for the City or portions thereof, new lease and purchase data for relocatables, and changes in classroom maximums or standards. The amount of fees to be paid shall bear a reason- able relationship and will be limited to the needs of the community for interim school facilities and shall be reason- ably related and limited to the need for schools caused by the development. } (b) Land Dedication. If the developer and the school district propose to agree to land dedication in lieu of fees or a combination of dedicated land and fees, the City Council shall consider the proposal within thirty (30) days of receipt of a written proposal by the school district, and may approve or disapprove the dedication or combination of dedication and fees after considering at least the following factors: (1) Whether lands offered for dedication will be consistent with the general plan; (2) The topography, soils, soil stability, drainage, access, location and general utility of land in the development available for dedication; (3) Any recommendations made by affected school districts concerning the location and amount of lands to be dedicated; and (4) Whether the location and amount of lands proposed to be dedicated or the combination of dedicated land and fees will bear a reasonable relationship and will be limited to the needs of the community for interim elemen- tary and/or high school facilities and will be reasonably related and limited to the need for schools caused by the development. 3-06. 12 Processing Qf AD-plication. Prior to final approval of a building permit for a residential dwelling unit or units which is located in whole or in part in an -5- • 1 r attendance area where a school has been determined to be overcrowded pursuant to this chapter and for which the City y Council has adopted a fee schedule p pursuant to Section 3-06.11 (a) , the applicant shall present to the Planning Director evidence of one of the following: (a) Payment to the school district of the fees re- quired by resolution of the City Council adopted pursuant to Section 3-06.11 which is in effect at the time the applicant applies for a building permit; (b) An agreement in writing with the affected school district by which the applicant agrees to dedicate to the school district and the school district agrees to accept land to be used to relieve the overcrowding in the dis- trict' s schools as an alternative to payment of fees under subsection (a) above; (c) An agreement in writing with the affected school district by which the applicant agrees to both dedicate land and pay fees to the school district and the school district agrees to accept the combination of dedicated land and fees to relieve the overcrowding in the district's schools as an alternative to only the payment of fees under subsection (a) above and to only the dedication of land under subsection (b) above. The amount of the fees shall be determined by the City council pursuant to Section 3-06.11. (d) A written statement of the applicant, with supporting documentation, that there are specific overriding fiscal, economic, social or environmental factors benefiting the City which will justify the approval of such residential development without compliance with the fee payment or land dedication requirements of this chapter. If the applicant provides such a statement of over- riding factors under subsection (d) , the Planning Director shall place the matter on the agenda of the City Council for public hearing to be held not less than forty-five (45) days after receipt of the statement, and shall give the school district at least ten (10) days written notice of the hearing along with a copy of the statement. If after public hearing, the City Council agrees that overriding factors benefiting the City justify approval without the payment of fees or dedication of land, it shall direct the Planning Director to continue processing the application. If the City Council finds that there are not sufficient overriding factors, it shall direct the Planning Director to take no further action to process the applica- tion until the documentation required by subsections (a) , (b) , or (c) has been provided. The Planning Director shall refuse to grant final approval to a building permit for a residential dwelling unit which is within a school attendance area in which the -6- i • City Council has found that conditions of overcrowding exist and for which the City Council has approved the school district's plan to solve overcrowding, until the applicant has complied with this section. 3-06.13 Use of Land and Fees. All land or fees, or both, collected by a school district pursuant to this ordinance shall be used only- for the purpose of providing interim school facilities as defined in Section 3-06.06 (h) . 3-06.14 Exemptions. Residential development shall be ` exempt from the requirements of this ordinance when it consists of any one or more of the following• (a) Any modification or remodeling of an existing legally established dwelling unit; (b) A condominium project converting an existing _ apartment building into condominiums where no new dwelling units are added or created; (c) Any rebuilding of a legally established dwelling unit destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God or other accident or catastrophe; (d) Any rebuilding of a historical building recog- nized, acknowledged and designated as such by the City Planning Commission or City Council; (e) Any residential development where the City Council finds there are specific overriding fiscal, economic, social or environmental factors benefiting the City which, in the sole judgment of the City Council would justify the approval of such development without the payment of fees or dedica- tion of land. 3-06.15 Payment of Fee. If the payment of fees is required, such payment shall be made by the developer to the school district prior to the time of issuance of the build- ing permit. 3-06.16 Refunds of Paid Fees. If a building permit approval is vacated or voided and if the affected school district still retains the land or fees collected therefor, and if the applicant so requests in writing, the governing body of the school district shall order the land or fees returned to the applicant. 3-06.17 Termination. As soon as overcrowding condi- tions cease to exist or reasonable methods of mitigating conditions of overcrowding are feasible, the school district shall immediately notify the City Council. Upon receiving such notice, or upon City Council 's determination that >f overcrowding conditions cease to exist or that reasonable -7- • • ii k y methods for mitigating conditions of overcrowding are feasible, the City council shall cease the requirement of 3 . fees or land dedication required by phis chapter. In any event, this chapter shall be automatically repealed and of no further force and effect three (3) years from the date of this ordinance. 3-06. 18A ccounting and Annual Report. Any school district receiving funds or land pursuant to this ordinance shall maintain a separate trust account for any funds paid. Within one month of the end of each school semester, the district shall file with the City Council a report speci- fying for the reporting period the amount of funds received, the use made of funds expended, and reasons for the con- tinued need of such funds, if any exist. In addition, the reports shall specify which attendance areas will continue to be overcrowded when the next term begins and when and where conditions of overcrowding will no longer exist. The district shall also annually provide, within three (3) months of the end of the district's fiscal year, an indepen- dent audit of the school fee trust account. The City may, at any reasonable time, cause an independent audit to be conducted of the fees collected by the governing board of the school district for the purposes authorized by this section. SECTION 2 : If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validAty or the constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby de- clares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 3 : This ordinance shall become effective upon its passage by a four-fifth's vote as an urgency measure for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety. The Council finds that further delay in being able to evaluate and implement methods to mitigate reported overcrowded conditions in the Atascadero Unified School District will hamper the ability of the City Council to take steps to mitigate this reported situation, thereby justifying having this ordinance become effective immedi- ately upon its passage. u -8- _J4 SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be automatically repealed and have no further effect three (3) years from the date of its final passage. SECTION 5: The City Clerk shall cause this ordi- nance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in this City in accordance with Government Code Section 36933 ; shall certify the adoption of this ordinance; and shall cause this ordinance and its certification to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of this City. s On motion by Councilman Molina , seconded by Councilwoman Mackey , the foregoing Ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: ADOPTED: June 24 , 1985 AYES: Councilmen Molina & Handshy, Councilwoman Mackey and Mayor Nelson NOES: Councilwoman Norris ABSENT: NONE ROLFE NE SON, Mayor . ATTEST.- ROBERT M. JON9S, City Clerk APPROVErf AS �O FORM: APPROVE AS TO CONTENT: \�o _ ROGE jC.' LYON JR. MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager Interim Citi Attorney _9- • E t Atascadero Unified School District "Where students and their education are paramount" 6800 LEWIS AVENUE ANTHONY AVINA, Ed.D. ATASCADERO, CA 93422 District Superintendent PHONE: (805) 466-0393 June 19, 1985 TO: Henry Engen - Planning Director City of Atascadero �!' FROM: Ernest W. Taylor, Business Manager g � SUBJECT: School District Plan for Utilizing Funds Collected as Mitigation of Overcrowding Problem A. Optimum capacity of current school facilities as of October 1, 1984, was 4345. High Schools 1471, grades seven and eight 714, and elementary 2160. B. Student population as of October 1, 1984, was 4468 which includes 73 special education students. High Schools 1469, grades seven and eight 696 and elementary 2303. C. Enrollment projections for the next 5 years are as follows: 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 K-6 2477 2695 2913 3131 3349 7-8 710 729 832 894 956 9-12 1539 1651 1763 1875 1987 D. Classrooms needed by 1989-90 K-6 3349 - 2160 = 1189 = 28.5 = 42 classrooms 7-8 956 - 714 = 242 = 27 = 9 classrooms 9-12 1987 - 1471 = 516 = 25 = 21 classrooms The above projections include data from a house count as of January 4, 1985, at which time there were 154 single dwelling houses and 232 apartments currently under construction. Carrisa Plains Elementary • Creston Elementary Lewis Avenue Elementary • Monterey Road Elementary Santa Margarita Elementary Santa Rosa Road Elementary Atascadero Junior High School Atascadero Senior High School Atascadero Adult School Oak Hills Continuation High School a �, (Henry Engen - Planning Director) page 2 Utilization of Funds Collected for Mitigation of Overcrowding Phase I - 1985-86 Lease eight relocatable classrooms Three to be located at Atascadero High School_ Two to be located at Monterey Road Elementary School Two to be located at Santa Rosa Elementary School One to be located at Creston Elementary School Cost of the eight relocatable classrooms Lease of eight relocatable classrooms ( $29,000 per unit) $232,000 Site preparation, utility hookups , walkways, furniture, cabinetry, and equipment ($11,000 per unit) 88,000 Total anticipated 1985-86 expenditure $320,000 Phase II 1986-87 Lease eight relocatable classrooms to be located on existing sites as necessary to provide housing for students in the neighborhood where the growth occurs. Cost of the eight relocatable classrooms Lease of eight relocatable classrooms ( $39,000 per unit ) $312 ,000 Site preparation, utility hookups, walkways, furniture, cabinetry and equipment ($11 ,00 per unit ) 88 ,000 $400,000 Phase III - 1987-88 Lease of ten relocatable classrooms to be located on existing sites or newly acquired sites an needed to provide housing for students in neighborhoods where growth occurs. Cost of ten relocatable classrooms Lease of ten relocatable classrooms ($39,000 vier unit ) $390,000 Site preparation, utility hookups , wa]_'_ways, furniture cabinetry and equipment ($11,000 per unix ) 110 ,000 $500 ,000 EWT:rr _ o LO - 00 u Cd o W ` O Cf) Uc Cf! tom- LO d+ N d+ LO di 00 Co I Co F. O CA 00 Co CY) NM r-i N l` O r-{ L, di I N c Cf) N m m m N m ce) cr) di di co I l� V: q di OO di X X 00 N M N � _Y�y L- 00 di LO O N Y Cn Y Q 00 00 C'7 ri � x L� U rl u N O t0 N r—i Nco co u c u « 00 CA O O di d+ n i I O d+ N N QN O N NI+ 7- Q LO Q0 co di di c7 '� I Y Oil v, X Il coo u .. X CO r-1 N O 00 Q LC) rn o X did a CA O i` LO Co LO O N. t� O M N N ,-1( L) X C a. 1: >1 Cd c - ,H T W . v N �I o C �� Atascadero unified School District "Where students and their education are paramount" 6800 LEWIS AVENUE ANTHONY AVINA, Ed.D. ATASCADERO, CA 93422 District Superintendent PHONE: (805) 466-0393 June 18 , 1985 Mr. Michael Shelton , City Manager City of Atascadero P. 0 Box 747 Atascadero , CA 93423 Dear Mr . Shelton: We received your letter of June 10, 1985 on June 13, 1985 . You have asked a number of questions which I will attempt to address. A. The "student population income" as you call it is known as "revenue limit. " The District has a revenue limit of $2179.93 per ADA (average daily attendance) . The District has an average daily attendance of approximately 4310 in grades K through 12 < Unlike the City , the school district does not receive sub- ventions, additional revenues , or property tax income outside the revenue Limit . The only other income whish the school district receives is categorical income , (Categorical income is designated for specific programs and can be spent only on those programs. ) B. The District attempts to maintain a prudent reserve of from three to five percent of its total budget in order to take care of possible emergencies which might arise . C. It is impossible for the District to anticipate lottery revenues per student . If you have been following the lotterycontroversy , I am sure that you are aware that a federal judge has ruled that all the tickets for the California lottery must be printed in Georgia. Further , it is the considered opinion of the California lottery officials that they cannot produce the tickets in time for the first scheduled lottery . Carrisa Plains Elementary • Creston Elementary • Lewis Avenue Elementary Monterey Road Elementary Santa Margarita Elementary • Santa Rosa Road Elementary • Atascadero Junior High School Atascadero Senior High School • Atascadero Adult School Oak Hills Continuation High School Mr . Michael Shelto City Manager June 18, 1985 page 2 Revenue for subsequent fiscal years will depend on the popularity of the lottery . I am sure that you are aware that no lottery funds may be spent on acquiring school facilities. The intent of the lottery is to enhance the education of the students of the State of California. It was not the intent of the electorate to provide funding for facilities . The electorate approved a bond measure for construction on the same ballot and were aware that SB 201 fees are available to districts which are experiencing overcrowding . You have questioned the number of additional classrooms needed by the District . A survey of the District indicated the following needs--which are immediate without considering future growth : Lewis Avenue Elementary 2 - Special education classrooms needed to house students presently housed in an inadequate area. 1 - Classroom to house computer education which is presently housed in an inadequate area. 1 - Classroom needed for conversion to a library facility . There is currently no library at Lewis Avenue School . Monterey Road Elementary 2 - Classrooms needed in order to return three kindergarten classes from Lewis Avenue to Monterery Road in order to provide space for the current student population at Lewis Avenue School . 2 - Special education classrooms needed to house students presently housed in an inadequate area. 1 - Classroom to house computer education which is presently housed in an inadequate area. 1 - Classroom needed to house the library which is currently housed in an inadequate area. Santa Rosa Elementary School 1 - Special education classroom needed to house students presently housed in an inadequate area. 2 - Classrooms are needed to house students from housing units already completed , including 30-45 students bused to Santa Margarita School during the 1984-85 school year . Mr . Michael SheltO0 City Manaer June 18, 1985 page 3 Santa Rosa School (continued) 1 - Classroom to house computer education which is presently housed in an inadequate area. 1 - Classroom needed to house the library which is presently housed in an inadequate area. Santa Margarita School 1 - Special education/Title 1 classroom needed to house students presently housed in an inadequate area. 1 - Classroom to house computer education which is presently housed in an inadequate area . Creston Elementary School 1 - Classroom to house current student growth. 1 - Classroom to house office, library , and small group instruction as well as psychological services, speech therapy , etc . Atascadero Junior High School 1 - Classroom to house computer education which is presently housed in an inadequate area. Atascadero High School 3 Classrooms to handle growth and "move up" of students. 3 - Classrooms to alleviate the overcrowding which has resulted from dividing three classrooms in half in order to create six inadequately sized classrooms, It should be noted that the current need is for 26 classrooms to adequately house students and to provide for ancillary services. The District presently has a shortage of facilities for psychological services, speech , small group instruction , and for designated instructional services which are required under the law for remedial instruction . By providing the above-mentioned facilities, the District would free up space for these badly needed ancillary services. The 26 classroom units mentioned will only take care of our needs as of September of 1985 . Additional units will be needed in the fall of 1986 and again in the fall of 1987 to accommodate growth . This growth is directly related to the number of building permits issued and the type of development approved by the City Council . Mr . Michael Shelton , City Manager June 18 , 1985 page 4 You should also note the need for two additional buses . Their cost will go from $100,000 to $130,000 each. These costs have to be planned . With the added construction, we can expect a greater demand on transportation . As we indicated to the City in our correspondence of December 18 , 1984 , the cost of a relocatable classroom is approximately $51 ,000. I am sure that it is evident to you that the District is in the midst of a crisis situation that cannot be resolved by a developer ' s fee , but most certainly the developer fee schedule as proposed by the District and adopted by the County Board of Supervisors, will help mitigate the overcrowding which has resulted from the unprecedented growth in the City . I hope that this letter will give you a better understanding of the dilemma facing the school district . I would be happy to take you on a tour of the District to view first-hand the way we have attempted to cope with the growth in student enrollment . Thank you for giving me this opportunity to respond to your ques o"ns . Since ely y urs A t ony Avi d .D. istrict S perintendent EWT:ejs ADMINISTRATION BUILDING CI POST OFFICE BOX 747 - - :POST OF CE BOX 749+ ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93423 • • ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 PHONE: (805) 466-8000 PHONE: (805) 466-5678 CITY COUNCIL -+- CITY CLERK POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY TREASURER aseadel& _ POST OFFICE BOX 747 CITY MANAGER INCORPORATED JULY 2, 1979 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA93423 FINANCE DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805) 466-8600 PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' 0 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT RECREATION DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93422 --+- PHONE: (805) 466-2141 June 10, 1985 Atascadero Unified School District 6800 Lewis Avenue 'Atascadero, California 93422 Attn: Dr. Anthony Avina, District Superintendent Re: Memorandum of June 7, 1985 - Overcrowding of School Facilities Dear Dr . Avina: Per our last Committee Meeting, I would appreciate receiving, in writ- ing from you, the following: A. Student Population Income: Average daily attendance subvention and any additional revenues (property tax income, etc. ) receiv by the School District for new student population. An analysi of these_ revenues per student versus additional educational costs wousld be appreciated. B. A statement of all School District fund reserves prior to your recent acquisition of eight (8) portable module facilities. C. A statement of anticipated lottery revenues, per student, for next fiscal year and subsequent fiscal years thereafter. In accordance with Mr. Taylor ' s memorandum of June 7, 1985 to you, he indicates 18 additional classrooms will be needed for new housing permits issued last year. Does this figure mean that 10 more modulars in addition to the 8 will. need to be provided? Also, I would appreciate a printout for the next 3-years showing how many additional modulars need to be purchased each year. Please show the cost breakout per module on an annual lease basis with the aggre- gate cost increase each additional year . Sincerely, Eta Michael Shelton City Manager MS .k-v County of San- Luis Obispo r" COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER SAN Luis OBISPO,CAuFORNiA 93408 • (805)549-5011 ` TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: WILLIAM E. BRIAM, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE OF THE DATE• JUNE 11 , 1985 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT: HEARING TO CONSIDER REQUEST BY ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR ENACTMENT OF AN INTERIM SCHOOL FACILITIES FEE, PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE, INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT, AND PLAN FOR USE OF THE FUNDS Summary The Atascadero Unified School District has complied with all of the pro- visions of the school overcrowding fee ordinance. The ordinance requires that a hearing be held within 30 days of receipt of a complete appli- cation.cation. At the hearing, the Board of Supervisors must determine if it concurs with the school district's finding that (a) conditions of over- crowding exist in one or more attendance areas within the district which will impair the normal functioning of educational programs, including the reason for such conditions existing; and (b) that all reasonable methods of mitigating condition of overcrowding have been evaluated and no feas- ible method for reducing such condition exist. In addition, the school district has submitted for the Board's consideration a proposal fee sche- dule, an indemnification agreement signed by the chairman of the Board of Trustees, and a plan for the use of the funds to be raised, if your Board enacts the proposed fees. Recommendation That the Board concur in the finding of overcrowding and that no reason- able mitigation methods exist, and approve the proposed fee schedule and plan for the use of fees by adopting the attached ordinance. Discussion The Board of Supervisors pursuant to Government Code Section 65970 et, seq. has enacted an Interim School Facilities Ordinance which sets forth a procedure whereby a school district may receive fees and/or land dedi- cation from developers of residential property to alleviate overcrowded school conditions. The purpose of the Ordinance is to provide an "interim" method of providing classroom facilities and is not intended as a long-term solution to problems relating to school finances. Interim facilities are limited to temporary classrooms, not constructed with a permanent foundation, temporary classroom toilet facilities, and reason- able site preparation and installation. In addition, as soon as over- crowding conditions no longer exist, the county must cease to levy the interim school facilities fee or require the dedication of any land, (7 pursuant to the ordinance. �, Board of SuP erviso June 11 , 1985 • • Page 2 l Within 30 days of receipt of a school district's complete notice of over- i crowding, the Ordinance requires the Board to commence a public hearing and take one of the foliowing courses of action: (a) Concur in the school district's findings of overcrowding; (b) Request additional information to verify the school district's findings of overcrowding; or (c) Reject the school district's findings of overcrowding and inform the school district of the reasons for such rejection. In order to enact the interim school facilities fee the Board must concur with the school district that (a) conditions of overcrowding exist in one or more attendance areas within the district which will impair the normal functioning of educational programs, including the reason for such condi- tions existing; and (b) that all reasonable methods of mitigating condi- tions of overcrowding have been evaluated and no feasible method for reducing such conditions exist. The Ordinance requires that certain specific information be supplied to the county to aid in an assessment of the overcrowded condition of a school district. All of the information supplied by the Atascadero Unified School District is available in the Administrative Office, and is included in the Clerk' s file. To assist the Board in its consideration of the matter, staff has provided summary information in this staff report rather than supply verbatim the more detailed information that is available for your review in the file. Items Required by the Ordinance: a) A precise description of the geographic boundaries of the attendance areas to which the findings relate. A map and narrative description has been provided and is sufficient for the purpose of determining where the fees would apply. In sum- mary, the school district has determined that overcrowding exists district-wide and therefore that fees should be applied equally throughout the geographic boundaries of the district's attendance areas. b) A list of mitigation measures evaluated by the governing board of the school- district and a statement o the reasons why such measures were found to be infeasible. The school district considered the following mitigation measures before concluding that the district was overcrowded pursuant to the Ordinance: r t. „ Board of Supervisor June 11 , 1985 Page 3 1 . Double sessions 2. Temporary classrooms 3. Sale of surplus real property 4. Developer agreements 5. Elimination of low priority schools of facilities At the request of the Administrative Office the school district also considered and determined to be infeasible the following mitigation measures: 1 . The use of all available revenues for building to the full extent authorized by law. 2. Attendance area boundary adjustments. 3. Use of other school district property for temporary school use. 4. Temporary or permanent use of other schools in the dis- trict that are not currently overcrowded (e.g., Atascadero High and Junior High Schools). 5. Student transportation 6. Year-round schools. 7. Finding space in existing structures by more efficient use of space; using space in other public or private buildings within reasonable proximity; using surplus space/facilities in neighboring school districts through inter-district agreements. 8. Maximum utilization of present facilities by extending the school day and/or extending the school year. 9. Resource Center School Plan, using a series of separate buildings within reasonable proximity of "home base” schools, and/or a joint occupancy plan (finding a public or private partner to share facility space). 10. Mitigation or Environmental Impact Fee, asking the city or county, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to levy fees by local ordinance to mitigate the effects of a proposed development. 