The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 01/14/1980 AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting January 14, 1980 7:30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Invocation Roll Call Public Comment NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are -con- sidered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is required, that item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and will be considered separately. Vote may be by roll call. A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the regular meeting of December 26, 1979 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS NOTE: All Planning matters will be heard first. 1. Consideration of proposed street name change - Castenada Lane 2. Consideration of AL 79-77, proposed lot line adjustment on San Gregorio Road - Vaden/Rancour (Hilliard) 3. Consideration of AL 79-79, proposed lot line adjustment on , Lucinda Road Stevenson (Stewart) 4. Request for Certificates of Compliance for parcels on Coromar Road near Portola Road (CC 56-111-26) - Seitz/Farmer 5. Public hearing on proposed lot division (CO 79-116) , Portola Road near Mountain View - Gosselin/Hilliard 6. Public hearing on proposed lot division (AT 79-077) , Santa Cruz Road - Hurdle/Hilliard (Recommend continue to 2-11-80) 7. Public hearing on proposed lot division (AT 79-139) , Atascadero Avenue - Hartman/Bray 8. Public hearing on proposed lot division (AT 79-106) , Santa Rosa Road - Baldwin/San Luis Engineering 9. Public hearing on proposed lot division (CO 79-46) , San Dimas and San Diego Roads - Bewsey/Orton 10. Public hearing on proposed lot division (CO 79-40) , San Gabriel Road near Atascadero Avenue - Fairbanks/Hilliard 11. Report of Public Safety Committee Chairman 12. Public hearing and first reading on Ordinance No. 14 to grant a franchise to Southern California Gas Company 13 . Public hearing and first reading on Ordinance No. 15 to grant a franchise to Pacific Gas and Electric Company 14.- Report by City Manager on status of Proposition 4 clean- up legislation AGENDA - ATASCADER9 CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting January 14, 19'8!: Page Two C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Consideration of Resolution No, 1--80, resolution of intention to approve contract with Public Employees' Retirement System D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Cable TV franchise E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Manager 1 r MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting December 26, 1979 7: 30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building The meeting was called to order at 7: 30 p.m. by Mayor Wilkins with the Pledge of Allegiance. Councilman Mackey gave the invoca- tion. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmen Highland, Mackey, Nelson, Stover and Mayor Wilkins ABSENT: None A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the special meeting of December 8, 1979 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 2 . Minutes of the regular meeting of December 10, 1979 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 3. Treasurer' s Report, 11-20-79 through 12-17-79 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) Councilman Nelson felt that the sentence on page six of the minutes of December 10, 1979 , concerning the use of the Sunken Gardens for parking was misleading. He _did not believe that the entire Council was "adamently" against the use of the Sunken Gardens or Administration Building grounds for parking. It was decided that the sentence, "Council was adamently against any use of the Sunken Gardens or Administration Building grounds for a parking lot. " should be stricken and replaced with "Some Council members expressed opposition to the proposal for using the Sunken Gardens or Adminis- tration Building grounds for a parking lot. " MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved for the approval of the Consent Calendar as amended. The motion was seconded by Council- man Mackey and unanimously carried. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. Acceptance of Final Map, AT 78-143 - Hendrix The Planning Director reviewed this matter. He noted that the Board of Supervisors had made a finding of consistency with the General Plan. Councilman Highland was not in favor of approving the Final Map because of the . 72 acre lot sizes; he did not feel it was consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Warden stated that the Council is required to approve the Final Map if all the conditions of the Tentative Map have been met. The County Engineering Department has found that all conditions of the Tentative Map have been met. • MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting December 26, 1979 Page Two MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved for acceptance of the Final Map and adoption of Resolution No. 23-79 which accepts the dedication of a five foot widening of a road into the City Road System. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and carriedwithCouncilmen Highland and Mackey voting no. 2. Request for extension of time, Tentative Parcel Map CO 78-46 Holmes (Hilliard) The County Subdivision Review Board recommended approval of a one year extension. That was also the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Councilman Highland was concerned about traffic circulation and adequate fire department access to the parcels. Mr. Holmes advised that the water service is already in and a fire hydrant installed. Fire Chief Don Sylvia stated that the project will require Fire Department approval before it is finished. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council approve the recommendation of the Planning Commission on CO 78-46 for the time extension. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried. 3. Request for extension of time, Tentative Parcel Map CO 78-98 Stinchfield (Stewart) Mr. Stevens stated that the reason the applicant is requesting the time extension is because the extensive road improvement project has caused a delay. The Subdivision Review Board and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the extension. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council accept the Planning Commission' s recommendations and grant an extension of one year for project CO 78-98. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and unani- mously carried. 4. Consideration of variance to moratorium on condominium conversions - Tentative Tract No. 866, Lenzi/Morris/ Gannage, 3750 E1 Camino Real Mr. Warden reviewed the ordinance and procedures for appealing the Planning Commission recommendations. Steve Cool, attorney representing the applicant, reviewed ,the project and noted that, in his opinion, the waiver request was consistent with the exceptions outlined in the ordinance. There was considerable discussion rela- tive to whether the project was a condominium or apartment project. Comments were heard from the project' s engineer and architect. MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting December 26 , 1979 Page Three Councilmen Highland and Nelson stated that when they adopted the ordinance on condominiums they were more concerned about con- versions than new condominium projects. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that a variance be granted subject to a finding that denial would result in practi- cal difficulties or unnecessary hardship, that there are exceptional circumstances and that it would not be materially deterimental to the public welfare. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and carried with Councilman Mackey voting no. Mr. Warden noted that the ordinance as passed applies to new condominium projects and that if this was not the Council's inten- tion then the ordinance should be amended to reflect their intention. No action was taken. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Consideration of rescinding County ordinance dealing with road deposit projects - Cayucos and Largo Street matter Councilman Mackey asked why the ordinance was an urgency ordin- ance. Mr. Warden stated that under the existing ordinance, a pro- perty owner on these streets cannot get a building permit without paying the road deposit fee; an urgency ordinance would allow the County to discontinue that practice immediately and to start the refund process for funds already collected. The property owners could then proceed with building their own road if they wished. Councilman Nelson was concerned that the property owners on Cayucos Street would not be able to proceed because of costs. Mayor Wilkins read Ordinance No. 13 by title only; an ordinance of the City of Atascadero amending Ordinance No. 2 declaring an urgency and providing that the ordinance shall take effect immediately. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 13 as an urgency ordinance. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Highland, Mackey, Stover and Mayor Wilkins NOES: Councilman Nelson 2. Selection of architect for remodeling Administration Building A committee appointed by the Council consisting of Councilmen MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting December 26, 1979 Page Four Mackey and Highland and Mr. Warden had met and reviewed the work proposals as submitted by those architectural firms wishing to participate in the remodeling of the Administration Building into City Offices and recommended selection of A. H. Stephenson of Paso Robles. Mr. Stephenson will charge 8% of construction costs. Mr. Warden recommended that the City Attorney review the matter and draft a contract which would allow a phased approach so that the City need only pay for work performed in the event construction was not completed. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council accept A. H. Stephenson' s proposal and instruct the City Manager to enter into an appropriate contract pursuant to Mr. Stephenson' s proposal for remodeling, with no costs for furnishings included. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried. 3. Selection of Police Chief Mayor Wilkins announced that Richard H. McHale, Police Chief in Corcoran, California, has been selected as Chief of Police for the City of Atascadero. Mr. McHale will be with the City on January 15th. MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved that Richard McHale be hired as a Police Department Consultant/Peace Officer at an annual salary of $25, 000 per year. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimously carried by roll call vote. 4. Set date to interview Public Works Director/City Engineer Council set January 5, 1979, at 9: 00 a.m. as the time to interview applicants for Public Works Director. 5. Consideration of joining JPA for employee health insurance benefits Mr. Warden reviewed the employee medical coverage as provided by the JPA. Council was asked to authorize $1,750 as needed for setting up the program; this is a one-time charge and provides the Federally required explanation booklets and documentation. MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved that Council approve the City' s participation in the employee health benefits program. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimously carried. MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting December 26, 1979 Page Five D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of Addendum to self-insurance JPA to include health insurance Mr. Warden stated that this Addendum amends the current JPA for insurance coverage to include the employee health benefit package. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council approve the Addendum to the JPA insurance agreement. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried. 2 . Setting salary and advertising for Police Chief 's secretary Mayor Wilkins stated that this is a full time position and filling it now will be a help for the new Police Chief in setting up the department. