Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 01/26/1993 PLXIC FEVIEW COPY # P- La NOT REM= * NOTICE: THE CITY COUNCIL WILL MEET IN AN OPEN SESSION ;AT 6:00 P.M. , PRIOR TO THE REGULAR MEETING, FOR PURPOSES OF MID- YEAR BUDGET REVIEW. A G E N D A ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING j CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 6500 PALMA AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR ROTUNDA RIOOM JANUARY 26, ; 1993 7 : 00 P.M. This agenda is prepared and posted pursuant to the requirements of Government Code section 54954 .2. By listing a topic on ithis agenda,' the City Council has expressed its intent to discuss an act on each item. In addition to any action identified in the an general description of each item, the action that may be talon shall in- clude: A referral to staff with specific requests for nformation; continuance; specific direction to staff concerning t�e policy or mission of the item; discontinuance of consideration; ajuthorization • to enter into negotiations and execute agreements pertaining to the item; adoption or approval; and, disapproval. Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk (Room 208) and in the Information Office (Room 103), available for public inspection during City H�ll business hours. The City Clerk will answer any questions r garding the agenda. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting or other services offered by this City, please contact the City Manager's Office ((805) 461-5010) or the City Clerk's Office ((80$) 461-5074) . Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in a Suring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service. j i RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: * Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda: * A person may speak for five (5) minutes. * No one may speak for a second time until ever�one wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so. * No one may speak more than twice on any item. * Council Members may question any speaker thelspeaker may respond but, after the allotted time has expired, may not initiate further discussion. * The floor will then be closed to public participation and open for 'Council discussion. i Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call City Council Comments COMMUNITY FORUM: The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and comments from you, the citizen. The Community Forum period is pro- vided to receive comments from the public on matters other than scheduled agenda items. To increase the effectiveness of Community Forum, the following; rules will be enforced: * A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, unless Council authorizes an extension. * All remarks shall be addressed to Council, as a whole, and not to any individual member thereof. * No ;person shall be 'permitted to make slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any elected official, commissions and staff. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent ad hoc or standing committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary. ) : 1. S.L.O. Council of Governments 2 . S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority 3 . _ Solid/Hazardous Waste 'Task Force 4 . City/School Committee 5. Traffic Committee 6 . County Water Advisory Board 7 . Economic Round Table 8 . Colony Roads Committee 9 Liability Claims Review` & Finance Committee B. CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed under, Item B, Consent Calendar, are consid- ered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion on these items. A member of the Council or public may, by request, have any item removed from the Consent Calendar, which shall 'then be reviewed and acted upon separately after the adoption of the Consent Calendar: 1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - D-ecember 8, 1992 2. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES —January 12 , 1993 3., TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-89, 8625 ATASCADERO AVE. Consider- ation of time extension request (Iverson/Central Coast Engineering) 2 v I 4. TENTATIVE . TRACT MAP 17-90, 5392 BARRENDA - of time extension request (Lopez/Cuesta Engineelonsideration ing) S. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 92-001, 9955 EL CAMINO REAL - Acceptance of final map to create eight (8) airspace condominium units within approved commercial buildings (Golden West Develop ment/Volbrecht Surveys) 6. SAN GABRIEL SEWER - Proposed modification ofisewer Extension Reimbursement Agreement between the City andl the Atascadero Unified School District i 7. RESOLUTION NO. 06-93 - Authorizing the executipn of a contract with Computer Professionals Unlimited to provide software support 8. RESOLUTION NO. 07-93 — Clarifying insurance overage for vol- unteer City workers E i C. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. ORDINANCE NO. 2.65 - Consideration of proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment to permit accessory second residential units within single-family zones subject to conditions (City-initiated) (Recommend (1) motion to waive reading in full and read by title only, and (2) motion to introduce on first reading by title only) s i D. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. ORDINANCE NO. 246 - Amending Title 7 (Sanitation Ordinance) of the Municipal -Code to require connection to public sewer in "Cease & Desist" areas, without exception' (Recommend motion to adopt on second reading by title only) 2. RESOLUTION NO. 03-93 - Conditional acceptantof portions of San Marcos and Vista Roads into the City-maintained system' (Cont 'd from 1/12/93) 3. STATE WATER ENTITLEMENT - Potential contracting agencies (Resolution - Councilwoman Borgeson, County Water Agency Delegate) E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: i 1. City Council - Councilwoman Borgeson re: Median 2 City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer S. City Manager Storm drainage update f 3 i i M REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: Mid-Year Budget Review CITY OF ATASCADERO Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Dote: 1/26/93 i From: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: FY 92-93 Midyear Budget Review RECOMMENDATION: For Council review and comment. lAs in prior years, an enabling resolution will be presented on Council' s Consent calendar in February, to ratify Council' sIdirection at tonight' s meeting. BACKGROUNDIANALYSIS: 1. Six Month Status - Attached to this report are the midyear status reports from the various departments Ond offices. In addition to the comments provided, staff overall has made a concerted effort to keep operating costs to a minimum. Travel and training costs are down significar$tly; advertising, vehicle repair and miscellaneous items are also being held to a minimum, based upon suggestions from the Finance Subcommittee, Department Heads and employees. Financially, Table One presents the six-month] revenue and expenditure totals for the General Fund only. The Recreation Division is not included in this table because it is now being accounted for as a separate fund. The 'inet General Fund support is transferred to the Recreation Fund from the General Fund, on a monthly basis. Table One also sets forth year end projections, with "worst case" and "anticipated" scenarios. This is untended to offer Council a range in which, quite frankly , the General Fund could be in relatively good shape (showing a modest surplus) or it could be in a very dire condition, with almost a $500,000 deficit. It should be noted that the worst case is not expected at this time. Itshould also be noted that the $2 million Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note (TRAM) is included in these projections, whidh explains the significant increase over original budget. i i T00000 2. Budget Revisions - Table Two sets forth a schedule of midyear budget adjustments, again for the General Fund only. The bulk of the adjustments reflect the recommendations of the Budget Reduction Committee. The remaining adjustments are explained in the footnotes below the table. The only increases in appropriations at this time relate to the TRAM, which is more than offset by the proceeds from the TRAN and the extra interest earnings. 3. Preliminary forecasts for FY 93-94 - The Finance Subcommittee has met a number of times reviewing the assumptions and cost estimates that would be used to develop a base budget for next fiscal year. The latest version of these assumptions and estimates is attached to this report. Based on those assumptions, it appears likely additional service reductions may be required. Making matters worse, it is unknown, at this early date, what the impact the State's continuing budget problems will have on Atascadero, although it is likely to be a negative one. 4. Status of Other Funds - The emphasis in this midyear review, as in earlier ones, has been on the General Fund. However, other funds, notably the Wastewater Fund, also need to be monitored and reported back to Council. It is suggested that a separate session in the near future be scheduled to address at least the Wastewater Operating Fund, as well as other funds as appropriate. • 000002 • TABLE ONE: GENERAL FUND REVENUE/EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS: FY 92-93 YR-TO ORIGINAL DATE WORST CASE ANTICIP. BUDGET 12 92 YEAR END YEAR END REVENUES Property Tax $2,400, 000 $1, 115,852 $2,200,000 $2,230,000 Sales Tax 1,850,000 862,768 1,725,000 1,775,000 Bed Tax 110,000 30, 811 100,000 125,000 Property Transfer 50,000 14,408 30,000 40,000 Franchise Fees 405,000 31,597 400,000 410,000 Business License 110,000 46,548 105, 000 110,000 Construction Permits 306,000 78,240 200, 000 275,000 Motor Vehicle 850,000 389,342 800,000 810,000 Other Intergov't 206,000 111,732 196,000 220,000 Ping/Eng. Fees 173,400 65,911 125,000 150,000 Other Fees 49,500 14,509 30,000 46,000 Fines/Forfeits 60,900 15,166 40,000 45,000 Investments 15,000 5,375 90,000 100,000 ,Misc. 42,700 1,390 10,000 30,000 Proceeds from Sales* 25,000 1,997,700 1,997,700 2,000, 000 Transfers In 177,500 91,220 177,500 177,500 SOTALS 6,831,000 4,872,569 8,226,200 8,543,500 EXPENDITURES General Gov't. 357,530 166,636 355,000 343,500 Police 2,215, 190 1,026,850 2, 179,000 2, 150,000 Fire 1,092,750 537,251 1,145,750 1,100,000 Public Works 245,700 107,822 225,000 175,000 Community Dev. 709,460 314, 155 630,000 630, 000 Comm'y. Sery/Admin. 31,600 13,017 30,000 30,000 Parks 326,005 168,618 335,000 320,000 Bldg. Maint. 202,750 75,009 160,000 150,'600 Streets 390,000 182,575 375,000 375, 000 Admin. Serv. 523,200 327,375 520, 000 515, 000 Non-Dept. 483,200 181, 040 485, 000 460, 000 Transfers Out 252, 065 63,360 2,272,065 2,272, 065 TOTALS 6, 829,450 3, 162,708 8,707,815 8,520,565 *Includes proceeds from TRAN. 000003 TABLE TWO: SCHEDULE OF MIDYEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS, GENERAL FUND ONLY Budget Original Reduction Other Revised Department Budget Committee Ad;iust. Budget General Govt. $357,530 -0- -0- $357,530 Police 2,215, 190 (9,500) (26,000) (1) 2, 179,690 Fire 1,092,750 (7,000) -0-(2) 1,085,750 Public Works 245,700 (83,000) (3) -0- 162,700 Community Dev. 709,460 (77,000) -0- 632,460 Comm'y Servs. - Adm. 31,600 -0- -0- 31,600 Parks 326,005 -0- (5,000) (4) 321,005 Building Maint. 202,750 ( 19, 000) -0- 183,750 Streets 390,000 -0- -0- 390,000 Admin. Services 523,200 (5,000) -0- 518,200 Non-Dept. 483,200 -0- (7,500) (5) 475,700 Transfers Out 252,065 -0- 2,020.000 (6) 2,272,065 Totals 6, 829,450 (200,500) 1,981,500 8,610,450 Notes: 1. Reduction for vacant Police Officer position (mid-year vacancy) . 2. As noted in the Fire Chief' s report, up to $60,000 may be required to • cover overtime, water utility costs and fireline support. 3. This does not include any offset for North Coast Engineering costs. NCE has estimated up to $66,000 may be expended in non-reimbursable costs. 4. The debt service on the lawn mower is eliminated, due to charging the item to the City' s Capital Projects fund, and not the General Fund. 5. Reduction of $20,000 for the lawn mower. See note 3 above. Increase of $12,500 to cover the costs of the TRAN (bond counsel, rating service, etc. ) . 6. Reduction of $10,000 in Zoo support and $20,000 in Recreation support. Increase of $2,050,000 to cover TRAM repayment. a:midyear 13A 000001, i ASSUMPTIONS AND ESTIMATES RELATING TO FYi93-94 • PRELIMINARY BASE BUDGET 1. All vacant and laid off positions are assumed to remain unfilled during FY 93-94. 2. FY 92-93 MOU Agreements, which were either deferred or modified for FY 92-93 are added back in the mase for FY 93- 94. 3. An estimated 1.5% is added to Miscellaneous Employees effective 7/1/93 to cover cost of Post-Retirement Survivor Benefit (PERS) . 4. Deduct 2.966% from Public Safety as offset for Extended Horizon for 2% @ 50 (PERS) . 5. Add 25% to Workers' Comp. Rates to reflect anticipated increases. 6. Assume no change in Health Coverage costs from current rates (effective 11/1/92) . 7. Assumes year end leave accrual expense of roughly $20,000 (charged in June) . • 8. Assumes $200,000 Liability Insurance Premium ':due in July; Assumes relatively flat growth in Operating Costs. 9. Transfers Out include $100,000 for Recreation/Zoo funds; $100,000 for debt service on C.O.P. Bonds; and $75,000 as year one of three years debt service for Stadium Park. 10. Capital outlay is primarily to replace Police Vehicles and/or miscellaneous purchases. No purchases earlier than January. 11. Property Tax assumes a modest 4.5% percent growth rate. 12. Sales Tax assumes base of 1,775,000 plus a conservative estimate of $50,000 from one-quarter year of 'Factory Outlet Center. (Estimate includes input from Hinderliter DeLlamas & Assoc. ) 13. Revenue projections include Revenue Enhancements, approved by Council in Fall, 1992, including $90,000 for Paramedics. 14. Construction Revenues based on a conservatives estimate of $15 million in building values. (Estimates include input from Community Development) . 15. Motor Vehicle In-Lieu is assumed to be untouched and includes State Hospital Annexation. 000005 16. Most other revenues are expected to be relatively flat in . growth, except franchise fees (assume a 5 percent growth rate) . 17. A $1.4 million TRAM is assumed (based on November' s cumulative cash flow deficit -- without the TRAM -- plus December' s disbursements) . TRAN is expected in July, MIG-1 rating; interest rate of 4.0 (a modest increase in interest rate by next spring and includes administrative fees) . Interest earnings are assumed at 7%. 18. Interest earnings are calculated quarterly, based on the average cash balance for the preceding quarter. Earnings for November reflect one-time balance from FY 92-93 TRAM. Miscellaneous earnings are from non-interesting bearing purposes (e.g. , use of City Crews) . 19. No Gas Tax shift is included in these projections. The amount available depends upon the projected fund balance and the amount decided upon by Council. The extreme case is $390,000 per year (assumes all General Fund support for Street Maintenance is shifted to Gas Tax) . :assumptions#4 • • 000006 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council via Assistant Manager Andy Takata FROM: Chief of Police SUBJ: Year-End Status Report and Mid-Year $udget Recommendations DATE: January 6, 1993 Following, as requested, is our police department year-end status report including a statistical summary as well as some budget-related recommendations for Council consideration. The recommendations I propose ';are made only after extensive thought and discussions w#h department staff. I fully acknowledge and appreciate ''the financial woes our City is now experiencing, and as such, I have tempered my recommendations accordingly. I would add that our police department members, both regular and volunteers, are to be commended in their combined efforts of continuously reducing operational and payroll costs to the benefit of our community. I believe these dedicated people have significantly contributed to what is an enviably high quality of life in our city! • While as of this writing I don't have a year-end budget computer printout, beyond the recommendations contained herein, I believe we'll remain within our established 1992- 93 budget, barring any major investigations or other emergencies. Thank you. RICHARD H. McHALE Attach: 00®00'7 STAFFING • As City Council likely knows, our police department now has two vacancies which remain unfilled in keeping with the direction of the City Manager. These positions include one 9-1-1 dispatcher (open since April, 1992) and- one police officer (open since 12-1-92) . It does seem ironic that last year at this time, conditions (increasing activity levels, etc. ) were such that our City Council was giving consideration in mid-year discussions (contingent upon funding availability) to the addition of two new police officer positions. Certainly, our moribund economy and City budget were such that the funding of extra positions was just not feasible then anymore that it is now. As is the case with many other public administrators and particularly police chiefs, I find myself in the position of simply attempting to find ways to keep the positions previously authorized by City Council so as to pursue our goal of providing law enforcement services to our community. To no one's surprise, for many and varied reasons, law enforcement and corrections continue to be a "growth" business in California. If arrests are one indicator of our productivity, I believe jail space shortages certainly hint at an increasing and costly problem. Jail capacity (county- level facilities) in California since 1980 has increased by • more than 19,000 beds to a total of 60,907 beds - an astounding 91%, according to the State Board of Corrections. The shortfall of beds available for inmates in 1995 is projected to be 29,000 swelling to a shortage of 57,000 beds in the year 2000. The inmates filling these beds come mostly from cities such as ours. Needless to say, adequate staffing must be available to address increasing law enforcement demands. Our 1992 comparative analysis (see attached summary) indicates an 11% increase in calls for service. This represents an additional 1,836 police responses in 1992 versus calendar year 1991. These figures typify the activity level increases we've seen since incorporation of our city. Unfortunately, the vacancies in our ranks equate to a 5% reduction in staffing in the police department. During times of economic "recession", the activity level in private enterprise and some other public functions decrease significantly. Not so in law enforcement! In Atascadero for example, such calls as "domestic violence" are up 24%; sex crimes up 50%; disorderly conduct up 29%; robbery up 20%; stolen vehicles increased 30%; theft up 22%; assault up 17%; recovered stolen vehicles increased 87% and so on. The investigation and disposition of each of these cases require • extensive investigation and handling. Many of them constitute a serious hazard to the officers responding 000008 (particularly the domestic violence and 6hild custody cases! ) . As I indicated in my memo dated November 25, 1992 to the City Manager if possible, I suggest the Pilling of our existing police officer vacancy with a provisional appointee from our reserve officer ranks. Finally, during our talks with our City Budget Committee, I had raised the issue of exploring the feasibility of contractual 9-1-1 dispatch program services with the S.L.O. County Sheriff's Office. The preliminary study is now being completed by Sheriff Williams' staff. (The concept of consolidated services is becoming even more attractive not only from the standpoint of potential personnel savings but also as we consider the inevitable replacement of our aging and deteriorating communications equipment !including the base console. ) POLICE VEHICLES At risk of reporting more "doom and gloom", I' m afraid that I must convey a rather bleak report regarding our department fleet! Of the 17 cars used in our 24-hour operations, 8 now have 100,000 to 140, 000 miles showing on the odometers. (The remaining 9 vehicles have an average of over 56,000 • miles each. ) Our department fleet logged over, 283,000 miles during calendar year 1992 . Through the untiring efforts of our department retired seniors, we were able to significantly reduce vehicle maintenance costs to our City. Three of our seniors (Tom Parks, Gordon Farnum, and Lloyd Baker) coordinated a detailed and broad bid analysis of vehicle maintenance service costs throughout our region, the results of which are impressive. Last fiscal year the maintenance costs of our P.D. fleet was about $4, 200 per month. This year, vehicle maintenance costs for the P.D. were reduced to about $2, 500 per month! The major portion of this savings is attributable to the competitive bidding survey for services accomplished by our RSVP personnel. Another important reason for the reduction is that 'our volunteers have actually been doing much of the needed small repairs themselves with handtools'; at the P.D. In terms of cost effectiveness, the P.D. in reality should buy (or lease) four to five new replacement vehicles each fiscal year. The maximum cost effective mileage on patrol cars in City use should realistically not exceed 80,000 miles. Reliability and driver safety factors are impaired as our aging fleet exceeds the recommended 80, 000 mile ceiling. Experience has demonstrated that beyond this point, metal fatigue in the heavy duty suspension systems • begins to occur, and we are continuously having to replace expensive engine and drive line components front to rear. 000009 In recognition of these factors and in an attempt to address what I consider a crisis-level problem, I make the following recommendations: 1. Convert the Isuzu 4-wheel drive vehicle (previously being used in Building/Planning) to full- time police department patrol use. This vehicle now has low mileage and with the 4-wheel drive capability, it can serve to enhance our ability to respond to some off-road incidents. 2 . Lease two new replacement patrol cars through the direct Ford factory leasing program. This factory program includes a 3 year lease with 100,000 mile premium care service warranty. The estimated monthly cost to our City is $470.00 per unit, and the cars can be purchased for $1. 00 at the end of the lease. One obvious major advantage of this approach is that it reduces the "out front" cash flow. As an example, for the remaining fiscal year (5 months) , two cars would cost our City about $4,700.00. In terms of long-term cost, this lease versus buy approach would appear more costly than the traditional purchase as the three year lease adds $1,000 to what would be a normal purchase. However, the factory lease . includes a special maintenance package which will significantly decrease our operational costs. I, of course, recognize that ordinarily acquisitions of this sort should be proposed at the beginning of the normal fiscal year instead of mid-year. My rationale for making this recommendation now is in recognition of the following: 1. The lead time, from order to actual receipt of cars is typically a minimum of four months. 2 . The existing patrol cars we are using are beginning to require major overhauls, and it is simply not cost effective to continuously replace engines, transmissions, differentials and suspension systems on vehicles so badly deteriorating. 3 . Some of the money now being spent on vehicle repairs can better be spent on lease/maintenance of new, safer and more reliable vehicles. 4. As indicated in item #1 above, I am very concerned that should we wait until July or August as would otherwise be normal, we wouldn't see the new units until November or December - this simply is too long a period to leave our old fleet on the street. • 000010 • 5. During the current and past fiscal 'year, we have purchased only one patrol car which was delivered in April, 1992 and as previously stated, we really should be replacing about four units each year. 000011 ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT ANNUAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Percentage of 19 91 19 92 Change Total documented calls for service: 17,178 19,014 + 11 Traffic collisions: 448 372 - 17 • Number of traffic citations issued: 2,28 1,93 - 15 Arrests: 1,036 1,039 0 Miles Travelled by P.D. Vehicles: 286.002 283,222 - 1 NATURE OF CALL/INCIDENT: Arson _� 10 +100 Homicide 0 0 0 Rape 12 8 - 33 Robbery 10 12 + 20 Assault 199 232 + 17 Burglary 210 272 + 9 Theft 490 597 + 22 Stolen Vehicles 4 60 + 30 Recovered Stolen Vehicles _ 3 71 + 87 Disturbance 1.551 1.652 + 7 Suspicious Circumstances 1 .548 1.793 + 16 Animal Problems 58 589 + 1 Disorderly Conduct _ 1 170 + 29 Patrol Checks 541 370 - 32 Warrant Arrests 292 _ 31_4 + 8 Code Violations 166 160 - 4 Mental Health 30 2 - 17 Fires/Smoke Checks 515 504 - 2 Medical Aid/Rescue 857 _ 93 + 9 Domestic Violence 93 11 + 24 Alarms (burglary/robbery) 727 639 - 12 • Malicious Mischief 397 360 - 9 Fatal Traffic Collisions 0 1 N/A Injury T.C. Pub. r.o.w. 105 85 - 19 Non-injury to 236 197 - 17 Injury T.C. Private Prop. 14 12 - 14 Non-Injury of _ 9 72 - 23 Drunk Driving Arrests 212 132 - 38 Other Traffic 1.998 2,191 + 10 Annoying Phone Calls 116 135 + 16 Miscellaneous 5.075 6,22 + 23 Fraud 6 1 - 83 Forgery 25 21 - 16 Child Abuse 51 38 - 25 Sex Crimes 24 36 + 50 Kidnapping 0 3 N/A Juvenile Contacts 646 834 + 29 Juvenile Runaways 136 148 + 9 TOTAL NUMBER: 17.178 19,014 + 11 MISC. = citation sign-off, VIN verification, sex/drug registration, fingerprinting, info request, agency assist, citizen assist, citizen assist, civil standby, business lic. violations, found/lost property, shots fired, missing persons, check the welfare, etc. SUSP CIRCS. = susp. subjects/vehicles, unfounded calls, etc. DISTURBANCE = verbal or physical fights, loud music, barking dogs, etc. OTHER TRAFFIC = stored/impounded• and abandoned vehicles, 72-hr tagged vehicles, reckless/speeding vehicles, traffic hazards, verbal notice of suspended license, possible drunk drivers. , etc. RICHARD H. McHALE, CHIEF OF POLICE 000012 ATASCADERO CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT BUDGET STATUS REPORT • 1/14/93 With 50% of the year completed, our total expenditures are at 51%. Although we are operating overall in a satisfactory range and I am not asking for any adjustment at this time, there are three accounts I would like to discuss in greater detail, because by the end of the fiscal year we could be $60,000 over budget. Account #10040 - Overtime - As our records have indicated for the past number of years, the $30,000 that is budgeted each year, is not sufficient to operate this department. All overtime worked is charged to this account such as coverage for sick leave, vacation, CTO time, fires, all special training, and emergency call back. The department employee associations have agreed to forego vacation time off as of l/1/93, in recognition of the overtime problem, and every possible effort is being made to keep the deficit; in this account • to a minimum. Account #20075 - Water - After the budget was finalitied last year, the Atascadero Mutual Water Company had two significant rate increases. Those increases have more than doubled our water bill each month. Two thousand dollars was budgeted in that account and we have already spent $3128 (-56%). Actions taken to keep water usage to a minimum include weekly monitoring (which assisted pus in locating a leak on the main line at Station #1), all automatic sprinkler systems were shut down as weather permitted, and no engines are filled from station metered water. We will continue to keep close watch on this account. Account #20105 - Fire Line Support: Due to the air support (retardant drops) needed this past summer on the Highway 41 fire, which does not fall under the mutual aid plan, the State has informed us that we will be billed approximately $25,520. We budgeted'; $3,000 in this 00o03.3 ATASCADERO CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT BUDGET STATUS REPORT - 1/14/93 • PAGE 2 account, knowing that if air support was utilized in the city, this account would have to be supplemented. In past years, we relied heavily on the unspent monies in our operating accounts to supplement other accounts, such as overtime, that exceeded the allocation. As you are aware, this year we will not have that luxury. If we do not have an active early fire season, and the firefighters continue to agree not to use vacation time, by 6/30/93 the accounts are estimated to be at the following: Predicted Budgeted Spent year end total #10040 - Overtime $30,000 $47,557 $60,000 #20075 - Water $ 2,000 $ 3,128 $ 4,000 #20105 - Fire line support $ 3,000 $26,965 $27,250 • Because so much of our operating budget in the past few years has been used to supplement our overall budget, there are a number of tools and safety equipment that must be purchased this year. At this time, we have spent 36% of the operating portion of our budget. Based on my best-guess prediction, it is anticipated that an adjustment of approximately $60,000 will be required - providing employee services stay in check, vacation days continue to be waived, minimal fire/emergency responses, and emergency spending only. We understand that these are very difficult times and, as in the past, we will continue to provide the highest level of service possible and at the same time, be as resourceful as possible. P rM Michael P. McCain • Fire Chief 000014 ATASCADERO CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT STATUS REPORT JULY - DECEMBER, 1992 A Personnel: At this time the department is operating with two Battalion Chief positions vacant. One position is held vacant because of the promotion to the Chiefs position. The other, because the Fire Marshal has been on Worker's Comp since 10/6/92. Seasonal Firefighters worked thru 9/30/92 and we do not anticipate using them again until the first of June. Two firefighters successfully completed the Engineer's exam in December and at this time the City Manager is reviewing their promotion. We continue to use Firefighter II's when possible to fill in for full time personnel when time off is necessary. This program, although y= controversial, has saved thousands;of dollars. • At present, we have 25 Reserve Firefighters, half of which are Firefighter II's that augment shift personnel by working one 24- hour shift per month. A mini-academy will be held in April to add five new Reserves in time for fire season. We currently have one Firefighter attending a paramedic class which is expected to be completed by March, with clinical time and internship to follow. Captain Stone is attending the California State Training Institute (CSTI) in San Luis Obispo. Upon completion in '`April, he will be a Certified Hazardous Materials Specialist. We received a grant for cost reimbursement that made his attendance possible. From 6/4/92 to 12/31/92, fire department responses to calls for assistance have included: Fires: 89 Medical aid: 590 Other: 373 Total: 1052 • 000015 ATASCADERO CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT SIX-MONTH STATUS REPORT (JULY - DECEMBER 1992) PAGE 2 Total calls for 1992: 1742 Total calls for 1991: 1668 Total calls for 1990: 1833 Total calls for 1989: 1636 Total calls for 1988: 1501 A Fire Prevention: With the absence of the Fire Marshal, many adjustments have been made. Engineer McGauley and myself are reviewing plans. Although Engineer McGauley is still working a 24-hour shift schedule and responding to emergency calls, he has done an outstanding job of making sure that we keep up on pians reviewed. Captain Motlo is coordinating company inspections and each shift has done an excellent job in staying abreast. Captain Snow is coordinating pre-planning of high hazard occupancies and all shifts participate in simulated emergencies • at those locations. Engine company Plan inspections reviews 7/1/92 to 12/31/92 42 70 Total for 1992: 105 124 Total for 1991: 187 137 Engine company inspections include commercial and state licensed facilities, as well as new business license inspections. Fire/arson investigations have been performed by Firefighters Knuckles and White. Both individuals have done an outstanding job not only in their investigations, but also in their reports. Juvenile Fire Setters Program - We have implemented a new program that evaluates young fire setters. The program evaluates children and provides us with information that determines which type of counseling the child should receive. We are the first department in this area to be involved in this new program. Excellent evaluations have been received from Child Protective Services. • 0000.16 ATASCADERO CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT SIX-MONTH STATUS REPORT (JULY - DECEMBER 1992) PAGE 3 A Training: Training activity this period included the following categories: July thru Dec. Total for 1992 Shift training - 965 hrs 1854 hrs Paramedic/EMT training - 665.5 hrs 834.5 hrs Special schools (paid) - 468 hrs 952 hrs Reserves - drills/schools * 2820 hrs *Hours not available by month Totals for 1991 Shift training 3257 hrs Paramedic/EMT training 1591 hrs Special schools (paid) 781 hrs Reserves - drills/schools 927 hrs Special schools are training that is received outside the departments standard 2 hours per shift. Examples of types of schools: management training, hazardous materials, fire prevention, arson investigation, fire ground management, Allan Hancock College Fire Academy. • The annual wildland training program was a success. Approximately 150 firefighters and 25 engines Brom throughout the county attended. A Apparatus and equipment: Old Rescue unit: Due to the unavailability of funds to replace the department's oldest brush engine, the old rescue unit was converted to a brush/patrol vehicle last fire season. All work was done in-house. Patrol-11 was used quite extensively this past summer for mop-up patrol and back-up to our current engines. Brush-9 reserve status: Brush-9 which was due to be replaced two years ago has been moved to reserve status. The unit does not meet NFPA safety standards and is at the age that continued usage would put it out of service altogether. The OES engine and the patrol unit will be put to use until it can be replaced. OES engine: In November we received a 1000 gpm pumper from the State