11 . Lease of Property, that is not in use. 12. Lease-Purchase Arrangements, with private builders of portable classrooms. ;�t Board of Supervisor, • June 11 , 1985 Page 4 13. Ownership by non-profit corporation or charitable foun- dation. 14. Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act to "purchase, con- struct or rehabilitate any real or tangible property" within a specific boundary. 15. Tax Increment Financing, through participation in a local redevelopment authority (to be established). 15. Benefit or Special Assessments (not a special tax). 17. Certificates of Participation. Again, the reasons for the school district's rejection of these mitiga- tion measures are available for Board review in the permanent file. c) A summary of the evidence upon which such ffndings were based. The information for this section is provided in Section (b) above and is available in the permanent file. d) A proposed schedule of fees with supporting calculations and date The proposed fee schedule is included as Attachment "A" with the attached ordinance. The fee schedule, as proposed, is identical to that which was adopted last year by the Board for the Lucia Mar Unified School District. Atascadero Unified School District has also concluded in a discussion with an architectural firm that the basic cost per temporary classroom would range between $39,000 and $52,000. An additional $11 ,000 would be necessary to install and equip the classrooms. Based upon the above information, and using the lower bid figure of $39,000, the district has further concluded that it would cost $1 ,752 per student to provide relocatable classrooms at an average of 28.5 students per classroom. This has been calculated by the district to an average fee of $701 .05 per dwelling unit based upon an average .4 students per household. The fee schedule proposes a per bedroom/square footage charge ranging from $300 for a small one-bedroom unit to $900 for four or more bedrooms. The "average" house, to be charged $700, would be a 2 or 3 bedroom dwelling of 1350-1949 square feet. e) A proposed indemnification agreement. County Counsel has reviewed the indemnification agreement included as Attachment "B" with the attached ordinance. The Board will note s that the agreement has been signed by the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Atascadero Unified School District and must also be signed by the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to become effec- tive. ` Board of Supervisors June 11 , 1985 Page 5 f) Such other information as may be required. The school district has been most cooperative during the course of the past several months and has supplied additional information as required to staff in a timely and complete manner. The permanent file containing all information supplied by the district is avail - able for the Board's review. School District Plan for Utilizing Funds Collected to Solve Conditions of Overcrowding The school district's plan for the use of funds collected as mitigation of overcrowding- is included as Attachment "C". The Board is required to review the plan for consistency with state law and approve or disapprove it when considering adoption of the attached ordinance. The plan appears to adequately specify how the district intends to use the funds and includes a schedule of school sites to be used, the classroom facilities to be made available, and the times when such facilities will be avail - able, as required by state statutes. Staff therefore recommends that the, Board approve the plan, as submitted by the school district. Annual Report to the Board of Supervisors State law requires any school district receiving funds from the enactment of an interim school facilities fee to maintain a separate account for any fees paid. It also requires the school district to file an annual report with the Board of Supervisors on the balance in the account at the end of the previous fiscal year; the facilities leased purchased, or con- structed; and the dedication of land during the previous fiscal year. In addition, the report will specify which attendance areas will continue to be overcrowded when the fall term begins and where conditions of over- crowding will no longer exist. If overcrowding conditions no longer exist, the county will cease to levy an interim school facilities fee or require the dedication of land for interim facilities. The enactment of interim school facility fees are at best a "band-aid" solution to the financial problems facing school dis- tricts in this county and in the state. They do not provide. a permanent solution to how school districts must deal with long-term capital facility needs caused by increased development. WEB/PLN:osf 5837v r� ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO ADOPT FEES TO HELP ALLEVIATE CONDITIONS OF OVERCROWDING IN THE ATASCADERO SCHOOL DISTRICT The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do ordain as follows : SECTION 1 : The Board of Supervisors do hereby find, determine , and declare as follows : (a) Pursuant to Chapter 4. 7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, the Board of Supervisors has enacted an ordinance which provides for a procedure to enable a school district to receive fees and land dedication, or both, from developers to alleviate overcrowded school conditions ; (b) County Code Section 19.45.090 requires a school district to obtain Board of Supervisors ' concurrence in any claimed condition of overcrowding before fees , land dedication, or both, can be collected ; (c) The Atascadero Unified School District has applied to the Board- of Supervisors for concurrence that all schools within its district are overcrowded; (d) The Atascadero Unified School District has complied with the requirements of County Code Section 19 .45.080 and 19.45.100, including the submission to the Board of Supervisors of a proposed schedule of fees with supporting calculations and data, a proposed indemnification agreement in a form approved by the County, and a detailed plan and schedule as to how the 4C i • jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or the constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance . The Board of Supervisors p s here by declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections , subsections , sentences , clauses , or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional . SECTION 3 : This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after passage of this Ordinance, it shall be published once with the names of the members of the Board of Supervisors voting for and against the ordinance in the a newspaper of general circulation published in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California. INTRODUCED at aregular meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on the ay of 1985, and PASSED and ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, on the day of , 1985, by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES : ABSENT: ABSTAINING: i _3_ : f` Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California ATTEST: County Clerk and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors , County of San Luis Obispo, State of California [s EAL] APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT: JAMES B. LINDHOLM, JR. County Counsel Deputy County ounsel Dated: 2670e -4 c. ATTACHMENT A SCHEDULE OF FEES ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 0-1 bedroom dwelling unit, 849 sq. ft. or less $300 0-1 bedroom dwelling unit, 850 sq. ft. or more 500 2 bedroom dwelling unit, 1349 sq. ft. or less 500 2 bedroom dwelling unit, 1350 sq. ft. or more 700 3 bedroom dwelling unit, 1949 sq. ft. or less 700 3 bedroom dwelling unit, 1950 sq. ft. or more 900 4 or more bedroom dwelling unit, regardless of sq. ft. 900 �a-N ATTACHMENT B INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 7th day of May 1985, by and between the COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a political subdivision of the state of California (hereinafter referred to as "County"), and the ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a public corporation located in the County of San Luis Obispo (hereinafter referred to as "District"). WITNESSETH: Whereas,- there is an ordinance of the County at Chapter 19.45 of the County Code, adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65970 and following, and known as the "Interim School Facilities Ordinance"; and WHEREAS, pursuant to County Code Section 19.45.110, no residential development may be approved within an overcrowded school attendance area unless the developer has dedicated land and/or paid fees to the impacted school district for use in pro- viding interim use facilities to alleviate the overcrowding; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65972, the Board of Supervisors is empowered to approve residential development without compliance with the fee payment• or land dedication requirements of the ordinance if the Board of Supervisors finds that overriding fiscal , economic, social , or environmental factors benefiting the County justify such approval ; and WHEREAS, County Code Section 19.45.120(4) provides that a voluntary agreement between an applicant for approval of a residential development and a school district to mitigate the impacts of overcrowding caused by the residential development con- stitutes one form of specific overriding factor justifying approval of development without compliance with the fee payment or land dedication requirement of the ordi- nance; and WHEREAS, the District intends to encourage and permit residential developers to enter into voluntary agreements by which the developers will mitigate the impacts of their developments on the overcrowding which they cause. Such agreements will require the developers to pay to the District specific fees at least equal to the fees otherwise required to be paid under. County Code Section 19.45.110. Such agree- ments shall further provide that fees paid thereunder shall be used by the District -1- l n for any capital outlay purpose which the District Board of Trustees determines is necessary to deal with overcrowding caused by new residential development. Such agreements shall be binding on the successors to the parties involved. In the event that the terms of the agreements are not satisfied by the date of application for building permits, the agreements shall be void and the fee payment and land dedica- tion requirement of the Interim School Facilities Ordinance shall apply. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by and between the parties hereto that in con- sideration of the acceptance by the Board of Supervisors of the County of written agreements between the District and residential developers pursuant to County Code Section 19.45.120(4) as justification for approval of residential developments with- out compliance with the fee payment or land dedication requirements of the Interim School Facilities Ordinance, the Board of Trustees of the District, as Indemnitors, agree with the Board of Supervisors of the County as follows: 1. The Indemnitors will afford all applicants for residential development within the overcrowded portions of the District lying within the unincorporated territory of the County the opportunity to enter into agreements as described in the above recitals; 2. The Indemnitors will indemnify the County, its Board of Supervisors and each member thereof and all officers, agents, and employees of the County and the Board against any and all liability, l oss, costs, and damages which they may incur as a result of the enactment of the provisions of County Code Section 19.45,120(4) described above, and the implementation thereof, and of the acceptance, use, and expenditure by the Indemnitors of any fees paid to the District pursuant to volun- tary agreements between the District and developers which are accepted and relied upon by the Board of Supervisors as justification for residential development approval without otherwise complying with the fee payment and/or land dedication requirements of the ordinance; and 3. Upon written request of the Board of Supervisors, the Indemnitors will provide, at their expense and with counsel of their choosing, a full legal defense to any judicial challenge to the validity of County Code Section 19.45.120(4) as enacted or implemented, or to the acceptance, use, and expenditure of fees paid to the District pursuant to voluntary agreements with residential developers under that section. -2- r ! ! IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the {" day and year first above written. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO By; airman of the Board of Supervisors ATTEST; Clerk of the Board of Supervisors [SEAL] BOARD OF TRUSTEES ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Chairman of the Board of Trustees ATTEST: f Ole o t e oar o rTe-es Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM D; LEGAL EFFECT: JAMES B. LINDHOLM, JR: County Counsel By: Deputy County Counsel Dated (6011u) 010 -3- A l l AUHMtN 1 U Atascadero Unified School District "Where students and their education are paramount" f 6800 LEWIS AVENUE ANTHONY AVINA, Ed.D. ATASCADERO, CA 93422 District Superintendent PHONE: (805) 466-0393 April 8, 1985 TO: Paul L. Hood - Administrative Office FROM: Ernest W. Taylor, Business Manager SUBJECT: School District Plan for Utilizing Funds Collected as Mitigation of Overcrowding Problem A. Optimum capacity of current school facilities as of October 1, 1984, was 4345. HIgh Schools 1471, grades seven and eight 714, and elementary 2160. B. Student population as of October -1, 1984, was 4468 which includes 73 special education students. High Schools 1469, grades seven and eight 696 and elementary 2303. C. Enrollment projections for the next 5 years are as follows: 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 K-6 2477 2695 2913 3131 3349 7-8 710 729 832 894 956 9-12 1539 1651 1763 1875 1987 D. Classrooms needed by 1989-90 K-6 3349 - 2160 = 1189 t 28 .5 = 42 classrooms 7-8 956 - 714 = 242 t 27 = 9 classrooms 9-12 1987 - 1471 = 516 t 25 = 21 classrooms The above projections include data from a house count as of January 4, 1985, at which time there were 154 single dwelling houses and 232 apartments currently under construction. Carrisa Plains Elementary • Creston Elementary • Lewis Avenue Elementary • Monterey Road Elementary Santa Margarita Elementary • Santa Rosa Road Elementary Atascadero Junior High School Atascadero Senior High School • Atascadero Adult School • Oak Hills Continuation High School r page 2 Utilization of Funds Collected for Mitigation of Overcrowding Phase I: 1985-88 A. Lease or lease/purchase of 3 relocatable classrooms for Atascadero High School. If sufficient funds have been received consider the following: B. Lease or lease/purchase 1 relocatable classroom for Creston Elementary School. Phase II : 1986-87 A. Lease or lease/purchase 1 or more relocatable classrooms for Santa Rosa Elementary School. B. Lease or lease/purchase 1 or more relocatable classrooms for Monterey Road Elementary School. C. Continue to work with the State Allocations Board to try to qualify for funding for additional classrooms at Atascadero High School and the San Gabriel Elementary School Site. Phase III : 1987-88 A. *Begin construction of San Gabriel Road Elementary School. Either permanent or relocatable facilities. B. *Begin construction of additional classrooms at Atascadero High School. Either permanent or relocatable facilities. * Assuming State Allocations Board provides funding. Phase IV: 1988-89 A. Begin construction of an additional elementary school (site to be determined at a later date) Construction to be either permanent or relocatable classrooms, B. Construct additional classrooms at Atascadero Junior High School. Construction to be either permanent or relocatable classrooms. Notes 1. Timelines are targets only, dependent upon how fast the money becomes available. 2. The order of construction as noted in Phases I , II , III and IV is based on current assessment , as to which area of the District will grow at the fastest rate. 3. Should money. y be come available and a given undeveloped area be built up at a rapid rate, construction of a new elementary school might be considered in lieu of placing additional classrooms on existing sites. 4. The period from 1989 through 1999 will generate a need for an additional high school, an additional intermediate school and four additional elementary schools if present rate of growth continues. EWT:rr . 1 1 Atascadcro Unified School District "Where students and their education are paramount" W?m) Los, INTERNAL MEMORANDUM June 7, 1985 TO: Anthony Avina, Ed.D. , Superintendent FROM: Ernest W. Taylor, Business Manager SUBJECT: Overcrowding of Facilities. In checking with Henry Engen regarding developer fees he informed me that there were 366 housing unit building permits issued in the last year. If we assume that the units were 50°%, single-dwelling and 50% multiple dwelling and based on an average of 1 . 4 students per unit these units would generate 512 students. Based upon an average of 28. 5 students per classroom this increased student population equates to 18 additional classrooms. Based on an average cost of $51,00-'per relocatable classroom, the cost of housing these students could reach $918,000. EWT:rr e +, t _. �. tascaderc, unified School District "Where students and their education are paramount" INTERNAL MEMORANDUM June 7, 1985 TO: Anthony Avina, Ed.D. , District Superintendent Members of the Board of Education FROM: Ernest W. Taylor , Business Manager SUBJECT: Developer Fees On December 17, 1984 , the Board of Trustees adopted Resolution Number 8 which determined that overcrowding of school facilities existed in every attendance area and at all grade levels within the District . A copy of that resolution was delivered to the City on December 18 , 1984. Part of the resolution was information relating to the cost of obtaining relocatable. classrooms, the cost of utility hookups and related expenses. ' At that time a proposed developer fee schedule was developed based upon the premise that each housing unit would produce .4 students per household. During the six months that have elapsed since the District adopted their resolution of impaction, .the administration has been able to obtain data which would i_ndjgate that Resolution Number 8 significantly underestimates the impact of construction of new housing units on the District . It has been determined that the average new dwelling unit will result in the following ELEMENTARY SECONDARY TOTAL PER STUDENTS STUDENTS HOUSING UNIT Single dwelling .8 .4 1 .2 Apartments/Condos 1.2 . 4 1 .6 As stated in Resolution Number 8, the basic cost of obtaining a relocatable classroom ranges from $39,000 to $52 ,000 . The cost of installing the units , necessary utility hookups and furniture and equipment is estimated to be an additional $11,000. page 2 Based upon the above information and using the lower bid figure of $39,000 plus $11 ,000 forothercosts, it would cost $1 ,754 per student to provide relocatable classrooms using an average of 28.5 students per classroom. At this time there are far more multiple-dwelling apartment• units being constructed than there are single-dwelling housing units. If we ignore this fact and take a conservative approach that housing units will eventually be 50% single-dwelling and 50% multiple-dwelling we have a projected student yield of 1.4 students per unit . Using this projection it is evident that the District needs a-developer fee which will produce $2 ,456 per dwelling unit . In order to obtain fees sufficient to provide the necessary . interim housing units for the students of the district , the Board of Trustees should consider revising their request for fees to the following schedule: 0-1 Bedroom Dwelling Unit , 849 Sq. Ft. or less $2 ,050 0-1 It „ 850 it or more $2 ,250 2 „ it 1,349 ,, ,v or . less $2 )250 2 ,t it 1,350 It ,1 or more $2 ,450 3 it it 1 ,949 It It or less $21450 3 It ItIt1 , 950 It It or more $2,650 4 it itIt regardless of Sq. Ft $2,650 At the time that Resolution Number 8 was submitted to the Board of Truste-es, the Administration was aware that the fee schedule was a compromise which was initially worked out and agreed upon by the Lucia Mar Unified School District and builders in their district . The schedule was subsequently adopted by the County Board of Supervisors and the cities involved in the south county. At the time that Resolution Number 8 was recommended in December of 1984 the Administration felt that the compromise and the low fees that were recommended would meet with favorable reaction from the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors. The Administration had anticipated early acceptance and implementa- tion of the proposed schedule. In the past six months it is anticipated that anywhere from $75,000 to $100,000 in fees have been lost due to a lack of action on the part of the two govern- mental agencies. Because of the fact that the District has not had these fees in place it has had to use general fund revenues and funds that had been designated for other purposes to house the stu- dents which have resulted from the overcrowding. EWT: rr RESOLUTION NO. 53-85 RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL • CONFIRMING THE COST OF WEED ABATEMENT WHEREAS, the Government Code of the State of California, Section 39500, et seq. , provides that cities may declare weeds a public nuisance for the purpose of Weed Abatement; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Fire Department did abate said nuisance within the provisions of the Government Code, Section 39500, et seq. ; and WHEREAS, the cost of the work of abatement as shown on Preliminary Special Tax Listing for 1985-86 Tax Year was submitted in accordance with Government Code Section 39574; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero received the cost report and held a hearing to receive objections of any property owners liable to be assessed for the work of abatement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the report of abatement cost is confirmed as presented; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the costs of abatement constitutes a special assessment against the described parcels and shall be a lein on the property in accordance with Government Code Section 39577; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City is hereby directed to transmit to the • proper officials of the County a certified copy of the report for filing. On motion by Councilman and seconded by Councilman , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ADOPTED: ATTEST: I ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: } ' � f ROBERT K. JONES , MICHAEL SHELTON,`City I-Tanager Interim City Attorney • 777 7/22/85 M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council July 22, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Planning Director SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 4-85 LOCATION: 1875 E1 Camino Real APPLICANT: H.L.S. Properties, Ltd. REQUEST: To change the zoning map from RS (Residential Suburban) to CN (Commercial Neighborhood) RECOMMENDATION: Approve first reading of the attached draft Ordinance No. 109. BACKGROUND: On July 1, 1985, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing concerning the above-referenced application. Upon review, the Commis- sion approved the zone change request with Commissioner Sanders dis- senting. Chuck Evasius, 1845 E1 Camino Real, stated that when the subject lot was resurveyed, it affected a 12 foot easement on his property and pointed out he would like to see the lot developed because of the presence of many weeds on the lot. Tim Roberts, with Associated Professions, explained what took place when the lot was surveyed and stated that the applicants will be work- ing with Mr. Evasius to solve the easement situtaion. There was discussion among the Commission concerning the easement issue, whether there was a demonstrated need for more commercial prop- erty when there was already available commercial land for development. No one else spoke on the matter. Enclosure: Staff Report - July 1, 1985 Draft Ordinance No. 109 cc: H.L.S. Properties, Ltd. Associated Professions • Zone .L.S.H 4-85 Chan a g ( Properties/Associated Pkessions) 5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .El Camino Real is a major arter • erial with a 100 foot wide right of-way. 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban) 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RS, SFR South: CN, commercial East: RS, SFR West: CN, commercial 9. General Plan Designation. . . . .Retail Commercial (Neighborhood Commercial) 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Level to gently sloping with few trees. 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. ANALYSIS: This request to change the zoning map from RS (Residential Subur- ban) to CN (Commercial Neighborhood) reflects the change granted . under General Plan Amendment 1B-85. The applicant has contended that the proximity of the parcel to E1 Camino Real and the fact that property to the south and west is commercially zoned make the request a logical extension of the commercial area. The General Plan, on page 68 , designates the four corners of El Camino Real and Del Rio as one of two neighborhood commercial areas. The Zon- ing Ordinance defines commercial neighborhood uses as those which provide for small scale retail shopping and personal services at the neighborhood level. This zone is situated and designed to serve the limited shopping and service needs of the immediately surrounding residential area. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Zone Change 4-85 based on the find- ings contained in Exhibit A and recommends adoption of the attached draft Ordinance. DGD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings of Approval Exhibit B Location Map Exhibit C - Draft Ordinance approving Zone Change 4-85 • 2 1 Zone - Change 485 Fi�L.5. Pro erties Associated4professions g ( P / ) EXHIBIT A - Zone Change 4-85 Findings for Approval , Judy 1, 1985 FINDINGS: 1. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. 2. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan. 3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environ- mental impacts. 3 ' I` .r.3� 3��j 1 \ •k L .� � �:%> �{ at Jr• f � .a* \b \. � V '' � �p t o h t a cr _ N t � � - '• ` O � yyyp •—.� ''ir•f'�~C `, Ol •`-1 V�fr� \s� t, ,i� r�N"^^y� s 5. . °".�' y •`, 20 -o ;,,. ,., •; � a. � �-" o Zao° - li X H 1131 T $ CA f_.�..i.,_. . CF, . (PD?) *t" L, �1 :r - a'l't o�� t •~_ _ . . •�. ORDINANCE 109 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING SECTION MAP NUMBER 4 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY at 1875 EL CAMINO REAL FROM RS (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN) TO CN (COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD) ZONE. (ZC 4-85 H.L.S. PROPERTIES) WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is in conformance with Section 65800 et seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning reg- ulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will not have . a significant ad- verse effect upon the environment and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commissin held a public hearing and has recommended approval of Zone Change 4-85. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Council Findings. 1 The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. 2. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan. 3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse en- vironmental impacts and preparation of an Environmental Im- pact Report is not necessary. Section 2. Zoning Map. Map Number 4 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero on file in the City Planning department is hereby amended to reclas- sify a portion of Lot 31 of Block 49 from RS to CN as shown on at- tached Exhibit "A" which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Section 4. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and ef- fect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. The foregoing ordinance was introduced on and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: MICHAEL 'SHEUTON, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER LYON JR. , Interim City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Planning Director t .... � f/ h` .