Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 06/10/1985 r • AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting June 10, 1985 at 7: 30 P.M. ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Invocation Roll Call City Council Comments A. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are considered • to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is required, that item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and will be considered separately. Vote may be by roll call. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of May 28, 1985 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) Proposed Resolution 43-85 Transferring a Portion of Calendar Year 1985 Activity Bond Limit from the City of Atascadero to the City of San Bernardino (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 3. Proposed Resolution 40-85 - Authorizing the Mayor to Ratify San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council Joint Powers Agreement for Fiscal Year 1985/86. (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 4/ Proposed Resolution 48-32 - Authorizing the Mayor to Ratify the Department of Animal Regulation F.Y. 1985/86 Contract Renewal j3. Tentative Map 14-85 - 9850 Las Lomas (Parcels 1 & 2 of Lot 36, Block 6) - Bebeau/Kennaly (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) • UNFINISHED BUSINESS Proposed Resolution 38-85 - City/School Development Fee Proposal to Alleviate School Overcrowding (Cont'd from 5/28/85) r 2. Amapoa Tecorida New Development/Construction Deposit • 'Discussion (Cont'd from 5/28/85) Proposed Resolution 42-85 - Authorizing Mayor to Enter into Agreement for Drainage Improvements Business License Proposed Ordinance - Staff Review and Recommendation (Cont'd from 5/13/85) C. NEW BUSINESS Dial-A-Ride Proposed Fare Increase Discussion 2�--'proposed Fiscal Year 1984/85 Audit Agreement for the City of Atascadero Architectural Review Report D. ASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT Proposed Fiscal Year 1984/85 Audit Agreement for the Atascadero Sanitation District - COMMUNITY FORUM INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5. City Manager NOTE: THIS COUNCIL MEETING TO ADJOURN TO SPECIAL CLOSSED SESSIO ON JUNE 18 AT 6:00 P.M. FOR THE PURPOSE OF LABOR NEGOTIATIONS • COUNCIL MEETING : 6/10/85 OVIDA ITEM NO, : A - MINUTES - ATASCADERO CI'ITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting May 28 , 1985 , . 7 : 30 P.M. •Prather Building, Atascadero Jr. High School The Regular Meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to order at 7 : 30 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Handshy. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. In lieu of the invocation, Mayor Pro Tem Handshy read a proclamation en- titled, "Allen Grimes Week, May 22-28 , 1985" , which was followed by a moment of silence in honor of Mr. Grimes. ROLL CALL Present: Councilman Molina, Councilwomen Mackey and Norris , Mayor Pro Tem Handshy. Absent: Mayor Nelson STAFF Mike •Shelton, City Manager; Roger Lyon, Interim City Attorney; Grigger Jones, City Clerk; Henry Engen, Planning Director; John Wallace , Interim Public Works Director; Bob Best, Recreation Director; Doug Davidson, Associate Plan- ner Trainee; Georgia Ramirez , Recreation Dept. Secretary; Cindy Wilkins , Deputy City Clerk. COUNCIL COMMENT iMayor Pro Tem Handshy made reference to the last Counc . Meeting of Monday, May 13 , 1985 , with a specific request that his vote on Item D-lA (Proposed Ordinance No. 1.05 - Rules and Regulations Formulation) be clarified as a NO, changed from a YES vote after much thought. A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of May 13, 1985 (RECOA^.MEND APPROVAL) 2. Treasurer ' s Report - April 1 - 30 ,- 1985 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 3. Finance Director ' s Report - April 1 - 30 , 1985 4 . Confirmation of Appointment of Paul Sensibaugh as Public Works Director (RECOMWMEND APPROVAL) 5. Interim Appointment of Roger Lyon as City Legal Counsel 6. Final Parcel Map 24-34, .7955 Bella Vista (Lot 32, Block 14) , Friend/Twin Cities Engineering - (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 7 . Final Parcel Map AT 830304 :1, 6100 Llano Road (Lot 10A, Block 43) , Millhollin/Stewart(Engineer) - (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 8. Request Authorization to acquire 1/2-ton Vehicle through State • Bid Process MOTION: By Councilman Molina, seconded by Councilwoman Norris to approve Consent Items A 1-8. Passed unanimously by roll call vote. 1 MINUTES -- Mav 28 , 1.9850 0 nAGE 2 B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 29-84 (Christian Home) Mr. Engen introduced Staff Report; Doug Davidson gave a brief history of the item, followed by a summary of the issues , stating that staff recommends approval of Draft Resolution 27-85 , denying the appeal and approving Conditional Use Permit 29-84 , subject to the same conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, with the addition of condition numbers 17 and 18 , which relate to the ar- chaelogical study and insure that adequate mitigation measures are taken in the event of a find. Mike Arrambide , Executive Director of Atas . Christian Home , spoke on behalf of the project, noting that it' s no surprise that the 10-acre site was to be developed by the Atas . Christian Home , an enthusiastic and fully developed plan having been brought forth by the organization in 1971. The plan has been trimmed back in response to the neighborhood' s concerns , and the developers do plan to pursue the project. When the project was open for dis- cussion over the years in the various public hearings , both before and after Atascadero ' s incorporation as a City, Mr. Arrambide in- dicated that there was no concern or comment by the same neighbors who now voice their opposition. John Dorman, resident of 9275 Mountain View, spoke on behalf of a group of area residents as an appellant to the project; he resent- PP P 7 present- ed Council with (1) copy of a letter written by Shirley Moore along with a copy of a full-scale plan of the project. Mr. Dorman stated the group feels Planning Commission approval for the project Permit �a.as given without adequate consideration of the proposal and was both incomplete and misrepresented. He cited that the revised plans were first seen by Commis.sioners at the beginning of the March 4th Planning meeting rather than by 5 :00 p.m. on the Thursday preceed- ing the Planning Commission meetings , as the Rules of Procedure for the Commission require. He accused the Planning Dept. of becoming increasingly obvious as being heavily biased for the project: Their reports have been consistently favorable, minimizing or ig- noring the many obvious negative aspects. Olive Dorman, 9275 Mountain View, quoted from the Atas . General Plan a section on basic community goals: "There is a consensus that Atascadero should retain .its overall character and atmosphere of rural living" , stating that this description is Atascadero in a nutshell, and this rural character is what has made Atascadero dear to its residents. Approval of a high-density development in an area zoned residential, single-family, sets a dangerous precedent that affects future proposals. Zoning is a resident ' s assurance that development will take place in an orderly and rational fash- ion. Mrs. Dorman recalled that the City' s General Plan was amended , at the specific request of this corporation, to read, "Where all ,.1 • • MINUTES - May 28 , 1985 PAGE 3 factors are favorable, board and care facilities could satisfac- torily be developed in designated neighborhood areas" . The current facility on Mountain View Rd. has a negligible impact in terms of staff & visitor traffic, maintenance traffic, lighting, etc. , with its six residents. She believes that the developer' s use of the term ' cottage ' was not deliberated upon lightly, but the term was selected for its psychological impact and is used to impart a feeling of smallness , coziness , a term which does not threaten or alter a neighborhood's character. Looking at the developer ' s real intent, the definition of the project in terms of building square footage, building density, stated in potential resident population, present and future development plans, is a large care facility and institutional in size, located in the middle of a residential neigh- borhood. Donis Faith, 9355 Mountain View, noted that it has been recently brought to her attention that the City ' s sewer plant is reaching its full capacity; she wonders if this was taken into considera- tion (with reference to item No. 8 of the Planning Dept. ' s Staff Report) . She is concerned with the rapid development taking place in the community with regard to the various aspects of environmen- tal impact. Pat Fenton, 9425 Mountain View, addressed the appeal grounds in Item No . 7 of the Staff Report. With reference to the widening of Santa Rosa Rd. , no indication is given as to how much the road will be widened. She referred to the neighborhood concerns for the safety of schoolchildren affected by increased traffic along Santa Rosa, Portola and Atascadero Roads; although mentioned in the current staff report , +his issue has still not been addressed. She demonstrated the need' for investigation in this area, based on approximate figures taken from the developer as to the number of vehicles to/from the facility, as well as the approximate amount of children (based on Santa Rosa Rd. School figures) whose safety would be affected by the increased traffic. This increase would be in addition to traffic generated by Lakeside Guest Home , Chil- dren' s House, surrounding homes and current Christian Home traffic. She also elaborated on the size of the project in terms of square footage and population, stating it is inconsistent and incompati- ble with the surrounding neighborhood. Gary Harcourt , Architect for the Christian Home project , attempted to clarify some of the public comments and concerns , stating that all of the issues have been addressed and documentation presented to the Planning Dept. for consideration. He feels the comparison with hospitals to this elderly care community is a bit ambiguous and irrelevent with the uses proposed by the facility., and he be- lieves the elderly care community to be compatible with the area. He added that his client has reduced its density by a factor of 72% from the original proposal in an attempt to meet the neigh- borhood's eighborhood's -concerns & appeals. MINUTES - May 28 , 19850 • PAGE 4 Jack Porter, 9325 Mountain View, whose property backs into the project , desired clarification of the proposed square footage of the facility; Gary Harcourt responded with appropriate figures. Mark Dodson, 9475 Mountain View, commented that the project density is ex- treme and will have an impact on the environmental areas mentioned (roads , animals & other local concerns) ; he hopes there are no hard feelings by the developer caused by the neighborhood concerns, but the community doesn't really have an opportunity to meet with a developer and pursue how he de- velops a piece of property. Mr. Dodson does feel that a developer has the right to the "American way" of developing and making money, and Mr. Arram- bide did meet with the local neighbors -- but it ' s all after the fact , and this is the forum in which the neighborhood can express its concerns , even though it may cost the developer money. The discussion came back to Council for comment. Councilwoman Mackey asked for and received some clarification of the square footage figures and number of units proposed. George Molina asked Gary Harcourt what is being asked for and what he meant when he mentioned the project would be "phased in" over a period of time. Mr. Harcourt responded that what is being sought is a conditional use permit for the current plan before the Council tonight; anything beyond that will necessitate more hearings before the Commission and Council. The phasing is planned as orderly over a five-year period. After that period, the developers would be hopeful to come back and, perhaps , ask to develop a board & care facility and would be open at that time to pub- lic comment again. Mr. Engen clarified that the wording in the resolution gives the project a one-year timeline, after which the developer may ask for extensions. Mr. Handshy related a personal situation which causes him to see a great need in this County for an elderly-care facility. Mr. Molina comment- ed that he would like to see a precise plan with a specified time limit for project completion. Mr. Harcourt responded, indicating that all studies/re q_uirements. of the City have been met and, if necessary, a one-year time limit would be met as well. He doesn't feel that a precise plan at this point in time could be well defined and would probably make the project more vulnerable than what they're going through tonight. Mr. Arrambide commented on the City requirements , indicating that if the Council is uncomfortable and feels that the developer may come back and ask again if approval is given, then the Coun- cil can tell them NO. Doris Faith stepped to the podium again, asking what percentage of elderly Atascadero residents would be eligible to go into the facility, as it is her understanding that the Christian Home is a national corporation and some of its residents are brought in from other states. Mr. Arrambide responded that the corporation is local and non-profit , having been developed through the years by the independent Christian churches within the State. Although some input is received from other cities , most of it is from Atascadero. They are not a national organization. MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to approve C.U.P. 29-84 , Resolution No . 27-85 , adding conditions 17&18 to the resolution, and including an amendment that no building will be larger than 2 ,520 sq. ft. ; motion seconded by Councilwoman Mackey. Passed unanimously by roll call vote. MINUTES - May 28, 198 PAGE 5 _ 2 . City/School Development Fee Proposal to Alleviate School Over- crowding Public Hearing (Cont 'd from 5/13) Mr. Engen gave Staff Report. Anthony Avina, Supt. of Atascadero U.S.D. , updated projected student enrollments for the coming year , indicating that their estimates necessitate the utilization of mod ular/portable buildings to house students. Jack Stinchfield expressed that he is concerned about the term "developer" , referring to E.G. Lewis ' s early 1900 development of 7 ,000 acres into what we now know as Atascadero Colony, . .a giant subdivision, if you would" . People bought these subdivided lots with the promise of being able to build, and Mr. Stinchfield sug- gested to Council that the act of building on these already subdivided lots does not change an owner to a developer, any more than people who use and improve existing lots are developers. He feels rezoning a parcel or subdividing an existing lot constitutes a "developer" . He also suggests Council guard permit fees attached to any additional building in Atascadero, in view of the -fact that the City does not have a tax rate and of its potential of increasing service demands by its ever-growing population which will be presented to the City. He understands the School District ' s position; however, he feels the District has its own tools to generate revenues and resents the fact that, because the voters denied their attempt at these revenue sources they now attempt to circumvent the voters and come before the City Council using an ordinance process , denying the direct voter approval that is built into their sources of revenue that they have- availa* to them. Emil LaSalle, 8990 San Diego Rd. , referred to the issue of affordable housing, which is threatened by- the fee proposals . He, referred to the District ' s report and commented that the public hearing seems like a necessary facade. He feels it ' s necessary to present the other side of the coin, referring to the list of alternatives in the report with respect to mitigating the condition of overcrowding in the Dis- trict. In particular, he is interested in seeing the option of a set-aside fund in the school budget that definitely sets aside a specific amount of money or a specific percentage of money each bud- get year for construction. He feels , at the State level, that Gov. Deukmejian' s administration has been supportive of the schools and that the funds being received from the State are favorably large; he feels that the prospects for future budget increases are good. He asked the Council to keep in mind that the District is applying for State funds under the Green Act , and when they do meet the require- ments sufficiently, they should get some financial help , so we have that to look for down the road. He recalled, when soliciting for in- corporation of Atascadero as a City, one of the promises made to the people was that there was adequate money under the proposed budgets from the established sources of funding that our budgets reflected, and that we would not have to increase property taxes; these proposed developer fees are a form of property tax. He is concerned that the citizens of Atascadero will be faced with a "double-whammy" in ta . MINUTES­ May 28 1985 PAGE 6 Mike Arrambide spoke, as`a consumer of the Atascadero U.S.D in favor of the fee proposals . He expressed that he is disturbed at previous speakers' concerns for reasons other than supporting what he feels is an outstanding school system. He doesn't feel that any alternate measure (in reference to the past defeat of Measure A in the last election) has been brought forth for consideration by the public. He does not feel the prices attached to the building permit fees are extravagent and would gladly pay that fee as an existing home owner to allow his children to remain in the School District. It' s a shame that only people moving into this District would have the opportunity to support good schools. Owen Smith spoke in favor of expansion of the schools ; however, he suggests that the proposed permit fees appear to come short of the millions of dollars necessary for the District 's needs , a sort of band-aid approach. Dr. Avina stated he feels all agree that the developer fees are a band-aid approach, but it ' s the only one available. They see it used for the provision of temporary facilities to help the District while it attempts to secure funds from other sources . There is an appli- cation before the State Allocation Board, with the hope of having it considered in July. If the Board allows the District to proceed to what is termed 'Phase I , preliminary drawings can then be developed for presentation to the Board to consider them for Phase II of the funding, and then on to Phase III , which all total would take a period of 48 months . Gilbert Crowell, 7790 Cristobal, supports the school system; however, he stated his purpose in appearing this evening is to implore upon the managers of our City to utilize foresight , concern and equity, both in services and their support of those services through revenue generation such as taxation and the fees proposed. He asks , does the levy of these special fees on the relatively few people in fact demon- strate that concern for equity and fairness? He believes everyone has a role to help _educate our children, even if they have none of their own. He feels we should make a concerted community effort to identify and quantify the needs and march on a planned course , not manage our community in a reactionary fashion. He stressed his feel- ing that it is unfortunate that the electorate turned down the recent request for $35 by the City and the schools. Mike Lucas, who has served on the Schools Citizens Committee for the past three months , emphasized the District ' s facility problems. There are better alternatives than the band-aid approach proposed, but none of those alternatives are for sure. Student facilities are a necessity. He expounded on the complexities of the problem. He explained that- if the District were to buy (instead of lease) the temporary buildings , the State will claim that they are no longer impacted, and, therefore , will not allow them any emergency funds to build new classrooms. MINUTES - May 28 , 198 • PAGE Carl Brown, School Board Member, felt that Mr. Lucas ' s comments could use some reinforcement from another Board member. He ex- pressed appreciation for the work that the Citizens Committee has done for the Board. He responded to some other comments made earlier in this hearing, and explained that the proposal being sought is allowable by law as a funding alternative, and is being pursued as a temporary mitigating measure; many other efforts are being made to get money from the State for capitol projects (lobbying at the State level , etc. ) , but it takes about 3 years to get funds from the State. Council support for the proposal would be greatly appreciated. Edward Young, 9010 San Diego Rd. , expressed his concern that he has a project that has been "in the pipeline for about 19 months ' for 95 units . If this proposal passes , he will be impacted for about $30,000 , as he interprets it. Mr. Engen responded that the resolution, if it passes , would not apply to projects already in the plan-check process who have paid a deposit; Mr. Young's project would not to subject to the type of fee he is worried about . Jack Stinchfield stated that a few people in the City, many of whom don't live here but own a piece of property here and may some- day come here to build on it, are being asked to bear a financial burden and that it is inequitable. The voters of the District are the ones who need to finance its needs. If the voters say NO, that is a check and balance form of government; he sees the fee propos .as a circumvention of that right as a property owner and as a vot Robert Lilley, 5335 Honda, acknowledged the District 's facility problems. He said he has not heard a figure as to what the least cost of the classrms_',and these amounts should be made available. He feels the City is going to soon be beset with all kinds of needs that will require some form of assessment and will need to be funded at the local level; for lack of options. one of the few areas to raise revenues is the fee process , and it looks as though people are cueing up to take advantage of that power very rapidly. He stated perhaps he is not aware of some reasons why the City cannot collect its as- sessment fee and pay the School District for its lease-hold costs (as opposed to asking for developers' fees at the time of permit issu- ance) . It doesn't seem as though that system gives the City much of an accounting of where those funds go. Dr. Avina responded to some of Mr. Lilley' s concerns , quoting the portable facilities ' least-cost figure. He reiterated that we are in a growth period, there are few alternatives left and those are being explored. In the interim, we need to be able to utilize the alternative that has been made available through the State legis- lature , who also are elected by the people. Gilbert Crowell commented that he appreciates this forum for dis- cussion, thinks it ' s healthy and would go a long way to preserve it . 0 c, MINUTES - May 28 19850 • PAGE 8 0 He responded to some of the public comments made earlier. He also stated that , during his service in the military, some of the most permanent buildings used were temporary facilities that were placed there with the idea that they were only temporary as long as they were needed, with no guidelines as to how long they should stay, how their need would be measured and what other specific permanent steps would be taken so that they would no longer need to be there. David Harrow (?) , local property owner, would like to see some set date, say two years, "you're bringing up these building permits Also , is there a way someone could get a 20-year property tax exemp- tion; if the owner is willing to put up a $900 bond, it would be nice to not have to pay taxes on that afterwards. Edith Uhl asks , why do we keep on building and cramming, cramming cramming? It' ll bring more children, and she ' s sure the building fees are not going to take care of that. Mike Arrambide, in response to the suggestion of year-round school or double sessions being a desirable alternative to having portable facilities , feels that more school districts are checking out of this kind of system than are checking into it. He 'd like to see statistics on that before the Council depends on this type of data. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey that hearing be continued to June 10th 'and that the Citizens Committee again meets with the School District to assess the impact of its findings regarding alternative funding sources; motion seconded by Councilman Molina. Passed unanimously. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDSITY RECESSEDTHE MEETING FOR A 5-MINUTE BREAK @ 9: 45 P .M. MEETING RECONVENED AT 9: 50 P.M. Mayor Pro Tem Handshy introduced Roger Lyon, Interim City Attorney, and told a bit about Mr. Lyon' s professional background. Mr. Shelton added that Mr. Lyon 's appointment is an interim one, and the City Council will be making a decision in the immediate future as to what ' s to be done about a permanent appointment for City Attorney. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1 . Ordinance 105 - Parks Rules and Regulations Formulation - Second Reading (Cont'd from 5/13) Bob Best gave Staff Report. Alice Porter, 9420 Marchant (edge of Atas. Lake) , showed a news- paper indicating full-use of the lake in 1953 . She came to Atascadero in 1943 , and there has been swimming allowed in the lake since then. She hates to see the swimming privilege revoked, and would much rather see a program initiated to try to get funds to clean the lake, which it badly needs . She 'd also like to see septic regulations established in the areas bordering the lake, as well as well-trained lifeguards . MINUTES - May 28, 198 PAGE 9 Mrs. Porter would like to see the City express "pride of ownershille for the lake , and it should get consideration before the new park since it was here first. Mike Arrambide stated he had visited Mrs. Porter and discussed the lake , looking at old newspaper clippings , some of which indicated that , through the years , the lake has been closed due to various problems , and that seems to be the only alternative utilized when problems or hazards were incurred. He feels the lake really should be cleaned and fixed up, it being a public focal point and "a jewel in the community" . Maggie Rice agreed that the lake is "a little jewel" ; from a Chamber of Commerce manager' s viewpoint , she expressed that it one of the few things that this area has to offer tourists. She inquired as to what tests have been done with regard to pollution. Mr. Best responded that the County has conducted weekly tests (reports which were not forwarded to the City, and the testing came as a surprize to him) ; the results , although varying, have consistently indicated a high level of various forms of bacteria. (The tests have been con- ducted for approximately one year. ) Mrs. Rice also feels that it would be helpful to rid the lake of much of its duck population. Mr. Shelton made a recommendation that the staff come back with a report as it relates to the high school swimming facility. Even the use of the lake wading pool exposes the City to some liability MOTION: By Councilman Molina to read Ord. 105 by title only, seconded by Councilwoman Norris. Motion failed by 3:1 vote, Mayor Pro Tem Handshy voting NO. As the vote was not unanimous , Mayor Pro Tem Handshy read the ordinance in its entirety. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to adopt Ord. 105 and that this constitutes its 2nd and final reading, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed by 3 : 1 roll call vote, with Mayor Pro Tem Handshy voting NO. Mayor Pro Tem Handshy stated his reason for voting no as being that "no swimming" will cause more problems than the good it will do (with regard to enforcing this rule; also , the ordinance erroneously per- mits windsurfing except in "designated swimming areas" , Sec. 10- 1. 06 (a) ) . 0- 1. 06 (a) ) . D. 1 . Amapoa Tecorida Flood Area Development Requirement - Discussion Mike Shelton expressed staff is concerned with development in this area and suggests a possible solution to the problem based on a joint effort with the developer (s) . John Wallace gave Staff Report , including a history of past studies of this proposed development area and the basis of flooding possibilities. He stated that the problem the City has is there is no adequate way of financing pro- jects (such as the dam spillway into the creek) which will be neces- sitated by development in the flood area; there is no policy to consistently condition all the projects involved in a way of finay cing the necessary projects in the area. Councilmembers Mackey , Molina and Norris each expressed comments on the situation. Mayor MINUTES - May 28 , 19850 PAGE 10 Pro Tem Handshy desired clarification of how the development fees are to be arrived at; John Wallace demonstrated. Jack Stinchfield stated that he has been a property owner on Amapoa for 4-5 years and has been stonewalled at every attempt to develop there. He feels that, essentially, the property has been confis- cated because he was denied his rights to develop it, but commended the present administration and Council for the leadership they 're showing tonight in trying to find a solution to the flood area and problems it poses to development. He said he is in the flood hazard zone , wit-., the inference that he is contributing to the flood of other areas , when in fact the flood hazard zone is being impacted by the slopes that feed down into it. He questions the one-year time suggestion. He also stated that building permits have con- tinued to be issued in the areas that feed down into the slopes . He believes the solution can be done in a way without too much pain to any one individual to help solve the overall problem. John Wallace explained why the department believes they would be taking an acceptable risk in setting the one-year time limit. Robert Lilley stated he has two clients who are affected by the matter. He feels that the obvious solution is the establishment of an eauitable assessment district, whereby those who have con- . tributed to the problem will now help bear the remedy, however , "those folks are not the small number who are now being focused upon to front the cost of the spillway" . He is concerned that the matter seems to have been pulled out of the closet , as flood miti- gation measures have already been established and complied with. Persons have applied for their permits and incurred the cost of the mitigation measures and are now being told they cannot get their permits. He ' s concerned that in the effort to meet problems , we don't act in such an impulsive way that a few people are held ransom for a problem that ' s the result of inadvertence and neglect on the part of many. He suggests that , if there are now figures which indicate the flood hazard zone condition as being more grave than having been assessed in the past, there may be the need to (1) take a strong look at an assessment district and figure the area of burden and benefit that includes all of the lots involved, and (2) conduct preliminary engineering studies to determine the actual cost of the improvements- so people know what they're paving for . Alvice Porter recalled the issue at the time Atascadero was under the County' s charge , reiterating some of the drainage changes made in the area in the past. Gale Day (in reference to Edward Young receiving the response by (staff) that, as his project was already in the plan-check process , he is excused from the burden of the school development fees proposed) wonders why their project was not considered in the same moral light when "we were within a few days of receiving a permit" . Mr. Engen attempted to clarify the differences in the two projectsandthe ways they have been approached. MINUTES May 28 , 19850 • PAGE 11 Vladimir Milosevic, one of the applicants at 8865 Morro Rd. and whose project is also being held up , suggests that perhaps a new r, be defined, or at least an offset limit be defined. He referred t CalTrans having put in a 4 ' culvert several years ago; at that time , they did not put in the flap on the Atascadero Creel-, side which would prevent creek water from going back and causing additional water col- lecting in the flood zone area. His engineer has assured him that , if this flap were put in, their properties near Curbaril would be outside any of the flood hazard area, and they would not be of any liability to the City. Grigger Jones owns a piece of property at 8675 Morro Rd. and has ap- plied- for a building permit at that location. He expressed the difficulty of the problem of having to go back to his banker and request additional funds . He proposes, as part of the concept , that staff take into consideration the borrowing of funds; -he 'would like to receive some prorata of reimbursement, and perhaps also receive some idea of the cost of putting that money out in the form of in- terest. He is also concerned with the actual cost of the project. Ken Marx stated that he was somewhat involved with Mr. Molosovic ' s project. In many phone calls and visits to City Hall, he was informed that the properties were not initially in the moratorium area for the flood hazard zone and the project proposed was "no problem" . He is a little morally outraged because he made money selling the pro- perty and now feels that it wasn't somehow honestly earned; he went through a lot of research to make sure that the property was buil* able . Jack Stinchfield is concerned about establishing a reasonable amount (referring to the $12 ,500 proposed, and it may be too high and would inhibit development) . He feels that in trying to divide the figures into a one-year concept , it makes an unmanageable figure to work with on a per-project basis; the situation needs to be viewed over a longer time period. He suggested that utilizing a system that Atas. Mutual Water has been successful with (water recovery concept) might provide for some return on a pro-rata basis at a rate of return--that would be paid for by the overall assessment district when it was finally creat- ed. He feels it would give us the two solutionsneeded: The ultimate solution of the assessment district and the up-front monies invested by the projects getting a return back to them by the assessment dis- trict. Mr. Shelton, City Manager, commented on the concept of the formation of an assessment district , detailing the purposes behind it and the requirements of establishment of such a district. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to accept Staff recommendations 1-5 and that Staff work with the three applicants to expedite their building permits under an agreement that they would participate in the interim flood district development fees , seconded by Councilwoman Mackey. Passed unanimously by roll call vote. 0 MINU'T'ES - May 28 , 198 • • PAGE 12 16PUBLIC COMMENT - None INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION City Council - Councilwoman Norris would like to see an ordinance or resolu- tion that employees/engineers who have left to go into private practice not be able to contract with the City for at least one year. She feels this is a conflict , and that such an engineer could create work for himself during his employment with the City. Marge Mackey, with the thought of setting aside monies for the new Police Dept. , proposes the Councilmembers take a $300 to $100 per month salary cut , which would provide $12 ,000 in such a set aside fund. Mayor Pro Tem briefly commented on his recent trip to Sacramento and shared what he learned regarding renegotiating for County/City property tax. City Attorney - alone City Clerk - None City Treasurer - Absent City Manager - alike Shelton commented that the County, in preparation for a grant , is taking lead action for the new library and has hired an archi- tect to design the facility. He said that the County has invited the City to review potential designs and to participate in the design process to in- sure that the library meets the approval and conceptual needs of the community He suggested thatCouncilappoint a sub-committee to look at and provide con- ceptual approval of the designs. Mayor Pro Tem Handshy appointed Councilwomen Norris and Mackey as a committee of two. Mr. Shelton also stated that he woul like to bring new City employees to the Council meetings and introduce them to members , and he, subsequently, introduced George Wolfrank, new Associate Civil Enaineer. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11 :39 P.M. RECORDED BY: GRIGGER JONES, City Clerk OUNCIL MEETING 6/10/85 G'ENDA ITEM NO. : A - 2 • TO: City Council June 6, 1985 FROM: Mike Shelton SUBJECT: - PROPOSED RESOLUTION 43-85 - TRANSFERRING ATASCADERO'S INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOND ALLOCATION FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1985 TO THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution transferring the City of Atascadero' s Private Activity Bond Allocation of Calendar Year 1985 in the amount . of $946,000 to the City of San Bernardino for a fee of $2,365.00 BACKGROUND Attached is a letter from the City of San Bernardino soliciting the City' s 1985 Industrial Development Bond Allocation. The Governor ' s Proclamation, which implements Federal law, provides that unused local allocations may, by resolution, be transferred among local jurisdictions. Accordingly, the City of San Bernardino is offering $2,365 for the City' s 1985 allocation. The City has no plans for its 1985 allocation and assuming it goes unused, it evaporates at the end of the calendar year. ALTERNATIVES The City may refuse the offer and retain it' s allocation to the end of the year . FISCAL IMPACT The City will review revenues for general fund uses in the amount of $2,365. e 1 ,010-46/0438S/sms 4/10/85 RESOLUTION NO. 43-85 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO Al CALIFORNIA, TRANSFERRING TO THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA A PORTION OF THE CALENDAR YEAR 1985 PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND LIMIT OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO WHEREAS, the Tax Reform Act of 1984 , as adopted by the Congress of the United States on July 18, 1984 (the "Act" ) , provides that each state shall provide either by a proclamation of the governor of each state or by legislation duly adopted by each state legislature - a procedure for the allocation of the aggregate principal amount of Private Activity Bonds that may be issued- by state and local issuers in accordance with Section 103(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 , as amended (the "Code" ) ; and WHEREAS, a proclamation was duly signed by the Governor--of the State. of California.- on--July -19, . -1984 : (the- "Proclamation" ) , for the purpose of implementing certain provisions of the Act; and WHEREAS., >'. he Proclamation_ -.pr.o.vides.-that. do Teach' .calendar - year all or a portion- -of the'=Private- Activity�' Bond Limit of ea-ch Local Agency within- the State, including the calendar year 1985 Private Activity Bond Limit of the City of Atascadero California, (the "City" ) , may be transferred by such Local Agency to another Local Agency in the State or to the State; and WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino, California, has requested that an amount- equal to $ of the calendar year 1985 Private Activity Bond Limit of the City be transferred from the City to the City of San Bernardino for use by the City of San Bernardino in furtherance of the intent and purposes of the Proclamation; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby deems it appropriate to take action on - said _request of the _City of San. Bernardino and to transfer a portion of the calendar year 1985 Private Activity Bond Limit of the City to the City of San Bernardino upon the terms and conditions as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED, by the City Council of the City of Atascadero California, as follows : Section 1 . The City Council hereby acknowledges receipt of the written request as submitted to the City by the City of San Bernardino, dated May 7 , 1985, and the City Council hereby orders and directs the transfer of an amount equal to $ 946,000 of the calendar year 1985 Private Activity Bond Limit of the City to the City of San Bernardino in furtherance of the industrial development bond financing to be undertaken by the City of San Bernardino as more fully described in said request . _1. Section 2 . The City CoAnQjl hereby acknowledges that the portion of the calendar year 1985 Private Activity Bond Limit of the City as transferred hereby to the City. of San Bernardino may be transferred by the City in the manner as provided ; in the Proclamation. Section 3 . The City Council hereby acknowledges that such portion of the calendar year 1985 Private Activity Bond Limit of the City as transferred to the City of San Bernardino pursuant to this Resolution shall be irrevocable upon the issuance of bonds pursuant to the procedures to be taken hereafter by the City of San Bernardino, at least to the extent of the principal amount of such bonds so issued by the City of San Bernardino and as further provided in the Proclamation. The transfer as herein authorized shall be considered a general transfer to the City of San Bernardino and shall expire as of January 1 , 1986 . Section 4 . The City of San Bernardino shall have the sole obligation and responsibility to comply with all reporting requirements as necessary to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee as established pursuant to the Proclamation and all other requirements. therein°,-and- in the .Code: to the -extent .the +same shall --be applicable to the issuance by the. City of_ San Bernardino of Private Activity Bonds for :which the transfer of the calendar year 1985 =- Private Activity _,.Bond -Limit .-of . .the :.City, . .as. authorized - in this - Resolution, has :been applied by the 'City: of .San-,Bernard'ino.- _= Section 5. In -receipt of City of Atasca:dero Industrial Development Bond Allocation for Calendar Year 1985, in the amount of $946,000, City of San. Bernardino agrees to compensate the City in the amount of $2,365 within 45 days of adoption of this resolution. -2- t Section_ . This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1985 . AYES-: NOES: ABSENT: ROLPE MELSON, Mayor , CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: ROBERT Mo JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER LYON, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA E � C d r XXX A PROCLAMATION by the Governor of the State of California By virtue of the authority vested in the Office of the Governor by the federal Tax Reform Act of 1984, 1, George Deukmejian, as Governor of the State of California, hereby proclaim as follows: 1. Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms defined in this Section shall-for _ all purposes of this proclamation have the following meanings: _ (a) "Committee" means the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee estab- lished pursuant to Section 4 of this proclamation. (b) "Code"means the Internal Revenue Code of 1934,as amended, including as it will be amended by the federal Tax Reform Act of 1984. (c) "County Population Share" means for each calendar year for each county or t5"1 city and county a percentage calculated by taking as the numerator the most IN M_ recent State Population Estimate of the entire population of such county or city and county and by taking as the denominator the most recent State Population Estimate of the state. `= � ' w (d) "Issuer" means any local agency or state agency authorized by the ConstituWN - ,.,�, tion or laws of the state to issue Private Activity Bonds. .._., (e) "Local Agency" means any political subdivision of the state within the [� meaning of Section 103(a)(1)of the Code, or any entity that has the power to issue Private Activity Bonds"on behalf of"any such political subdivision. (f) "Local Population Share" means, for each calendar year (i) for each city or city and county,a percentage calculated by taking as the numerator the most :fPk recent State Population Estimate of the population of such city or city and county, and by taking as the denominator the most recent State Population Estimate of the population of the state;and(ii)for each county,a percentage calculated by taking as the numerator the most recent State Population Estimate of the population of the unincorporated area of the county, and by taking as the denominator the most recent State Population Estimate of the „� population of the state. M (g) "Private Activity Rond" has the same meaning as that specified in Section 103(nX7)of the Code. IN MP (h) "Private Activity Bond Limit" means any part of the State Ceiling allocated im or transferred to,a state agency or local agency pursuant to this proclama- tion. Fi1W (i) "State"means the State of Cdiifornia. —28— _ e PAGE 2 (j) "State Agency" means the State and all state entities,including joint powers authorities of which the State or agency or instrumentality thereof Is a y member, empowered to issue Private Activity Bonds, the interest on which is exempt from income tax under Section 103(a)of the Code, including nonprofit corporations described in Section 103(e) of the Code authorized to issue student loan bonds. �r ` (k) "State Bond Limit" means the 5096 of the State Ceiling initially allocated to l� the State pursuant to Section 3(a) of this proclamation, together with any r*=t amounts transferred to any state agency pursuant to Section 6. (1) "State Ceiling"shall be the amount specified by Section 103(nX4)of the Code for each calendar year commencing in 1984. (m) "State Population Estimate" means, with respect to calendar year 1984, the } estimate of population of California cities: and counties published by the ._.... State Department of Finance on May 1,1984 and, with respect to calendar j year 1985 and thereafter, means the most recent estimate of population of California cities and counties published by the State Department of.Finance before the beginning of the calendar year. UTO Rq 2. Pursuant to Section 103(n)(6)(B) of the Code, this proclamation shall govern the allocation of the State Ceiling among the governmental units in this state having _ authority to issue Private-Activity Bonds, Any allocation granted or transferred by -, -or under the authority of-this proclamation shall become.the Private Activity Bond Limit for the issuer to which such allocation is granted or transferred for any Private Activity Bonds issued by such issuer. 3. (a) There Is hereby allocated to the state agencies In each calendar year an amount equal to fifty percent(5096)of the State Ceiling. RN (b) There is hereby allocated to each city, county, and city and county in each calendaryearan amount equal to thirty-five percent (3596) of the State Ceiling multiplied by the Local Population Share of each such city,county,or "U city and county. L"` (c) There is hereby allocated to each county (including any city and county) in ;�'�r each calendar year an amount equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the State EW raw— Ceiling multiplied by the County Population Share of each such county. (d) The allocations made by subsections (a), (b) and (c) of this Section shall `, `r,� nevertheless be subject to the provisions of Section 9 hereof. 4. (a) The Committee is hereby established, consisting of the State Treasurer, the State Controller and the Governor,or in the Governor's absence the Director EM of Finance, any of whom may act through a designee. The State Treasurer .0919 shall be the Chairman of the Committee and the Office of the State 6,93 Treasurer shall provide such administrative assistance and support staff as PTIR shall be necessary for the Committee to operate. Members of the Commit- tee shall serve without compensation, The Chairman shall keep or cause to � be kept minutes and other records and documents of the Committee. IM (b) Two members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum. The affirmative FRO vote of two members of the Committee shall be necessary for any action -yam taken by the Committee; provided, however, that the Committee may by 92P unanimous vote delegate to its Chairman the authority to carry out any acts empowered to It under this proclamation. rRF 06 -29- l. s C'l109� a q"� E'U174 .C�" DdT7 PAGE 3 (c) The Committee shall as soon as is practicable after the date of this proclamation, and thereafter at the start of each calendar year, determine and announce the State Ceiling for the calendar year. 5. (a) Each state agency shall apply to the Committee prior to issuing any Private Activity Bonds, supplying such Information as the Committee may require. IFIRR Such application may be for a specific project,or It may be for a designated dollar amount, to be utilized for projects at the discretion of the state agency. No Private Activity Bonds issued by any state agency shall be deemed to receive the benefit of any portion of the State Bond Limit unless the Committee has allocated a portion of the State Bond Limit to the state agency. Such allocation may be on such terms and conditions as the " Committee may determine. (b) Any focal agency may apply to the Committee for an allocation of a portion of the State Bond Limit, supplying such information as the Committee may RM ,5.,,,, require. Applications from local agencies may only be for specific projects y� or programs. The Committee may transfer to a local agency:a portion of.the r .- State Bond Limit upon such .terms and conditions as the Committee may determine. :bl� am (c) Any allocation made or transferred pursuant to this section shall be irrevoc- able upon Issuance of bonds pursuant thereto at least to the extent of the- principal amount of such bonds so.issued and any such allocation or transfer - — shall permit the state agency or local agency receiving same and any transferee thereof to treat all or any portion of such allocation or transfer as a carryforward pursuant to Section 103(n)(10)of the Code unless the resolution or other action making such allocation or transfer provides otherwise. (d) No allocation made to a state agency or transferred to a local agency bm pursuant to this Section may be transferred by the initial recipient thereof to MR }per any other state agency or local agency without the consent of the Commit EM - i tee. 6. To further implement the provisions hereof, any local agency may, by resolution, RE F-1 -transfer to any other local agency or to any state agency all or any portion of such XM local agency's Private Activity Bond Limit, subject to the provisions of Section S(c), if applicable,and Section 8. Any such transfer may be general or limited and RMsubject to such terms and conditions as may be set forth in said resolution; EM( provided that any such transfer shall be irrevocable upon issuance of bonds pursuant to such transfer at least to the extent of the principal amount of such bonds so issued and that any such transfer shall permit the transferree to elect to y treat all or any portion of such transfer as a carryforward pursuant to Section 103(nX10) of the Code unless the resolution making such transfer provides other- wise. Any resolution or action taken by any local agency prior to the date of this proclamation purporting to transfer any portion of any Private Activity Bond Limit to another local agency is hereby ratified as if fully authorized by this Section. 7. (a) No issue of Private Activity Bonds shall be deemed to have received the benefit of any portion of an allocation made or transferred to the Issuer pursuant to this proclamation unless the Issuer's bond resolution or other similar action giving final authority for the issuance of bonds specifically designates a portion of the Issuer's Private Activity Bond Limit to such bond .901 Issue. Any such designation shall be irrevocable upon the issuance of such bonds to the extent of the principal amount hereof. (b) Each state agency and local agency shall notify the Committee in writing RPY within 13 days of the issuance of any Private Activity Bonds, and of any action taken pursuant to Section 6 to transfer any portion of its Private MP MW RW rt'L�', VRP 99P ? —30— �L' .. ,... :� ._r,�,�g��.��,,,PP�j�y��Qg[gpp�i{••�y��yg��g�@yy ,5p,�5��p�¢¢�� a..�..,. ��}���ppss,,,��,[�[�((��yy"" ���ggppyy{{ y�y�@��g�@@�� .,..:_:,r..F (g��{(������pp{,j, i �7GQS PDQC GAS: Qp79 .PAt7;PGIQ9 ' .W,. POt7C 7at7C PAGE 4 Activity Bond Limit to another state agency or local agency, and of any y election to treat all or any portion of such state agency's or local agency's sem. t� Private Activity Bond Limit as a carryforward pursuant to Section 103(nXIO) [' of the Code. 8. Each county,and city and county,acting through its board of supervisors,shall give priority in application of the allocations granted by Section 3(c) to assist issuance of Private Activity Bonds by the county (to the extent the county has fully utilized R" its share of the allocation granted by Section 3(b)), by local agencies within the county, or by local agencies whose territory contains part or all of the territory of the county. The county may transfer, pursuant to Section 6, part of the allocation granted by Section 3(c) to a state agency or to a local agency whose territory is entirely outside the county only upon making a determination that it does not reasonably expect to grant requests to use such amount of its Private Activity Bond Limit for any projects or programs described in the first sentence of this Section. 9. .. (a) Any state agency or local agency which has issued any Private Activity Bonds _ on or after June 19, 1984 and prior to the date of this proclamation shall submit to the Committee a written notification of such bond issuance, i containing the name of the issuer, the principal amount, the designation of the bonds and.the date of issue. The notification shall also be accompanied by a_statement of the bond counsel.for the Issuer.as to whether or not 4 the =_ bond issue-was required pursuant to Section 103(n) of the Code to utilize a portion of the Private Activity Bond Limit of the Issuer. The allocation made by Section 3 applicable directly or indirectly to the Issuer of such bonds shall aoiavj be reduced by the principal amount of such bonds which bond counsel states were required pursuant to Section 103(n)of the Code to be within the Private „, Activity Bond Limit of such Issuer. t IFn (b) Bonds issued on or after June 19, 1984 and prior to the dateof this proclamation shall not receive the benefit of any portion of the State Ceiling allocated by Section 3 unless the notification required by subsection (a) is = received by the Committee within 30 days of the date of this proclamation, and is accompanied by a statement of bond counsel to the effect set forth in the last sentence of Section 9(a). 10. The Committee may request local agencies and state agencies to provide the Y Committee with information pertaining to the amount and purpose of anticipated future Private Activity Bona issues,or any other information which may be useful j to the Committee in performing its duties and responsibilities hereunder.im 11. I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that none of the allocations contained in 1 the proclamation was made in consideration of any bribe, gift, gratuity, or direct or indirect contribution to any political campaign. im 1N WITNESS WHEREOF 1 have hereunto set my hand ;29 and caused the Great Seal of the State of California to be affixed this 19th day of July 1984 S:74or of 4California R ATTEST: Secretar IState' y ET �,1• nti,_ Ji•t Q�� L FIRn r .o s —31 — �� p /� �j GLENDA SAULEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR • RtFVELO MENT T#Y - • DIGI{ GOBLIRSGH OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA DEPUTY DIRECTOR May 7, 1985 Mayors Office City of Atascadera 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadera. CA 93423 RE: Transfer of Industrial Development Bond Allocation Dear Mayor or City Manager: The Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino have authorized me to offer you $2,365.00 for transfering your Industrial Development Bond Allocation to the City of San Bernardino. Your City's allocation is $946,000. Section 6 of the Governor's Proclamation (which is enclosed) authorizes the transfer of allocation from one local agency to another. This is not a transfer of money, but only the ability for a city to issue Industrial Development Bonds. This allocation may only be used during calendar year 1985. San Bernardino received an allocation of $6,812,000 from the State, but we currently have over $200,000,000 in outstanding Inducement Resolutions waiting to be funded. San Bernardino is currently one of the fastest growing areas in the United States. One of the City's top priorities is the creation of jobs which is aided through the bond program. We want to also reassure you that we will not "steal" any business from your community. We have also enclosed a copy of a-model resolution for your Council to adopt. A resolution must be adopted for the transfer to occur as well as notification to the California Debt Advisory Commission that your City is planning to transfer its allocation. The City of San Bernardino will be contacting you by phone within the next thirty days, if we have not heard from you, to determine your response to this request. If you wish to transfer your allocation to us, we will need a signed copy of the adopted resolution and your City will receive its cash payment at the time of the bond closing. . . .continued. . . CITY HALL 0 300 NORTH "D" STREET a RM. 320 • SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92418 • PHONE: (714) 383-5081 r1 TELEX: 6711291 RDEV UW May 7, 1985 Page 2 As you can see by the amount of our outstanding Inducement Resolutions, we are very confident that these issues will fund. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me .or my staff member, Ellen Bonneville, at (714) 383-5081. Sincerely, lenda Saul Executive Director GS:EB:mr:0184K Enclosures (Model Resolution; Governor's Proclamation) . 16PTCI L MFFTI NG : 6/10/$F ,RTA ITEM NO'. : A - 3 M E M O R A N D U M i TO: CITY COUNCIL June 10 , 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Managertmoi `^. FROM: Henry Engen, Planning Director RE: Proposed Resolution Authorizing Mayor to Ratify the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council Joint Powers Agreement for Fiscal Year 1985/86 RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Resolution No. 40-85. BACKGROUND: The City has been requested by the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council to ratify its joint powers agreement. This is required annually. The attached agreement specifies the purpose, powers, mem- bership and financing of the Area Council. The Resolutionwould auth- orize the Mayor to sign on behalf of the City. Enclosure: Resolution No. 40-85 FY 84/85 Joint Powers Agreement --San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council • 2�" 1 Y RESOLUTION NO. 40-85 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING RATIFICATION OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR FISCAL YEAR 1985/86 WHEREAS, a joint powers agreement has been submitted to the City of Atascadero for ratification by the City of Atascadero; and WHEREAS, it is desirable to maintain a single agency created by and with the consent of cities and the county to advise, plan for, and suggest solutions to common problems; and WHEREAS, the maintenance of such agency and its functions are nec- essary to comply with requirements of various federal and state legis- lation in order to participate in the allocation and disbursement of state and . federal funds. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero resolves as follows: Section 1. Authorizes the Mayor to execute the FY 85/86 joint powers agreement on behalf of the City. Section 2. - Instructs the City Clerk to certify adoption of this resolution and cause this resolution and his certification to be en- tered into the Book of Resolutions of the Council of this City. On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By: ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk • • APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER LYON, City Attorney APPROVED Ap TO CONTENT: MICHAEL SHEL ON, City Manager PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Planning Director FY 84/85 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT SAN LUIS OB.ISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL THIS JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 17th day of January, 1976, and amended on November 4, 1982, and September 19, 1984, by and among such of the incorporated cities of Arroyo Grande, Atas- cadero, El Paso de Robles, Grover City, Morro Bay, Pismo Beach, and San Luis Obispo, all being municipal corporations of the State of California and located within the boundaries of the County of San Luis Obispo, California, as may execute this Agreement, hereinafter called "CITIES," and the County of San Luis Obispo, a body politic and corporate and a subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter called "COUNTY," as follows: WHEREAS, Section 6500, et seq. , of the California Government Code (Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5, Article l) provides for agreements between two or more public agencies to ,jointly exercise any power common to the contracting parties, subject to certain mandatory provisions contained therein; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo by virtue' of its charter, and the other incorporated cities in the County, parties hereto, by virtue of Sections 65600 through 65604, inclusive, of the California Government Code have the joint and mutual power to create an area planning commission, herein designated "San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council. WHEREAS, COUNTY AND CITIES did, in 1968, jointly execute an agreement establishing such a planning council. and now wish to amend and supersede the same; and 1 ��Z JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PAGE 2 WHEREAS, Section 29532, California Government. Code, provides that such a Planning and Coordinating Council shall be designated the Regional Transportation Planning Agency to act in matters of transit and transportation planning; and WLIERF.AS, it is desirable that a single agency be created by and with the consent of CITIES and COUNTY to advise, plan for, and suggest solutions to common problems; assist in , the . preparation of plans and programs by utilizing planning talents and general plans of the various governmental jurisdictions in the County and of experts in various other fields and to coordinate their efforts; and WHEREAS, creation of such an agency and action by it upon certain plans and programs is necessary to comply with requirements of federal and state legislation in order to participate in the allocation and disbursement of state and federal funds which may be desired by COUNTY and CITIES in the implementation of plans and programs which have been approved by their respective governing bodies. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows: I. PURPOSE The San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council is organized for the permanent establishment of a forum for planning, discussion and study of area-wide problems of mutual interest and concern to COUNTY and to CITIES; for the development of studies and adoption of regional plans; to serve as a regional agency for certain federal, and state programs; and for other actions commensurate with the lesires of the member governments. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PAGE 3 I1 . NAME' The official name of the organization hereby created shall be the "San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council. III. POWERS The San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council hereinafter called "Area Council," is hereby created as a voluntary agency pursuant ' to applicable provisions of the California Government Code with the power to carry out the purposes hereinabove stated and to implement the annual work program approved by COUNTY and CITIES, including the power to contract for goods and services; to provide for employment of necessary personnel, experts and consultants; to accept gifts, loans, grants; and to administer the affairs of the Area Council hereby created in accordance with this Agreement. Pursuant to Section 6508.1, California Government Code, it is hereby declared by COUNTY and CITIES that the debts, liabilities and obligations of the Area Council shall not be the debts, liabilities and obligations of any of the parties to this Agreement, except as otherwise provided herein. IV. MEMBERSHIP 1. Membership in the Area Council shall be voluntary, but only the County of San Luis Obispo and all cities incorporated in the County of San Luis Obispo presently or in the future, are declared eligible for membership in the Area Council. 