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Staff be authorized to hire a Police Chief' s secretary at $890. 00 monthly. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unimously carried. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council (a) Councilman Mackey stated that she was concerned because another large oak tree had been cut down. She is anxious for the City to take over jurisdiction and adopt a tree ordinance. 2. City Attorney Mr. Grimes had nothing to report. 3. City Manager (a) Mr. Warden announced that the League of California Cities will be holding an Employee Relations Institute on January 23-24 in Los Angeles if any Council members wished to attend. (b) Mr. Warden reported on his meeting in Sacramento with the other newly incorporated cities and legisla- tive assistants as well as members of the League of California Cities' legislative staff concerning the enactment of legislation to include F MINUTES ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting December 26, 1979 Page Six the newly incorporated cities in the recently enacted Proposition 4, Gann initiative. The new- law establishes 1978/79 Fiscal Year as the base year for determining appropriation limits for govern- mental entities. This date excludes cities incorporated during this and last year. Discussion at the meeting centered around using the mean of the first three full years of the new cities ' budgets. Another meeting will be held on January 8th. (c) Mr. Warden stated that he has received a request for Council consideration of a time extension which they had denied at their last meeting. The applicant' s agent has requested that the Council reconsider the matter. Mr. Warden stated that there are no established policies regarding Council reconsideration of matters they have already denied. The applicant does have recourse through the courts if he wishes to dispute a Council action or, in this particular case since there has been a change of ownership and change in reason for requesting the lot split, he can re-apply and have his application judged on the changed circumstances. Council members did not wish to reconsider the matter. The meeting adjourned at 9:22 p.m. Recorded by: MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk By: Ardith Davis Deputy City Clerk I PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Atascadero Planning Commission DATE: October 24 , 1979 FROM: General Plan Administration Section SUBJECT: Road Name , Castenada Lane, City of Atascadero SPECIFIC REQUEST This is a request of the residents of the area to name an unnamed and unmaintained road located within the newly formed City of Atascadero. BACKGROUND The proposed "Castenada Lane" is approximately 1 , 000 feet long , paved, and runs north-east from its intersection with Toloso Road. Presently , residents along the road are using Toloso Road addresses which were initially assigned by the planning department because of the unnamed status of the road. At present , there are not enough numbers to accomodate existing lot splits and residential development along "Castenada Lane . " The 3 homeowners presently residing along "Castenada Lane" part- icipated in the selection of the road name and have submitted a letter indicating their support of the proposed name . The road name does not duplicate any existing road name in the City or County and is acceptable by all road naming criteria. RECOMMENDATION The proposed name meets all of the County ' s road naming criteria and we thus recommend its approval by your commission . Report prepared by Colleen Rosenthal , and reviewed by Larry W. Kelly , Supervisor CD-1065 Nan A. RocownY, Director ' Telephone 543-1550, Ex-r. 215 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Courthouse Annex SAN L.uIs OBISPO, CALIFOELNIA - 93408 March 5 , 1979 Mr . and Mrs . T. Jacobsen 8254 Toloso Road Atascadero , CA 93422 Dear Mr. and Mrs . Jacobsen , It has come to our attention that 3 parcels now fronting on your street are in the process of splitting . These additional home sites make the present numbering system unworkable . In order to correct this situation , the cul- de-sac , now referred to as "Toloso Road" must be offically named. We invite you and your neighbors to suggest suitable names for the cul-de-sac . The proposed name ( 1) should not duplicateor conflict with existing street names in the county , and (2) should be easily comprehended. Also , in the Atascadero Area, Spanish street names are particularly suitable . I will be happy to advise you of existing street names in the county or furnish any other information regarding this matter. Please feel free to contact me at 543-1550 ext . 247. Sincerely , COLLEEN HANNA, Planning Aide CH/ka NEn A. RocowAY, Director r Telephone 543-1550. Ex-r. 213 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Courthouse Annex SAN Luis OBISPO, CALIFORNIA - 9.1408 March 5 , 1979 '~fir . and Mrs . Robert J. Kelley 8260 Toloso Road Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Mr. and Mrs . Kelley , It has come to our attention that 3 parcels now fronting on your street are in the process of splitting. These additional home sites make the present numbering system unworkable. In order to correct this situation , the cul- de-sac , now referred to as "Toloso Road" must be offically named. We invite you and your neighbors to suggest suitable names for the cul-de-sac. The proposed name (1) should not duplicate or conflict with existing. street names in the county , and (2) should be easily comprehended. Also, in the Atascadero Area, Spanish street names are particularly suitable . I will be' happy to advise you of existing street names in the county or furnish any other information regarding this matter. Please feel free to contact me at 543-1550 ext . 247. Sincerely , COLLEEN HANNA, Planning Aide CHJka James and Doris Kelly 8258 Toloso Road Atascadero, CA 93422 May 31 , 1979 Ms. Colleen Hanna Planning Aide Planning Department Court House Annex San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Dear Ms. Hanna: I apologize for the delay in communicating with you regarding the renaming of Toloso Road. We have chosen the name of Castenada Road from the four choices submitted to us. Thank you for allowing us to participate in this matter. Sincerely, James & Doris Kelly Tod and Nancy Jacobsen 8260 Toloso Road Robert Kelley 8250 Toloso Road $3t5 3 210 /cS`c,— 59 g60 ' 7 $225 Q,IS $zo5 9r) 55 Bio, PROPOSED 16165 89 8000 CASTENADA LN • 54 88 go 7 53 � � w °f 3 8 7 8100 b� 81 Zo } 39 j 10 VICINITY A7 SCADERO -n, - 1.a.wewno ate. f. n �1✓� , y 9� ell - . /K Lw hte.1M L c.. 5 L 0 d u d ?j •SDIH /GYMS' r'� The following individuals need to be advised on the naming of Castenada Lane. 1 . James and Doris Kelly 8258 Toloso Road Atascadero, CA. 93422 2. Tod and Nancy Jacobsen 8260 Toloso Road Atascadero, CA. 93422 3. Robert Kelley 8250 Toloso Road Atascadero-, CA. 93422 3 DEc 20, 1979 Planning Commission RECEe'vLv -- .'P2 4 1979 City of AtascadE.ro Atascadero, Cal . 93422 Dear Planning Commission Members; My wife and myself are in the process of moving to your wonderful community. Our new address is to be 8252 Toloso road. In conversation with one of our new neighbors , Mr . Robt . Kelly, he expressed displeasure with your pending decision to change the name of our street to some other name than Toloso road. Relying heavily on the suggestion of a woman who doesnt live on Toloso. I feel that this is wrong. one of the things that attracted us to our new home was the fine location and the beautiful sound of the name of our new address . Please dont change this . If you feel that there is a need for a different name than Toloso road might I suggest any of the following, Lower Toloso road, Toloso road East, Toloso Circle, Toloso Drive, Toloso Lane, or Toloso Place . I feel that any of these would be quite appropriate, dont you agree? This is rather a short section of Toloso road, currently housing just Five famlies including ourselves with room for about Three or Four more. I feel that it would be beneficial in assisting non residents to locate our short section of street to have the same name as our "parent" street above us , such as visitors , emergency vehicles and service related vehicles . I have not polled all of our new neighbors regarding this proposed name change but I know how Mr . Kelly and ourselves feel about it. I have also had casual conversation with our new neighbors on the other side of us the Jacobsons, I feel that Mrs . Jacobson feels the way we do. I have not met her husband yet so I can not speak for him.I also cannot speak for the young man on top of the hill as we havnt discussed this matter, nor can I speak for the couple at the end of the road as we havnt met them yet . If you feel it would be beneficial in your decision I would be most happy to assist you in this matter, but please dont change the name of our beautiful street. Yours , William & Alice Daniel 8252 Toloso Road. Atascadero, Cal. 93422 REPORT OF THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 5, 1979 RE: AL 79-77, PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF LOT 3 AND A PORTION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 52, ATASCADERO COLONY, SAN GREGORIO ROAD, CITY OF ATASCADERO. (A-1-BV-3-D508: LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY) (VADEN/RANCOUR - HILLIARD) SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #1 (884: 10/25/79) SRB Members in Attendance: Acting Chairman, Larry Red, Bill MacDonald, John Hofschroer, Jerry Erickson, John Wallace Planning Commissioner in Attendance: George Rathme,ll Legal Counsel Present: None PROJECT DESCRIPTION This application proposes an adjustment of the property line between 2 lots. The site is located on San Gregorio Road in Atascadero. Zoning: A-1-BV-3-DS08: (D508 to mean a minimum parcel size of Z ' acres) General Plan: 1978 Atascadero General Plan': "Low Density Single Family" REASON FOR THE ADJUSTP9ENT To more nearly equalize the size of the lots. COMMENTS The adjustment will improve the position of the two lots relative to their present position by making them more nearly equal in size. However, the zoning requires a minimum parcel size of 2 acres and Parcel B has a gross area of 1.99 acres. By shifting the property line slightly to the west as indicated on Exhibit "A" this requirement can be satisfied. RECOMMENDATION After review of applicable General Plans and other available infor- mation, the Subdivision Review Board recommends to the Atascadero City Council that the proposed Lot Line Adjustment be found to comply with Section 21.48.017 of the Lot Division Ordinance and that it be approved. One last consideration is the matter of the Atascadero incorporation. Although it appears the new City Council will take action on this project, the Subdivision Review Board may still take action on this matter. Any action taken will likely constitute an informal recommenda- tion to the City Council. It should be noted this staff report and the recommendations are based on County policy, procedure, and ordinances. • AL 79-77 • • Provided that the adjustment is approved, the following conditions are hereby established: 1. All conditions of approval herein specified are to be complied with prior to the recording of. Certificates of Compliance which effectuates the adjustment. Said Certificates of Compliance must be signed by all record owners and holders of interest as defined in Section 21.48.017(e) of the Lot Division and notarized. 2. The Certificates of Compliance must be filed in accordance with Section 21.48.017(e) prior to transfer of the adjusted portions of the property. 3. After approval by the Board of Supervisors, compliance with the preceding conditions will bring the proposed adjustment in confor- mance with the Subdivision Map Act and Section 21.48.017 of the Lot Division Ordinance. 