Office of Emergency Services (ORS). Atascadero was selected to house this engine over several other cities throughout the state. It's primary purpose is to be available to respond to state emergencies when needed, but it can be used ATASCADERO CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT SIX-MONTH STATUS REPORT (JULY - DECEMBER 1992) PAGE 4 as an additional piece of equipment for our own department to respond as needed. We have made good use of this engine since receiving it. A Department projects: Training/safely: In order to maintain our firefighters skill level in working together as a team, joint shift training has been established every Saturday morning at Station #1 from 0900 to 1200. This will allow all shifts to train together and give the Reserve Firefighters an opportunity to participate and increase their skills level. Revenue resources: We are continuing to pursue areas where revenue can be generated or costs may be recovered. Programs that our Revenue Resource Officer has assisted our department in include SB90 reimbursements, Joint Apprenticeship Program (JAC), user fees that were adopted 9/22/92, and cost efficient studies in our own department that have saved hundreds of dollars. Inspections: We are in the process of reorganizing our • inspection program to insure the high hazard occupancies receive a yearly inspection. At the present time, we are receiving information from the County on businesses which have reported Material Safety Data Sheets and those businesses will be prioritized for inspections. Plan reviews: With the cooperation of the Planning Department, we have implemented an over-the-counter policy that can assist the public in obtaining fire department permits, requirements and approvals. Along with this, many plans that have taken days in the past to process through the loop for approval, can be received and responded to on the same day. We feel, and have received comments from public, that the plan check/permit process is working very well. Hazardous materials: The San Luis Obispo County Fire Chiefs Association is developing a County Hazardous Material Response Team. Our department personnel are all trained as First Responders in that field and we will provide one trained specialist to that team. Upgrading of water system: We have been working with the Atascadero Mutual Water Company to assist in the upgrading of 000018 ATASCADERO CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT SIX-MONTH STATUS REPORT (JUNE - DECEMBER X992) PAGE 5 the water system and maps. We have been calculating fire flows for high hazard occupancies and conducting flow tests to establish the water needs in our city. Repeater project: Although there has been some progress in this area, it is taking more time than anticipated due to budget and manpower restraints. We intend to pursue this project each year until completion. Tank clean un: We are making excellent progress in the clean up project from the leaking gas tank at Station #1 that has burdened us since 1987. In late December, over 300 cubic yards of contaminated soil was removed and soil sample tests showed that the only contaminated soil remaining is under the patio area. We hope to stay after this project and finish the necessary clean up as soon as possible. Ambulance service: This has been an issue for some time and it finally appears that the Board of Supervisors are willing to work with the cities throughout the county to resolve this matter. The Fire Chiefs from San Luis Obispo, Pismo Beach and myself, as well as County representative Jeff Hamm, are completing a pre-hospital medical care program that will be presented to the City Manager's Sub-committee early this year. The program is expected to be approved by the Board of Supervisors and will give cities the ability for input regarding ambulance service and rates. This will give us the ability to implement our paramedic cost recovery program. Michael P. McCain Fire Chief 000019 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT SIX-MONTH STATUS REPORT July - December, 1992 The Community Services Department has been very active in the first six months of the fiscal year. RECREATION DIVISION: The Recreation Division has served over 12, 000 people partici- pating in the Summer Aquatics program and over 2 , 000 in the Summer Day Camp program. Some of the highlights from the summer and fall were the Parks & Recreation Jamboree, attended by over 1, 000 participants, the Second Annual Youth Triathlon series, with over-all participation of almost 300 children, a Colony Days Sidewalk Art Contest and 5K Run and Walk, Shakespeare in the Park, Adult Basketball and Volley- ball, the beginning of the Youth Basketball and Volleyball programs and our Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony. STREETS DIVISION: The Streets Division has provided their normal service, patching over 586 tons of asphalt, constructing water control berms, replacing and installing signs, plus completing the painting of the streets throughout the City. PARKS DIVISION• Parks Division highlights are coordination with the Native Tree Association to finish the garden in front of the Pavilion, completion of the irrigation project at the Pavilion, preparation and hydroseeding of the lawn. areas (hydroseeding donated by vol- unteer) and refinishing of the Pavilion floor during Thanksgiving week. ZOO DIVISION• The Zoo Division has been busy with completion of the hospital treatment room remodeling (money donated by the S.L.O. County Zoological Society) , the removal of the Himalayan Black Bear to share the exhibit with the Sun Bear; introduction will occur in January, 1993 . There has also been remodeling of the Tortoise Yard, donated by the California Chapter of Turtle & Tortoises Club. The present goal for the Zoo Division is working on animal health care policies and procedures. The Community Services Division continues to strive to work with the residents in order to promote their programs. AT:cw 0000~0 ATASCADERO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STATUS REPORT JUNE 1992 - DECEMBER 1992 Enclosed are end-of-year reports covering the activities of the Planning and Building Divisions, together with a memorandum out- lining 1993 departmental priorities. Building permit valuation remains relatively low. The valuation for the total year was $14, 080, 193 ; however, as was noted in the June six months report, the lack of dollar volume (and revenue) was offset by increases in the number of minor permits. In addition, there are some $3 .7 million dollars in building ':permits that are ready to be picked up (including the Carlton (Hotel renovation project) . With respect to Planning applications, the data' is also for the full calendar year with overall activity levels being essentially as projected with the exception of requests for Certificates of Compliance, which are driven by pending real estate transactions. The following highlights special project activities: 1. Comprehensive revision to Title 8, Construction Regulations - was adopted by the City Council on July 14, ; 1992. 2 . Comprehensive amendment of the Sign Ordinance - was adopted by the City Council on recommendation of the Planning Commission, following extensive input from the Chamber', of Commerce, on September 8, 1992 . 3 . "Auto Mall/RV Park" General Plan and Zoning Amendment - was approved by the City Council for the 109-acre Rochelle prop- erty on November 24 , 1992 . 4 . Circulation Element/Environmental Impact Rgport - Hearings commenced on this project before the Planning Commission on December 15, 1992 . 5. Surface Mining Act - The City was designated $'lead agency" for implementation of the Surface Mining Act and enabling ordi- nances to that effect were adopted. Consultant's were retained to prepare draft inspection reports for the two (2) surface mines within the City. These are now completed and are undergoing public review preparatory to doing to the City Council for certification. 0000�,1 6. Code Enforcement - Since July 1, 1992, 134 new compliance files have been opened for roughly 1. 1 per working day. Of these, 33 were resolved leaving 101 carry-over cases from just this 6 month period. 7 . Southeast Atascadero Public Lands Annexation - The property survey and LAFCO application have been completed for this application, which would add 888 acres of public land to the City (Atascadero State Hospital, Chalk Mountain Golf Course, Heilmann Park, and Paloma Creek Park) . Staff is awaiting response from the State Hospital and their Sacramento head- quarters for authorization to proceed. 8. Update of 1987 Commercial Industrial Land Use Inventory - was completed in September 1992 . 9. Long Valley Ranch II Tentative Tract Hap/EIR/ZoningAmendment The draft focused EIR was completed in September 1992 . The final EIR is now complete and a hearing is scheduled before the Planning Commission on February 16, 1993 . With respect to expenditures through the remaining six months of the fiscal year, the department should remain within budget. HE:ph Encls: Building Permit Applications: End-of-Year Status Report Planning Applications: End-of-Year Report Memorandum - 1993 Department Priorities M E M O R A N D U M TO: Andy Takata, Assistant City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director FIE DATE: January 14, 1993 RE: YEAR-END REPORT - BUILDING PERMITS BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED - YEAR-END STATUS REPORT January 1 - December 31: 1991 vs. 1;992 PERCENT APPLICATIONS 1991 1992 CWGE CHANGE Major Permits 208 148 -60 -28% Minor Permits 325 345 +20 + 6% Total Permits 533 493 -40 - 7% Valuation $26.2M $14.1M -$12.1M -46% Single-Family 97 units 42 units -53 -54% Residences Multi-Family 7 units 4 units 3 Inf. Residences Single-Family 203, 084 84, 627 -118,457 -58% Square Feet Multi-Family 5, 068 5, 092 +24 Inf. Square Feet Non-Residential 55, 259 25, 066 - 30, 193 -54% Square Feet Total Sq. Feet 263,411 114,785 -148, 626 -56% OTHER INDICATORS Bldg. Inspections 3,860 3 ,562 298 - 7% Performed Total Single-Family 90 114 + 24 +26% Applications Valuation of $652 , 341 $3 , 372, 597 +$;3 , 080, 256 +472% Permits Ready to Pick-up/Issue 0000;3 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Andy Takata, Assistant City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director DATE: January 4 , 1993 RE: QUARTERLY REPORT - PLANNING APPLICATIONS PLANNING APPLICATIONS - CURRENT STATUS January 1, 1993 '92 - 193 ACTUAL APPLICATIONS BUDGET Y-T-D* PERCENT • Precise Plans 20 25 125% Conditional Use Permits 15 11 730 Zoning Amendments 8 12 150% variances 4 2 50% Adjustments 8 7 88% General Plan Amendments 8 8 100% Lot Mergers 4 2 50% Tentative Maps 16 11 69% Lot Line Adjustments 4 5 125% Final Maps 12 14 117% Certificates of Compliance 2 12 600% Appeals 14 12 86% Year-To-Date: January 1 - December 31, 1992 = 100% of the Calendar Year 0000,1 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Andy Takata, Assistant City Manager January 1, 1993 FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 1 RE: 1993 Priorities In view of the 40% reduction in staff in the Building and Planning Divisions (from 5 persons to 3 persons each) , it is essential to prioritize the programs identified in the FY 1992-93 budget. The following reflect proposed priorities, in order of priority, with comments where appropriate PLANNING Activity Comment ' 1. Bldg. Permit Priority to economic stimuli projects Review 2 . Precise Plans Prerequisite to building permits 3 . Appeals Municipal Code mandates '!30 day deadline 4 . Subdivisions State and local time line mandates t 5. EIR Contracts Contracts and State Statutes set dead- lines 6. Business License Review 7 . CUPs, Variances 8 . General Plan/ Zoning Amend. 9. Certificates Of Compliance 10. Special Projects .Circulation Priority Exception: Consultant carry-over Element project .Surface Mining & Priority Exception: Consultant carry-over Inspection Report project .State Hospital Priority Exception: Draft Application Annexation completed .Fiscal Element Priority Exception: Draft Element completed 0000,25 .Comprehensive Zon- Necessary to insure General Plan consis- ing Ordinance tency with a view to simplifying zoning Revision procedures .CEQA Guidelines Revision .Appearance Review Guidelines Revision .Comprehensive Hous- Lack of update could jeopardize North ing Element Revision County Women's Shelter Grant 11. New City Special Requires Adjustment of Priorities 1-10 Projects 12 . New State-Mandated Requires Adjustment of Priorities 1-11 Activities (Example: AB 325. Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance) BUILDING 1. Building Inspections 2 . Plan Checks Turnaround time objectives contingent on workload surges 3 . Public Counter Availability ENFORCEMENT 1. Building Inspec- In the absence of the Building Division's tion Back-up Inspector/as inspection demand requires 2 . Written Complaints Only a. Threats to Life/Safety b. Area-wide nuisance c. Tiffs between neighbors 3 . Seismic Safety Deadline should be adjusted to the finan- Compliance cial ability of City, itself to comply. 4. American Disability Subject to City's fiscal constraints. Act Compliance HE:ph 00002f; Revised 1/20/93 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STATUS REPORT JUNE 1992 - DECEMBER Public Works Department: Department reorganization is essentially complete. Henry Engen and I have discussed the transition of departmental responsibilities. In general, all of the essential functions have been reassigned. Significant activities occurring during the previous six months, not mentioned under other categories, incjlude: 1. Completion of computerized City Mapping Program - Working in conjunction with the Atascadero Mutual Water Co*pany, the entire City is now digitally plotted using the AutoCAD computer software. All roads, lot lines, sewer lines, water lines and zoning can now be accurately plotted at virtually any scale. 2 . Road Assessment District - The initiating steps have been taken for the formation of an Assessment District for portions of 3-F Meadows, Tecorida Road, and Las Encinas I. 3 . Signal Synchronization - Equipment and programming has been complete to synchronize the two traffic sigtals at Curbaril and Palomar. Similar equipment is being installed to link Traffic Way, West Mall and Morro Road. Eventually the new signals being installed by Caltrans will be connected into this loop. Engineering Division: The Engineering Division, as a result of the City's reorganization, is now fully contracted to North Coast Engineering. NCE has spent the last month becoming familiar with all of the functions of the Engineering Division and will be in a position to perform all required tasks upon my departure. They are currently performing all plan checks, preparing conditions of approval for tentative maps, and responding to day- to-day problems. In the future, I expect NCE will prepare engineering reports, develop an updated Capital Improvement Program, monitor and formulate the annual budget, attend all relevant meetings, respond to requests by the Council and City Manager, and generally perform the full array of tasks required of the Public Works Department. 000017'7 Wastewater Division: In addition to the routine operations of the treatment plant and servicing of the pump stations, the wastewater division is involved in the following activities: 1. Santa Rosa Sewer - The sewer line and pump station in the Lakeview/Mountain View/Santa Rosa area has been designed and construction is expected to begin shortly. This system will serve one of the remaining portions of the Cease and Desist Area. 2 . Compulsory Connection Ordinance - Council is expected to act on this item at its meeting of January 12 , 1993 . 3 . E1 Bordo Sewer - This sewer line running from Pump Station #2 (near the State Hospital) , up ECR, across E1 Bordo, and across the Chalk Mountain Golf Course to the treatment plant is scheduled to be put out to bid in January, 1993 . Construction should begin in late spring. 4 . Reclaimed Water Recovery System - The final engineering report from John Carollo Engineers has been received. The proposed system would allow percolated treated effluent to be stored in the underground aquifer and subsequently pumped out and used for landscape irrigation. 5. Central Pump Station Alarm System - A contract has been awarded to IMS,Inc. to supply and install an automatic alarm system to detect any failure condition. Within the next year, all of the remaining pump stations will be equipped with similar systems. Capital Improvement Projects: 1. The Downtown Drainage and Road Improvement Project - Work has been completed. 2 . South El Camino Real Widening and Median - Work is approximately 80% complete on this project. 3 . Minor Road/Drainage Improvements - Construction is currently underway to repair a variety of minor road rehabilitation and repair projects per the approved CIP. 4 . Traffic Safety Study - Work is complete on this project. 5. Traffic Circulation Element - The final document is currently under review by the Planning Commission. Council should be able to adopt the document by spring. 6. Miscellaneous Road Improvement Projects - Plans either have been or are being prepared for a) Atascadero Road, San Diego to Santa Barbara; b) Graves Creek Road; c) Portola Road, Ardilla to . Carmelita. OOOOtiB 7 . Bridge Projects - Const"ruction is underway for the Monterey Road Bridge and the San Andres Road Bridge. These bridges will be completed in early spring. The design ot the Garcia Road Bridge is on hold due to environmental concerns. " 8. Amapoa/Tecorida Drainage - Funds have been- encumbered to perform remedial work plus a conceptual drainage plan. Miscellaneous: Transit: The 3-bay bus shelter has been completed at the Corporation Yard. Dial-A-Ride service has been approved on a trial basis to Templeton. A $50, 000 grant has been approved to refurbish ageing buses. Bikelanes: A grant for $455, 000 has been awarded to the City to construct bike lanes along E1 Camino Real and Traffic Way. Hiahwav 101/41 Intersection: SLOCOG is acting as'; a lead agency to prepare a Project Study Report for the 101/41 interchange. The report will examine alternative configurations for the interchange and recommend a preferred configuration for future construction. Solid Waste Management: The Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) has been reviewed by the state and returned with minimal comments. The state requires two 30-day noticed" public hearings prior to final adoption of the document. SLOCOG staff gave an introductory presentation on the SRRE process to Council in December. It is anticipated that the consultant for the project, BVA, will conduct one or two more workshops within the next three months. SLOCOG staff has completed the administrativedraft for the countywide Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) . This document will be brought before the Solid Waste Task force in January for review and_ comment, followed by SLOCOG in February and Council sometime in the spring. The last component of the City's Integrated haste Management Program - mandatory garbage collection - was approved in July with the provision to allow exemptions. To date, approximately 120 exemptions have been filed. A pilot cardboard recycling program was initiated in July serving approximately ten businesses. The program will, be expanded to include another 100 commercial businesses in late January. This is a free, once a week service offered through Wil-Mar. Educational source reduction projects completed within the last six months include: Development of an educational slide presentation on recycling; waste reduction assemblies for grades 4-6; and establishment of a pilot cafeteria recycling program at San Gabriel School. OOOOti9 Tree Management: A grant of $3 ,784 has been awarded to the City to plant 116 native trees along the east side of El Camino Real from San Anselmo to Del Rio. The contract commenced in October 1992, and the City has until March 1994 to complete the work. Planting is anticipated to begin in February. It is hopeful that the drainage problems found in this area can be mitigated while the site is being prepared for planting. Staff is currently working to make this a combined road improvement and tree planting project. Plans are currently being prepared for the Paloma Creek Park tree planting project. Those plans are anticipated to be complete by the end of January and work is expected to begin in February. The Atascadero Native Tree Association (ANTA) recently completed the Lake Pavilion Native Plant Demonstration Garden. Remaining tasks include the placing of stakes to identify plant species and the installation of special lighting. In addition to applying for recertification of Tree City USA, staff is applying for a special "Tree City USA Growth Award" sponsored by the National Arbor Day Foundation. The award is to recognize cities that have completed special environmental improvement projects of tree care and enhancement over the past year. Creekway Management: Staff is currently involved with the Salinas River Coordinated Resource Management Study. 000030 M E M O R A N D U M rw E I V E D .�A N 2 0 !992 CITY MGM. Date: January 19, 1993 To: Andy Takata, Assistant City Manager From: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director Subject: Six-Month Status Report Attached is the six month status report for Administrative Services, covering the period of July - December, ; 1992. In addition, I have reviewed my preliminary expenditure reports through December. My salary budget appears to be on target, even after deducting for the two employees who received reductions in pay. My operating budget has been strained as a result of recent computer hardware problems, as you are aware. However, I should have enough in the Risk Management budget to covet that cost. There should also be enough to cover the City' s portion of costs associated with the Joint Animal Control Project (Paso Robles has tentatively agreed to pay half) . Overall, I should have enough to cover all salary and operating costs without any supplemental support. ', A:6MONTH #1 i 000031 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT: Six-Month Status Report: July - December, 1992 GENERAL 1. Labor Relations Support - A substantial amount of time was involved in working out a voluntary 4.77% percent reduction in employee compensation. Besides meetings, it also required working out innovative approaches to achieving a commitment from all bargaining units, including the creation of a "Furlough Bank" . This "bank" allows employees to furlough time, but spread the cost over a series of pay periods. Other issues involving Departmental staff included: ongoing meetings regarding the Personnel Rules and Regulations (although the project is on hold at this time, pending review by, and direction from, Council and the City Manager) , developing and approving a Voluntary Furlough policy; working with the Health Insurance Committee to control health insurance costs; and, more recently, meeting with many of the bargaining units to secure support for the pay reductions for the next six months. 2. Economic Development Support - A number of issues have emerged which Department staff worked on. This included assisting the Carlton Hotel project in securing financing and additional parking; gaining approval for an Assessment District to assist the Factory Outlet Center; and representing the City on the task force planning the first annual North County Business Conference, scheduled for March 5 in the Atascadero Lake Park Pavilion. A major work effort was the preparation of a Redevelopment Study for Atascadero. This was in response to Council direction to the Economic Roundtable' s recommendation. The study goes beyond the initial "DeWeerd Study" , by explaining what the Redevelopment process is, how it may apply to Atascadero (in terms of potential projects and revenues) , and finally, the possible pitfalls. This report will be reviewed by the full Economic Roundtable before going to Council (probably in mid-1993). 0000:32 3. Volunteer Program - A total of 247,229 copie$ have been made by the Information Staff during the past six ''months. The Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Council Agendas are all printed in-house by the Information Office Staff which is far less costly than outside printing. The C.A.L.L. Clients recorded a total of 3,8$7 hours in the past six months and the Information/ClericallStaff logged in a total of 3,021 hours for a grand total of 6,888 hours by the two groups. We continue to recruit for the Information Office as well as other areas of City Hall. Refreshments were served to a small gathering who helped G.A.L.L. celebrate their first anniversary of working here at City Hall. FINANCE 1. Annual Budget - A balanced FY 92-93 Annual budget was finalized and adopted in July, 1992. Unfortunately, after the State adopted its budget, in early Septeber, the City was notified that it would lose approximately $200,000. This triggered the Budget Reduction Committee and ultimately employee lay-offs. A considerable amount of time was devoted towards monitoring the State' s progress towards ending its budget stalemate, calculating the financial impacts and dealing with the natural anxieties and uncertainties associated with the cuts. 2. Year-end Audit - The City's annual audit is substantially completed. Due to other priorities (notably ';the Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note - TRAN) , staff has not been able to finalize the fixed assets section. Once completed, it will be the first time in the City' s history that all City assets are accounted for. In the past, only enterprise funds (such as Wastewater) were recorded. In addition to meeting our professional accounting requirements, such information will help us monitor and replaceassets as they age. 3. Revenue Enhancement Study - As part of the budget-balancing effort, staff assembled a review of tax increases and new/revised user fees. Council approved a Transient Occupancy ( "Bed Tax" ) Tax increase, and several new fees for Public Safety. Most of the new revenues will show up next year, and they will assist in balancing our FY 93-94 budget. 000033 4. Atascadero' s first TRAN - At the Treasurer's request, staff worked on Atascadero' s first TRAN. Besides addressing our is immediate cash flow needs (more money "flows" out the first five months than "flows" in) , the City was fortunate in leveraging as much as $65,000 in additional interest earnings. This is due to the difference between our costs (3.5%) for the note and what we earn on our money (just under 8 percent) . 5. Procurement Policy - Initiated in the Spring, the ad hoc Council subcommittee finished its work in the first quarter of FY 92-93. After Council approval, training was given to all interested employees. These new policies will help standardize purchasing arrangements, and also establish budgeting, travel and other related policies. 6. Forecasting for FY 93-94 - Anticipating budgetary shortfalls next year, the Finance Subcommittee of the Council directed staff to project general fund revenues and expenditures for next year. A key component to this task is to identify all the underlying assumptions and costing estimates, based on a number of different scenarios. Initial indications confirm we will continue to face tough financial times ahead. 7. Miscellaneous Projects - A number of minor, but relevant issues/tasks were also completed in the first six months. Some of these items are noted below: 0 *The federal audit for the Sycamore Bridge was completed, as well as all the paperwork for the last State Recreation Grant ($65,000 for Traffic Way Park) . The Recreation grant was a reimbursement of monies already expended. *An RFP for a financial review of Wil-Mar Disposal was awarded. *Staff is reviewing the Software Support Contract for our Accounting Software. Council will be asked to award a new contract to a firm who can offer a better level of support at a lower cost. *Actual sales tax savings as a result of the Sales Tax Service agreement are finally in. Results show that Atascadero is already receiving virtually all the tax it is entitled to. However, enough new revenue was discovered to more than offset the cost of the service. RISK MANAGEMENT 1. Quarterly Risk Management Reports - The first and second quarterly Risk Management Reports are attached for review. Claims have been relatively light, although a number of claims were received in late December and early January. 0 000034 2. Safety Committee - Triggered by an upcoming Insurance JPA . sponsored safety audit, the General Safety Committee was re- activated. With assistance from Personnel, a revised Injury and Illness Prevention Program was prepared. `; Additional safety subcommittees (for inspections, training and accident review) have been established and will meet regularly. 3. Insurance Premiums - Liability premiums have continued to decline, now at their lowest rates in over four years. This is the result of favorable insurance rates, a relatively small number of claims, and better in-house management of claims, including the handling of small claims completely in-house. This approach reflects the policy direction of the Risk Review Committee, established by Council in 1990. a:jul-dec #1 0000:35 QUARTERLY RISK MANAGEMENT REPORT QUARTER ENDING 9/30/92 ALL PRIOR THIS ACTIVE YEAR CLAIMS BY STATUS: QTR. CLAIMS CLAIMS Claims Received/Outstanding - 7/1/92 5 21 31 1. Claims Under Review/Investigation 2 5 4 2. Claims Rejected/Pending 1 1 9 3. Claims in Litigation 1 12 6 4. Claims Rejected/Expired (0) ( 1) (5) 5. Claims Settled (1) (2)- li- Claims Outstanding - 9/30/92 4 18 19 CLAIMS BY AMOUNT REQUESTED: 1. Unspecified 0 4 10 2. Up to $1,000 4 6 13 3. $1, 001 - $10,000 0 2 1 4. $10,001-$50,000 0 4 2 5. Over $50,000 1 5 5 TOTAL - 5 21 31 • CLAIMS BY ALLEGED CAUSATION: 1. Streets 2 10 14 2. Police 0 3 6 3. Parks, and Recreation/Zoo 1 2 7 4. Other (e.g. , Sewer, Land Use etc. ) 2 6 4 TOTAL - 5 21 31 NOTES/COMMENTS: 1. Losses Paid Out This Quarter - $663.00 2. Two of the claims in litigation are considered inactive. Three claims in litigation are expected o be settled during the next quarter. Prepared By Yate a:quartrpt 000036 QUARTERLY RISK MANAGEMENT REPORT QUARTER ENDING 12/31/92 ALL PRIOR THIS ACTIVE YEAR CLAIMS BY STATUS: QTR. CLAIMS CLAIMS Claims Received/Outstanding 4 22 23 1. Claims Under Review/Investigation 3 5 2 2. Claims Rejected/Pending 0 3 2 3. Claims in Litigation 1 10 10 4. Claims Rejected/Expired (0) ;( 0) (3) 5. Claims Settled (0)_ i_ (6) Claims Outstanding - 12/31/92 4 18 14 CLAIMS BY AMOUNT REQUESTED: 1. Unspecified 2 6 9 2. Up to $1, 000 0 3 7 3. $1, 001 - $10, 000 1 3 3 4. $10, 001-$50, 000 0 4 2 5. Over $50,000 TOTAL - 4 22 23 18 CLAIMS BY ALLEGED CAUSATION: 1. Streets 1 10 10 2. Police 1 3 5 3. Parks and Recreation/Zoo 1 3 5 4. Other (e.g. , Sewer, Land Use etc. ) 1 6 3 TOTAL - 4 22 23 NOTES/COMMENTS: 1. Losses Paid Out directly by City - $420.00 Losses paid through JPA - $61,625. 00 2. As in the prior report, two claims in litigation are considered inactive. �-A- I ( Zd 3 Prepared By pate a:quartrpt 0000:x'7 t t • Agenda Item: B-1 Meetipg Date: 01/26/93 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 8, 1992 MINUTES The Mayor called the meeting to order at 6: 00 p.ti. Councilperson Bewley led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Bewley, Borge$on, Kudlac, Luna and Mayor Nimmo Absent: None Also Present: Muriel "Micki" Korba, City 9Ireasurer and Lee Raboin, City Clerk Staff Present: Ray Windsor, City Manager; Andy Takata, Assistant City Manager/Director of Community Services; Art Montandon, City Attorney; Mark • Joseph, Administrative Services Director; Greg Luke, Public Works Director; 'Lt. John Barlow, Police Department; Steve DeC4mp, City Planner and Kelly Heffernon, Administrative Analyst OPEN STUDY SESSION: Steve Devencenzi, San Luis Obispo Council of Goveri*ents, presented an overview of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan and the Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRRE Brief Council questions followed; no action was taken. The Mayor called a short recess at 6:47 p.m. At J:02, the regular session was brought to order. PRESENTATION• Jon DeMorales and Bill Safarjan presented a plaque in recognition of public service to the City on behalf of Unitjed Way/Neighbors Helping Neighbors. €. COMMUNITY FORUM: Ray Jansen, 6655 Country Club Drive, asked for a considered CC12/08/92 . Page 1 000038 E response to his five-page letter of November 10, 1992 and attachment (15 advantages of an alternative route) regarding the Highway 41 realignment. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent ad hoc or standing committees. Informative status reports were given, as follows. ) : 1. S.L.O. Council of Governments - Mayor Nimmo announced that the next meeting would be December 9, 1992 . 2. Solid/Hazardous Waste Task Force - Councilwoman Borgeson reported that the December meeting had been canceled. 3. County Water Advisory Board - Councilwoman Borgeson reported that the board, having met on November 4, 1992, had focussed on action taken by the Board of Supervisors regarding the State Water Project and reviewed draft contracts for twelve participants. 4. Liability Claims Review & Finance Committee - Councilman Luna indicated that the committee had met and refined projections for the 1992-93 fiscal year. He announced that the committee would meet again during the last week of the month. B. CONSENT CALENDAR: The Mayor read the Consent Calendar, as follows: 1. AWARD OF BID FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY CENTRAL ALARM SYSTEM 2. RESOLUTION NO. 126-92 - ADOPTING CITY'S ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY 3. REQUEST TO CHANGE POLICY OF PAYMENT OF WARRANTS FROM BI-WEEKLY TO MONTHLY 4. RESOLUTION NO. 127-92 - SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED FEDERAL MAN- DATE RELIEF ACT OF 1993 MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilman Kudlac to approve the Consent Calendar; motion carried unanimously by roll call vote. C. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. GENERAL PLAN & ZONING AMENDMENT, 5000, 5020, 5040 & 5060 MARCHANT AVE. (Cont'd from 11/24/92) CC12/08/92 Page 2 000039 A. Resolution No. 99-92 - Approving an amendment to the Land Use Map of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan (GPA 92-002) B. Ordinance No. 263 - Amending Map 17 `,` of the Official Zoning Maps by rezoning certain real property at 5000, 5020, 5040, 5060 Marchant Ave. from CP(FH) to CT(FH) (PD10) (ZC 92-008: Grinnell) (Recommend (1) motion to waive reading'; in full and read by title only, and (2) motion to introduce on first reading by title only) Stevee -DeCamp provided an overview of the request and recommenda- tion to approve the General Plan amendment and ;zone change. He then responded to brief questions from Council regarding allowable and conditional uses in a planned development ovorlay. Mayor Nimmo remarked that it may be time to look at allowable uses in most of the land use designations. Mr. Decamp reported that staff was re-defining land uses as part of the comprehensive zoning ordinance re-write. Public Comments: Bob Borba, 9436 Carmel, presented copies of a petition (see Exhibit A) urging the Council to make allowed "eating and'; drinking places" subject to a conditional use permit application. `` James E. Grinnell, applicant, indicated that he has had three plans rejected for this property and was feeling like he was getting the run-around. He asserted that what he wanted was Commercial Tourist zoning with an expanded list of allowable uses. He read aloud the uses he would like permitted (see Exhibit A of Planning Commission Minutes of 10/20/92) . Bob Borba spoke again and clarified that nearby residents were agreeable to allowing "eating and drinking" places with a CUP; but were opposed to a "low class" and/or "full-f lodged" bar being approved. He urged the Council to allow public input on this matter. ---End of Public Testimony--- Brief discussion followed. MOTION: By Councilman Kudlac, seconded by Councilman Luna to adopt Resolution No. 99-92 approving General Plan Amendment 92-002 ; motion carried 5: 0 by roll call vote. MOTION: By Councilman Kudlac, seconded by Councilman Luna to CC12/08/92 Page 3 0000,10 waive the reading in full and introduce ordinance No. 263 on first reading, as amended, making "eating and drinking" places subject to a conditional use permit; motion passed 5: 0 by roll call vote. D. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 (Las Encinas I, portion of 3-F Meadows and portion of Tecorida Ave. ) A. Resolution No. 129-92 - Approving proposed boundaries of assessment district B. Resolution No. 130-92 - Appointing Bond Counsel and Assessment Engineer C. Resolution No. 131-92 - Declaring City's intention to acquire and/or construct improvements Greg Luke provided brief background and recommendation to approve the necessary resolutions to initiate an assessment district for areas within 3-F Meadows and Las Encinas I and a portion of Tecorida Avenue. There were no questions or comments from the Council or public. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Bewley to adoption Resolution No. 129-92 ; motion carried 5:0 by . roll call vote. MOTION: By Councilman Bewley, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to adoption Resolution No. 130-92 ; motion carried 5:0 by roll call vote. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Bewley to adoption Resolution No. 131-92 ; motion carried 5: 0 by roll call vote. 2. REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY SEWER SERVICE HOOK-UP A. Resolution No. 128-92 - Permitting temporary sewer hook- up to 8475 San Gabriel Road Steve DeCamp introduced the item and recommended approval of Resolution No. 128-92 . He reported that, although there was no immediate health concern, the septic system had failed and the situation needed immediate remedy. He clarified that staff was not suggesting that any other properties be hooked up at this time but were proposing that direction be given to initiate for considera- tion a General Plan text amendment to allow sewer hook-ups outside the Urban Services Line (USL) for selected, developed problem cc12/o8/92 Page 4 0000111 E sites. MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilman Kudlac to adopt Resolution No. 128-92 authorizing temporary sewer hook-up 8475 San Gabriel Road; motion carried unanimously by roll call vote. By consensus, Council directed staff to initiate a General Plan text amendment (to be included in the next cycle) allowing sewer hook-ups outside the USL for selected problem sines. 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CYCLE 92-2 - Initiation of October 1, 1992, cycle of proposed General Plan Amendments (two private requests and two City proposals) Steve DeCamp provided an explanation of four regxiests for General Plan amendments and presented an overview of the process. Councilman Luna indicated that he could not support GPA 92-6 and 92-7 because he was opposed to high density "fingers" of development. In light of this, he asked for separate motions. MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilman Bewley to direct staff to study proposed General; Plan Amendments 92-4 & 92-5; motion carried 5: 0 by roll call vote. MOTION: By Councilman Kudlac, seconded by Councilman Bewley to direct staff to study proposed General Plan Amendments 92-6 & 92-7 ; motion passed 4 : 1 (Luna opposed) . 4. ORDINANCE NO. 249 - Amending Map 4 of the Official Zoning Maps by rezoning certain real property at 905 El ';Camino Real from CT, RS(FH) , and L(FH) (Commercial Tourist, Residential Suburban, Recreation, Flood Hazard Overlays) to CPK and L (PD9) (FH) (Commercial Park and Recreation, Planned Development Overlay No. 9 and Flood Hazard Overlay) (ZC 02-91: Daven Investments) (Recommend motion to adopt on second reading by title only) The Mayor introduced the item. There were no comments from staff, Council or public. MOTION: By Councilman Bewley, seconded by Councilman Kudlac to adopt Ordinance No. 249 on second reading; motion carried 3 : 2 (Councilmembers Borgeson and Luna opposed) . 5. ORDINANCE NO. 262 - Amending Map 5 of the Official Zoning Maps by rezoning certain real property at 4500 Diel Rio Road from Public (P) to Residential Suburban (RS) (ZC 92-010: City of Atascadero) CC12/08/92 Page 5 000042 (Recommend motion to adopt on second reading by title only) There were no comments from staff, Council or public. Mayor Nimmo Is asked for a motion. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Kudlac to adopt Ordinance No. 262 on second reading; motion carried 5: 0 by roll call vote. 6. ORDINANCE NO. 264 - Amending Map 22 of the Official Zoning Maps by rezoning certain City-owned real property along Lakeview Drive (ZC 92-011: City of Atascadero) (Recommend motion to adopt on second reading by title only) The Mayor presented the item. There were no comments from staff, Council or public. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Luna to adopt Ordinance No. 264 on second reading; motion carried unanimously. 7. SELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSIONER FOR ECONOMIC ROUND TABLE Mayor Nimmo reported that five Planning Commissioners had expressed interest in being appointed to the Economic Round Table. Council- . man Luna requested that the selection process specified in City Resolution No. 35-81 be followed. The City Clerk issued ballots and following two rounds of voting, Commissioner Jim Edwards was appointed to the Economic Round Table. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1. City Manager The Manager, as a reminder, mentioned that the second meeting for December had been canceled and noted that the next meeting would be January 12, 1993. At 8:27 p.m. , the Mayor called a recess. At 8:45 p.m. , the City Council reconvened and adjourned to a Closed Session for purposes of discussions regarding personnel matters and pending litigation, entitled (a) City of Atascadero v. Fluitt, and (b) Prescott v. City of Atascadero. At 9:05 p.m. the Closed Session was adjourned. THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 1993. CC12/08/92 Page 6 0000,13 MINUTES RECO D AND PREPARED BY: LEE RABOIN, ity Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A - (Citizen Petition) CC12/08/92 Page 7 000044 � C� pdC� CC12/8/92 `4' CLERK'S OFFIP)RO Dear Atascadero City Council Members- Regarding James Grinnels request for zone change on his property . on Marchant St. ( intersections of Tecorida St . and Alcantatd SW We the undersigned residents of Atascadero do hereby CohcUt with the planning commissions decision to allota "AM08 MVNT SMIctth as a "CONDITIONAL USF" We further ask the CothCii to allots "EATING AND DRINKING PLACES" as a "CONDITIONAL OSE'' for this property . We do not want any BARS in our neighborhood of a nice residehtifii area of homes. Thank you for your consideration, NAME ADDRESS DATS 519 IfNo U. i l' c7-,l"X-L t�`)'��i �1��'Lr+-,�t (.�, -s,5 G� %%�i -c-/r�i <;/-• l+�?`"�S G�i��j^D //-/(�J a - 000045 CC12/8/92 FCCIITYY EXHIBIT "All Page 2 992 Dear Atascadero City Council Members: LERKSOFFIRCEE j Regarding James Grinnels request for zone change on his property on Marchant St. ( intersections of Tecorida St. and Alcantara St.) We the undersigned residents of Atascadero do hereby concur with the planning commissions decision to allow "AMUSEMENT SERVICES" as a "CONDITI,ONAL USE" We further ask the council to allow "EATING AND DRINKING PLACES" as a "CONDITIONAL USE" for this property. We do not want any BARS in our neighbbrhood of anice residential area of homes. Thant; you for your consideration . NAME ADDRESS DK E /-zZ -p 7- -C rc -Ak CC12/8/92 EXHIBIT A" I ' 19T �. Dear Atascadero City Council Members: ,, 0}EER Regarding Jame's Grinnels request for zone change on his property on Marchant St- (intersections of Tecorida St. and Alcantara St.) We the undersigned residents of Atascadero do hereby concur with the planning commissions decision to allow "'AMUSEMENT SERVICES" as a ."CONDITIONAL USE" We further ask the council to allow "EATING AND DRINKING PLACES" as a "CONDITIONAL USE" for this property. We do not want any BARS in our neighborhood of a nice residential area of homes. Than); you for your consideration. NAME ADDRESS DATE ' c e1 >11 J7./zJa�i' A. Ai LH a- �JLtrytel. --- r , t� X'�, ,.Lr.f �'�..L �:F.'>t..,,/ �.f y<`�-, r c`r.�4�...c •� L(.t� � �- '� _ cJ Z � 03 �• CG1� - >llii� yi ;1, ky.5 yylo/:c �i.:�il� rr- 22— q 0000417 M EXHIBIT "A" Page 4 r CftY F ATASCADERO Dear Atascadero City Council Members: CI71f LERK'SOFFICE Regarding James Grinnels request for zone change '; on his property on Marchant St. ( intersections of Tecorida St. and Alcantara St.) We the undersigned residents of Atascadero do hereby concur with the planning commissions decision to allow "AMUSIEMENT SERVICES" as a "CONDITIONAL USE" We further ask the council to allow "EATING AND DRINKING PLACES" as a "CONDITIONAL USE" for this property . We do not want any BARS in our neighborhood of a ! nice residential area of homes. Thank you for your consideration. NAME ADDRESS BETE 7 At C 3 C •1-T i wC+ XCZ �CZ `_ O�.�Ji- (�� ,��(���-a `���L-�l�Zj t `"' ��!-IZ 4i( L IJ&L6) J y r(I q Avz;-, U -1 G� (-v4 R, k CA--AV v-\ar\ v c� 000048 CC12/8/92 {{�� { M — '!EXHIBIT "A" n j Page 5 U 1, CITY Of ATASCADERO Dear Atascadero City Council Members: 16 CITYCLERWSOFFICE Regarding James Grinnels request for zone change on his property on Marchant St. ( intersections of Tecorida St . and Alcantara St.) We the undersigned residents of Atascadero do hereby concur with the planning commissions decision to allow "AMUSEMENT SERVICES" as a "CONDITIONAL USE" We further ask the council to allow "EATING AND DRINKING PLACES" as a "CONDITIONAL USE" for this property. We do not want any BARS in our neighborhood of a nice residential area of homes. Thank you for your consideration. NAME ADDRESS DATE r to vM. S z Y --T Lucy • V2 1 ) SELL j - CAD�20C _ C1,12. 0000 CC12/8/92 EXHIBIT "A" �e6 1 1 Dear Atascadero City Council Members: CITY OFATASCADERO CM CLERK'S OFFICE + Regarding James Grinnels request for zone change on his property on Marchant St. ( intersections of Tecorida St . and Alcantara St.) We the undersigned residents of Atascadero do hereby concur with the planning commissions decision to allow "AMUSEMENT SERVICES" as a "CONDITIONAL USE" We further ask the council to allow "EATING AND DRINKING PLACES" as a "CONDITIONAL U$E" for this property. We do not want any BARS in our neighborhood of a ',nice residential area of homes . Thank you for your consideration. - P NAME ADDRESS DATE A&— rrn - 130rfz� 5 � e- s (1I1.f1(��;fl • Agenda Item: B-2 Meeting Date: 01/26/93 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 12, 1993 MINUTES The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.rh. Councilperson Luna led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: t Present: Councilmembers Bewley, Borcleson, Luna and Mayor Nimmo Absent: Councilman Kudlac Also Present: Muriel "Micki" Korba, City Treasurer and Lee Raboin, City Clerk Staff Present: Ray Windsor, City Manager; Andy Takata, Assis- tant City Manager/Director of Community Services; Henry Engen, Community Development . Director; Art Montandon, City Attorney; Mark Joseph, Administrative Serivices Director; Steve Sylvester, City Engneer; Lt. John Barlow, Police Department and Mark Markwort, Chief of Waste Water Operations COUNCIL COMMENTS: Councilwoman Borgeson reported that she had received numerous telephone calls from residents regarding flooding; on City streets, particularly on San Anselmo and Sycamore. Other falls, she added, pertained to the proposed ordinance on secondary] dwellings. Ms. Borgeson asked staff to provide a description' of "affordable housing" as part of the report when the matter 'comes before the Council on January 26th. Mayor Nimmo announced that Item #D-3 would be Continued to the meeting of January 25th because there would not be a quorum of councilmembers present to act on the matter. He noted that Councilman Kudlac was absent and indicated that two members of the Council would have to step down from deliberations) due to potential conflicts of interest. COMMUNITY FORUM• During the next thirty minutes, the following members of the public . spoke in opposition to the newly-constructed rai$ed median at the CC 01/12/93 Page 1 000051. 1 south end of El Camino Real (and any future medians proposed for construction in the downtown) : Jay DeCou, DeCou Lumber at 8965 El Camino Real, spoke on behalf of residents at California Manor and Rancho Del Bordo Mobilehome Park. He said he had a petition with 1, 505 signatures of citizens in opposition and proclaimed that those protesting were prepared to make a class-action suit, if necessary, to stop the project. Mary Joan Wallace, Rancho Del Bordo resident, expressed distress for safety and asked for more signage and painted curbs. Jack Wallace, 10025 El Camino Real, shared concern for ambulance access to Rancho Del Bordo and California Manor. He asked if a stop light on El Camino in front of the State Hospital had been considered and cautioned against restricting parking on the street. Norman Young, 9184 Birch Street, asserted that the median should be removed and a traffic signal installed. Ed Biaggini, owner of the small lot subdivision under construction at 10700 El Camino Real, criticized City staff for not informing him that the median would be constructed. He argued that his project would be negatively impacted by it. Michael Goodman, Outlet Tool Supply at 8040 El Camino Real, said he was concerned about large trucks being able to negotiate turns and make deliveries. In addition, he indicated he was worried that the • median would effect shopping convenience. Dan Phillips, The Barber Shop at 8055-A El Camino Real, urged Council to get rid of the median and install a traffic signal. Angel York, 10048 Catalpa, objected to the planting of trees in the median because they would require additional street maintenance and water during a time of drought. ---End of Public Testimony--- Staff responded to a number of issues raised by those who testified: Henry Engen indicated that a change work order was being processed to cut a left turn pocket for emergency vehicle access only near California Manor and Rancho Del Bordo. He also reported that Atascadero State Hospital has asked for a traffic signal at the entrance on El Camino Real as part of proposed annexation and noted that a traffic study at that location will be done. Continuing, Mr. Engen mentioned that Atascadero is in line for a CC 01/12/93 Page 2 O(1Q+`:'.1.. � number of grants for bikeways and indicated that design details are presently being drafted. In closing, he remarked that the policy for additional medians will be before the Planning Commission as part of the public hearing on the Circulation Element scheduled for March 2 , 1993 . Steve Sylvester reported that curbs will soon be painted at appropriate locations where the median has been constructed. In the interim, he added, signs will be posted to eliminate confusion. Lt. Barlow commented that the Police Department has not issued any citations for traffic violations as a result of the newly- constructed median. He stated that once painting and striping has been completed, the department will continue to observe and analyze potential problems. Councilman Luna suggested that DKS & Associates, Circulation Element Consultant, should look at streets in the area, like Catalpa (a dead end) , and assess whether putting some of those streets through would take some pressure off El Camino Real. Councilwoman Borgeson asked for assurance from staff that no additional construction would begin on any other ':medians along El Camino Real until the matter has been brought before the Commission and Council . Mr. Engen assured her it would not and reiterated that the matter would be before the Commission in March. Mayor Nimmo sympathized with the concerns shared and encouraged the public to express their views. He stated that the center turn lane on El Camino Real has become extremely dangerous and projected that it would become more dangerous as time goes by. The problem, he continued, would have to be addressed in order to maximize safety and convenience with as little damage to personal interests as possible. The Mayor pointed out that there had been a noticed public hearing where a map was displayed illustrating the proposed center divider and every intersection. He noted that while it was not well-attended, City staff had done what was legally necessary and closed by urging public participation in future public hearings. Additional Public Comment: Corless Thomas, property owner at 8040 El Camino Real, asked how large trucks are expected to maneuver U-turns. Henry Engen stated that this question would be referred to the design engineers. Allowable time having elapsed, the Mayor closed the Community Forum. CC 01/12/93 Page 3 O 0 0 is')It . '> A. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent ad hoc or standing committees. Informative status reports were given, as follows. ) : 1. S.L.O. Council of Governments (COG) - Mayor Nimmo reported that COG had met the week before and had received extensive public comment about unmet transit and biking needs. No action was taken. 2 . Solid/Hazardous Waste Task Force - Councilwoman Borgeson indicated that Kelly Heffernon had attended the last meeting and received a general overview of the Household Hazardous Waste Element. Ms. Borgeson indicated that a second Council workshop will soon be necessary to study the Source Reduction and Recycling Element in more depth. 3 . City/School Committee - Ray Windsor announced that the committee would meet on January 21, 1993 at 1: 30 p.m. in the School District office. 4 . County Water Advisory Board - Councilwoman Borgeson reported that the board had elected committee officers on January 6, 1993 and noted that she had been re-elected Vice President. She explained that the general topic of discussion was the State Water Project and explained that although the board was scheduled to review contracts for State Water, it had not done so because they were not available. Ms. Borgeson also shared a portion of a letter drafted by Clinton Milne, County Engineer, expressing concerns relating to costs associated with State Water. 5 . Liability Claims Review & Finance Committee - Councilman Luna reported that the committee had met on December 30, 1992 and reviewed long range assumptions for the 93-94 fiscal year. B. CONSENT CALENDAR: Mayor Nimmo read the Consent Calendar, as follows: 1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 10, 1992 2 . CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 24, 1992 3. CITY TREASURER' S REPORT - * NOVEMBER DECEMBER, 1992 * Note: Item #B-3 was corrected, see page 7) . CC 01/12/93 Page 4 4. RESOLUTION NO. 01-93 - AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT ''WITH NORTH COAST ENGINEERING TO PROVIDE FOR EXPANDED ENGINEERING SERVICES S. ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL PARCEL MAP 32-90, 585, 6945 and 685 GARCIA ROAD - Subdivision of three lots of 12 . 5 acres into four parcels of 3 . 12 acres each (Langille/Twin Cities Engineering) 6. RESOLUTION NO. 02-93 - ACCEPTING OBISPO ROAD INTO THE CITY- MAINTAINED SYSTEM 7. RESOLUTION NO. 04-93 - AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND B & B AMUSEMENTS FOR SPECIAL EVENT TO BEHELD IN APRIL AT PALOMA CREEK PARK MOTION: By Councilman Bewley, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to approve the Consent Calendar; motion" carried 4 : 0. C. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. ORDINANCE NO. 246 - AMENDING TITLE 7 (SANITATION ORDINANCE) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE CONNECTION TO PUBLIC SEWER IN "CEASE & DESIST" AREAS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION (Recommend (1) motion to waive reading in full and read by title only, and (2) motion to introduce on first reading by title only) Henry Engen provided an introduction to the item and indicated that Mark Markwort, Chief of Waste Water Operations, was present to respond to questions. Responding to inquiry from Councilman Bewley, Mr. Markwort reported that the City was up-to-date with Regional Water, Quality Control Board mandates, with the exception of Cease & Desist areas. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Luna to waive the reading in full of Ordinance No. 246; motion carried. MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilman Bewley to introduce Ordinance No. 246 on first 'reading; motion carried 4 : 0 by roll call vote. D. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. LETTER FROM SLOCOG REGARDING FREEWAY CALL BOXES Mayor Nimmo introduced the item and indicated that Peter Rodgers, COG representative, was present to respond to questions. The Mayor added that he personally did not see the need to conduct a feasibility study because the costs are already known. CC 01/12/93 Page 5 Public Comments: Is Pete Rodgers reported that he was going to each jurisdiction in the County to gauge the level of support for the program. He spoke in support of studying the concept and stated that all costs associated with the program are not known. Mr. Rodgers remarked that the study would be conducted in-house by COG staff and would be funded by their overall working budget. Individual Council comments followed. Councilmembers Luna, Borgeson and Bewley indicated that they were not in favor of the study or local installation of call boxes. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Luna to convey to the Council of Governments that the City of Atascadero is opposed to authorizing a feasibility study for freeway call boxes; motion carried 4 : 0. 2. CITY HALL SPACE USE ALTERNATIVES - LOCATION FOR LOAVES & FISHES Andy Takata reported that he had met with representatives from the Atascadero Historical Society and Loaves & Fishes to discuss other alternatives. He stated that the Historical Society was willing to let Loaves & Fishes use the Historical Society House in exchange for a long-term lease on the Lower Rotunda in City Hall. Mr. Takata indicated that, all things considered, this option was preferable. Public Comments: George Merit, representing Loaves & Fishes, reported that although they had hoped for space within City Hall, the Historical Society House would meet their needs. By consensus of the Council, staff was directed to work with both groups to secure the use of the Historical Society House by Loaves & Fishes, and to prepare and bring back a long-term lease with the Atascadero Historical Society for use of the Lower Rotunda. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 03-93 - CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF PORTIONS OF SAN MARCOS AND VISTA ROADS INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED SYSTEM This matter continued to January 26, 1993 (see page 1) . 4 . ORDINANCE NO. 263 Amending Map 17 of the Official Zoning Maps by rezoning certain real property at 5000, 5020, 5040, 5060 Marchant Ave. from CP(FH) to CT(FH) (PD10) (ZC 92-008 : Grinnell) CC 01/12/93 Page 6 (Recommend motion to adopt on second reading by title only) Henry Engen introduced the item and explained than Exhibit "B" to the ordinance had been amended as directed by Council. MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilman Bewley to adopt Ordinance No. 263 on second reading; motion carried -4 : 0 by roll call vote. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1. City Treasurer Micki Korba mentioned that Item #B-3 , Treasurer' s Report', was erroneously listed on the agenda face sheet as being for the month of December, 1992 . She noted that report was, in fact, for the month of November, 1992 . ADJOURNMENT• At 8 : 30 p.m. the Council adjourned to a Closed Session for the purpose of discussion regarding Labor Negotiations, pursuant to Govt. Code Sec. 54957 . 6 . From said Closed Session, the Council adjourned to 6 : 00 p.m. on January 26, 1993 , prior to the next regular meeting, for an Open Session for purposes of mid-year budget review. MINUTES _RECORDED AND)PREPARED BY: LEE RABOIN, City C erk CC 01/12/93 Page 7 X I I S REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-3 Through: Andy Takata, Assistant Meeting Date: 01/26/93 City Manager File lumber: TTM 14-89 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director „ SUBJECT: Consideration of time extension request for TentaGtive Tract Map 14-89 at 8625 Atascadero Avenue (Iverson/CentralCoast Engrg) RECOMMENDATION: Per the Planning Commission's recommendation, approval of a time extension to February 13, 1994 . BACKGROUND: On January 5, 1993 , the Planning Commission reviewed the above- referenced subject on its Consent Calendar. On ' a 7: 0 vote, the Commission recommended approval of a time extension for Tentative Tract Map 14-89 to February 13 , 1994 . HE:ph Attachment: Staff Report - January 5, 1993 cc: Clark Iverson Central Coast Engineering 0000314'. ITEM : A. 2 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: January 5, 1993 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Gary Kaiser, Associate Planner OP12'1 SUBJECT: Time Extension Request -- TTM #14-89 8625 Atascadero Avenue (Iverson/Central Coast Engr'g) RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends the requested one-year time extension be granted. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract Map #14-89 was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on January 16, 1990 and was approved by the City Council on February 13, 1990. This approval allowed the subdivision of two (2) existing lots into twenty-three (23) parcels, each of one-half acre, for single-family residential use. An initial one-year extension of this entitlement was granted by the City Council on March 10, 1992. This action extended the expiration date of the tentative map to February 13, 1993. On November 12, 1992, prior to the new expiration date, the subject extension request was received. It seems an additional window of time will be necessary to satisfy certain conditions of approval and record the final map. There have been no changes to the site or its surroundings, nor have there been any changes in the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or Subdivision Ordinance that warrant reconsidering the merits of this project or circumstances surrounding its approval. Staff therefore supports the applicant's request to extend the expiration date of the subject tentative tract map to February 13, 1994. Attachments: Attachment A -- Extension Request Attachment B -- Original staff report 00003 r ATTACHMENT A Request for Time Extensioi TTM #14-89 CENTRAL COAST ENGINEERING 3% Buckley Road 12 November 1992 San Luis Obispo E-557 California 93401 (805)544-3278 FAX(805)541-3137 City of Atascadero Planning Department 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Attn: D. Davidson Re:Tract 1753 (Iverson) Doug... Please begin processing Tract 1753 for it's second one year time extension. Enclosed is $330.00 fee and the copy of Henry's letter acknowledging approval of the previous extension. Thankx for your help... Dennis SZt #4 3C,s6� RECEIVED Novi 2 1992 . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT E557.wps 00005,1 ATTACHMENT B ( ( 9/18/89 staff report TTM #14-89 i CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: STAFF REPORT z i f' FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: September 19, 1989 BY: Doug Davidson, Associate Planner File No: TTM 14-89 SUBJECT: To consider a request to subdivide a portion of two existing lots (13. 9 acres total) into twenty-three (23) parcels of one- half acre each. The request includes the establishment of two 1 new City standard roads to serve the subdivision; via Tortuga and Calle Refugio. ' RECOMMMMATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map 14-89 based on the Findings for Approval in Exhibit C and Conditions of Approval in Exhibit D. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Clark Iverson 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Central Coast Engineering 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . .8625 Atascadero Ave. 4. Legal Description. . . . . . . . . . . .Lots 27 and 28, Blk. 7 5. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13.9 acres 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-X (Residential Single Family, minimum lot size one-half acre) 7. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Single Family 8 . Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Single family residential 9. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted September 5, 1989. 1 i 000055 �.� jF 1 BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract Map 01-89 (Tract Map 1671) was ',; approved by the Planning Commission on March 21, 1989 and subsequently approved by the City Council on April 11, 1989. The original application requested 22 lots of approximately one-half acre each. Upon review, the map was conditioned to reduce the number of lots from 22 to 21 to protect several heritage trees. Tract Map 1671 proposed and received approval of a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for the interior roads serving the project (Via Tortuga and Calle Refugio) . As stated by the Public Works Director at the March 21st meeting, the City standard right-of- way is forty (40) feet. Hence, the applicant has redrawn the map to reflect the City standard width, resulting in a twenty-three (23) lot subdivision. The applicant and his representative believe that the current proposal provides a better lot configuration and street alignment, with building sites outside the dripline of the site's heritage trees. ANALYSIS• Staff agrees with the applicant that this proposed subdivision is a preferable design to the original tract. The street connecting Atascadero Ave. and Coromar Rd. (Via Tortuga) is a straighter alignment with a forty (40) foot right-of-way. The proposed lot configurations are also an improvement, particulary the lots served by the cul-de-sac (Calle Refugio) . Thee lots (lots 14- 20) appear more orderly in shape and now do not exceed the 3:1 depth to width ratio. Heritage Oak Trees The Planning Commission' s major concern about the previous tract was the preservation of the heritage oak trees on lots #6 and #8. This concern resulted in the addition of condition #16, which required the combination of lots #6, 7, 8, and into three lots, as a protective measure for these trees. As Exhibit A shows, the proposed map provides a suitable building siteoutside the dripline of the two heritage trees on lot #8 . 'This building site located outside the driplines is at least 6, 000 square feet in size. On the previous map these two trees were located in the center of lot #8. Although the 60" oak on proposed lot #6 is now more centrally located, a 5, 600 square feet building site exists between the front 25 foot setback line and the dripline. Staff believes that all the native trees on this site will remain undisturbed during construction. With the site' s gentle slopes and the availability of all utilities, minimal grading or trenching will occur. The provision of sewer is particulary important because it eliminates the trenching and space required for septic systems. t 2 000056 l CONCLUSIONS: The proposed project is consistent with the City' s Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and General Plan. Residential Policy #11 merits repeating: "Attention shall be paid to the aesthetic result of land division. Building sites shall be encouraged on natural slopes, with minimal disruption of native vegetation and watersheds, and efficient layout of access and utilities." Staff believes that this revised map clearly upholds this policy, in fact, it is a better subdivision design than the previously approved tract. The proposed lots are drawn in an orderly fashion and all the building sites are suitable for residential development. The reduced right-of-way allows for a more direct road alignment, while still providing adequate access for residential traffic and safety vehicles. The recommended conditions of approval remain basically the same, with the exception of the deletion of #16 and changes to condition #4 for required road improvements per the Public Works Department. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Tentative Tract Map Exhibit B - Supplemental Development Statement Exhibit C - Findings for Approval Exhibit D - Conditions of Approval 3 r '• j EXHIBIT A CITY(( -' ATAS DER,... : . . y CA O TENTATIVE TRACT MAP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TTM 14-89 . ,� DEPARTMENT om !o fit ji { /�`�^ / s ia) s ` ii 41 ,r..1 w � W r � tc ..t- '•� � � �\ 1� (Cis�,;•t ' r EXHIBIT B CENTRAL COAST ENGINEERING 396 Bucklev Road July 8 i989 San Luis Obispo June 6, 1989 California 93401 COMMUNITY E557 - City of Atascadero Planning Department P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION TRACT 1753 At the request of Mr. Clark Iverson we are submitting the application for Tentative Map 1671. The following are enclosed: 1. Application Form 2. Fee $485.00 3. 