2 . Representatives of the COUNTS inti CITIE'S shall he appointed to serve on the Area Council in accordance with procedures established ; by st z Vt each of the governing bodies of the member agencies. Representatives to JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PAGE 4 the Area Council shall consist of the five members of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo from time to time in office and of one additional member from the governing body of each incorporated city within the boundaries of the County of San Luis Obispo which is a party-to this Agreement, with each incorporated area being limited to one representative. Representatives shall serve so long as they hold office with their member agency or untiL they shall resign or be removed by a majority vote of their respective governing bodies. Vacancies among representatives shall be filled in the same manner as the first appointment. - 3. Member agencies may electto have an alternate member in addition to any official member, but said alternate shall be able to vote only in the absence of the official representative. 4. resignation of the official representative or alternate, or changes thereto, shall be transmitted in writing to the Executive Director of the Area Council by the appointing city or the county. 5. In addition to the incorporated cities presently a party to this Agreement, any other city which may hereafter be incorporated within the boundaries of the County of San Luis Obispo and which may desire to participate in the activities of the Area Council may do so by executing this Agreement without prior approval or ratification of the named parties to this Agreement and shall thereafter be governed by all the terms and provisions of this Agreement as of the date of execution. 6. Membership shall be contingent upon the execution of this Joint Powers Agreement and subsequent annual ratification. 3 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PACE 5 V. OPERATION 1. The powers of the Area Council are advisory to the member agencies which execute this Agreement except for those actions mandated by state or federal law for the processing of applications submitted by any o� the member agencies for federal and state grants or funds which require action by the Area Council. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit in any manner the power of any of the parties to initiate and complete a local project within their respective jurisdictions with their own funds. It is understood, however, that the recommendations of the Area Council may have the effect of precluding any favorable action by an agency of the state of federal government in support of such a project if other than local financing is sought, as determined by the respective state or federal agency under law, regulations and policies applicable to them. 2. Except as otherwise provided herein, there shall be no costs incurred by Area Council pursuant hereto, other than expenses of its members, which are to be borne by their respective entities, and the cost of services by the officers and personnel of the respective entities to said Area Council, upon approval of such services by the governing bodies hereof, shall likewise be borne by the respective entities. All costs incurred by Area Council performing functions as the regional transportation agency for San Luis Obispo County as designated by the State shall be paid out of the transportation fund established pursuant to Section 29530, et seg. , Covernment Code as provided for therein. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PAGE 6 3. Costs of Area Council for each fiscal year which are necessary for the ordinary operation of the Area Council, including but not limited to office space, furniture, supplies and postage; and excepting those functions performed as the regional transportation agency, shall be borne by COUNTY in an amount approved by the Board of Supervisors in the annual county budget. Extraordinary costs as recommended by the Area Council shall be borne by contributions from the member entities as approved by their governing bodies. Costs of all activities undertaken by Area Council as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency shall be set forth in the budget as part of the annual work program of Area Council and shall be funded from the transportation fund pursuant to applicable state statutes. 4. The annual work program and budget, when adopted shall be the basis :for operation of Area Council for the fiscal year. Any deviation from the work program affecting the budget shall be returned to the member agencies for approval. 5. For purposes of conducting business, there shall be present a quorum consisting of a majority of representatives, including two COUNTY representatives. No action shall be effective without the affirmative votes of a majority of representatives. However, eight (8) affirmative votes shall be required for taking any action in the event any agency demands such a vote. The representatives to the Area Council shall adopt such procedures as are consistent with this Agreement and necessary to conduct the businesslof Area Council in an orderly manner. 1 � JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PAGE 7 VI. OFFICHRS 1. The officers of the Area Council shall consist of a President and Vice-President elected for a term of one year by a majority vote of member agency representatives to the Area Council. 2; Both the President and Vice-President of Area Council shall be elected at the May meeting (annual meeting). 3. The officers shall serve until their successors are elected. 4. The duties of the officers shall be as follows: a. President 1) Shall preside over all meetings of the Area Council as Chairman. 2) Shall appoint all standing committees. 3) Shall exercise general supervision over all activities of said Area Council. 4) Shall be an ex-officio member of all committees. 5) Shall execute all contracts and legal documents on behalf of the Area Council. b. Vice-President 1) Shall serve as Chairman pro-tempor in the absence of the President. 2) Shall give whatever aid necessary to the President in administering of the Area Council. 3) Shall be an ex-officio member of all committees. 5. In the event of a vacancy occurring in the office of either the President or Vice-President upon said officer' s death, resignation, a f , y ;k JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PAGE B removal or his ceasing to be an official representative of a member city of the County of San Luis Obispo, such vacancy will be filled by majority vote of the Area Council, the officer elected to serve for the balance of the unexpired term. VII. STAFF 1. The Area Council shall appoint an Executive Director to serve •at its pleasure, who will perform the following duties and such others as may be assigned by Area Council. a. Prepare and submit the annual work program and budget to the Area Council for its approval and to the, parties hereto for ratification. b. Shall keep an accurate account and file of all meetings. C. Shall disburse all funds in accordance with the policies of the County-Treasurer and the County Auditor{Controller and the budget and work program adopted by the Area Council. d. Shall have charge of all correspondence. e. Shall keep and maintain the reports of the Area Council on all committees. f. Shall insure that Area Council renders a written year end report reflecting activities of the preceding fiscal year, said year end report to be distributed to each of the participating member bodies. g. Shall be responsible for directing those employees authorized by the Area Council_ in the budget. Employees -ire to be appointed by the Area Council on the 0 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PAGE 9 recommendation of the Executive Director and to serve at the pleasure of the Area Council. 2. The Executive Director of the Area Council shall have charge of, handle and have access to, any property of the Area Council. 3. The Executive Director, Treasurer, and Auditor—Controller shall be bonded or self—insured through the county in—lieu of bonds (in accordance with .Government Code Section 24156) in the sum of $1000. VIII. MEETINGS 1. Regular meetings of the Area Council shall be held at least six (6) times a year or at more frequent intervals as approved by the Area Council. 2. Special meetings may be called by the President or upon written request of at least three (3) representatives of the Area Council. Actual notice of special meetings must be given at least three (3) business days in advance. 3. Meetings shall be open to the public as required by state law. 4. Regular meetings shall be held in the first week of January, March, May, July, September and November. The May meeting shall be designated the "annual meeting." 5. The Executive Director of the Area Council will direct the publication of notices of all meetings pursuant to state law. 6. Only official representatives or alternates shall represent a member of the Area Council or vote on any motion before the Area Council. 7. The meeting; a4>enda shall he prepared by the Ieecut-ive Director to the Area Council. Agenda material shall. be submittedo- to, the Executive • JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PAGE 10 Director at least twenty-one (21) calendar days prior to the next regular meeting and distributed to members at least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the next regular meeting to allow member agencies to instruct their representatives on voting direction. Unless authorized by majority vote of the representatives at a regular meeting, only agenda items shall be considered by the Area Council. 8. The Area Council, at the discretion of the President, may memorialize any of its actions by resolution. 9. Robert's Rules of Order or such other rules as the Area Council may adopt will govern all proceedings not specifically provided for herein. 10. Executive sessions shall be held in accordance with applicable . law.. 11. The Area Council shall hold public hearings for the adoption of Regional Plans. 12.- Minutes of all Area Council meetings shall be kept by the Executive Director to the Area Council and shall be submitted to member agencies. IX. COMMITTEES 1. Committees and subcommittees may be established as the Area Council may deem appropriate. 2 . Membership on committees shall be at the discretion of the President. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit membership on these aforesaid committees to officials of the member agencies. The President may appoint any individual deemed qualified to serve on a JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PAGE, 11 committee. Standing committees shall include the Administration Committee, comprised of all managers and administrators of member jurisdictions; the Legal Committee, comprised of all city and designated county attorneys; the Planning Committee, comprised of all agency planning officials nominated by their respective agencies; the Public Works Committee, comprised of allagencyengineering officials nominat.ed by their respective agencies; and the Transportation Committee. The Area Council may organize such other technical advisory committees as it deems necessary to carry out Area Council functions. 3. No committee shall commit the Area Council on any matter or questions of policy. Such matters or questions can only be decided by the Area Council. 4. All committees shall receive clerical assistance from the Area Council staff for the purpose of maintaining minutes of meetings and other such duties as the Executive Director may direct. The chairman of each committee shall sign the original copy of the minutes indicating his verification of contents. Copies of minutes of all meetings shall be sent to members of the Area Council and the Executive Director. X. FINANCE 1. The Area Council shall have no power to expend funds on any project for which funds have not been budgeted, nor on any item in excess of the budgeted amount without specific approval of two-thirds of the governing bodies of the member agencies including COUNTY. 2. The Treasurer of the County of San Luis Obispo is designated the depositary, and he shall have custody of all money of the Area Council a { JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PAGE 12 from whatever source received. It is further understood that the Auditor/Controller of the County of San Luis Obispo is, as such, auditor of the Area Council. XI. WITHDRAWAL AND DISSOLUTION 1. The parties to this Agreement pledge full cooperation and agree to assign representatives to serve as official members of the Area Council or any committee or subcommittee thereof who shall act for and on behalf of their city or county in any or all matters which shall come before the Area Council, subject to any necessary approval of their acts by the governing bodies of CITIES and COUNTY. 2. Any party , to this Agreement may withdraw from the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council and terminate its participation in this agreement b resolution of its governing body. The withdrawal of the g y g g member shall have no effect on the continuance of this Agreement among the remaining members and the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as respects the remaining members. 3. A member withdrawing shall not be liable for the payment of further contributions falling due beyond the date of withdrawal and shall have no right to reimbursement of any monies previously paid to Area Council, provided, however, that Area Council may authorize a reimbursement if in its judgment such reimbursement is fair and equitable and can be done without jeopardy to the operation of the Area Council. If any party hereto fails to pay its contribution, as determined by Area Council, said entity shall be deemed to have voluntarily withdrawn from the Area Council. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PAGE 13 4. Area Council may be dissolved at any time and this Agreement rescinded by a joint agreement executed by COUNTY and CITIES which are parties hereto. Said rescision Agreement shall provide for the orderly payment of all outstanding debts and obligations and for the return of any surplus funds of Area Council in proportion to the contributions made. XII. EFFECTIVITY This Agreement shall take effect upon its execution by the chairman or mayor and clerks of the governing bodies of the County of San Luis Obispo and at least four (4) cities, pursuant to resolutions of such governing bodies authorizing such execution and shall remain in full force and effect until dissolved pursuant to the provisions herein. This Agreement may be executed in eight (8) counterparts which together shall constitute a g single agreement. g IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first hereinabove written. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE By: Date: Mayor Resolution No. Clerk JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PAGE 14 CITY OF ATASCADERO By: Date: Mayor Minute Order Clerk CITY OF GROVER CITY By: Date: Mayor Resolution No. Clerk CITY OF MORRO BAY By: Date: Mayor Resolution No. Clerk CITY OF PASO ROBLES By: Date: Mayor Minute Order Clerk CITY OF PISMO BEACH By: Date Mayor t Minute Order Clerk CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO By: Date: Mayor Resolution No. Clerk JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PAGE 15 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO By: Date: Chairman Minute Order Clerk ms/hf/45/0663 • IMCI L MEETI PSG; ; 6/10/85 A FNPA ITEM. NO, A 4 M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY MANAGER/CITY COUNCIL N JJ FROM: CHIEF OF POLICE SUBJECT: ANIMAL REGULATION CONTRACT - FY. 1985-86 DATE: MAY 31 , 1985 Recommendation: 1. Authorize the Mayor to sign the new .agreement (attached) which will allow for the continued provision of animal control 'service by San Luis Obispo County Animal Regulation De- partment. 2 . Change the "not to exceed" sum from $28 ,800 requested to the existing 1984-85 f.y. sum and service level of $27 ,407 . Council Action Requested: As indicated above, authorize by the attached resolution, the execution of the proposed agreement to include the identical. level of funding ($27 ,407) for animal regulation service as currently exists. Background: The S.L.O County Department of Animal Regulation has provided cxntractual animal control services since our city' s incor- poration. Basically, the service level has evolved from year to year based upon actual experience and need. The funding budgeted for this service is offset by monies collected by the County for • dog licensing, animal redemptions, court fines, adoptions, etc. As an example, while our "not to exceed"amount for f.y. 1984-85 was set at $27 ,407, it is estimated that with the income generated as indicated above, our actual animal regulations costs will be approximately $15, 000 in Atascadero. During the past few years, there have been some complaints from residents that animal control services are inad.oquate. In my judgement, when these few complaints have been addressed, our County service has been responsive in dealing with the problems within the provisions of the contract. Alternatives: An alternative to contracting with the County, of course, is our City providing all or'part of animal regulation ser- vices on our own using City buildings, equipment and manpower. In considering this alternative during last fiscal year, it was my conclusion with staff concurrence, that we simply do not have the financial capability to furnish this service on our own. Additionally, the service as provided by S.L.O. County is quite good considering the relatively small amount the City pays. Fiscal Impact: As indicated, the amount I proposed for the new fiscal year is the same as that which we are now paying. V` • RICHAR5 H. MCHALE Attach: 5 l RESOLUTION NUMBER 41-85 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING RATIFICATION OF CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH THE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL REGULATION FISCAL YEAR 1985-86 WHEREAS, a revised agreement for animal control services has been submitted to the City of Atascadero for ratification by the City of .Atascadero; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to continue receiving animal control services from San Luis Obispo County Animal Regulation Department; and WHEREAS, the City agrees to pay Sian Luis Obispo County any deficits between total revenue credited to City and City' s allocated costs. City agrees to a maximum sum of $27,407. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero resolves as follows: Section 1. Authorizes the Mayor to ratify the Fiscal Year 1985-86 revised agreement for animal control services with the County of San Luis Obispo Animal Control Department. On motion by and seconded by the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following vote: e j AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA BY: ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor -1 t ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER LYON, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager 2 -a 2„r5 • county o f shin Cn/ui. (*6po t DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL REGULATION COUNTY OPERATIONAL CENTER + RT. 2. BOX 425 H + SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 ROBERTDOLLAHITE,DIRECTOR AC 805549.5100 City Adminstrator/City Council May 22 , 1985 F. 1 3 'i/► l; 6500 Palma Atascadero, Calif. 93422 MAY CITY NIGR. Presented for your consideration is the proposed agreement for Animal Control services for FY 85-86, between the County of San Luis Obispo and each city. There are no significant changes proposed in the ccntract . A minor change in paragraph 1 , sub. sec . ' B ' under definitions numbers 8 , 9 , 10 & 11 have been separated out . Cities have always paid these charges in the admin- strative fees. 'The only other change is in the 'Not to exceed ' amount which I am recommending to be increased by 51 . I have furnished you with two copies of the contract , please return both copies after you have signed them.The Board of Supervisors will then sign them and you will Lecieve one .signed copy back. Because of a time factor I do need these contracts back by theA.6th of June 1985 . If there are any questions please f el fre {e� to contact me. 61 y Sincerely, Robert L. Dollahite . RLH : jh ti F. AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES L This Agreement is made and entered into this 1st day of July, 1985, by and between the ,County of San Luis Obispo, hereinafter referred to as "County", and the City of Atascadero hereinafter referred to as "City". WITNESSETH: THAT WHEREAS, the City is desirous of contracting with the County for the performance of the hereinafter described animal conrol services whithin its t boundaries by thr> County of San Luis Obispo through the Department of Animal Regulation. and > a WHEREAS, the County is agreeable to providing such services in accordance s � with the provisions of the San Luis Obispo Count Code Title 9 which Y Provides for the licensin; of doge, the establishment of a public pound, and for the r x �� `� collection and care of stray; diseased and vicious animals; and WHEREAS, the County of San Luis Obispo has established the Department of Animal Regulation to enforce the ordinances of the County Code Title 9 within xr tr x ` 7 t the unincorporated areas nf.the County; and WHEREAS, the interests of all citizens wood he served by implementation of Animal Control Services in the incorporated communities of the County; and WHEREAS, the City is desirous of contracting for said Animal Control Services. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Definitions: a. "Animal" as used in this Aqreement means an_y species of � 3 vertebrate creature. t b. "Animal transaction for City" as used in this Agreement means any of the following actions taken by County on City's behalf, singularly,or n' ?; in aggregate, as they relate to a single animal or animal owner within a r t , 24-hour period: f l) Search : (2) Seizure; w. r (3) Capture or attempted capture; Mh` (4) Bite investigations; 'F (5) Issue of written warning or citation; (6) Pick-up and disposal of dead animal; (7) Nuisance investigation (8) Care of injured animal; (9) Adoption/redemption/destruction f,. —1— v` (10) Extended holds (11) Court/Hearings C. ."Animals sheltered for City" 'as used in this Agreement shall mean any animal delivered to the animal shelter from within City's corporate limits. d. "Man-hour" as used in this Agreement shall refer to the services of any single County officer, agent, or employee for one hour. c c a Man-hours shall be recorded to the nearest one-half (}) hour. y ;,o a .* yrs• ,•y,�r�?c } d. OverallProgram Costs" as used in this Agreement shall mean total operating costs incurred providing services of an single component, as 9 Y 9 P aa� hereinafter described, to any unincorporated areas of County together with the total operating costs incurred in providing services of any single component to any incorporated community within County contracting for said component. Such costs shall include the cost of any leased premises, equipment, and those �` subcontracted services as hereinafter described. "Emergency Services" as used in this Agreement shall mean those services provided by one or more animal control officers during hours I other than regular business hours in response to a call concerning animal bites, stray vicious animals or.situations in which animals are constituting a z 4N threat to public safety. Emergency services do not include responses to animal nuisances such as barking or stray dogs. �r Count a 2. Services Components - The to•: ... � y agrees g provide all necessary ffi _ labor, facilities, and equipment to supply the following animal control i r service components: a. General Administration - County agrees to provide management and supervision of the animal control program, to keep records and provide- statements as hereinafter specified, to operate an animal release annex, to T k ' rn`. x =' maintain a headquarters with communication center and dispatcher serviceoil r_ . These services shall hereinafter be referred-to as the "gerneral administration a component". - t b. Ordinance Conformity - City agrees to adopt animal control F ordinances which conform to or are not in conflict with Chapter 9 of the San Luis Obispo County Code. Changes and modifications to City codes may be conducted with the County Department of Animal Regulation's consultation before adoption. County Department of Animal Regulation may also make recommendations to cities for changes or modifications to their City ordinance. -2- 3 This service shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Ordinance Review Component" C. Animal Control Enforcement - County shall enforce all City Animal Control ordinances and state laws within City's corporate limits, investigate complaints, including complaints involving animal bites, and issue citations. These services shall hereinafter be referred to as the "animal control enforcement component", but services under this component shall not include enforcement of City animal licensing ordinances, which is covered under the "licensing component", nor shall it include enforcement of zoning ordinances dealing with animals. S x { �uN7 d. Animal Shelter The-6iy-maintains a pound and provides for the care, housing, and disposal of animals seized within City's corporate limits or delivered by City's residents. It is understood and agreed that the County may subcontract the obligations of this paragraph to an independent contractor 7 or at its option undertake to perform these duties itself. If the County chooses A' to undertake these services itself, it agrees to maintain its kennels, cages, and corrals so as to produce a humane environment. These services shall here inafter be referred to as the "animal shelter component". k sa> a � a e. Public Education - County shall provide information to the � 4 ' '�y •k"n'tf<�` ^�--..'q"F s,s vet r�*'a.x .,:;,.s, f'',,g - - - 4 public on the necessity of animal control as recommended by the Animal Regulation and Control Advisory Committee. This service shall hereinafter be referred to as the "public education component". f.. Licensing - County shall collect license fees, issue licenses and receipts for licenses, enforce City licensing ordinances, and enforce state and local rabies control laws. County may choose to conduct an animal vaccination clinic. These services shall hereinafter be referred to as the rs "licensing component". 5 g. Animal Population Control - The cities and county are k * :;% encouraged to sponsor a spay and neuter clinic. w v 3. Animal Regulation and Control Advisory Committee - There shall be ` * an Animal Regulation and Control Advisory Committee whose responsibility it r� will be to review and recommend on all matters of Departmental Policy regarding s r overall program administration, level and quality of services, budget, and �r ordinance development and amendments. This Advisory Committee shall be made up of: one representative from each city contracting with the County, one representative from the County Veterinarians' Association, one representative from an Animal Welfare Society, one representative from the County Health »r d -3- -4— w Department, one representative from the Department of Animal Regulation, and 0 one representative from the County Sheriff's Department. The committee shall receive staff support from the Department of Animal Regulation. 4. Supervision - The rendition of services specified in paragraph 2 of this Agreement, and matters incidental to the performances of said services, and the control of personnel so employed, shall remain in the County. r.; ' 5. Cooperation - To facilitate the performance of the foregoing functions, it is hereby agreed that the County shall have the full cooperation and assistance from the City, its officers" agents and employees. 6. Special Supplies It is agreed that in all instances wherein special H� r supplies, tools, vehicles, equipment, stationery, notices, forms, and the like mu-t be used in the performance of this contract on behalf of City, the same shall be supplied by City at its own cost and expense. 7. Employee Compensation and Liability - City shall not be called upon to assume any liability for the direct payment of any salaries, wages, or other n >: ti compensation to any County personnel performing services hereunder, or any :n liability other than that provided in this Agreement. The City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnity to any County employee for injury or } xn �" sickness arising out of his employement. 8. Idemnification - County shall defend, indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees, from any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, or liability arising out of this Agreement or occasioned by the performance or attempted performance of the provisions hereof, except those arising from the sole negligence or wilful misconduct of the City, 4 j including, but not limited to, any act or omission to act on the part of City or its agents, employees or other independent contractors directly responsible r to it. '.� 9. Employee Status - All persons employed in the performance of the services and functions specified in paragraph 2 of this Agreement shall be " County employees: no present City employee shall become a County employee by reason of this Agreement; and no person employed hereunder shall have any City pension, Civil Service, nr any similar status or right. For this Agreement, and for the sole purpose of giving legal status to the performance of the duties and responsibilities herein, every County officer and employee engaged in the performance of any service hereunder shall, where necessary, be deemed 5 an officer or employee of City while performing the services for City. -4- I - r - 10. Prosecution - It shall be the duty of the_City Attorney, exercising the discretion vested in his office, to prosecute violations of the City Animal Ordinance, and take appropriate legal action with respect to the`abatement of any public nuisance involving animals occurring within City's corporate limits. 11. Term and Renewal —This Agreement shall be effective on the 1st day of July, 1985, and shall terminate on the 30th day of June, 1986, or the 30th day of June any year thereafter, provided that no later than March 15th next " • ,� 5 �-.�,a� �` 4,4preceding said expiration date, either party shall notify the other in writing that it does not wish to renew same. Otherwise, this Agreement will continue �ht from year to year. � $ 9 r � 12. Allocation of Operating Costs - Charges to City for the services provided by County shall be computed on the following basis: 'e. a. Charges for general administration and ordinance review shall be $3.50 for each animal transaction for City (as defined in subparagraph 1(b) ` 4 4° of this Agreement. A $3.50 charge shall also be applied for each animal delivered to the control facility by a resident of City. The charges allocated to City pursuant to this subparagraph 12(a) shall be added to the charges made pursuant to subparagraphs 12(b) and (c) below when those charges are applicable. b. Charges for the animal control enforcement service component shall be $9.25 for each animal transaction (as defined in paragraph 1(b) of r^ this Agreement) in which the service of an Animal Control Officer is involved,, t y, but excluding those services where charges are made pursuant to subparagraph 12(f) below. The charges allocated pursuant to this subparabraph 12(b) shall be added to the charges described in paragraph 12(a) above, and where applicable they may also be added to the charges described in paragraph 12(c) below. a C. Charges for the animal shelter services component shall be $4.00 for each animal sheltered for City (as defined in paragraph 1(c) of this "may Agreement). The charges allocated pursuant to this subparagraph 12(c) shall �p•+.,c s ir<-�lx...�'lay,'s ro � � yr^'>5�3� w: xw,.