-__ �, ', •`•L �. �`--// \y'w .Cls - � ,\. M _- <. g• o. _ � /• _ ,� '1805 Ljl 00 Lo qcj i o s -• a•3 � tt R ha _ _ -' SOD CN 1� low �`► ', Y.` z -obi �O/ 1 *� x4� '=23 LAO te r_ Z a 00 � \� E X H I B I T A / �.. ZONE CHA14GE 4-85 RS tO CN 4 { • __7./22/85 _ B-4 M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council July 22, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager $f FROM: Henry Engen, Planning Director ME RE: Appeal by Levi and Marlene Barrett of Planning Commission denial of Conditional Use Permit 7-85 to allow expansion of existing residential care facility from four to fifteen residents in a Residential Suburban zone at 1950 Traffic Way. RECOMMENDATION: Uphold the Planning Commission' s decision and deny the appeal. (draft Resolution No. 60-85) ALTERNATIVE: Approve the conditional use permit subject to the attached draft reso- lution No. 61-85 and conditions of approval (applicant' s option B) . BACKGROUND: • On May 6, 1985, the City Council, acting as the City Planning Agency, considered this use permit request for a second residential dwelling to allow for the expansion of an existing residential care facility (refer to attached minute excerpts and staff report) . Issues raised at that time included compatibility with the neighbor- hood, access, adequacy of supervision, traffic, dust, fencing, etc. Action of the Planning Agency at that time was to direct staff to return with strengthened conditions of approval for consideration by the Planning Commission at their meeting of June 3 , 1985. At the June 3rd public hearing, the Commission considered the staff report, the neighborhood objections, responses thereto by the Barretts, and on a 4:3 vote, denied the request for a conditional use permit. Mr. and Mrs. Barrett, in their letter of June 24th, appealed the Planning Commission' s resolution denying the use permit which was formally ap- proved on June 17th. STAFF COMMENTS: Conditional use permits are a discretionary approval assigned to the Planning Commission except where such action is appealed to the City Council. Conditional uses in the zoning ordinance are characterized by uses that could be appropriate in their respective zones provided that there are appropriate conditions of approval and the use is com- • patible with the neighborhood. o- L t From: Levi and Marlene Barrett 1950 Traffic Way June 24, 1985 Atascadero Atascadero City Council Members: RE: Conditional Use Permit 7-85 We hereby appeal the decision made by the Atascadero Planning Commission at the hearing on the 3rd of June, 1985, and formally adopted by resolution on the 17th of June, 1985. We have tried hard to make our case before both the Atascadero City Council and before the Atascadero Planning Commission. Each time it seems we have been forced by the neighbors to respond to strongly emotional arguments and to insig- nificant and irrelevant questions of fact. Notice especially letter written by Mary and Clayton King on the Sth of May and our response to that letter. I have tried to respond to each of the allegations made by the neighbors, but feel somehow that their raising of these various issues are not motivated by sincere and honest intentions. This has resulted in confusion as to what the real issues are. We ask that you carefully review all the materials from the neighbors and from ourselves. Mr. Gehre has twice raised the issue of our having enough leach field in our back yard. It is interesting that Mr. Gehre is employed as a construction foreman by Bunnel Construction, a commercial construction firm. We would think that with his extensive experience in construction that he would not stoop to such an absurd and false accusation. Our plans show that we have 185 feet from the rear of our home to the shoulder of the drainage swale, with a 50 foot setback from the drainage swale required by the Planning Department. That leaves a 135 foot by 288 foot area for our leach field. We now have (3) 100 foot leach lines on the front of our property, which is shown very clearly on our plot plan. This is 73 feet of leach line more than necessary for our existing five bedroom home. Our plan shows that it is only 70 feet from the front of our home to the easement road, whereas we have almost twice that area in the back yard. It should be apparent to '1r. Gehre that we have far more leaching area than is required for the expansion of our care =aC47 ' . This cor_stant multiplying of issues, which are not issues, seems to be the thrust or the neighbors propaganda campaign and strategy in trying to stop approval of our conditional use permit. �t is disgusting, dishonest, inappropriate, and highly diversionary in _ts scope. This has resulted in confusion as to what the real issues are. We hope that you will not be swayed by number games (several people saying the same thinz) Cr J` strcn^ - emotional arguments. We Leel that ':e 'acts we present, many o • which CnnnCt be challenged, Sf1C' 1Q be sur f-dent evidence or our 700Q r-=-L 1. 1 s Atascadero City Council ,Members RE; Conditional Use Permit 7-85 Page Two We also hope that you will visit our site, walk over the land, ask any questions you desire and give us an equal opportunity torespondto any and all questions relevant to ,the projects At our hearing on the 3rd of June, I tried reading a response to Mr. Gehre's allegations in his letter dated May 21st and addressed to the Atascadero City Council. Our time was cut short and I was asked to summarize. The fact is I did not discover Mr. Gehre's letter until the 29th of May although I visited the Planning Department a number of timespriorto that. As a consequence, the Planning Commission was not able to read our letter of response prior to the June 3rd meeting and my time was consumed in trying to determine what were the Planning Commission's perception of the issues. As you may know it is quite difficult to talk to someone when you are not getting any feedback or very limited feedback from the person or persons you are trying to communicate with. Our new Planning Commission engaged in very limited discourse on the subject and seemed unwilling to define what they consider to be the issues. Planning Commissioner Bond, former CalTrans employee, stated that he thought a 30 foot red rock roadway was preferable to 16 feet of paved road. He also commented that 15 residents would tend to make the project more of an institu- tionalized one. If we had been allowed to respond to this observation, we could have responded as follows; An institution is usually characterized by physical structure and layout far different from a home and is usually much larger and lacking in 'intimacy, An institution is more impersonal, schedules are more regimented, and there are a greater number of attendants with less fixed responsibility. There are night shifts , day shifts and evening shifts in an institution.. These attedants are with the residents only eight hours a day. There is limited opportunity for travel and recreation outside of an institution - if there is any at all. In our facility, none of these findings will apply, Our attendants will live in the facility and establish relationships with the residents as caring concerned care providers. Our residents will have an expanded opportunity to participate in outside activities as well as finding more compatible companionship within the facility than otherwise available. In a facility with six or less residents, when the care providers get tired of being virtually chained to their residents and would like a day or evening off, they must hire someone at $4 or S5 an hour to sit with their residents. This person must be fingerprinted, have a physical, T.B. test, and their first aid certificate. They are thoroughly screened by State Licensing. You cannot arbitrarily get John or Jane Doe to come in and watch your residents. This makes it economically unfeasible to leave your re.sidrnts for anv extended period of time. This condition helps to create care provider d�. • Atascadero City Council Members RE: Conditional Use Permit 7-85 Page Three burn-out. Everyone should have some free time to themselves - completely free of immediate responsibilities. This free time stimulates more enriching inter- personal relationships, which in turn reflects itself in the type of care given to your residents. This is one of the reasons we are asking for an expanded facility, so that we might enjoy and our residents may enjoy more opportunities to go places and do things or stay home if they so choose. In our present situation, if someone wants to go to the movies, everyone goes; or those who don't want to go, stay home and one of the care providers (husband or wife) stays home with them. Of course, most of the time this results in husband or wife staying home. The Developmentally Disabled, just like normal people, have .many different interests. This can be frustrating, but it is human nature. We hope with this explanation you will understand that we have important social goals as well as economic goals and that our expanded facility housing eight additional residents would still have all the warmth and characteristics of a home. We also hope that you understand that the size of our expansion and the overall number of beds does not alarm the professional staff of Tri-Counties Regional Center or staff at the Department of Social Services. They know what they are doing and all of the second guessing by neighbors and uninformed comments only leads away from focusing on the real issues. Mr. Bond also made the statement that he was concerned about the 10 foot separation from our home to the proposed expansion. He expressed the view that there should be at least 20 feet distance from our existing home to the proposed expansion - for the purpose of fire protection. We have, therefore, went to considerable trouble to draw two new plans and are submitting them with this letter as Option A and Option B. Option C is the original plan that was submitted. Mr. LaPrade was the only other member of the Commissicn to make any comment pro or con on the project. His comment was, he thought the Developmentally Disabled made good citizens. We believe they not only make good citizens but that they ought to be treated as citizens - first class citizens. We feel that the City of Atascadero has an obligation to ensure that neighborhood bigotry does not become the established policy of the city. If 7. 35 acres is not big enough for such a facility, where in Atascadero and how much acreage would be required? g Atas,cadero City Council Members RE: Conditional Use Permit 7-85 Page Four We note that the General Plan allows one horse per half acre. Are not people of equal value with horses? We would like the City Council to know and understand that horses and other animals have been found to be very therapeutic for the invalid and the physically and mentally handicapped. We intend to have horses on our seven acres of the appropriate size and temperment for the Developmentally Disabled. They will be kept in the appropriate type of enclosure and the residents will be safeguarded from unsupervised handling of the animals. There will be no need for our residents to climb fences to get in among the neighbors horses. Those who have been around the Developmentally Disabled know that a fence is quite an obstacle to those who do not have the coordination that others in the community enjoy. We have never seen our residents climb a fence. We believe that young children in the neighborhood would be at much greater risk than our residents. With two young married couples moving into the neighborhood, how are we going to insure that they don't have children that will be hurt or maimed by these neighborhood horses. To single out the disabled continuously and talk about six foot high fence, no treaspassing signs, etc. , is pure unadulterated bigotry and does not deserve any other description. I checked with my insurance agent about liability insurance and I was informed that anyone having a swimming pool or horses should have liability insurance. I was also informed that if you have a homeowners policy (from Farmers Insurance) you can -obtain a half of a million dollars worth of liability insurance for $10.00 a year. That wouldn't appear to be a great ,financial burden for my neighbors and would be beneficial to them. As to the height of the fence, I think a five foot high fence makes a nice horse fence. I don't really believe I will be a financial burden on the neighborhood, but if you get enough people making this statement and other statements rooted in ignorance and bigotry, you may stampede the unsuspecting into making hasty and unadvised decisions. With discussion by only two members of the Commission, I think it fair to say we were left completely in the dark as to modifying or in any way bringing our plans into compliance with their unvoiced concerns. We, therefore, seek a new hearing at the earliest possible date and ask that you earnestly seek to determine the facts and not let the neighbors emotional feelings color your decisions. Thank you, Levi 0. Burrett June 24, 1985 Statement of Levi Barrett In Response to Letter of Mary and Clayton King, dated June 16, 1985 and Addressed to the Atascadero City Council RE: Paving of Road Over a year ago, Mr. Russell, our neighbor, agreed to use his labor and equipment to pave our 750 foot easement road if the other neighbors would provide the money. I approached three of our neighbors and told them of this generous offer. Mr. Phaklides informed me that he was not interested, because his house was fronting on Traffic Way and he would not be using the easement. Mr. Gehre and Mr. King were both enthusiastic about. the idea and indicated that they would be happy to participate. I then informed Mr. Russell and my wife that the Kings and Gehres had agreed to help pave the road. _ I` never expected that my integrity would be called into question a year later. I can only state that Mr. Russell and my wife were both informed a year ago about this agreement. If the City Council feels after hearing all the testimony that I should be obligated to pave the 16 foot width of roadway, I will be happy to comply. I have also indicated our willingness to fence our rear yard. What I don't agree with is the reasons given for these improvements by the neighbors. We expect to find the funding to finance our project, but feel if all of these objections are to be satisfied in the first phase of our expansion it might destroy our chance of qualifying for a loan. We hope that you will find that our expansion will not impact unfavorably on the neighborhood and that we will be allowed-to construct a model residential care facility that everyone can be proud of, even the neighbors. Thank you, 69 Levi 0. Barrett a June 24, 1985 r Response to Item 7=B of Dennis and Jeanette Gehre's Letter to the Atascadero City Council Dated May 21, 1985 RE: Splitting of Property and Circumventing the Subdivision Land Act Facts: We have created two new parcels of land in the neighborhood. Attached you will find a parcel map showing lot line adjustment of property where we currently live. This is not the same as a lot split. We do not intend to circumvent anything, but will obey the law as should every citizen. We do not anticipate failure but, with the new plans we have submitted, this will provide an improved plan should this ever become necessary. "- ThankY ou t Levi 0. Barrett co Qz It IT ,. Lqo ;a �� �aIE 14 I .,I �� Zi W$ s v ,�$ g �t ,fic i w Z7 i Z It ' - ---- r 14 • ` i ,�h Sp.�y e� y•Fe� � ,. '. )q !may 1 , , gg y - - �,� `=--_.�, �O.att�a.ei[-fix.+r,st•w• •� -_ -- � tu�d'��ti`i,� °- - - �- _i---- -- -�----- as . .li=— -- �"'�ss'sT. —� ; �s•�au ="� �, tea. . _� .�`�C i C t�� - • -+'-` '�'. r�•._- .. Q i 1 '+'•\...TCcTXr-;�•o 'jao -.+ �. � '%, r YO, toV!`.U•.��•�O _• 50 • pr i� w � t'�� � Z 2 � � - ' - � -• 1:'�' ! Lei .7 T!IF,fl I✓ � _ p �$ - � a y .. t .���____. __-i.:•••T's3 LN r'fJSyw-r...�f.CsG+.uw _�___ _� ^t3 �[ I w ( `rJ `` `• _ a 5, i V�t r` Zi,X�0.1;. �• t� I SS�y„} .. ,n - _../ .. S ���` ��a;pF � ..-��Q�(� to • �.g�/' � - Ito - 1v ROA1 tL 1 I y�N ���� ~► � `a R j �t �i ��m� f I �o�+�ao r r ti <. • 1 n• , yr, S y 1 �• (1ct � :6<< V °AL3°` '.� �3 :t;, •1• � ' ti _h C1 0 , b�� ±1" Ir CL 1 . ll� •' � �N .,fit '�•i r^' _ r 7! •, • ` ! IT cr - nit .a.4�t;1 r • 11 •. tu•1; 1 V� IIa K I3-R • 11. ,x IS-, � RITCMJw ,...A e+ 9FORpo1. ; u BE OROON Q !!? .Jl•-� 1' h J ► '�. U1 IM6 ROC" 11 OLv O X L n D o a D a y R. a A : 1 tY A 6--k.AIV-0 r� - 1!'d AIS!0 f ; OEOIIOO.!' BEDROOM BEDROOM REAR .1 k - y s CONCRETJ VI m n � C IO=- t_ m Z ( i D SQA IAl &C= 1;w 4 lrn 1 I a I'L RRrH W ° ni ere w o m HT1+ � rn � ~ -1 z LU C O L3 I„A 1 DI e w 7 • rQn V! 0-lowg i 00 U.) co � CLoSLx CLOSS7 a D =9 o . cr FC) q tn 3 � 7C O , W _1 cc CO -C �c CA a G'LOWT m 40 Ita D x o a m P0 ..., � �r.oSET V N- 4+. PAiJTA aVE 1 M D _ F- Z 0 c► ice LL Q D � i r 7 I -0- 00 R� E cr K a "' tj cfo v o � v • 3 0 .Q 0o m CLOSET CLOSET o O ' Q` 0 4 a 2 SET +� Z CCccr U1 O r i CLOSET _ to E O . 2 m Q UJ 2 � 2 In . �- 2 . Y PANTRY A CARrr GARaesE �, r b 1 J O i • r � 1 1.i WV IC 1, �� lit 11lHh�ill!ii! Lij v L cc 3 '� Y. awa�u C+ LL }'LL � LL t^ e � C M ,1 �„ a = c a --- ote IL rn r I IT � !f C � t o � , Jr € Q -0 UW uj 419 s f14 Q Q W La t NJl DI - I - IlilJaOJ f � � �^ - oN11 woobo 3B •.�O NOOlO jB Ilogl099 0 al .a ir.•-r1 � o:n r.•.11 � o-,�i r�-.Il 9 >" x d i NJOY 9w1n11 O'b Hol o-CI l 1;11 • 0 117 tA 3 C9 0 121,S • Ci 0 co D � 7 O i 00Z o x v ® Q� a m 7 CLOSLxT CLOss-r O oil 3 CLOSgETtn O X o � _� Q _o Z CD � S h A Q_ _ o k c� CLOSCT u O o � cc _ a LU z — � Z a _ O LOsa LJ Z � L6 PAUTAy D � M LLfl O t= 4 r en .. Q C D 4- N c cs Je �j xX � 00 a tj oc � O � o v V )-o Q� 00 00 � o• C4� a c CLOSET CLOSET O o O c 4 3 O . 2CO CD CLCSET h % K � � 0 "0 = - CL / O _ k 0 Q CLOSET m Q n o K QQ0 o O co I _} cLpsET 2 Y PANTRY L v _ � CF+PAcS E Lr x 35!-L.. Q- i i ,� •tom Uji 01 ui CL i 1. ,.. r IJI' IL r • t C� uif j • U i� til-I� v � 7 LU CA o � r e1 o LL °� c� LL IL o pi r., "ooLL c �y Q .9QtL }— O' M H1 Ha' Q� � Q -:74 • 4 uj lu ej E 1 P IIof stt 35V W9—a N �. sroea o;Sirt;t� g ray� w•,.•-•--. yl ' TL" i 01 , c Y n•,� �-�—"t'— o-err.�---=' O� • C C a e 0 1J 00 Ul) o o x LU ui, a � CIOSeT CLOSz'r O El © oIQ10 z coos 3 �T X o4 - Q -+ 'O uj -� tQ-- -� — o X a , -� p CLOWT JUm O o � � LU z — z ca a d -,4- LOSaT cp S QANTA� ovs T lu; . n c 1 W W 2 D Q 1 ,t -o i -r , Opo I I 0 O 1� 1 _ I w '14 G No i O � T,So1£ `Q v �IZI Q 4t o '� � Q � � O � u Q .SIG r q 0 Q o o U o *� r r--- PA NTiP y ti x 2 0 4 (, ' LINKS JULY 1985 Californ' Department of Developmero Diaabifities Serve 75,000 PWson,s - Gary Macomber ie State Director Which state department merit"s activities. has 14,000 employees work ', Budget ing around the clock The amount of funds ap throughout California; is the x propriated to DDS has second largest department ~.'; shown significant increases in state government; and in- since the advent of the volves itself in such diverse Deukmejian Administra- projects as obtaining- tion. In Fiscal Year 1984- Medicaid waivers and. 85, the Department received decorating the state Capitol the largest increase in the Christmas tree? history of the program.This The answer is the Depart- commitment of funds, coin- ment of Developmental Ser- ciding with a reduction in vices, which has come a long the Department's work way since its inception in Gary Macomber force, has allowed a greater 1918. number of dollars to be Staffing George Deukmejian in 1983. directly targeted to client One of I 1 departments His chief deputy director,Al services in the community. under the parent body of the Lee, and three deputy direc- The Governor's proposed Health and Welfare Agency, tors, Santi Rogers, ad budget for 1985-86(which is subject to change by the DDS claims more em- ministration; Paul Carleton, ployees than any other community services; and Legislature) is $843 million, department other than Cal Bamford Frank 1 a n d, an increase of $45 million Trans. hospital operations, are part over last year. 75,000 persons with of the management team Institutions The hospital operations development disabilities that oversees the $800 segment of the Department receive benefits from DDS. million department. In addi- Ten percent of them are tion, assistant directors for has received increased mien- residents of the eight state legal affairs, legislation, tion during the past two years. It is the starting point hospitals operated by the human rights, external af- Department. the remainder fairs, program assessment, of the Department's ,and reside in the communis or munity placement plan, and y communications, and plann- recently, received recogni- live at home with their ing and policy development tion and commendations families. All of the clients form the remainder of the statewide for achieving are served`through the 21- executive staff. regional centers system, Coals simultaneous accreditation ' geographically located for all eight hospitals sere- throughout the state to Early in the Administra- ing the developmentally dis- tion, the executive staff abled. provide maximum outreach committed itself to achiev- to people requiring services. The Accreditation Council ing a defined set of goals and for Services to the Mental- The needs of these clients objectives for the Depart- ly Retarded and Other are asvariedas the kinds of ment, A set of 10 major Developmentally Disabled services available to them. goals was adopted, and ob- Persons (AC/MRDD) an- Individual ProgramPlans jectives to meet these goals nounced last fall that (iPP),are devised for each are being completed and California was one of only individual with developmen- continuously revised by staff two states in the nation to t a I d i s a b i l i t i e s by members at all levels of the earn this prestigious, con- professionals at the regional Department. current accreditation. centers to ensure that These goals and objet- Community specific needs and goals are tives, ranging from "Reduce The community place- met by programs and ser- incidence or severity of merit plan currently being vices designed to achieve developmental disabilities implemented by the Depart- them. This personalized ap- through increased preven- mens reflects both the proach is perhaps one tion efforts," to "Promote national trend toward reason why the developmen- policies which encourage liv- providing services in shrill tal services system in ing in the least restrictive en- community facilities instead California is frequently vironment and which enable of large institutions, and the regarded as the model for persons with developmental import ancc the Department other states. disabilities to lead more in- assigns to clients being ser- Gary D. Macomber, DDS dependent, productive and ved in the most appropriate, director, was appointed to normal lives," provide the least restrictive environ the position by Governor blueprint for the Depart- meat. TO: Atascadero City Council July 17, 1985 RE: Conditional Use Permit 7-85 FROM: Levi Barrett 1950 Traffic Way We have diligently tried to answer every question concerning our project and have submitted two new plans that we hope will answer two questions that were raised previously by the Planning Commission. Plans A & B are the same except Plan A has a two car garage and Plan B has a three car garage. Plan A has a 20 foot setback from the existing facility and a 15 foot setback from the south-west property line. Plan B has an 18 foot setback from the existing facility and a nine foot setback from the south-west property linea Both of these plans answer the question of additional fire protection and also needed privacy setback in case a lot split should ever become necessary in the future. Levi 0. Barrett TO: Atascadero City Council July 17, 1985 , RE: Conditional Use Permit 7-85 FROM: Levi Barrett 1950 Traffic Way As to the findings of the Atascadero Planning Commission relative to our application for a conditional use permit, we believe that their findings are inconsistent with past decisions made by both the previous Planning Commission and the present City Council. We believe that policy cannot change from week to week or day to day. Every city must have a yardstick with which to measure every proposal. This yardstick is the Atascadero General Plan. In the interest of fairness and justice, we believe that every proposal under consideration by the City should be weighed and evaluated through consistent and non-varying application of this document. The present City Planning Commission had been in office less than one month when they voted to deny our applicationfor a conditional use permit. We believe that our proposed project was too complex for them to consider with their lack of experience - that they were ill-informed and they abused their discretion as commissioners - perhaps unwittingly. Their decision was a close decision of four to three votes in favor of denial. Mr. LaPrade, who is the chairman of the Commission and is more experienced and supposedly more knowledgeable of the General Plan, voted in favor of the conditional use permit. Since all attempts at rational explanation have failed to impress the other commissioners and because we are attempting to persuade the City Council to vote in favor of Conditional Use Permit 7-85, maybe a:,simple comparison will substitute for lengthy arguments. Item I of PlanningCommissioners findings: Find that the scope of the proposed project at this location is inconsistent with the General Plan. In conjunction with this finding, allow me to observe that the Atascadero Planning Department in a staff report dated 2-4-85 recommended for approval a development density of 375 people on a 10.34 acre site for the Atascadero Christian Home. This is an existing home for the elderly located at 8455 Santa Rosa Road, housing 37 residents and six staff. After three hearings before the Atascadero Planning Commission, this number of 375 was reduced to 97 residents and six staff for a total of 103 people. This project was appealed by the neighbors to the Atascadero City Council which upheld the actions of the Planning Commission. The date of appeal was 5-28-85, three weeks after the new City Planning Commission had been selected. On the 3rd of June, I was given a hearing before the Atascadero Planning Commission to examine all the evidence for or against Conditional Use Permit 7-85. iConditional Use Permit 7-85 July 17, 1985 Levi Barrett Page Two The new commission failed to observe, in their decision, precedents that had already been set by the City Council and by the previous Planning Commission. The development density of the Atascadero Christian Home is 9.95 persons per acre. Our development density with 15 residents and four staff would be 2.59 persons per acre. Our project, like the Atascadero Christian Home, is located in a rural area off of a main arterial. The concerns of their neighbors were very similiar to the concerns of our neighbors. Their neighbors were concerned about the increased density in their rural neighborhood, about increased traffic, safety, large number of housing units, etc. The Atascadero Christian Home's use permit was approved for the construction of 16 additional cottages of 2400 to 2600 square feet each, an additional administration building and a chapel. Also an additional 61 parking spaces were required. To summarize, all of the findings of the Atascadero Planning Commission relative to Conditional Use Permit 7-85 were also the findings of the neighbors who were opposed to the expansion of the Atascadero Christian Home. It seems to be all a matter of perspective, whether one deals with facts or whether one deals with emotions. We feel that our proposal is very modest by comparison to the Atascadero Christian Home and is certainly in conformity with the Atascadero General Plan. We believe the professional planners are much more conversant with the General Plan than are the new Planning Commissioners and that their views should be given more weighty consideration in any decision by the City Council. We ask that you treat the facts as facts. We ask for approval of Conditional Use Permit 7-85. Thank you, ev, Levi 0. Barrett Meeting Date: 6/17/85 i RESOLUTION NO. 3-85 " A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 7-85 TO EXPAND AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY AT 1950 TRAFFIC WAY (BARRETT) WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Agency conducted public hearings on the subject matter May 6 and June 3rd, 1985; and WHEREAS, the proposed resolution is in conformance with Section 65800 et. seq, of the California Government Code concerning Zoning regula- tions; and WHEREAS, Section 9-2.109 of the Zoning Ordinance allows the Planning Commission discretion, following public hearing, to approve or disap- prove a conditional use permit subject to making appropriate findings; and WHEREAS, the proposed expansion of subject residential care facility from four to fifteen residents would increase the density behond what is appropriate in this rural residential area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero Planning Commission does hereby: r 1. Find that the scope of the proposed project at this location* is inconsistent with the General Plana 2. Find that the expanded use that is proposed would be detri- mental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public i or persons residing in the neighborhood of the use. 3. Find that the proposed project would be inconsistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood and contrary to its orderly development. 