4. The Lot Line Adjustment will expire one year (12 months) from the date of Board of Supervisors' approval, unless the Certificates of Compliance effectuating the Adjustment are recorded. 5. Relocate property line to provide a minimum parcel area of 2 acres for Parcel B. DISCUSSION Applicant's engineer attended the meeting. The Subdivision Review Board unanimously adopted the preliminary report as written. RL IV MW �>T, �► �► .�. �/��•�`��7�/•_.►:��'l/////b�i_�/� ��►- - tet' . . — .�r. .. OR OA '7/ / �'��• Pr11�� r� _ �-• �.- gar • I Li C' ` � � 1� �C �C Z i VI V'( D 9 1 e �''• \ L) �� 'A t e v • � til • M Is.'I v o- u ry k\ �.. < l Mro oa dt'OLL � v J v • II' c M aV / by yv il e M.�r o / h ,6 1. kn O tn IQ •"•ec v W dM 0=71 /r 4Ne No On a u . C • ..�1 3 �F �� . F .-1 P/ . ,�S . Nen A. RocowAY, Director Telephone(805)549-5600 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Courthouse Annex SAN L,uIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA - 93408 December 6, 1979 Honorable City Council and Planning Commission, City of Atascadero, California Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: The following Lot Line Adjustments were reviewed by the Subdivision Review Board on December 5, 1979 and were found to comply with Section 21.48.017 of the Lot Division Ordinance. These Lot Line Adjustments, recommended by the Subdivision Review Board for conditional approval, are as follows: 1. AL 79-77 (Vaden/Rancour - Hilliard) 2. AL 79-79 (Stevenson - Stewart) It is recommended that the above referenced adjustments be conditionally approved with the conditions as recommended by the Subdivision Review Board and set down in their attached reports. Respectfully submitted, BILL MAC DONALD Subdivision Review Board ca Attachment cc: County Engineer County Health Department PUBLIC SAFETY OPTIONS Comments by Councilman Rolfe Nelson are as follows: In my opinion we should establish a Public Safety Department. The concept implies the main object of the department and cooperation is needed to accomplish this object. Within this department, we should have a Fire Division and a Police Division. The Public Safety Department should be administered by the City Manager or Assistant Manager with a Commander in charge of each Division. We should follow the basic design of LAFCO for staffing the Police Division with the concept of keeping administra- tion costs down with the money going to put men in the field. I believe we should encourage cross training within the department giving incentives for this training. Cross- training would give both divisions added manpower during emergencies and stressing cooperation and understanding within the department. Each would have some knowledge and respect for the other' s job. I like the ideas of a communication center with all City business going through one center and one emergency number for fire , police, ambulance, etc. (dispatching) . I believe the department could also coordinate and share some equipment and vehicles and clerical needs. I think also that the department would benefit the community by coordinating efforts in presentation and prose- cution of fire and crimes (arson) . We need a City plan to handle large disasters such as nuclear. Some areas of integration and cooperation are: 1. Communication and dispatching 2. In-house training (support services) or (cooperative services) 3 . Building, business and residence inspection 4 . Uniforms, equipment, vehicles 5. Clerical staff and other support staff 6. Use of non-professionals and volunteers 7. Maintenance and custodial 8. Certain emergency calls handled by either 9. Public safety budget Public Safety Options Comments by Rolfe Nelson Page Two 10. Crowd/traffic control 11 . health cooperation 12. Anti-arson prevention and prosecution 13 . Serving warrants 14 . First aid/CPR training 15. Prisoner intake 16 . Security checks 17 . Public complaints 18 . Public relations - prevention 19 . Emergency medical plan 20. Disaster planning 21. Director Public Safety - Finance Director? 22 . Possibility of three departments - police/fire/public safety. Use all mutual aid/aqency cooperation possible 23. First response equipment in police car 24. One number for all services • • REPORT OF THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 5, 1979 RE: AL 79-79, PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF PARCELS "C" AND "D" OF CO 76-57, LUCINDA ROAD, ATASCADERO. (A-1-12: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) (STEVENSON - STEWART) SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #1 (884: 11/6/79) SRB Members in Attendance: Acting Chairman, Larry Red, John Hofschroer, Bill MacDonald, Jerry Erickson, John Wallace Planning Commissioner in Attendance: George Rathmell Legal Counsel Present: None PROJECT DESCRIPTION This application proposes an adjustment of the property line between 2 parcels. The site is located between Lucinda and Barraneo Road, in Atascadero. Zoning: A-1-12: "Light Agriculture" (12 acre minimum parcel size) General Plan: 1978 Atascadero General Plan: "Low Density Residential" REASON FOR THE ADJUSTMENT The applicant wishes to reorient Parcels "C" and "D" so that two parcels will front on Lucinda Road. Parcel "D" has a high bank along Barranco Road making access difficult. COMMENTS The adjustment allows for better use of two lots based on the topographic conditions of the property. RECODDIENDATI ON After review of applicable General Plans and other available infor- mation, the Subdivision Review Board recommends to the Atascadero City Council that the proposed Lot Line Adjustment be found to comply with Section 21..48.017 of the Lot Division Ordinance and that it be approved. One last consideration is the matter of the Atascadero incorporation. Although it appears the new City Council will take final action on this project, the Subdivision Review Board may still take action on this matter. Any action taken will likely constitute an informal recommenda- tion to the City Council. It should be noted this staff report and the recommendations are based on County policy, procedure, and ordinances. Provided that the adjus likent is approved, the following conditions are hereby established: \ AL /9-/9 . • 1 . All conditions of approval herein specified are to be complied with prior• to the recording; of Certificates of Compliance which effectuates the adjustment. Said Certificates of Compliance must be signed by all record owners and holders of interest as defined in Section 21.48.017(e) of the Lot Division and notarized. 2. The Certificates of Compliance must be filed in accordance with Section 21.48.017(e) prior to transfer of the adjusted portions of the property. 3. After approval by the Board of Supervisors, compliance with the preceding conditions will bring the proposed adjustment in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act and Section 21.48.017 of the Lot Division Ord ina ce. 4. The Lot Line Adjustment will expire one year (12 months) from the date of Board of Supervisors' approval, unless the Certificates of Compliance effectuating the Adjustment are recorded. DISCUSSION Applicant's engineer attneded the meeting. The Subdivision Review Board unanimously adopted the preliminary report as written. 6 �� \ R A L V I S A �0 Q vim- Pa % PA �-176- 5 �O '0763 � N Q O �I l - b /PAR 10 fwEL O 6 - _ amm A LVA A D O ,\ W dQ1 N N o Z O`J tL (.(� _ d U ►� J J N t6<-J N —AW O!n 40 ti .. <`' 's ,� = til ?Z W W Ot t� J F 0 .J V Z w a'+•ea W N t-oFC<F O 4 b n ZQ +n 2 RQANC0 `I ot►.- jOA ti :.r -. 'i � C�a�• �� to J 7�'� e; C - V � 4 3 w ef'! ivy 5 i <� *fir � kavF da s r � � F = • • (805) 549-5600. . V NED A. ROGOWAY, Director Telephone 543-1550 t x4. 215 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Courthouse Annex SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA - 93401 December 13, 1979 Honorable Planning Commission and City Council City of Atascadero, California RE: APPLICATION FOR TWO CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE FOR PORTIONS OF LOT 39, BLOCK 7, ATASCADERO COLONY (CC 56-111-26) (SEITZ - FARMER) PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: This application is requesting Certificates of Compliance for two parcels on the east side of Coromar Road, north of Portola Road, in the City of Atascadero. Certificates are being requested for two 1 acre parcels. The site is zoned R-A (Suburban) , which has a 20,000 square foot minimum. The parcels are located in an area designated as Moderate Density Single Family Residential (one acre minimum with sewer service) , by the 1978 Atascadero General Plan. The Draft Land Use Element for the Salinas River Planning Area proposes a designation for the property of Single Family Residential. The Subdivision Map Act, in Section 66499: 35 gives a local agency the authority to issue Certificates of Compliance for property divided in compliance with applicable laws and ordinances. The subject parcels were established in 1925 by separate grant deed. This division of original Lot 39, Block 7, of the Colony was in compliance with regula- tions in effect at that time. Based on documents submitted and other available information, the Planning Department recommends approval of two Certificates of Compliance as requested. Respectfully submitted, LARRY J. RED, u rvisor Subdivision Review Section ca i `rd • � Ap��`, ♦ �J' / �• •' � vim• rC / \ / �,,e�Q � • 1. •♦ \t•• • 1/ '' � ,` .�".'.� . '.:� ,� �� •O � �•,�by -4 , h/d2 oro110 Xv �. ' Vii. • �;♦• 4t' • ) �\ 08 fz 880 SATE "� 4-0 i h - AGt /\O PodNO • / ._ ant Z .a 34 - Y1GlN 1'i'Y 11A►'P �'1:• is Vo- P-360 A . R A< - • 1 115. '(?P`� ` 7 .• P,v+� 1 � f�• \°i ��a g a' P_ ct�° 1 jQp4P1 13-D 55'00 e 2 - 16' 15-A 15-6 13 E ` P` 9 15-G y'6 A F �3 _ _ ' 5-B f 713. 25 i 5-C yr Ca39 la .fin ��•: '. 2. O •P361. ��`/. •G 3.7 _ - 9 c'oQ'95 .�i v '\ / \ D Paoz �,y�TS'� a�'' 36 3 � sts) 3 . 34 2 8 3 t 2 YAR A P-43', .. t� Co 76 0 P-348 ,G 34 26 10 P-z r p P1p 12 rt ilv 1 31 -34 `} Y \\ \ 'P-178 i P—I \GO 7,1 11- u m 10 - Y� L-1p �,•. S f. Ce/ 10 z•\co-75-29 I �;� AREA MAP 4. \ YH1 \ X86 f I L I = a 17 3-A i l t� CJ r r 4 Z C) C=� •1• O _ 197.7- '88.72' !1. H3. CD ri .. C 0 n 198 70 ,lO 67 H :U C; L=1 til 7 H tJ 13 c _ ' (7 C-) 3 Cu) .r.