•,v .. , be added to the charges described in subparagraph 12(a) above and where - _^``�' applicable they may also be added to the charges described in subparagraphs 12(b) and (f). x d. Overall program costs (as defined in paragraph 1(e) of this Agreement) for the public education component services shall be multiplied by the City's population percent, and that sum shall be charged to City. In no event shall City's allocated costs for the public education component exceed 14� per capita. n -5- e. Charges for the licensing component services shall be $2.25 for each animal licensed for City. Should County choose to conduct a countywide animal vaccination clinic, the costs for conducting such a clinic shall be multiplied by the ratio created by dividing the number of animals ` vaccinated for City animal owners by the total number of animals vaccinated during the clinic. f. In payment for those emergency services (as defined in fQ rr paragraph 1(f) of this Agreement) provided to City when only standby animal r,�t�lraK"`�s"'v`,d`,+"`°`�"'";•�'vt'..+.�`'�.a+E�4i4r'' � �.-,. . control officers are on duty, City shall be charged $30.00 per man-hour. This charge shall be on a portal-to-portal basis, and when applicable, may be added r t,> s u to the charges imposed pursuant to subparagraphs 12(a) and (c) above. r FS T g. ?Cha'rges for unrecovered fees, bad checks, and veterinarian services shall be on an actual cost recovery, 13. Revenue from Fees and Impounds - Revenue from impound.charges r collected on animals taken from within City's corporate limits will be credited against City's allocated costs. 14. Revenue from Licensing - Revenue collected in licensing animals owned or adopted by residents of City shall be credited to City's allocated ' tw s, 40 sysl y"k costs. r W. 15. Revenue from Court Fines - Animal control violation fine monies which are imposed and collected as a result of citations issued or arrests made within the City will be credited against City's allocated costs. 4 ' r16. Deficits - City shall pay County any deficits between total revenue rl� 4 credited to.City and City's allocated costs. City agrees the sum of $27,407 represents a reimbursement which shall, within the conditions of this Agreement, „ } be a maximum under which County shall be excused from any further performance. When in the calculation of charges incurred, the Animal Reg-ulati;;n Department xez costs equal said amount, this clause shall act as a condition subsequent excusing the County from any further service under the terms of the contract. ` p5r Said payments shall be made on or before the 31st day of August of each year Iof this Agreement's existence. 17. Enforceability - The invalidity and unenforceability of any terms or provisions hereof shall in no way affect the validity or enforceability,of any other terms or provisions. 18. Modification This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding 5 -`"Y` Chr. L 7.2' o 'F • .fit.u'•'�i. _ �_ �_r__ • i ` f of the parties hereto and no changes, amendments or alterations shall be effective unless in writing and signed by both parties. 19. Assignment of Personnel - The number of Animal Control Officers assigned to any activity shall be within the discretion of the Department of Animal Regulation of the County of San Luis Obispo. 20. Optional Reduction in Services - Notwithstanding any provision ,. herein to the contrary, City shall have the option to select a reduced level ,�} ���.., � � �` •nY of services for the remainder of the contract period. The Department will provide a quarterly report of financial status of City's program in a format acceptable to the Director. Said reports are ordinarily provided at the•end ,C�u4�x✓.'N.r 4"yna2. �, .,+., ,,,—t.*bti v of the ninth, twelfth and third months of each calendar year. City may notify Director of its election to reduce services whithin any two weeks after receipt - �� of said report. Upon receipt of notice of said election Director will provide a reduced level of service, including emergency services. It is the intent of m the parties to provide.a continuation of mandated, emergency services to the community under this paragraph as an alternative to service termination as ,w iR. , ,•a r"ar rr!-t+�`e+.e ,^du+�r.x•.' provided in paragraph 16 above. 21. Books and Records - County agrees to keep such books and records -Controller shall specify. Said � ,� 3 � �fl and in such form and manner as County Auditor ys�s`= �� r .pan books shall be open for examination by City as all reasonable times. rs 22. Notices - Any notice required to be given pursuant to the terms and provisions hereof shall be in writing and shall be sent by certified or registered mail to the County at: Department of Animal Regulation Route 2, Box 425H ri San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 and to the City at: �, Aq Atascadero City Clerk 6500 Palma Ave. Atascadero, Calif. 93422 INWITNESS THEREOF, City of Atascadero _ by resolution duly ` adopted by its City Council causes this Agreement to be signed by its mayor 4 �Irll and attested by its clerk, and County of San Luis Obispo by order of the Board r..� r of Supervisors causes these presents to be subscribed -by Chairman of said �. � S>r� i ` 0, Board and seal of said Board to be affixed thereto attested by Clerk of said CITY OF Atascasdero COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Y a •: L. By: By: Y Mayor Chairman, Board of Supervisors ATTEST: ATTEST: Francis M. Cooney, Clerk ` Board of Supervisors City Clerk rx = BY Deputy Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT 3 N Ree+a k �^s.1 CYT*7".Sj'r' JAMES B. LINDHOLM, JR. County Counsel r e § By: Deputy County Counsel J� 2'=M.yW x+L' mad 1�w` 7vf,'t fc"'R y:7Y 'A r "?,3,3, —8— .. B _ u c x „,4 AGRI'DA MEETI IG 6/10/R5 4FNPA ITEM A 5 • MEMORANDUM TO: City Council June 10 , 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Planning Director SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 14-85 APPLICANT: Lynn Bebeau (Kennaly Engineering) LOCATION: 9850 Las Lomas Avenue REQUEST: To convert an existing seven unit apartment complex into seven air-space condominiums. On May 20, 1985 , the Planning Commission conducted a public hear- ing concerning the above matter and, upon review, unanimously • approved the application subject to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report. John Kennaly, representative for the applicant, spoke to the application indicating his concurrence with the recommendation. Lynn Bebeau, applicant, also, noted her agreement. No one else appeared on the matter . '_J�r HENRY ENGEMICHAEL SHELTON Planning Di ector City Manager Ps • City of Atascadero Item: C-1 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 5/20/85 BY: Doug Davidson, Assoc. Planner Trainee File No: TTM 14-85 Project Address: 9850 Las Lomas SUBJECT: To convert an existing seven unit apartment complex into seven air- space condominiums. BACKGROUND: Building permits were issued for this project in September , 1981 and the units received approval of final inspection in March, 1982. The applicant now wishes to establish a condominium tract map for seven airspace residential condominiums. This permits sales of the individ- ual units similar to an individual single family house on its own lot. A public hearing notice was published in the Atascadero News on Fri- day, May 10, 1985 and copies were sent to all record property owners within 300 feet of the subject site that same date. A. LOCATION: 9850 Las Lomas (Parcels 1 and 2 of Lot 36, Block 6) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To convert an existing seven unit apartment building into seven airspace condominiums. 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lynn Bebeau 3. Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kennaly Engineering 4. Site Area. . . . . .54 acres 5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . Las Lomas is a city-maintained street with a 50 foot right-of- way. 6. Zoning. . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . .RMF/16 (Residential Multiple Family, 16 dwelling units per acre) 7 . Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Seven unit apartment building v Tenta.tJ e Tract Maps85 "(Bebe.7u/Jano).is/Kenna#Engin. ) 8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RMF/16, residential South: RMF/16, residential East: RSF-Z, residential West: RMF/16 , residential 9. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Multiple Family Residential . 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Level land developed with multi family residences 11. Environmental Status,. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration ANALYSISs Since these apartment units are existing approved structures, this item becomes a matter of ownership methods. Establishing a condomin- ium tract map will allow individual ownership of the seven dwelling units and common ownership of the parking and open space areas. Staff believes that this establishment of condominium units would not con- flict with any plans or policies of the city. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map 14-85, 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 Tract Map 2 G-�,' Tentative Tract Map 9-85 (Bebeau/Janolis/Kennalf Engin,, ) EXHIBIT A - Tentative Tract Map 14-85 Findings/Conditions of Approval May 20, 1985 FINDINGS: 1. The creation of these parcels conform to all applicable zoning regulations 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 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,2, as to methods of handling and discharge of waste. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and Restric- tions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control of nuisances and architectural control of all buildings. a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney and Planning Department prior to approval of the final map. b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by a Condominium Homeowners Association. 2. All conditions of approval herein specified are to be complied with prior to filing of the final map. 3 Tentative 'tract Map 10-85 (Bebeau/Janolis/Kenna Engin. ) 3. A final map, in compliance with all conditions set forth herein, shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners have been set or shall be set by a date specific and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit- ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 4. Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire two years from the date of this approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. 4 J 1 , �S } �4ohr. • � A y S� •wi "v , « C v e ♦b." f.'x A7'£O•St 1Z'81 - 'r VS o- !lA AT-78-135 t2-8t. !. �°T X7-78.143 12-ar: AT-19.23 iz bl ' f y,'°' s tJee �•.,, \ 'o, s 'Ar-at-lbs 12 0l ,• /•M,p .` /' tl 4 of ir. ' '�- I,T 81 ZS(. 3-2S-62 I +- • ,. deo 5s �..' s r ,_ •. .. •A Isa 5 9v+ - ,. +j'• Y� R 1 elr` 1 l tt _ • tt l�•: I•,•\• S Isa e e S G SI o yY,'i CC°tt���, /` ,J� to • - `oy 7 M(JI-- 7 ° 9 - • 1Yti - y �` s y (., 4 .e,�..° 5 ► „'tC..wl ° 8 .: e`er t♦ i . - / 'I'7 •'•�' '�'' 1`d REVISION DATE It ty`.. .40 e d"f*v\ R"� 3•G epi, -r t.•,� a r• .`}1`�\ )t �° � .__ ,.1 � p,;, 3,l',b G •` ®,N ieN'Gs �:, �JF—1 ea•+' I-' t „s o wtt • �- S5 o`t::4 33 It•A r ss to ° CO ss ,`. 8 25., - - A If IV 41 29 PC .. QiD�r ° �9C �t;,`1• ,.. 3 ' '7 sGa $\u\tee „is .R F IO CT ">�`� `° ./' ,,t 3}., ' F— :°y, 13 S _Y air �, :38 q� :�. ►jesL`�� / 7 - 7�,joS .. y�Cv. • 1 ROS' ,s\ ♦ a'• .� �5�U , I - - �,•t a,•. / RMF/ { � Cam °q, LY � S°JSJ.� •' t-• ,, .,. IaRf t`3,,,)r•� �\ ,`�3 ` >*. a Trl A. `�. ° ` � •t4r.. j - - ,\t[- <;~g`A„ Z`0.\- s N' 4 fOi "-_•S r I t •. s c..alti H t.4���... co \>. . -4y o, `o A�T\ \\�•`S s iso f,,• .9r 'L , 4 `°•, '.9 ' �\ - �� 3^ €ih I', •,S, • - a RM s/ •, .' «,-�{inS`"� •'�\�� S. '�� .. Flo-• lo•A - -i It ^ J i1 H s 9 ar" • ssu� ;g�i \s',;r is %•�tt 6 O wds_I r,- w.• . ..i.•.�, v r e.—__ 'apt .'k,' - 1 22 34 / J�( i ! •4 22 -,.•t _. 21 .J �Q' — �or•ts o- ,.n..,� Give J K��+... LOCA T C.1 20 ,.•.G 27/tlA J IV 14 23 Wit f, .,7• — leo.'�p --' CITY OF ATASCADI Plannin•o._, Departme rn'[ilEl I� i } 1 v11°�1'ou"tv 1134 lAS COMAS WAVE s• \ O�II` SBVIA &64 RL� I v , v. C MCS COUNCIL MFE_TING : 6/10/85 SENPA ITEM NO, : P - 1 M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council June 10, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Planning Director 4 .k RE: Continued Hearing-City/School Development Fee Proposal to Alleviate School Overcrowding: Proposed Resolution No.. 38-85 RECOMMENDATION: Direct the City Attorney to bring back a 201 ordinance for public hearing. BACKGROUND: At the Council' s May 28 , 1985 meeting, Council considered the attached a staff report and public testimony, and continued the matter for addi- tional study to the June 10th meeting. In the meantime, the City/ School District Committee met on June 5th and, among other things, considered the opinion of interim City Attorney, Roger Lyon (see at- tached memorandum) which raised questions relative to the propriety of raising "voluntary" fees under a resolution procedure. It questioned whether the resolution as drafted would be valid in capturing fees for ministerial acts (i.e. building permit applications) . The consensus of the City representatives on the committee was to rec- ommend to the Council at the continued hearing on June 10th that a 201 ordinance be drafted for consideration instead of the resolution pro- cedure. Further clarifications also are being sought on the fees needed annually to sustain the school district through the current level of development activity. With respect to concerns raised over major projects which might begin processing before such an ordinance and/or City development fees may be adopted, staff was advised that we could condition discretionary projects with a condition of approval requiring participation in any future school or city-wide fee requirement. Staff anticipates having this language available for presentation to the Council at the June 10th meeting. Enclosure: Memorandum - Interim City Attorney Roger Lyon - June 4, 1985 Staff Report - May 28, 1985 Re: City/School Development Fee Proposal cc: Dr . Anthony Avina • F>•,> ROGER.'C. LYON, JR. . �. 'Ci LAW CC�PORATIOM n� 11CR PALM STREET +��=N 41%5 P.O.BOX 922 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93406 CITY MG IR. TELEPHONE(805)541-2560 June 4, 1985 MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Shelton, City Manager ity of Atascadero FROM: Roger C. Lyon, Jr, , interim City Attorney SUBJECT: School Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Following is a summary of the applicable law and legal ramifications of the Atascadero School District's request for implementation of interim school facilities fees. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The City has been presented with a resolution by the . Atascadero Unified School District dated May 6, 1985, with the District Board of Education's finding of overcrowded school conditions within the City of Atascadero. The School District' s resolution also indicates a willingness to enter into "voluntary" agreements with persons seeking approval of residential development within the City in amounts specified in Exhibit "A" to the School District's resolution. The School District' s resolution was presented to the City Council at its May 28, 1985, meeting along with a draft Resolution 38-85. Draft Resolution 38-85, if approved by the City Council, would concur with the School District's findings of overcrowded conditions within the City of Atascadero and would concur with the School District's finding that all reasonable methods of mitigating conditions of overcrowding have been evaluated and no feasible method for reducing such conditions exists. The City Council on May 28, 1985, continued consideration of the proposed resolution. STATUTORY SCHEME Government Code Sections 65970 et seq. , commonly known as "SB 201, " is the enabling legislation by which the School f r District is seeking implementation of interim school facili- ties fees. The following are the steps necessary to imple- ment such development fees: 1. The School District must adopt a resolution supported by clear and convincing evidence finding that: a. Overcrowded conditions exist, including the reason for such conditions existing; and b. " ., . all reasonable methods of mitigating conditions of overcrowding have been evaluated and no feasible method of reducing such conditions exist. (Government Code Section 65971. ) 2. The City Council must determine whether it concurs with the School District's findings concerning overcrowded conditions and that all other methods of mitigating the conditions have been exhausted. (Government Code Section 65971. ) (This was the issue that was before the Council on May 28, 1985. The draft resolution before the Council at that time would 'have concurred with the School District' s findings. ) 3. If the City Council concurs with the School District's findings, i.e. , the draft resolution is adopted, a moratorium is immediately implemented. The moratorium prohibits approval of any ordinance rezoning property to a residential use, issuance of any discretionary permit for residential use, or approval of any tentative subdivision map for residential purposes until: a. An SB 201 fee ordinance is in effect; or b. The City Council makes specific findings for individual residential development projects that there are "specific overriding physical, economic, social, or environ- mental factors" which would justify an exception to the moratorium. The moratorium implemented by adoption of the resolu- tion does not appear to apply to issuance of ministerial building permits, but only to discretionary permits. In contrast, a permanent SB 201 school fee ordinance would be applicable to all residential development, including indi- vidual building permits. (Government Code Sections 65973 (c) and 65974. ) -2- { I . r e.' The State law does not have a provision that provides for a lifting of the "moratorium" by the "voluntary" payment of fees by developers until a permanent SB 201 ordinance is implemented. In suggesting such an approach, I assume that the School District is interpreting the provision of Govern- ment Code Section 65972, which allows the City Council to make findings of overriding considerations on specific projects, as the basis for allowing individual developments to proceed which enter into "voluntary" agreements. There is some question as to whether such a blanket exemption from the moratorium by those entering into the voluntary agree- ments would be upheld by the courts. 4. After approval of a resolution concurring with the findings of the School District, the City, may adopt a long term interim school fees ordinance. Such an ordinance would allow lifting of the moratorium upon payment of fees specifically authorized in the ordinance. (Government Code Section 65974. ) Fees under the long term SB 201 ordinance may not be collected until the ordinance has been in effect for 30 days. In other words, assuming the ordinary adoption process, the SB 201 ordinance must be introduced and adopted with second reading with an effective date 30 days there- after and implementation of fees 30 days after the effective date. This would involve a normal time - lag of approximately 75 days :after first reading 'before fees can be charged. In such a long term ordinance, the City Council would control the amount of fees that would be imposed on residential development. DISCUSSION In light of the statutory framework imposing an auto- matic moratorium upon adoption of a resolution concurring with the School District's findings, the City Council should very carefully review both the School District's findings as well as the draft resolution which was before the Council on May 28, 1985. This would include determining whether the School District's findings, both as to overcrowding and lack of alternative methods of mitigating the situation, are supported by clear and convincing evidence. The Council should also consider whether to review the proposed ordi- nance which would implement the fee requirement, along with a negotiated fee schedule which the Council is satisfied is necessary to mitigate the overcrowded conditions, prior to approving the concurring resolution. In arriving at an appropriate fee, it should be kept in mind that the fees -3- allowed under SB 201 may be used only for interim school facilities. RCL:ar -4 t ` M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council May 28, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Planning Director 4- RE: City/School Development Fee Proposal to Alleviate School Overcrowding: Proposed Resolution No. 38-85. RECOMMENDATION: Following public hearing and discussion, adoption of the attached Resolution No. 38-85. CONTINUANCE ALTERNATIVE: Should matters be raised requiring additional study, consideration of this matter could be continued to the City Council' s June 10th meeting. AFFECT OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Council approval of the accompanying resolution would (1) concur in the school district' s finding that schools are overcrowded due to cur- rent levels of residential development activity, (2) that all alterna- tives to mitigate these impacts have been considered, and (3) that the only feasible alternative is payment of development impact fees to the school district. The City would not issue residential building per- mits unless applicants submitted evidence of having entered into vol- untary agreements for payment to the school district. For residential entitlements other than building permits, applicants would have to enter into an agreement to contribute in the future pursuant to either the current maximum schedule or that of a Section 201 ordinance ap- proved in accordance with Government Code Section 65970. The resolu- tion would take effect immediately. BACKGROUND: At the Council meeting of April 22, 1985, the report of the City/ School District Committee was presented (see attached) . At the School Board meeting of May 6, 1985 , their accompanying Resolu- tion No. 12 was approved outlining the proposed agreements that would be entered into between residential development applicants within the City and school district prior to processing of permits. On May 13th, a pre-public hearing presentation by school district personnel on the proposed resolution was made and May 28th was set as' the date of public hearing to consider proposed Resolution No. 38-85. Ci /School Develo m�t Fee Proposal • Y P P Fiscal Impact: None; school district staff would process prior to City review. HE:ps ENCLOSURES: Proposed Resolution No. 38-85 and Exhibits City/School District Committee Report - April 22, 1985 cc: Dr. Anthony Avina 2 r RESOLUTION NO. 38-85 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, officials of the Atascadero Unified School District have expressed their willingness to enter into voluntary agreements with persons seeking approval by the Council of residential development within the City, which agreements will provide for the payment of money to alleviate overcrowding in the Atascadero Unified School Dis- trict which would be caused by such development in amounts not to ex- ceed those specified in Exhibit "A" and to immediately inform this Council when the findings above cease to be valid; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the .City of Atascadero held a public hearing on on the finding of overcrowding of the Board; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of such hearing, the City Council of the City of Atascadero has determined that it concurs in the finding of overcrowding made by the Board. ft Resolution No. 38-85* NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does find and resolve as follows: . Section 1. 1. The above' recitals and findings, incorporated herein, are true and correct. 2. 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 im- pair the normal 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. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does further resolve that 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 MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager 2 EXHIBIT A . RESOLUTION N0. 12 • (To City Resolution 38-8 1 ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION RESOLUTION REGARDING. CONDITIONS OF 2 OVERCROWDING LOCATED IN SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ARFAS 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- 611ution making those findings required. by Government Code Section 7 65971 requesting that the Board of Supervisors of the County of 8 Sam 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 12 ' Council of the City of Atascadero will hold a public hearing on 131May 28 , 1985 on the findings of overcrowding made by this Board in 14lthat Resolution after which the City Council will be asked to take �. � 15 action concurring 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 20 willingness to enter into voluntary agreements with persons seek- 21 ing approval by the City Council of the City of Atascadero of 22 residential development within the City, which agreements will 231provide for the payment of money to alleviate overcrowding in this 24 district which would be caused by such development in amounts not 25 to exceed those specified in this Board' s Resolution of 26j December 17,1984 and to immediately inform the City Council of f = 27I the City of Atascadero when the findings contained in that Resolu- 16SLH: r23 tion cease to be valid; and L/3004-85 i -1- �r t i 1 WHEREAS, the Superintendent of this District has recom- 2 mended that this Board affirm that it is willing (pendingadopt ' 3 by the City Council of the City of Atascadero ✓ of an ordinance pux 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 1 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" 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 25I amounts specified in Exhibit "A" in consideration of the Dis- 26trict' 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- 1 3 . This Board also agree: to immediately inform ar. 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 j 7 received under these agreements , the amount and object of 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 13 ) facilities 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, derrick, Thiebaud . 21 NOES: None . 22 ABSENT: None . 23 ABSTENTIONS: 24 DATED: May 7 , 1985 i 25 26 AUXHONY' AVINA,, S br-intendent 27 Secretary to th oard of Trustees 28 -3- " t 1 I hereby certify that the roregoing is a full, true and 2 correct excerpt from the Journal of the Board of Trustees nerta " 3 in to the adoption of the foregoing Resolution at a meeting he g P g g �! I' 4 on May 6 , 1985 5 6 / i �' �Fec.r'etary �iONY AVINA, ' pe`-En endent 7 to Board of Trustees 8 9 10 11 12 � 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- t EXHIBIT "A" *(To School Resolution No.l� 1 AGREEMENT l° 2 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 4 3 day of 19 by and between the ATASCA- 4 DERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ( "District" ) and 5 ( "Developer" ) . 6I 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 ec-9 , tion 65972 relating to certain property known as i0 11 l 12j ( "Property" ) , which is located within the boundaries of the Dis- 131trict and the City of Atascadero; and 14 WHEREAS, the District has found that proposed residen- 15 tial 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 18i WHEREAS, the District has further found no feasible 19 method for reducing such conditions of overcrowding which now exist 20 , exists; and 21i WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero, on 22 ' 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: r38 Government Code Section 65972 or the Developer may be required to L/3004-85 -1- ' 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 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 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 /I/ - -2- 1 2. EITHER (check and initial applicable blocks) 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. i 7 3. School Overcrowding Fund. 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 14Priorto 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 with a residence thereon. If the Developer' s application 18 for an entitlement for residential development is grantedandthe 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 Deyeloper. 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 - Ai 3 condition precedent to the making of such demand upon the Deve 4 oper , 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 i 8 the payment of any amount which has become due under this Agree- 9 merit, 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 1 13 rightto 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 ( The District shall represent to the Cit � y Council til 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 other.,rise be caused or aggravated by the construction of resi- 24 dentes 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 23 issued after the expiration of the term of this Agreement. -4- \49 1 8. Term of Agreement . 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 day and year first above written . a 7 ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 8 , 9 By 10 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 27 28 -5- . M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council April 22, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Planning Director RE: City/School District Committee Report BACKGROUND: Upon receipt of the accompanying December 18, 1984 communication from the Atascadero Unified School District, the City Council appointed representatives from the City Council and staff to meet with represen- tatives of the School District and their staff to review the Dis- trict' s request to levy residential development fees for interim school facilities. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a status report on the committee' s deliberations and its conclusions. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP: City of Atascadero: Councilman George Molina, Councilman Wayne "Bear Handshy, City Manager , and Planning. Director Atascadero Unified School District: Board Member Ellen Baer, Board Member Carl Brown, District Superintendent Anthony Avina and Business Manager , Ernest Taylor MEETING HISTORY: The Committee met a total of six times beginning on January 21st with the last meeting held on April 12th. The discussion process involved examining the data contained in the School District' s transmittal of December 18th, reviewing alternatives to development fees that the District had pursued, considering the City' s needs with respect to raising revenues for other public facility needs, studying past and current growth trends in the City and School District at large, re- viewing legal pre-requisites before the City could consider adopting a specific ordinance for raising fees pursuant to Government Code sec- tion 65970 , and obtaining legal advice from Steve Hartsell, represent- ing Schools Legal Services and Allen Grimes, City Attorney. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Government Code section 65970 enables school districts, upon a finding of overcrowding , to pass a resolution stating that they are impacted and thereafter requesting affected local municipalities and counties to make the same findings and enact an ordinance requiring payment of fees to mitigate the overcrowding. The findings that are required include a conclusion that the school district "has considered and ,City/School District Committee Report evaluated all reasonable methods of mitigating conditions of over- crowding" and find them not feasible. The enabling statute also re- quires that there be a general plan that provides for the location of public schools. The City's existing General Plan simply identifies the existing school sites but does not designate future sites; hence, a plan amendment would be required prior to consideration of an ordi- nance (see attached memorandum dated February 4, 1985 from City Attor- ney, Allen Grimes) . To date, 32 of the state' s 58 counties have school development fee requirements. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES: With respect to alternatives for mitigating the conditions of over- crowding in district schools, the following were among those reported on to the committee: 1) Year-round schools - In order to implement year-round schools, the district would need to air condition classrooms due to the high summer temperatures. Preliminary estimates indicate that this could cost $3, 000 ,000 together with an increase in utility costs of approximately $30 , 000 per month. State law also requires that year-round schools be approved by a majority of the elector- ate of the district before being implemented on a mandatory basis. Some districts have implemented year-round schools on a voluntary basis with mixed results. 