15 Copies of Proposed Tentative Map & Grading Plan 4. Environmental-form 5. Prel iminary-Tile Report 6. Assessor Map�­-and Addresses of Adjacent Owner within 300 feet. 7. Labels of Addresses of Adjacent Owners within 300 feet. 8. 8 1/2" x 11" Reduction The proposed subdivision is a slight modification of Tract 1671 approved by the City April 11, 1989. The proposed Tract 1753 provides a better lot configuration and street alignment . Lots 15, '16 and 17 of the former tract had excess lot depth. This has been remedied . Because the City would accept a 40 foot right-of-way, the lot lines and street alignment would be altered to allow an additional lot. Except for Condition 16, all conditions of the formerly approved Tract 1671 are acceptable to the owner. The tract complies with existing zoning . No trees are disturbed and no lot grading is proposed. .H9 P 0933 The site has access to sewer, water, gas and power . The proposed street w i l l pr O v i de a needed cross tie between Atascadero Road and Coroma Street. The property has been owned by the same family for 57 years. Sincerely, Ben L. Maddalena City of Atasc.1025 f�ltta4+�4— f)Ooo r'o °� EXHIBIT C - Findings for Approval Tentative Tract Map 14-89 8625 Atascadero Rd. (Iverson/Central Coast Engineering) September 19, 1989 ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING: The proposed project will not have a significant impact upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. MAP FINDINGS: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. 2. The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. 3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. The design of the subdivision, and/or the proposed improvements, will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of the improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by i the public at large for access through or the use of =i property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7 . The design of the subdivision and/or the type of proposed i improvements will not cause serious public health problems. _ 3 , i 1 1 t 4 00'0061 �� EXHIBIT D - Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map 14-89 8625 Atascadero Ave. (Iverson/Central Coast Engineering) September 19, 1989 Revised by Planning Commission January 16, 1990 ' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual. Water Co. Water lines shall be extended to the frontage of each parcel or its public utility easement prior to the recording of the final map. 2. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easements are to be shown on the final map. ', If there are building or other restrictions related to the', easements, they shall be noted on the final map. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer at his sole eXpense. All utilities, including cable television, shall be placed underground and exist at the frontage of each lot'; prior to recording of the final map. 3. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans for each proposed lot, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to; recording of the final map. Drainage facilities shall be constructed to City of Atascadero standards and completed prior to recording of the final map. 4. Road improvement plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to recordation of the final map. Plans shall include, but not be limited to the following: a. Paveout on Atascadero Ave. to twenty (20) feet from centerline, including a design for a five (5) foot walkway along the property frontage. The paved half width of Coromar shall be 12 feet. Prior to recording the final map, a contribution of $1';.75 per square foot of walkway along the frontage of Atascadero Ave. and Coromar Rd. and the linear frontage of Via Tortuga, shall be made to the Routes to School fund. b. Improvement plans shall show the grading necessary to achieve the finish sidewalk grades along Atascadero Ave. and along both sides of the interior streets. .During construction, a five foot wide width shall be; graded to the finished sidewalk grades, in order to avoid the undercutting of landscaping and yards when the sidewalks are installed. fl(l�lnc•-� �� r ` C. The new interior roads (Via Tortuga and Calle Refugio) shall contain a paved roadway width between the face of curbs of 28 feet, including two 10 foot wide traffic lanes and one 8 foot wide parking lane, with curb and/or gutter as determined by the City Engineer. The center of the paved width shall be on the centerline of the right of way. The new roads shall be constructed to City standards and shall be accepted into the City maintained mileage after the required one year maintenance period, as determined by the City Engineer. d. The paved cul-de-sac radius shall be 48 feet with a minimum right of way radius of 54 feet. 5. Construction of the public improvements shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map. 6. Public improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department prior to recording the final map. 7. Sewer improvement plans shall require approval from the Public Works Department prior to recording of the final map. All newly created lots shall be connected to public sewer. , �. All annexation fees shall be paid for the newly formed lots prior to recording the map. Any sewer extensions for annexations must be completed within one year after annexation. 8. The subdivider shall install all street signs, traffic delineation devices, warning and regulatory signs, guardrails, barricades, and other similar devices where required by the Director of Public Works. Signs shall be in conformance with the Public Works Department sign standards and the current State of California uniform sign chart. Installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review and modifications after construction. 9. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department for all work to be done within the public right-of-way prior to recording of the final map. Applicant shall sign an inspection and curb/gutter agreement, guaranteeing that the work shall be done and inspections paid for prior to the start of public works construction. The construction of these improvements, as directed by the encroachment permit, shall be completed prior to recording the final map. 10. Prior to recording of the final map, a soils investigation shall be submitted, recommending corrective measures to prevent structural damage to each structure where soil problems exist. The, date of the report, name of the ' . engineer, and the location where the reports are on file shall be noted on the map. 000063 �``� 11. Parcels 1 and 23 shall have no direct access to Atascadero Ave, while Parcels 10 and 11 shall have no direct= access to Coromar Rd. Access to all lots of the tract shalj be from the new public roads. Relinquishment of access rights shall be shown on the final map*. 12. The applicant shall make an offer of dedication to the City for via Tortuga and Calle Refugio (40 foot right-of-way) . The offers of dedication shall also include public utility easements. All offers of dedication shall be recorded prior to or simultaneous to the recordation of the final. map. 13. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and tho City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be 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 submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. c. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 14. The Lot Line Adjustment (ATAL 88-299) shall be recorded prior to or simultaneous with the recording of the final map. 15. Approval of this tentative map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. 16. Tract 1671 is deemed withdrawn and no further processing will occur. 00001;4 �� REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda; Item: B-4 I Through: Andy Takata, Assistant Meeting` D_ate: 01/26/93 City Manager File Number: TTM 17-90 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director As SUBJECT: I Consideration of time extension request for Tentative Tract Map 17-90 at 5392 Barrenda Avenue (Lopez/Cuesta Engineering) RECOMMENDATION• Per the Planning Commission's recommendation, approval of a time extension to December 11, 1993 . BACKGROUND: On January 5, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the above- referenced subject on its Consent Calendar. On la 7:0 vote, the Commission recommended approval of a time extension for Tentative Tract Map 17-90 to December 11, 1993 . i E HE:ph Attachment: Staff Report - January 5, 1993 cc: Dan and Carol Lopez Cuesta Engineering 000065 s ITEM: A. 3 is M E M O R A N D U M DATE: January 5, 1993 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Gary Kaiser, Associate Planner&,"� SUBJECT: Time Extension Request -- TTM #17-90 5392 Barrenda Avenue (Lopez/Cuesta Engineering) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the requested one-year time extension be granted. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract Map #17-90 was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on November 20, 1990 and was approved by the City Council on December 11, 1990. This approval allowed the • creation of eight (8) residential airspace condominiums on an existing 0.68-acre lot. On December 9, 1992, prior to the expiration of this approved tentative map, the subject extension request was received. There have been no changes to the site or its surroundings, nor have there been any changes in the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or Subdivision Ordinance that warrant reconsidering the merits of this project or circumstances surrounding its approval. Staff therefore supports the applicant's request to extend the expiration date of the subject tentative tract map to December 11, 1993. Attachments: Attachment A -- Extension Request Attachment B -- November 20, 1990 staff report OU00(;6 , ATTACHMENT A Request for Time Extensic CUESTA ENGINEERING TTM #17-90 6717 Morro Road Atascadero,CA 93422 (805)466-6827 December 10, 1992 Henry Engen Commumity Development Department City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Subject: Tentative Tract Map 17-90 / Tract 2043 5392 Barrenda Avenue / Dan & Carol Lopez Dear Mr. Engen: The above tentative Tract Map is due to expire on December 11 , 1992. The owners have completed the improvement plans and building permit plains for the project, but have not started construction due to the slow economy and the abundance of condominium units on the market. They have, however, continued to pursue the project by requesting two time extensions to the Precise Plain to keep all of their approvals active to date. With this letter and the enclosed check for the $330.00 fee, we hereby request a time extension of Tentative Tract Map 17-90. Please contact me if you need any additional information. Thank you for your help with this matter. Sincerely, Deborah Hollowell 89-159 c: Dan & Carol Lopez 330 o0s. z1419Z tFC - 9 1992 � 3g3� CoQ!. 0�'lcLO�Mc"!7 000ct'7 ' ATTACHMENT B 11/20/90 staff report TTM #17-90 S CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-4 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: November 20, 1990 BY: Doug Davidson, Senior Planner File No: TTM 17-90 SUBJECT: To consider a request to subdivide one lot into eight (8) airspace condominiums and a common area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map 17-90 based on the Findings for Approval in Exhibit B and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit C. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dan Lopez 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cuesta Engineering 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . .5392 Barrenda Ave. 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.68 acres 5. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF-16 6. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Multiple Family 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 8. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration Adopted May 29, 1990 BACKGROUND: On May 29, 1990, Precise Plan 27-90 became effective. This approval established conditions of development for an (8) eight unit multiple family project. The building permit application is currently being reviewed. ANALYSIS: In an airspace condominium project, the unit spaceskare individually owned, while the open space and parking area is owned in common. Private agreements (CC&Rs) ensure continued maintenance and enforce private regulations. The project provides separate utility meters, as well as an architectural and site design, that symbolizes a condominium development. The project meets the density, development, and appearance standards of the Zoning Ordinance as confirmed through. the Precise Plan. This application is not subject to the current moratorium, nor would it fall under the provisions of the draft Condominium Conversion Ordinance as written. The moratorium and impending regulations apply only to condominium conversions -' projects receiving final inspection as apartments and availalble for rent. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed project presented no concerns to any of the outside agencies. The required public improvements triggered by this' development have been reviewed and approved through the Precise Plan approval and issuance of building permits. With a corresponding subdivision approval, the required improvements must be completed before the map records or prior t4 final building inspection, whichever comes first. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Tentative Tract Map Exhibit B - Findings for Approval Exhibit C - Conditions of Approval Exhibit 5 Precise Plan 27-902 1 CXHIBIT A CITY OF ATASCADERO TENTATIVE MAP COMMUNI'T'Y DEVELOPMENT TTM 17-90 DEPARTMENT000M STARMW r wa.wtr M.Iwo�tttr�sr...wwt�.�rr -. ••1 Wv K�r•r t..�AY•ri r Y.�4�K iA I�..r�l Nr•Ir K Yr It.t�.1♦M {tw ��� .' , t �T MN.►IYu.1f.II, .MN �•.qlw { u'w• � •l Wwo ut•.wew.tr+s.rltri� • � .. ,(� rnac, 1u It nv• R tr ♦ �' dw Y/LA'V/lr NA/ ♦� 2 • -WON" TENTAME TRACT 2043 �%G1It Mf`!v RSM .1OfA a W"v 9 1'Ium c h .M�1 O h 1 or f w tool M fi• / '1�I.L IIY.Y/fR �a..ogmm 0 .flo "s a a /owmw. C.• �Wit�l r.••f✓tt WjlrR: Y Mf Y Wo Lw ft •.COIR/.t•tq If-• • • CN..e..�....�. '^d' :� ' ' CUESTA ENGINF:F:I?ING y.• nrea-,a'.Inr�al.t«.wtLi.r►w► t'M+r s- .LO"• 7 - on?ams w . . •nsc.oaq tw•w. ��lu -- ftltl IN I 0000'%0 ��' EXHIBIT B - Findings for Approval 0 Tentative Tract Map 17-90 5392 Barrenda Ave. (Lopez/Cuesta Engineering) November 20, 1990 ENVIROrII4ENTAL FINDING: A Negative Declaration has been previously prepared '', (May 8, 1990) and adopted (May 29, 1990) as a part of Precise Plan 27-90. MAP FINDINGS: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. 2. The design and/or improvements of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. 3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. The design of the subdivision, as conditioned, and the proposed improvements, will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of the improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or the use of property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The design of the subdivision and/or the type of proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems. 000071 \' EXHIBIT C - Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map 17-90 . 5392 Barrenda Ave. (Lopez/Cuesta Engineering) November 20, 1990 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. All relocation and/or alteration of, existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer at his sole expense. 2. Construction of the public improvements as directed by Precise Plan 27-90 shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map. All public improvements shall be covered by a 100 percent Performance Bond and a 100% Labor and Material Bond until construction is deemed substantially complete and by a 10 percent Maintenance Bond until one year after substantial completion. 3. All conditions of Precise Plan 27-90 shall be completed prior to final building inspection of any unit. 4. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control of nuisances, and architectural control of the site and buildings. a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney and the Community Development Director prior to approval of the final map. b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by a Condominium Owners Association. 5. The open space/common lot shall be designated as a Public Utilities Easement. 6. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor as required by the Land Surveyors Act and Subdivision Map Act. Monuments set within the road right-of-way shall conform to City standard drawing M-1. 0000 d , '� b. Pursuant to Section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act the engineer or surveyor shall notify the City '!.Engineer in writing when the monuments- have been set. c. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. d. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 7. Approval of this tentative map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extensionof time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. 000073 ,�� REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda( Item• B-5 Through: Andy Takata, Assistant Meeting Date: 01/26/93 City Manager File Number: TTM 92001 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Dire ptorX SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Tract Map 92001 to create eight (8) airspace condominium units within approved commercial buildings at 9955 and 9965 El Camino Real (Golden West Development/Volbrecht Surveys) . RECOMMENDATION• Acceptance of Final Tract Map 92001. BACKGROUND: On June 23 , 1992, the City Council conducted a pubic hearing on the above-referenced tract map. Council agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation and tentatively approved Tract Map 92001 subject to the Findings and the Revised Con .tions of Approval. All conditions have been completed by theapplicant. HE:ph Attachment: Location Map cc: Golden West Development Volbrecht Surveys 000011711 • if a„ I • 1 i � i f I l REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-6 Through: Andy Takata, Asst. City Manager Meetixig Date: 1-26-93 From: Henry Engen, Dir. Community Developme#�t AC SUBJECT: Modification of Sewer Extension Reimbursement Agreement with Atascadero Unified School District. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends that Council approve the modifications as presented in attached Exhibit "A" . BACKGROUND: When the sewer main was constructed for thenew San Gabriel Road School the City and the AUSD entered into !a Reimbursement Agreement to enable the district the recover a portion of their costs. The current agreement calls for the cost to 10e divided based upon the front footage of the property. This method is inequitable as the benefit is not increased or decreased by the size of the property. A more equitable method is to divide the total construction costs by "benefit unit" whereby each parcel is charged an equal amount. Approval has been received from the District for this change. FISCAL IMPACT• None Attachment: Exhibit "A" Original Reimbursement Agreement 000076. Amendment to: SEWER EXTENSION REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT Atascadero Unified School District The Sewer Extension Reimbursement Agreement executed between the Atascadero Unified School District (AUSD) and the City of Atascadero is hereby amended as follows: Portion of Item 4 : Delete the following paragraph: "The amount to be paid by each parcel, upon connection, shall be an amount, based upon the comparative size of each parcel (front footage) in relation to the total size of all of the above indicated parcels combined. This same method of calculation shall also apply to any new parcels created out of the territory comprising the above indicated parcels after the effective date of this agreement and continuing during the entire term thereof. " Replace the above statement with the following: "The amount to be paid by each parcel, upon connection, shall be $4745. 00 which represents the total expenditure by the AUSD divided by the number of benefitting properties. " CITY OF ATASCADERO APP RO ED BY: AritAAy Avina, d. D. ROBERT P. NIMMO, Mayor District SuperIntendent Atascadero Unified School District APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk 0000'7'7 CITY OF ATASCADERO (ACSD) Sewer Extension Reimbursement Agreement WHEREAS, on November 24, 1986, the City of Atascadero approved an agreement between the City and the Atascadero Unified 'School District for the extension of the city sewer service to the San Gabriel Road school site. WHEREAS, on said date the City did adopt Resolution No. > 131-86. WHEREAS, Resolution 131-86 specified that the School .; j District shall be entitled to reimbursement under the terms of the ordinance, Section NOW, THEREFORE, This agreement, made and entered 'into this 23rd day of February 1987 by the Atascadero Unfied School Dis- trict in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, hereinafter referred to as the District and '; the City of Atas- cadero (ACSD) in the County of San Luis Obispo, California, 'hereinafter referred to as the City. WITNESSETH In consideration of the mutual promises, agreements, covenants and conditions set forth herein, and in consideration of the final approval of said sewer extension, the parties hereto . do hereby mutually covenant and agree as follows: - 1. That the recitals set forth hereinabove are true, cor- rect and valid. 2. _ That the District owns real property described as ' 'San Gabriel Road Elementary School, 8500 ;San Gabriel Road, Atascadero, CA 93422. 3. That in the construction of an approved sewer extension, - the District will award a bid to the lowest responsible bidder for the construction of the approved sewer ex- tension. The bid price, and any approved change orders, and including engineering costs, minus the school front- age, shall constitute the total funds expended which shall be subject to recovery under the reimbursement agreement. .4. That the District is entitled to refunds of portions of said expensitures, from the time of completion of con- struction, at such time within fifteen ; (15) years fol- lowing the date of the execution of this Agreement as additional connections are made to said sewer extension, from the following parcels: 00001 S r All Assessor 's Block 8 54-151-13, 21, 25, 26, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36 , 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 45, 46. 54-241-02, 03, 18, 21, 22, 25, 27, 37. 54-231-18 56-351-19, 24, 33, 35. The amount to be paid by each parcel, upon connection, shall be an amount, based upon the comparative size of each parcel (front footage) in relation to the total size of all the above indicated parcels combined. This same method of calculation shall also apply to any new parcels created out of the ' territory comprising the above indicated parcels after the effective date of this agreement and continuing during the entire term thereof. 5. (a) The City will collect the amounts applicable in Section 4 from the owners of. real properties within _ fifteen (15) years following the date of execution of this agreement as permits are issued for connection of _ said real properties to said sewer extension. 5. (b) If any portion subject to reimbursement has not been reimbursed at the end of 15 years following the date of execution of the agreement, the terms of the agreement are extended for an additional five (5) years. 6. All monies collected in accordance with Item 5, above, will be refunded to the District.. 7. District further agrees to defend, indemnify and save - harmless the City of Atascadero (ACSD) and their of- ficers, agents and employees from any and all liability, claims, demands, costs, expenses, causes of action, - damages and judgments, of whatsoever kind and nature and to whomsoever occurring, arising out of this Agreement - or occasioned by the performance or attempted perfor- mance hereof, including but not limited to any act or omission to act on the part of the Distrct or its agents or employees or independent contractors directly re- sponsible to the Distict. 8. Neither party to this Agreement shall assign or transfer this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written consent of the other party. 9. Any waiver by City of any failure by District to comply with any - term or condition of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver by City of any similar or other failure by the District to comply with any term and con- dition of this Agreement. 00001':9 4 10. This Agreement shall be binding on the heirs, assigns, transferees, executors, successors, administrators and trustees of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF City and District have 4,executed this Agreement on the day and year first hereinabove set forth. On motion by Board Member MOLINA and seconded by Board Member HANDSITY the foregoing is adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote. (*See vote, below signat es) Approved as to Form: CADERO ISD S DISTRICT: Af 4 7to Fy RT JYR�`ANTH INAi 'y School S erintendent Approved as to Content: ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTIRCr: 71 AUL M. SENSI . MA RIE'... R. MACKEY Public Works Director Pre ident ATTEST: MICHAEL b. Secretary 'aa AYES: DIRECTORS HANDSITY, MOLINA, NORRIS AND CHAIRMAN MACKEY NOES: DIRECTOk BORGESON ABSENT: NONE 000080 I 1 • �d V V � Q 2 Q �p O J Q N Q ost-oa n� O< i lo .r � h � ��w « M •f �/1/� � � - N II.YII �f YJC • C ------` a<s -wMi NSA co 1 _ 1p in z 4n 3t ke CL - Q ��♦ �ti� iF ' - w SrI d iT'Nr 1 Jam- c � ► �1'3L••►,1• e � I ~ O Oo 4 ©O r V a Q� A UN -Ind (ovoa 01,11011) N j I4 'ON QMH 31v1S ' mO i 6 ON S38 H3380 p� •X�' M ]Y ZIA Z V i r - _ 1 i 2 ' O � � ,o�d'v •° Q V CL Z Wm ' � p 0J a � N j cQi ti g+oa U Q = •M - 1\ _ t• a ha pd tv Eli �r � �N ��J' �f��j.\ � 7 jJO.►9N 3 i Alp', fedr _ O c a CL > a ® oil W Q 1 y i e i c} =o 7�•A N no -q h N 0000132 - i a cc �- y Q NbS v 4 Rtiay0 i QCCmLL 7Q `10 o 4- aCf OJ i O � a - ; r � .Cu V • V e ` o 1 \ °• p N J�•«N c'I©� . t ( Q - •• OZ MI •'o z I R MelI ' 8 cc `j vi ter• Q � o L" 000083 - - r�N.rrrr.rrrl�i� - - - __. .� .. I► - �o --- o g o CO 0 � i N � f- Q M6 `# cc M M, r � .0 rM O f W i' W a .�a ,OG•�N � ',, p 4 �L. b — _-_-----_�----f ---------- �= lW t P � Z i ------------- - ----------- w w td -- --_— ----------- ICO M / y O /� `\\\ \ .[`� \ale ` ---•�.ff:</•- It t J \\Q� 0 f ARD �oO ash p t �h � 0000811 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: B-7 CITY OF ATASCADERO Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 1/27/93 From: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Diroctorfyff6 3 SUBJECT: Approving a more cost-effective service agreement for the City' s Accounting Software. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 6-93, authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Computer Prof6ssionals, Unlimited to support the City' s accounting and general government software. BACKGROUND: E In FY 90-91 the City purchased new hardware a id software for the Finance, Personnel and City Clerk' s Offices. As with most specialized software, the City has paid for ongoinj phone and programming support to assure the City' s Personnel, payroll, accounting and recordkeeping functions operate wit,i as little interruption as possible. During the FY 92-93 budget hearings Council directed staff to explore more cost-effective service agreements io support this software. After review, staff has identified two lviable options: the existing vendor, Corbin Willits Systems (CWS) and Computer Professionals, Unlimited (CPU) , which consists of programmers who originally worked for CWS and, in fact, developed many of the software modules the City currently uses. ANALYSIS• The existing contract charges a flat $573 permonth for routine support - resolving minor problems or "bugls" . Custom programming is charged at $94 per hour. The City is entitled to one software update per year, which consists of a variety of program upgrades recommended by all of CWS clients;. CPU is offering the same support for a flat $0100 per month, or 12 percent less. CPU' s custom programming charje is $40.00 per hour, less than half the CWS rate. In addition, CPU will offer one day of on-site support (usually for training) at a discounted $30.00 per hour. CWS charges $700 per day for on-site training. Although CPU does not offer an annual update, its hourly rate is such that the City would be able to'ireceive considerable customized support for the money saved from the monthly rate alone. Both firms will supply up-dated State and Federal Tax tables. i r 0000b5 Clearly, CPU is more cost-effective. In addition, the key programmers are experienced with the software currently being used -- no transition problems are expected. Phone support is expected to be better than at present. is V. As the attached sheet shows, CPU' s official rates are slightly higher than noted in this report or included in the recommended contract. This reflects a special discounted rate extended to the City of Atascadero as a result of the long-term working relationship between Rudy Hernandez and the principal programmer of CPU, Andy Do. Renewal of the contract (June, 1994) is expected to be at the higher rate. FISCAL IMPACT The City will save $875 per year on monthly charges if CPU is used. Additional savings will occur if custom programming is required, such as improving upon standard reports or software revisions to enhance office productivity. a:software #3a 000086 i COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS U N L I M I T E D In ormatlon Management f g t Consultants STANDARD SERVICE FEES All of our services are charged by'the hour with a minimum of half an hour and are as follows: Consultation & Evaluation $ 70.00 an hour Training $ 90.00 an hour Programming & Installation $ 110.00 an hour MONTHLY SERVICE AGREEMENT CPU offers a Monthly Service Agreement plan that entitles you, as a privileged customer, to discounted benefits and free-of-charge services. The outline of the agreement is as follows: I - Cost A monthly fee of$ 500.00. II- Discounted Benefits a. Consultation &Evaluation fee is reduced to $ 60.00 an hour. • b. Training fee is reduced to $ 70.00 an hour. c. Programming &Installation fee is reduced to $ 80.00 an hour. d. Upon the customer's request, one day per year can be used for on site sbrvice at a discounted rate of $60.00 an hour. This does not apply to services that already have been;rendered. III - FREE-OF-CHARGE Services a. Unlimited phone support for procedural inquiries about your accounting package, office automation softwares, and/or your computer system. b. Unlimited phone and/or modem support for bug fixes. Bug fixes refer to discrepancies in your accounting package only. They do not include features or functionalities that were not part of the original package. c. Unlimited consultation&evaluation services that can be performed in one hour or less. d. Unlimited programming&installation services that can be performed in half an hour or less. REFERENCES We encourage you to contact our customers, or let us be your tour guide to our:customers' sites to personally experience the success and satisfaction from our services. City of Lathrop Mr. Rodney Davenport (209)858-2049 City of Atascadero Mr. Rudy Hernandez (805)461-5076 14956 Portofino Circle San Leandro CA 94578 510 357 9811 000087 RESOLUTION NO. 6-93 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS UNLIMITED TO PROVIDE SOFTWARE SUPPORT SERVICES. The City Council of the City of Atascadero, California, hereby resolves as follows: 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute an agreement with: Computer Professionals Unlimited to provide software support services, and all other agreements or documents required to effectuate the terms of agreement. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to make minor corrections or modifications of a mathematical or clerical nature, including adjustments to insurance requirements. 3. The Finance Director is hereby authorized to: appropriate funds, if necessary; release and expend funds; and issue warrants to comply with the terms of this agreement. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of City Council of the City of Atascadero held on the day of , 1993. CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By: ROBERT P. NIMMO, Mayor ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk n00Qbb Contract No. AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES OF CONTRACTOR or CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT This agreement is made upon the date of execution, as set forth below, by and between Computer Professionalsr Unlimited, hereinafter referred to as "Contractor", and the City of Atascadero, California, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City" . The parties hereto, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, hereby agree to the following terms and conditions: 1:00 GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.01 TERM: This agreement will become effective on the date of execution set forth below, and will continue in effect until terminated as provided herein. 1. 02 SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CONTRACTOR: Contractor agrees to perform or provide the services specified in "Description of Services" attached hereto as 'OExhibit A" hereby incorporated herein. Contractor shall determine the method, details and means of performing the above-referenced services. Contractor may, at Contractor' s own expense, employ such assistants as Contractor deems necessaryto perform the services required of Contractor by this agreement. City may not control, direct or supervise Contractor' s assistants or employees in the performance of those services. 1. 03 COMPENSATION: In consideration for the services to be performed by Contractor, City agrees to pay Contractor the consideration set forth in the amounts and under the terms provided in "Exhibit B" , hereby incorporated herein. 