� I7 _U �n � �j Ui � y u �t;xt �'u � o !Wp • ' tj tx) �� (I] •a i � Z gg z U3 v) L J -0cm F ° O H rV G N�i� 30 arni 1-3 K ��U)yy r� � 1 0 a m � •. k=1 C1 Ul b) O -0 C) -] f1 1.3 O �u Ra�eo'E 1-i l*J Ltl' C1 ,ra--7 r O p 6y! � �' M —� .0 gyp• o in rn � n•aas � JF �apm � O �. RECORDING REQUESTED BY SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO: Planning Director Room 102, Courthouse Annex San Luis Obispo, California 93401 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The following real property and the division thereof into one (1) parcels as of the date of recordation of this document, has een etermined to be in compliance with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and Local Ordinances enacted pursuant thereto. Said Real Property being described as: The Southerly portion of Lot 39 in Block 7 of Atascadero Colony, in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map recorded in Book 3, Page 1 et seq of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the centerline of Coromar Road common to Lots 38 and 39 in Block 7; running thence along said centerline North 320 40' West, 108.90 feet; thence North 570 20' East, 400.00 feet to the line common to bots 4 and 39 in Block 7; running thence along said common line South, 320 40' East, 108.90 feet to the line common to Lots 38 and 39 in Block 7; running thence along said common line South 57° 20' West, 400.00 feet to point of beginning. Owner: RICIIARD L. SEITZ and MARY SEITZ, husband and wife as joint tenants. NED A, ROGOWAY, Planning Director By: Larry J. Red, Supervisor Subdivision Review Section STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) On , 19 before COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO) ss, me, t e undersigned, a notary Public in and for the State, personally appeared Larry J. Red known to me to be the person whose name is sub- scribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. (SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC cn xn 3-5 Nan A. ROGOWAY, Director Telephone(805)549.5600 U40 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Courthouse Annex SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA - 91406 December 6, 1979 Honorable Atascadero Planning Commission and City Council City of Atascadero, California Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: SUBJECT: CO 79-116, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF A PORTION OF LUT 6, BLOCK 12, ATASCADERO COLONY, BEING PARCEL B OF CO 74-116; PORTOLA ROAD NEAR MOUNTAIN VIEW, CITY OF ATASCADERO. (R-A: - MODERATE DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (GOSSELIN - HILLIARD) SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #5 (884: 6/21/79) RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSISTENCY AND FOR APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION ON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS At a regular meeting of the County Subdivision Review Board, the attached subdivision was considered and is being referred to you for required action and findings regarding consistency with applicable general plans. Respectfully submitted, LARRY J RED, Supervisor Subdivision Review Section ca Attachment cc: County Engineer County Health Department REPORT OF THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 5, 1979 RE: CO 79-116, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOT 6, BLOCK 12, ATASCADERO COLONY, BEING PARCEL B OF CO 74-116; PORTOLA ROAD NEAR MOUNTAIN VIEW, CITY OF ATASCADERO (R-A: MODERATE DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (GOSSELIN - HILLIARD) SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #5 (884: 6/21/79) RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSISTENCY AND FOR APPROVAL . SRB Members in Attendance: Acting Chairman, Larry Red, Bill MacDonald, John Hofschroer, Jerry Erickson, John Wallace Planning Commissioner in Attendance: George Rathmell Legal Counsel Present: None PROJECT DESCRIPTION This application proposes a subdivision of a 2 acre site into two parcels of one acre each. The site is located on the south side of Portola Road between Mountain View and Atascadero Avenue. Zoning: R-A: "Suburban Residential" (20,000 square foot minimum) General Plan: 1978 Atascadero Area General Plan: "Moderate Density Single Family Residential" (one acre minimum with community sewer service) COMMENTS Environmental Determination: A Conditional Negative Declaration was issued by the Environmental Coordinator on October 26, 1979, stating that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, subject to the following conditions: 1. An interior block easement be provided to facilitate the delivery of emergency services. 2. Access, drainage and erosion control plans to be submitted and approved to the County Engineering Department as per standard County procedures. Site and Area Considerations The site is a flag lot configuration being a rear lot that has an access easement along the eastern boundary of a 2-acre lot fronting on Portola Road. Access to the project site is from Portola Road and along the above mentioned easement. At the present time, this easement is not CO 79-116 paved or graveled and contains a turn, at the point where the access easement adjoins the main body of the lot. Provision of interior block access would mitigate potential difficulty involving the delivery of emergency services, and access to the site. The site consists of level to gently rolling terrain and is vegetated with annual grasses, oaks, and a variety of small trees and shrubs. Proposed Parcel l contains an existing residence and barn. Proposed Parcel 2 is vacant. Community water is available to the property, as is community sewer service. The surrounding area has undergone a high degree of land division and the proposed parcelization of the site would not constitute a new land use trend. Several adjacent properties have been divided by Parcel Map and have set the pattern for interior access to the subject site off of Mountain View Avenue. The character of the surrounding area is basically suburban residential in nature. Zoning and General Plan Considerations The site and adjacent properties are zoned R-A, Suburban Residential, with a 20,000 square foot minimum building site requirement. The County's Lot Division Ordinance contains the following provisions pertinent to this project 21.48. 125 Design. (b) Provide for the opening or extension of streets for traffic circulation in the interests of convenience, safety and welfare of the immediate residents. (g) The resulting parcels shall achieve optimal utility as measured by: (1) Efficient utilization of land; (2) Minimizing site disruption in developing access drives and building pads, with respect to cuts and fills and vegetation removal; (3) Ensuring that proposed parcels would not act to deter or hinder the use of the subject or adjacent parcels, present or future; (4) Maintaining the character and parcel configuration pattern of the surrounding area. The area is designated by the 1978 Atascadero General Plan as Moderate Density Single Family Residential. This specifies a one acre minimum where community sewer service is available. The plan contains the following provisions relating to this project: CO 79-116 Moderate Density Minimum lot size for the creation of new lots within the Urban Services Area should be one acre if served by sewers and 12 acres if not served by sewers. The keeping of poultry and other animals, excepting swine, may be a permitted use. The keeping of hoofed animals should require a minimum lot size of one acre for the first animal and an additional 2 acre for each additional animal. (P. 44) Residential Policy Proposals 11. Attention should be paid to the aesthetic result of land division. Building sites should be encouraged on natural slopes, with minimal disruption of native vegetation and watersheds, and efficient layout of access and utilities. 12. A program should be developed to encourage the preservation of trees, watersheds and natural slopes and other natural amenities from abuse and destruction resulting from poor design and develop- ment practices. (P. 45 & 46) RECOMMENDATION Although it appears the new City Council will take final action on this project, the Subdivision Review Board may still take action on this matter. Any action taken will likely constitute an informal recommenda- tion to the City Council. It should be noted this staff report and the recommendations are based on County policy, procedure, and ordinances. After review of applicable General Plans and other available information and contingent upon complete road improvements for appropriate access and circulation, the Subdivision Review Board recommends approval to the City Council and that the proposed subdivision be found consistent with the General Plan in accordance with Section 65302.5(a) (4) of the Government Code. Provided that a finding of consistency is made and the application ultimately approved, the following conditions are hereby established regarding the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision; which conditions when satisfied will mitigate the environmental concerns expressed by the Environmental Coordinator in his Conditional Negative Declaration of October 26, 1979. And, provided that the Board of Supervisors finds that your Tentative Parcel Map is consistent and approved, the Subdivision Review Board also recommends to the Board of Supervisors that it be found in the interest of the public health and safety, and as a necessary prerequisite to the orderly development of the surrounding area, to require the construction of road improvements within a period of one year after recordation of the Parcel Map. CO 7.9-116 • I. That the following "NOTES" shall be placed on the final map: A. Sewage disposal shall be by connection to the community sewers. B. Water is to be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. 2. That water operable facilities exist prior to the iling of the Final Map. A letter shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and submitted to the Health and Planning Departments for review and approval stating there are operable facilities immediately available and ready for connection to the parcels created. 3. That the applicant offer for dedication to the public a 50 foot road easement from Mountain View to and fronting the property as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map with a standard knuckle; said offer to be made by Certificate on the Parcel Map. 4. That the applicant submit a preliminary Title Report at the time the parcel map is submitted for checking. S. That the road easement from Mountain View to and fronting the property as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map be improved in the following manner: 2/3 an A-5 suburban section 6. Applicant shall file with the County Engineer an application requesting apportionment of any unpaid assessments under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915, in compliance with Section 8740.1 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. Said apportionment must be completed prior to filing the Final Map. 7. That any private easement as shown on the Title Report be shown on the Parcel Map with recording data. 8. That a drainage and erosion control plan, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, be submitted to the County Engineer for approval. 9. FIRE PROTECTION STANDARDS The applicant must comply with state, county and district laws/ ordinances applicable to fire protection and consider increased fire risk to area by the land proposed. 10. , All conditions of approval herein specified are to be complied with prior to the submittal of the Parcel Map Original to the County Engineer for approval. CO 79-116 11. That a Final Parcel Map shall be filed in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, prior to sale, lease or financing of the subject property within a period of one year from approval date of the Tentative Map. 12. After approval by the Board of Supervisors, compliance with the preceeding conditions will bring the proposed subdivision in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances. 13. The Tentative Parcel Map will expire one year (12 months) from the date of Board of Supervisors approval. The Tentative Parcel Map may be extended one year by the Subdivision Review Board. Written requests with appropriate fees must be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the expiration date. DISCUSSION Applicant's engineer attended the meeting. Don Silvia, Atascadero Fire ;Department, also attended. Road improvements were discussed and the applicants stated that they wished to appeal the requirements. The Subdivision Review Board unanimously adopted the preliminary report as written. rj fes•- ` ,�CVR -' / l ,` •', 'r 880 Z ','� y••_ � �/.\�`v// „�Y e A IR • _ ,�+ ,,.: .�;p \\ ��,s� '$ ,\ �—`.•�N �' , Sewag Disposal } �•�e J ry •�3: c��s �-- Ponds Com. Cza \, l •y//. •' -�' I X25 ol 031? 310 y1c /064 19 Cb �a .� o ` �. i �9�6 / s I ! ,jam Se,vage �. A-A \ P�r \ �� _ O Disposal ant tea a°s• 9 '�P A% �� \\ -� � i. :� .. `! •(soya` �• �� .,�� - r �' `yam p, F. . 05, -r• �• / tey l •• �� -1�2�. \ • qSPITAI �; X13 � i, \\ '�\ ` ,` �� . •��__ ••` d ��'`-p, "_-- _ . 34 20 -/ - - A 060 O• i S . ,0 i •J _ ` •• 5�/ 939 1 • 000 /Ff 00 r �• a � / �0 /• 16 zO . 00, 6 4 �' 0 C F ° • 72. 12r0 1203 co 7cl - I l/b , 'i`.