2) Special Assessments —Measure A, the $35 "parcel tax" , was sub- mitted to the electorate in November , 1984 and received a 53. 7% yes vote, but failed since it required 2/3rds approval for passage. 3) State Lottery - The language on the ballot for the lottery ini- tiative specifically precludes lottery funds from being used for capital outlay and construction. 4) State Revenues - The district has applied for funding for school facilities with this process normally taking 42 months. It has been estimated that there is a state-wide need for five billion dollars for school facilities over the next five years, and only '4 $225 million dollars is available for allocation in the next year. 5) Double Sessions - This alternative is not feasible following passage of SB 813 in 1983-84. This law requires the school dis- trict to provide additional minutes of education in each school day and to provide five additional school days of education in the school year . 6) Bussing to maximize use of space - The entire district is im- pacted with the district presently bussing students from Atasca- dero to available space in Santa Margarita. The distance to ad- joining school. districts makes it impractical to utilize any neighboring surplus classroom space and the San Luis Coastal uni- fied District is finding that it is now having to use space that was formerly surplus. 2 J City/School District Committee Report 7) Temporary Classrooms This is the avenue being pursued to alle- viate present overcrowding and the reason the district is request- ing enactment of an interim facilities fee ordinance. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: The School District has prepared a proposed general plan amendment for the City' s consideration to enable future consideration of an ordi- nance relative to interim development fees. CITY NEEDS: School District representatives were advised that the City is develop- ing a fee package to provide a pay-as-you go means of mitigating the impacts of growth including fees to provide for traffic lights, bridges, police facilities, fire facilities, park sites, roads, sewer system, etc. The City representatives on the committ.ee stressed that there was a need to provide a comprehensive solution to all of the community' s public facility needs, including schools. COMMITTEE CONSENSUS: It was the consensus of the committee to support adoption of a resolu- tion by the City Council concurring in the findings of overcrowding made by the Board of Trustees. As a prerequisite to issuance of a building permit for residential development, applicants would be re- quired to enter into voluntary agreements with the Atascadero Unified School District to provide payments of fees to be used to alleviate overcrowding in the district. Such fees would be no .higher than the fee schedule contained in the December 18, 1984 transmittal from thele district. Building permit applicants would be required to deal with the School District first and submit, as part of their application to the City, a statement from the district indicating that school impacts had been alleviated by payment of a fee. WHAT' S NEXT?: The following is the schedule adopted by the committee at their meet- ing of April 12th: April 22, 1985 - City Council meeting - discussion of committee report May 6, 1985 - School Board meeting - considerations of revised resolu- tion on overcrowding for submission to the City Council May 13, 1985- City Council meeting - presentation by School District personnel of proposed resolution. May 28, 1985- City Council public hearing - considering proposed resolution on overcrowding (could be held at the Prath- er Building at the Junior High School) . The possibil- ity exists for a continuance of the hearing to June AB 1985 , if necessary, prior to acting on the proposed resolution. 3 z City/School Districoommittee Report Additional actions to be undertaken include formal submission by the School District of a request for a general plan amendment (this could be included with the first cycle of 1985 plan amendments) . Work would continue by City staff on a draft comprehensive package to cover City public facility needs in addition to a draft ordinance addressing school overcrowding. HE:ps Enclosures: February 4, 1985 memorandum, Allen Grimes, City Attorney December 18, 1984 Communication, Atascadero Unified School District 4 "' r ,ACrAINISTRATION BUILDING CITY ATTORNEY 'r POST OFFICE BOX 747 POST OFFICE BOX 749 ATASCADERO,CALII-ORNIA 93423 ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 9342: PHONE: (805) 466-8000 PONE: (805) 466-5678. CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK ,° �� CITY TREASURER POLICE DEPARTMENT - POST OFFICE BOX 747 CITY MANAGER INCORPORATED JULY 2, 1979 ATASCADERO,CALIFORNI 3 FINANCE DEPARTMENT - PHONE: (805) 466-86 PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT RECREATION DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93422 PHONE: (805) 466.2141 MEMORANDUM February 4, 1985 To: Ralph Dowell, Acting City Mana er From: Allen Grimes City Attorney Subject: Development Fees; School Facilities You have asked me to give you the requirements which are legal conditions to the collection of development fees. I see these as follows: 1) The governing body of the school district must make a finding supported by clear and convincing evidence 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 conditions existing; and b) All reasonable methods of mitigating conditions of overcrowding have been evaluated and no feasible method for reducing such conditions exists. (Govt Code 65911) 2) Each of the following must occur: a) The General Plan provides for the location of public schools; b) The ordinance has been in effect for a period of 30 days prior to the implementation of the dedication or fee requirement; c) The land or fees, or both, transferred to a school district shall be used only for the purpose of providing interim elementary or high school classroom and related facilities where overcrowded conditions exist; d) The location and amount of the land to be dedicated or the amount of fees to be paid, or both, shall bear a reasonable relationship and will be limited to the needs of the community for interim ele— mentary or high school facilities and shall be reasonably related and limited to the need for schools caused by the development; MEMORANDUM: Ralph, Dowell, Acting City Manager February 4, 1985 Page 2 e) The fees shall not exceed the amount necessary to pay five (5) annual lease payments for the interim facilities; f) A finding is made by the City Council that the facilities to be constructed from the fees or the land to be dedicated, or both, are consistent with the General Plan; g) If the payment of fees of required, the payment shall be made at the time the building permit is issued, or at a later time as may be specified in the ordinance; and h) Only the payment of fees may be required in subdivisions containing 50 parcels or less. (Govt Code 65974) 3) It is noted that interim facilities as mentioned above shall be limited to the following: a) Temporary classrooms not constructed with permanent foundations and defined as structures 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; b) Temporary classroom toilet facilities not constructed with perma- nent foundations; and c) Reasonable site preparation and installation of temporary class- rooms. (Govt Code 65980) 4) The ordinance may specify the methods for mitigating the conditions of overcrowding. (Govt Code 65974) AG:fr - cc: Rolfe Nelson, Mayor �ti sca ero unified Sc obl District "Where students and their education are paramount" 6800 LEWIS AVENUE ANTHONY AVINA, Ed.D. ATASCADERO, CA 93422 District Superintendent PHONE: (805) 466.0393 December 18 , 1984 Ralph Dowell City Manager City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Mr. Dowell: At a special board meeting of the Atascadero Unified School District Board of Trustees held on Monday, December 17, 1984, the Board took action to adopt Resolution No. 8, "Resolution Regarding Conditions of Overcrowding in School Attendance Areas" . The Resolution cites Government Section 65970 and subsequent sections regarding the overcrowding of school facilities and calling for a schedule of developers` fees to be enacted and levied against future building permits. 0 We would like to request that an ordinance be developed and be presented to the City Council for consideration at your earliest convenience. I believe that you already have a copy of the San Luis Obispo County ordinance and I am enclosing a copy of the City of Bakersfield ordinance for your consideration. Our legal representative, Steve Hartsell , of Schools Legal Services , Inc. , (805) 398-3830, would be happy to work with your staff and/or legal counsel in drafting an ordinance. Mr. Hartsell , and his firm were instrumental in drafting the ordinance as adopted by the County and therefore is familiar with the process. Should you need further information, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Ernest W. Taylor, Business Manager EWT:rr cc: Henry Engen, Planning Director Steve Hartsell , Schools Legal Services enol: Resolution #8 and related materials Carrisa Plains Elementary 0 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 nL ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION • December 1, , 1984 RESOLUTION REGARDING CONDITIONS OF OVERCROWRING IN SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AREAS RESOLUTION NO. 8 A. The Legislature has enacted Government Code Sections 65970 and following in order to provide a means to alleviate over- crowding in public schools caused by new residential development . B. The statute provides that whenever a school district finds schools will be overcrowded as the result of proposed resi- dential development , and the city or county concurs, no further resi- dential development 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 . C. The District Superintendent has reported to this Governing Board on the enrollment capacities of the various schools of the district , the current and projected enrollments in the Dis trict , and the cost of obtaining relocatable classroom facilities sufficient to meet enrollment needs caused by current and future de- velopment . The Superintendent ' s report is attached and incorporated into this Resolution as Exhibit "A RESOLVED 1 . The above recitals are true. 2 . This Board finds the Superintendent ' s report to be correct , and specifically adopts the report as its own findings. 3. Based upon the facts contained in the Superin- tendent ' s report , this Board finds: (1) a'. Conditions of overcrowding (including condi- ` tions caused by proposed development ) exist in every attendance area within the district at all grade levels which will impair the normal functioning of educational p.rograms. b. Overcrowding exists at all grade levels be- cause the current enrollment exceeds the capacity of existing facil- ities and cannot be accommodated in a manner that is consistent with the District' s educational goals and programs. The District needs to acquire one new elementary school within five years and to acquire additional classrooms at numerous existing sites as early as next year, all of which is beyond the fiscal capability of the District . Further development will produce even greater strains upon the capacities of all schools and school sites. Development proposals totaling approxi- mately 700 living units within the boundaries of the Atascadero Unified School District are already at various stages of the approval proces4e in the City of Atascadero and the County of San Luis Obispo. C. The District has considered and evaluated all reasonable. methods of mitigating conditions of overcrowding and this Board finds that none of them is _ feasible. There are no avail- able sources for funding the acquisition of new facilities on a per- manent or temporary basis. There are no general or special reserve funds of the District , bond funds or State funds that can be made avail- able for classrooms without jeopardizing the District ' s ability to provide educational opportunities for its students comparable to those offered to students throughout the State of California. Classrooms are currently overcrowded and this condition is having an adverse impact on the educational program of the District . This Board finds that (2) • r double sessions are not an acceptable educational alternative. The District is currently using eleven (11) temporary classrooms to house students in excess of permanent class capacity. The District has no surplus real property to sell. There are no existing agreements between a developer and the School District whereby temporary-use buildings or relocatables will be purchased and/or leased by the developers for the benefit of the School District or whereby temporary use buildings or relocatables will be leased by the School Dis- trict at developer expense. The District has no low priority schools or facilities to eliminate. 4. Currently, there is no ordinance in effect in the City which provides for the uniform payment of fees by residential developers to school districts whose schools are overcrowded or will become overcrowded as a result of proposed development . 5. Discussion with an architectural firm recently in- volved in the bidding for relocatable buildings revealed the basic cost per classroom to range between $39,000 and $52,000. An addi- tional $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, it would cost $1 ,752 per student to pro- vide relocatable classrooms at an average 28. 5 students per classroom. This amounts to an average $701.05 per dwelling unit based on an average .4 students per household. Accordingly, the Board recommends that fees be imposed on residential development within the District according the the following schedule: (3) n . 0-1 Bedroom dwelling unit, 849 sq. ft. or less $300 0-1 Bedroom dwelling unit , 850 sq. ft . or more $500 M 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 6. The fees collected pursuant, to Government Code Section 65970 and following will be used by the District to acquire and install relocatable classrooms on an interim basis on existing school sites which are already in conformity with applicable general plans, unless alternative agreements have been made with individual developers for mitigation of overcrowding in lieu of fees for interim facility use. s request-ed to be imposed,7. . The amount of fee and which q would be required to be paid, under the standards recommended in this Resolution bear a reasonable relationship, and will be limited to the needs of the community for interim elementary, intermediate and high school facilities, and are reasonably related and limited to the need for schools caused by the development upon which the fees would be imposed. 8. The Superintendent is directed to provide copies of this Resolution and Exhibit "A" to the Atascadero City Councils and the County Board of Supervisors. (4) L On motion of Board Member Carol Boche , seconded by Board Member Roy King , and on the following roil call vote, to wit : AYES: Baer,Boche ,Brown,King & Merrick. NOES: Beck & Thiebaud. ABSENT: None. ABSTENTIONS: the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted. Clerk of the Board December 17, 1984 - Date adopted (5) _ _ r Atascadero Unified School Il�istrict a` "Where students and their education are paramount" 6800 LEWIS AVENUE ANTHONY AVINA, Ed.D. ATASCADERO, CA 93422 District Superintendent PHONE: (805) 466-0393 December 6 , 1984 TO: Anthony Avina, Ed.D. , Superintendent Members of the Board of Trustees FROM: Ernest W. Taylor, Business Manager SUBJECT: Update/School Capacity At the March 19, 1984, board meeting, the Administration reported to the Board on the ever-increasing student population and the subsequent overcrowding of school facilities. That meeting was followed by a report on "Methods of Financing School Facilities" dated March 23, 1984. A copy is attached for your information. At that time the Administration outlined the five current sources of funding schools within the State of California. It was pointed out that the only two viable methods for consideration were: 1. Builders fees for interim facilities 2. A parcel tax election which would raise funds based upon a specified amount for a specified number of years for the purpose of building and furnishing school facilities. After due consideration and deliberations at subsequent board meetings, the Board of Trustees took action at their June 4, 1984, meeting to authorize a parcel tax election. On November 6, 1984, the electorate of the District rejected this ballot measure. In view of the results of the election, the Administration must now explore other methods of temporarily providing facilities to house students of the District until a permanent solution can be developed to provide permanent facilities. The Administration has been working with the State Departments ' Office of Local Assistance on its application which was filed several years ago. In addition, the Administration has been working with Ed Group International on an advisory basis to deter- mine any possible method whereby the District might qualify for State funding. 0 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 \, (Anthony Avina, Ed.D. , Superintendent ) Page 2 At this point it would appear that the Districts chances of qualifying are "slim to none" . The District is fast approaching the point where it will have unhoused children ; however still will not qualify since it has more square footage in school facilities than the State formula allows. The District will continue to actively pursue any possible loopholes or hardship waivers which might apply in order that we might qualify. The Senate Committee on Housing and Urban Affairs, which is chaired by Senator Leroy Greene, will be `conducting a hearing on school construction financing on Friday, December 7, 1984. ' I will attend this meeting and report to the Board on Monday, December 10, 1984. Condominiums, apartments and new housing starts within the City of Atascadero continue at an unprecedented rate. Whenever the Dis- trict is advised of proposed subdivisions they respond to the Planning Department advising them of our overcrowded conditions and suggesting that the developers contact the District to help mitigate the impact of their proposed project . Unfortunately, neither the District nor the City has the ability to require miti- gation at this time. The Administration is recommending that the Board consider the adoption of a "Resolution regarding conditions of overcrowding in school attendance areas" . A copy of the proposed draft is attached for your reference. Adoption of this resolution would be the first step towards noti- fying the City of Atascadero, and the County of San Luis Obispo, officially of our severeimpaction. The next logical step would be to request that both agencies adopt temporary measures which would impose developer' s fees on all new housing starts within the District based upon a schedule of bedroom dwelling units/ square footage. Similar schedules have already been adopted by the County Board of Supervisors for the Lucia Mar School District . In addition, the Cities of Pismo Beach, Grover City and Arroyo Grande have adopted similar measures. Fees collected from a developer' s fee would be used for interim facilities to provide for the immediate needs of our student pop- ulation. Should an alternative solution be forthcoming in order to provide permanent facilities , the Board could rescind the developer' s fee at its discretion. Attached is a copy of the State Cohort Survival method of pro- jecting enrollments for the next three years (Form SAB411) which is based on the enrollment as of October lst of each year. This report is completed at the end of the first school month and the sixth school month. It is anticipated that our enrollment will continue to increase and that the projections at the end of the sixth school month (February 22, 1985) will exceed those presented at this time. Further information regarding this matter will be presented at the board meeting. r ' 4-4 STATE,OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF LOCAL ASSISTANCE ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE SAS-411 (REV, 1/77) PREPARED BY: JOHN McMANUS - ED GROUP INTERNATIONAL ' '°F'f « SCHOOL DISTRICT COUNTY APP(ICATi ON N0. _ ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT SAN LUIS OBISPO 19/ t '"^+ �'^"" �+' r+"•`xn ENR OLLnENT - — _ _ ti.�sa�°e�.»�- aF..a-,,•r�-a-x��,,,'-s � '.PROJECTED ENROLLMENY _ _ _ ❑X 1ST MONTH ❑ GTH MONTH AVERAGE YEAR 1/82182/8 83/884/8 CHANGE 5/86 86/87 87/88 r K 46 38 6 s ? (306 352 37 35 +8 367 375 383 n - - - 1 27 i30 33 37 -6 353 361 369 + +8 358 2 I24 =.27 30 32 -3 367 350 327 i25 �28 30 +3 330 370 353 3 ' 4 b 383 ° 4 X29 27 27 29 +13 321 343 76 5 33 ''`129 28+ 29 +13 1312 334 356 46 e33 :`;35 28 29 +10 309 322 343 r + 344 7 I34 :35 I35 32 +22 319 331 J 33-'::::: 37 �35 36 +10 333 329 341 g I33 ` 'i33+ 39 38 +25 393 358 354 io 28 33 34 40 +6 395 399 . 364 t1 -2 9848 28 (33 -25 380 370 374 12 7�:!2 8 12 26 86 96 ( I 25 "'` 251 24 24 -35 295 345 335 TOTAL EL Em. 2744 2826 2850 2950 i 3011 3115 3230 TOTAL Ha 1151 1226 1270 1373 1463 1472 1427 -- TOTAL 3895 4052 4120 4323 4474 4587 4657 ANNUL CHANGE 157 68 203 :r 151 113 70 SPECIAL ED. PUPILS PUPIL UNITS - CONTINUATION H. S. (LATEST ENROLLMENT) 3 HIGH. MOS. PUPIL HRS. SCM. DAYS PUP. NRS; DAYS ELEM. sec. Mar 84 4698 18 261 &;MACH 15 Sept 84 5100 20 255 ytLH 33 14 Oct 84 5040 20 252 � , rstia : -Sih+--s- y, ?pxSED,AUT 10 2 TOTAL 768 r 43 EH AVERAGE ATTENDANCE TOTAL ; 16) lA c P N x "'a TOTAL 58 16AVERAGEAT !!DANCE X LATEST ENROLLMENT `J. 45 GRADE ENROLL. X EST. AGA GRADE ENROLL. X EST. ADA K ( 375 364 k 1-3 1081 1049 1-3 4-6 999 968 4_6 7_9 660 .97 640 7-8 .91 2-12 1427 1384 g-12 SPEC. ED. 68 SPEC. ED. - CCNT HIGH 45 I CONT. HIGH _ TOTAL ^ —�—'---- --- 4517 ' TOTAL ---- � .. CE TIFi Eii GOHR TI''11 AU TH. TH TJ� DATE APPROVED, EZE'Z: TIVE OFFICER SAdf I DATE 12/4/84 (Analysis of Flities page 3) The following report will review the capacities of our school plants and our present enrollment . In addition , it will examine our growth patterns and projections for continued growth . ENROLLMENT 10/1/84 DISTRICT SCHOOLS CAPACITY REGULAR SPEC ED. Carrisa Plains Elem. 40 26 Creston E-lem. 100 106 Lewis Avenue Elem. * 424 503 20 Monterey Road Elem. 608 615 15 Santa Margarita Elem. * 355 357 9 Santa Rosa Road Elem. * 633 652 Atascadero Junior High 714 683 13 Atascadero High 1396 1373 16 Oak Hills Continuation 75 80 Total 4345 4395 73 * Kindergarten facilities on double session EWT:cip 12/6/84 (Analysis of Facilities - page 4) ATASCARO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRIP CBEDS Enrollment October 1984 Grades Creston Carrisa Lewis Monterey Santa Santa Total Plains Avenue Road Margarita Rosa K 17 4 175 -0- 55 108 359 1 19 6 73 107 71 94 370 2 12 2 46 102 64 101 327 3 11 3 54 101 43 96 308 4 21 4 42 98 48 $6 299 5 11 4 67 98 35 84 299 6 15 3 46 109 41 83 297 K - 6 Total 106 26 503 615 357 652 2259 Jr. High Carrisa School Plains 7 319 4 323 8 364 4 368 7 - 8 Total 683 8 691 High Oak Hills School 9 389 1 390 10 405 6 411 11 330 17 347 12 249 56 305 9 - 12 Total 1373 80 1453 Special Education Classes Enrollment Special Day Classes Lewis Avenue 1 10 Monterey Road 1 15 Santa Margarita 1 9 Jr High School 1 14 High School 2 16 SED - LAE 2 10 TOTAL - 74 - 11/7/84 E.W.T. G : 12/6/84 E.W.T. iATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Analysis of School Facilities and Capacities Elementary Schools CARRISA PLAINS ELEMENTARY Permanent Facilites 0 - Kindergarten classroom 2 Regular classrooms 0 - Music room (housed in Multi-Use room) 0 - Library (Yioused in Multi-Use roam) 0 - Special Education Capacity 2 - Multi-Grade classrooms 2 @ 20 = 40 students CRESTON ELE MWARY Permanent Facilities Temporary Facilities 1 - Kindergarten classroom 2 - Regular classrooms 1 - Regular classroom 0 - Music roan 0 - Library 0 —Special Education Capacity 1 - Kindergarten/First classroom @ 25 25 3 - Multi-Grade classrooms @ 25 75 100 LE;dIS AVENUE Fr. rAI;Y Permanent Facilities Temporary Facilities 1 - Kindergarten classroom 2 - Regular classrooms 11 - Regular classrooms 1 - Special Ed classroom (SED) 0 - Music rooms 0 - Library 1 - Special Ed classroom 0 - Speech/Special Ed Resource. Capes 1 - Kindergarten @ 30 = 30 to 60 (double session) 12 - Regular classroom @ 28.5 = 342 3 - Special Ed (1 @ 10 and 2 @ 6) 22 394 to 424 (Analysis of Facilities cont'd) MONTEREY ROAD ELED=ARY Permanent Facilities Temporary Facilities 0 - Kindergarten classrooms 1 - Special Ed classroom 21 - Regular classrooms 1 - Speech/Psychological testing 0 - Music classrooms (housed in Multi-Use room) 1 - Library (inadequate size) l - Resource/Specialist classroom Capacity 21 - Regular classrooms @ 28.5 598 1 - Special Ed classroom @ 10 10 608 SANTA MARGPRZTA ELEhIE'NTARY Permanent Facilities Temporary Facilities 1 - Kindergarten classroom 2 - Regular classrooms 10 - Regular classrooms 1 Music classroom 1 - Library 1 - Special Ed Classroom 0 Resource Teacher classroom Capacity 1 Kindergarten @ 30 = 30 to 60 (double session) 10 - Regular classrooms @ 28.5 285 1 - Special Ed classroom 10 325 to 355 SANTA ROSA ELEMENTARY Permanent Facilities 2 - Kindergarten classrooms 18 - Regular classrooms 0 - Music classroom 1 - Library 1 - Resource Specialist classroom 0 - Special Ed classroom Capacity 2 - Kindergartens @ 30 = 60 to 120 (double session) 18 - Regular classrooms @ 28.5 = 513 573 to 633 c� (Analysis of Facilities cont'd) ATASCADERO JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Permanent Facilities Temporary Facilities 18 - Regular classrooms 1 - Special Ed classroom 1 - Music Room 1 -Resource Specialist classroom 1 - Library 2 - Shops 1 - Art classroom 2 - Home Economics classrooms 2 - Science classrooms Capacity 18 - Regular classrooms @ 27 = 486 1 - Music roan @ 33 = 33 2 - Shops @ 25 = 50 1 - Art classroom @ 25 = 25 2 —Home Economics classrooms @ 25 = 50 2 - Science classrooms @ 25 = 50 2 - Special Ed classrooms @ 10 20 28 714 ATASCADFM HIGH SCHOOL Permanent Facilities 39 - Regular classrooms 1 - Music room + 3 practice rooms 1 - Library/iNiedi.a Center 1 - Fine Arts classroom 2 - Homemaking classrooms 3 - Shops 4 - Science classrooms 4 - Agriculture classrooms 2 - Special Ed/Resource Specialist classrooms Capacity 39 - Regular Classrooms @ 25 = 975 1 - Music room @ 33 = 33 1 - Fine Arts classroom @ 33 = 33 2 - Homemaking classrooms @ 25 = 50 3 - Shops @ 25 = 75 4 - Science classrooms @ 25 = 100 4 - Agriculture classrooms @ 25 = 100 2 - Special Ed/Resource Spec. classrooms @ 15 30 56 1396 OAK HILLS CONTINUATION Permanent Facilities 3 - Regular classrooms Capacity 3 - Regular classrooms @ 25 = 75 r,- CITY OF ATASCADERO Building Permits - (December 7, 1984) RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN PROGRESS PERPIITS FINALED (Since January 1984) NUMBER OF UNITS Single Family Residences 25 .Multiple Family Residences 82 Total: 107 PERMITS BEING CONSTRUCTED Single Family Residences 154 Multiple Family Residences 153 Total: 307 PERMITS BEING PROCESSED Single Family Residences 54 Multiple Family Residences 237* Total: 291 ZONING APPROVALS Single Family Residences 60** Multiple Family Residences 268 Total: 328 BEING DISCUSSED Single Family Residences Unknown Multiple Family Residences 549 Total: 549 *This does not include 98 unit motel complexes. **This notes only a new mobile home parka Revised 12/14/84 Per Joel Noses co < i �I�'• ��.: � \�� Q' U Cil r-i / N F:4 / b z 00 Cn O 44 lir +g—.<�i-��'�(�7� ✓- +ys�`: '�.� -•dt.-.---11 �-'�f mbk r as I Cl jaK- if \�:} 911` ����> c'��{ ♦ � .-` v� ! r. t' w� <: �, ,y\ Iv, `\ , I D.ou.I zu-15.68.150 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 15.68:120 ,:Fire rotection• agencies or findings of the city council with j, p A. The provisions of this section shall apply respect to the mobile home park or contributing to all new and existing' mobile home parks. in any way to the violation of this chapter shall. B. There shall be in each mobile home park a be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon water system with fire hydrants of sufficient size conviction thereof may be punished by a fine and delivering sufficient pressure and located not exceeding five hundred dollars or by impris- within a sufficient distance of one another to onment in the county jail for a term not ex- provide adequate fire protection for each mobile ceeding six months, or by both such fine and home lot of the mobile home park. The place- imprisonment. ment and installation of the fire hydrants must B. Every person, firm or corporation violat- be approved by the chief of the fire department ing or contributing in any way to the violation (Prior code § 15.04.100). of any provision of this chapter,shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each day during 15.68.130 Responsibilities of owners, which the violation continues, and may be operators and tenants. punishable therefor as set`forth in this section A. It is unlawful for any person, firm or cor- where provision is not otherwise made by state poratian owning or operating a mobile home law. (Prior code § 15.04.120). park in the city, to violate any of the provisions of this chapter. B. It is unlawful for any person, firm or cor- Chapter 15.70 poration owning, maintaining or in control of any mobile home, or the occupant or tenant of SCHOOL FACILITIES any mobile home in whatever capacity, to violate any of the provisions of this chapter. Sections: (Prior code § 15.04.1 10.) 15.70.010 Purpose. 15.70.020 Definitions. 15.68.140 Ordering correction of violation 15.70.030 Adoption of findings of Notice to owner. overcrowding by governing A. Whenever an enforcement agency deter- board. mines by inspection that a violation of this 15.70.040 Hearings, notice, findings and chapter exists, the enforcementagency shall fee setting. order the violation corrected and shall institute 15.70.050 Conditions for approval of proceedings to effect the repair, rehabilitation oT residential development in vacation of the violation. overcrowded attendance areas. B. The enforcement agency shall give a 15.70.060 Dedication of land in lieu of thirty-day written notice to the owner or other payment of fees procedure. responsible person, to make the correction or 15.70.070 Use of fees or land for interim effect the vacation. facilities. C. The notice shall set forth the violations 15.70.080 Provision of interim facilities in determined by the inspection. (Prior' code § lieu of fees. 15.04.115). 15.70.090 Report by school district. 15.70.100 Amendments to fee schedules. 15.68.150 Violation-Penalty. 15.70.110 Agreement between overlapping A. Any person, firm or corporation violating school districts. any of the provisions of this chapter, or disre- 15.70.120 Termination of dedication or fee garding any lawful order of the enforcement requirements. 517 LBskersficld 9.83)_ 3 5.70,010 .ose Pur � � ri. Purpose. owned by the school district will be used. r The purpose of this chapter is to implement G. "Residential development" ineans a the provisions of Government Code Section project containing residential dwellings, includ- \ • 65970 and following, as they exist at the time of ing mobile homes, of one or more units or a the adoption of this chapter and as they may be subdivision of Iand for the purpose of construct- amended or•added to in the future, and to pro- ing one or more residential dwelling units. vide a method for financing interim school "Residential development" does not include facilities necessitated by new residential develop the following: ment causing overcrowding of existing school 1. Any modification or remodel of an exist- facilities. (Ord. 2780 § I (part), 1982), ing dwelling unit where no additional dwelling unit is created. 15.70.020 Definitions. 2. The conversion of an existing apartment As used in this chapter: building into a condominium or stock coopera- A. "Approval'of a residential development" tive where no new dwelling unit is created. means any or all of the following: 3. Rebuilding of a dwelling unit destroyed or 1. Adoption of an ordinance rezoning prop- damaged by fire, flood, explosion,act of God or erty to residential use. other accident or catastrophe. 