4. Disapproves Conditional Use Permit 7-85. On motion by Commissioner and seconded by Commissioner Mich;AORSPn the foregoing resolution is adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Sanders, Kennedy, Nolan, and Bond NOES: Commissioners Michielssen, Hatchell, and Chairman LaPrade ABSENT: None DATE ADOPTED: June 17, 1985: ,f WAYNE LAPRA E D , Chairman ATTEST: HENRY ENGEN Planni g'�Director Minutes - Planning ommission June 3 , 1985 • - - MOTION: Made by Commissioner Michielssen, seconded by Commis- j sioner Hatchell and carried unanimously -to'continue the t hearing on Tentative Parcel Map -12-85 to the meeting of July 1, commissioner Kennedy took her seat back on the Commission- 4. ConditionalUse Permit 7-85: Continued request submitted by Levi Barrett to allow the ex- pansion of an existing residential care facility from four residents to fifteen residents in a Residential Suburban zone. Subject property is located at 1950 Traffic Way, also known as a portion of. Lot 42 of Block 21. Mr. Davidson presented the staff report and briefly summarized the background concerning the application. He pointed out that concerns previously raised by neighboring property owners rela- tive to access, -density, phasing of project, insufficient screen- ing of project area were appropriately addressed in revised condi- tions of approval. Commissioner Bond noted he had visited the site and expressed some concern that this expansion to fifteen residents wouldn' t tend to make the project become more of an institutionalized one. Brian Jalbert, 2100 Traffic Way, presented a petition to the Com- mission of adjacent property owners opposed to this expansion. He explained that some of the reasons for opposition included: the density is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood; if the use ceased, what would happen to the second building; safety for le the ; residents (i.e. horses on the surrounding properties possibly could be a hazard) ; and road access. Mr. Jalbert also .spoke about the possibility of liability insurance rates going up for the surrounding property owners. Darlene Reynolds, representative with thea Tri-Counties Regional Center, spoke at length on care homes. She noted that in her work her client population is children, and discussed her experiences with care homes she had been associated with. Ms. Reynolds felt that it is up to the individual who operates the home whether or not that home typifies an institution type setting. She asked for clarification on the fencing condition and addressed the ve- hicular traffic issue stating that teenagers present more of a traffic hazard than any residents of the home. Levi Barrett, applicant, addressed responses to the previous tes- timony given. He stated that the two units would be run as sep- arate entities with two full time care providers when the home would be fully operated. He then proceeded to read a prepared statement which had been included as part of the agenda report which addressed letters of concern from adjacent property owners. 3 1' t ' Minutes - Planning emission -- June 3, 1985 • Dennis Gehre, 2080 Traffic Way, spoke in opposition to the project stating that his major concern deals with the fact that the care C facility is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He wondered how the separate structure could be allowed with regard to granny housing if the use ceased to operate and felt that the parcel should be split if the separate structure is built. Mr. Gehre felt that if the use is approved, then it becomes a business and the road should be paved accordingly. Commissioner Bond stated he favored 30 ' of redrock for the road instead of the 16 wide A/C improvement proposed by staff. Commissioner Hatchell asked if the state statute attached to the staff report could be clarified. Phil Gamans, representative with the Tri-Counties Regional Center stated that up to six residents are allowed to be in a residential setting; but that any number over six requires a conditional use permit by the City. Chairman LaPrade felt that developmentally handicapped people do make good citizens. There was continued discussion concerning the paving of the road as to what type of paving should be required. ' MOTION: Made by Commissioner LaPrade, seconded by Commissioner Hatchell to approve Conditional Use Permit 7-85 subject to the findings and conditions in the revised staff re- port as follows: r AYES: Commissioners Michielssen, Hatchell, and Chairman LaPrade NOES: Commissioners Kennedy, Sanders, Nolan and Bond The motion failed. Engen advised that a formal resolution would be brought back containing findings for denial at the next meeting. f 4 Conditional Use Permit 8-85: �--' r Request submitted by Robert Watts/CK Jorgenson (J.P.--'Smith, ` representative) to allow a reduction in parking -standards in' the Adobe Plaza from the required 27 spaces to the allotted. 3 spaces for a .hair salon. Subject property is located at 7363 E1 Camino Real (Adobe Plaza) , also known as a portion of Lot 29 of Block JA. Mr . Davidson presented the staff report concerning this applica- tion with the recommendation to deny the the parking reduction.' He pointed out the previous approval for a parking reduction for Timothy' s Restaurant as well as a recent zoning approval for a weekly farmers market and cited some number statistics relative to parking in the Adobe Plaza. 4 Minutes - Planning Igency - May 6, 19851 1 ' 2. Tentative ParcelMap 112-85 Request submitted by Davia Harrell (Dan Stewart, Engineer)-' to allow the division of a 4.63 acre parcel into three lots of 1.50 , 1.52 and 1. 61 acres each. Subject property is.-located at '47100 Serena (formerly Pinal) , also -known as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map CO 74-185, Stadium Park i Mr. Engen noted that the applicants, in reviewing -the conditions of approval, have requested a continuance of their applications. MOTION: Made by Councilman Molina, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey and carried unanimously , to continue the public hearings on Tentative Parcel Map -11-85 and Tentative Par- cel Map 12-85 to the meeting of June 3 , 1985. 3 . Tentative Parcel Map 13-85 : Request submitted by John Bunyea (Kennaly Engineering)En ineerin ) to allow the division of a 1, 50 _acre parcel into three lots of . 50 acres each. Subject property is located at 8942 Palomar, also known as Lot 160 of Block MC. Doug Davidson presented the report and noted that this particular' piece of property had -recent approvals for a 'zone change and gen- eral plan amendment.;.' John Bun ea e e applicant, appeared Y PP . PP but lid not .weak �n the matter. No public testimony was given. t l MOTION: :.Made b Councilman Molina,olina, seconded. by .Councilwoman +� f Mackev and carried unanimously to approve Tentative--,Par-1 �r cal Map 13-85 subject to the findings and conditions con- tained in the staff report. r 4. Conditional Use Permit 7-85 :' Request submitted by Levi Barrett to allow the expansion of an existing residential care facility from four residents to sixteen residents in a Residential Suburban zone. Subject property is located at 1950 Traffic Way, also known as a por- tion of Lot 42 of Block 21. Mr . Davidson, in presenting the staff report, briefly explained the two phases of this request to allow expansion of an existing residential care facility. He noted that in the "Analysis" sec- tion in the last paragraph, the second sentence reads . . . . "a total of two parking spaces for every four beds. " This should read one space instead of two. Mr. Davidson also noted that an additional condition (9) should be added to read: "Site development includ- ing parking, aisles, landscaping, building architecture and relat- ed features shall be consistent with plans submitted including any modification required herein and all _provisions of the zoning ord- inance. " Mr. Davidson stated that this condition would assure that the parking and landscaping requirements are complied with. 2 Minutes - Planning &ncy - May 6 , 1985 0 Councilman Molina stated that Condition #3 pertains to connection of sewer but pointed out that that area does not have sewer service. Mr. Davidson agreed that the condition should be modified. Councilwoman Mackey stated she had difficulty in trying to locate the site. Dennis Gehre, 2080 Traffic Way, stated that he and his wife are in direct opposition to this project. He pointed out that the area is a rural neighborhood and questioned the safety of the easement with regard to vehicle traffic increases, etc. He proceeded to address concerns related to Conditions #3, #4, #5, and #9. He also questioned the safety of the residents as it did not appear that there is any fencing proposed for the site. Mr. Gehre then presented the Council with a letter . from an adjacent property owner who could not be present but was also opposed to the project. Bill Phaklides, Traffic Way property owner, also expressed his opposition to the expansion for health and safety reasons and pointed out a large drainage swale that exists on the subject property. Levi Barrett, applicant, spoke in support of the project and pro- ceeded to address several of the questions and issues that Mr . Gehre had raised. He explained his intent with the project and briefly summarized the type of residents that would reside at the home. He did state that he would like to be a good neighbor and that the residents are not allowed to move around the neighborhood freely. Mr. Barrett further stated that he would be putting up a fence around the property. In response to question by Councilwoman Mackey, Mr . Barrett re- sponded that the home has been licensed since March, 1984. Phil Gamans, with the Tri-Counties Regional Center, explained that his agency was- primarily responsible for placing developmentally disabled people in homes such as Mr. Barrett' s. He stated that he did not feel there would be an increase in traffic and pointed out that these types of homes represent little problems to neighborhoods. Mayor Nelson asked what procedures are involved in order to start such a home. Councilwoman Norris inquired as to how many homes . currently operate in Atascadero. Mrs. Gehre asked Mr. Gamans what the rationale of clients to staff is and noted that any additional increase in staff would result in an increase in traffic. Mr . Barrett asked for consideration in modification of Condition #1 to be 18 months instead of 12 months, and also asked for modi- fication on Condition #8 to be 18 months instead of 12 months. Mrs. Gehre further stated that she has little children who play in the area and expressed concern over the amount of traffic that 3 Minutes - Planning ency - May 6, 1985 • would use the easement. She explained that this expansion is not compatible with her family' s life style and expressed her desire to maintain a rural environment. Discussion ensued concerning the easement with regard to addinga paving requirement, if there would be an increase in traffic due to the expansion, as well as adequate parking. Councilman Handshy j commended Mr. Barrett' s efforts in operating a residential care facility but felt that more stringent conditions should be placed on the easement. Advisor LaPrade pointed out that when density increases, changes to access also occur and felt that the easement should be required to be all-weather. After discussion, it was the Council' s general consensus that additional requirements on access needs should be placed on ap- proval of the application and assurances that the lot could be split for future use as a single family residential use if this use should cease. MOTION: Made by Councilwoman Mackey, seconded by Councilwoman Norris and carried unanimously to continue the hearing for Conditional Use Permit 7-85 to the meeting of June 3. At this time, Ma or Nelson announced that the ballots for election. of the Planning Commission had been tallied and proceeded to read- . the names of the new Commission members: ' Wayne LaPrade Carla Sanders Nellie Kennedy Ed Nolan Thomas Hatchell Eric Michielssen Jerry Bond 10 Mayor Nelson then called a recess at 8:30 to discuss 1-year and 3 year terms with the new Commission. Meeting recovened at 8:35. It was then announced that Commissioners LaPrade, Hatchell and Kennedy chose one year terms while Commissioners Nolan, Sanders, Michielssen and Bond chose three year terms. Mayor Nelson then thanked the other applicants who had applied for the Commission. 2. Conditional Use Permit 8-85: Request sub;nitted by Robert Watts/CK Jorgenson (J.P. Smith, representative) to allow a reduction in parking standards in -the Adobe Plaza from the required 27 spaces to theallot ted 3 spaces for a hair salon. Subject property is located at 7363 El Camino Real (Adobe Plaza) , also known as a portion of Lot 29 of Block JA. 4 City of Atascadero Item: B-3 STAFF REPORT FOR: City Planning Commission Meeting Date 6/3/85 BY: Doug Davidson, Assoc. Planner Trainee File No: CUP 7-85 Project Address: 1950 Traffic Way (Levi Barrett) SUBJECT: To allow an expansion of a residential care facility from four resi- dents to fifteen residents in the RS (Residential Suburban) zone. BACKGROUND: The applicant is currently licensed by the State Department of Social Services as a residential care facility for four ambulatory adults, ages 18-62 years. These persons are living in an existing single fam- ily residence. Notice of public hearing was published in the Atasca- dero News on April 26 , 1985 and all record property owners within 300 feet were notified on that date. On May 6 , 1985, the Planning Commission continued this project due to concerns over the condition of the access to the site and insufficient screening of the area. Neighborhood concerns were also voiced over the proposed density of the project and its schedule of phasing. STAFF COMMENTS The major concern of the neighborhood and the Planning Agency at the previous hearing was the condition of the access to the site. Cur- rently, access is provided by a 30 foot wide easement from Traffic Way, extending some 750 feet to the Barrett' s residence. This private road is 16 feet wide and all-weather surface. This road condition meets City standards since the property is outside the Urban Services line of the City. However, as a condition of the use permit, road improvements may be required if it is determned that the proposed use warrants such improvements. Staff concurs with the neighbors and Planning Agency in feeling that access to a residential care facility of sixteen residents should be via a paved road capable of handling vans and emergency vehicles. Fencing : Concern was voiced about the lack of a secured area for the residents of the facility. In response, staff recommends that an area be desig- nated for outdoor use and fenced appropriately. Approval Period: The applicant has requested that approval of the use permit be valid for eighteen (18) months, as opposed to the one year time period stated in the conditions. Conditional use permits are valid for one • Conditional Use P - • erm� 7 85 (Barrett) year; however, the applicant may apply for a time extension at the end of that period. This can be granted if substantial progress has been made and no change to the provisions of the General Plan or zoning regulations applicable to the project has occurred. Staff has also reworded Condition #3 to alleviate some confusion over utility connection. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the previous findings and conditions, staff recommends ap- proval of Conditional Use Permit 7-85 with the fol- lowing modifications: Condition #3 to be reworded as follows: "3. The project shall connect all available utilities to the existing unit. " Conditions #9, #10 , #11, #12 and #13 are to be -added: "9. Site development including parking, aisles, landscaping, building architecture, and related features shall be consis- tent with plans submitted including any modification required herein and all provisions of the zoning ordinance. " "10. The private access driveway from Traffic Way to the site in- cluding the turn-around loop shall be surfaced with 2 inches of AC and 4 inches of base. Minimum width of paving shall be 16 feet wide. Design of the improvements shall consider speed deterrents to be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Public Works Department. " "11. Area to the rear of the existing residence shall be enclosed by - a six foot high fence. Layout and design shall be re- viewed and approved by the Planning Department. "12. The minimum distance between residential structures shall be ten (10) feet in order to comply with RS single family stand- ards should the residential care use cease to exist. "13. House numbers shall be affixed to the existing and proposed residential structures. DGD:ps Attachment: Staff Report dated May 6 , 1985 2 U • City of Atascadero STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Agency Meeting Date: 5/6/85 BY: Michael Wixon, Assistant Planner File No: CUP 7-85 Project Address: 1950 Traffic Way SUBJECT: To allow expansion of an existing residential care facility from four residents to sixteen residents in a Residential Suburban zone. BACKGROUND: The applicant is currently licensed by the State Department of Social Services as a residential care facility for four ambulatory adults, ages 18-62 years. These persons are living in an existing single fam- ily residence. A. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To expand an existing adult res- idential care facility in two separate phases from four to sixteenresidentsat 1950 Traf- fic Way. 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Levi Barrett 3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7.36 acres 4. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Traffic Way - an undivided arteria Obispo Road- residential street 5. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban) 6. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Single family residence and adult residential care facility. 7. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RS, residential South: RS, residential East: RS, residential West: RS, residential 8. General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Single Family 9. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .Gently rolling slope of less than 7%. Conditional Use Permit 7-85 (Barrett) 10. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. ANALYSIS: Upon review of the proposed adult residential care facility, two separate issues require analysis. The first item to be reviewed is the residential care use at the proposed location along Traffic Way. The second item of review will be the proposal to establish two individually functional structures in an RS (Residential Sub- urban) zone. Adult Residential Care Use: The General Plan indicates that board and care facilities should be established as an allowable use in single family residential areas (General Plan, page 59) . However, the General Plan stops short in discussing an appropriate size or intensity of such care facilities in a single family residential area. The Zoning Ordinance does, however, indicate that the proposed use should be consistent with the character of the immediate neighbor- hood (see attachment for other required findings of a conditional use permit) . The dictionary defines a characteristic as a dis- tinguishing feature or attribute which distinguishes one person, group, or item from another. The two distinguishing characteris- tics of the proposed residential care use from the surrounding uses are: - the number of residents which will eventually board at the home - the functional abilities/disabilities of the proposed residents The City is limited in its review of these two distinguishing characteristics by the zoning ordinance. Once again, the review is to establish that the required findings of a conditional use permit can be made (see attachment) The required findings are discussed below: 1. The proposed use in included in the list of uses established in the General Plan Land Use Element and is, therefore, con- sistent with the document. 2. The proposed use is established as a conditional use in an RS zone, and along with the conditions of approval which require the applicant to conform to all development standards, the use will satisfy all applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. 3. The use of this site as an adult residential care facility is also governed by the State Department of Social Services which evaluates the applicant (Mr. and Mrs. Barrett) and the boarders to insure the health, safety, and welfare of these persons and the surrounding neighborhood is protected. This includes the supervision and schooling of the adults who may live at this site. 2 `�' Conditional Use Permit 7-85 (Barrett) 4. The mean household size according to the 1980 census is 2.74 persons. The proposed adult residential care facility would potentially house 16 boarders plus the attendants (2-3 extra persons) . However, the site includes over seven acres. The proposed use should not interfere with the orderly develop- ment of the area. 5. The applicant has indicated that the existing and potential boarders are bussed into town for school purposes during the week by Dial-A-Ride. Further, the potential new residents may not have the qualifications necessary to drive a vehicle. Therefore, the traffic generated by this proposed use would not be beyond the normal traffic volume of the surrounding neighborhood that would result from full development in ac- cordance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Proposed Structures: The site plan indicates that the project will be completed in two stages. The first stage will take place immediately and. will in- clude four bedrooms, a living room, kitchen and dining room, all in a separate structure on the site. The second phase is an addi- tion to the first phase unit which has an additional bedroom, bathroom, and one garage. Staff' s concern is that the two individual buildings might be considered as functionally separate single family residences. However, the two separate structures are being considered as a part of the adult residential care facility use and is, therefore, consistent with the zoning ordinance (see attachment) . The last development concern is the total number of parking spaces / to be provided. The zoning ordinance requires a total of twot parking spaces for every four beds. This is not shown on the attached site plan for the first phase. However, the site plan for phase two includes a garage with enough space for two cars. The applicant can revise the site plan to provide the necesary parking spaces when a applying for a building permit. C. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 7-85 based on the findings and conditions of approval contained in Exhibit A. MW:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C - Site Plan Exhibit D - Floor Plans Phasing Exhibit E - Zoning Ordinance Excerpts Exhibit F - State Statute i 3 _�`.l Conditional Use Permit 7-85 (Barrett) EXHIBIT A - Conditional Use Permit 7-85 Findings/Conditions of Approval May 6 1985 FINDINGS. 1. The lot consists of 7.36 acres, is zoned RS, and the proposed res- idential care facility is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The proposed use substantially complies with the provisions of Title 9. 3. The establishment of the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare. 4. The proposed use will not be inconsistent with the character of the immediate surroundings and will be compatible with its orderly development. 5. The proposed use will not generate volumes of traffic. which are beyond the safe capacity of Traffic Way than wouldotherwiseoccur from the full development of the adjacent area in accordance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 6. The required four parking spaces can be reasonably provided when the applicant submits for a building permit. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Phase II of the project shall begin construction within one year upon the final inspection of Phase I. 2. A total of four parking spaces shall be provided at the beginning of Phase I of the construction. 3. The project shall connect all utilities, sewage, electrical, gas,. etc. to the existing unit. 4. The project shall secure all appropriate building permits which shall comply with all codes and ordinances of the City of Atasca dero prior to construction. 5. The applicant shall obtain all appropriate permits and approvals from the State Department of Social Services prior to the occu pany of the buildings. 6. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of build- ing permits. 4 Vj Conditional Use Permit 7-85 (Barrett) 7. Fire alarm systems shall be provided as per fire code requirements prior to the occupancy of the buildings. 8. Approval of this conditional use permit will expire one year after the date of final approval unless an extension of time has been granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. l 5 4v `l �ti•.,._ \ _•..'`'�' � �! ~ At EI ZSb \ ` ` • • tom;i��-�,=-.,, -.,a,..�--s_ �\'�:��^-1.�`� '��\' _-- '- -— ( ._ f 7 1.! t j / J so g �sr I t ne s i rate I nc+t a A L( 1 i •1,11 1 't k '3 0! g g�$ 119 7512,12 j N - '{ 1• , ! !}' t7 TA t2-0 1 '� F ..,.s•` -- ( 1� ii ,oss1RM ?(p: `',a a ,rW ' / LOCA r l O N MA P r' F3Ss'Y' r/� \`e,• - 5 ME '{{ O�U ""gam IN 23 23 72.D409 . S73 ;,.1\` �. /� /y` =;' d. •\\ / Ar[L '`I, /• •ti.�4 \,`, to ,w•v 25 a l .i ?c£��.. \A 34 \\ ��+ ae4 .� f, .\ 7 pr° lyq �a � 00 / \ 6� \ ` 27 St9 33a: t w .yam 53. y ♦O \ .9 /h 7� ..�.3 33-0 d 2930 39 30 z .`» r., $ •�\, Y�\. tee/ , �,y' I �e � �J ''� %kt, 6 Ism So 14 ��— lt•��' 33•i /'�� \•\(/� 3 .e°0 4 �/�� 7a y 37Z�7 /31 �,4// \ �` ��w\Al;lole' �•s•rs, \�i-� '• � ,, � � � r .n , ,>,-moi _ _ � 1 .. `��•,.h _ \\ 1 � `� •Q. -s� �a o> >. vim• �� '\� � !w SSR 30._`ay. IS/ Act./' / • x 1•D I•C 1.8;RI •. Y'r✓12.sw\ 11 ych� 10: Zai. 22. a ��:. • I r7 \ 16 U �'{ IQ°�\1`;�\ •moi'��`,.\Ya°�� 12 ,.�%� `a/. tc � l ilk / l 20CITY OF ATA t- _ - _' ,►t`` l nni:�9' Dep?rtijji .�... ion LZ ,n ci o l Op19i-. ..+���i,iF,SEN .►-- � dMl -� • x ,9.5 � • Q , v Q � h V II-- �v / 300 9U too sc . Za uC o Q V C/)w CL U. � � -fwd �n 1 0 M Ln C p �► cn o it Q N ' r1 d ..U.�..:•E7- 1- .4 .S' �0-6_ vova \ Yb'-?Y4 woa fi Q y i y - J yOO✓OJ M.IOY'J,v�A� rr AfO o,s yA; o A-[TY A-CT Y = nrb 3 � •a OYU vnA w O L/OO bQs r�N4nriiQ ` d k o4rt 4- �" 0 �r / w � G Ej • T/4nLE \p i� 0 S'C jc c� � o u v � ro w NoZ� tN rov PANTRY •� ...' O lob k . , ix t a• O 2 0 4 1`Lj` t 4 o a rnarE Olt � o . D �c ., 4 u i � o o � 4 © fj c O Q rov PANTRY i e "fl�F ;,t= 1 if f 4 • 1., a iM4:i�u- � �\ i I � I i r S W V , WO , o • iI, I ' .1 , I , •f I I " I rw\ V t � O w r !