- .. .' � ��r-a'. rFT•'rs�� :}IFS - 4. c _ - '...,,�.. ., +: W- • V �� "I ti r H �.vw v 4 NO op cQ � r fi Aj 4. y u'� Ar. e I I' a�: t• r, i 3 0 y r� c r 4 '9 �'a�� _t♦ F� <Z,N �' f j , � ✓ a L � . . + � ''�N � U a� ��'.4� r� ,. �. i I� 's-�i,�' y,��. '� a. y ' • Ij°n� '': � �0 �� a�� i � �? � � yI i ,� �'1�'��, � '11, !�:c1�; �:�y.^ � a NBn A. RoOOWAY, Director Telephone(805)549-5600 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Courthouse Annex SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA- 93408 December 6, 1979 Honorable Atascadero Planning Commission and City Council City of Atascadero, California Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: SUBJECT: AT 79-077, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF LOT 13, BLOCK 49, ATASCADERO COLONY; SANTA CRUZ ROAD, CITY OF ATASCADERO. (A-1-22: LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (HURDLE - HILLIARD) SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #1 (884: 7/3/79) RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSISTENCY AND FOR APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION ON ROAD IMPROVMENTS At a regular meeting of the County Subdivision Review Board, the attached subdivision was considered and is being referred to you for required action and findings regarding consistency with applicable general plans. Respectfully submitted, LARRY J. RED, a �isor Subdivision Review Section ca Attachment cc; County Engineer County Health Department REPORT OF THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 5, 1979 RE: AT 79-077, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF LOT 13, BLOCK 49, ATASCADERO COLONY; SANTA CRUZ ROAD, CITY OF ATASCADERO. (A-1-2z: LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (HURDLE - HILLIARD) SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT#1 (884: 7/3/79) RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSISTENCY AND FOR APPROVAL SRB Members in Attendance: Acting Chairman, Larry Red, John Hofschroer, Bill MacDonald, Jerry Erickson, John Wallace Planning Commissioner in Attendance: George Rathmell Legal Counsel Present: None PROJECT DESCRIPTION This application proposes a subdivision of a five acre site into two parcels of approximately 2.5 acres each. The site is located on the south side of Santa Cruz Road, near Carrizzo Road in northern Atascadero. Zoning: A-1-2z: "Light Agriculture" (21-2 acre minimum) General Plan: 1978 Atascadero Area General Plan: "Low Desnity Single Family Residential" COMMENTS Environmental Determination: A Conditional Negative Declaration was issued by the Environmental Coordinator on November 2, 1979, stating that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, subject to the following condition: Septic system design to be reviewed and approved by the County Engineering Department as per standard County procedure. Site and Area Considerations: The project site is undeveloped and consists of gently sloping terrain that slopes upward toward the south. Vegetation on the site consists of annual grasses with several large oaks along the southern boundary of the site. Data from the Soil Conservation District indicates that the site may be subject to a moderate erosion hazard and is designated for severe limitation on the use of septic systems. The County Fire Hazards Map indicates that the site is subject to a high fire hazard rating. Water for the site is to be supplied by the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. The County Department of Public Health has received a letter of intent to serve the proposed parcels. Sewage disposal is proposed to be by septic system. AT 79-077 • Surrounding parcel sizes are mixed. There is a tract to the east of the site with lot sizes in the 1/4 - 1/2 acre range. The majority of parcels are in the Vto 5 acre range. The division of this parcel would not appear to constitute a new land use trend. Zoning and General Plan Considerations: The site and adjacent properties are zoned A-1-2z, Light Agriculture, with a 211 acre minimum building site requirement. The ownership includes area to the centerline of Santa Cruz Road and under present zoning requirements may be utilized in calculating lot area. The result will allow the front parcel to be a net area of 2.36 acres. The 1978 Atascadero Area General Plan designates the area as Low Density Single Family Residential. The site is outside the Urban Services boundary, and Santa Cruz Road is designated as an arterial street. The General Plan contains the following comments pertinent to this project. "Land Use Policy Proposals 2. The type and extent of services provided within the Urban Reserve Area will depend on whether land is in the Urban or the Suburban Services Area. Properties outside the Urban Services Line should be evaluated for lot size based on the Suburban Residential range (21-2 to 10 acres) until sewers are available. (P. 42) Low Density Minimum lot sizes within the Urban Services Area should range from 1'i to 211 acres. Determination of appropriate lot sizes should be based upon such factors as the availability of services, especially sewers; slope of access road to building site; distance from the center of the community; general character of neighboring lands; soil percolation; and the area needed for access roads to the building sites. (P. 44) Residential Policy Proposals 5. Residential density should decrease as one moves outward from the core, in order to maintain the rural atmosphere of the community. This can be accomplished by a graded increase in lot size and a graded decrease in the permitted density of population. 10. Lot splits should be thoroughly evaluated and be in accordance with community plans and principles. Strict adherence to the lot sizes defined in this Plan is essential in order to retain the desired character of the community. Creation of lots smaller than those recommended must not be permitted if the maximum population of approximately 30,000 is to be maintained. AT 79-077 • • 11. Attention should be paid to the aesthetic result of land division. Building sites should be encouraged on natural slopes, with minimal disruption of native vegetation and watersheds, and efficient layout of access and utilities. 12. A program should be developed to encourage the preservation of trees, watersheds and natural slopes and other natural amenities from abuse and destruction resulting from poor design and develop- ment practices. (P. 45 & 46) The Suburban Residential Section also contains the following guidance: Lot sizes should be 2z acres or more. Determination of appro- priate lot sizes should be based upon such factors as slope of the access road to the building site, availability of services, distance from the center of the community, general character of neighboring lands, percolation and the area needed for access road to building site. (P. 44) Santa Cruz Road is designated by the Plan as a secondary arterial, and the following comments are offered: 3. Secondary Arterials Secondary arterials should be developed to a 60 foot right-of-way. These roads serve as major access routes between residential areas, shopping centers, employment centers and primary recreation areas. Road in this classi- fication must have shoulders wide enough to accommodate multi-use paths and emergency parking. There are 14 segments of undivided arterials: b. Traffic Way from E1 Camino Real to Potrero Road and future extension of Traffic Way beyond Potrero Road to E1 Camino Real as a truck route. The portion of Traffic Way between El Camino Real and Olmeda Avenue is also designated to have 40 feet of paving to allow for two 8 foot parking strips on both sides of the arterial. (P. 88)" RECOMMENDATION Although it appears the City Planning Commission and City Council will take final action on this project, the Subdivision Review Board may still take action on this matter. Any action taken will likely constitute an informal recommendation to the City Council. It should be noted this staff report and the recommendations are based on County policy, procedure, and ordinances. After review of applicable General Plans and other available information the Subdivision Review Board recommends approval and that the proposed subdivision be found consistent with the General Plan in accordance with Section 65302.5(a) (4) of the Government Code. AT 79-077 Provided that a finding of consistency is made and the application ultimately approved, the following conditions are hereby established regarding the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision, which conditions when satisfied will mitigate the environmental concerns expressed by the Environmental Coordinator in his Conditional Negative Declaration of November 2, 1979. And, provided that the Tentative Parcel Map is approved, the Subdivision Review Board also recommends that it be found in the interest of the public health and safety, and as a necessary pre-requisite to the orderly development of the surrounding area, to require the construction of road improvements within a period of one year after recordation of the Parcel Map. 1. That the following "NOTES" shall be placed on the final map: A. No sewage disposal system installations are to be placed closer than 100 feet from the top of the existing creek bank, drainage swales or areas subject to inundation. B. Sewage disposal systems shall be separated from any individual domestic well and/or agricultural well, as follows: (1) leach fields, one hundred feet (1001) , and (2) bored pits, one hundred fifty feet (1501) . Wells intended for two or more parcels shall be separated by two hundred feet (2001) from any subsurface sewage disposal system. C. Sewage disposal systems installed on slopes in excess of 200 shall be designed and certified by a registered civil engineer or geologist and submitted to the Planning and Health Department for review and approvalrp for to the issuance of a building permit. Consultants shall determine geologically stable building sites and sewage disposal for each parcel, including evaluations of hillside stability under the most adverse conditions including rock saturation and seismic forces. Slopes in excess of 30% are not considered suitable or practical for subsurface sewage disposal. D. Septic tanks will be an acceptable method of sewage disposal, if soil tests and plans are acceptable, until public sewers may become available. E. Water is to be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. 2. Prior to the filing of the arcel mag, the applicant shall submit to and be jointly approved b Planning Department and Health Department, results of percolation tests and the log or logs of soil borings performed by a registered civil engineer. For this purpose, the applicant shall perform one or more soil borings to be a minimum depth of ten (10) feet in the area of the proposed sewage disposal system to determine the: (a) subsurface soil conditions, (example: impermeable stratas which act as barriers to the effective percolation of sewage) ; (b) and the presence of AT 79-0 •. groundwater. And the applicant must perform a minimum of three (3) percolation test holes per lot, to be spaced uniformly in the area of the proposed sewage disposal system. Percolation tests shall conform to the methods and guidelines prescribed by the Manual of Septic Tank Practice as adopted by the County Building and Construction Ordinance Title 19, Chapter 10.24. 3. That operable facilities exist prior to the filing of the Final Map. A letter shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and submitted to the Health and Planning Departments for review and approval stating there are operable facilities immedi- ately available and ready for connection to the parcels created. 4. That the applicant offer for dedication to the public for future road widening purposes 10 feet along Santa Cruz Road; said offer to be made by Certificate on the Parcel Map. 5. That a private easement be reserved on the Parcel Map for access to Parcel B. 6. That the applicant submit a preliminary Title Report at the -time the Parcel Map is submitted for checking. 