2. Granting a building permit or any discre- 4. Any residential complex which is main- tionary permit for residential use. tained as exclusively senior citizens housing. 3. Approval of a tentative subdivision map (Ord. 2780 § I (part), 1982). for residential purposes. B. "Attendance area" means the area estab- 15..70.030 Adoption of findings of lished by a governing board within which pupils overcrowding by governing board. must reside to attend a particular school. If a governing board makes findings supported C. "Conditions of overcrowding" means that by clear and convincing evidence that: (a) con- the total enrollment of a school or schools serv- - ditions of overcrowding exist in one or more ing a particular attendance area, including enroll attendance areas within the district which will ment from proposed development, exceeds the impair the normal functioning of education pro capacity of such school or schools as determined grams including the reason for such conditions by the governing board. existing; and (b) that all reasonable methods D. "Dwelling unit" means a building, or por- of mitigating conditions of overcrowding have tion thereof, or a mobile home, designed for been evaluated and no feasible method for re- residential occupancy by one person or a group ducing such conditions exist, the governing of two or more persons living together as a board shall notify the city council. The notice domestic unit. of findings shall specify the mitigation measures E. "Governing board" means the governing considered by the governing board. The notice board of any school district which operates a shall include a map showing the overcrowded high school or elementary school and whose attendance area or areas and shall specify the territory lies in whole or in part within the city fees which the governing board request be im- limits. posed upon applicants for approval of residen- F. "Reasonable methods for mitigating tial developments within the overcrowded at- conditions of overcrowding" shall include, but tendance area or areas and the method(s) used are not limited to, agreements between a sub- to calculate the amounts thereof. (Ord. 2780 divider and the governing board whereby § 1 (part), 1982). temporary-use buildings will be leased to the school district or temporary-use buildings (ruk«reid 9-93) 513 i 15.70.040-15.70.050 15.70.040 Hearing, notice, findings and fee facilities caused by the residential develop- setting. ments on which they will be imposed, then thg Within sixty days of receipt of notice of the remainin; provisions of this chapter shall apply • findings of the governing board, complete with to the approval of residential development with- supporting documentation, the city council in the attendance areas in which there are con- shall hold a public hearing on the findings and ditions of overcrowding. The city council shalt, the requested fees and land dedications. by resolution, establish the fees and land dedica- A. Notice of the time and place of the public tion requirements which shall thereafter be im- hearing referred to in subsection B of this sec- posed as a condition of approval of residential tion shall be given at least ten days before the development. hearin3 in the manner following: D. If the city council does not concur with 1 Such notice shall be given by publication the amount of fees to be paid 'or land to be once in a newspaper of general circulation, pub- dedicated requested by the governing board, lished in the city and circulated in the school it shall, by resolution, adopt such amount of district, or if there is none, then in a newspaper fees or amount (or location) of land as it may of general circulation published and circulated deem proper in lieu of that requested. in the city; E. Within ten days after conclusion of the 2. By mailing a copy of such notice to the hearing, the city council shall declare its deci- governing board of the school district; sion and any findings in such matter. The city 3. By mailing a copy of the notice to the clerk shall mail a copy of the resolution or planning director; order of the city council and findings to each 4. By mailing a copy of such notice to any person to whom notice of the hearing was re- person who may file a request in writing there- quired to be mailed under this section. (Ord. for with the planning director or the city clerk 2780 § 1 (part), 1982). - and who shall furnish therewith an envelope ad- dressed for such purpose with postage prepaid; _ 15.70.050 Conditions for approval of S. Any notice required to be mailed may be residential development in given by personal- delivery, in lieu of mailing. overcrowded attendance areas. B. Such notice shall also identify the school The city council shall not approve any resi- district. and generally describe the boundaries -dential development to which its above findings of the attendance area or areas in question, apply, unless either: - and shall refer to the. notice of findings of the A. The city council, upon application by a governing board of the school. district and state developer of residential property and after when and where the same may be examined notice and public hearing, has determined that by any interested person. there are specific overriding fiscal, economic, C. If, at the conclusion of the. public hearing social or environmental factors which, in its the city council determines that: judgment, would benefit the city and justify the 1. It concurs in the governing board's approval of a particular residential development findings of overcrowding;and without the mitigation of the impact of that 2. The general plan provides for the location development upon overcrowded schools; or of public schools;and B. The applicant for rezoning or subdivision 3. The proposed fees and land dedication re- approval has furnished a signed written agree- quirements bear a reasonable relationship to and ment with the governing board promising to will be limited to the needs of the community pay the required fees prior to issuance of a for interim school facilities and are reasonably building permit (which fees shall be those in related and limited to the need for school effect, if any, as of the date of issuance of the 518-1 (Bakctsfield 9.33) building Pern;q,;Q, d; an applicant for a build- ntarkCallalue after a: public hearing, noticed as ing permit has furnished evidence of pavment of provided in Section 15.70.040. the required fees to the governing board; or C. The planning director shall ascertain the �J C. An applicant for approval of a residential amount of fees which are or would be development has fumished evidence in tile m e for , Payable as a condition to approval of the subdivision. of a signed written agreement .with the govern- under the standards adopted by the city coun- ing board, that the applicant has paid or cil. promised to pay, and the governing board has D. Except as may otherwise be agreed be- accepted or promised to accept, fees, to be used tween the school district and the subdivider, exclusively for capital expenditures, in mitiga- if the fair market value of the land, as deter- tion of the impact of proposed residential mined under subsection B of this section, ex- development on the school district in lieu of fees ceeds the amount of fees ascertained under sub- otherwise required under this chapter or Sec- section C, at such time as approval of the tenta- tion 65970 et seq. of the California Govern- tive map and the acceptance of the dedication ment Code. Fees paid or promised under the have both been completed, the school district- alternate provisions of this subsection shall shall pay the subdivider the amount by which not exceed the fees which would otherwise be such fair market value exceeds the amount of required pursuant to the resolution of the city such fees so ascertained. council. (Ord. 2780 § I (part), 1982). E. If the school district pays the subdivider the amount of the excess mentioned in sub- 15.70.060 Dedication of land in lieu of section D of this section, the amount to be payment of fees procedure, credited to each lot in the subdivision shall be A. Upon request of the governing board, the based on the amount ascertained under subsec- city council shall_ impose as a condition of ap- tion C of this section, instead of the fair market proval of a residential development containing value of the land. ! • more than fifty parcels that the applicant F. If the fair market value of the land dedicate to the governing board a parcel of land -determinedas under this section, is equal to or less to be used as a site for classroom facilities, than the amount ascertained under subsection C whose location is consistent with the .city of this section, the amount of such value shall be general plan. Except as may otherwise be agreed credited to the respective lots in the subdivision. between tite school district and the subdivider, G. The provisions of this section shall also the fair market value of land so dedicated shall apply in case land is dedicated in connection not exceed the amount of fees which would with approval of a mobile home park, in which otherwise be paid for approval of residential case references to "subdivision" shall mean development of the dedicated parcel to the high "mobile home park" and references to "lots" density of'any other portion of the applicant's shall mean "mobile home sites." residential development. H. If land is dedicated to a school district B. In case land is dedicated in connection for a fixed or ascertainable term, there shall be With approval of a subdivision, the fair market established under this section the fair rental value of the land at the time of such approval value of a lease of such land for such term. and shall be established by agreement between the the amount'so established shall be applied in governing board of the school district and the lieu of "fair market value" wherever mentioned subdivider, and the amount thereof shall be re- in this section. ported to the planning director; and if they I. At any city council hearing for the purpose cannot agree, they shall report that fact to the of establishing fair market value of land, as men- city council, which shall establish such- fair tioned in subsection C, the city council shall �(Bakersfield 8-83) 518-2 15.70.070-15.70.120 • consider the reports of three appraisers, one governing board in the preceding fiscal year to be selected by the school district, one to be (July Ist through June 30th). selected by the subdivider, and one to be B. The facilities leased, purchased or con- selected by the two selected by the district strutted during the previous fiscal year and the and the subdivider. The fees and expenses of amount expended for the facilities. such appraisers shall be divided equally between C. The attendance areas which will continue and paid by the school district and the to be overcrowded in the current school year, subdivider, and in any case the city shall not be and those which are no longer overcrowded. liable- therefor. (Ord. 2780 § I (part), 1982). D. A schedule specifying haw the governing board will use fees or land acquired pursuant 15.70.070 Use of fees or land for interim to this chapter to relieve overcrowding, the sites facilities. to be used, the facilities to be acquired and the Fees or land provided pursuant to Section times when the facilities will be available. (Ord. 15.70.040 of this chapter shall be used only for 2780 § I (part), 1982). the purpose of providing interim classroom facilities. The fees established by resolution of 15.70.100 Amendments to fee schedules. the city council shall not exceed the amount On request of a governing board, and follow- necessary to enable the district to make five ing a public hearing held within sixty days of annual lease payments for temporary classroom the receipt of that request, the city council shall and toilet facilities, including related expenses to consider adjusting the fee schedule applicable make them ready for the instruction of children. in any attendance area to reflect new informa- (Ord. 2780 §_1 (part), 1982). tion provided by the governing board on the fees necessary to alleviate overcrowding caused by 15.70.080 Provision of interim facilities new residential development in that attendance in lieu of fees. area. (Ord. 2780 § 1 (part), 1982). A builder of a residential development who would otherwise be required to pay fees to a 15.70.110 Agreement between overlapping school district pursuant to Section 15.70.040 of school districts. this chapter may, at his or her option and sole Where two separate school districts operate expense, provide interim facilities owned or con- schools in an attendance area where overcrowd- trolled by the builder at a place designated by ing conditions exist for both school districts, the governing board. These facilities shall be the city council shall enter into an agreement installed prior to or, at the governing board's with the governing board of each school district option, within ninety days of the issuance of for the purpose of determining the distribution' building permits to the developer and shall of revenues from the fees. (Ord. 2780 § 1 (part), remain in place for five complete school years. -1982). After the fifth year, the facilities shall be removed, and the school district's property 15.70.120 Termination of dedication or fee restored, at the builder's sole expense. (Ord, requirements. 2780 § 1 (part), 1982). A. If overcrowding conditions cease to exist in any attendance area of a school district as 15.70.090 Report by school district. to which fee or land dedication requirements The governing board shall file with the city have been imposed pursuant to this chapter, council not later than October 15th of each the governing board of the district shall year an account of the following: promptly adopt a resolution so finding and send A. The amount of fees received by the a certified copy cf it to the city council 518-3 (Bakersfield 9-83) � \G)�1 L.V I V—I J./L.V.:V B. When it is determined by the city council 15.72.020 Purpose. that conditions of overcrowding no longer exist The purpose of this chapter is to promote the in an attendance area, whether or not such public health, safety, and general welfare by determination follows a resolution by the providing for the identification, protection, governing board as provided in subsection A of enhancement, perpetuation, and use of improve- this section; the requirements of this chapter ments, buildings, structures, signs, objects, Cea- shall cease to apply therein. (Ord. 2780 § 1 tures, sites, places, and areas within Bakers- (part), 1982). field that reflect special elements of the city's architectural, artistic, cultural, engineering, aesthetic, historical, political, social and other Chapter 15.72 heritage for the following reasons: A. To safeguard the city's heritage as HISTORICAL PRESERVATION embodied and reflected in such resources; B. To encourage• public knowledge, under- Sections: standing, and appreciation of the *cit 's y past; 15.72.010 Title. C. To foster civic and neighborhood pride 15.72.020 Purpose. and a sense of identity based on the recognition 15:72.030 Definitions. and use of cultural resources; 15.72.040 Applicability. D. To promote the enjoyment and use of 15.72.050 Historic preservation cultural resources appropriate for the education commission—Established- and recreation of the people of the city; Membership. E. To preserve diverse and harmonious 15.72.060 Historic preservation commission architectural styles and design preferences of —Powers and duties. reflecting phases of the city's history and to 15.72.070 Cultural resource designation encourage complementary contemporary design ! —Criteria. and construction; 15.72.080 Cultural resource designation— F. To enhance property values and to Procedures. increase economic and financial benefits to the 15.72.090 Permit—Required when. city and its inhabitants; 15.72.100 Permit-Application processing G. To protect and enhance the city's attrac- and requirements. tion to tourists and visitors (thereby stimulat- 15.72.1 10 Permit—Criteria for issuance. ing business and industry); 15.72.120 Permit-Issuance upon showing H. To identify as early as possible and resolve of hardship. conflicts between the preservation of cultural 15.72.130 Appeal procedure. resources and alternative land uses; 15.72.140 Ordinary maintenance and repair 1. To integrate the preservation of cultural permitted. resources and the extraction of relevant data 15.72.150 Building or structure to be kept from such resources into public and private land in good repair. management and development processes; 15.72.160 Enforcement-. J. To conserve valuable material and energy 15.72.170 Penalty for violation. resources by ongoing use and maintenance of the existing built environment. (Ord. 2781 15.72.010 Title. § 2 1982). This chapter shall be known as the historical preservation ordinance of the city. (Ord. 2781 § 1, 1982). E (Bakersfield 9-97) 518-4 t r 7 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: John Wallace, Consulting City Engineer SUBJECT: Amapoa-Tecorida Flood Hazard Area Development Conditions DATE: May 24, 1985 INTRODUCTION The Amapoa-Tecorida flood area has been subjected to varying degrees of development restrictions since February 21, 1978 when the County established a moratorium on new construction. Current development standards adopted by the City Council on March 14, 1983 have- not been consistently applied. A definitive and positive step must now be taken to fund the necessary flood control improvements in the area and development standards must be consistently applied. RECOMMENDATION "' � 1. Direct staff, with the assistance of the City Attorney, to prepare an ordinance requiring drainage fees for all new development in the water- sheds which contribute to the flooding. (These watersheds comprise approximately 1024 acres and encompass some 600 parcels of property of which about 35% are yet to be developed) 2. In the interim, continue to require proposed major developments in the flood hazard area, as a condition of drainage plan approval, to deposit or post performance securities sufficient to construct, in the immediate future, a drainage connection between Atascadero Lake and Atascadero Creek. 3. Provide for a reimbursement of a portion of the "extra" costs paid by major developments from the drainage fees collected from development in the wider contributing areas under No. 1 above. 4. Pursue the formation of an assessment district for additional necessary flood control projects within the flooded areas. Include those properties in the assessment district boundaries that will benefit from flood relief i.e. those properties within the flood hazard area. 5. Continue to require agreements from all owners developing property lying within the flood plain agreeing to participate in a future assessment district, the cost of the improvements to be spread in accordance with benefits received as provided by state law. Amapoa-Tecorida Development Conditions page two BACKGROUND The Amapoa-Tecorida flood hazard area has been a controversial area for a number of years. The County was unable to secure enough interest and committments to go ahead with an assessment district and finally established a moratorium on development. After inheriting the problem, the City eventually lifted the moratorium but required extensive engineering calculations and drainage plans as a part of new development standards for the area. These standards have been inconsistently applied as different staff have interpreted the standards in different ways. A set of reports, City Council Minutes, and memorandae are attached to provide a more extensive background on the evolution of the problem. MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The most immediate need lies with how to deal with the currently pro- posed major developments in the area and how to fund the first improvement to eliminate a major portion of the flood problem. It is naive to believe that upstream property owners will voluntarily join an assessment district to fund downstream drainage improvements when they are not being threatened with serious flooding. We also believe that an assessment district forced upon these property owners would probably be overturned with a majority protest. Instead, a drainage impact fee would seem to be a more logical choice to help raise the funds necessary for downstream improvements. Since down- stream property owners will be bearing a disproportionate share of the first major project, (the spillway connection to Atascadero Creek) a portion of these fees should be used to repay the downstream property owners for a portion of their advanced funding. The amount of these fees, costs, and reimbursements, will be determined after developing a more refined cost estimate for the spillway project and after reviewing the pertinent legal methodologies for such reimbursements. In the meantime, it is necessary to allocate a rough estimate of the cost of this project to those major developments in the flood hazard areas and to make sure that those developments proceed safely. Two such pro- jects have been required to financially participate in the spillway project and it is the intention to condition other such projects in the same way. While both projects indicate that they are placing buildings outside the flood boundary it remains that a substantial portion of their property lies within the flood plain and will benefit from the spillway project. Further, they have been asked to determine more precisely where the flood plain boundary is in order to be sure their improvements are drawn back out of the flood area and that their improvements do not divert water or raise the water surface on adjacent properties which may already be experiencing flooding. These flood hazard analysis requirements are not new and were set up in the new development standards when the City lifted the moritorium in March of 1983. i Amapoa-Tecorida Development Conditions page three It is unfortunate but true that other projects that have received approval were not conditioned in the same manner. However, it is at this point in time that the City should initiate a solution instead of post- poning the decision to a time when there will be fewer new projects to share the cost. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives were considered: 1. Status Quo - continue present policy to enforce the development standards currently in effect and work toward an assessment district at some point in the future. 2. Implement flood protection before development proceeds - reimpose a development moratorium until a flood control and drainage solution is in place. Allow development to take place only after flood protection is assurred. 3. Allow development to take place at the same time a funding mechanism is implemented for: a. a major first project (the spillway project) to alleviate a majorsourceof flooding. b. other necessary auxillary projects to alleviate the remaining, less severe drainage problem. FISCAL IMPACT Major flood control projects are expensive but necessary at some point in the development of a community. The goal is to spread the cost of these facilities as equitable as possible. Developers that wish to proceed before a more equitable system of paying for these improvements is implemented, i.e. an assessment district, may expect to pay for a greater share of these improvements. This will have a definite impact on earlier developers. Because a part of the flooding is caused by an undersized culvert under Highway 41, a State Highway, Caltrans must also assume some financial responsibility. Discussions with that office indicate that they will share some of the cost of the spillway connection. Since the City has no funds to implement such a major project, funding must come from those that cuase the problem and the property owners who will benefit from flood relief. JOHN WALLACE JW/vjh Mil olsI�" �. �r ' _ Xji �, I ,�-tea ,� ►�, �. `� � 1�.�`� ' ,�• -tet ��� � .� �, I I � i momim •• eT: MM ION.' tom► `� .•. LW MAINE .• tee. '` �, � ' .. r _ WIM J Ito WA � �j"� 1 ► � .� SIA ®> .. M E M O R A N D U M TO CITY MANAGERFebruary 23 , 1983 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Ordinance rescinding drainage moratorium in Amapoa-Tecorida area and substituting development standards. 3 Previous direction by the City Council on this matter has been to maintain the moratorium in effect until adequate development standards were prepared and developed. This was being done through a Flood Haz- ard Overlay Zone which is contained in the Draft Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 3) . Since that project has taken longer than anticipated and is not yet concluded, the option of temporarily imposing the standards (which have been generally found acceptable in zoning hearings com- pleted to date) through an amendment to the building regulations was explored. The attached ordinance would implement this option. Ulti- mately, the standards will be imposed throug the zoning regulations via the Flood Hazard Overlay Zone, but this technique allows the mora- torium to be lifted sooner. With respect to the attached ordinance, a number of important consid- erations should be pointed out. These include: - the lots affected by these development standards are not the same as the lots affected by the current moratorium. The at- tached map shows the differences but generally the new area is slightly larger. The selection of the affected area is based on the Technical Flood Study prepared by the Public Works Depart- ment and reviewed by the City Council. - As you are aware, this study included considerable field review of the flooding in the area. - The proposed development standards will not cause area-wide im- provements to be constructed to alleviate flooding. The stand- ards are primarily oriented to protecting new constructions and additions to existing structures from possible flood damage. Most of the engineering analysis which would be required will benefit individual lots only as they are built on. Grading, drainage plan and other standards will have only limited area- wide benefits. Furthermore, allowing development of vacant lots will make establishment of an assessment district to construct area-wide improvements more difficult. - Allowing development in the area will worsen existing flooding problems for many of the developed lots. Development will in- crease the amount of run-off without providing the improvements to direct that run-off. As a result, existing lots and residen- ces on those lots which are located in low or other flood-prone • • Re: Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Area areas will be adversely affected by increased run-off to a greater extent than they are now affected. Furthermore, in- creased development will also increase the volume of drainage complaints during the rainy season since more residents will be affected by street and yard flooding. All new developments, including single family residences, will require detailed engineering analysis in conjunction with prep- aration of site plans. In order to comply with the proposed development standards, an engineer will have to be consulted early in the design process. Persons affected by these stand- ards should understand that these standards are different than for similar development elsewhere in the City and that the dev- elopment cost will be correspondingly higher . Furthermore, only an engineer will be able to provide the data and information needed to process and approve the plans. It will bethe appli- cant' s responsibility to demonstrate compliance with the stand- ards before a permit can be issued. It should be clear that this ordinance, while being a relief to owners and sellers of undeveloped property in the area, is not a panacea to the Amapoa-Tecorida flooding problems. Further action, such as an assessment district, will be needed to even begin to accomplish that task. It is important to recognize the impacts and possible conse- quences of lifting the moratorium. That is the principle purpose of this memo. Consideration should be given to recording a deed restriction on lots affected by the Flooding advising future owners of the flood-prone nature of the area but, after discussing the matter with a number of people, this option was dropped due to unforeseeable legal risks - even if the restriction was advisory only. _ ` Consideration was also given to requiring persons developing lots in the area to waive their right to object to the formation of an assessment district, but this has a dubious legal effect and it seems likely that a maiority pro G will occur at any assessment proceeding once the moratorium is lifted (especially if upstream areas of the drainage basin are included) . LAWRENCE STEVENS MURRAY L. WARDEN Planning Director City Manager LAWRENCE MCPHERSON Public Works Director 2 ORDINANCE NO. 59 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO REPEALING CHAPTER 19 . 68 WHICH PROHIBITED THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS UPON CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE - AMAPOA-TECORIDA AREA AND ESTABLISHING CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INTENDED TO PROTECT NEW STRUCTURES AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES FROM FLOODING HAZARDS OCCURRING ON CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE AMAPOA-TECORIDA AREA. The Council of the City of Atascadero ordains as follows : Section 1 . The Atascadero Municipal Code is amended by repealing Chapter 19 . 68 , including all applicable provisions of San Luis Obispo County Ordinance No. 1866 , entitled "Prohibiting the issuance of building permits for construction upon those certain properties which have been subjected to flooding in the - Amapoa-Tecorida area of Atascadero . " Section 2. Chapter 1 of Title 8 is added to the Atascadero Muni- cipal Code to read as follows: G 17t,\ TITLE 8. BUILDING REGULATIONS Chapter 1 Development standards intended to pro- tent new- structures and additions to existing structures from flooding hazards occurring on cer- tain property in the Amapoa-Tecorida area . Section 8-1 . 01 . Purpose: These development standards are inten -ded to minimize potential hazards to life and property from potential inundation by a 100-year frequency flood or by other flood hazards known to exist in the Amapoa-Tecorida area . Section 8-1 . 02. Applicability of Flood Hazard Development Standards (a) These development standards shall apply to the following property described by lot and block number , including sub- divided portions of said lots : Block Lot VA 1-13 , inclusive UA 1-6 and 20-44 , inclusive PB 6-30, inclusive QB 6-31 , inclusive; and 2 OB 20-32, inclusive Ordinance No . 59 • EC 1-20 , inclusive DC 1-40 , inclusive CC 23-46 , inclusive; and 66 is 1-8 , 25-41 , inclusive; and 39A, 39B, 40A (b) These development standards shall apply to all development and construction activities , including grading , on property described in Subsection (a) of this Section, except for the following: ( 1 ) Temporary Uses: With the approval of the City En- gineer , the Planning Department may authorize construc- tion of a temporary structure or use without meeting these standards , provided that the structure or use will not be in place from October 15 to April 15 . (2) Emergency Work: Emergencyi work may be undertaken where necessary to preserve life or property. Within 48 hours after commencement of such work, the City Engineer is to be notified- and an application filed with the Planning Department in compliance with the provisions of this Chapter . (3) Existing Uses : The continuance , operation , repair , or maintenance of any lawful use of land existing on the E effective date of this Chapter is permitted. Any expan- sion of an existing structure or use , or grading of a site, shall be conducted in accordance with all appli- cable provisions of this Chapter . Section 8-1 . 03. Drainage Plan and Related Requirements: Drainage Plan approval is required for all development activities which are subject to the requirements of this Chapter . Drainage plans shall be submitted with a Departmental Review or Conditional Use Permit appli- cation , when either is required by zoning regulations , or with a building or grading permit application. t, (a) Drainage Plan Preparation and Content : Drainage plans are to be neatly and accurately drawn , at an appropriate scale '1 that will enable ready identification and recognition of submitted information . Drainage plans are to be prepared by a registered civil engineer . A drainage plan shall contain the following information : ( 1 ) Flow lines of surface waters onto and off the site . (2) Existing and finished contours at two-foot intervals , including location and extent of any grading . F (3) Building pad , finished floor and street elevations (both existing and proposed) . 