— N 1 W T \ .1 s \nl I � I Q v W i-13 0 s I ,o �y i R O J l4l � l • ADOPTED JUNE 27, I� describe the proposed use and explain how interest el people may obtain additional information about the .pro ject. The notice shall inform the property owners it the vicinity of a Precise Plan proposal of their oppor-t tunities to review, comment upon, and appeal the approve al of the project, if desired. (4) Review and Approval. The Planning Director shall ap- prove a Precise Plan application at the end of the pubs lic notice period when the proposed project or use sat- isfies all applicable provisions of this Title. Th6 approval shall become effective for the purpose of issu-1 ance of a building or grading permit, or establishment of a use not involving construction, fourteen (14) day after the notice has been sent, unless an appeal i� filed with the Planning Department as set forth in SubI section (b) (5) . (5) Appeal of Precise Plan Decision. Any aggrieved person may appeal a decision on a Precise Plan application as set forth in Section 9-1.111 (Appeal) , provided that th only basis for an appeal, or action on an appeal-by th Planning Commission or City Council shall be whether the proposed use satisfies all applicable provisions of thi - .- .,s Title. _- --� 9-2.109. Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit is the process used to review land use proposals of a nature or magnitude which could significantly affect their surroundings. Because of the intensity of such uses, public review and input into decisions on whether to approve such proposals is needed. That input is given in a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The Conditional Use Permit is a discretionary approval and the Planning Commission may approve or disapprove a Conditional Use Permit or may adopt additional conditions of approval. Conditional Use Permit applications may be denied by the Planning Commission because of specific findings identi- fied through public hearing testimony or because of provisions of this Title. When Conditional Use Permit approval is required to authorize a use by Chapter 9-3 (Zoning Districts) , preparation and processing of the application shall be as follows: (a) Conditional Use Permit Content. The content of a Condi- tional Use Permit application is to be the same as required for Precise Plan use by Section 9-2.108 (a) . (b) Conditional Use Permit Processing. Conditional Use Permit applications shall be submitted to the Planning Department and shall be processed as follows: 2-8 ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1 • (1) Environmental Determination. A Conditional Use Permit application accepted for processing as set forth in Sec-- tion 9-2.102 (Determination of Completeness) shall re-,* ceive an environmental determination as required by by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The Planning Department shall process the application con- currently with the environmental determination. (2) Staff Report. The Planning Department shall prepare a Staff Report which: (i) Describes the characteristics of the proposed land use or development project, as well as the project site and its surroundings; and (ii) References applicable policies and regulations; and (iii) Determines whether theproposeduse or project sat- isfies at minimum the provisions of this Title; and (iv) Recommends whether, and on what basis the proposal should be approved, conditionally approved or dis- approved. (3) Public Hearing. The Planning Director shall schedule the Conditional Use Permit for public hearing before the Planning Commission as set forth in Section 9-1.110 (Public Hearing) . (c) Approval. The authority to take final action on a Condi- tional Use Permit as set forth in this Subsection is assigned to the Planning Commission, provided that such decisions may be appealed to the City Council (Section 9-X1.111 - Appeal) . (1) Conditions of Approval. After the conclusion of a public hearing, the Planning Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the Conditional Use Permit. In conditionally approving a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission shall designate such conditions to satisfy any requirements of CEQA, and to: (i) Secure compliance with the objectives and require- ments of this Title and the General Plan; and (ii) Designate time limits or phasing schedules other than those specified in Section 9-2.113 (Permit Time Limits) for the completion of projects when deemed appropriate. 2-9 ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1V (2) Additional` Conditions. In addition to the conditions of Section 9-2.109 (c) (1) , the Planning Commission may adopt other conditions, including but not limited to: (i) Requiring that security be provided to guarantee performance and/or compliance with condtions of approval, as set forth in Section 9-2.122 (Guaran- tees of Performance) ; (ii) Requiring installation of specific on-site or off- site improvements; (iii) Requiring periodic review or limiting the permit to a specified period of time; (iv) Requiring that the permit be personal to the appli- cant or be applicable to the property; (v) Any other conditions as are judged by the Planning Commission to be necessary to achieve compatibility between the proposed use and its site,. its immedi- ate surroundings, and the community. (3) Effect of Conditions. Whenever a Conditional Use Per- mit approval is granted or amended subject to condi- tions, use or enjoyment of the Conditional. Use Permit approval in' violation, or without observance of any con- �- ditions shall constitute a violation of this title. In • the event of such a violation, the approval may be re- voked or modified as provided in Section 9-8 .105 (Revo- cation of Approval and Forfeiture of Bonds) . The dura- tion of conditions is established in Section 9-2.119 (Lapse of Entitlement) . Any change in the conditions of approval of a Conditional Use Permit shall only be allowed after following all procedures undertaken for the original approval. (4) Required Findings. If the Planning Commission ap- proves or conditionally approves a Conditional Use Per- mit, it shall first find that: (i) The proposed project or use is consistent with the General Plan; and (ii) The proposed project or use satisfies all applica- ble provisions of this Title; and (iii) The establishment, and subsequent operation or con- duct of the use will not, because of the circum- stances and conditions applied in the particular 2-10 . . M , ADOPTED JUNE 27, l case, be detrimental to the health, safety or wel- fare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood. of the use, or be det- rimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use; and (iv) That the proposed project or use will not be incon- sistent with the character of the immediate neigh- borhood or contrary to its orderly development; and (v) That 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 ex- isting 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; and (iv) Any additional findings deemed necessary. (d) Effective Date. The approval of a Conditional "-Use Permit shall become final and effective for the purposes of issuing a construction permit or establishing a non-structural use fourteen (14) days following Planning Commission approval unless prior to that time, an appeal to the decision is filed as set forth in Section 9-1.111(b) (Appeal - Planning Commis- sion Decisions) 9-2.112. A t p roved Plans. A land use or development project au- thorized through a zoning approval shall be developed or established only as shown on the project plans approved as part of the applica- tion. Deviation of the project design or construction from the approved plans may occur only as follows: (a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, a fea- ture of the use or project which is subject to the standards of Chapters 9-4 and 9-6 may be modified provided that _the change requested is in conformity with the' standards of this Title. Such change shall be requested in writing with appropriate supporting materials and explanation of the rea- sons for the request. The Planning Director may approve a requested change upon verification of its conformity with this Title, provided that such approval shall not modify the effective date of the approval (Section 9-2. 113) . (b) In the case of a project feature which is subject to condi- tions of approval of a Conditional Use Permit, or was a spe- cific consideration in the approval of a Conditional Use Per- mit, a new Conditional Use Permit approval shall be obtained. 2-11 ADOPTED JUNE 27, A (b) Minimum Site Area. One acre. (c) Parking Requirement. Two spaces, plus one space for each 5,000 square feet of use area. (d) Site Design and Operation. Recycling facilities and wreck ing yards are subject to all provisions of Section 9-6 .140 (Storage Yards) . 9-6 .133. Medical and Social Care Facilities. Personal care ser- vices are subject to the provisions of the following sections: 9-6 .134 Skilled Nursing and Personal Care 9-6. 135 Residential Care Facilities 9-6 . 134. Skilled Nursing and Personal Care. Board and care homes for residents, where no medical care is provided, are subject to all applicable standards for multiple family dwellings. (a) Minimum Site Area. 20, 000 square feet. (b) Parking Requirement. One space per four' beds. Off-street parking and access is to be provided as required for rooming houses in Section 9-4.114 (Parking) . 9-6.135. Residential Care Facilities. (a) Minimum Site Area. 20 ,000 square feet is the minimum site area for more than six boarders. (b) Fencing. Any play areas for children are to be fenced to prevent uncontrolled access to and from the site. (c) Parte. For facilities with more than six boarders, park- ing is to be provided as set forth in Section 9-6 .134 (b) . 9-6 .137. Outdoor Commercial Uses. Sales and storage activities that are primarily of an outdoor nature are subject to the provisions of the following Sections: 9-6.139 Sales Lots and Swap Meets 9-6.140 Storage Yards 9-6 .139 . Sales Lots and Swap Meets. Outdoor sales lots and swap meets are subject to the provisions of this Section (Wrecking yards are subject to Section 9-6 . 131 - Recycling and Scrap) . (a) Sales Lots. May be conducted as a principal use (as in the case of a used car lot) , or as an accessory use (such as a sales yard in conjunction with a building materials store) , subject to the following: 6-27 V p ZONING OF HOMES OR FACILITIES FOR MENTALLY `y DISORDERED OR HANDICAPPED PERSONS (California Welfare and Institutions Code) • State policy 5115. The Legislature hereby finds and declares: (a) It is the policy of this state, as declared and estab- lished in this section and in the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act, Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 4500), that mentally and physically handicapped persons are entitled to live in normal residential surroundings and should not be excluded therefrom because of their disability. -, (b) In order to achieve uniform statewide implementation ` of the policies of this section and those of the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act, it is necessary to establish the statewide policy that the use of property for the care of six or fewer mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons is a residential use of such property for the purposes of zoning. (Amended by Stats. 1978, Ch. 891.) Note: Stats. 1971, Ch. 1626, also contains the following: Applicability SEC. 10. The provisions of Section 5115 of the Welfare and Institutions Code relating to the residential use for purposes of zoning of homes for the care of six or fewer mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons, shall be applicable to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 16200) of Part 4 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Nothing in this act shall be construed as authorizing local agencies to impose stricter zoning or building and safety standards upon existing institutions than existed prior to its enactment. Definition 5116. pursuant to the policy stated in Section 5115, a state-authorized, certified, or licensed family care home, foster home, or group home serving six or fewer mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons or dependent and neglected children, shall be considered a residential use of property for the purposes of zoning if such homes provide care on a 24-hour-a-day basis. Such homes shall be a permitted use in all residential zones, including, but not limited to, residential zones for single-family dwellings. (Amended by Stats. 1978, Ch. 891.) Consolidation of 5117. In order to further facilitate achieving the purposes regulations of this act and the Lanterman Mental Retardation Act of 1969, it is desirable that there be a consolidation of the facilities standard setting, licensure and ratesetting func- tions of the various state departments under the jurisdiction of the Human Relations Agency. The Secretary of the 271 ,a Human Relations Agency shall ,present to the Assembly and Senate Rules Committees not later than March 1, 1971, a specific -plan to accomplish this goal. In developing this plan, the secretary shall consult with and seek the advice of the public and private agencies, the consumer groups, and the facilities affected thereby. (Added by Stats. 1970, Ch. 1219.) State policy 5120. It is the policy of this state as declared and established in this act and in the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act that the care and treatment of mental patients be provided in the local community. In order to achieve uniform statewide implementation of the policies of this act, it is necessary to establish the statewide policy that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no city or county shall discriminate in the enactment, enforcement, or admin- istration of any zoning laws, ordinances, or rules and regula- tions between the use of property for the treatment of general hospital or nursing home patients and the use of property for the psychiatric care and treatment of patients, both inpatient and outpatient. Health facilities for inpatient and outpatient psychiatric care and treatment shall be permitted in any area zoned for hospitals or nursing homes, or in which hospitals and nursing homes are permitted by conditional use permit. (Amended by Stats. 1972, Ch. 559.) 272 May 20, 1985 • To: Atascadero Planning Department From: Levi O. Barrett 1950 Traffic Way Atascadero Subject: June 3 Hearing of Expanded Residential Care Facility File No. C.U.P. 7-85 Location: 1950 Traffic Way Planning Department: Would you please consider the following amendments to your staff report dated 5-6-85: Situation and Facts: A-1 Please be advised that I am amending my request for 16 residents, instead of 4 , in an expanded residential care facility, to a request for 15 residents, instead of 4 . This will allow us to run our facility without hiring addi- tional staff. State law requires that where there are more than 15 residents in a facility someone must be awake 24 hours a day to care for them. Conditions of Approval: Condition #1 - I ask that the term of 12 months be changed to 18 months. This would give us a little addi- tional time to secure a loan and to be on a sound financial footing. Condition #8 -- I ask that expiration of conditional use permit be extended to 18 months from the finish of phase 1. This is for the same reason as stated above. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Levi O. Barrett u L- - no L6/ N �T o L'r � O O .F: ✓OT Q� n.sc, ----- y -------------- n n O O + , O a J O J6 WN N. OE1 Oilf tT --------------- ------------ --------------- (` a� Of s o J EE.I ------------ -------- caH1 Ke s roc oa .+�� G ---_ OEL +(M (� 0 Lb ca LU 9-0c i T J ----I Y U 11. w ,b P o icc mq a O n Y Rc 4 [Y D Q u z Ul zs: ------- p it+'Sc Q N N 0C4 `m c , A Fr�dT J£-IC W Q In --------- ------- "i O a �`— Lit �- Q cn ate - lu � �p i Z.- R�P� F. cl A © n 4.Q e jt I (. ,y �40 !�Mrv 96 3y r 2 U� Q Z °a10 W O 'r rG L+.7 29 '05 V I L 0 In vcf 4 � b b 4 �r1 c9s a.a. I N } • May 16, 1985 To: Atascadero Planning Commission From: Levi 0. Barrett 1950 Traffic Way Atascadero Subject: June 3 Hearing for expanded Residential Care Fac ' _ Facility File N y o. C.U.P. 7 85 i Location: 1950 Traffic Way Planning Commissioner: Enclosed you will find an extensive reply to Mr. Clayton King's letter of May 5, 1985 re- questing that the Planning Commission disapprove my plans for an expanded residential care facility. I have also enclosed a map so that members of the Planning Commission may investigate the proposed site and ask any questions relevant to the project. Thank you for your patience. Sincerely, tX�ti� U. Xa4-w� Levi 0. Barrett 1950 Traffic Way Atascadero l LL --------------- ! j ---- 0�T3 HTO ---------------- ----------_ ss> co a 4 a J m IO �i•Y f O h SbJ � 1, P V � 4. vi 6�/ �` Fil 1p, ogle fLY Cpz N I V� ud I- ---------------- 2 Lu 6 Ap- 01 ----------h - �- Vh a S� Ca 60. OE6 V W di�i .� 'ccs h IJ128-0£ Nd a --� -- JG N a (T- In o ----------------- y E N n Y h oy Cilt n �7 V sN F i VV 0 -------------Lu T,w 6G a J,FFtFN N N �C1 il- 4 m 44 O� BZgY' LU Ja k Q CC � r e. SOP _� ^ A' $2 4 M L r. (T- -q N I S O b 0 I 6 \ ,tib C� q 0 4v lirs� c+s SwJK � � O IA L m acs cV7 V; O: b bb hl ti� M 11 NQ A Ill 6V7 i30 M 9 P^ y O !o t To: City of Atascadero Planning Commission Re: File No. : Conditional Use Permit 7-85 Address: 1950 Traffic Way Applicant: Levi 0. Barrett From: Levi and Marlene Barrett 1950 Traffic Way Atascadero In March of 1984 my wife and I received a state liscense to care for the Developmentally Disabled. We have enjoyed this ex- perience very much and feel that it provides a much needed com- munity service. We are now asking for a conditional use permit to expand our facility to 15 residents. At our hearing on May 6, 1985 we asked for a 16-bed residential care facility. We would like to amend that request at this time to ask for 15. State law requires where there are more than 15 persons in a facility that someone must be awake 24 hours a day. We would like to reply to the allegations made by some of our neighbors who are opposed to the approval' of this project. Since the letter written by Clayton and Mary King, and presented to the Planning Commission at its May 6 meeting, embodies most of the neighbors' complaints, I should like to respond to the ten points listed in that letter. First, however, I feel it would be appropriate to give some background information relating to this neighborhood. Before Atascadero became a city in July, 1978, my wife and I acquired 9. 90 acres in northeast Atascadero, where we presently live. We later acquired 4. 98 adjoining acres to make a total of 14. 88 acres. During this time the Atascadero Advisory Committee was making recommendations as to the size of lots in our soon-to-be-incor- porated city. After studying their proposals, I came to the con- clusion that we were not being properly represented in northeast Atascadero where we had purchased our land. I appeared before the Atascadero Advisory Committee, the County Planning Commission, and later the County Board of Supervisors in an attempt to rectify a planning mistake. The General Plan at that time specified that land in northeast Atascadero should be limited to five to ten acre lots, yet lots in such hilly areas as Las Encinas, Three F Meadows, and Chandler Ranch Estates could be as small as one and one-half acres. I felt this to be an injustice and worked hard to get the changes made through the political process. After getting two-thirds of the property owners in northeast Atascadero to sign a petition to allow lot sizes similar to those proposed for the rest of Atascadero, we still got nowhere. Those who had put together the General Plan had written off northeastAtascadero as a place for apple orchards and chicken farms. Eventually, however, the two-and-ane-half acre lots were approved. We fought this battle virtually alone. We justly feel that our hard work culminated in our neighbors' now beinG able to r • afford some of 0 rural lifestyle they li}to- feet o talk about. We brought ill city water, a fire hydrant, and of improved easement road to serve the properties. We did not ask for cov- enants , conditions or restrictions on any of the property. We anticipated that our neighbors would be neighborly and that they would respect our rights as we have respected theirs. Our 7 . 35 acre lot is almost; three times the size of any of the properties of our neighbors who are opposing this project. We feel forced to the conclusion that their opposition is based on prejudice to the Developmentally Disabled, as the ten points following will indicate. ITEM 1: Mr. King did not grant anyone an easement across his pro- perty. This property_ already provided an easement for four pro- perties for egress and ingress, and when I sold the two and one- half acres to Mr. King, I reserved a 30-foot easement for myself to reach my rear property from Traffic Way. The non-maintained dirt road is a standard 30 feet width and has a 16 foot applica- tion of red rock. Mr. Gehre, Mr. King and Mr. Russell, all neighbors using this easement, all agreed to help pave this road, with Mr. Russell pro- viding the equipment and labor at no cost. Mr. Phaklides, occu- pying property across from Mr. King and fronting on Traffic Way, stated that he would not be using the road and therefore felt no obligation to keep the road up. Mr. Phaklides ' home is about 170 feet from the easement road with a detached garage and driveway leading off Traffic Way. He has complained about the easement road, yet he does not intend to use it and has no need to use it. We have yet to see where Mr. King will build his house and where his driveway will be. We feel that a 30-foot wide road is large enough and comparable to others in the city, and thatifit is unmaintained, all the neighbors using it should feel an obligation to help maintain it. To complain about it in this situation is a manifestly unfair and transparent excuse. ITEM 2: Concerning the traffic generated, we do not use Dial-A Ride for our clients; this is an error. There are three vans and one bus which pick up our clients each Monday through Fri- day to transport them to their particular programs or .sheltered work shops. We may use one additional van per day if we increase our number of clients to 15. This is not an unreasonable use of the roadway and it could happen anyway if we increased our number to only six. There is a limited number of programs for these disabled persons in our area, and only an attitude of hysteria would suggest that we would have a large increase in traffic if we had 15 residents. We should also note that three of our children now living at home will be leaving home next year--our 20-year-old daughter will be working elsewhere by next summer; our 18-year-old son will be going on. a mission for our church after he turns 19 next spring; and our 16-year-old daughter will graduate next year and will go away to college in the fall. The absence of these three children, plus their friends who visit, will make a substan- tial reduction in the traffic. ITEM 3: Obispo Road is. a paper road that joins our property in the rear. This item is not relevant in any way to the use of our property for residential care; neither is any argument about whe- ther it is a residential road or a paper road, or its length, of any concern here. ITEM 4: Concerning the slope of the property, the Staff report indicates that the grade is less than 7%. Since it seems appar- ent that the Staff was concerned only with the grade of the build- ing site itself, it is difficult to understand why their finding is said to be in error. We did not plan to build in the drainage swale!--and we are fully confident that the Staff is aware of the drainage swale, as it is clearly shown and labeled on page 7 of the Staff report. ITEM 5 : Concerning the connection of all utilities, sewage, elec- tricity and gas to the existing unit, Mr. King questions whether we will be overloading the septic system. At present I have 73 feet of leach field more than is necessary, and will have ample room to more than triple the leach field if needed. Of course I will have an additional septic tank to go with the expanded leach field. Others in the neighborhood use bottled gas, and since records indicate that I qet gas every two months, we wonder what point is at issue here? ITEM 6 : The Staff found that the project will not bedetrimental to health. Mr. King restates his claim made in Item 2 that in- creased traffic will jeopardize the safety of the residents, and that people walking, jogging, riding bikes, and children at play will be jeopardized by increased traffic. This seems a distrac- tion from the central issue, which is revealed in the next point he makes: he asks whether these disabled persons will be controlled by a fenced-in designated area. His real concern seems to be that our residents might become a neighborhood nuisance. Since they live with our family, we carefully screen the staff records of each of our residents before they come to live with us. Anyone who does not fit into our facility, our family, and our neighborhood, can be placed in another facility without any problem. The professional staff at the Tri-Counties Regional Center want their clients to be happy, and are more than willing to find the right placement for each of them. Yes, we will fence off a sizeable area of our back yard with shuffleboard coasts, barbeque facilities, picnic table, and a satellite dish to enter- tain and occupy our residents.. we have not allowed them to wander about the neighborhood in the past; there is no reason for concern that we might do so in the future. ITEM 7 : Mr. King questions emergency access to the site, dis- tance to emergency facilities, and whether our facility should not be closer to town. This is one of the prime reasons we are asking for an expanded facility at this site. It is not an un- reasonable distance from such facilities, and with state-required smoke and fire alarms it will be much safer than most residential dwellings. We feel that with 7. 35 acres our residents will not impact the neighborhood unfavorably, and especially compared to Dennis and Jeanne0 Gehre 2080 Traffic Way Atascadero, CA 93422 May 21, 1985 l To: The Idembers of Atascadero City Council Pie: CUP 7-85, 1950 Traffic Way, Atascadero Applicant -- Levi Barrett Dear Council Members: We, Dennis and Jeannette Gehre, do hereby request your disapproval of the proposed CUP 7-85 as submitted by Levi Barrett. We reside at 2080 Traffic Way. This property is directly across a 30 foot wide dirt easement road from his existing residence and proposed care facility. Approximately four years ago, Mr. Barrett split a 14.86 acre site into three 2. 5 acre parcels and one 7. 36 acre parcel. At the time of our purchasing 2. 5 acres from Rx. Barrett we walked the entire available land with both Levi and Darlene Barrett expressing our intention of purchasing this land as a rural area to build our home and raise our children. At the time of purchase' we chose the parcel back off Traffic Way for its seclusion and safety from local traffic. After purchasing the land from Mr. Barrett we proceeded to build our own home from ground up to raise our family in a rural surrounding. Now IIr. Barrett proposes a business-type development for the mentally handicapped adults. We feel that development is very detrimental to the personal health, safety, and general welfare of our neighborhood. We feel this way for the following reasons: 1. The only available access to the proposed development is a. 30 foot wide unmaintained dirt easement road. The increased traffic flow due to client busing, support help, and added maintenance vehicles is unsafe on this road. 2. ;ve question the accessibility of emergency vehicles to said rn3r.. n .. .ale 3tr .es �r city fire department and that the clasest Sire .hydrant is at the end of this dirt easement We question the clients' safety when housed in the proposed separate dwelling from the Barrett 's existing house. 