2.00 OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTOR 2. 01 MINIMUM AMOUNT OF SERVICE BY CONTRACTOR: ':. Contractor agrees to devote the hours necessary to perform the services set forth in this agreement in an efficient and effective manner. Contractor may represent, perform services for and be employed by additional individuals or entities, in Con- tractor' s sole discretion, as long as the performance of these extra-contractual services does not interfere with or presents a conflict with City' s business. Revised 6/92 1 000089 2.02 TOOLS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES: Contractor shall provide all tools and instrumentalities to perform the services under this agreement except those listed in "Tools and in- strumentalities provided by City" attached hereto as "Exhibit C" and hereby incorporated herein. 2.03 WORKER'S COMPENSATION AND OTHER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS: City and Contractor intend and agree that Contractor is an independent contractor of City and agrees that Contractor and Contractor' s employees and agents have no right to work- er' s compensation and other employee benefits. If any worker insurance protection is desired, Contractor agrees to provide worker' s compensation and other employee benefits, where required by law, for Contractor' s employees and agents. Contractor agrees to hold harmless and indemnify City for any and all claims arising out of any claim for injury, disability, or death of any of Contractor and Con- tractor' s employees or agents. 2.04 INDEMNIFICATION: Contractor hereby agrees to, and shall, hold City, its elective and appointive boards, of- ficers, agents and employees, harmless and shall defend the same from any liability for damage or claims for damage, or suits or actions at law or in equity which may allegedly arise from Contractor' s or any of Contractor' s employees' or agents' operations under this agreement, whether such opera- tions be by Contractor or by any one or more persons direct- ly or indirectly employed by, or acting as agent for, Con- tractor; provided as follows: a. That the City does not, and shall not, waive any rights against Contractor which it may have by reason of the aforesaid hold-harmless agreement, because of the acceptance by City, or the deposit with City by Contractor, of any of the insurance policies hereinafter described. b. That the aforesaid hold-harmless agreement by Contractor shall apply to all damages and claims for damages of every kind suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, by reason of any of the aforesaid operations of Contractor or any agent or employee of Contractor regardless of whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages. 2. 05 INSURANCE: Contractor shall not commence work under this contract until s/he shall have obtained all insurance required under this section and such insurance shall have been approved by City as to form, amount and carrier: Revised 6/92 2 000090 I a. Public Liability and Property Damage Insyrance. Contractor shall take out and maintain during the life of this contract such public liability aad property damage insurance as shall protect City, .its elective and appointive boards, officers, agents 4nd employees, and Contractor and any agents and employees performing work covered by this contract from claims for damages for personal injury, including death, as well as from claims for property damage which may arise from Contractor' s or any subcontractor' s oper4tions under this contract, whether such operations be by Contractor or by anyone directly or indirectly employed by contractor and the amounts of such insur4nce shall be as follows: ( 1) Public Liability Insurance. In an amount not less than $500,0M, for injuries, including, but not limited to death to any one person and, subject to the same limit for each person, in an amount not less than $500,000 on account of any one occurrence; (2) Property Damage Insurance. In an amount of not less than $100, 000 for damage to the property of each person on account of any one occurrence. (3) Comprehensive Automobile Liability. ' Bodily injury liability coverage of ; $100,000 for each person in any one accident and ': $300,000 for injuries sustained by two or more persons in any one accident. Property damage liability of $100,000 for each accident. (4) Worker's Compensation insurance. In the amounts required by law as set forth in Section 2.03 above. (5) Professional Liability Insurance b. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions: ,' Any deductible or self-insured retentionmust be declared to, and approved by, the City. The City may require that either the insurer reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its elected or appointed officials, employees, agents or volunteers; or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of all losses, and related investigation, claims administration and legal expenses. Revised 6/92 3 000031. i C. Proof of Insurance. Contractor shall furnish City, concurrently with the execution hereof, with satisfactory proof of carriage of the insurance required, and adequate legal assurance that each carrier will give City at least thirty (30) days ' prior notice of the cancellation of any policy during the effective period of this contract. The certificate or policy of liability of insurance shall name City as an additional insured with the Contractor. 3.00 OBLIGATIONS OF CITY 3. 01 COOPERATION: City agrees to comply with all reasonable requests of Contractor necessary to the performance of Contractor' s duties under this agreement. 3.02 PLACE OF WORK: City agrees to furnish space for use by the Contractor while performing the services described in this agreement only as set forth in "Exhibit D", hereby incorporated herein. Any work space requirements not set forth in "Exhibit D" shall be the responsibility of Contractor, and Contractor may use alternate space for performing described services. 4.00 TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT 4. 01 TERMINATION ON NOTICE: Notwithstanding any other pro- . vision of this agreement, any party hereto may terminate this agreement, at any time, without cause by giving at least 30 days prior written notice to the other parties to this agreement. 4. 02 TERMINATION ON OCCURRENCE OF STATED EVENTS: This agreement shall terminate automatically on the occurrence of any of the following events: ( 1) Bankruptcy or insolvency of any party; (2) Sale of the business of any party; (3) Death of any party; (4 ) The end of the 30 days as set forth in Section 4.01; (5) End of the contract to which Contractor' s services were necessary; or (6 ) Assignment of this agreement by Contractor without the consent of the City. Revised 6/92 4 n00092 i 4. 03 TERMINATION BY ANY PARTY FOR DEFAULT 00 CONTRACTOR: Should any party default in the performance off this agree- ment or materially breach any of its provisions, a non- breaching party, at their option, may terminate this agree- ment, immediately, by giving written notice of termination to the breaching party. 4. 04 TERMINATION: This Agreement shall terminate on June 30, 1994 unless extended as set forth in this� Section. The City, with the agreement of the Contractor, is authorized to extend the term of this Agreement beyond the termination date, as needed, under the same terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Any such extension shall be in writing and be an amendment to this Agreement. 5.00 SPECIAL PROVISIONS - Waived 6.00 MISCELLANEOUS 6. 00 REMEDIES: The remedies set forth in this agreement shall not be exclusive but shall be cumulative with, and in addition to, all remedies now or hereafter allowed by law or equity. 6. 01 NO WAIVER: The waiver of any breach by any party of any provision of this agreement shall not constitute a con- tinuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of this agreement. 6. 02 ASSIGNMENT: This agreement is specifically not assignable by Contractor to any person or entity. Any assignment or attempt to assign by Contractor;, whether it be voluntary or involuntary, by operation of lawor otherwise, is void and is a material breach of this agreement giving rise to a right to terminate as set forth in Section 4.03. 6. 03 ATTORNEY FEES: In the event of any controversy, claim or dispute between the parties hereto, arising out of or relating to this agreement, or the breach thereof, the pre- vailing party shall be entitled, in addition to other such relief as may be granted, to a reasonable sum as and for attorney fees. • Revised 6/92 5 0000D3 6.04 TIME FOR PERFORMANCE: Except as otherwise expressly provided for in this agreement, should the performance of any act required by this agreement to be performed by either Is party be prevented or delayed by reason by any act of God, strike, lockout, labor trouble, inability to secure materials, or any other cause except financial inability not the fault of the party required to perform the act, the time for performance of the act will be extended for a period of time equivalent to the period of delay and performance of the act during the period of delay will be excused; pro- vided, however, that nothing contained in this Section shall exclude the prompt payment by either party as required by this agreement or the performance of any act rendered dif- ficult or impossible solely because of the financial condi- tion of the party required to perform the act. 6.05 NOTICES: Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, any and all notices or other communications required or permitted by this agreement or by law to be served on or given to any party to this agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly served and given when personally deliv- ered or in lieu of such personal service when deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid to the following address for each respective party: PARTY ADDRESS A. CITY OF ATASCADERO 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Attention: (Finance) B. COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS, Andy Do UNLIMITED 14956 Portofino Circle San Leandro, CA 94578 (510) 357-9811 6. 06 GOVERNING LAW: This agreement and all matters relating to this agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California in force at the time any need for the interpretation of this agreement or any decision or holding concerning this agreement arises. 6. 07 BINDING EFFECT: This agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, ad- ministrators, successors and assigns of the parties hereto, but nothing in this Section shall be construed as a consent by City to any assignment of this agreement or any interest in this agreement. Revised 6/92 6 00000)11 6.08 SEVERABILITY: Should any provision of this agreement be held by a court of competent jurisdiction or by a legis- lative or rulemaking act to be either invalid, void or unen- forceable, the remaining provisions of this agreement shall remain in full force and effect, unimpaired by the holding, legislation or rule. 6. 09 SOLE AND ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This agreement constitutes the sole and entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. This agreement correctly sets forth the obligations of the parties hereto to each other as of the date of this agreement. All agreements or representations respecting the subject matter of this agreement not expressly set forth or referred to in this agreement are null and void. 6. 10 TIME: Time is expressly declared to be' of the essence of this agreement. 6. 11 DUE AUTHORITY: The parties hereby represent that the individuals executing this agreement are expressly authorized to do so on and in behalf of the parties. 6. 12 CONSTRUCTION: The parties agree that each has had an opportunity to have their counsel review this agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party' shall not apply in the interpretation of this agreement': or any amendments or exhibits thereto. The captions of the sections are for convenience and reference only, and are not intended to be construed to define or limit the provisions to which they relate. 6. 13 AMENDMENTS: Amendments to this agreement shall be in writing and shall be made only with the mutual written consent of all of the parties to this agreement. Revised 6/92 7 000095 Executed on , 199_, at Atascadero, California. Attest: CITY OF ATASCADERO By: LEE RABOIN ROBERT P. NIMMO City Clerk Mayor Approved as to form: By: ART MONTANDON, Contractor City Attorney Approved as to form: MARK JOSEPH Administrative Services Director Revised 6/92 8 000096 EXHIBIT A is PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY THE (CONTRACTOR) (CONSULTAXT) Contractor shall provide consultation and professional management services to City as follows: a. ) Unlimited phone support for procedural inquiries b. ) Unlimited phone and/or modem support for "bug" fixes. "Bug" fixes do not include features or functionalities that were not part of the original software. c. ) Unlimited programming services for minorchanges to the software, which require or can be performed in thirty (30) minutes or less. d. ) A special discounted rate of forty dollars ($40.00) per hour for any programming services that require more than thirty (30) minutes to accomplish. e. ) Upon the Client' s request, one day per year may be used for on-site service at a discounted rate'; of thirty dollars ($30. 00) per hour. Revised 6/92 9 000097 EXHIBIT 8 CONSIDERATION FOR SERVICES Contractor shall be paid as follows: Client will be billed, on a monthly basis, a fee of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) to provide the services set forth in Exhibit A (Sections (a) , (b) , and (c) . Additional monthly charges will be added for any special programming or on-site services as noted in Exhibit A (Sections (d) and (e) . Revised 6/92 10 000098 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: B-8 CITY OF ATASCADERO E Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 1/27/93 From: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Revising the City' s position regarding workers' compensation coverage for volunteers. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Resolution 7-93, which would establish a policy of requiring most volunteers tolfile liability claims in the event of an accident, instead of workers' compensation. BACKGROUNDIANALYSIS: In November, 1990, responding to an accident at the Zoo involving Cal Poly volunteers, staff recommended that certain categories of volunteers be covered under the City"s self-insured workers' compensation plan. The advantages were to offer a benefit to the volunteers and also to minimize any'srisk of large awards associated with liability claims. Since that time, one drawback has developed. Under Workers' Compensation, the "employee" is entitled to temporary disability payments. This results in the unintended situation in which a volunteer is paid if injured, but not paid if healthy. In order to resolve this situation, staff is �ow proposing that Council revise its policy and require volunteers to submit a standard City liability claim. As a further matter of policy, the City would agree to pay all reasonable medicalexpenses, unless the volunteer had acted in a clearly reckless or dangerous manner. The original policy of covering Police Reserves and Reserve Firefighters would continue, and the City could continue to rely upon volunteer organizations that have their own workers' compensation insurance (e.g. , RSVP) . The advantage to this approach is that it avoids paying volunteers while injured. It also reassures the volunteer that his or her direct medical costs will be paid for by the City, although the City retains the right to challenge the claim, if there are any unusual circumstances present. Finally, the concern regarding large "pain and suffering" awards should be minimal in larger part because the City is committed towards a safe working environment. RESOLUTION 7-93 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA CLARIFYING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR VOLUNTEERS WHEREAS, the City encourages volunteerism in all aspects of City services and recognizes that insurance coverage in the event of an accident is an important inducement for volunteering; and WHEREAS, covering volunteers under Workers' Compensation leads to the unintended result of paying a volunteer if that volunteer is injured; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, Section One: The City will rely upon, whenever possible, those agencies that provide volunteers and also carry their own workers ' compensation insurance, such as RSVP or AARP; Section Two: In the event that a volunteer for the City of .Atascadero becomes injured while volunteering and is not covered under any outside agency, then that volunteer will be directed to complete a City Liability Claim Form. Section Three: It shall be the City' s policy to not reject any reasonable claim for normal and customary medical expenses, along with any incidental costs, associated with a liability claim filed by a City volunteer injured while volunteering for or on behalf of the City. Section Four: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. On motion by Councilperson , seconded by Councilperson , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: 000100 CITY OF ATASCADERO By: ROBERT $._ NIMMO, Mayor ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON City Attorney a:vol-wc 3A 'i 000101 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda"; Item: C-1 Through: Andy Takata, Assistant Meetingidate: 01/26/93 City Manager File Number: ZC 12-91 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director { SUBJECT: Second Residential Units - Consideration of a proposed Zoning Ordi- nance Text Amendment to allow and regulate second residential units in certain single family zones. RECOMMENDATION• 1. Planning Commission Recommendation - The Plaoning Commission recommendation, on a 7: 0 vote, is contained{ in the amended Draft Ordinance No. 265. 2 . Staff Recommendation - Staff recommendation differs substan- tially from that recommended by the Planning Commission and is contained in the Ordinance No. 265 draft contained in the December 1, 1992, staff report. (The differences between the two, however, are highlighted in the amendedDraft Ordinance No. 265. ) 3 . Continuation Alternative - Refer the matter back to staff for more detailed evaluation of the environmental impacts of the number of potential units that could be created, and possible need for an Environmental Impact Report. BACKGROUND: On October 10, 1991, there was a joint City Council/Planning Com- mission study session to discuss accessory guest houses and so called Granny Houses. The consensus that carse out of that discussion was that "such housing was needed and could be allowable if certain criteria were met" . As noted in the; attached staff report to the Planning Commission, the City currently is operating under findings of Ordinance No. 74, which was adoptked in 1983, that made findings that determined that second units were not an appro- priate accessory land use in the City. Hence,+ any action to establish regulations allowing such units would require rescinding that ordinance. It should also be noted that the alternate s 00010.2" draft ordinances, as proposed, deals with accessory second residential units with no restrictions as to occupancy, other than that the owner be a resident on the property. In other words, they are not restricted to "grannies" but could be rented to non-family members. ANALYSIS• The attached staff report and minute excerpts reflect the public comments at the Planning Commission's hearing on December 1, 1992, (although it was advertised on November 17th, this matter was not heard until the December 1st meeting) . As may be noted in the changes that the Planning Commission made to the ordinance, the main differences between staff's recommendations and the Planning Commission, was in liberalizing the criteria for development of accessory residential units. These may be summarized as follows: Recommendations Criteria Staff Planning Comm. Location• Inside USL 640 sq.ft. (1BR) 800 sq. ft. (1BR) Outside USL 640 sq.ft. (1BR) 1, 200 sq. ft. (2BR) Lot Size• Inside USL 1 acre 1/2 acre Outside USL 2 1/2 acres 2 acres Limitation Prohibited where Prohibited only guest houses/ when 2nd unit caretaker's exists quarters exist Location To rear of main No limit house Residency (of owner File recorded No recording of on-site) Agreement bind- Agreement ing subsequent necessary buyers For the record, the Zoning Ordinance defines accessory use as "A use accessory to, and customarily a part thereof, which is clearly incidental and secondary to the permitted use and does not change the character of the main use. " 0 000103 i Density Impacts: The 1992 Land Use Element provides for a Cityo 'ulation holding p p g capacity of approximately 31, 150 persons. The criteria developed in the staff recommendation attempted - by limiting the scale of all accessory units to 640 square feet and 1 bedroom _- to limit the occupancy per unit. That, together with large lot size minimums and locational criteria, was felt to minimize the environmental and population increase impacts. Staff has attempted to provide further detailed evaluation on the recommendation as developed by the Planning Commission, but with only limited success. Within the Urban Service Line (USL) , there are 2, 367 existing lots in the RSF zones (the LSF zones are almost all nonconforming �n lot size and, therefore, do not merit detailed analysis) . Of this total number of lots, 126 are one acre or greater. Thus, with respect to the staff recommendation of a one-acre minimum standard before a second unit could be built, only 50 of the lots would have been eligible. However, the data base does not allow ready retrieval of informa- tion relative to the number of 1/2 acre lots within the Urban Service Line, which is the standard recommended by the Planning Commission. This would require manual research of assessor's maps. With respect to the number of parcels outside the Urban Service Line, i.e. , within RS Residential Suburban zones, there are 799 lots out of 2 , 815 existing lots that are 2 1/2 acres or greater. Thus, theoretically, some 28% of the parcels would be eligible for consideration of a second unit based on the staff's recommenda- tion. However, many of these lots are also capable of being split further and that has been anticipated in calculating the City's population holding capacity. Again, we're not able to retrieve data on 2-acre lots as recommended by the Planning Commission other than knowing that it would, of course, be more. Also, a 1200 square foot dwelling unit with two bedrooms would ;invite a larger population impact than would a one bedroom 640 square foot accessory unit. Included with the agenda is a communication from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company expressing desire for input', before " . . .any decision being made that may significantly effect water distri- bution or supply. . . " Affordable Housing: The primary motivating factor behind initiating this zoning amendment was to expand housing opportunities within the City, which currently has a 65% owner - 35% renter occupancy mix. The median price of a single family home in the City is $199, 600. The median family income in the City is $39, 344. The County definition of affordable housing, as administered by the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, is a maximum sales price of 2 times the County median ($76, 200) for very low income, and 3 times the County median : 0001011 e ($114, 300) for low and moderate income units. This in turn trans- lates into the following County monthly affordability payments for a family of four: SLO County Income Group Annual Income Maximum Monthly Payment Very Low < $19, 050 $ 476. 25 Low $19, 051 - $30, 500 $ 762 .50 Moderate $30, 501 - $45,700 $1, 142 .50 Median $38, 100 $ 925. 00 The number of Atascadero families corresponding to the above chart are as follows: Very Low - 1, 046 families Low - 1, 318 families Moderate - 1, 685 families Above Moderate - 2 ,442 families To no one's surprise, the median price of a single family home of $199, 600 is significantly more than the moderate family income person can afford ($120, 000) . CONCLUSION: Recommend that the alternatives be referred back to staff for a more detailed analysis and report back on the potential units that could be created under either alternative, including consultation with the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. HE:ph Attachments: Planning Commission Staff Report - November 17/ December 1, 1992 City Environmental Coordinator's Initial Study Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt - Dec. 1, 1992 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session Minutes - October 10, 1991 Draft Ordinance No. 265 (amended December 1, 1992) Atascadero Mutual Water Company Communication - January, 18, 1993 cc: Ken Weathers, Atascadero Mutual Water Company 000105 . CITY OF ATASCADERO Item:—B . 1 STAFF REPORT December 1, 1992 FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: November 17, 1992 BY: Doug Davidson, Senior Planner File', No: ZC 12-91 DD SUBJECT: Consideration of a proposed Zoning Ordinance Text amendment to allow and regulate second residential units in certain single family zones. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should recommend the following actions to the City Council: 1. That the Negative Declaration (Attachment C) be certified as adequate under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . 2. That Zone Change 12-91 be approved based on the Findings for Approval in the Draft Ordinance 265 (Attachment D) and the performance standards for second units in revised Zoning Ordinance section 9-6. 106 (b) also as outlined in Attachment D. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .City of Atascadero 2. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . .City-wide 3. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted October 27, 1992 BACKGROUND: In 1982, State Senate Bill 1160 was passed in response to changing demographics and the demand that our evolving population had for alternate forms of housing. SB 1160 was an educational bill and simply expanded existing law by allowing a new form of variance to be issued not subject to the traditional findings for a variance. The variance could be applied on single family property with an existing dwelling, if the second unit was intended for the use of one or two persons over 60 years of age and the floor area did not exceed 640 square feet. Senate Bill 1534 took the State interest in this subject further by requiring local action. By July 1, 1983 , cities and counties in California must have either adopted a second unit ordinance or excluded second units by making certain findings. If an Ordinance was not adopted by this date, the City or County had to allow for second units if specific criteria as set forth under the Senate Bill was adhered to. Amendments were passed in 1986 and again in 1990, ultimately increasing the size limit to 30 percent of the existing dwelling for an attached unit and 1,200 square feet for a detached accessory unit. The State law encouraged the provision of second units by requiring strict Findings in order to preclude second units. The premise of these Findings is that the regional housing benefits offered by second units are nullified by the adverse impacts that second units could have on the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. Ordinance 74 (attached) passed by the Atascadero City Council in December, 1983 took this approach. With the following four summarized Findings, Atascadero determined that second units were not an appropriate accessory land use: 1. The foreseeable impacts from second units on public health, safety, and welfare are due to the City's narrow streets, septic suitability problems, and rural atmosphere. 2 . The City is already committed to affordable housing as exemplified by its housing assistance and density bonus provisions. 3 . The density bonus incentives and guesthouse provisions provide for adequate community and regional housing needs. 4 . The City contains over 5, 300 acres of vacant land zoned for residential land uses. The skyrocketing real estate values of the 1980s have put traditional single family housing out of reach for many Californians, particularly population groups such as the elderly and single people. Population trends suggest a continuing decline in household size and the corresponding increase in non- traditional living arrangements. Furthermore, the growth rate of Atascadero over the last ten years has changed the local circumstances under which the Ordinance No. 74 Findings were made. At the October 10, 1991 joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council it was unanimously agreed that a carefully regulated program to offer small second units in single family neighborhoods would serve a valid purpose. This action symbolizes the change in attitudes; that the issue has grown from strictly a land use one to include social and economic implications as well. -2- 000107 ANALYSIS• As evidenced by the Planning Commission and City Council consensus, the City's growth rate over the last seven years has triggered a new look at the idea of second units -+ clearly the Findings used in 1983 to preclude second units are not as relevant today. (Note: This form of housing has been called many different things - accessory apartments and "mother-in-law" quarters for attached units and ECHO housing, elderly cottages, or "granny flats" for detached units. This report will use the comprehensive term of second units and draw distinction between attached and detached if necessary. ) A New Look at Ordinance No. 74 Atascadero is indeed characterized by narrow streets, poor septic suitability, and a rural atmosphere as Finding #lof Ordinance No. 74 stated in 1984 . However, additional on-site parking to serve the second unit can help prevent unsafe parXing on narrow streets. Secondly, the soils rating for septic systems is generally severe throughout the City. Landowners who seek to construct second units must prove that their site 'can accommodate adequate sewage disposal systems. Lastly, there are techniques in which to incorporate second units into Atascadero's rural land use pattern. Although the City has continued to offer density bonus incentives • as stated in Finding #2 of Ordinance No. 74, the effort has and must continue to intensify. Recently approved projects, such as the Atascadero Christian Home and Empire Inn Motel conversion, have increased the supply of elderly housing units. The adoption of a Condominium Conversion Ordinance in 1992 will help to ensure a stable supply of rental housing. Notwithstanding these notable successes, however, only several projects have taken advantage of the density bonus option since the City's incorporation. The current real estate market, changing demographics, and the 1992 Housing Element Update all demand innovative new Mousing opportunities, such as second units. Guesthouses, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, do not provide housing incentives as stated in Ordinance No. 74. ', Guesthouses are residential accessory uses, "not to be used for residential occupancy independent from the principal residence. . . . . .nor to be used as a rental. " To secure this accessory relationship, guesthouses may not contain kitchens or separate meters. What constitutes a kitchen (actually defined as facilities for the cooking of food) and which utilities are limited to one service have consistently been open for interpretation. Experience has proven that the criteria is not strict enough to prevent second unit conversions, yet not thorough enough to adequately regulate a genuine guesthouse. -3- 000108 The fourth main Finding adopted in Ordinance No. 74 was that the City' s 5,300 acres of vacant residential land in 1983 could accommodate 12,000 new residential units. This Finding should no longer be used to justify the preclusion of second units. According to the 1992 Land Use Update EIR, vacant residential land can accommodate only approximately 3,400 new dwellings units. Key Issues After the decision has been made to allow for second units, regulatory methods must address the process, site and unit size criteria, impacts, and occupancy. The difficulty is in protecting neighborhood character through a comprehensive ordinance, yet not discouraging this needed housing option with an overly restrictive set of regulations. The procedural possibilities run the gamut from allowing second units by right through to Conditional Use Permit approval. Site analysis and size issues involve determining the proper size of the unit, minimum lot size or coverage requirements, location on the lot for the second unit, and temporary v. permanent units. Second units may impact traffic generation and parking demand, utilities and infrastructure, fiscal/economic factors, and neighborhood land use compatibility. Occupancy issues include whether to limit second units to the elderly or family relatives, . or requiring the property owner to live on the site. The next section will analyze these issues in light of the proposed Ordinance (No. 265 - Attachment D) . Proposed Ordinance No. 265 Staff is recommending that second residential units be subject to Administrative Use Permit approval. Second units are tailor made for this new procedure - one which provides neighborhood notification and requires affirming certain Findings without the expense and time involved in a Conditional Use permit hearing. In the Administrative Use Permit procedure, a hearing is held before a Hearing Officer and .decisions are appealable to the Planning Commission. Minimum Lot Size Which neighborhoods of the City are appropriate for second units? Should there be a minimum lot size for second units? Indeed, proper location of second units has been the focus of discussion over the years and is probably the foremost issue to decide. The protection of the rural lifestyle continues to be the main objective of land use decisions. For this reason, staff is recommending that the minimum lot size for second units be correlated to the single family density standards of the General Plan. -4- 000109 Nonconforming lots are smaller in size than the current minimum lot size standards of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. To allow secondary dwelling units on nonconforming lots seems contrary to the City' s land use pattern and could have adverse impacts in small lot neighborhoods. On the other hand, this approach could be perceived as vague to members of the public. In some areas, particularly the RS zone, the minimum lot size can only be determined with detailed information regarding slope, soils, and current lot sizes in the vicinity. Thus, staff is proposing a position which incorporates both of these aims - minimum lot size for second units should be one acre within the Urban Services Line (USL) and two and one-half acres (2 1/2) outside the USL. This approach establishes a specific minimum lot size which recognizes the general density and land use patterns established by the General Plan. Site Development Standards Once appropriate neighborhoods are established, the size, location, and appearance of the units must be analyzed. The prime objective of site analysis for second units is ensure their accessory nature and thus maintain neighborhood character. Staff is suggesting that second units be limited to 50 percent the size of the main residence, but not exceed 640 square feet and one bedroom. This standard ensures that the second unit is subordinate to the main dwelling and that single family areas • remain single family in appearance, and not take on the look of low density multiple family areas. The square foot maximum of 640 is somewhat arbitrary, but is taken from the State law and seems an appropriate size. Subsections #3, 4, and 5 of proposed Section 9-6. 