2 - ` Ordinance No . 59 • (4) Existing and proposed drainage channels including drain- age swales , ditches and berms. (5) Location and design of any proposed facilities for stor- age or for conveyance of runoff into indicated drainage channels , including sumps , basins , channels, culverts , ponds , storm drains, and drop inlets. (b) Estimates of existing and increased runoff resulting from the proposed improvements. (7) Proposed erosion and sedimentation control measures . (8) Proposed flood-proofing measures . (9) An evaluation of the effects of projected run-off on adjacent property and existing drainage facilities and systems . ( 10) A normal depth analysis or other equivalent engineering analysis that demonstrates -to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that proposed structures will not be lo- cated in the floodway. ( 11 ) Cross-sections showing the normal channel of the flood- way, elevation of the land areas adjoining each side of the channel , cross-sections of the areas to be occupied by the proposed development and high-water information sufficient to define the 100 year storm flood profile level. ( 12) Where data required by Subsection a of this Section indicates proposed structures are located outside the floodway but within the flood fringe, a structural plan • shall be provided for review and approval by the Build- ing Official . The plan shall demonstrate that proposed structures are designed to be flood free or be able to withstand partial inundation , and that proposed uses will not subject occupants to undue risk of flooding. Such structural plans shall include, where applicable, specifications for building construction , dredging , grading, channel improvement, storage of -materials , water supply, and sanitary facilities . (b) Dranage Plan Review and Approval : ( 1 ) All drainage plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department . The Planning Department shall coordinate review .of the plans which shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer . (2) Where required by the City Engineer-, a plan check and inspection agreement shall be entered into. A fee may be charged for plan checking and inspection services . 3 Ordinance No . 59 (3) Any required drainage facilities shall be inspected and approved before utilities are released or occupancy is allowed . (c) Drainage Standards : - ( 1 ) Drainage systems and facilities that will be located in existing or future public right-of-way shall be designed and constructed as set forth in the City Engineering Department Standard Improvement Specifications and Drawings . Other systems and facilities shall be de- signed in accordance with good engineering practices . (2) Proposed projects may include design provisions to re- tain off-site natural drainage patterns and limit peak runoff to predevelopment levels when required by the City Engineer . (3) Buildings are not permitted in an area determined by the City Engineer to be subject to flood hazard by reason on inundation , overflow or erosio-n , except where provisions are made to eliminate such hazards to the satisfaciton of the City Engineer.' Such provisions may include pro- viding adequate drainage facilities, protective walls, suitable fill , raising the floor level of the building or by other means . The placement of the building and other structures (including walls and fences) on the - building site shall be such that water or mudflow will not be a hazard to the building or adjacent property. The City Engineer in the application of this standard shall enforce as a minimum the current federal flood plain management regulations as defined in Title 24 , Chapter X, Subchapter B, National Flood Insurance Pro- gram, Part 1910. Section 8-1 .04 . Construction Standards : (a) Construction , General : ( 1 ) No construction or grading is to limit the capacity of the floodway or increase flood heights above that allowed under the Federal Flood Insurance Program.. (2) Structures are to be anchored to prevent flotation that could result in damage to other structures , or restric- tion of bridge openings and narrow sections of the stream or river . (3) Service facilities such as electrical and heating equip- ment and utilities such as electrical , sewer , water , gas , and cable television are to be flood-proofed or constructed at a minimum of one-foot above the 100 year storm flood profile level for the site . 4 Ordinance No . 59 (b) Structures for Human Occupancy: All structures intended for human occupancy are subject to the following standards , in addition to the provisions of Subsection a of this Subsec- tion . These standards are not applicable to garages ,_ barns , unenclosed patios or. similar structures not intended for human occupancy. ( 1 ) A structure intended for human occupancy is to be ap- proved only where the City Engineer certifies that all portions of the structure are located outside the flood way on the basis of the depth analysis submitted in accordance with Section 8-1 .03(a) (b) . (2) On the basis of structural plans and the depth analysis the ground floor of all structures is to be constructed at a minimum of one-foot above the 100-year storm flood profile level (c) Storage and Processing : The storage or processing of mat- eria s that in time of flooding are bouyant , inflammable or explosive ; that could be injurious to human, animal , or plant life ; or that may unduly affect the capacity of the floodway or unduly increase flood heights is not permitted. Storage of other material or equipment may be allowed if not subject to major damage by floods and if firmly anchored to prevent flotation , or if readily removable from the area within the time available after flood warning. Section 8-1 .05 . Flood Elevation Certificate Prior to release of utilities or allowance of occupancy by the • Planning Department , a Flood Elevation Certificate certifying the lowest floor elevation of the building shall be submitted to the Planning Department . The form used shall be that specified by FEMA in conjunction with the Federal Flood Insurance Program and it shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer , licensed architect or licensed land surveyor . Section 8-1 . 06 . Special Exceptions: The City Council may, after conducting a public—hearing ,. grant a special exception to the devel- opment standards set forth in this Chapter and may, in granting such exception , establish conditions deemed necessary to accomplish the purposes set forth in this Chapter . A special exception shall be granted only if the City Council determines that each of the following findings can be met. ( a) The exception authorized does not constitute a grant of spe- cial privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity; and (b) There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including topography , location , or surroundings , and because of these circumstances , the application of this Chapter would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other pr.operty in the vicinity; and 5 Ordinance No . 59 (c) The granting of such exception does not , under the circum- stances and conditions applied in the particular case , ad- versely affect the health or safety of person , is not mater- ially detrimental to the public welfare, nor injurious to nearby property or improvements . Section 3. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be pub- lished once- within fifteen ( 15) days after its passage in the Atasca dero News , a newspaper of .general circulation, printed , published and circulated in this City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Gov- ernment Code ; shall certify the adoption of this ordinance ; and , shall cause this ordinance and its certification to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City. Section 4 . This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12 : 01 a .m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after passage . The foregoing ordinance was introduced , adopted and ordered pub- lished at a meeting of the Council: held on March 14 , 1983, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Mackey, Molina, Stover, Wilkins and Mayor Nelson NOES: None ABSENT: None ROLFE NEL ON, Mayor AT ST: PATSY/+ A. HF�TE"', Deputy City Clerk 1� APPROVED AS TO ORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City -Attorrnneeey A ;OVED AS0 CONTENT: RL. WARDEN, City Manager 6 MINUTES - ATAS - CADERO CITY COUNCIL February 28, 1983 Larry Stevens stated that the Planning Commission directed preparation of a resolution denying the General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Suburban Single Family Residential to Moderate Density Single Family Residential. Clayton Cullen, representing the Pentecostal Church of God, requested approval of the application. Bob Smith, also repre- senting the applicant, stated that the motion of the Planning Commission was not portrayed appropriately and requested consid- eration of these matters. Bill Graham favored the higher density. Walter Hare, Harry Russell, and Joe Wolders supported the Planning Commission' s decision. 1 MOTION: Councilman Molina moved to instruct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the General Plan Amendment. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried. RECESS 9: 20 p.m. RECONVENE 9: 30 p.m. 4. City Attorney Report No. 23 Allen Grimes reviewed Report No. 23. The Council supported "7 four cases which Mr. Grimes presented as being of significance to cities by the League Legal Advocacy Committee. Doug Lewis asked if the Retirement Svstem item in Mr. Grimes ' report and the Deferred Compensation item on the Consent Calendar related. Mr. Warden stated that there was no relationship between the two items. 5. Fire Department Quarterly Report Mike Hicks presented the Fire Department Quarterly Report. He stated that the present fire station location is serving very well. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS '4 1. Ordinance No. 59 - Amapoa-Tecorida Area Development Standards - first reading Larry Stevens stated that a building moratorium had been j maintained pending adoption of adequate development standards. He stated that the project has taken longer than anticipated. 1� Howevei, an ordinance has been prepared establishing standards which will eventually be incorporated into the new Zoning and (f Building Ordinance. b Mr. Grimes stated that he approved of the ordinance. i I -4 6 off , MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL February 28', 1983 Shirley Summers requested consideration of an assessment district and lifting of the moratorium. Glen Lewis, Grigger Jones, Tom Ezell, Mike Dorrell, and Frank Welsh encouraged an assessment district. Gary Kirkland .and Ralph Belchi opposed the ordinance without an 1 assessment district to solve the problems. By Council consensus , the assessment district process will be discussed at the next Council meeting. MOTION: Councilman Macke moved to read Ordinance No. 59 b title Y Y only. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimously carried. Mayor Nelson read Ordinance No. 59 by title only. w MOTION: Councilman Molina moved to constitute this as the first reading. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimously carried by roll call vote. 2. Volunteer Coordinating Committee - Mayor Nelson Mayor Nelson requested a Volunteer Coordinating Committee. Council agreed that Mayor Nelson pursue- the matter. 3. Community Development Block Grant Nonentitlement Program i Larry Stevens stated that some possible projects discussed for CDBG grant were flood improvements at Amapoa-Tecorida, ,housing rehabilitation, and sewer line extentions. He indicated the basic 1 objectives of the Federal legislation are to benefit low and moder- ate income families, aid in the prevention or elimination of slum and/or blight, or meet other community development needs having a particular urgency. J Doug Lewis suggested additional funding possibilities as bus j stop seat and shelter, acquisition of creek property, acoustical l modification of the Rotunda Room, and energy conservation. {, By Council consensus, Staff was requested to prepare an appli- cation for hearing on March 14 , 1983. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Selection of consultant - Construction documents - South Atascadero Park and Alvord, Field -5- MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - March 14, 1.983 MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to adopt Resolution No. 12-83. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimously___ __~,_ carried_. FC. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Ordinance No. 59 - Amapoa-Tecorida Area Development Standards - � second reading MOTION: Councilman Stover moved to read Ordinance No. 59 by title only. The motion was seconded by Councilman Wilkins and (( unanimously carried_ - Mayor Nelson read Ordinance No. 59 by title only. t ` mike Dougherty was concerned if the ordinance was approved without an assessment district. MOTION: Councilman Molina moved to approve Ordinance No. 59. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried by roll call vote. Y., 2. Volunteer Coordinating Committee - Mayour Nelson Councilman Wilkins felt that there was not a need for a Volunteer Coordinating Committee Mayor Nelson stated that he will bring the matter back to Council on April ll, 1983, with possible names for the committee. 3. Larsen fire wall easement reconsideration Larry Stevens stated that the Sanitation District possesses the easement for the purpose of establishing a. sewer line. He did not feel that the easement area is sufficient for the yard aareerment. Mr. Larsen requested a business license be approved for an auto repair business. MOTION: Councilman Molina moved to grant a business license to John Larsen, the use of a sewer easement, and that an agreement be drawn up with the approval of the City Attorney showing that if the easement is abandoned that the building be brought up to code. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and passed with Councilmen Wilkins and Stover voting no. 4. Report from 4th of July Committee - Mayor Nelson Mayor Nelson and Councilman Molina stated that the report is not complete and requested the matter be continued to the next meeting. -7- r M E M O R A N D U M �C a TO: CITY MANAGER ',�-- April 23 , 1981 ' 3 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR T SUBJECT: Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Moratorium F C i BACKGROUND t 1. Description of Problem: On February 21, 1978 the County Board of Supervisors established a moratorium prohibiting the construction of new structures in a specified area until measures were taken to remove the threat 4` of flooding . The problem results primarily from building in a low area subject to storm water runoff from a large area of surrounding higher lands . Existing structures (mostly single family residences) obstruct drainagespaths and are susceptible to damage during periods of heavy rain as the result of storm water accumulation. Some of the area is too flat for ade- quate drainage to occur and water accumulates once the ground has become saturated. It is anticipated that further devel- opment in the area will increase the negative effects of the drainage problem rather than retard it. A possible solution involving improvement to existing channels and culverts and construction of two storm drains was promoted by the County Engineering Department. Effort was made to form an assessment district to implement this plan but the lack action has resulted in the status quo. 2 . Summary of Past Actions: February 6, 1978 - Board of Supervisors considers letter from County Engineer and, by motion, establishes development standards for the area including minimum floor elevations , fill restrictions, and drainage obstruction prohibition. Furthermore, the County Planning Department is directed to advise property owners of availability and advisability of flood hazard insurance . February 14 , 1978 - Board of Supervisors directs County En- gineer to prepare a petition for circulation in the area to determine the degree of interest in formation of an assessment district. (30) 4 Page Two Memorandum: Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Moratorium• April 23 , 1981 February 21, 1978 - Board of Supervisors adopts emergency ordinance establishing building moratorium in subject area. April 18 , 1978 - County Engineering Department conducts in- formational meeting and circulates petition for the for- mation of an assessment district to construct drainage improvements . L. August 21 , 1978- Board of Supervisors considers letter d requesting that the moratorium be lifted and receives and files request with no action. February 20 , 1979 - Board of Supervisors considers request ii from Atascadero Advisory Committee that the moratorium be lifted. Board refers matter back to Staff in order to review size of assessment district with consideration towards enlarging it and to meet with people in area to find out how they .can help themselves and at what cost. July 2 , 1979 - Atascadero incorporation becomes effective. July 10 , 1979 - Engineering Department memo reports that Cal Trans will do no work since there is no threat to State facilities. Memo also reports no work done on district H size and indicates question is moot in view of incorporation. L ii 3 . Current Status: n u The moratorium ordinance, codified as Section 19 . 56 , was adopted by the City at the same time as other County ordin- ances were adopted. It remains in effect and no concerted if action has been taken to develop adequate drainage facilities to mitigate the flooding problems. During the last two wet-weather seasons , City Staff has made an effort to observe the flooding problems . Observation indi- cates that localized flooding continues and worsens as the ground becomes saturated later in the season. There is con- siderable run-off in existing channels for several months after the rains . A ntunber of "make-shift" drainage channels have been made by residents to divert water away from existing structures generally into roadways or nearby vacant land. It should be noted that the last two wet-weather seasons have not been extraordinary in volume or amount of rainfall . -' ��_ (31) Page Three Memorandum; Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Moratorium April 23 , 1981 f A The Staff has also discussed the moratorium with numerous individuals generally suggesting that a joint effort be launched to facilitate solution to the flooding problems , but no apparent action has resulted from this suggestion. A preliminary proposal affecting a portion of the flood hazard area was submitted and reviewed by the City Engineer who found it to be inadequate in terms of handling the vol- ume of run-off. 4 . Land Use and Zoning: F The subject area includes single family development and zoning generally along Azucena, Atascadero, San Francisco, and Teco rida. The Morro Road area includes mixed commercial and 4 residential development but is .planned for future special commercial use. Alcantara and Amapoa as well as portions of f Morro Road and Tecorida are developed with mixed residential use and planned for high density residential development. The ? total number of lots with the moratorium boundaries is 140 , , ALTERNATIVES I I In evaluating the flooding problem and the current status of the moratorium, there are a number of alternatives that can be con- sidered. These include: 1 1. Adopt an ordinance to rescind the moratorium and let the individuals cope with the flooding problem. E 2 . Adopt an ordinance which rescinds the moratorium, but simul taneously replace it with certain development standards intended to minimize the impacts to individual structures . 3 . Adopt an ordinance which rescinds the moratorium but simultan- eously replace it with certain development standards intended to minimize the impacts to individual structures and with a participation requirement to contribute to an area-wide solution to the problem. i 4 . Retain the moratorium in its present form with adequate flood control measures being developed by' affected property owners . 5 . Retain the moratorium in its present form with the City taking the initiative to devise adequate flood control measures . 6 . Retain the moratorium but expand its size to include nearby uphill property located in the drainage area. (32) Page Four Memorandum: Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Moratorium April 23, 1981 STAFF COMMENTS It appears that there has been no change in the conditions that led to the imposition of the moratorium. There has also been only limited effort to devise solutions to the flooding problem. How- ever, it must be recognized that a solution would have been imple- mented long ago if the problem was an easy one . These difficulties continue because of the number of properties involved, the potential costs of constructing flood control facilities , the inability of the property owners to effectively organize, the apparent lack of desire to pay for improvements , controversy over the seriousness of the flooding problem, and disagreement over the size of the affected area. At present, the number of lots included in the moratorium is 140 . A number of those owners contend that their particular lot has no flooding problem and should not be included in the moratorium. It has also been noted in the past that many in the moratorium area contend that other lots in the uphill areas should be included in the moratorium, or; at least in an assessment district should one be formed. It is estimated that the number of additional lots in the drainage area is approximately 250 . In 1978 the County Engineering Department advocated some channel work and the construction of two storm drains with a total cost of approximately $300 ,000. The City Public Works Department has reviewed that project and feels that the design and flow criteria were excessive. As a result, additional review of design alter- natives and projected costs is necessary. Preliminary review indicates that a drainage study prepared by a consultant would range between $8 , 0.00 and $15, 000 . While the Public Works Depart- ment does prossess the capability to perform the study, current work loads would not allow for its timely completion unless other projects, including day-to-day activities are assigned a lesser priority. As has been noted previously, the County made at least some effort to facilitate the formation of an assessment district but received little support from area residents . In the last nine months or so, members of the City Staff have discussed the matter with quite a number of area residents suggesting that a strong expression of interest from the affected property owners would result in City assistance in forming an assessment district. Despite such sug- gestions, nothing has been forthcoming. It may be desirable to consider a more direct action in this regard by organizing a meeting, etc. , to determine the actual detree of interest in the ap_roach. (33) l i Page Five Memorandum: Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Moratorium April 23, ,1981 T Much has been made of the assessment district alternative and this seems to be a practical approach since those benefitted by the improvements would be those who would pay for them. a The selection of Alternative #1 would indicate that the flooding } problem is not serious enough to warrant concerted action by the City. The question that would obviously be raised is whether or not, under the general authority of the police power, the City is responsible for undertaking measures such asmoratorium, more restrictive development standards , etc. to protect the area from flooding. This judgement may be a difficult one to justify if consideration is given to past County actions and to current knowledge of the flood hazard in the area. Nevertheless , this alternative should be considered in light of public opposition to the moratorium. Some notice of' the flooding problem could be provided to current and future owners in conjunction_ with this alternative. i Alternatives 2 and 3 suggest that development standards replace the moratorium. Examples of such standazds could include minimum floor elevations for new construction; curb, gutter, sidewalk _ and road improvements; paved driveways ; culvert and drainage channel modifications or improvements; and similar. The biggest drawback to this approach is that it would be piecemeal since it would be implemented over a period of years as development occurs . Even if such improvements were done in conformance to an overall plan their effectiveness might be limited by the time frame. Also, costs for area wide problems would likely be unequally spread with owners at critical areas in the basin having the burden of more substantial improvements. It should also be understood that continuted development will compound the flooding problem to the detriment of now-developed lots . It is also suggested that a participation requirement or drainage fee be tied to development but this has the same disadvantages f suggested in the preceding paragraph. Furthermore, a fee program would be sirilar to the county 's road deposit tax which has negative connotations. The fourth alternative represents the status quo. Thus far it has had no beneficial results as property owners have not been able to effectively organize to deal with this area wide problem. Their ability to do so is constrained by their numbers and by � lack of knowledge concerning possible costs . t (34) l Page Sia Memorandum: Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Moratorium April 23, 1981 If alternative five is selected, it would place the City in a T position of attempting to organize and inform area property owners. This could occur through a meeting or hearing on the matter with the effort directed towards generating support for . a solution (probably an assessment district) . This could mitigate one of the criticisms made on the moratorium which has been lack of City action. However, it should not be con- fused with City funding for any such -solution. The last alternative suggests enlarging the size of the moratorium to include those which contribute the run-off as well as those who accept it. This approach is likely to generate objections from property owners not currently subject to the moratorium. Certainly their properties are not exposed to the same degree of flood hazard as the others but their contribution to the flooding should nevertheless be a factor. It may be desirable to leave such properties out .of moratorium restrictions but include them in participation in the ultimate solution. Perhaps , some general discussion of possible flood control measures mentioned for alternatives 4, 5 and 6 is also appropriate. The two basic concerns are flow within the area and flow from the area to an acceptable outlet. It can be anticipated that flow within the area will have to be channelized with preference given to open channels. This would be accompanied by culverts under driveways and roads . Some need may exist to pave or other- wise improve any channels depending upon flow rates. Water should be conveyed out of the area to Atascadero Creek west of the free- way to the Creek east of the freeway by enlarging the drainage outlet under the freeway or to the Lake. A combination of the above might also be possible. Some road and curb/gutter improve- ments may also be appropriate. Detailed alternatives should be the focus of any drainage study. RECOMMENDATION The following recommendations are made in conjunction with the Amapoa-'Tecorida drainage moratorium: 1. The City should lend its offices in the formation and administration of an assessment district at the instigation of a majority of the benefitting property owners . 2. The City should consider including the entire drainage area in any assessment district. This might require 4/5ths Council vote to override a majority protest by area residents . (35) Page Seven Memorandum: Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Moratorium April 23 , 1981 3. The City should retain a consultant to prepare a drainage study and cost estimates for drainage alternatives to be paid by the area property owners and with these costs of the studv transferred to the assessment district if it is formed. 4 . The City should retain the moratorium in its present form until completion of the foregoing. REPORT PREPARED/APPROVED BY: LAWRENC , STEVENS Planni g Director k i St f� t: t i r t f E (36) COUNCIL MEETING : 6/10/85 6ENDA ITEM N.O, B 3 • TO: City Council June 10, 1985 FROM: Michael Shelton IL C; . SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR NEW CITY BUSINESS LICENSE TAX FEE SCHEDULE RECOMMENDATION Council accept recommendation of community business-based Special Study Committee for a new City business license tax fee schedule except comment 46. Staff recomments raising the basic minimum fee to $50 plus $10 per employee effective January 1, 1986, and to $75 plus $10 per employee effective July 1, 1986. The maximum fee in any category not to exceed $500 . RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION • Council direct staff to bring back an Ordinance amending the fee Business License Fee Schedule reflect ing ' recommendation of Special Business License Committee with staff recommended fees. Staff recom- mends this item be a public hearing and noticed accordingly. BACKGROUND Attached is background staff report presented to you at your May 13th Council Meeting. At this meeting, Mr. Gary Brill presented the findings and recommendations of the Business License Committee. Staff requested the Committee recommendations be referred to staff for analysis and further recommendation. COMPARISON WITH OTHER CITIES - A comparative analysis with other cities is shown to insure fees prepared are not unreasonably pro- posed and demonstrate a level .similar to that of other communities. All cities in the County plus the City of Santa Maria is included. Many cities have a gross receipt business license ordinance In an effort to create a comparative bench mark for these cities, an average daily gross receipt income of $500 per day for 240 days per year assumption is utilized. For cities with a flat fee and an additional fee per employee, it is assumed there is, on the average, two employees per business. In decending order, assuming no • fee increases or inflation (for gross receipt cities) between now and July, 1986. The results are as follows: 1 Santa Maria (gross receipts) $140 per year Paso Robles (gross receipts) $ 95 per year Atascadero (flat fee + employee schedule) $ 95 per year (Recommended 7/1/86) Morro Bay (flat fee + employee schedule) $ 82 per year San Luis Obispo (gross receipts) $ 80 per year Atascadero (flat fee + employee schedule) (Recommended 1/1/86) $ 70 per year Grover City (flat fee) $ 30 per year Atascadero (flat fee) (Current) $ 15 per year CATEGORY COMPARISON Attached is a category and fees comparison chart showing current business license fee category and fees, Special Study Committee recommended category and fees, and staff recommended fees adjacent to the Study Committee recommended cateogries. RECOMMENDED FEE INCREASE TIMING Business licenses are renewed twice each fiscal year (July and January) . Based on 60-day ordinance revision time requirements, the July business license renewal will be renewed at the $15 rate. Staff proposes a two-ties increase from $15 to $50 plus $10 per employee for January, 1986, inwhich revised fees are good for 1-year and from $15 to $75 plus $10 per employee for July, 1986 renewed fees. Thereafter, all fees to be renewed at $75 plus $10 per employee. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept Business License Committee fiat fee recommendation and disregard staff fee increase recommendation. r 2. Disregard Business License Committee flat fee recommendation and request a gross receipt business license ordinance. 