3. One of our concerns is the clients' safety in this rural ranch-style area. I.:r. Burrett testified at the iviay o Planning Agency ieeting that his clients were free to walk where they please. Please note that the adjacent property to the north is being used to accommodate the owners' : horses. Our land and the Phaklides' to the north, of us also plan to use the land surrounding our homes for raising horses and cows for our personal use. i a site closer to town where densities would be much higher. We would -like to see our clients enjoy therurallife style alsd, and feel that there is plenty of rural atmosphere to go around, without denying it to these innocent disabled persons. ITEM 8: We are asking for the city to extend the start of the second phase of the project to 18 months from the completion of the first phase. This would give is a little additional time to secure a loan and to be on sound financial footing. ITEM 9: Mr. King questions what the city would do if the second phase of the project is not completed as scheduled. This is an "iffy" question, and one that could be asked of any building pro- ject. Is this really a serious question? Or is it a screen to hide prejudices toward the Developmentally Disabled? ITEM 10: Mr. King questions the competency of the City Staff in making recommendations in the Staff report. This seems an uncalled-for judgment considering that he has not been able to demonstrate any error in their findings. We have been, and are now working diligently to provide this much-needed service to the community. We do truly care about these disabled persons and feel we are particularly qualified to give them the direction, control and protection, chance for de- velopment, and above all, the love and concern they sorely need. We were carefully screened before our liscence was granted. The rural atmosphere is ideal for them, and there is plenty of space for all of us, including our neighbors.' • CUP 7-85, Levi 'Ba0tt • Page 2 Please also note the busy railroad track parallel to . Traffic Way. There -is approximately 80U feet 'between the tracks and the proposed residence.. We note the possible hazards within walking distance from the proposed development. 4. Stemming frim Item n3, is our concern for our personal liability should one of Mr. Barrett 's clients injure him or herself on our property. We consulted local insurance, legal, and law agencies regarding this matter. We were advised to raise our personal: liability insurance, fence our entire 2. 5 acres with a six-foot fence, and place no trespassing/non-liability signs every 20-30 feet around our entire perimeter. We do not feel we should be forced to make these costly insurance provisions for Ivir. Barrett 's financial gain. 5. Mr. Barrett 's representative at the play o meeting responded to our question on ratio of trained attendants to clients stating that Levi and hlarlene Barrett could easily Dandle i6 residents. We question the safety of the clients in two separate dwellings, even if one attendant stayed in each dwelling at all times--which could not be possible. Since these clients are permanent boarders, special attendants should be required to relieve the Barretts. We also note that the Barretts presently have four children of their own, three living with them. Rxs. Barrett has quite a workload with their present clients and her own family. It would definitely seem highly unsafe for an addition to their present number of residents. 11e would like to state at this time that we have already had a very disturbing, unsupervised incident where a 25-year old male client, under supposed close supervision of the Barretts, entered our ten-year old son's bedroom and told of . hi c banlsrobbing experience. We question J:f Mi-th X= r. -under-thmir care, the possibility of similar incidents increases with additional clients. This possible risk, if allowed, is extremely alarming to us. having reviewed the State of California' s, Department of Social Services' General Licensing Requirements, Section 80067 requires all ".Facilities licensed prior to the effective date of this chapter (9-23-83 ) , shall bepermittedto have a four foot fence until such fence is replaced. If the licensee replaces the fence, it shall meet the five-foot fence requirement. " Please note that the Barrett's have no fenced area. We feel fencing at the Barrett's facility is a must to prevent uncontrolled access to or from the site. �t I fa r CUP-85, Levi Barr t Page 3 6. We were told that there is a need to mainstream, the mentally handicapped adults into society. We feel a development of a care facility for over six clients is defeating this purpose. They are no longer in a homelike atmosphere, but are now being institutionalized. The required restrictions placed upon the clients are necessary for their own personal safety in number. We strongly feel that it is in the best interest for all to limit the Barrett 's clients to a maximum of six. 7. We are also extremely concerned that should the Council permit this development, the following problem situations may occur: A. v.1hat happens should the project never reach total completion requirements? We would request that a Performance and Completion Bond be filed prior to obtaining a building permit. This would guarantee I,r. Barrett's completion within the guidelines of the City Staff Report. . B. :.'hat will happen should the completed facility no longer be used as it is intended? The Council noted at the May 5 meeting that 14r. Barrett would probably be allowed to split his property. We question this due to him already splitting the original 14.8© acre into four separate parcels. The decision to split into the fifth parcel would be to surcomvent the Subdivision Land Act. C. Should the City approve the project, are they planning to unequivalently allow others in our general area to do the same? We question whether an EIR would be beneficial for the compatibility of our area's growth. In .closing we would like to _xefer to a remark made at the May Counre 3 le tdng. It was stated "these are, God's chi ldren,^ when -ref exx ng.._to 1 xr___Barx"-Z's .ally , spec adults- , e .honest_ky th believe in these words. However, we, too, feel at all children are God's children, and that the proposed extension of the existing Adult Residential Facility is extremely detrimental to the personal health, safety, and general welfare of our children and our neighborhood. We urge you to please consider our request and disapprove CUP 7-85. Thank you for your consideration. A Dennis Gehre ?eannette Gehre cc: henry Engen, Planning Director Members of the Planning Commission vPlanning Staff l u `J I.ay 5, 1985 To: City of Atascadero Planning Agency From: Clayton and Mary Icing Traffic Way Atascadero Re: File No: CUP 7-85 Address: 1950 Traffic Way Applicant: Levi Barrett We, Iv_ary and Clayton King, property owners at northeast adjuiriing lot, feel that proposed permit for a separate dwelling for use as a residential care facility is unacceptable. We feel that to do so is in non-compliance with zoning for a Rb lot iii this area. L•,'e are planning a single family dwelling on our property in the rear future. If Mir. Barrett is. allowed two separate dwelling residents at his location, we feel that this is riot compatible with existing neighborhood development. M,;e chose this area to build for its low density and rural, character and life style. If this development is allowed it will change the rural character, increase traffic on common easement road; decrease safety for existing residents, and change the rural characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood. We have listed below our greatest concerns regarding Conditional Use Permit #7-85. 1. Access to proposed structures is not directly off Traffic Way. I have granted the Barretts and other adjoining landowners a 30 foot wide easement for access to their property. As of now, this drive is a non .maj_ntained dirt rid �uLO 1 eet 'tc) Zhe $arrtsi d :. 2. Traffic from proposed project will increase due t� additional busing for clients (as stated iri Staff Report, Item C, Analysis, #5) . !' r. Barrett states that Dial-a-Ride is used. We know at least 3-4 separate vehicles are used for resident busing at l the present time. Traffic from proposed attendants and support care will also be increased. Again, the traffic must use this 30' wide, urimaintained dirt easement for access to project. 3 . tis shown on Exhibit B, attached to Staff Report, this rnap shows Obispo Road corning from Del do Road at the south end to Traffic Wtiay at the north end. Tl-iib road to date is riot cuii;pleted at the nortii oeyorid 3, iU. of a • mile from its intersection with Del ilio Road . There is no road adjoining ivir. Barrett' s property as shown. File No: CUP 7- • Page 2 4. We feel Staff Report Iter, A, Situation and Eacts is incorrect. This states terrain is gently sloping N1 0 at less than 7A grade. Upon visual inspection: of said parcel, it is apparent the grade from existing residence northwest is greater. than 710 slope. By basing the area of less than 7/c slope by size shown on Exhibit Co, attached to Staff Report, this area is 276' X 259' or approximately 1. 58 acres. The remainder of the 7.3c acres is in the drainage swale. 5 Item #3 of Condition of Approval in Staff Report states all utilities, sewage, electrical, gas, etc. to connect to existing unit . 14'e note that the existing unit is not , on city sewer.. They now have private sewage syster. ( septic tank and leach field) . We question if the connection to this system will impose a greater load than this system was designed for. A/O 1_XA1A_ There is also no public utility supplied gas to this �-- location. Existing resident uses bottled. gas (propane) . An additional bottled gas tank or tanks will increase traffic upon dirt easement road. o. Item 7#6 in Findings in Staff Report states project will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare. We feel that this is incorrect. Safety for- surrounding orsurrounding residents will be changed. Increased traffic on easement shared by other residents will cause safe traffic question. Local residents use this easement for walking, jogging, bike riding, and children at play. Vle question whether care residents are controlled to a designated area (i.e. , fencing) . 7 Iqe` qu zti= a nergenzy velLizle and personnel access tD -proposed pr o Je ct- "They—would re "to an mint a-in e d easement road for direct access. We ques ton distance from proposed project to qualified emergency facility. We feel this project should be closer to town. S. We question that since the project is in two phases, if phase 1 is completed, what action can be taken if phase- 2 is not completed as scheduled. Phase 2 takes into consideration a garage for additional parking. 9. Under Conditions for Approval, Item #8, states this permit will expire one year from date of final approval, unless extension is granted. We question if extension is not granted, what control does the City have for use of this new structure. 0 File No: CUP 7-8 Page j 10. After reviewing Staff heport by cIichael we questior: if Staff had made a project site inspection prior to making said recommendations which are in the Staff Report. In conclusion, we believe that the proposed project does not conform to the surrounding area plan of single family resident housing. The Barrett 's .proposed multiple housing project , with its increased traffic flow, is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. i:e request your disapproval of the proposed 6onditional Use Permit 7-85 for Levi Barrett. Sincerely G1.ayton King Mary King :N Jure 16, 1)85 • • To: Atascadero City Planning Cuiainissiuri Atascadero ;ity Gouncil From: Lary and Clayton King Re: Conditional Use Permit 7-85 1950 Traffic Way, Atascadero Submitted by Levi Barrett Gentlemen, vle would like to urge you again to disapprove ttie application for the conditional use permit 7-65 suba.itted oy Levi Jai-nett to expand his residential care facility. We would like to include our names to the neighburhoud petition opposing this project as submitted at the June 3 Atascadero City Planning Uommission meeting. %'e would like to correct previous testiiuony regardin8 paving; the dirt easement road. It is correct that we were approached by Mr. Barrett to join in the cost of paving the road. At no point did we agree to this paving. t,r. Fsarrett uses his false allegations of prejudice to consistently attack our real concerns. We believe the proposed project is inconsistent with and detrimental to the neighborhood plan of single residential housing. Please vote NO on (;UP 7-$5 Sincerely, Aw • L/Ai � Clayton and iviary King C/ Andy Pi:-Lcock -2021 Stzuridx idge .Wad Tracy, CA 3537 ( 209 ) 4uU-)C8G a V We the surrounding neighbors do hereby oppose the proposed CUP 7-85 as requested by Levi Barrett at 1950 Traffic Way. a � 2. 3. i ,('� ti c G�--• t- ' f CC"1'` / 7 i�L- Y t �� ✓ / =�f- (1 i TO: City of Atascadero Planning Commission RE: File No. : Conditional Use Permit 7-85 • Address: 1950 Traffic Way Applicant: Levi 0. Barrett FRO14: Levi and Marlene Barrett j 1950 Traffic Way Atascadero Reply to letter of Dennis and Jeanette Gehre Dated May 21, 1985 and addressed to the Atascadero City Council. We, Levi and Marlene Barrett, ask that you carefully consider the response we have made to our neighbors complaints regarding our applying for a conditional use permit that would allow us to expand our residential care facility to 15 beds. ITEM 1: Increased Traffic: ` Th'is has been one of those issues the neighbors really have trouble identifying very clearly. We keep hearing unsafe, too much traffic, unmaintained dirt road, etc., without any identifying of what, when, where or how. If it is unsafe, why haven't the neighbors come together to solve it? Is it only because I intend to expand my facility and have one additional van each day use the road that it has suddenly become unsafe? This appears to be an opportunity to get something for nothing. We seldom pass anyone on the road and I could probably get into my car 900 of th� time during the day and travel the length of the road without meeting anyone coming from the opposite direction. Who is this road unsafe for? It is not unsafe for Mr. Russell or Mr. Dempsey or Mr. Barrett. It is unsafe for Mr. Phaklides whose home is on Traffic Way and who has a driveway coming off of Traffic Way. It's unsafe for Mr. King, who has no home here as of yet and who normally parks his truck and sometimes his hors-e trailer in the road while he feeds his horses. It is also unsafe because Mr. King has hi-s .haystack stick szg out four ar,-five fzet into _the .roadway. It i is unsafe -faT Mr. Gehre because he sae's -ere an agpvrtunity -tv stop my Tmoject because of an unsafe road. It is unsafe because Mr. Gehre says it is unsafe. Five members of our family all leave home before 7:00 AM Monday through Friday and only my wife is left with the residents until their respective vans arrive to pick them up. Two of these residents normally leave at 7:45 to 8:00 A.M. Is it the other two residents who are causing the problem? There must be at least two other cars in the neighborhood leaving during this rush hour between 8:00 and 8:30 AM. I think when someone makes a complaint it should be specific and to the point and not couched in vague terms. It is apparent that whatever is the problem with this road it is only going to be solved by throwing a lot of money at it. I have been selected by three highly prejudiced neighbors to do just that. This is not an attempt to improve the roadway, this is an attempt to stop my project. If I had to pave the road at a $1.00 per square foot, which is the normal commercial rate, there is no way I could even begin to consider expanding my home. This would . get the Planning Commission off the hook, the neighbors would be happy, and bigotry would have prevailed once again. File No. : Conditional Use Permit 7-85 Page Two • ITEM 2: Fire Hazards: Our home currently has smoke alarms in the residents room and throughout the house. When our facility is expanded, we will have heat sensors and smoke alarms as required by the Department of Social Services and by the State Fire Marshal. We expect that when this is done, we will have the safest residence in the neighborhood in respect to fire hazards. As to the three (3) miles from the fire station, we feel that is pretty good. We are not running a hospital here, we are running a home. If our neighbors feel ' this is a long way from emergency services, we feel they should move closer to town where services are available. Our fire alarm system will cost approximately $3000.00 and will be hooked up via telephone lines to a computer terminal at Atascadero Alarms Systems. This system will monitor each room in our facility and will determine in what room there is a fire. This information in turn will be communicated to the Atascadero Fire Department to assist them in their response. As to the residents safety when housed in a separate dwelling, we fully intend to obey all the regulations of the Department of- Developmental Services and the Department of Social Services which oversees licensing. We intend to use common sense and we intend to have two additional staff living in our facility when at or near full capacity. We expect to spend in the neighborhood of $75,000 or more for this addition to our home. We could hardly afford to lose our license by disregarding the safety and welfare of our residents. ITEM 3: Freedom of Clients to go Where They Choose: As to my testimony at the hearing on the 6th of May that my clients can go where they choose, that is true. What Mr. Gehre may not have understood is that all of our clients voluntarily sign an admission agreement when entering our home. This agreement includes house rules. These rules must be obeyed if the residents are to remain in our home. These people who live in our home are citizens- and have rights granted by Federal and State laws. We cannot abridge those rights, nor do we.intend that ,anyone else shall do so. (ince again, we affirm that our residents must not wand-eT about the ae ghb xhajW :uusupervjsecL We.1avz -.lm Dxmed Dur residents that some of our neighbors have deep-seated and hostile -feelings trmgards the handicapped and that they are not to go on their property or bother them in any way. We will also inform any new residents that they too must not bother our neighbors. We want to live in harmony with our neighbors and will if we are allowed to do so. ITEM 4: Personal Liability Insurance: It is obvious that Mr. Gehre feels that he needs a lot of insurance now that we are established in the care providing business. Of course lie did not need this before as no one else would be stupid enough to get hurt on his property. Liability insurance is only needed when there are handicapped people in the neighborhood. Let me say to Mr. Gehre that my wife and I pay our own bilis and we expect that he will do the same. l File No. : Conditional Use Permit 7-85- Page Three This brings to mind the roadway which is very much on the minds of neig hbors O. Mr. Gehre and Mr. King agreed almost a year ago that they would like to share in the cost of paving the easement road as it would be quite an asset to the neighbor- hood. I explained that our neighbor Mr. Russell offered his labor and equipment if we would supply the funds to pave the road. They were quite enthused about that at the time, but now appear to have short memories. We keep hearing about unmaintained dirt roads. They don't seem to understand the difference between a 16 footwidthapplication of red rock and dirt. The difference is about $1200.00 The difference between me paving the road and them participating in that is they get rewarded for their prejudiced views towards the developmentally disabled. The other difference is a lack of integrity on their part. We hope that you review their attitude towards the developmentally disabled as well as their pretended concerns towards these people. ITEM 5 Ratio of Trained Attendants: The ratio of staff to residents is set by the Department of Social Services and is based on the assessed level of care (funding level) of the residents of the facility. This means where you have a larger number of residents with signifi- cant handicaps the funding level goes up along with the number of extra staff to care for them. Mr. Gehre need not continue to concern himself with the internal workings of our facility. All of these things are amply monitored by the State and also are properly documented as required. 0 Re: 25 year old male bank robber: We have never had a dangerous resident in our home. We also have children and are concerned about their safety and welfare. The home this resident was in before had two male children, a three year old and a nine year old. They never had any bizarre problem with this resident and/or in fact taAking this resident back into their facility. We had this resident for 60 days. He left our home on the 1st of September, 1984. We are precluded by confidentiality laws from discussing the allegations made by Mr. Gehre, but let me say this: His parents were very happy with the care that we gave him. Unfortunately, he,was not -able .to bey o= =muse xu es and so ani#er placement' was found for him. He was never under close supervision as stated by Mr. Gehre. During this time, Mr. Gehre's 10 year old son was frequently at our home and was often sent home by my wife. He would sometimes sneak into the house and one time was caught by my wife in one of the residents closets. We believe if this resident was in Mr.-Gehre's home, it was because his son invited him there. We feel that if Mr. Gehre would find time to take care of his own family responsibilities he would not have time to become the neighborhood troublemaker. At the May 6th meeting, Mr. Gehre talked about his son and daughter playing in the roadway as if it was a divine right. This same Mr. Gehre threatened to sue another neighbor if one of their children was hurt while playing in the roadway. Re Fencing: As to the issue of fencing, there is no such requirement for our clients. The section quoted was not read very carefully and is another attempt to frustrate our commitment to the developmentally disabled.. It states that a five foot high fence must be maintained if the licensee has a swimming pool;, fish pond, wading pool or similar body of water. We do not have any such body- of water. r File No. : Conditional Use Permit 7-85 Page Four • ITEM 6: Mainstreaming or Normalization of Residents: We believe in normalization for our residents, that is why we are establishing an expanded facility to give more residents a chance for the rural life style, including animals, that they wouldn't have closer to town. As far as the size of the facility, in most aspects the facility will function as two different entities, with my wife and I having overall supervision. This will allow us more recreation for all of our residents. Now we pretty much have to agree to everyone doing the same thing at the same time or my wife and I have to agree for one of us to stay home while the other takes some of the residents out. This is not normal. In a family when children get to be a certain age and they don't want to go with their parents, they stay home and the rest are allowed to go out and enjoy themselves. We would like to be able to freely at any time enjoy ourselves with part of our residents or all of them as they so choose. Regarding the institutionalizing of our reisdents. Our home will not look like an institution, will not be run like an institution and will not pay like an institution. The average cost of care in a State hospital is 550,000 per resident per year. We feel we are performing a valuable service to the community and to the tax payers at substantially less then $50,000 per year. ITEM 7: Performance and Completion Bond: Mr. Gehre continues to be an obstructionist in every waypossible. We full intend to have a local builder build our expanded residential care facility, with our loan being carefully scrutinzed by the bank. This will be our fourth new home in Atascadero in 13 years and we fully believe we understand how to accomplish this without a performance and completion bond. Re: Lot, Spiit: Mr. ehre continues to talk about things he has little or no information about. Several years agcy .l cxe=ed two new _parcels of_J-and in our -neighborhood_ Our 9.'90 a parcel was split zn 1920 and was discozrered to be in two parcels when the title company performed a chain title search. These two parcels were later adjusted in size by a major lot line adjustment. The two resulting parcels were a 2, acre and 7.35 acre parcels. In conclusion, I must state that we have done all that we could reasonably be expected to do to live in harmony with our neighbors. Most of the allegations and concerns raised by the neighbors have little foundation in fact. They are based mostly on emotions and stereotyping of the developmentally disabled! The last comment of iMr� Gehre's about the developmentally disabled being God's children was made by a city councilman and not by myself. I fully concur with that remark, however, and Mr. Gehre's about all of us being God' s children. If we could all act that way, we would probably find that there is truly enough space for everyone including the developmentally disabled. i RESOLUTION NO. 60-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 7-85 TO EXPAND AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY AT 1950 TRAFFIC WAY -(BARRETT) WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Agency conducted public hearings on the subject matter May 6 and June 3rd, 1985; and WHEREAS, the proposed resolution is in conformance with Section 65800 et. seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, Section 9-2.109 of the Zoning Ordinance allows the Plan- ning Commission discretion, following public hearing, to approve or disapprove a conditional use permit subject to making appropriate findings; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission concluded the proposed expansion of subject residential care facility from four to fifteen residents would increase the density beyond what is appropriate in this rural residential area and WHEREAS, the applicants have appealed the Planning Commission' s denial; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the record of testimony be- fore the Planning Commission, staff reports, and public testimony be- fore the Council on this issue. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve as follows: 1. rindscope of a proposed project at .,this Location is ms with t-i e ' era7. .3mn— 2. Find that the expanded use that is proposed would be detri- mental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public or persons residing in the neighborhood of the use. 3. Find that the proposed project would be inconsistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood and contrary to its orderly development. 4. Disappapproves Conditional Use Permit 7-85. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Atascadero, California held on July 22, 1985. RESOLUTION NO. 61-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO UPHOLDING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 7-85 AND APPROVING AN EXPANDED RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY AT 1950 TRAFFIC WAY (BARRETT) WHEREAS, the applicants have appealed the Planning Commission's denial of said use permit; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the record of testimony before the Planning Commission, staff reports and public testimony before the Council on this issue. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atacadero does resolve as fellows: Section 1. Council Findings. 1. The project will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment, and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 2. The project, with the conditions of approval, conforms to all applicable zoning regulations and is consistent with the General Plan. 3. The lot consists of 7.36 acres, is zoned RS, and the proposed residential care facility is consistent with the General Plan. 4. The proposed use substantially complies with the provisions of Title 9. 5. The establish-ment of the Wised mse wi33 snot be"leerimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare. 6. The proposed use will not be inconsistent with the character of the immediate surroundings and will be compatible with its orderly development. 7 . The proposed use will not generate volumes of traffic which are beyond the safe capacity of Traffic Way than would other- wise occur from the full development of the adjacent area in accordance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 8. The required four parking spaces can be reasonably provided when the applicant submits for a building permit. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor ATTEST ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES, Interim City Attorney PREPARED BY: a ;"" HENRY NGEN, Plap.MinT Director • 2 Conditions of Approval': 1. Phase II of the project shall begin construction within one year upon the final inspection of Phase- I consistent with the attached Option B. 2. A total of four parking spaces shall be provided at the be- ginning of Phase I of the construction. 