7. That Santa Cruz Road fronting said property and continuing to Traffic Way or El Camino be improved in the following manner: 2/3 an A-4 suburban section 8. That the grade and alignment of the road easements as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map meet San Luis Obispo County standards. Also, improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the County Engineer's Office for approval. 9. That the applicant enter into an Inspection Agreement with the County for inspection of said improvements. 10. The Engineer, upon completion of the improvements, must certify to the County Engineer that the improvements are made in accordance with Subdivision Review Board requirements and the approved plans. 11. That any private easement as shown on the Title Report be shown on the Parcel Map with recording data. 12. FIRE PROTECTION STANDARDS The applicant must comply with state, county and district laws/ ordinances applicable to fire protection and consider increased fire risk to area by the land proposed. AT 79-077 • 13. All conditions of approval herein specified are to be complied with prior to the submittal of the Parcel Map Original to the County Engineer for approval. 14. That a Final Parcel Map shall be filed in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, prior to sale, lease or financing of the subject property within a period of one year from approval date of the Tentative Map. 15. After approval by the Board of Supervisors, compliance with the preceeding conditions will bring the proposed subdivision in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances. 16. The Tentative Parcel Map will expire one year (12 months) from the date of Board of Supervisors approval. The Tentative Parcel bap may be extended one year by the Subdivision Review Board. Written requests with appropriate fees must be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the expiration date. DISCUSSION Applicant's engineer attended the meeting and discussed road improvements. The Subdivision Review Board unanimously adopted the preliminary report as written. ��,� �� IAC►�;. � .'`C'.�r SO LYN • • Et < a, T AV 4 r Y � " . .oma__:��- - -� -. . •e a t � r 44 _ w g a �u Qti h3 W� . � �� Q h� Q J I -•• r: �o t NBa A. RocowAY, Director Telephone(805)549-5600 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Courthouse Annex .SAN Luis OBISPO, CALIFORNIA - 93908 December 6, 1979 Honorable Atascadero Planning Commission and City Council City of Atascadero, California Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: SUBJECT: AT 79-139, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF LOT 1-A, BLOCK 12, ATASCADERO COLONY, ATASCADERO AVENUE, NEAR SANTA ROSA, CITY OF ATASCADERO (R-A: MODERATE DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (HARTMAN - BRAY) SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #S (884: 7/13/79) RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSISTENCY AND FOR APPROVAL. At a regular meeting of the County Subdivision Review Board, the attached subdivision was considered and is being referred to you for required action and findings regarding consistency with applicable general plans. Respectfully submitted, LARRY J. RED, Supervisor Subdivision Review Section ca Attachment cc: County Engineer County Health Department REPORT OF THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 5, 1979 RE: AT 79-139, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF LOT 1-A, BLOCK 12, ATASCADERO COLONY, ATASCADERO AVENUE, NEAR SANTA ROSA, CITY OF ATASCADERO. (R-A: MODERATE DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (HARTMAN - BRAY) SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #5 (884: 7/13/79) RECON24ENDATION FOR CONSISTENCY AND FOR APPROVAL SRB Members in Attendance: Acting Chairman, Larry Red, John Hofschroer, Jerry Erickson Planning Commissioner in Attendance: George Rathmell Legal Counsel Present: None PROJECT DESCRIPTION This application proposes an adjustment of a 2. 1 acre site into two parcels of 1. 1 and 1. 0 acres each. The site is located on the westerly side of Atascadero Avenue just north of Santa Rosa Road. Zoning: R-A: "Suburban Residential" (20,000 square foot minimum) General Plan: 1978 Atascadero Area General Plan: "Moderate Density Single Family Residential" (1 acre minimum with sewer service) COMMENTS Environmental Determination: . A Conditional Negative Declaration was issued by the Environmental Coordinator on November 2, 1979, stating that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, subject to the following condition: Need for interior block access to be examined by the County Planning Department as per standard County procedure. Site and Area Considerations: The site is comprised of 2. 1 acres of essentially level terrain. A single family residence presently exists upon proposed Parcel 1. Proposed Parcel 2 is covered with annual grasses and is vacant at this time. Water and sewer service is available to the site and Atascadero Avenue is improved and publically maintained. The area is basically residential in character, with parcel sizes ranging from 1/2 to 5 acres. Zoning and General Plan Considerations: The site and adjacent property is zoned R-A, Suburban Residential, which has a 20,000 square foot minimum building site requirement. The property is AT 79-139 • designated by the 1978 Atascadero Area General Plan as Moderate Density Single Family Residential. This specifies a one acre minimum in areas where sewer service is available. The plan contains the following provision relating to this project: "Moderate Density Minimum lot size for the creation of new lots within the Urban. Services Area should be one acre if served by sewers and lh acres if not served by sewers. The keeping of poultry and other animals, excepting swine, may be a permitted use. The keeping of hoofed animals should require a minimum lot size of one acre for the first animal and an additional 1/2 acre for each additional animal." (P. 44) Atascadero Avenue is designated by the plan as a Secondary Arterial, and the following comments are offered: 3. Secondary Arterials Secondary Arterials should be developed to a 60-foot right-of-way. These roads serve as major access routes between residential areas, shopping centers, employment centers and primary recreation areas. Roads in this classification must have shoulders wide enough to accommodate multi-use paths and emergency parking. There are 14 segments of undivided Arterials: a. Atascadero Avenue from Morro Road to Freeway 101 provides major access to the Santa Rosa Road Elementary School. It is noted for heavy traffic and lack of shoulders. RECOMMENDATION Although it appears the new City Council will take final action on this project, the Subdivision Review Board may still .take action on this matter. Any action taken will likely constitute an informal recommenda- tion to the City Council. It should be noted this staff report and the recommendations are based on County policy, procedure, and ordinances. , After review of applicable General Plans and other available information, the Subdivision Review Board recommends approval and proposes that the subdivision be found consistent with the General Plan in accordance with Section 65302.5(a) (4) of the Government Code. Provided that a finding of consistency is made and the application ultimately approved, the following conditions are hereby established regarding the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision; which conditions when satisfied will mitigate the environmental concerns expressed by the Environmental Coordinator in his Conditional Negative Declaration of November 2, 1979. AT 79-139 • 1. That the following "NOTES" shall be placed on the final map: A. Sewage disposal shall be by connection to the community sewers. B. Water is to be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. 2. That water operable facilities exist prior to the filing of the Final Map. A letter shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and submitted to the Health and Planning Departments for review and approval stating there are operable facilities immediately available and ready for connection to the parcels created. 3. That prior to the filing of the final map a "will serve" letter be obtained from the City of Atascadero Sanitary District and submitted to the Health and Planning Departments for review and approval stating that the community sewage system is willing and able to serve the newly created parcels.. 4. That the applicant offer for dedication to the public for future road widening purposes 5 feet along Atascadero Road; said offer to be made by certificate on the Parcel Map. 5. That a private easement be reserved on the Parcel Map for access to parcel 2. 6. That the applicant submit a preliminary Title Report at the time the Parcel Map is submitted for checking. 7. Applicant shall file with the County Engineer an application requesting apportionment of any unpaid assessments under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915, in compliance with Section 8740. 1 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. Said apportionment must be completed prior to filing the Final Map. 8. That any private easement as shown on the Title Report be shown on the Parcel Map with recording data. 9. FIRE PROTECTION STANDARDS The applicant must comply with state, county and district laws/ ordinances applicable to fire protection and consider increased fire risk to area by the land proposed. 10. All conditions of approval herein specified are to be complied with prior to the submittal of the Parcel Map Original to the County Engineer for approval. AT 79-139 11. That a Final Parcel Map shall be filed in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, prior to sale, lease or financing of the subject property within a period of one year from approval date of the Tentative Map. 12. After approval by the Board of Supervisors, compliance with the preceeding conditions will bring the proposed subdivision in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances. 13. The Tentative Parcel Map will expire one year (12 months) from the date of Board of Supervisors approval. The Tentative Parcel Map may be extended one year by the Subdivision Review Board. Written requests with appropriate fees must be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the expiration date. DISCUSSION Applicant did not attend the meeting. Don Silvia, Atascadero Fire Department attended. The Subdivision Review Board unanimously adopted the preliminary report as written. ,PP `\ A,r Lti.\.' (7I v• •.. r•`••• / l l f_L` • •.. . �' •..r `� ' y x "�'Oo 'tf:SA '4 "0 -7 10 j'� P � ;e,•E '�' L/��d _� • 1: `i'�, J..�F.. a, � `9.! `„�.�tic': L'_ I �'�i, •• ,' Z • \t I• \� R� ,�,..�•�..i-l_'� , -� "tel',��fC�h,---J-�J(_ '�� ,\�\ Y`• v�•.�_` � VI AQ d • A d 3 4L , 14 Ij ant Mt •/ a�P j , p '�. ' i 7 f• rA� ,,V4dN V, •� � 4:01 i b '1101 RDA 32> Lo qo 000 - F, / ° •��-� `. 77. 03 o nj o „ • o ct e � � � � & e o rt vi I 16, ilk IL ! Jff J9 7p h v ♦ o D � N 0 s ••�.