3. Make no change. FISCAL IMPACT On the basis of 1,000 business licenses issued and 2, 084 private jobs in Atascadero, revenue by fiscal year is estimated as follows: CURRENT Fiscal Years: 85/86, 86/87, and 87/88 Current Fee @ $15 $15,000 per year 2 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ' Fiscal Year 85-86 1/2 year @ $15 and s 1/2 year @ $25 + $5/employee $25 ,000 Fiscal Year 86-87 @ $25 + $5/employee $35,000 Fiscal Year 87-88 @ $25 + $5/employee $35,000 STAFF RECOMMENDTION Fiscal Year 85-86 @ 1/2 year - $15 and 1/2 year @ $50 + $10/employee $42,500 Fiscal Year 86-87 @ 1/2 year @ $50 -+ $10/employee and 1/2 year @ $75 + $10/employee $82,500 Fiscal Year 87-88 @ $75 + $10/employee $95,000 - Attachments: May 13, 1985 staff report and May 5, 1985 Special Business License Study Committee Report. Business License Categories and Fee Comparison City of Atascadero Business License Ordinance 3 CATEGORIES AND FEES COMPARIOSN CURRENT COMMITTEE STAFF CITY SCHEDULE RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION (1/86) (7/86) All business $15 All business $25 $50 $75 (non-category) (non-category) plus ea. employee $ 5 $10 $10 Amusement Parlor $30 Arcades $25 $50 $75 or Arcade plus per machine $ 1 Billiard Room $30 All business $25 $50 $75 (non-category) plus ea. employee $ 5 $10 $10 Card Room $300 All business $25 $50 $75 (per table) (non-category) plus ea employee $ 5 $10 $10 Carnival $30 Circuses, etc. $150 $150 $150 (per day) (per day) (per day) Dances or Live All business $25 $50 $75 Entertainment $10 (non-category) (per day) plus ea. employee $ 5 $10 $10 $30 (per year) Firearm Sales . $30 All business $25 $50 $75 (non-category) plus ea. employee $ 5 $10 $10 Games of Skill $50 All business $25 $50 $75 (prizes awarded) (non-category) plus ea. employee $ 5 $10 $10 Go-Kart Track $25 All business $25 $50 $75 (non-category) plus ea. employee $ 5 $10 $10 Gunsmith $30 All business $25 $50 $75 (non-category) plus ea. employee $ 5 $10 $10 1 Junk or Salvage $30 All business $25 $50 $75 (non-category) plus ea. employee $ 5 $10 $10 Kennel $30 All business $25 $50 $75 (non-category) plus ea. employee $ 5 $10 $10 Locksmith $30 All business $25 $50 $75 (non-category) plus ea. employee $ 5 $10 $10 Mechanical Vending Machine $25- $50 $75 Amusement Devices each machine $ 1 $ 2 $ 3 Pawn Browker $100 R,11 business $25 $50 $75 (non-category) plus ea. employee $ 5 $10 $10 Moving Picture All business $25 $50 $75 Show (non-category) plus ea. employee $ 5 $10 $10 Photographer $30 All business $25 $50 $75 (non-category) plus ea. employee $ 5 $10 $10 Prize Fighting $25 All business $25 $50 $75 or Wrestling (per day) (non-category) plus ea. employee $ 5 $10 $10 Restaurant $30 All business $25 $50 $75 With Live (non-category) Entertainment plus ea. employee $ 5 $10 $10 Rodeo $30 Circuses, etc. $150 $150 $150 (per day) (per day) (per day) Shooting Match $30 All business $25 $50 $75 (non-category) per ea. employee $ 5 $10 $10 Taxicabs $30 Taxicabs - lst Vehicle $25 $50 $75 (per year) ea. additional vehicle $ 5 $10 $15 (per year) Tent Show $30 Circuses, etc. $150 $150 $150 (per day) (Per day) (Per day) (per day) Trailer Sales $50 All business $25 $50 $75 (non-category) plus ea. employee $ 5 $10 $10 2 Transient $30 Solicitors, Ped- Merchant (per day) dlers, Vendors Principal & 1 $25 $50 $75 _ Solicitor (per day) Ea additional day $10 $10 $10 All business $15 Profession & $25 $50 $75 (non-category) Services (per year) Oriented All Business $15 Businesses, Assem-$25 $50 $75 (non-category) bly Line Plant And similar $ 5 $10 $10 business (per year) All Business $15 Manufactures, , $25 $50 $75 (non-category) Wholesalers, Packing Houses, Farmers Markets, Assembly Line Plants, & similar business plus ea. employee $ 5 $10 $10 4 All Business $15 Transfer (truck- $25 $50 $75 (non-category) ing (per year) per ea. truck $ 5 $10 $10 All Business $15 Contractors $50 $75 $100 (non-category) (ea. year) Out-of=town Contractors $25 $50 $75 (each job) Or ea. year $50 $75 $100 (ea. year) All Business $15 Hotel/Motel - (non-category) 1-3 Rooms $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 4-10 Rooms $25 $50 $75 (group) ea additional rm $ 1 $ 2 $ 3 All Business $15 Mobile Home Park (non-category) 1-3 spaces $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 4-10 spaces $25 $50 $75 (group) ea additional sp $ 1 $ 2 $ 3 All Business $15 Apartment Houses, (non-category) Courts, Boarding or Rooming Houses 1-3 units $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 =» 4-10 units $25 $50 $75 z (group) 3 e ea. additional $ 1 $ 2 $ 3 unit All Business $15 Home Occupation $25 $50 $75 (non-category) (Per year) (no employees) j All Business $15 Hospitals, Sani (non-category) tariums, Rest or Nursing Homes, Asylums - 1-10 beds $25 $50 $75 (group) ea. additional $ 1 $ 2 $ 3 bed All Business $15 Rummage/Parking (non-category) Lot/Garage/Yard Sales - Limit of 3 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 2 2-day per year $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 3 or after (2 day $50 $50 $50 limit) (per day) (per day) (per day) All Business $15 Auctions/Fire/ (non-category) Wreck/Bankrupt Sale $50 $50 $50 (Per day) (Per day) (Per day) (no Permanent -- Place of Business) All Business $15 Auctions/Com- $25 $50 $75 l (non-category) mercial (per year) (Permanent Place of Business) per ea. employee $ 5 $10 $10 (per year) All Business $15 Bingo/Other $ 0 $ 0 $: 0 (non-category) ized Games of Chance (Non-Profit) All Business $15 Bazaars/Fairs - (non-category) (Profit Org.) 1-4 displays $15 $25 $35 (2-days) T 5 plus $50 $50 $50 (per day) (Per day) (Per day) ( All Business $15 Festivals, Fairs, $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 (non-category) Bazzaars } (non-profit) All Business $15 Non-Franchised —_ 4 i a t (non-category) Public Utilities $75 $100 $125 (per year) All Business $15 Vehicle Deliv- $25 $50 $75 (non-category) eries (per year) fee per sticker vehicle $ 5 $10 $10 (per year) a i j t 7s 4 dye 2 5 �� COUNCIL MEETING: 6/10/85 OFNDA ITEM NO. : C 1 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mike Shelton FROM: Don Leib SUBJECT: Dial-A-Ride Fares DATE: June 5, 1985 RECOMPIENDATION: It is recommended that fares for Dial-A-Ride be reviewed by Council and that they=be increased to an amount to insure the 10% farebox ratio required by law. COUNCIL ACTION: Direct staff to bring back a resolution increasing fares as per recommendation. STATEMENT: • As you know, transportation needs of the community have to be met and financed from SB325 funds and receive priority over road maintenance needs, with fares to meet or exceed 10% of the operational costs as mandated by law. In 1980 this percentage figure was approximately 14% and has been decreasing slowly each year and is currently approximately 12.5%. If this decrease continues- we will soon be below the required 10%. Expenses have steadily risen since 1980 due to increasing ridership, and to meet this demand the original two (2) 16 passenger bus fleet has increased in size to the present fleet of five buses, which include four (4) 16 passenger buses, 3 of which are handicap equipped with wheelchair lifts, and one twenty-five passenger bus, with no increase in fares. BACKGROUND The ridership which was approximately 46,617 riders in fiscal year 1980-81 has risen to 55,095 riders per year during the 1983-84 fiscal year. Figures for the fiscal year 1984-85 are incomplete at this time. The costs of operating Dial-A-Ride were discussed at a public hearing conducted by Councilperson's -Handshy and Norris and the people in the audience responded by saying that if raises in fares were needed for the City to continue providing this transportation service, which was needed by the citizens of the community, they would gladly support an increase in fares. The fare structure currently is 50t for regular fares, 25� for Senior • Citizens and handicapped, and children under 40" tall. It is anticipated that a fare increase would probably decrease rider- ship for a short period of time but ridership would come back to the present figure, with a possible increase in riders. Dial-A-Ride Fares page two , MAJOR FINDINGS OR CONCLUSIONS: A survey of nearby Cities fares are as follows: Morro Bay Regular fares 60G Senior/Handicapped 5ft Last increase 5/83 Farebox ratio - less than 10% Los Osos Regular Fares 50(,, Senior/Handicapped 35(,' Last increase - 2/83 Farebox ratio - approx. 10% San Luis Obispo Fixed route system 5 Cities All riders - 50� Farebox ratio exceeds 14% Atascadero Regular fares 50(, Dial-A-Ride Senior/Handicapped 25(� Farebox receipts approx 12.5% ALTERNATIVE: It is suggested that if we don't consider a rate increase at this time, that by waiting another year the increase could be substantially greater. A fare increase at this time should sustain the transportation system for several years, if inflation and operational costs remain at the current rates. FINANCIAL IMPACT: I am proposing at this time we consider an increase in fares to maintain our mandate that fares shall equal or exceed 10% of our operating costs. The proposed rate increase would be, 75(,, for all regular fares, and 500, for Senior Citizens, children under 40" tall and handicapped riders. ` Our present fares generate approximately $23,500 per year. It is estimated the proposed rate increase would generate an additional $7,250 or otal o tal opproximately $30,750. a ON LEI \a. COUNCIL MEETING 6/10/85 0ENDA I TFM NO : C - 2 • TO: City Council May 28, 1985 FROM: City Manager . SUBJECT: AUDIT AGREEMENTS FOR 1984-85 RECOMMENDATION The attached audit agreements for the city and district for fiscal year 1984-85 be approved. DISCUSSION Robert M. Moss Accounting Corporation has been retained by the city and district for years. In my estimation and that of the Interim Finance Director, their • audit reports are fully professional and very timely. In addition, we feel that the fees are reasonable. Failure to approve the agreements would result in unnecessary delay in obtaining timely audit reports and would probably result in increased costs to the city and district. MS:kv TO: Mike Shelton May 15, 1985 FROM: Ray Cassidy SUBJECT: AUDIT AGREEMENTS - 1984-85 Attached is a letter from Ron Levy and audit agreements from both CITY and DISTRICT. Fees quoted are for usual audit work only. Cost of additional work requested by us would be negotiated separately. Fees compared to last year : INC. 83-84 84-85. AMT PERCENT CITY 3,050 3,175 125 4.10% DISTRICT 2,285 2,375 90 3. 94% ROBERT M. MOSS ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 802 EAST MAIN STREET SANTA MARIA.CALIFORNIA 93454 (605)925-2579 ROBERT M.MOSS:C.P.A. SANTA MARIA.CALIFORNIA PAUL B. MOE,C.P.A. BEVERLY HILLS.CALIFORNIA RONALD A.LEVY,C.P.A. May 7, 1985 MEMBER AMERICAN INSTITUTE AND CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF CELIA KAHN.C.P.A. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS DEBORAH DAVIS.C.P.A. AND CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF MAURICE KAHN,C.P.A. - MUNICIPAL FINANCE OFFICERS Mr. Raq Cassidy Interim Finance Director City of Atascadero P. 0. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 Dear Mr. Cassidy: _ As per our meeting of May 3, the following items were discussed and agreed upon to improve the accounting system of the City: (1) The Recreation Fund should be closed. The recreation function should be shown as a department in the General Fund. (2) Traffic Safety Fund revenues should be recorded in the Traffic Safety Fund as revenues but then transferred to the General Fund to offset expenditures. (3) Farebox revenues should be budgeted and recorded in the Trans- portation Fund instead of the General Fund. (4) Revenue Sharing monies should be spent in the Revenue Sharing Fund instead of the General Fund. (5) The City should allocate interest income quarterly to each fund. The city can allocate the interest based upon each fund's cash balance at the end of every quarter. (6) The Grant Fund should be closed with the cash balances transferred to the General Fund. As of June 30, 1984, the cash balances in the Grant Fund were the following: Alford Park $ 15,833 South Atascadero Park $ 69,652 SB 325 $ 72,064 (7) The Special Projects Fund should be closed with the cash balances transferred to the General Fund. May 7, 1985 City of Atascadero Page 2 (8) Please find attached two copies .each of the audit contracts for the City and Sanitation District for the current year. Please sign and return one copy to me. As part of our audit, a management letter with findings and recommendations will be delivered to the city upon conclusion of the audit. I expect to start preliminary testing of the City's records in June and to start the actual audit within one week of your closing of the City's books which will approximately be the beginning of August. (9) Our firm is available to audit transient lodging tax and franchise fees received by the city. Our fee for these audits will be based upon the number of audits desired by the city. A rough estimate would be between $500 and $750 per audit. As I mentioned in our meeting, let me know if I can be of any assistance to you in the future. Very truly yours, ROBERT M. MOSS ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION fevy, C. A. RL:dpm ` Attachments ROBERT M. MOSS ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION 1f AGREE TENT r ,�,- FOR AUDITING SERVICES This agreement made and entered into this 7th day of May 1985, between the CITY OF ATASCADERO,' CALIFORNIA, herein called "CITY" and ROBERT M. MOSS ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION, 802 East Main Street, Santa Maria, California herein called the "AUDITOR". PARTIES WHEREAS, it is the intention of the CITY to provide for the examination of its financial statements, and WHEREAS, the AUDITOR is a Certified Public Accountant , duly authorized to practice and licensed as such by the California State Board of Accountancy and experienced in City and Special District auditing: THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and premises hereinafter contained, the CITY hereby engaged AUDITOR, and AUDITOR hereby agrees to examine the financial statements of all funds of the CITY. It is understood that the services performed by the AUDITOR is in the capacity of an independent contractor and not as an officer, agent, or an employee of the CITY. AUDITING PROCEDURES AND SCOPE The examination shall be made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and accordingly shall include such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as the AUDITOR considers necessary in the circumstances in order to allow for the expression of an opinion on the financial statements of all funds of the CITY. It is understood that such procedures are not designed primarily to disclose defalcations or other irregularities. t'1�, -2- AGREEMENT FOR AUDITING SERVICES (Continued) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTERNAL CONTROL AUDITOR shall observe the adequacy of the system of internal control and if weaknesses are noted, make appropriate recommendations. AUDITOR'S comments shall be included in a separate letter to be issued as soon as possible after the conclusion of the examination. PERIOD COVERED BY AGREEMENT This agreement shall cover the audit of fiscal year beginning July 1 , 1984. COMPLETION OF AUDIT REPORT AUDITOR shall deliver TEN (10) copies of their report as soon as possible after the examination has been completed. CONSIDERATION Said auditing services will be performed by qualified persons. Fees for services rendered may be billed as work progresses, but not more than once a month. Such fees shall be paid promptly by the CITY. The total payment to the AUDITOR for services and expenses rendered under this agreement shall be $3,175.00 for the fiscal year. The maximum annual fee stipulated, above contemplates that conditions satisfactory to the normal progress and completion of the examination will be encountered and that CITY accounting personnel will furnish the agreed upon assistance in connection with the preparation of necessary detail schedules and the production of documents for AUDITOR' S inspection. However, if AUDITOR feels unusual circumstances are encountered which make it necessary for AUDITOR to do additional work, AUDITOR shall report such conditions immediately to the responsible CITY officials , and if both parties agree that circumstances are unusual they may negotiate such additional compensation as appears justified. -3- AGREEMENT FOR AUDITING SERVICES (Continued) EXTRAORDINARY SERVICES It is contemplated that from time to time the CITY may wish AUDITOR to perform accounting and auditing services in addition to those which are usual and customary in making an examination of the financial statements of the CITY. If so, AUDITOR shall be compensated for any such services performed which are validly authorized at their normal hourly rates in effect at that time. However, if such additional services require the expertise of consultants, AUDITOR and CITY may negotiate separate rates and estimated fees for the work contemplated. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this agreement as of the day and year herein first above written. Date: BY: BY: CITY OF ATASCADERO ROB M. MOSS AC UNTANCY CORPORATION APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGERI,YON-, Interim City Attorney 4 NCIL MEETING 6/10/85 Architectural. Revie`!! ReP ort SNDA ITEM NO's : C 3 MEMORANDUM • TO: City Council May 13, 1985 � 1 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager. FROM: Henry Engen, Planning Director RE: Architectural Review Report BACKGROUND Mayor Nelson has requested a report to the City Council on alternative approaches that might be considered to establish an architectural re- view process in the City of Atascadero. The purpose of this memoran- dum is to provide an overview of approaches that could be used. Coun- cil may wish to give policy direction to staff to come back with a more detailed evaluation of the most promising approach. GENERAL PLAN REFERENCES The Atascadero General Plan clearly anticipated that there would be some form of design review function incorporated in the City' s devel- opment review process. Appendix D contains a "draft ordinance" for a Design Review Commission. Actually, Appendix D is more criteria to be used by a Design Review Commission than it is an ordinance creating one. It did not indicate the membership or powers, duties and appeals rights, etc. of a commission, for example. r With respect to the General Plan itself, there is the following quota- tions from "Community Appearance and Standards, " Chapter XIII pertain- ing to architectural review: 113. The architectural style of .residential and commercial build- ings shall harmonize with the environment. If fencing is used, it shall be consistent with the style of the building. " Industrial Parks: "6. Building exteriors shall exhibit contin- uity of acceptable materials and designs. " 1113. All buildings, signing and landscaping designs shall be subject to review. "Design Review. The jurisdiction of the Design Review Committee (see Appendix D) shall include, but not be limited to, application for permits for: 1. Residential tracts 2. Industrial parks 3. Excavation and grading 4. Buildings on potentially unstable soil 5. Commercial signing 6. Street landscaping 1 Architectural Revie,. Report 7. Design and landscaping of all public buildings . 8. Removal of trees from private and public properties" A design review committee was not established by the City; however, development review standards criteria was built into the City' s up- dated zoning ordinance adopted in 1983. ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS The City zoning ordinance provides the following language with respect to precise plan content (these are projects approved at staff level which require an environmental determination. They are now being listed in -the Atascadero News under "Development Approvals") : "Architectural Elevations. For all structural uses except sin- gle family residences and agricultural accessory buildings. Ele- vations, renderings, or perspectives of each proposed structure shall be provided, identifying all exterior finish and roofing materials. . . . . " Conditional use permits acted upon by the Planning Commission also require submittal of architectural elevations. Pertinent to the arch- itectural review function, the following findings must be made before a conditional use permit project may be approved: " (iv) That the proposed project or use will not be inconsistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its orderly development; . . . . . . " Elevations, then, have been used to provide an understanding of what is being proposed in a project, but there is no definitive criteria in the zoning ordinance to establish a basis for mandating refinements to architectural elevations. AREAS OF CONCERN One area of complaint has been views from the freeway of recently con- structed large scale metal buildings that have not been customized to provide for visual interest. There has also been concern over the scale and character of some of the two-story condominium projects being constructed in the south end of the City. Occasionally, con- cerns have been expressed on some new buildings, which - although at- tractive in their own right - clash in terms of color or architectural style with adjoining buildings (e.g. Kragens and Adobe Plaza; Wendy' s blue roof with red tiled roof neighbors) . It appears that the primary focus with respect to geographic areas has been (1) the viewshed along Highway 101, (2) Morro Road frontage, and (3) visual impacts along the El Camino Real corridor . Since the city does not have tract housing construction, poor architecture across whole single family subdivision is not a local problem. Further , the generally larger single family lot sizes throughout Atascadero tends to limit the potential for architectural clashes. 2 Architectural nevi Report ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PROCESS ALTERNATIVES Broadly speaking, there appears to be three general approaches that the City could consider to create an architectural review process: 1) Architectural Review Commission - some cities, including San Luis Obispo, have established separate architectural review com- missions which meet every other week to review virtually every building permit being issued except for selected individual single family homes in non-sensitive locations. The positive aspect of this approach is that it provides a very strong quality control to the development review process. It can even mitigate poor zon- ing decisions by making buildings compatible with their neighbor- hood. On the debit side of the ledger, this process is expensive. In San Luis Obispo' s case, it requires a full time planner " plus support staff to do the work necessary to get the ARC process to work. It also slows down the development review process which adds to the cost of a project. Given Atascadero' s resources, this approach would appear not to be practical at this time. 2) Architectural Review Committee - a subcommittee of the Planning Commission could be established to review the architectural as- pects of both precise plan and use permit projects. The City of Paso Robles utilizes this approach wherein three planning commis- sion members meet on the first and third Thursdays of every month from 8: 30 to 10:30 a.m. Typically, there are some seven agenda items ranging from freestanding signs to planned developments. Architectural Review Committee review occurs after a basic lanao use entitlement has been approved by their , Planning Commission. Criteria for development review are included within their zoning ordinance (which is currently under re-evaluation) . Advantages of this approach include the use of the existing Planning Advisory Group to deal also with architectural issues. 3) Staff Review - A third approach would be to amend the zoning ordinance to include criteria for architectural review. Precise plan approvals would continue to be granted by staff and matters going to the Planning Commission or City Council would carry analysis and recommendations on architectural treatment with either body dealing with that issue as part of the overall pro- ject. Since architectural evaluation is a subjective process, it could be argued that this approach, while more streamlined, would be difficult to assign to staff. RECOMMENDATION Following review and discussion, refer the matter to the Planning Com- mission for a recommendation back to the City Council on the concept felt to hold the most promise. _3 J&PC I L MEETING 6/10/85 :-EMPA I TFM NO. : D - I • TO: City Council May 28, 1985 FROM: City Manager ' SUBJECT: AUDIT AGREEMENTS FOR 1984-85 RECOMMENDATION The attached audit agreements for the city and district for fiscal year 1984-85 be approved. DISCUSSION Robert M. Moss Accounting Corporation has been retained by the city and district for years. In my estimation and that of the Interim Finance Director , their audit reports are fully professional and very timely. In • addition, we feel that the fees are reasonable. Failure to approve the agreements would result in unnecessary delay in obtaining timely audit reports and would probably result in increased costs to the city and district. MS:kv • t TO: Mike Shelton May 15, 1985 FROM: Ray Cassidy SUBJECT: AUDIT AGREEMENTS - 1984-85- Attached is a letter from Ron Levy and audit agreements from both CITY and DISTRICT. Fees quoted are for usual audit work only. Cost of additional work requested by us would be negotiated separately. Fees compared to -last year : INC 83-84 84-85. AMT PERCENT CITY 3, 050 3,175 125 4.10% DISTRICT 2,285 2, 375 90 3. 94% Y 6 1- ROBERT-M."MOSS ACCOUNTANCY CORPORA NON CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 802 EAST MAIN STREET SANTA MARIA.CALIFORNIA 93454. (805)925-2579 ROBERT M.MOSS.C.P.A. SANTA MARIA,CALIFORNIA PAUL B. MOE.C.P.A. BEVERLY HILLS,CALIFORNIA RONALD A. LEVY, C.P.A. May 7, 1985 MEMBER AMERICAN INSTITUTE AND CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF CELIA KAHN.C.P.A. - CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS DEBORAH DAVIS.C.P.A. AND CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF MAURICE KAHN,C.P.A. MUNICIPAL FINANCE OFFICERS Mr. Ray Cassidy Interim Finance Director City of Atascadero P. 0. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 Dear Mr. Cassidy: As per our meeting of May 3, the following items were discussed and agreed upon to improve the accounting system of the City: (1) The Recreation Fund should be closed. The recreation function should be shown as a department in the General Fund. (2) Traffic Safety Fund revenues should be recorded in the Traffic Safety Fund as revenues but then transferred to the General Fund to offset expenditures. _ (3) Farebox revenues should be budgeted and recorded in the Trans- portation Fund instead of the General. Fund. (4) Revenue Sharing monies should be spent in the Revenue Sharing Fund instead of the General Fund. (5) The City should allocate interest income quarterly to each fund. The city can allocate the interest based upon each fund's cash balance at the end of every quarter. (6) The Grant Fund should be closed with the cash balances transferred to the General Fund. As of June 30, 1984 the cash balances in the Grant Fund were the following: Alford Park $ 15,833 South Atascadero Park $ 69,652 SB 325 $ 72,064 (7) The Special Projects Fund should be closed with the cash balances transferred to the General Fund. t,' 1 May 7, 1985 City of Atascadero Page 2 (8) Please find attached two copies each of the audit contracts for the City and Sanitation District for the current year. Please sign and return one copy to me. As part of our audit, a management letter with findings and recommendations will be delivered to the city upon conclusion of the audit. I expect to start preliminary testing of the City's records in June and to start the actual audit within one week of your closing of the City's books which will approximately be the beginning of August. (9) Our firm is available to audit transient lodging tax and franchise fees received by the city. Our fee for these audits will be based upon the number of audits desired by the city. A rough estimate would be between $500 and $750 per audit. As I mentioned in our meeting, let me know if I can be of any assistance to you in the future. Very truly yours, ROBERT M. MOSS ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION n 9.Fr �jon�.evy, C. A. RL:dpm (� Attachments ROBERT M. MOSS ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION ` i t � *AGREEMENT-- FOR AUDITING SERVICESi This agreement made and entered into this 7th day of May, 1985, between the Atascadero Sanitation District, Atascadero, California, herein called "DISTRICT" and ROBERT M. MOSS ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION, 802 East Main Street, Santa Maria, California, herein called the "AUDITOR". PARTIES WHEREAS, it is the intention of the DISTRICT to provide for the examination of its financial statements, and WHEREAS, the AUDITOR is a Certified Public Accountant, duly authorized to practice and licensed as such by the Califonia State Board of Accountancy and experienced in City and Special District auditing; THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and premises hereinafter contained, the DISTRICT hereby engaged AUDITOR, and AUDITOR hereby agrees to examine the financial statements of all funds of the DISTRICT. It is understood that the services performed by the AUDITOR is in the capacity of an independent contractor and not as an officer, agent, or employee of the DISTRICT. AUDITING PROCEDURES AND SCOPE The examination shall be made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and accordingly shall include such tests of the accounting records andsuchother auditing procedures as the AUDITOR considers necessary in the circumstances in order to allow for the expression of an opinion on the financial statements of all funds of the DISTRICT. It is understood that such procedures are not designed primarily to disclose defalcations or other irregularities. i AGREEMENT FOR AUDITING SERVICES RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTERNAL CONTROL AUDITOR shall observe the adequacy of the system of internal control and if weaknesses are noted, make appropriate recommendations. AUDITOR'S comments shall be included in a separate letter to be issued as soon as possible after the conclusion of the examination. PERIOD COVERED BY AGREEMENT This agreement shall cover the audit of fiscal year beginning July 1, 1984. COMPLETION OF AUDIT REPORT AUDITOR shall deliver TEN (10) copies of their report as soon as possible after the examination has been completed. CONSIDERATION Said auditing services will be performed by qualified persons. Fees for services rendered may be billed as work progresses, but not more than oncea month. Such fees shall be paid promptly by the DISTRICT. 0. The total payment to the AUDITOR for services and expenses rendered under this agreement shall be $2,375.00 for the fiscal year. The maximum annual fee stipulated above contemplates that conditions satisfactory to the normal progress and completion of the examination will be encountered and that DISTRICT accounting personnel will furnish the agreed upon assistance in connection with the preparation of necessary detail schedules and the production of documents for AUDITOR`S inspection. However, if AUDITOR feels unusual circumstances are encountered which make it necessary -3- AGREEMENT FOR AUDITING SERVICES CONSIDERATION (Continued) for AUDITOR to do additional work, AUDITORshallreport such conditions immediately to the responsible DISTRICT officials, and if both parties agree that circumstances are unusual they may negotiate such additional compensation as appears justified. EXTRAORDINARY SERVICES It is contemplated that from time to time the DISTRICT may wish AUDITOR to perform accounting and auditing services in addition to those which are usual and customary in making an examination of the financial statements of the DISTRICT. If so, AUDITOR shall be compensated for any such services performed which are validly authorized at their normal hourly rates in effect at that time. However, if such additional services require the expertise of consultants, AUDITOR and DISTRICT may negotiate separate rates and estimated fees for the work contemplated. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this agreement as of the day and year herein first above written. Date: By; By; ATASCADERO SANITATION DISTRICT ROBERTo4. M6S ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER LYON, Interim Attorney