3. The project shall connect all available utilities to the ex- isting unit. 4. The project shall secure all appropriate building permits which shall comply with all codes and ordinances of the City of Atascadero prior to construction. 5. The applicant shall obtain all appropriate permits and ap- provals from the State Department of Social Services prior to the occupancy of the buildings. 6. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to the issu- ance of building permits. 7. Fire alarm systems shall be provided as per fire code re- quirements prior to the occupancy of the buildings. 8. Site development including parking, aisles, landscaping, building architecture, and related features shall be consis- tent with plans submitted including any modification required herein and all provisions of the zoning ordinance. 9. The private access driveway from Traffic Way to the site in- cluding the turn-around loop shall be surfaced with 2 inches of AC and 4 inches of base. Minimum width of paving shall be 16 feet wide. Design of the improvements shall consider speed „.deterrents to be reviewed and ,zppxoved by the Planning and 2blicNoxks. Depart.ment. 10. Area to the rear of ttie existing residencethM ie ertcl,sed by a six foot high fence. Layout and design shall be re- viewed and approved by the Planning Department. 11. The minimum distance between residential structures shall be eighteen (18) feet in order to comply with RS single family standards should the residential care use cease to exist. 12. House numbers shall be affixed to the existing and proposed residential structures. 13. This conditional use permit approval shall expire one year from the date of final approval unless the project shows sub- stantial progress, or unless an extension is granted pursu- ant to Section 9-2.118 of the zoning ordinance. 2 r o PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Atascadero, California, held on the 22nd day of July, 1985. AYES NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES, Interim City Attorney P PARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Planning Director 3 r. ilk' •.y '. u Al V tp U i• I� Z Ilan-- i •t: IIi►i�.,lL��; ►�e • f esti j: 1;.aii'U LU G 2 Q co a L� o � Q 3 a wtj _ "! U. H �ti T U p v C"t o ur C Q Q 4� Q D p tL hl - Q 3 ,,, r ICE H1b�a' ctl C •1r 1. �r��` �r�i � 1 �0 Lind cc in .:. Cru NorY438 e '0 wo0Yo 3Q u •Iu90038 :Q -01Y ,d',ilr MN V O;SI11-N 4 o-,11r r-.M y a Mao* O G X11 a.d.0 q•,b F O i` A• {�d 9NIAY7 •� � i V M?01J11 : O. wo0Y03A swnr Nfwitlp v d;u x1:11 e•C1 1;11 �� 1 ill • O 0 � Q cz 1 7 e o o • 1 S O ,,t 0 0 00 _ Q s LU CIA CLOSET coos=� d � o C3 w� c OSAT ' 3 X 4 Q,) h tn X GY CLOWT0 a - zu r� I 911"N O b 0 SET o Y PANTAY ova • r. M el F1 CD IL . t 0 ?"' A d Ce + C Q ❑ } ul c J'A I I t �w O J? • 0C a� 2,rn tp C1 1 lU V �l 2 4 O � V ao 00 U � o O x a p lei .. OD CLOSET GL05& r �9 O d C" Q a o cc � Gt�CSET � Z LU CI- Ic �( C k � O CtosCT 0 slu 'y z � Z .,} r1DuT _ t� Y � PANTRY v � � GAQ GFRA6E � l ' - r 7/22/85 R5_ M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council July 22, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Planning DirectorA4, Paul Sensibaugh, City Engineer RE: Appeal by Escuela Del Rio of curb, gutter, and paveout require- ment of Conditional Use Permit 12-85 approved by the Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: Adopt accompanying Resolution No. 64-85 to deny the appeal, but per- mitting curb, gutter, and paveout requirements to be deferred subject to posting a guarantee of future performance. ALTERNATIVE: Approve the appeal and refer the project for funding as part of the City' s Capital Improvement Program. BACKGROUND: At their meeting of July 1, 1985 (see attached minute excerpts) , the Planning Commission considered public comments and the accompanying staff report and approved expansion of the Escuela del Rio facility to allow the addition of 2,894 square feet to the adult day care facil- ity. The addition would contain two classrooms, bathrooms, storage facilities, and an area for vocational skills training. Under the City' s zoning ordinance (see attached excerpt) , properties within the 'Jlfl ;Res ide a] Multiple Family .zone -are zed to have curb, gutter, sidewalk, and paveout requirements, unless waived by joint' decision of the Public Works Director and Planning Director based on findings of incompatibility. With respect to this particular property, the Public Works Director and Planning Director modified the originally proposed conditions on the project to waive a five foot sidewalk requirement in view of the existence of one on the Beno' s frontage across thestreetand the unlikelihood of their being continuity of sidewalk on the Escuela del Rio side of Rosario. However, curb, gutter, and paveout were retained as a requirement which is the normal minimum standard for collector streets in multiple family zones. • R A - e: Appeal of and C nal Use Permit 12 85 Es la del Rio PP ( ) HE:PS:ps Enclosures: Draft Resolution 64-85 denying the appeal of Atascadero Committee for Education Atascadero Committee for Education appeal-July 10, 1985 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt - July 1, 1985 Planning Commission Staff Report - July 1, 1985 Zoning Ordinance Excerpt - Curb, Gutter , Sidewalk Requirements cc: Jack Stinchfield Sherry Fontan, Atascadero Committee for Education i I 3 r RESOLUTION NO. 64-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE CURB AND GUTTER REQUIREMENTS OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-85 (5940 ROSARIO - ESCUELA DEL RIO) WHEREAS, a petition has been submitted appealing the curb and gut- ter requirements of approval of said use permit; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the record of testimony before the Planning Commission, staff reports and public testimony before the Council on this issue. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve as follows: Section 1. Council Findings. 1. The project will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment, and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 2. The project, along. with the conditions of approval, conforms to all applicable zoning regulations and is consistent with the General Plan.. 3. Streets in the vicinity of Escuela del Rio are adequate to carry the kind and quantity of traffic generated by the pro- posed expansion. 4. The conditions imposed are necessary to assure that the pro- ject will be reasonably compatible with existing and future uses in the area and with the character of the neighborhood .and_ .t.s ,orderly growth. 5. Denies the appeal of -curb_ aid-gutter requirements on Rosario, but approves acceptance of a guarantee for future construction. Section 2. Conditions of Approval. 1. Site development including buildings, driveways, parking, landscaping and other features shall be consistent with plans submitted including any modifications required herein and all provisions of Title 9 of the Atascadero Municipal Code'. 2. All conditions of approval herein shall be complied or guar- anteed prior to occupancy of new construction. 3. Building architecture shall be generally consistent with sub- mitted ub mitted elevations. a. Roof-mounted or outdoor-mounted equipment shall be screened as required by Section 9-4.128 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Landscape and irrigation plans in conformance with Section 9-4.124 shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits. 5. All new utilities and utility connections shall be placed underground. 6. Submit two sets of grading, drainage, and erosion control plans for review and approval by the Planning and Public Works Departments in accordance with Sections 9-4.138 and 9-4.148. These shall be prepared by a civil engineer. 7. Curb, gutter, and paveout shall be provided along the Rosario property frontage. a. Road improvement plans shall be designed by a registered civil engineer for review and approval by the Public Works Department. b. The paveout width of Rosario from curb face to center- line shall be X20 feet as determined by the City engineer I--- 8. It is the applicant' s sole responsibility to have removed, relocated, or brought to grade any public utility facilities that may conflict with the approved road improvement plan. 9. Applicant shall submit design, detail, and calculations for a stormwater detention basin. Construction of the detention basin and any on-site drainage structures shall be certified by the designing engineer prior to final inspection. 10. A sewer connection permit from the Public Works Department shall be obtained prior to hooking up to the sewer. 31. Obtain encroactffieirt rmit -prirr 'to beg -ffn ng York in the public right-of-way. Sign inspection agreenerrt and a curb and gutter agreement guaranteeing that the work will be done and inspections paid for. 12. Approval of this conditionsl use permit will expire one year after the date of final approval, unless an extension of time has been granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Atascadero City Council held July 22, 1985. 2 i AYES: NOES: ABSENTS DATE ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor ATTEST; ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ROBERT M. JONES, Interim City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Planning Director 3 r " -} APRIL 10, 1985 CITY OF ATASCADERO PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6500 PALMA AVENUE ATASCADERO, CA 93422 ATTN. : HENRY ENGEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR RE. : ESCUELA DEL RIO; CUP 12-85 DEAR MR. ENGEN, THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN APPEAL OF, NOT NECESSARILY (BUT ONLY IF REQUIRED) , THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CUP 12-85. THE DIRECTORS OF ESCUELA DEL RIO HAVE FOUND THE SCHOOL IN A POSITION OF UNDUE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AS IT RELATES TO THE OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY CONDITION 7A AND 7B OF THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL. THE DIRECTORS RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR CITY PARTICIPATION IN DEFRAYING THE COST THE OFF-SITE DRAINAGE AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS OR A WAIVER OF THE CONDITIONS ALTOGETHER. THE ARCHITECT AND CIVIL ENGINEER DESIGNING THE PROJECT HAVE IDENTIFIED FURTHER IMPLICATIONS WHICH BOLSTER A CASE FOR WAIVER INCLUDING: 1) TRAFFIC SAFETY; WIDENING THE WESTBOUND LANE OF ROSARIO WILL RESULT IN AN ABRUPT CHANGE IN ALIGNMENT IN THE PAVING. THIS, COMBINED WITH THE DOWNHILL TRAVEL DIRECTION, COULD CONFUSE DRIVERS AND RESULT IN A SKIDDING ACCIDENT INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE" OR THE MOTEL ).JEST OF THE SCHOOL SITE. 2) DRAINAGE; WIDENING THE WESTBOUND LANE OF ROSARIO WILL REQUIRE THE IMPROVEMENT OR ABANDONMENT OF THE EXISTING 12" DRAINAGE CULVERT THAT DISCHARGES AT THE EAST END OF THE ROSARIO FRONTAGE. IMPROVEMENT WILL REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF A "BUBBLE-UP BOX" TO GET DRAINAGE INTO THE CURB AND GUTTER AND ABANDONMENT WILL RESULT IN DRAINAGE FLOWING ACROSS PALMA AVENUE. Atascadero Committee for Education • Drawer L,Atascadero,California 93422 • (805)466-4438 t '7-) 3) TREE REMOVALS; WIDENING THE WESTBOUND LANE OF ROSARIO WILL REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF TWO LARGE TREES, A 3$" OAK TO THE EAST, AND AN IB" ELM TO THE WEST. EVEN IF THE TREES COULD BE SAVED THE CUT REQUIRED TO REACH GRADE WILL BE WELL INTO THE DRIP LINE OF THESE TREES AND THEY WILL PROBABLY BE LOST WITHIN A YEAR. 4) LANDSCAPING REMOVALS; WIDENING THE WESTBOUND LANE OF ROSARIO WILL REQUIRE THE DISTRUCTION OF THE MAJORITY OF THE EXISTING LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG ROSARIO DUE THE REMOVAL OF DIRT TO REACH GRADE FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS. 5) COST; WIDENING THE WESTBOUND LANE OF ROSARIO WILL PLACE THE SCHOOL IN A POSITION OF UNDUE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP. ANALYSIS OF THE PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES FOR THE PROPOSED ADDITION FINDS THAT THE OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS CONSTITUTE 15% OF THE CONSTRUCTION COST NOT INCLUDING ENGINEERING COSTS. THE DIRECTORS OF ESCUELA DEL RIO REQUEST THAT YOUR DEPARTMENT PLEASE REVIEW THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE AND CONSIDER WHETHER A WAIVER IS APPROPRIATE. IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONDITIONS CANNOT BE WAIVED, WE WOULD ASK THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF ATASCADERO CONSIDER FUNDING THE IMPROVEMENTS AS A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN TOTAL OR IN PART. YOUR PROMPT RESPONSE WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. SINCEhELY, SHERRY FON EXECUTIVE D RECTOR CC GFH ARCHITECTURE KENNALY ENGINEERING r 4 :ti Minutes - Planning Commission Judy 1, 1985 Davidson, in presenting the staff report, discussed staff', s : concern with the proliferation of signs and whether or not this hype of activity warrants a' freeway identification sign. Staff ; feels, however, that approval is warranted due to the tourist- service nature of the use. f ! Joy Gustafson, applicant, stated she had no problem with staff' s recommendat-ion. ` ! Commissioner Michielssen asked if the signs were -proposed to be lighted. Mrs. Gustafson responded that at this .-time there were no ` plans for lighted .signs and proceeded to explain the types of mat- erials involved with .the signs. f ' ' Commissioner Sanders expressed concern that this particular type of business was not freeway oriented, therefore, a freeway identi- fication sign did not seem warranted. Commissioner Hatchell felt thej`signs to be compatible. , Mrs. Gustafson further explained the nature of the business in relation to business generated by people traveling the highway. Commissioner Sanders and .Commissioner Kennedy stated that approval' of this application could set a precedent for the types of signs that would appear along the highway. There was discussion concerning the fact that ,the proposed sign appeared smaller than the existing unapproved wall sign as well at whether -or not the sign is oriented towards tourist use. It was ; pointed out _that Valley Speed and Marine is one of the few facili-{ ties of its "kind in the County. ;_ MOTION:_- Made by Commissioner Bond, seconded by Commissioner Hatchell and carried, with Commissioners Sanders and Ken nedy dissenting, to approve Conditional Use Permit 11-851 rf�y subject to the findings and conditions listed in',the staff report. 5. Conditional Use Permit 12-85: Request submitted by Escuela Del Rio (Gary Harcourt, archi- dtect) to allow an addition of 2, 894 square feet to an exist- ing adult day care facility. Subject property is located at 5940 Rosario, also known as Lots 46 and 47 of Block RA. Mr . Davidson presented the staff report and explained that the ex- pansion of Escuela Del Rio would include the addition which would consist of two classrooms, bathrooms, storage facilities as well as an area for vocational skills training. Mr . Engen noted that a further review by the new Public Works Director , modification is in order for Condition #7 concerning the curb, gutter, and sidewalk requirements to delete the sidewalk requirement. i 6 Minutes - Planning Commission -- July 1, '1985 Commissioner Nolan stated there was no mention made of a firehy- drant requirement. Mr. Davidson noted that the Fire Department did review the plans and had approved them without that requirement. Gary Harcourt, representing the applicants, commended staff on the staff report and requested that the grading portion be incorpora- ted into the use permit instead of requiring a precise plan. Jack Stinchfield, one of the directors of Escuela Del Rio, asked for support in approving the project. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Bond and carried unanimously to approve Conditional Use Permit 12-85 subject to the findings and conditions con- tained in the staff report with modification to Condition #7 as follows: "7. Curb, gutter and paveout shall be provided along the Rosario property frontage: a. Road improvement plans shall be designed by a registered civil engineer for review and approv- al by the Public Works Department. b. The paveout width of Rosario from curb face to centerline shall be 15 to 20 feet as determined by the City Engineer. Deletion of subsection (c) . 0 NEWBUSINESS ..�.__.....o�.. ._.,......�.n ..�.�.__._.. ...._.c..._._..:_ _.._. 1.1 1Presentation of proposed Bordeaux House Apartment Project/400- units at 11300 Viejo Camino (Vandenberghe Financial) Mr. Engen provided a brief introduction about the precise plan project which staff is recommending be required to have an Envir onmental Impact Report. He introduced Matt Guthrie who would pre sent the proposal. Mr . Guthrie noted that the VandenBerghe family has maintained af- fordable, family type housing since 1963 and that theoro7ec t is designed to comply with the general'plan and zoning ordinance. He . further pointed out some of the concerns of staff which had been" incorporated into the plans which included open space, circula- tion, preservation -of trees. d Mr . Guthrie--further noted that the project would consist of eight- plexes and twelve-plexes with three central recreational areas : with __ the rents ranging from $450 to $500 per month. The projectp would be constructed in two phases with four on-site project mans- 'gers to monitor the buildings. 7 u 1� City of Atascadero Item: B-5 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Dater 7/1/85 BY: Doug Davidson, Assoc. Planner Trainee File No: CUP 12-85 Project Address: 5940 Rosario SUBJECT: To allow an addition of 2,894 square feet to the existing adult day care facility. Addition consists of two classrooms, bathrooms, stor- age facilities, and an area for vocational skills training. BACKGROUND: Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on June 21, 1985 and all owners of record property located within 300 feet were notified on that date. A. LOCATION: 5940 Rosario (Lots 46, 47 of Block RA) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • .To allow an addition of 2,894 square feet to an existing adult day care facility. 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .Escuela del Rio 3. Architect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gary Harcourt 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Approximately one acre 5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rosario and Palma are city-main- tained streets each with a 40 foot right-of-way. 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF/10 (Residential Multiple Family, 10 dwelling units per acre) 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Adult day care facility 8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RMF/10 , residential/ church South: CR, commercial East: CR, commercial West: RMF/10 , residential Conditional Use Permit 12-85 (Escuela Dei Rio/Harcourt) 9. General Plan Designation. . . .Low Density Multiple Family 10, Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .Gentle to steeply sloping. P 9• 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. ANALYSIS: In the RMF zones, schools or expansion of school facilities is a conditional use. This expansion of 2,894 square feet will enable the school to increase its daily attendance from 80 students to, approximately 100 students. Staff has reviewed the zoning ordi- nance development standards and determined that they are generally complied with. Parking needs for such facilities are to be deter- mined by the Planning Commission as part of the conditional use permit approval. 17 parking spaces, including two handicapped stalls, are being provided. Staff believes that this is suffi- cient parking for the school' s 12 employees and daytime visitors. The students do not drive and are dropped off by Dial-A-Ride. Staff notes that the parking lot will need a slight redesign be- cause parking stall #9 is located within the front yard setback. Grading: The slope of the expansion area gets increasingly steeper to the rear of the site and particularly along the northern property line. Grading on these slopes of over 20% would normally require Precise Plan approval by the Planning Department prior to the is- suance of any building permits, but may be approved as part of this conditional use permit. Public Improvements: Curb, gutter, and sidewalk are required in the RMF/10 zone when vehicular , pedestrian, and use characteristics of the project and surrounding area indicates a need for the improvements. Further- more, they are required to be installed when the value of an addi- tion exceeds 25% of the total value of improvements existing on the site. Rosario is a collector road and should have sidewalks provided. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 12-85 based on the findings and conditions of approval contained in Exhibit A. DGD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval Exhibit B Location Map Exhibit C - Site Plan Exhibit D - Slope Map 2 Conditional Use Permit 12-85 (Escuela Del Rio/Harcourt) EXHIBIT A Conditional Use Permit 12-85 Findings/Conditions of Approval July 1, 1985 FINDINGS: 1. The project will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment, and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 2. The project, along with the conditions of approval, conforms to all applicable zoning regulations and is consistent with the Gen- eral Plan. 3. Streets in the vicinity of Escuela del Rio are adequate to carry the kind and quantity of traffic generated by the proposed expansion. 4. The conditions imposed are necessary to assure that the project will be reasonably compatible with existing and future uses in the area and with the character of the neighborhood and its orderly growth. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Site development including buildings, driveways, pparking, land scaping and other features shall be consistent with plans submit- ted including any modifications required herein and all provisions of Title 9 of the Atascadero Municipal Code. 2. All conditions of approval herein shall be complied with prior to occupancy of new construction. 3. Building architecture shall be generally consistent with submitted elevations. a. Roof-mounted or outdoor-mounted equipment shall be screened as required by Section 9-4.128 of the zoning Ordinance. 4. Landscape and irrigation plans in conformance with Section 9-4.124 shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits. 5. All new utilities and utility connections shall be placed under ground. 6. Submit two sets of grading, drainage, and erosion control plans for review and approval by the Planning and Public Works Depart- ments in accordance with Sections 9-4. 138 and 9-4.148. These shall be prepared by a civil engineer . r 3 1, Conditional Use Permit 12-85 (Escuela Del Rio/Harcourt) 7. Curb, gutter, five foot wide sidewalk, and paveout shall be pro- vided along the Rosario property frontage to include handicapped curb ramp. a. Road improvement plans shall be designed by a registered civil engineer for review and approval by the Public Works Department. b. The paveout width of Rosario from curb face to centerline shall be 20 feet. C. The applicant shall offer five (5) feet of dedication for widening along Rosario Avenue 8. It is the applicant' s sole responsibility to have removed, reloca- ted, or brought to grade any public utility facilities that may conflict with the approved road improvement plan. 9 . Applicant shall submit design, detail, and calculations for a stormwater detention basin. Construction of the detention basin and any on-site drainage structures shall be certified by the de- signing engineer prior to final inspection. 10. A sewer connection permit from the Public Works Department shall be obtained prior to hooking up to the sewer . 11. Obtain an encroachment permit prior to beginning work in the pub- lic right-of-way. Sign inspection agreement and a curb and gutter agreement guaranteeing that the work will be odne and inspections paid for. 12. Approval of this conditional use permit will expire one year after the date of final approval unless an extension of time has been granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. �y 4 El. IL-ftl ger: AT 3L IZ SLYBL `S'. v/y _ /�f y f'/ ' - '�•;� a;�± `, 'J�• �nes �. Q s17 .. '4� i+ f fes: pis •� .. i DATE BY RE'.'SS107: . gpN ""sl. G �..-.. o;>a ,• V .�^ '' �. RMF/ib ;.a It _. + '' .�• j. . . j •ra+° •J,T' t ' _ 30,5 is rJr It r•Az �♦,' `_ • r •bi y.,•7.L"� 1,v ra i) �.^.:.�- • r•s.i I naa \.\ - - t� alp •y � .4 ,yr I • f4 :Y ]''R'�;� .m,,' w 'Ir`r is«• tc•', J' a • A li \ Q +y1•.; ql t, ,ifao R°� ` '"y t^ +,�' � c���.• �.% ra�r•y fr -�R, t .1++ 4'�,�:, O rrao, b° `, utt II.t° • _AgDr •.• 'a aar M►.Gi�J N 'Ia A �`a��`,°S.\\J. ��• 6 w ,w say! t y'a ��" •1 :-•� o-'��'..•��..scr.� . _ , ..� .d},g• a . 4• t3 , v y y r:.a c a;. :c ,,����yy 4. .;r ".. '•u'704 6 •,�`��� �a• 5/es •+°H lt L1 a �p �1;^ ♦� •:�`3,5•e '�`Va 1' -2yrT iyi.7� ` t : It • ,y +)1O a 23 • �, r, r • .. - � � �o si•° 5,7.5 3 u is• �, u. ,u -'.�/, ,y,i`{�.y • d \�v/ 11 i, S _ w;t.•- , ��a s w 8 2>a teo is� v n •o +�y ;1• b4 r ' _ i a 5705 I p S/75 '-O �' SC sl90 -� �' 11 p Ia � au •N ai*. 7 .1•°• _F: d2&� Is51 - rr q A )t r a C �alfns is K is a cii< s5s.'IC3 +-' Z to i� . 's "bi -3s• .�r.-a,• .. • is.n T o - ' `S,• 5,0•a .! + ♦°f` 6Ybn10 2 MN +•O \tE3•. - `�• p a+ •°a'� yf05, t•;.t. ` t°i 11 re 4:d a.•:.,j° •; •*i,s.,�r Y\Z ' 117-8 ,•/I� `s . t♦`�; •• i� t0 1 r` •r� <�,�+ a � + ^� rEl � 3� •¢.�� �56ts �!' •°S '• 'O,° ,.�''1.°Ya- h�'(..F rr, �i< s �'� :� + 6 's c '••4 , +��� ACio J'a i� f ,. •` ,4 Hnw ii{ •6 eta •� $ l `+� i.'o _ 5 , y .do °� .�• as n`. +•:3 0 .`a i >� •r 17t FS .. - ami•. A{13•P a Yf AD•`6a s", t •`t+�'w - v 4 •aO• 'YO' LSF-Y . 15 4014 t 7Fstn ri„ •r i• =u •a .�.✓r i 70 f.. Ip°p •t' ws n as 29 • t •o ; :•r Hm . �IS 'y,M; A• 1 � _ JpD ••a•:a ,3 r _ a ••a t• ar =a :r 1 , .. yy;s4 a •r''f+ •�µa' 1`° S ,� r• + va`' t 9r.7t. �,p a.. a Sa"•' a .� a' +, ti rx ,.. _ LSF..-Yj r a3 f��-11 O\ r t,, ..t 4 a•' iS a.'i.•� a•"• �a- 1.a•E+a a ASS >eeq - • R w55 13 `q6 r •+ .i,,\��•'a.4�5 a a,�1C3 rKy�b.• • +°+ • i' `+�+ rr L(FH. ,° • �!�• loss 'o UFF 59-- �'-�'`°S 1./ .. •w� 82.0 1� F�.. ..,t+•, _� R•'•e_ mil 7 %1H) r•• +• at,\ ,� ,a Y•O � )i>g � (:hii� � ' s60� •••a ,t'°•► L�y.•�• .r'�+ -V+,�.L •ago •+� Bio , �.j• ,< �//1/ ���'o - m.•• .:s .,,ip• 3 UB A�J ,°„ ,o �, ♦ ,, k a „7.a' ,vs"p ; s ;f,/ T ^ LSF_1' .(� �'6» a• ,\t r/' `�°' �V0o43 �1.l1J, � e`'\d a ► '.� ,1a� a��`e �� ��� �'�" - ' , .Y' w ,.•• � ra c' a"? 7 .u. 2� •:.o . u �>ff.• :.oy4 J..• gip?. .tom •_' '4=(/A.. ^' J /�(� j:... ` 50 e • .,�;+!7� iJ 2y��.i.0 e - 9 V4•' \ �Pr o0 y'fo° \ Cl«`E►�nc�4 "��AV\'F', � )f I ��c ��,i.a v • ..Sq. •;qts i/...` \i• .i a•I 7ya ryi`^ i/ r ' 6Ay .0 •S vG +•, 1 t � //��jj���,/�`}V.'� V. / f'�� p n. • Oy C • • cy i•f/i✓vN ' r '"••p^. •. �is $ � CITY OF ATASCADERO Planning ��-/ f r - ,.� ❑.�I�/1/ raL. 7 -b ,`.+v..."..,,.. NI;• :. " u C .d�l'.7i,1 0�••��' 7s i.1 .. �.-.. ..�• . _.,.�....•.�� . ...� .. ....�....... __. .. :.4.� _E /!K-�..:r�KY�..?�1.6.._. ` -� --- "meq•.. ^eJ t' :� j' + � �� �! ' �� •ICIDH' 4� I i X11+1 lit A p / •'` •�d 3 •� ms's,. PF xx J TE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ii ..... ESCUEUI DEl Rt0 i 3I ..... .. -...-._-._ ..... ..,.. moi: ....... �... _ .. '.� .\-.- 4 .. �4 r�X•., a' Vic ���.. � - ".`\ VVA" jl� ! t . i� e4z, �Lm rT—P TT } lo if , I l� a ,1 r SLOPE MAP tjX 14 1 Q I-r D i ADOPTED JUNE 27 , 1 Row (2) Crowded, with good horticultural practices dictating thinning (3) Interfering with existing utilities, structures or right-of way improvements. (4) Obstructing existing or proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal; - (5) Inhibiting sunlight needed for either active or passive solar heating or cooling, and the building or solar col lectors cannot be- `oriented to collect sufficient sun— light without_ total removal of the tree. (c) Trees removed shall be replaced by a tree that will provide equal or ,.better shade, screening, solar efficiency or visual amenity'within a 10-year period, as verified -in writing by a registered landscape architect, licensed landscaping con- tractor, or certified nurseryman, unless the removal- is with- in an area where there still exists sufficient tree cover to accommodate site needs. 