106 (e) continue this same approach. Applying the required development standards, such as setbacks and height, to second units seems obvious. The idea behind standard #3 is to limit the number of accessory buildings on a single family lot, particularly in light of allowing a second dwelling unit. Placement of the second unit behind the main dwelling is another technique to keep accessory structures incidental to the main building. Second units could generate increased traffic and parking demand in single family areas. This impact should be limited by the small scale and one-bedroom nature of the unit. One extra parking space should be adequate to meet the residents needs and protect against additional on-street parking. Another good method to maintain a residential accessory relationship is to not allow separate utility meters for second units. This is a longstanding City practice for guesthouses and should be continued. Exceptions should be made for second septic systems for certain topographical conditions. -5- G 000.110 Architectural compatibility with the main residence and other dwellings in the area should also be required. Although somewhat objective, this requirement, along with those cited above, are all meant to see that second units blend harmoniously within the neighborhood. By requiring the owner to live on the property in either of the units, the property should be maintained in a better manner. Although this requires a recorded legal agreement and could be difficult to verify, this is by far the safest of the potential occupants to regulate. As the next section shows, age and familial relationships are fraught with legal and enforcement uncertainties. Other Issues Not Proposed for Regulation in Ordinance 265 The concept of second units originated as a housing alternative for an elderly relative, hence the terms "granny flat" and "in- law" units. This perception continues today. Indeed, elderly relatives are the ideal tenant for a second unit. If this is the City' s purpose, then why doesn't proposed Ordinance 265 limit second unit occupants to a defined elderly age group and to relatives of the those living in the main house? The main intent of the proposed Ordinance is to make second units feasible and functional to only a limited segment of the population, i.e. , elderly relatives of property owners, without specifically . regulating age and relationship. The above discussion indicates some of unit size and location criteria that can help create this accessory relationship. The next section highlights the reasons why a City should not regulate age or family relationships in a housing ordinance. As with many legal issues, no clear precedent has been established by the courts regarding the regulation of age and family relationships. What age constitutes elderly? 55? 60? 65? Does a family include only those related by blood, marriage, or adoption or do unrelated individuals living together as housekeeping unit qualify under the law? There are court cases upholding both sides of these questions. The uncertainty in these decisions should be an adequate caution signal. Of particular interest is the 1980 California Supreme Court case City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson. Here the Court stated that, "zoning laws may regulate land use, but not land users. " This statement has obvious implications for regulating age or family relationships. The Court in Adamson went on to say that a strict definition of family constitutes an invasion of the fundamental right of privacy and does not uphold the State Constitution. Even if the City were to adopt such regulations, the enforcement would be unmanageable for the City. For instance, enforcing age restrictions would necessitate monitoring of when certain elderly -6- 000111 �, people die, move to a care facility, or change addresses. The City does not have the desire or adequate staff to continually enforce standards that demand age verification. The other major question commonly associated with Second units is whether to allow temporary structures. Temporary structures are also connected with "granny" image of second units. When the elderly tenant passes away or moves on, the unit is no longer necessary and is removed. The benefit to this approach is that no permanent physical change occurs in the neighborhood. The counter argument is the inferior quality and appearance of temporary units. If the intent of the Ordinance is to protect neighborhood character, then temporary dwellings should not be permitted. Furthermore, if the City is not regulating the age of tenants, the benefits of temporary units are further diminished. Again, staff believes that permanent units in conformance with the recommended standards will preserve single family character. CONCLUSIONS• The initiation of a second unit ordinance is truly' a turning point in City's land use decisions, replacing a longtime opposition to the concept. The proposed Ordinance is fairly restrictive, in that it recognizes that some areas of Atascadero are not suitable for second units. It also realizes that this housing alternative will not be embraced by the community unless property values and neighborhood character are protected. Lastly, its focus is the elderly relative; the size of the unit, utility restrictions, and owner occupancy, do not present an attractive housing option for families. Lastly, a', second unit ordinance will be an important addition to the City' s accomplishments under the State Housing Element law. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Ordinance No. 74 ( 1980 Attachment B - Existing Zoning Ordinance Section 9-6. 106 (b) (Guesthouses) Attachment C - Negative Declaration Attachment D - Proposed Draft Ordinance No.265 -7- 0001112 ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. 74 ZONE CHANGE 12-91 ORDINANCE NO. 74 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO PRECLUDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF SECOND OR COMPANION RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS WHEREAS, Section 65852. 2 of the Government Code of the . State of California provides a basis for cities to either elect to approve sec- ond or companion residential units within the existing single family residential zoning districts as one means of increasing utilization of housing resources, or adopt an ordinance precluding such units based on specific findings that preclusion of such units might have a lim- iting effect on regional housing opportunities and that inclusion of such units would have specific adverse impacts on the public' s health, safety and welfare; and, WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has an adopted Housing Assistance Plan that provides an outline for providing housing to the low and moderate income families of the City and Region and said Plan makes no provisions for second or companion units; and, i WHEREAS, Title 9 (Zoning Regulations) of the Atascadero Municipal Code provides for a density bonus through a Conditional Use Permit process for multi-family projects for up to and exceeding 25% of the normal density allowed if units are provided for the targeted income group; and, WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has approximately 5 ,300 acres of vacant residentially zoned land that is, already fully subdivided that could be developed into more than 12,000 new single and multiple fam- ily residential units in addition to underdeveloped multi-family lots; and, WHEREAS, the Atascadero General Plan and Zoning Regulations provide for single family residential areas that encourage single fam- ily residential development on large lots in keeping with the City' s fully subdivided state, street pattern and the desired rural atmos- phere of the community ; and, WHEREAS, the Zoning Regulations provide for guesthouses as ac- cessory uses within all single family residential zoning districts. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero does hereby make the following findings: 1. The adoption of this Ordinance, pursuant to Government Code Section 658522 (c) , precluding second or companion units wit- hin single family residential zoning districts may limit re- gional housing opportunities. 000113 , ATTACHMENT A (CONT . ) Ordinance No. 74 2. This limitation on regional housing opportunities is justifi- ed by foreseeable adverse effects on the public health, safe- ty and welfare due to the City' s narrow streets, street pat- tern, poor septic suitability and the overall rural atmos- phere of the community. 3. This limitation on regional housing opportunities is to some extent mitigated by the City' s commitment to affordable hous- ing in the last three years as exemplified '; by its approval of 85 units of rental-assisted housing and 10 ', units subsidized to facilitate "first-time home buyers" . 4. Title 9 (Zoning Regulations) provides for adequate housing incentives in the form of density bonuses and guesthouse pro- visions to provide for the housing needs of the community and the region. 5. The significant amount of vacant land within the City avail- able for residential development can assist in providing for housing needs of the community and the region. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Atascadero does hereby adopt this ordinance precluding the develop- ment of second or companion residential units within single family residential zoning districts. Section 1. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to beP ublished once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the 'Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City and shall cause a copy of this ordinance to be sent to the California De- partment of Housing and Community Development within 60 days of its adoption. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall gointo effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. 2 00031,} �n ATTACHMENT A (CONT . ) Ordinance No. 74 The foregoing ordinance was introduced on December 12 , 1983 and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on January 9 ,1984 AYES: Councilmen 14olina, Nelson, Stover, Wilkins and Mayor Mackey NOES : None ABSENT: None •�� ,I2 �^ RJOR E MACKEY, Mayor AT EST T. i PATS A. HESyr, R,--Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS T FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney ED 0 CON NT: 70RRA WARDEN, City Manager i 3 000115 �t EATTACHMENT B SECTION 9-6 . 106 (B) ZONE CHANGE 12-91 6-10 ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 . 132 (b) (15) (Sign Regulations) . A commercial vehi a carrying any sign identifying the home occupa n and parked on or adjacent to the esidential site visi from the public street is luded in determining t maximum allowable ar of on-site fixed signs. (h) Parking and Traffic: of generated by a home occupation is not to ex the volume normally expected for a resi ce in residential neighborhood. All parking need f the home o upationtare to be met off the stree For purposes oft ' s Section, normal residentia raffic volume means up t 10 trips per day. tris Subsection does not apply to rage or handcraft sales pursuant to Subsection M 9-6. 106. Residential Accessory Uses: The standards of this Sub- section apply to the specific types of accessory structures listed. Agricultural accessory structures for the keeping of animals are subject to Section 9-6. 112 (Farm Animal Raising) . (a) Accessory Greenhouse: An accessory greenhouse may occupy up to 500 square feet per dwelling unit or 10% of the site, whichever is smaller. Larger greenhouses are subject to Section 9-6. 116 (Horticultural Specialties) where allowed. (b) Guesthouses: A guesthouse may be established as an accessory use to a residence in the A, R5, LSF or RSF Zone as follows: (1) Limitation on Use: A guesthouse isnot to be used for residential occupancy independent from the principal residence. A guest housemay contain living and sleeping g spaces, including bathrooms, but shall not contain facilities for' the cooking of food. A guest house is not to be used as a dwelling unit for rental. (2) Location: A guesthouse is not to be located within any required setback area. (3) Meters: Separate meters are not allowed for guest houses. (c) Swimming Pools: Including hot tubs, spas, and related equipment, may be located within any required side or 9 000116 ATTACHMENT C CITY OF ATASCADERO low ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION CON>Ib1iJ =DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO. CA 93422 (805) 461-5035 APPLICANT: CITY OF AT A S C AD E RO- PROJECT TITLE.* SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNIT ORDINANCE PROJECT LOCATION: CITY—WIDE PROJECTDESCRIP'MON: CITY ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AND ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN CERTAIN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES . IrMINGS: 1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment 2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited.but comulatively considerable. 4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. DETERBENATION: Based on the above findings.and the information contained in:he initial study(made a part hereof by refer- ence and on file in the Community Development Department).it has been determined that the above project will not have an adverse impact on the environment Henry Engen Community Developmen ector Date Posted: OCTOBER 27 , 1992 Date Adopted: CAO 1140 ATTACHMENT D S ORDINANCE NO. 265 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 74, MODIFYING (SECTION 9-3.701 (LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO INCLUDE SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AMENDING SECTION 9-6. 106 (GUESTHOUSES) , AND ADDING SECTION 9-6. 106 (e) , ESTABLISHING CRITERIA TO ALLOW AND REGULATE SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES (ZC 91-012: City of Atascadero) ', WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are in conformance with Section 65800 et seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission geld public hearings on November 17, 1992 , and December 1, 1992 , and has recommended approval of Zone Change 91-012. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Council Findings. 1. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. 2 . The proposal is consistent with the General Plan's Housing and Land Use Element. 3 . The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. Section 1. Ordinance No. 74 Ordinance No. 74 (adopted by the City Council December 12, 1983) is hereby repealed. 000118 Ordinance No. 265 Page 2 Section 2 . Zoning Ordinance Text. The Zoning Ordinance text is hereby amended as follows: 1. Section 9-3.701 is modified to include the following land use description: Second Residential Unit: An attached or detached unit which provides complete and independent living facilities for one or more persons. It may include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the primary residence is situated. 2. Section 9-6.106 (b) is amended to add Number 4 as follows: (4) The maximum total floor area of a guesthouse shall be limited to no greater than 50 percent of the floor area of the main residence, but not to exceed 640 square feet. 3 . Section 9-6. 106 is amended to add Subsection (e) , establishing the criteria to allow second residential units as shown on the attached Exhibit A. Section 3 . Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. Section 4 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12 : 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. 000119 Ordinance No. 265 Page Three On motion by and seconded by the foregoing Ordinance is approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: By: ROBERT P. NIMMO, IMayor City of Atascadero, California ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director • 0001`,A;0 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE 265 9-6. 106 Residential Accessory Uses (e) Second Residential Units: A_second residential unit may be established by an Administrative Use Permit as an accessory use to a main residence in the RS, RSF, and LSF Zone subject to the following standards: ( 1) Floor Area - The maximum floor area of a second residential unit shall be limited to no greater than 50 percent of the floor area of the main residence, but not to exceed 640 square feet. This size limit is exclusive of garages, however, accessory structures must remain smaller in size than the principal residence. Second units shall be limited to one bedroom. (2) Parcel Size - The minimum lot size required for a second residential unit is one acre inside the Urban Services Line and two and one-half (2 1/2) acres outside the Urban Services Line. (3) Limitations on Use - Second residential units are prohibited if an accessory building containing additional dwelling space such as a guesthouse, caretaker' s residence, or similar use exists on the parcel. Likewise, no other accessory dwelling shall be allowed on a parcel where an approved second residential unit already exists. (4) Site Development Standards - The second residential unit shall conform to the applicable development standards, including but not limited to, setback and height limitations. (5) Location on Lot - The second residential unit shall be located to the rear of the main residence. (6 ) Off-Street Parking - One off-street parking space shall be provided for the second residential unit, to be located outside the front 25 foot front setback. This is in addition to the parking required for the single family residence. (7 ) Utilities - No separate utility meters for the second residential unit shall be allowed, except that a secondary septic system may be allowed if the Community Development Director determines that the site' s topography, soils or some other constraint make a single system infeasible or unreasonable. (8) Appearance - The second residential unit shall be architecturally compatible with the main single residence, as well as the neighborhood as a whole. (9 ) Residency Requirement - The property owner shall reside in one of the units. The owner shall enter into an agreement with the City, acceptable to the City Attorney, ensuring that the property will be owner-occupied. The agreement shall be recorded and shall state specifically that it is binding upon future property owners. 000124, 1, A CITY OF ATASCADERO n ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR INITIAL STUDY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO,CA 93422 (805)461-5035 L BACKiGROUND: 1. Proposal Title: 5LCoN4> 9FS,DEntt1A 1, vert OAD IN4N(-E 2. File Number(s): '2-oA)6 c:.4 A1Ue,-E !2- -`31 3. Brief Description of Proposal: c-1 r/ ca i o E 0/Z v i1v 4NE F 7-v 4 i Lv cv A-,v D 2F_6-ac.4-�-F SFCvIV-D /Z F_5IDF_NILIA L (/n/'fS iIJ �jNG-LF_ it.4n-Y1Ly II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: (Explanations of all "yes" and"maybe" answers are provided on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Vii. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? ❑ ❑ b. Disruptions,displacements,compaction or overcovering of the soil? ❑ ❑ 0 c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ❑ ❑ Full d. The destruction,covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical ❑ ❑ features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,either on or off the site? ❑ ❑ Z f. Changes in siltation,deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a ❑ Elriver or stream or the bed of any lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geological hazards such as earthquakes, ❑ ❑ 0 landslides,mudslides,ground failure,or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? ❑ ❑ b. The creation of objectiortable odors? ❑ ❑ 0 c. Alteration of air movement,moisture,temperature,or any change in climate, ❑ either locally or regionally? 00012`3 B YES MAYBE NO 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents,or the course or direction of water movements? ❑ ❑ 9 b. Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ❑ ❑ FRI c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood water? ❑ ❑ o d. Change in the amount of surface water in any wafter body? ❑ ❑ e. Discharge into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to,temperature,dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ❑ ❑ f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ❑ ❑ g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,either through direct additions F7 F-1or withdrawals,or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public ❑ F-1 a water supplies? I. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? F-1 ❑ 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species,or number of any species of plants(in- ❑ ❑ cluding trees,shrubs,grass,crops,aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare,or endangered species of plants? ❑ ❑ c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area,or in a barrier to the normal F-1 ❑ replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ❑ ❑ R 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species,or numbers of any species of animals(birds, land animals including reptiles,fish and shellfish,benthic organisms,or in- ❑ F-1sects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,rare,or endangered species of F-1 F-1 ❑ animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area,or result in a barrier to the F-1 F-1 FK-1mi migration or movement of animals? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ b. Exposure of people to severe noise? ❑ ❑ 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? ❑ ❑ 0 0001PIA YES �II�, AYBE NO 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or ❑ ❑ planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ❑ ❑ ❑5G b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? ❑ ❑ 10. Risk of Unset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances(including,but not limited to,oil,pesticides,chemicals or radiation)in the event of an accident ❑ ❑ a or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency ❑ ❑ evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,distribution,density,or growth F-1 ® ❑ rate of the human population of an area? 12. Wig. Will the proposal affect existing housing,or create a demand for ❑ ❑ additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation, Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movements? ❑ ❑ - b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? ® ❑ ❑ c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? ❑ ❑ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? ❑ ❑ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? ❑ ❑ f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ❑ ❑ 0 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? ❑ ❑ a b. Police protection? ❑ ❑ 0 c. Schools? ❑ ❑ a d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ❑ ❑ 0 e. Maintenance of public facilities,including roads? ❑ ❑ a f. Other governmental services? ❑ ❑ 1210 0003,A115 YES MAYBE NO 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ❑ ❑ Q b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy,or require the development of new sources of energy? ❑ ❑ 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems,or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ❑ ❑ Q b. Communications systems? ❑ ❑ Q c. Water? ❑ ❑ a d. Sewer or septic tanks? ❑ ❑ FRI e. Storm water drainage? ❑ ❑ Q f. Solid waste and disposal? ❑ ❑ 17. Human Health, Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard(excluding mental ❑ ❑ health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? ❑ ❑ 0 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public,or will the proposal result in the creation of an ❑ ❑ a aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric archaeological ❑ 0 archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric ❑ ❑ or historic building,structure,or object? t 11\1 c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ❑ ❑ 0 d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ❑ ❑ 0C L. YES MAYBE CLQ 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major - periods of California history or prehistory? ❑ ❑ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief,definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future.) ❑ c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small,but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) - ❑ ❑ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? El F-1 ❑X HL DE1IIZlVIlNA1ION On the basis of this initial study: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. P17V Po5,P oR wJV4uc.r Z65� I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, ❑ and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: ac to LEER � 0-7 2- Fienzy Engen o Community Development Director/ Environmental Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: Explanations Location Map Project Map Environmental Information Form mo 8po 0001'4-)7 Responses to "Yes" and "Maybe" Answers - Initial Study Zone Change 12-91 (Second Residential Units) City-Wide Allowing second units in single family zones couldsubstantially alter the present or planned use of an area. The recommended restrictions, however, limit second units to a residential accessory land use - incidental and subordinate to the main residence. By regulating the minimum lot size, maximum floor area, and ownership, second units can be integrated within single family zones without destroying their character. Other recommended standards to ensure neighborhood character, include limiting the number of such accessory dwellings, restrictions on utility services, and requiring architectural compatibility. 11. Second residential units could alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area. Again, the development standards listed above should ensure that second units are a residential accessory use and not designed to serve as an additional single family residence suitable for families with children. Second units are limited to one bedroom under the proposed Ordinance. State law (California Government Code Section 65852.2 b.9) states that, "a second unit which conforms to the requirements of this subdivision shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and $hall be deemed a residential use which is consistent with is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot. Second units shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth. " The proposed Atascadero City Ordinance No. 265 complies with the State standards, with the exception of Section 65852. 1, which says that, "the dwelling unit is intended for the sole occupancy of one or two adult persons who are 62 years of age or older. " The City does not wish to regulate age or family relationship, however, due to legal uncertainties and inherent enforcement difficulties. Thus, the main intent of proposed Ordinance 265 is to make second units, through regulation, feasibleG'` and functional to only a limited segment of the population, i.e. , elderly relatives of property owners, without specifically' regulating age and relationship. 0001;8 e 13b. Second residential units could create a demand for new parking. The proposed Ordinance requires one additional off-street parking space to meet this demand. This should be sufficient, particularly given the size of the dwelling unit and its attendant occupancy restrictions. #21c. The project may have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Proposed Ordinance 265 lessens the potential impacts of second units by keeping second units accessory to the principal residence and limiting their placement to minimum lot sizes representative of the area in which they are located. By this method the Ordinance attempts to encourage second units in appropriate cases, while preserving the character of the entire community. Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 265 0(F032'� EXHIBIT _A ORDINANCE 265 , 9-6. 106 Residential Accessory Uses (e) Second Residential Units: A second residential unit may be established by an Administrative Use Permit as an accessory use to a main residence in the RS, RSF, and LSF Zone subject to the following standards: (1) Floor Area - The maximum floor areaof a second residential unit shall be limited to no greater than 50 percent of the floor area of the main residence, but not to exceed 640 square feet. This size limit is exclusive of garages, however, accessory structures must remain smaller in size than the principal residence. Second units shall be limited to one bedroom. (2) Parcel Size - The minimum lot size required for a second residential unit is one acre'. inside the Urban Services Line and two and oneF-half (2 1/2) acres outside the Urban Services Line. (3) Limitations on Use - Second residential units are prohibited if an accessory building'• containing additional dwelling space such as a,; guesthouse, caretaker' s residence, or similar use exists on the parcel. Likewise, no other accessory dwelling shall be allowed on a parcel where an approved second residential unit already exists. (4) Site Development Standards - The second residential unit shall conform to the applicable development standards, including but not limited to, setback and height limitations. (5) Location on Lot - The second residential unit shall be located to the rear of the main residence. (6) Off-Street Parking - One off-street', parking space shall be provided for the second residential unit, to be located outside the front 25 foot front setback. This is in addition to the parking required for the single family residence. (7 ) Utilities - No separate utility meters for the second residential unit shall be allowed, except that a secondary septic system may be allowed if the Community Development Director determines that the site' s topography, soils or some other constraint make a single system infeasible or unreasonable. 000130 ,�� • f (8) Appearance - The second residential unit shall be architecturally compatible with the main single residence, as well as the neighborhood as a whole. (9) Residency Requirement - The property owner shall reside in one of the units. The owner shall enter into an agreement with the City, acceptable to the City Attorney, ensuring that the property will be owner-occupied. The agreement shall be recorded and shall state specifically that it is binding upon future property owners. 000131 CITY OF ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION 12/1/92 ACTION MINUTES SUBJECT: 8.1. ZONE CHANGE 12-91: Application filed by the City of Atascadero to consider the adoption of an ordinance to allow and regulate second residential units in certain single'- family zones City-wide. (CONTINUED FROM THE PLANNING CIOMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 17, 1992) . _ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (Davidson) The Planning Commission should recommend the following actions to the City Council: 1. That the Negative Declaration (Attachment C) be certi- fied as adequate under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . 2. That Zone Change 12-91 be approved based on the Findings for Approval in the Draft Ordinance 265 (Attachment D) and the performance standards for second units in revised Zoning Ordinance Section 9-6.106(b) also* as outlined in Attachment D. TESTIMONY: Russell Kolemaine, P.O. Box 1990, Atas. , testified in objection _ to the proposed ordinance language regarding residency require- ment, supports using a footprint method to determiner area, suggests added language in consideration of properties exceeding 2.5 acres in size, notes difficulty with language addressing location. of second units on lots due to topography, "';and suggests clarification of the definition of architectural compatibility. Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, testified in support of allowing second residential units only within the USL and only on parcels exceeding one acre. Hoyt Chambliss, 4200 Carrizo, testified in opposition to the ordinance- as proposed. Dick Bagby, 6857 Cherry Pl. , Paso Robles, tenant-in- common of property located at 14100 Santa Ana Rd. , testified in. support of second units and. feels the size. should be more flexible than proposed, i.e. 50% of the main house if all requirements are met. (Page 3 of 6) 000132. ACTION MINUTES, 12/1/92, cont'd SUBJECT: B.1. ZONE CHANGE 12-91 ACTIONS: Recommend the following amendments to proposed Ord. 265, Exh. A, 9-6.106 Residential Accessory Uses: 1. Re: (e) (1) Floor Area: That the maximum floor area of a second residential unit inside the USL be 800 sq. ft and limited to one bedroom. Outside the USL, that the size be limited to 50% of the main residence, with a maximum size of 1,200 sq. ft. and limited to two bedrooms. Motion: Lochridge Second: Miller AYES: Lochridge, Carden, Hanauer, Berger, Miller, Johnson NOES: Edwards ABSENT: None 2. Re: (e) (2) Parcel Size: That the minimum lot size for a second residential unit be h acre inside the USL and 2 acres outside the USL. Motion: Miller Second: Lochridge AYES: Edwards, Lochridge, Carden, Berger, Miller, Johnson NOES: Hanauer ABSENT: None - 3. Re: (e) (5) Location on Lot: That this item be deleted. Motion: Carden Second: Berger AYES: Edwards, Lochridge, Carden, Hanauer, Berger, Miller, Johnson NOES: None ABSENT: None 4. Re: (e) (9) Residency- Reauirement: That the last- two sen- tences proposed be deleted, amending the section to read, "The property owner shall reside in one of the units. Motion: Johnson Second: Miller. (Page 4 of- 6) 0U'Q1.3.3 ACTION MINUTES, 12/1/92, cont'd SUBJECT: 8.1. ZONE CHANGE 12-91 AYES: Edwards, Lochridge, Carden, Hanauer, Berger, Miller, Johnson , NOES: None ABSENT: None Chairman Johnson requested that staff seek the City Attorney' s opinion as to what the legal ramifications of this requirement are to the property owner for' the City Council' s benefit at the time of their consideration. 5. Re: (er) (3) Limitations on Use: That the last sentence pro- posed be deleted, amending the section. to read, "Second residential units are prohibited if an accessory building containing kitchen andbathroom facilities exists- on the parcel. "' Motion: Edwards Second: Johnson AYES: Edwards, Hanauer, Berger, Johnson NOES: Lochridge, Carden,_ Miller ABSENT: None 6. That recommendation #1 in. staff's report be recommended to the Council. Motion: Lochridge Second: Miller AYES Edwards, Lochridge, Carden, Hanauer, Berger, Miller, Johnson NOES: None-- ABSENT: None T. That staff recommendation #2 be recommended tothe Council, as amended: That: Zone Change 12.-91. be approved- based om the- Findings for Approval in the Draft Ordinance 265 (Attachment. D) , as amended, and the perfotmance. standards for second units in revised zoning- Ordinance oningOrdinance Section 9-6.106(b) also as outlined in Attachment D, as amended." Motion: Lochridge Second: Carden (Page 5 of 6) 000134 ACTION MINUTES, 12/1/92, cont'd SUBJECT: B. 1. ZONE CHANGE 12-91 r AYES: Edwards, Lochridge, Carden, Hanauer, Berger, Miller, Johnson NOES: None ABSENT: None MEETING ADJOURNED: 9:50 P.M. (Page 6 of 6) 001 0 .3 5 Meeting pate: 11/12/91 Agenda Item #B-3 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSIdN STUDY SESSION MINUTES SUMMARY October 10, 1991 Mayor Shiers called the session to order at 7:02 p0m. ROLL CALL: City Council. Present: Councilmembers Borgeson, Lilley, Nimmo and Mayor Shiers Absent: Councilman Dexter Also Present: City Treasurer, Micki Rorba; and City Clerk, Lee Raboin Planning Commission: Present: Commissioners Luna, Lochridge, Highland, Johnson, Hanauer and Rudlac Absent: Commissioner Waage Staff: Present: Ray Windsor, City Manager; Art Montandon, City Attorney; Greg Luke, Public Works Director; and Steve DeCamp, City Planner ' PURPOSE OF MEETING• To discuss the following topics: 1. Accessory Buildings a. Guest Houses b. Granny Houses PC/CC JOINT 10/19/91 Page 1 i _ r 2. Sidewalk Sales Ordinance 3. Creekway Mapping Committee Report 0 SUBJECT HIGHLIGHTS: Accessory Buildings: City Planner, Steve DeCamp, reported that the City had received requests by Mr. Hoyt Chambless and Mr. Dennis Garad to initiate zoning changes to better regulate guest houses. In addition, he presented an outline of current regulations and indicated that that there was a need to tighten up the ordinance. Mr. DeCamp recommended that staff be directed to bring back an interim urgency ordinance providing for use permit review of guest houses to the next meeting of the City Council. General discussion ensued regarding "guest" housing, "granny" housing and "affordable" housing. Commissioner Luna pointed out that the current zoning ordinance does not allow "granny housing" . Commissioner Lochridge urged Council to address a policy on accessory buildings as a whole. He suggested that a set of guidelines or standards be established by which these units could be conditionally approved. Individual comments and suggestions for strengthening the zoning standards for accessory buildings followed. Criteria proposed included: establishing a minimum lot size, determining unit size by the square footage of the primary residence, requiring Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process review for each application, mandating that the property owner live on site, requiring that -the unit be structurally attached to the primary residence, and allowing temporary, modular units which can be removed when the unit is no longer needed. Commissioner Kudlac inquired whether or not the City of Atascadero was providing enough low-income housing as mandated by the State. Councilwoman Borgeson, as a member of the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council, noted that each City in the County is deficient and offered to get the substantiating figures. to the Planning Commission. Public Comments: Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, asked that the current "no cooking requirement be deleted. He indicated that he disagreed with allowing only temporary "granny"' uses or requiring that the unit be attached to the primary residence. Mr. Greening proposed that standards address issues that have the greatest impact; additional JOINT CC/PC 10/4/90 Page 2 000137 traffic and water use. Hoyt Chambless, 4200 Carrizo spoke in support of `,`attaching the guest house to the primary house and urged strict regulations that can be enforced. Leo Korba, 10905 Santa Ana Road, cautioned against making criteria too complex and asked the members of the Council and; Commission to consider the expense of monitoring the use of accessory units. Marie Noerdlinger, 7340 Sombrillo, asked that consideration be given for needs of the disabled. Eric Greening additionally commented that he was opposed to temporary buildings, but that he could support , fairly tight restrictions ,oa permanent accessory buildings. ---End of Public Testimony--- There was general consensus that "granny* housing was needed and could be allowable if certain criteria were met. Coujncilman Lilley suggested that two distinctions be made; 1 an attached "addition" gg ) , or 2) a detached "auxiliary" permanent dwelling with a kitchen. Commissioner Kudlac proposed that an attached "addition" be allowed on property of one-half acre or less; and on property of more than one-half acre, allow a detached unit with a kitchen. Councilwoman Borgeson asserted that the "granny" unit must be a permanent household with a kitchen. Commissioners Luna and Hanauer favored the CUP procesis. Councilman Nimmo opposed, and spoke in favor of simple regulations to allow for a range of permitted sizes of units. In addition, he stated that it was useless to regulate cooking. Steve DeCamp remarked that a major step had been made by recognizing the viability of "granny" housing and stated that staff now has clear direction. He stated that along with the input received by the Council and the Commission, staff would also take a look at criteria established by other cities and would come back with specific recommendations for consideration. i Sales: Steve Decamp provi a round and t report. Discussion ensued regarding appropriate ations and opportunities for outside merchandise y. Indivi u ncurred'',, that sidewalk sales are icing and that the primary con as for public s It was agreed that the only regulation necess one JOINT CC/PC 10/4/90 Page 3 i 1 I 000138 As Amended by the Planning Commission 12/1/92 ORDINANCE NO. 265 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 74, MODIFYING SECTION 9-3.701 (LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO INCLUDE SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AMENDING SECTION 9-6.106 (GUESTHOUSES) , AND ADDING SECTION 9-6. 106 (e) , ESTABLISHING CRITERIA TO ALLOW AND REGULATE SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES (ZC 91-012: City of Atascadero) WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are in conformance with Section 65800 et seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held public hearings on November 17 , 1992 , and December 1, 1992 , and has recommended approval of Zone Change 91-012. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Council Findings. 1. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. 2 . The proposal is consistent with the General Plan's Housing and Land Use Element. 3 . The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. Section 1. Ordinance No. 74 Ordinance No. 74 (adopted by the City Council December 12, 1983) is hereby repealed. 000139 Ordinance No. 265 Page 2 Section 2 . Zoning Ordinance Text. The Zoning Ordinance text is hereby amended as follows: 1. Section 9-3.701 is modified to include the following land use description: Second Residential Unit: An attached or detached unit which provides complete and independent living facilities for one or more persons. It may include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the primary residence is situated. 2 . Section 9-6.106 (b) is amended to add Number 4 as follows: (4) The maximum total floor area of a guesthouse shall be limited to no greater than 50 percent of the floor area of the main residence, but not to exceed 640 square feet. 3 . Section 9-6. 106 is amended to add Subsection (e) , establishing the criteria to allow second residential units as shown on the attached Exhibit A. Section 3 . Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section '36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this =certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. Section 4 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12 : 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. 0001-10 Ordinance No. 265 Page Three On motion by and seconded by the foregoing Ordinance is approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: By: ROBERT P. NIMMO, Mayor City of Atascadero, California ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director 000111-1 m i EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE 265 9-6. 106 Residential Accessory Uses (e) Second Residential Units: A_second residential unit may be established by an Administrative Use Permit as an accessory use to a main residence in the RS, RSF, and LSF Zone subject to the following standards: ( 1) Floor Area - The maximum floor area of a second residential unit shall be limited to no greater than 50 percent of the floor area of the main residence, but not to exceed 4640 800 square feet and one bedroom inside the Urban Services Line. Outside the Urban Services Line, the maximum size of a second unit shall be limited to no greater than 50 percent of the floor area of the main residence, not to exceed 1,200 square feet and two bedrooms. This size limit is exclusive of garages, however, accessory structures must remain smaller in size than the principal residence. Seeend units shall be li-EEi.rced tem—aedEeem. (2) Parcel Size - The minimum lot size required for a second residential unit is one-half 'acre inside the Urban Services Line and two and Ferre-half (-2 44-2} acres outside the Urban Services Line. (3) Limitations on Use - Second residential units are prohibited if an accessory building containing kitchen and bathroom facilities adirtleR dwelling spaee sueh as a guestheuse?-earret-aker-' s residence, eF slm-i-laE use exists on 'the parcel. Likewise-, Fre-ertheE aeeeseEy-dwelli4g shall be residential unit already exists. (4 ) Site Development Standards - The second residential unit shall conform to the applicable development standards, including but not limited to, setback and height limitations. ' (5) beeatien eR Let The seeend Eesideatsal unit shall bezeeated to tie-reaE of the-�M;4ia residenele. (6 ) Off-Street Parking - One off-street parking space shall be provided for the second residential unit, to be located outside the front 25 foot front setback. This is in addition to the parking required for the single family residence. oo014,2. (7) Utilities - No separate utility meters for the second residential unit shall be allowed, except that a secondary septic system may be allowed if the Community Development Director determines that the site's topography, soils or some other constraint make a single system infeasible or unreasonable. (8) Appearance - The second residential unit shall be architecturally compatible with the main single residence, as well as the neighborhood as a whole. (9) Residency Requirement - The property owner shall reside in one of the units. The _..___r-shall enteE Bite—c^csr-c'lg eemeat with tahe-Gity, aeeep-table cv—eche Eity-Atter-Aey- saEi rg that the pEepeEty will be ewneE-eeeup ed. TheagEeemeRt shall be Eeeerded and shall state-speeifiezal-3y that it is g b_.,,ain --J 000143 5005 EL CAMINO REAL - P.O. BOX 6075 - ATASCADERO, CA 93423 - (805)466-2428 ATASCADERO MUTUAL WATER COMPANY Jan. 18, 1993 ESTABLISHED 1913 Atascadero City Council, 6500 Palma Ave. , U V L5 Atascadero, Ca. 93422 Subject: Proposed City Ordinance concerning 2nd Units 1993 ik,isk �1Ty OF ATASCAD,RO Honorable Mayor Nimmo and CLERK'S OFFICE Council members, The City of Atascadero is considering a proposed new ordinance relative to 2nd units on single family lots. Apparently, the impact of the ordinance on density and total population has not yet been projected. Atascadero Mutual Water Company (AMWC) is currently undergoing an update of its General Plan. That plan is based upon the full build-out projections developed by both the City of Atascadero and County of San Luis Obispo in their respective general plans. AMWC's plan will project the need for facility improvements, water source development, fire flow capability, and distribution design of the entire water system serving the citizens of Atascadero. All shareholders and customers of AMWC can be impadted by decisions made by the Atascadero City Council. Any significantnificant change in the average density, density distribution, or total population of Atascadero at build-out may impact waiter service in a detrimental manner. To date AMWC has received no official information concerning this proposal and has not been requested to provide any input. We request that prior to any decision being made that may significantly effect water distribution or supply, 'input from AMWC be sought. Si rely, Ken Weathers, General Manager cc: Councilman, Marty Kudlac Councilwoman, Bonita Vorgeson Councilman Dave Bewley, Councilman George Luna, • City Manager, Ray Windsor V Community Development Director, Henry Engen 000144 t REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agend4 Item: D-1 Through: Andy Takata, Asst. City Manager Meetiog Date: 1-26-93 VIA: Henry Engen, Community Development Director FROM: Mark Markwort, Chief of Wastewater Opelrations SUBJECT• Adoption of ordinance amending Title 7 of the� City Municipal Code (Sanitation Ordinance) . RECOMMENDATION: Approval and adoption of Ordinance No. 246. BACKGROUND• On January 12, 1993, the City Council condjucted a public hearing on the above-referenced subject. The Co#incil concurred with staff's recommendation and approved OrdinancelMo. 246 on the • first reading. Attachment: Ordinance No. 264 • 000145 ORDINANCE NO 246 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING TITLE 7 OF THE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE (SANITATION ORDINANCE) (City of Atascadero) WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero adopted an Ordinance establishing the Wastewater Division of the Public Works Department, and Setting Rules and Regulations Thereto (Ordinance No. 181) ; and WHEREAS, the City Council is desirous of amending its wastewater regulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments promote the public health, safety and general welfare; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Title 7 of the City of Atascadero Municipal Code is hereby amended as shown on the attached Exhibit A, which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Section 2 . Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. Section 3 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12 : 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. 0001,16 Ordinance No. 246 Page 2 On motion by and seconded by the foregoing Ordinance is approved by the following role call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: By: ROBERT P. NIMMO, Mayor City of Atascadero ATTEST. LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: GREG LUKE, Dir. of Public Works 000147 I EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 246 AMENDING TITLE 7. OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 7-01. 003 Liability for Violations: Any person violating any provision of this Ordinance shall be liable to the City for all damages to City property and or fines levied resulting therefrom. A violation of any provision of this Ordinance is a misdemeanor. Penalties for violation of this ordinance shall be set forth in Chapter 3 of Title 1 of this Code. Chapter 2 . DEFINITIONS All code numbers assigned to individual definitions shall be deleted from the code. The following definitions are to be integrated and alphabetized with existing definitions Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) : The quantity of oxygen utilized in the biochemical oxidation of organic matter, after 5 days, using standard laboratory procedures and expressed in milligrams per liter (MG/1) . Domestic Wastewater: Water bearing only those wastes derived from the ordinary living processes and of such character as to permit satisfactory disposal to, and treatment at the city Wastewater Treatment Plant. Grease: All fat, grease, oil, wax or other trichlorotrifluoroethane soluble matter of animal, vegetable, petroleum or mineral origin. Industrial User: A person who discharges nondomestic wastewater into the City sewer system. Person: Any individual, firm, company, association, society, corporation, group, governmental agency or educational institution. CHAPTER 3 . SEWER CONNECTION REQUIRED: SEPTIC TANK ABANDONMENT 7-3 . 002 The City Council hereby finds and declares the maintenance or use of eesspeels septic systems and other local means of sewage disposal within the City Urban Services Line to constitute a public nuisance, and finds it to be in the public interest that property to which a public sewer is available be required to connect thereto. 000148 i . 7-3. 006. Cease and Desist Areas: Connection required. Any building located or proposed to be constructed in an area where on-site sewage disposal systems have been prohibited by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and shall be required to connect to the public sewer, without exception. (Ref. California Health and Safety Code sections 5410-5415. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, Chapter 4, Article 5 and Chapter 5, Article 1. ) 7-3.007. Notice to connect to the public sewer. For existing "buildings", it shall be the duty of the Director of Public Works or his authorized representatives ' to notify such person or persons to connect to the public and properly abandon any on-site sewage treatment/disposal system. Such notice is to be delivered by certified mail. (a) In the event the person or persons owning any building required to connect to the public sewer in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, fails to connect to the ;public sewer in the manner provided in this chapter, the Public 'Works Director shall request that the City Council authorize the mailing of written notice of the required sewer connection to all persons owning property described in the resolution. Such°_ written notice shall be mailed to each person to whom such described property is assessed in the last equalized assessment roll available on the date the resolution was adopted by the City Council* The address of the owners shown on the assessment roll shall be conclusively deemed to be the proper address for the purpose of mailing such notice. Such notice shall be mailed at least fourteen (14) days prior to the time fixed for hearing objections by the City Council. 7-3. 008. Form of notice. The notice shall be substantially in the following form: NOTICE TO CONNECT TO THE PUBLIC SEWER SYSTEM Notice is hereby given that on the day o , 19 , the City Council passed a resolution declaring that ';this "building" shall connect to the public sewer system and properly abandon any on-site sewage treatment/disposal system. Otherwise the City will connect said residence and have properly abandoned any on-site sewage treatment/disposal system and all costs of, connection and abandonment plus 25% for overhead and all applicable fees assessed upon the property upon which the work was performed, and will constitute a lien upon such property until paid'- Reference is hereby made to the resolution for further particulars. A copy of said resolution is on file in the office of the Department of Public Works. All property owners having any objections to the proposed mandatory connection are hereby notified to attend a meeting of the City Council of the City of Atascadero to be held , when their objections will be heard and given due consideration. Dated this day of , 19 Director of Public Works City of Atascadero 7-3. 009. Election to have connection/abandonment performed by the City. Property owners may elect to have connection/abandonment performed by the City. Property owners electing to have the City perform the connection/abandonment shall enter into a contract with the City agreeing to the provisions in section 7-3.011 and shall be assessed fees according to the provisions set forth in section 7- 3.012 of this ordinance. 7-3. 010. Hearing of objections. At the time stated in the notices, the Council shall hear and consider all objections to the proposed mandatory sewer connection. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council shall allow or overrule any objections. At that time, the City acquires jurisdiction to proceed and perform the work of connection/abandonment. The decision of the Council is final. 7-3.011. Order to connect. If objections have not been made or after the Council has disposed of those made, it shall order the Director of Public Works to conduct the work of connection/abandonment. 7-3. 012. Connection and on-site system abandonment by the City. In the event the person or persons owning the property required to connect to the public sewer system fail to connect to the public sewer system and properly abandon any on-site sewage treatment/disposal system in accordance with provisions of this chapter within six (6) months after the hearing of objections and order to connect to the public sewer system, it shall be the duty of the Director of Public Works to expressly authorize city employees and/or contracting agents to enter upon private property for such purpose to connect the building to the public sewer system and properly abandon any on-site sewage treatment/disposal system. This work will be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize damage to existing landscape and structures. However, the City shall assume no responsibility for incidental damage done or for the return of the work site to it's original condition. It shall be unlawful for any person to interfere, hinder, or refuse to allow them to enter upon private property for such purpose in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Any person owning such residence in the City shall have the right to connect to the public sewer and abandon any on-site sewage treatment/disposal system, at his own expense, at any time prior to the arrival of the Director of Public Works or his representatives for such purpose. 7-3.013. Account and report of cost of connection. The Director of Public Works shall keep an account of the cost of connecting each building to the public sewer, the cost of 000150 -$ abandoning any existing on-site sewage treatment/disposal system and all applicable fees associated with each connection. An itemized written account, showing such cost, shall be submitted to the Council for confirmation. This account shall identify and refer to each building in a manner sufficiently reasonable to identify the same. This account shall include all expensesproposed to be assessed against each property, including the property owners share of the cost of extending the public sewer system to serve the building mandated for connection. All or part of this entire sum may be paid at the time of owner notification. Any portion of the amount assessed each property owner not repaid upon owner notification shall become a lien on said property which shall be repaid to the City through a municipal tax assessed; over a fifteen (15) year period at a six (6) percent annual rate of interest. Any portion of the amount assessed not repaid, upon transfer of property ownership shall be repaid in full. 7-3.014. Notice of report and hearing. The Public Works Department shall post a copy of the assessment list on or near the door of the Council meeting room, together with the notice of the filing thereof and of the time and place when and where it will be submitted to the Council for hearing and confirmation. The posting shall be for at least five calendar days prior to the submission to the Council. 7-3.015. Hearing of report: Modification: Confirmation of report. At the time and place fixed for receiving and considering the report, the Council shall hear the same, together with any protests or objections of the property owners liable to be assessed for connection. Upon the conclusion of such hearing, the Council shall then confirm the report by motion and the amount thereof shall constitute a lien on the property assessed until paid. The confirmation of the assessment by the Council shall be final and conclusive. 7-3.016. Report to Assessor and Tax Collector: Filing copy of report with County Auditor. A certified copy of the report shall be filed with the County Auditor on or before August 10th of each year for entry of such assessments on the County tax roll. In the event that the report cannot be prepared in time for the County Auditolr to enter the assessment on the next immediate tax roll, the certified copy may be filed with the County Auditor before August 10th of the succeeding year. 7-3. 017. Collection of assessment: Penalties and procedures for foreclosure. The amount of the yearly assessment for connection and reimbursement shall be collected at the time and in the manner of ordinary municipal taxes. If delinquent, the amount is subject to the same penalties and procedure of foreclosure and sale provided for ordinary municipal taxes. 0001; 1 i EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 246 AMENDING TITLE 7. OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 7-01. 003 Liability for Violations: Any person violating any provision of this Ordinance shall be liable to the City for all damages to City property and or fines levied resulting therefrom. A violation of any provision of this Ordinance is a misdemeanor. Penalties for violation of this ordinance shall be set forth in Chapter 3 of Title 1 of this Code. Chapter 2 . DEFINITIONS All code numbers assigned to individual definitions shall be deleted from the code. The following definitions are to be integrated and alphabetized with existing definitions Biochemical oxygen Demand (BOD) : The quantity of oxygen utilized in the biochemical oxidation of organic matter, after 5 days, using standard laboratory procedures and expressed in milligrams per liter (MG/1) . Domestic Wastewater: Water bearing only those wastes derived from the ordinary living processes and of such character as to permit satisfactory disposal to, and treatment at the City Wastewater Treatment Plant. Grease: All fat, grease, oil, wax or other trichlorotrifluoroethane soluble matter of animal, vegetable, petroleum or mineral origin. Industrial User: A person who discharges nondomestic wastewater into the City sewer system. Person: Any individual, firm, company, association, society, corporation, group, governmental agency or educational institution. CHAPTER 3 . SEWER CONNECTION REQUIRED: SEPTIC TANK ABANDONMENT 7-3 .002 The City Council hereby finds and declares the maintenance or use of _ spec' " septic systems and other local means of sewage disposal within the City Urban Services Line to constitute a public nuisance, and finds it to be in the public interest that property to which a public sewer is available be required to connect thereto. 000152 7-3.006. Cease and Desist Areas: Connection required. Any building located or proposed to be constructed in an area where on-site sewage disposal systems have been prohibited by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and ' shall be required to connect to the public sewer, without exception. (;Ref. California Health and Safety Code sections 5410-5415. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, Chapter 4, Article 5 and Chapter 5, Article 1. ) 7-3.007. Notice to connect to the public sewer. For existing "buildings", it shall be the duty of the Director of Public Works or his authorized representatives'' to notify such person or persons to connect to the public and properly abandon any on-site sewage treatment/disposal system. Such notice is to be delivered by certified mail. (a) In the event the person or persons owning any building required to connect to the public sewer in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, fails to connect to theipublic sewer in the manner provided in this chapter, the Public Works Director shall request that the City Council authorize the mailing of written notice of the required sewer connection to all persons owning property described in the resolution. Such written notice shall be mailed to each person to whom such described property is assessed in the last equalized assessment roll available on the date the resolution was adopted by the City Council'_ The address of the owners shown on the assessment roll shall be conclusively deemed to be the proper address for the purpose sof mailing such notice. Such notice shall be mailed at least fourteen (14) days prior to the time fixed for hearing objections by the City Council. 7-3. 008. Form of notice. The notice shall be substantially in the following form: NOTICE TO CONNECT TO THE PUBLIC SEWER SYSTEM Notice is hereby given that on the day of , 19 , the City Council passed a resolution declaring that this "building" shall connect to the public sewer system and proporly abandon any on-site sewage treatment/disposal system. Otherwise the City will connect said residence and have properly abandoned any on-site sewage treatment/disposal system and all costs of connection and abandonment plus 25% for overhead and all applicable fees assessed upon the property upon which the work was performed, and will constitute a lien upon such property until paid. Reference is hereby made to the resolution for further particulars. A copy of said resolution is on file in the office of the Department of Public Works. All property owners having any objections to the proposed mandatory connection are hereby notified to attend a meeting of the City • Council of the City of Atascadero to be held , when their objections will be heard and given due consideration. 000153 Dated this day of , 19 Director of Public Works City of Atascadero 7-3.009. Election to have connection/abandonment performed by the City. Property owners may elect to have connection/abandonment performed by the City. Property owners electing to have the City perform the connection/abandonment shall enter into a contract with the City agreeing to the provisions in section 7-3.011 and shall be assessed fees according to the provisions set forth in section 7- 3.012 of this ordinance. 7-3.010. Hearing of objections. At the time stated in the notices, the Council shall hear and consider all objections to the proposed mandatory sewer connection. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council shall allow or overrule any objections. At that time, the City acquires jurisdiction to proceed and perform the work of connection/abandonment. The decision of the Council is final. 7-3.011. Order to connect. If objections have not been made or after the Council has disposed of those made, it shall order the Director of Public Works to conduct the work of connection/abandonment. 7-3.012. Connection and on-site system abandonment by the City. In the event the person or persons owning the property required to connect to the public sewer system fail to connect to the public sewer system and properly abandon any on-site sewage treatment/disposal system in accordance with provisions of this chapter within six (6) months after the hearing of objections and order to connect to the public sewer system, it shall be the duty of the Director of Public Works to expressly authorize city employees and/or contracting agents to enter upon private property for such purpose to connect the building to the public sewer system and properly abandon any on-site sewage treatment/disposal system. This work will be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize damage to existing landscape and structures. However, the City shall assume no responsibility for incidental damage done or for the return of the work site to it's original condition. It shall be unlawful for any person to interfere, hinder, or refuse to allow them to enter upon private property for such purpose in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Any person owning such residence in the City shall have the right to connect to the public sewer and abandon any on-site sewage treatment/disposal system, at his own expense, at any time prior to the arrival of the Director of Public Works or his representatives for such purpose. 7-3. 