� ..o R lL Q ti f i i ' o NEn A. RocowAY, Director Telephone(805)549-5600 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Courthouse Annex SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA - 93408 December 6, 1979 Honorable Atascadero Planning Commission and City Council City of Atascadero, California Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: SUBJECT: AT 79-106, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOT 6A, BLOCK 11, ATASCADERO COLONY; SANTA ROSA ROAD, CITY OF ATASCADERO (R-A: MODERATE DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (BALDWIN SAN LUIS ENGINEERING) SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #5 (884: 7/11/79) RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSISTENCY AND FOR APPROVAL At a regular meeting of the County Subdivision Review Board, the attached subdivision was considered and is being referred to you for required action and findings regarding consistency with applicable general plans. Respectfully submitted, LARRY J. RE , Supervisor Subdivision Review Section ca Attachment cc: County Engineer County Health Department REPORT OF THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 5, 1979 RE: AT 79-106, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOT 6A, BLOCK 11, ATASCADERO COLONY; SANTA ROSA ROAD, CITY OF ATASCADERO R-A: MODERATE DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (BALDWIN - SAN LUIS ENGINEERING) SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #5 (884: 7/11/79) RECONIl4ENDATION FOR CONSISTENCY AND FOR APPROVAL SRB Members in Attendance: Acting Chairman, Larry Red, John Hofschroer, Jerry Erickson Planning Commissioner in Attendance: George Rathmell Legal Counsel Present: None PROJECT DESCRIPTION This application proposes a subdivision of a 2.2 acre site into two parcels of 1.2 and 1.0 acres each. The site is located on the south side of Old Santa Rosa Road, between the frontage road and New Santa Rosa Road. Zoning: R-A: "Suburban Residential" (20,000 square foot minimum) General Plan: 1978 Atascadero Area General Plan: "Moderate Density Single Family Residential" (one acre minimum with sewer service) COMMENTS Environmental Determination: A Conditional Negative Declaration was issued by the Environmental Coordinator on November 2, 1979, stating that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, subject to the following condition: Drainage, erosion control and access plans to be reviewed and approved by the County Engineer's Office prior to the filing of the Final Map. Site and Area Considerations: The terrain of the project site is essentially level with natural vegetation consisting of several large oaks and annual grasses. Three residential structures are located upon the site and all three are situated upon proposed Parcel No. 1. Water service will be provided by the Atascadero Mutual Water Company, and sewage disposal by connection' to the community system. Santa Rosa Road is a local street which is improved and publically maintained. The area is basically residential in character, with parcel sizes ranging from 1/2 to 5 acres. AT 79- 106 • Zoning and General Plan Considerations: The site and adjacent property is zoned R-A, Suburban Residential, which has a 20,000 square foot minimum building site requirement. That zoning district allows servant's quarters and non-commercial guest houses (no kitchen) as permitted uses, and second residential units only by Departmental Review. Zoning compliance relative to the existing residences and accessory structures must be assured prior to recording the Parcel Map. The proposed driveway should also be relocated to the easterly side of the property to eliminate any further physical division of the site. The property is designated by the 1978 Atascadero Area General Plan as Moderate Density Single Family Residential. This specifies a one '4cre minimum in areas where sewer service is available. Santa Rosa Roach is indicated as a Local Street. The plan contains the following provision relating to this project: "Moderate Density Minimum lot size for the creation of new lots within the Urban Services Area should be one acre if served by sewers and lz acres if not served by sewers. The keeping of poultry and other animals, excepting swine, may be a permitted use. The keeping of hoofed animals should require a minimum lot size of one acre for the first animal and an additional 1/2 acre for each additional animal." (P. 44) RECOMMENDATION Although it appears the new City Council will take final action on this project, the Subdivision Review Board may still take action on this matter. Any action taken will likely constitute an informal recom- mendation to the City Council. It should be noted this staff report and the recommendations are based on County policy, procedure, and ordinances. After review of applicable General Plans and other available information, the Subdivision Review Board recommends approval and proposes that the subdivision be found consistent with the General Plan in accordance with Section 65302.5(a) (4) of the Government Code. Provided that a finding of consistency is made and the application ultimately approved, the following conditions are hereby established regarding the. design and improvements of the proposed subdivision; which conditions when satisfied will mitigate the environmental concerns expressed by the Environmental Coordinator in his Conditional Negative Declaration of November 2, 1979. 1. That the following "NOTES" shall be placed on the final map: A. Sewage disposal shall be by connection to the community sewers. AT 79-106 B. Water is to be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. 2. That water operable facilities exist prior to the filing of the Final Map. A letter shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and submitted to the Health and Planning Departments for review and approval stating there are operable facilities immediately available and ready for connection to. the parcels created. 3. Thatrp for to the filing of the final maw a "will serve" letter be obtained from the City of Atascadero Sanitary District and submitted to the Health and Planning Departments for review and approval stating that the community sewage system is willing and able to serve the newly created parcels. 4. That the applicant offer for dedication to the public for future road widening purposes 5 feet along Santa Rosa Road; said offer to be made by certificate on the Parcel Map. S. That a private easement be reserved on the Parcel Map for access to parcel 2. 6. Applicant shall file with the County Engineer an application requesting apportionment of any unpaid assessments under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915, in compliance with Section 8740. 1 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. Said apportionment must be completed prior to filing the Final Map. 7. That any private easement as shown on the Title Report be shown on the Parcel Map with recording data. 8. FIRE PROTECTION STANDARDS The applicant must comply with state, county and district laws/ ordinances applicable to fire protection and consider increased fire risk to area by the land proposed. 9. That zoning compliance be assured or that the structures in conflict be removed prior to filing the Parcel Map original with the County Engineer. 10. All conditions of approval herein specified are to be complied with prior to the submittal of the Parcel Map `Original to the County Engineer for approval 11. That a Final Parcel Map shall be filed in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, prior to sale, lease or financing of the subject property within a period of one year from approval date of the Tentative Map. AT 79-106 • 12. After approval by the Board of Supervisors, compliance with the preceeding conditions will bring the proposed subdivision in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances. 13. The Tentative Parcel Map will expire one year (12 months) from the date of Board of Supervisors approval. The Tentative Parcel Map may be extended one year by the Subdivision Review Board. Written requests with appropriate fees must be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the expiration date. DISCUSSION Applicant's engineer attended the meeting and discussed-zoning compliance. Commissioner Rathmell stated that the existing driveway was adequate. The Subdivision Review Board unanimously adopted the preliminary report as written. yL 64 M� t?5.4� ��r<` , • Vj� ,aV/g`'x�� t"f•;/c`r .(, "7►'. !.�`r• !1 \ I o q 7'4 HigTi �ch''�- •Q R�� Bh .�v ` :�•%• `ice./ F 40aS / f . � qty ' �•( II ra it �� :�9 s 'ALd ` • � h t sr }� � p9j�•'' vr�' �� I • �� 41r 880 • �f T�� 4�'' :�C• F<�:r` /./• � / •'��`,r g aOo 6 '•��• 4 4• �, 4 .�rte• • .e./ y `( • �c "`i' �� -. ,E' - <` • /�'•� f `XT•• �N. , Se.�ag C,spo' �. \ ,x \S `.yam` ;'�/ •/ .• • / - o _ �t� aa • .' S5 `Y.ly_ 9- por 39 ao 41 34 4b N, ROA No Y32> J• 111 �. 1 /• � .� 1 /r l / i � r \ � •��5p/ � \ 000 -07 A&A JW,02 r I yyk 'Ytc /. • - / I N I N \ \ KId N �t •J L i \ to-9, f�4 ll's� :k ,�4.:.T A,.+4.�.c�„ r �_C ua.�?l�..w �.5...•. � `..r* t .y. ..tt&iY _ .. / l t L..•.`S- 1't� ,'�7'bt�f.- Y�tAJ1� -< � .�`q+�"1 ��l�r'��4+ This is another example of te- 1 I feel we must take a good look at for the long run. . .how much can we allow these hilly, rocky lots to break down. At some point we are going to have say this far and no farther. This is beautiful country but it is too rocky to afford more than one more breakdown. ( D I hope we can malts a priority item of looking at Frog Pond Mountain and similar areas for larger density minimum lot sizes. As mentioned when the previous item came up. . . . . . Nsa A. ROGOWAY, Director Telephone(805)549-5600 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Courthouse Annex SAN LUIS OBIBPO, CALIFORNIA - 93408 December 6, 1979 Honorable Atascadero Planning Commission and City Council City of Atascadero, California Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: SUBJECT: CO 79-46, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF LOT 15, BLOCK 38, ATASCADERO COLONY; SAN DIMOS AND SAN DIEGO ROADS IN SOUTHWEST ATASCADERO, CITY OF ATASCADERO (A-1-BV-5: SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) (BEWSEY - ORTON) SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #5 (884: 4/26/79) RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSISTENCY AND FOR APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION ON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS At a regular meeting of the County Subdivision Review Board, the attached subdivision was considered and is being referred to you for required action and findings regarding consistency with applicable general plans. Respectfully submitted, G-- LARRY J. RED, upervisor Subdivision Review Section ca Attachment cc: County Engineer County Health Department REPORT OF THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 5, 1979 RE: CO 79-46, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF LOT 15, BLOCK 38, ATASCADERO COLONY; SAN DIMOS AND SAN DIEGO ROADS IN SOUTHWEST ATASCADERO, CITY OF ATASCADERO (A-1-BV-5: SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) (BEWSEY - ORTON) SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #5 (884: 4/26/79) RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSISTENCY AND FOR APPROVAL SRB Members in Attendance: Acting Chairman, Larry Red, John Hofschroer, Jerry Erickson Planning Commissioner in Attendance: George Rathmell Legal Counsel Present: None PROJECT DESCRIPTION This application proposes a subdivision of a 19. 1 acre site into three lots of 6.2, 6. 1 and 6.8 acres each. The site is located on the northerly side of the intersection of San Dimos and San Diego roads in the Chandler Ranch area. Zoning: A-1-BV-5: "Light Agriculture" (with a slope related density and a 3 acre minimum) General Plan: 1978 Atascadero Area General Plan: "Suburban Residential (21-2 - 10 acres) COt.,ZIENTS Environmental Determination: A Conditional Negative Declaration was issued by the Environmental Coordinator on October 12, 1979, stating that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, subject to the following conditions: 1. Drainage, erosion control and access plans be reviewed by the County Engineer' s office as per standard County procedure. 