9-4. 158. Street and Frontage Improvements: Section 9-4. 159 and 9-4. 160 establishes standards for street frontage improvements re— quired with development projects authorized by an entitlement. 9-4.159 . Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks The installation of curb, gutter and sidewalks shall be as set forth in this Section. (a) When Required Curb, gutter and sidewalk, is required to be installed as set forth in this Section when: (1) The value of any structures proposed during a period of 12 months (as indicated by all building permits issued for the site during the 12-month period) exceed 25% of the total value of all improvements existing on the site as determined by the assessment roll at the time the first of the building permits is applied for. (2) A new structure is moved onto a site (rather than con— structed in place) where street frontage improvements would be required by Subsection b of this Section. (b) Where Required: Within the Urban Services Line, concrete curb, gutter, ; and sidewalk is required with any project in the following areas: (l) In all commercial zones, except in commercial areas oriented to highway travel unless pedestrian, vehicular and use characteristics of the project and surrounding area indicate a need for the improvements. 4-55 ADOPTED JUNE 27, 10 j and constructed as set forth in the City Engineering Depart- ment Standard Improvement Specifications and Drawings. A drainage plan may be required in conjunction with improvement plans. No drainage shall be allowed across public sidewalks or driveways. All grading and construction is to occur at the expense of the developer, including placement of base and surfacing between the lip of the new gutter and the existing pavement as necessary to complete the street surface. The new surfacing between the gutter and existing pavement is to be at least equal in kind to that presently in place. These improvements shall include paved transitions to provide for existing road drainage as well as drainage to or from the proposed site. (f) Timing of Installation: All required improvements are to be completed as set forth inSection9-2.115 (Project Com- pletion) , Sections 9-2. 117 (Occupancy with Incomplete Site Improvements) prior to occupancy. (g) Plan Check and Inspection: When required by the City Engineer, a plan check and inspection agreement shall be entered into. (h) Appeal: Any person aggrieved by the requirements of this Section shall have the right of appeal to the City Council � � - r :` as provided by Section 9-1.111 of this Title. 9-4. 160. Streets. The installation of street paving shall be re- quired in conjunction with curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements as set forth in Section 9-4. 159 and shall be subject to all the standards and procedures set forth therein in addition to the following : (a) Damage Occurring from Construction: Any existing public street which is damaged as a result of on-site or off-site construction shall be reconstructed, or repaired if damage is not extensive, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (b) Extent of Improvements: Street improvements, not including curb, gutter and sidewalk unless necessary for proper drain- age control, may be required beyond the frontage of the site and any adjacent lots under the same ownership when traffic generated by the development of a site is determined to war- rant such improvement in order to provide for adequate access and traffic safety. Archeological Resources: In the event archeological- : resources are unearthed or discovered, during any construction acti- ±vities,__the--following 'standards apply: - 4-57 ti 7L22/85 C - l M E M O R A N D U M • To: City Council July 11, 1985 via: Mike Shelton, City Manager, From: Bob Best, Recreation Director Subject: Amendment to Ordinance No. 105 INTRODUCTION At the June 10th Council Meeting, Ordinance No. 105 relating to Parks and Recreation was adopted by Council. At that time I was instructed to bring back an amendment to Section 10-1. 06 Wind- surfers. The first reading of Ordinance No. 108 was conducted on 108 Jul 8 1 This will be the SECOND Reading Adopting Ordinance . 985. � Y g P RECOMMENDATION Amend Ordinance No. 105, Section 10-1. 06 Windsurfers, to read • as follows: 10-1. 06 Windsurfers It is unlawful for any person to operate a surfboard-like vessel on any area of_Atascadero Lake. BACKGROUND With the adoption of a no swimming policy in Atascadero Lake, it is necessary to maintain consistency in all areas of the ordinance. The no windsurfing amendment would provide this consistency in policy. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact. 0 • ORDINANCE NO. 108 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING SECTION 10-1. 06 WINDSURFERS OF ORDINANCE NO. 105, CHAPTER 1 TO TITLE 10 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKS AND RECREATION. The Council of the City of Atascadero ordains as follows: SECTION 1. Section 10-1.06 Windsurfers is amended to read as follows: 10-1. 06 Windsurfers It is unlawful for any person to operate a surfboard-like vessel on any area of Atascadero Lake. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in this City in accordance with Govern- ment Code section 36933; shall certify the adoption of this ordinance; and shall cause this ordinance and its certification to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of this City. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full effect at 12 :01 -a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage. The foregoing ordinance was introduced on July 8 , 1985 and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on July 22, 1985. AYES: NOES : ABSENT: Rolfe D. Nelson, Mayor Robert M. Jones, City Clerk Approved as to form Michael Shelton, City Manage- Acting City Attorney .a • TO: City Council July 11, 1985 FROM: Mike Shelton SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT TAX RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION 1. Direct staff to prepare, for the August 12, 1985 Council Meeting, a Development Mitigation Tax Ordinance, charging a tax on new construction at a rate of $. 50 per square foot. 2. Direct staff to conduct studies and make analysis to recom- mend future Development Mitigation Fees for Council and public consideration. 3. Direct staff to prepare a Drainage Impact Fee Study to determine and address community storm drainage needs. • BACKGROUND Atascadero Unified School District for some time has requested that Council to implement a development mitigation impact fee due to school overcrowding. During this same time, Council has also desired to implement a development mitigation tax or fee to address impacted City services. Reviewing both fee requests at the same time enables Council to evaluate an appropriate fee to be charged against future development and determine a proper fee distribution between the City and the School District. Council held a special study session on June 26, 1985 to consider ' in greater depth new construction charges for City needs. The public provided considerable comment and input (attached) . Council, on two different occasions, received school and public input regarding a school development fee. Council, at your June 24, 1985 Council Meeting, adopted S.B.-201 School Fee Ordinance. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT CHARGE CONSIDERATIONS Criteria to consider in implementing development charges are as follows: • 1 Staff further recommends Council instruct staff to proceed in . analyzing the need for and recommending additional development fees. Phasing in development charges as proposed would also address the concerns of many citizens that more public education and time should be taken. 4. Development Tax Charge Amount At the special study meeting, many citizens expressed concerns regarding the amount of tax in these broad areas: A. Negative impact on low income housing. B. Negative impact on growth C. Negative impact on commercial growth impacting future ongoing revenues Staff relies on Council' s judgement as to an appropriate tax rate levy. Utilizing a 1,700 square foot single family home for example, staff calculated the revenues that would result from a City development charge in the range of $2,000-$3,000 to meet City capital improvement project needs. In addition, to this amount the School District is requesting a $700 fee and the Water District charges a $650 connection fee. Staff also questioned the adequacy of the current $5.00 sewer hook-up charge A fee of $1,000 is charged for new single family lots. On the average, other cities charge approximately $1, 400 for a sewer hookup. A $.50 per square foot development taxon all new construction will result in a $850 tax on a 1,700 square foot single family residence. The difference between this amount and Council' s feelings of an appropriate maximum levy would be implemented in the form of develo- pment fees. If a $4,000 maximum charge was considered appropriate and school fees are implemented in the amount of $700, (based on a pro- posed $300 - $900 fee) the following would apply: $4,000 . . . . . . Maximum Example $ 600 . . . . . . . . . Water Charge $ 700 . . . . . . . . . . . School Fees 850 . . . . . . . . . . Development I'Liti p-ation Tax $1, 800* . . . . . . . . . Future Development Fees (including sewer connection fee) * Combined City Development Fee ($1,800) and Development Tax ($850) _ $2,650 Accordingly, assuming 300 development units per year and 145,000 square feet of commercial space, annual City revenues would approx- imate $1,021,055 ($327 ,500 per year Development Tax and $693,555 future Development Fee) 3 p' \G� LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS In the attached memo of June 19, 1985, Interim Attorney Roger Lyon 0 recommended two development charge funding mechanisms: 1) A tax on new development; and 2) Development Impact Fee. Roger recommended from a legal perspective, that the construction tax is the more streamlined and simplified approach. On the other hand, develop- ment impact fees are traditionally used by many cities in this area. As an example, the City of Paso Robles' fee schedule is attached for your consideration. Proposition 4, the "Gann Initiative" became effective upon the City' s incorporation during fiscal year 1980/81. The article resulting from this initiative provides that some appropriation made by government entities are subject to limitation. These are designated as "Approp- riations Subject to Limitation" . The limitation placed on this type of appropriation is that they shall not exceed the appropriation limit of the government entity for the prior year adjusted for changes in the cost of living and population. Appropriation subject to limi- tation would include revenues derived by the City from a development tax. Accordingly, the City could collect a new construction tax only to the extent that the tax, along with other City taxes, does not exceed the appropriations limit of the City. A development fee, on the other hand, is not a tax, but derives its legal authority as a police power to impose reasonable exactions to offset or mitigate the burden of new construction on the community. Under the development fee concept, the burden is on the City to demon strate that fees imposed bear a reasonable relationship to the public need created by the development. DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION TAX ORDINANCE Based on the special study session, staff understands that Council desires a development mitigation tax ordinance, as follows: 1. Tax to cover construction of all residential and commercial buildings. 2. Tax rate to be the same for commercial and residential. 3. Basis of tax rate on square foot charge is most equitable. 4. Annual inflationary adjustments to be periodically made by virtue of changes in the cost of construction. 5. Implementation would be delayed 90 days upon adoption to enable those in the system, versus those who have already obtained project findings and are unaware of the tax, to be processed with- out charge. 0 4 /� 6. Mobile homes would be taxed at a flat rate. - Staff recommends a flat rate charge of $375 in proportionto the $. 50 per square foot rate on residential/commercial development) . AMAPOA/TECHORIDA Council recently imposed a drainage charge in the amount of approx- imately $10,000 to commercial developers along Highway 41 to con- struct a spillway from Atascadero Lake to Atascadero Creek. Council' s intent was to reimburse to developers a portion of this charge upon implementing a much broader drainage impact fee. Staff desires Council direction on this matter. Possible Council alternatives are as follows: 1. Charge $10,000 to future developers and give no reimbursement. 2. Charge $10,000 and direct staff to bring back drainage impact study recommendation and fee resulting in additional develop- ment fee and creating reinbursement method. 3. Drop drainage charge requirement and direct staff to bring back drainage impact study and recommend fee. A. Allow development to ensue in the interim (business as usual) . B. Impose moratorium until Council can consider drainage study and potential fee. 4. Direct staff to develop for Council' s consideration, a drainage special assessment district. A. Allow development to ensue in the interim (business as usual) B. Impose moratorium until Council considers/imposes special assessment district. 5. Direct spillway be constructed, assuming development mitigation tax is imposed, as City's highest capital improvement need and drop drainage construction charge. Staff feels strongly that current drainage problems in this area must be addressed. Liability exposures are significant inwhich the City may have no excess coverage (assumes increase condem- nation claims) . 5 r . ATTACHMENT SPECIAL STUDY SESSION COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSE Staff has attempted to address questions raised at your special study session as follows: 1. Comment: Cost of housing will be higher , reducing afford- ability. Response: It is not the intent to enact fees at a level that discourages development or affordable housing. Revenues from fees may be utilized to make public improvements which improvements may reduce the need to extract special individual project funds Large scale public improvements paid for by many can also be accom- plished at a significantly reduced cost. Affordable housing is more a product of external factors such as interest rates, economy, and density. 2-. Comments: * City ought to be austere and get along with less !, * -People want cost of Government cut * Just a technical way to get around Proposition 13 Response: Ability to provide local government services is directly correlated to revenues. Without additional revenue sources, improvements in current traffic, services, and public amenities will go largely unaddressed with additional population growth burdening these services. City revenues vary significantly from city to city. Atascadero being a post Proposition 13 city has the second lowest tax base in the County 3. Comment: Not fair to put additional burden only on new per capita base construction. * Spread the burden out among everyone in the community. * Not fair to newcomers. Create special assessment district city-wide for needed improvements. Response The purpose of a development charge is to translate the effects of the project on the community directly to the developer. • Current municipal facilities have been paid by the present and past populace. Newcomers impacting the current system would be required to 6 - • r pay for resultant additional, improved', or enlarged services. The imposition of development charges will significantly reduce the need for city-wide special assessment district taxes. Timely implementation of the development charge on a city-wide basis will result in the burden being spread on a much broader basis. Delay could result in increased burdens being placed on fewer people. According to City buildout plans, the City will experience a 100% growth increase over the current population upon reaching buildout. Implementation of development charges enables the City to continue growth without overtaxing the system that often results in growth control considerations. Comments: 4. * Fee comparison with other cities doesn' t include additional costs for construction permits. * Chart doesn' t include water and sewer charges in Atascadero Response: Permit and other processing fees were not included on the fee comparison chart for the City or other comparative cities. All cities' fees for these services is above the development charges proposed. Shaff should have included the water charge to the chart to provide a fair compariosn. The City charges only a $5.00 sewer connection charge, which was shown. Sewer connection charges above the $5 only happens if there is a lot split ($1, 000 additional buy-in fee is charged for lot splits) , multi-family development ($725 per unit) , mobile homes ($660 per unit) or com- mercial/industrial use ($26.33 per plumbing fixture) . 5. Comments: Existing homes will profit as prices will go up for all homes. Response: This statement is most probably true. As the cost of new housing increases,_ resale value of existing housing will be impacted. 6. Comments: * Not fair to compare with other cities — other cities' needs are different from ours. * Development processing services in other cities much better than here * Paso invites industry and creates jobs for young people. A * Property cost in Paso is much less than in Atascadero Response: Staff agrees that comparison with other cities is • only a partial guide. Needs of other cities differ significantly from ours. In addition to having the second lowest revenue base per capita, the City has one of the highest per capita service 7 �� i • costs. In comparison with the City of San Luis Obispo, the City of Atascadero services three times the area. City capital reserves are non-existent. The City has had and continues to have significant problems p providing timely and quality regulatory services to developers. Attached is a memo from the Community Development Director addressing current efforts by the Council and staff to address these problems. Unfortunately, processing i with slow to current development demands on the staff and time required to recognize and recruit additional staffing. 7. Comments: * Growth will be slowed down if fees are implemented. * Fees will discourage growth and resultant ongoing revenues won' t be realized. * Supply and demand will faulter if fees imposed. Reply The City must be very sensitive to insure a competitive development posture. Council sensitivity to community needs and development charges is a primary consideration. It is generally felt that commercial enterprise with revenue raising abilities and profit motives should pay its way. As indicated before, growth affordability is more a factor of external forces such as interest rates, the economy, and density. 40 8. Comment: * Provide more public exposure and public education of what' s being proposed * Take the issue to the ballot box for an advisory vote * Take time and get feedback Response: Staff is proposing to Council a significantly reduced tax and that additional fees be presented on an individual basis after careful study and analysis of the special needs. Each additional fee will be prepared separately in the form of an ordinance requiring noticing and public hearings. Proposed development changes are in compliance with State laws. Proposed development charges do not violate either Proposition 13 or 4 (expenditure li,mition laws) . Proposed construction charges are within Council' s discretion. 9. Comment: Raising fees is a reason why people voted against incorporation. Response: The City of Atascadero is the second largest (of 7 cities) in the County. Local government by local people was approved by ballot five years ago by over 50 percent of the pop- ulation. The current Council serves as as elected officials of 8v V - i the public charged with the duty to govern and enact laws, as • deemed best for the community. 10. Comment: The City should consider property tax negotiation first with the County. Response: It is anticipated that additional property tax rev- enues negotiated with the Council will serve to rectify the oper- ating budget imbalance. Additional funds will not be made avail- able for capital projects. 11. Comment: * Instead of looking at 25 years capital project needs, look at a shorter term * If people can see capital improvements to be made in the next 2-3 years, the need becomes more "tangible and sellable Response: Staff has prepared a listing of desirable capital projects for the next five years. Considerable detail is given to first year proposed projects. 12. Comment: Other cities bring water , sewer, and fire hydrants up to the project at no cost or the cost is included in the fee • charged. Response: The City' s practice of requiring developer pay for extensions of mains and providing laterals and hydrants is con- sistent with other City development policy. Due to large acreage and sparce density development, cost in Atascadero can be signif- icantly higher than other communities. 13. Comment: What other areas have been explored to raise revenues? Response: The City has explored all known traditional revenue raising methods. The only other known revenue raising methods to the City under current law includes going to the public for a special tax (2/3 vote required) or formation of Special Assessment Districts. Utility user tax or additional general taxes are not allowed under the Proposition 4 expenditure limitation initiative. 14. Comment: Additional development fees on top of development requirements and fees along Highway 41 is unreasonable. Response: As part of this report, staff seeks further guidance from Council on constructing drainage improvements in the Amapoa-Techorida area. 15. Comment: Mobile home fees are counterproductive to providing low-cost housing often associated with mobile home park living. Response: Staff recommends the development tax be reduced for mobile home parks proportionately to the $. 50 square foot recom r 9 ,. mendation. A flat fee tax of $375 is recommended at this time. f 10 *r CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FIVE YEARS 1985-86 to 1989-90 INC. 16,0 DESCRIPTION 198J--86 1986-87 1988-89 5-YEAR 1-YEAR 1987-88 1989-90 TOTAL 2-3 YRS 4-5 YRS Police Building 250,000 500,000 1810700 931.,700 Recreation 0 0 0 0 Parks Atascadero Lake Feas. Study 75-500 7,500 Park Workshop & Storage 95,000 95,000 Atascadero Lake Land. Acquisition 50, 000 50,000 (See attached schedule) 596, 500 7172000 2801,000 Zoo Replace Drain Lines 8 ,000 80000 Pickup Truck 10,000 10,000 ire Fire Station Office 291000 29 ,000 Utility Vehicle 121000 12,000 Sub Station 270,000 270,000 Fire Engine - Replacement 125 ,000 125,000 Mini Pumper - Replacement 50,000 50,000 Fire Engine - Replacement 90,000 90,000 Life Support Equipment 89000 x,000 Engineering 60,000 20,500 10,000 90,500 Streets .(excluding resurfacing) 617,250 1945,500 1536, 500 4099,250 Buildings 315,000 85,000 400,000 Dial A Ride 5,000 802000 80,000 165,000 TOTAL 1448,750 37702500 25351200 7754,450 0 r D - 1 M E M O R A N D U M July 11, 1985 To: City Council via: Mike Shelton, City Managers From: Bob Best, Parks and Recreation Director Subject: Bid 85-30 INTRODUCTION As part of the development of South Atascadero Park (Paloma Creek Park) , it was necessary to go to bid for a soil amendment. Bid 85-30 Mushroom Mulch (or equal) was put out to bid with the appropriate legal considerations. Unfortunately, due to the timing of the bid process, it was not possible to provide a written summary of the bids prior to the- Countil Meeting. RECOMMENDATION I will provide Council with a verbal report on July 22, and request approval of the low bid. It is important this be purchased as soon as possible, with plans to seed the fields in September. FISCAL IMPACT None - cost of materials will be paid by the South Park grant from State Parks and Recreation. 7/22185 ,D ` M ,E M 0 R A N D U M • July 11, 1985 To: City Council Via: Mike Shelton Evl From: Bob Best, Parks and Recreation Director Subject: Request for Grant Application Approval INTRODUCTION The California Park and Recreation Facilities Act of 1984 pro- vided 100% grants under the Regional Competitive Program and the Lakes, Reservoirs, and Waterways Program. Applications are due no later than October 1, 1985, with funding available July 1, 1986 . • RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Parks and Recreation Director to prepare grant applications for both programs. Under the Regional Competitive, apply for funding for Phase II of Paloma Creek Park (Restrooms) and under the Lakes Program apply for funding to assist in rehabili- tation of Atascadero Lake. FISCAL IMPACT These programs do not require a match, so there would be no cost to the City except time in administering the grants. • 2` ® Resolution No. 58-8 On motion by Councilman and seconded by Councilman , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ROLFE NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES , City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Michael Shelton, Cit Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES, Interim City Attorney 1 fV. RESOLUTION NO. 59-85 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE LAKES, RESERVOIRS AND WATERWAYS PROGRAM OF THE CALIFORNIA PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES ACT OF THE 1984 FOR ATASCADERO LAKE PROJECT WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the California Park and Recreation Facilities Act of 1984 , which provides funds to. the State of California and its political sub- divisions for developing facilities for public recreational purposes; and WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the state, setting up necessary procedures governing applica- tion by local agencies under the program; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and Recreation require the applicant to certify by resolu- tion the approval of applications before submission of said applica- tions to the state; and WHEREAS, said applications contain assurances that the appli- cant must comply with; and WHEREAS, the applicant agency will enter into an agreement with the State of California for development rehabilitation or restoration of the project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Astascadero hereby: 1. Approves the filing of an application for 1984 state grant assistance for the above project; and 2. Certifies that said agency understands the assurances and certification in the application; and 3. Certifies that said agency has or will have sufficient <I funds to operate and maintain the project, and if the project is selected for state grant funding; 4 . Certifies that said organization will provide construction plans and specifications to the state within one year of the appropriation of funds under this program and will commence work immediately after state approval; and 5. Appoints the City Manager as agent of the City of Atascadero to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit abl docu- ments including ocuments- including but not limited to applications, agreements, • amendments, payment requests, and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned projects /V Resolution No. 59-85 On motion by Councilman and seconded by Councilman , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote. AYES : NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ROLFE NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES , City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES, Interim City Attorney fi :7/22/85 E _ 1 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Request for Proposals - Sewer Study INTRODUCTION As discussed at the Council meeting of July 8th, ,the Public Works Department has sent out a Request for Proposals for pro- viding the City with a Sewer Study for the Atascadero Sanitation District. Due to the timing of the proposal process, it is not possible for me to provide a written summary of proposals prior to the Council meeting. • RECOMMENDATION I will provide Council with a verbal report at the Council meeting on July 22. • v a