013. Account and report of cost of connection. • The Director of Public Works shall keep an account of the cost of connecting each building to the public sewer, the cost of 000134 _40014-W i abandoning any existing on-site sewage treatment/disposal system and all applicable fees associated with each connection. An itemized written account, showing such cost, shallbe submitted to the Council for confirmation. This account shall identify and refer to each building in a manner sufficiently reasonable to identify the same. This account shall include all expenses; proposed to be assessed against each property, including the property owners share of the cost of extending the public sewer system to serve the building mandated for connection. All or part of this entire sum may be paid at the time of owner notification. Anyl! portion of the amount assessed each property owner not repaid upon owner notification shall become a lien on said property: which shall be repaid to the City through a municipal tax assessed over a fifteen (15) year period at a six (6) percent annual rate of interest. Any portion of the amount assessed not repaid, upon transfer of property ownership shall be repaid in full. 7-3.014. Notice of report and hearing. The Public Works Department shall post a copy of the assessment list on or near the door of the Council meeting room, together with the notice of the filing thereof andof the time and place when and where it will be submitted to the Council for hearing and confirmation. The posting shall be for at least five calendar days prior to the submission to the Council. 7-3.015. Hearing of report: Modification: Confirmation of report. At the time and place fixed for receiving andconsidering the report, the Council shall hear the same, together with any protests or objections of the property owners liable to be assessed for connection. Upon the conclusion of such hearing, the Council shall then confirm the report by motion and the amount thereof shall constitute a lien on the property assessed until paid. The confirmation of the assessment by the Council shall be final and conclusive. 7-3.016. Report to Assessor and Tax Collector: Tiling copy of report with County Auditor. A certified copy of the report shall be filed with the County Auditor on or before August 10th of each year for entry of such assessments on the County tax roll. In the event that the report cannot be prepared in time for the County Auditor to enter the assessment on the next immediate tax roll, the certified copy may be filed with the County Auditor before August 10th of the succeeding year. 7-3.017. Collection of assessment: Penalties andprocedures for foreclosure. The amount of the yearly assessment for connection and reimbursement shall be collected at the time and in the manner of ordinary municipal taxes. If delinquent, the amount is subject to the same penalties and procedure of foreclosure and sale provided for ordinary municipal taxes. 000135 96 CHAPTER 4 . PERMITS AND CONNECTION FEES 7-4 . 09 Sewer Annexatien Extension FeeIn addition to such fees as shall be assessed for sewer connection and sewer taps, applications for sewer service shall be assessed a sewer annexatien extension fee, subject to the following exceptions and applications of Section 7-4.010, as follows: 7-4 . 010 Sewer Annexatien Extension Fee: Exception Exception to and application of annexati extension fees will be as follows: (a) A vacant lot presently inside Maintenance District No 1 where sewer is available will be exempt from payment of an at extension fee. (b) Where a lot inside Maintenance District Number 1 is subject to a lot-split, and the annemati extension fee has not been previously paid, the applicant shall pay an annematien extension fee for all but one lot in addition to such other fees as shall be required according to the City of Atascadero. (c) Areas designated Cease and Desist and adjacent areas covered by a Health Officer's letter will be exempt from new charges and increase in ..at! extension fees, but will pay the fees in effect prior to passage of this ordinance - eight hundred fifty (850) dollars. CHAPTER 5. PUBLIC SEWER EXTENSIONS 7-5. 001 Procedures Extensions of the public sewer system of the Wastewater Collection Facilities shall be made as follows: (a) Any person desiring an extension of the public sewer system shall make a request in writing to the City for a preliminary investigation of the feasibility of said extension. 'ri-said-sewer-extenS-l6n is feasible, the Gity shall prepare preliminary estimate v i the eest ef said extenslen, lReluding any repair te a readway neeessitated by said sewer emtensien-v (b) Requestor shall submit improvement plans of the proposed extension, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer in the State of California, for approval by the City Engineer. (c) The person requesting said extension shall execute and file a written Sewer Extension Performance Agreement, the terms of which shall be subject to approval by the City Council, whereby said person agrees to complete all required improvements at his expense and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, within the time period specified within the agreement. Said person further agrees to provide the City Engineer with a detailed cost break-down of his actual expenditures for any 000156 0()o464_ improvements authorized in the agreements The agreement • shall also provide for inspection by the City Engineer, or his designated representative, of all improvements, and reimbursement of the City by the regUestor, for the costs of the inspection. The City will invoice the requestor for such inspection costs and any amount unpaid for such inspection costs and any amount unpaid thirty (30) days from the date of the City's invoice shall bear interest at ten (10%) percent per annum beginning within thirty (30) days after the date of the invoice. The Sewer Extension Performance Agreement may also provide: (1) for the construction of the improvements and units; and (2) for an extension of the time under conditions that are unspecified. No extension of, time shall be granted except upon certification by the City Engineer that such extension is justified and upon;,approval of the City Council. In addition to the requirements of this section said person shall provide the City with a 100% performance and 50% Tabor and material': bond or other suitable security as deemed appropriate by the City Attorney. net te—emeeed fifty (50%) of- the eest—e€ _•r_�:_„}_ The City Council may waive such requirements for a bond at its option. (d) No hookup to the public sewer will be permitted until all improvement work has been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and all charges have been paid by the requestor in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance. 7-5. 002 Refunds when. The City may approve a refund agreement with persons who have paid for public sewer extensions. !Said agreements shall provide for reimbursement of the excess cost borne by said persons, at such time within fifteen (15) years as money is paid to the City for service from said sewer extension. The City shall require the applicant to file and have approved by the City Engineer a reimbursement map showing the method and amount of cost spread to each future connection to the sewer extension. Upon execution of a Sewer Extension Reimbursement Agreement the City shall cause notices to appear on the title of all property to which service has been provided stating that connection Is required and payment due upon change of ownership or failure of on-site disposal system, whichever occurs first. CHAPTER 6. INSPECTION 7-6. 002 Pipe and Joint Testing: All piping and all joints shall pass an air pressure test as per UPC 318. After (backfilling and compaction, the pipeline shall also pass a % mandrel test. Television inspection may also be required as directed. 7-6 .092- 7-6.003 Certificate of Inspection: When it appears to the . satisfaction of the City that any work authorized by these regulations has been constructed according to, and meets the 000137 requirements of, all provisions of this Ordinance and other applicable laws, and that all the fees for the doing and inspection thereof have been paid, the City shall cause to be issued to the person, firm or corporation constructing such work a certificate of final inspection, which certificate shall recite that such work as has been done pursuant to the permit has been constructed according to the Ordinance provisions of said City, that said work is in sanitary condition. The City shall not issue such certificate of inspection unless the requirements of this Ordinance have been met. CHAPTER 7. BUILDING SEWERS 7 7. 993 lie Building sewer—shall--be eenstrueted--with -pipe--e€ internal diameter-less-than fe rr(4) inehes. :7 -:7.004 Building sewers shall be pi ea en a ; f..,,.m sie of 1 11V V less than ene-€ems-(I4)-ef an i neh-per-feet, emeept that when is net praetie l to-ebta n this slepe, then-a slepe-ef neje than-ene-eighth (1f8-) e€-an i-neh-per feet may be used when approved by the Gity. 7-7. 005 A clean-out shall be placed in every building sewer within five (5) feet of each building, at all changes in alignment or grade in excess of twenty-two and one-half (22-1/2) degrees within five (5) feet of the junction with the public sewer or at the right-of-way line, as directed by the City Engineer, and at intervals not to exceed one hundred (100) feet in straight runs. The clean-out shall be made by inserting a "Y" fitting in the line and fitting the clean-out in the "Y" branch in an approved manner. However in the case of the clean-out near the junction of the public sewer, the "Y" branch shall be extended to a depth of not more than twe--(Z2)feet,ner less than one (1) foot below the surface of the ground before the clean-out is installed. T.T.. 4-i F h.. its eenneetien to th.. :7-:7 . 096— - ---x�v-pa crvir--v=—a-�zr��i-i�—sewe�6~- publie-sew^-, shall eeneealed in any manner until -it 7. 007 a h h ' l a • J. h.. -1�-- —iTl�-^piping' �-mc�--all-- -Jf]---_- --- ----ri—nsrta=s�3� are waterti=ght-and-shall retested-bj-filling the ilding-sew water,in its entirety er in seetiens, in sueh a manner that garbs tested with less than a- three--(3 Menitei`] --- also be required,as d=ireeted, if the—alignment--1-9 3- eenah I e 7-7 . 008 Drain,--p1ping sere± g fixtures res leaa-t d at an ele catien ef less than ene feet abeve the nearest upstream manhele eever i.n. the rfta-' .. serving said fixtures shall drain by gravity the main sewer, and shall be preteeted frefa baeleflew ef sewage by installing an pretee-ted—€erm baekflew e£—sewage--by installing an appreved type-been-water valve, and eae eh h....,� water valve shall be installed enly in the braneh er seetien ef the drainage .te ,hieh the d eh . fen fixtures 1ea' �..a less than ene feet abeve the nearest upstreara manhele OOOrg I CHAPTER 8 . MAINLINE EXTENSIONS 7-8. 001 Service to Areas Outside Existing System: (e) The City may approve a -tea reimbursement agreement with persons who have paid more than their proportional cost of the sewer service extension. The ,agreement shall provide for reimbursement of the excess cost borne by said persons at such time within fifteen (15) years as money is paid to the City for service From said sewer extension. The City shall require the applicant to file and have approved by the City Engineer a reimbursement map showing the method and amount of cost-. spread to each future connector to the sewer extension. 7-8.003 „~~......t;a Extension fee payment The awe ea extension fees shall be paid before a permit is issued for a sewer connection pursuant to this Chapter in that amount as set forth in Chapter IV. For the purposes of this chapter, lot splits or changes in use of lots shall be considered an annemati extension for the payment of the annexati extension fee. CHAPTER 9. PROHIBITED DISCHARGES 7-9. 002 Other Prohibited discharges designated go person shall discharge or cause to be discharged any of the following described waters or wastes to any public sewers: (a) Any gasoline benzene, naphtha, fuel soil, or other flammable or explosive liquid, solid or gas that has a closed cup flashpoint of less than 140 degrees F or 60 degrees C using the test methods specified in 40 CFR 261:21. (b) Any waters or wastes containing toxic, infectious, or , or poisonous solids, liquids, or gases) in sufficient quantity, either singularly or by interaction with other wastes, to injure or interfere with any waste water treatment process or constitute a nuisance or hazard to humans, er- animal, the local environment, or create any haaara—ire—the—ree'--a-teras ek the--wastewate-r- treat-men p a hazardous condition to occur in the sewage system. (c) Any waters or wastes having a pH lower than 5.5 or higher than 9, or having any other corrosive property capable of causing damage or hazard to structures,;, equipment, and personnel or the wastewater treatment and collection system. (g) Any waters or wastes containing suspended solids or oxygen demanding pollutants or such character and 000159 quantity that unusual attention or expense is required to handle .such materials at the wastewater treatment plant. (I) Any water added to a wastewater discharge for the sole purpose of dilution as a means to achieve compliance with any pretreatment standard or local limit;- (j) Any waters or wastes containing any radioactive materials or wastes of such half-life or concentration that they do not comply with regulations issued by appropriate authorities (section 30285 and 30287 of the California Code of Regulations) ; (k) Any waters or wastes containing color which is not removed in the ordinary Wastewater Treatment Plant process; 7-9. 006 Pretreatment Facilities: Where pretreatment of discharge is required by the City, the necessary facilities shall be provided, operated and maintained at the user's expense. Detailed plans showing the facilities and their operating procedures shall be submitted to the City for review. Such plans must be acceptable to the City before construction is begun. Any changes in the pretreatment facilities or method of operation must be reported to and approved of by the City prior to implementation of the proposed changes. Operational difficulties or failures of pretreatment facilities shall be reported immediately to the City. 7-9.007 Control Manhole: When required by the City, the owner of any property served by a building sewer carrying industrial wastes shall install a suitable control manhole in the building sewer to facilitate observation, sampling and flow measurement of the discharge. Such manhole, when required, shall be accessible and safely located, and shall be constructed in accordance with plans approved by the City. The manhole shall be installed by the owner at his expense and shall be maintained by him so as to be safe and accessible at all times. 7-9.008 Measurements and Tests: All measurements, tests and analyses of the characteristics of water and wastes shall be determined by the testing procedures specified in 40 CFR Part 136. When required by the City, the industrial user shall provide safe and secure access to the proper sampling point for the determination of compliance with federal categorical standards and/or local discharge limits. This may require the installation of a control manhole as described above. All testing shall be performed by an approved laboratory and conducted at the expense of the discharger. 000160 CHAPTER 12 . POLICY STATEMENTS The following Policy Statements are hereby adopted by the City of Atascadero to be a part of this Ordinance. 7-12 . 001 All sewer main extensions are to be funded by those requesting annexatien service. 7-12 . 002 Tnnexat ens Extensions must be contiguous to the existing Maintenance Districts, however, for a problem sewer area, the City Council may annex extend service to public areas to provide continuity. 7-12 . 003 In consideration of the annemati extension requests, the City Engineer may be required to furnish an engineer's evaluation of adequacy of existing sewer mains affected by the service extension. This would include an evaluation of the down- stream line capacities as well as any possible upgrading of existing lift stations. 7-12 . 004 On-going service to the annexed areas serviced by the extension shall not require substantially higher casts than other areas presently served. Typical of this consideration would be a need for an additional sewer lift station. 7-12 . 005 Annematiens Extensions will be processed as outlined in Chapter 8 of this Ordinance. 7-12. 006 Tnnex..ti Extension fees, based on use, will be due and payable upon application for extension or lot splits or use change or rezoning. 7-12 . 007 Should the proponent of the . ata..~ extension wish to receive reimbursement for any sewer main extension by those connecting within the annemed newly served area, then the proponent shall file a reimbursement map with the City upon completion of the extension. 7-12 . 008 Annexatlens b '.d if eanneetien is "et made withi.n. 12 menths after the applieatien, and fees will be 4emed aftei- that time. Re-applieatien shall ­eh new fees as a set f ertrh in this Grdinanee---`r'i!1g j qshall net apply to vacant lets that are merged within ene year,eryaeant lets to w high the-sews__ main has-beer-extended within ene-+year er vaeant lets-wa i eh-abut-then-apt-existing sew . 7-12 . 013 Where there is a change of use from apartments to condominiums, the applicant shall pay the difference in current fees and rates as established by this Ordinance' prior to the approval of such change. Specifically, an apartment complex which is converted to condominiums shall be assessed a connection charge of forty (40) dollars per unit and an .,ati_~ extension fee of eighty (80) dollars per unit. 000161 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 1/26/93 CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item#-j5--3- D-2 Through: Andy Takata, Assistant City Manager Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director {-!� From: Steve Sylvester, City Engineer SUBJECT: Conditional acceptance of portions of San Marcos Road and Vista Road into the City Maintained System _ RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 03-93 BACKGROUND: E The property owners living along certain portions l of San. Marcos Road and Vista Road expressed their desire to ;make all the improvements necessary to have these roads acceptedinto the City Maintained System. These improvements are to be designed, contracted and paid for by the property owners on these sections of road. The portions to be improved include 3300 feet of Son Marcos Road east of Portal-Escondido Road and 1500 feet of Vistai Road south of San Marcos Road. DISCUSSION: Staff has reviewed the preliminary plans for ; the proposed improvements and, upon final approval, is prepared; to accept the plans submitted for these improvements to be in cooformance with City Standards. Once the improvements are constructed to the satisOction of the City Engineer, these portions of San Marcos Road end Vista Road will be eligible for acceptance into the City Maintained System. It should be noted that this is a totally private road improvement program. The City has no authority to remedy any conflicts which may occur by the assement of fees or the collection of fees for • these proposed improvements. 00016 FISCAL IMPACT• There is no capital cost to the City. The property owner's will be � required to enter into a plan check & inspecton agreement to recoup administative and technical support costs incurred by the City. 9212609-ATA ' 000163 RESOLUTION NO. 03-93 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING AN UNDERSTANDING OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF A PORTION OF VISTA ROAD INTO THE CITY'S MAINTAINED ROAD SYSTEM WHEREAS, certain property owners living along San Marcos Road and Vista Road desire to design, contract and pay for the improvements required to have portions of these roads accepted into the City Maintained System; and WHEREAS, the portions to be improved include the 3300 feet of San Marcos Road east of Portal-Escondido Road and the 1500 feet of Vista Road south of San Marcos Road; and WHEREAS, City Engineering Staff has reviewed the improvement plans and is further prepared to accept the plans submitted for the proposed improvements to be in substantial conformance with City Standards. NOW,- THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT.- It HAT.It is the intent of the Council to accept portions of San Marcos Road and Vista Road into the City Maintained System when the proposed improvements are done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. On motion by Councilmember ,'; and seconded by Councilmember the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO LEE RABOIN, City Clerk ROBERT P. NIMMO, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT • STEVEN J. SYLVESTER, City Engineer 9212610.ATA 000164 1 c CITY OF ATASCADERO JANUARY 12, 1993 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF PORTIONS OF SAN MARCOS AND VISTA ROADS INTO THE CITY MAINTAINED SYSTEM 000165 E REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF -ATASCADERO Agenda I�em: D-3 From: Councilwoman Bonita Borgeson Meeting ate: 1/26/93 I i E f i SUBJECT: State Water Entitlement —Potential Contrasting Agencies RECOMMENDATION• As the delegate to the County Water Authority, I �m asking that Council consider adopting the attached resolution tthich is self- explanatory and which I believe is an appropriate follow-up to our notice to the County Board of Supervisors in prior months indicat- ing our desire not to participate in the unallocated portion of State water within this county. I also am attaching a copy of the staff report to the Flood Control and Water Conservation District which discusses some of these issues, and I would p rticularly ask that you pay careful attention to the f inal paragraph of the County Engineer's memo dated January 12 , 1993 . Attachment E I i I F f E i 4 RESOLUTION NO. 09-93 ;RESOLUTION OF -THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO 'PROVIDE ASSURANCES VO COUNTY TAXPAYERS AGAINST FINANCIAL LIABILITY WITH :RESPECT 'TO CONTRACTS FOR UNALLOCATED STATE WATER WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors has entered into a contract with the State of California to purchase water entitlements from the State Water Project; and WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has chosen not to, participate as a contracting agency and has requested the Board of Supervisors not expose City taxpayers to financial risk by taking unallocated reserves of State Water Project water; and WHEREAS, the State requires the County to provide security in the event of default by a contracting agency in the form of a District tax to make up for the default; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors is proposing to enter into contracts with private parties who could be at greater risk of defaulting than local taxing entities; and WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors has chosen to pursue taking unallocated reserves of State Water, which more than doubles the County's obligation to the State of California, thereby doubling the risk ultimately to District taxpayers. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Atascadero that: SECTION 1_ If the Board of Supervisors chooses to enter into contracts with private interests, steps be taken to protect the taxpayers of the District from the financial liability which could occur should the private interests default. SECTION 2 . All costs for C.E.Q.A. review, water treatment, and all other costs for reservation of the unallocated water to be paid for by those who will potentially benefit---not the taxpayer. SECTION 3 . Since "up front" costs represent a fraction of the liability assumed by the District taxpayers, capital costs for the Coastal Branch of the State Water Project, ongoing operating cots, and other costs attributable to any private contractors should be guaranteed by bond. Resolution No. 09-93 Page Two Resolution No. 09-93 Page Two On motion by Councilperson and seconded by Councilperson , the :foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO By: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk ROBERT P. NIMMO, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney 0001GS LUIS COUOTY ENGINEERINGSH OBISPO DEPARTMENT - _. �..� COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER ROOM 207 SAN LUIS 09lSPO, CALIFORNIA 43.108 Y1 CLINTON MANE PHONE(805)781-5252 FAX(805) 781-1229 _ CoutmENGMEEt GLEN L PRIDDY ENG COiNG SE FEE NOEL KING ROADS Deputy COUNTY ENGINEEt TRANSIT ZmemISTRAnoN FLOOD CONTROL WATER CONSERVATION COUNTY SURVEYOR Uanuary. 32, 1493 . SPECIAL DISTRICTS San -Luis Obispo .County Flood Control .and Mater Conservation District Honorable Board of .Supervisors County of San -Luis Obispo :San -Luis Obispo, CA Subj ec t: State :Water Pr of ec t + Draft Water Agreements for Potential Contractors + =nitiation of CEQA Review All SuDervisorial Districts .Honorable Board: Summary Drat Vater .Agreements for Potentia? Contractors The attached draft agreements have .been prepared in response to your Board's action of November 23 , 1992_ The agreements contain provisions which are intended to address the criteria for use of State water set by your Board_ Sari1a�10n of CEQA Review Execution of final dater Supply Contracts for these potential contractors will recru.re CEQA determinations_ The short time frame available to complete +.he required review makes it necessary to initiate the process as soon as possible. The environmental Coordinator intends to rehire the firm that prepared the Focal Projects E1R (Ogden) to perform the CEQA review work necessary for the potential contracts. Recommendation The County Engineer recommends that your Honorable Board approve 'he draft agreement in concept and authorize him to distribute I agreements to the potential contractors for execution. . �z -The :County Engineer and - he ynvsronmental Coordinator recommend: . Thatyour Board authorize the initiation sof -the CEQA review process for the potential :contracts. 2. A. Authorize -the 'Purchasing Agent, Ogden,r -stat �atoroval Of a :scope of work, � .. o _conrac} .necessary -envirDnmental documentation. :3. Authorize-the County -Flood Control and Water;Conservation on District -to offset -CEQA costs in the event that p contractors recline -to participate. Discussion contracts on November -23, 3-992, your Board approved fur her consideration of requests for State water fromeleven potential contraLc tors. Your Board established a set of criteria for use of State water and :directed -the County :Engineer and County Counsel', to develop agreements that would reserve State water for -these contractors while i e —the required environmental review process was performed. County Counsel has prepared the attached draft agreements for your consideration. The draft agreements rs been e hems nfbormation and S discussed with -the potentia_ con to anda have been explained to -.he County dater Resources Advisory Committee. 'There are two different agreements, one for municipal; agencies and one for agricultural agencies. Each agreement is made up of '.h--ee parts. Thef irst part is —the r ese„vation agreement mat reserves the mater allocation. The other two parts e are exemplars of -the water.treatment agreements that wl water supply and ll be executed .. when '`the CEQA process is complete. Impo-4-ant aspects -of the agreements are as tolows: 1. Reserved water to be contracted for after CEQA -review process is complete. 2. Require payment of all costs incurred by the ''Flood Control Dist—. for ,rese_'-vation of this water whether or not final water supply contracts are ever executed. �- treatment costs. 3. Require "lump sum" upfront payment of water ..� 4. Require `lump sun"- up front payment of CEQA costs unless potential contractors decline to participate. jin this case, the County Flood Control and Water- Conservation District budget. pays. .5. Al low payment over time -of obligations to the State Department of Water Resources. 6. Zn .case --of a :default, -non-defaulting agencies are -required to pick up -the =costs of defau2:ting _agencies to a maximum -increase 0� 50%. 'This liability is only -on -new contractors, there is -no increase in .liability to -existing contr actors. -7•. Requite -water monservation. S. Mater for use by agriculture =equires a conservation -easement. ,Time Schedule 'The State Department of Water resources.has -started final design of -the Coastal Aqueduct as of -this month. 'The Central roast Water Authority -will start final design of the Regional Water Treatment Plant an January 18, 1993. ?'hese two actions wake it very importtant -that we process these late water requests :in an -expedient manner. The proposed •time schedule is as follows: .Jan 4, 1993 Begin final design of Coastal Branch ,Jan -6, 1993 Water Resources Advisory Committee Consideration of proposed contractors Jan =, 1.993 Board of Supe, visors Approval of Draft Contract and Approach to rnvi -onmental Review Jan 14, 1993 Cont---acts distz-ibuted to potential contractors Jan 18, 1993 Begin final design of Regional Water Treatment Plan: Feb 15, 1993 Contracts received back from contractors Feb 23, 1993 Board of Supervisors .0- ` Enter water reservation contracts with potential contractors Enter revised Master Wa tem- Treatment. Contract With CCWA Mar 25, 1993 Payments for Water Treatment and CEQA due r I May 25, 1993 Board of Supervisors .. Approve`Certify Environmental Dor-umen.. .. Enter Water .Supply and Water -Treatment Agreements Date Dependent Completion :of LyQA Documents f or 'PiPe Umes -Upon Each Water purveyor ea1i�ornia En4.ironmenya? DDua1illu Act Pa-ticipation in the State date_*- 'Project by our County has been covered wi:th respect to the California Environmental Qual'ty Art (CEQA) by the Final Environmental Impact Report for the State Water Project -Coastal Branch Phase 1'S, and by 'the .Final ',Environmental Mmpact Report for -the State dater Project Coastal BraZch (Phase =) Local Distribution Lines :and Facili ties. 'The .former was prepared by the State DWR and the latter by Ogden Inc-. for our District. 'The environmental documents that have been prepared approved .and cert.ifi.ed to date .do not include the participationof the newly proposed contractors with the exception of Cal Cities' Water Company for -the Country Club/Rolling Hills Estates area. T24e draft water agreements that are recommended for conceptual approval today, are not considered projects under CEQA and ,.herefore do not require S environmental determinations- The final water supply agreements and the water treatment agreements that will formally establish participation in the project by these new agencies DO require env..;._ronmental review. In order to meet the -tight }._ime f--ame, the general approach f or environmental review should consist of two phases. Phase I would be an analysis of 'the potential for growth inducing impacts to occur; Phase iI would be an analysis of any site-specific impacts that may result from any necessary pipelines required to transport State water from the Coastal Branch, Phase = to the; potential new contractors_ Phase I should be initiated as soon as possible, and will involve entering into a contract with Ogden, the consulting firm that prepared the Local Projects EIR. The Env -ronmental' Coordinator's. office will be working with Ogden and the potential new contractors on developing a scope of work and cost estimate yor this work. When the scope is finalized, the Coordinator will return to your Board with a professional services contract.. Oadon familiarity with the project and the compressed time schedule make it necessary to ask your- Board's permission to hire Ogden as a °"sole source" . The Environmental Coordinator' s Office estimates that the Phase I Growth analysis for new contractors may be in the $15, 000 to $20, 000 range. • Due -to -the tight time frames, ,we suggest initiating -the phase environmental :review -now, even -though the potential participants .Wi.l.l not .De submitting payment _for such CEQA determinations until they have decided -whether or -not -to participate, -which could be as late as March 25, .1993. Mheref ore, -there -is some Financial :risk, since -the County Flood -Control and Vater Conservation District :funds .would he sequir-ed -to .cover :any potential contractors -that xdecline -to -participate :at -chat -time. Other Agency Z-nvolvement The State Department -of mater -Resources has acknowledged our :request- to -take a maximum -entitlement of 10,561 acre-feet per year -to serve our existing contractors and the new potenitial contractors. Mhe acknowledgement letter also stated --hat the Department has yet to decide on -the reallocation of any -ra2_jnquished .San Zeis Obispo enti-tl:ement. 'The District "Water Resources Advisory Committee .discussed .the potential contracts at their meetings of December :2, 1992 and ,anuary 6, .1993. The County Economic Advisory Committee discussed -the potential contracts .at -their meeting of January 7, 2.993. Each of the potential contractors has received a copy of 'the drof t contract for review and has been asked to supply basic project description information. ,`financial Considerations The proposed cont-,acts have been written to protect the District, the County, and the existing contractors from financial liability to the maximum .extent possible- The new. contractors are required to pay for the District'-s increased obligation to the Central Coast Water Authority up front. so that -there will_ be no continuing obligation in case of a default-- obligat-ions of the District to the State will be passed through to and. ,- they �.QA review the new contractors whether o_ not th _ pass CE receive a water entitlement._ A bond will be posted to provide one year of continuing payments for a defaulting agency. Should an agency be in default for more than a year, there is a "step up,, provision that makes the other new contractors responsible for the missed payments up to a fifty percent increase in cost.. (The existing contractors have a step up provision of 25% making them liable for defaults by other existing g contractors) . Should such occla-, then the defaulting contractors would lose their entitlements to the "step up" contractors. The existing contractors are not liable for defaults of new contractors. Where are no -provisions .in any of the .State water contracts -that .allow agencies to back out. 'The agencies remain -responsible for the payments even if -' hey are in _default. Presumably if .such a default -were to occur, then the entitlement of -the defaulting contractors would be picked up by the "step up" contractors or sold to another contrac for 'Ultimately however, -the District Itax pavers back .up the District's :obligations to DW-R for .State >Water Project payments. Mespectfully, =NTON ISE= .County :Engineer At tachmen,,I.s :m\ca trina\g1p\stwpot..blt r