2. An engineering geologist survey the site and delineate all potential landslide areas on a map to be reviewed by the County Engineer' s Office. Site and Area Considerations The site has moderately sloping topography with average slopes ranging from 15-250. The site is vegetated with oaks and chaparral. The char- acter of the surrounding area is rural with parcels ranging from 4 to 20 CO 79-46 • 20 acres in size. However, most parcels are in the 5 to 10 acre category, being part of the old Atascadero Colony, and the subject site is adjacent to a 100-acre parcel to the east. The site is on the fringe of a developing suburban residential area. Lot division and building activity has been fairly high in past few years. The present application is a re-submittal of a previous Tentative Parcel Map (CO 77-202) which xas found to be not consistent with the previous General Plan designation in Septem er o 1977. Data from,the Soil Conservation Service notes that the site may have a severe rating for sewage effluent percolation and that erosion hazard is very high. Under normal County procedures, the Health Department will review any new septic systems. The County Seismic Safety Element classifies the site as having a high landslide risk. Zoning and General Plan Considerations The site is zoned A-1-BV-5, Light Agriculture, with a slope related combining designation which establishes a 3 acre minimum. The proposed parcel sizes are adequate to meet the density requirements of the district. The 1978 Atascadero Area General Plan designates the area as Suburban Residential, which has a 21-2 to 10 acre density range. The plan contains the following description of Suburban Residential: "Land use should be limited to single-family dwellings, accessory buildings and uses, home occupations, truck gardening orchards and vineyards, the keeping of poultry and other animals, excepting - swine, rest homes, public parks and playgrounds, animal hospitals, large and small animals, and nurseries (plant) . Lot sizes should be 231 acres or more. Determination of appropriate lots sizes should be based upon such factors as slope of the access road to the building site, availability of services, distance from the center of the community, general character of neighboring lands, percolation and the area needed for access road to building site. Because this plan extends the Urban Reserve Line to the Colony boundary, the densities of five to ten acres in the area formerly designated Rural are increased." (P. 44) Residential Policy Proposals S. Residential density should decrease as one moves outward from the core, in order to maintain the rural atmosphere of the community. This can be accomplished by a graded increase in lot size and a graded decrease in the permitted density of population. 10. Lot splits should be thoroughly evaluated and be in accordance with community plans and principles. Strict adherence to the lot sizes defined in this plan is essential in order to retain CO 79-46 the desired character of the community. Creation of lots smaller than those recommended must not be permitted if the maximum population of approximately 30,000 is to be maintained. 11. Attention should be paid to the aesthetic result of land division. Building sites should be encouraged on natural slopes, with minimal disruption of native vegetation and watersheds, and efficient layout of access and utilities. 12. A program should be developed to encourage the preservation � of trees, watersheds and natural slopes and other natural amenities from abuse and destruction resulting from poor design and development practices. (P. 45 $ 46) RECOMMENDATION Although the City Planning Commission and the City Council will take final action on this project, the Subdivision Review Board may still take action on this matter. Any action taken will likely constitute an informal recommendation to the City Council. It should be noted this staff report and the recommendations are based on County policy, procedure and ordinances. After review of applicable General Plans and other available infor- mation, the Subdivision Review Board recommends approval to the City Council and that the proposed subdivision be found consistent with the General Plan in accordance with Section 65302.5(a) (4) of the Government Code. Provided that a finding of consistency is made and the application ultimately approved, the following conditions are hereby established regarding the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision; which conditions when satisfied will mitigate the environmental concerns expressed by the Environmental Coordinator in his Conditional Negative Declaration of October 12, 1979. And, provided that the Board of Supervisors finds that your Tentative Parcel Map is consistent and approved, the Subdivision Review Board also recommends to the Board of Supervisors that it be found in the interest of the public health and safety, and as a necessary prerequisite to the orderly development of the surrounding area, to require the construction of road improvements within a period of one year after recordation of the Parcel Map. 1. That the following "NOTES 'shall be placed on the final map: CO 79-46 • • A. No sewage disposal system installations are to be placed closer than 100 feet from the top of the existing creek bank, drainage swales or areas subject to inundation. B. Septic tanks will be an acceptable method of sewage disposal, if soil tests and plans are acceptable, until public sewers may become available. C. Water is to be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water. Company. 2. Prior to the filing of the parcel map, the applicant shall submit to and be jointly approved by the Planning Department and Health Department, results of percolation tests and the log or logs of soil borings performed by a registered civil engineer. For this purpose, the applicant shall perform one or more soil borings to be a minimum depth of ten (10) feet in the area of the proposed sewage disposal system to determine the: (a) subsurface soil conditions, (example: impermeable stratas which act as barriers to the effective percolation of sewage) ; (b) and the presence of groundwater. And the applicant must perform a minimum of three (3) percolation test holes per lot, to be spaced uniformly in the area of the proposed sewage disposal system. Percolation tests shall conform to the methods and guidelines prescribed by the Manual of Septic Tank Practice as adopted by the County Building and Construction Ordinance Title 19, Chapter 10. 24. 3. That operable water facilities exist prior to the filing of the Final Map. A letter shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and submitted to the Health and Planning Departments for review and approval stating there are operable facilities immediately available and ready for connection to the parcels created. 4. That in order to protect the public safety and prevent possible ground water pollution, any abandoned wells on the property shall be destroyed in accordance with the San Luis Obispo County Well Ordinance Chapter 8.40, and Health Division destruction standards. (permit required) S. That thea applicant offer for dedication to the public for future road i PP 1 widening purposes 5 feet along San Dimos and San Diego Roads; said offer to be made by Certificate of Parcel Map. 6. That the applicant offer for dedication to the public a 25 foot radius property line return at the intersection of San Dimos Road and San Diego Road; said offer to be made by certificate on the Parcel Map. CO 79-46 7. That the applicant submit a preliminary Title Report at the time the parcel map is submitted for checking. 8. That San Dimos and San Diego Roads fronting said property be improved in the following manner: 2/3 an A-5 rural section fronting the property and extending to Los Osos Road 9. That the grade and alignment of the road easements as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map meet San Luis Obispo County standards. Also, improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the County Engineer's Office for approval. 10. That the applicant enter into an Inspection Agreement with the County for inspection of said improvements. 11. The Engineer, upon completion of the improvements, must certify to the County Engineer that the improvements are made in accordance with Subdivision Review Board requirements and the approved plans. 12. That a practical plan and profile for access be submitted to the County Engineering and Planning Departments for approval. 13. That any private easement as shown on the Title Report be shown on the Parcel Map with recording data. 14. That a drainage and erosion control plan, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, be submitted to the County Engineer for approval. 15. That three (3) copies of a Preliminary Soils Report prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer in accordance with Sections 17953, 17954, 17955 of the California Health and Safety Code be submitted to the Planning Department and Health Department prior to the filing of the parcel map by the County Engineer's Office. The date and person who prepared the report are to be noted on the Parcel Map. 16. FIRE PROTECTION STANDARDS The applicant must comply with state, county and district laws/ ordinances applicable to fire protection and consider increased fire risk to area by the land proposed. 16A. Fire hydrants to be installed to the satisfaction fo the Atascadero Fire Department. Hydrant to be located at the road intersection and one prior to 1000' from the intersection. 17. All conditions of approval herein specified are to be complied with prior to the submittal of the Parcel Map Original to the County Engineer for approval. • CO 79-46 • • 18. That a Final Parcel Map shall be filed in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, prior to sale, lease or financing of the subject property within a period of one year from approval date of the Tentative Map. 19. After approval by the Board of Supervisors, compliance with the preceeding conditions will bring the proposed subdivision in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances. 20. The Tentative Parcel Map will expire one year (12 months) from the date of Board of Supervisors approval. The Tentative Parcel Map may be extended one year by the Subdivision Review Board. Written requests with appropriate fees must be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the expiration date. DISCUSSION Applicant and engineer attended the meeting. Also, Don Silvia of the Atascadero Fire Department attended and had concerns about fire hydrant yr` locations. The applicants stated that they wished to appeal the road improvement requirements. The County engineer stated that the existing roads are not to standard. The applicant did not object to improving / the frontage of the property. The Subdivision Review Board unanimously adopted the preliminary report as amended. V� -AX+ n Ro o a �,. oot-77 1. � 0 \ R AL q� V IS A 9/7 f pec - � _ •/ � '�' RJ { /,J o 6076-3 PA N ?p0. ,itq •\ �_ �P?R 2 9 / a �cl paRCEL 1 F P \ 1. //" AGO°p• /I N PARCEL 2• \ 32y%�,.o ! , Ir 0L00 0 ; ()Do '4I l' 61 S 12 00 r \\ '- LVAA D 0 y QIP f� �'' - t o � 97isVIVIVITV A44ta 77 _ ___ F A o 10 �.Y: o � 3 pn N Q CC CD va E `v ON Ca . r ••'" 35�0� ii t O O I .. r 49 CO 1 / • <i. 'iii . _/ � � —a 141 i � • NsD A. RocowAY, Director Telephone(805)549-5600 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Courthouse Annex SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA - 93408 December 6, 1979 Honorable Atascadero Planning Commission and City Council City of Atascadero, California Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: SUBJECT: CO 79-40, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF LOT 38, BLOCK 13, ATASCADERO COLONY; SAN GABRIEL ROAD NEAR ATASCADERO AVENUE, CITY OF ATASCADERO (A-1-11-2: LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (FAIRBANKS - HILLIARD) SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #5 (884: 5/10/79) RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSISTENCY AND FOR APPROVAL At a regular meeting of the County Subdivision Review Board, the attached subdivision was considered and is being referred to you for required action and findings regarding consistency with applicable general plans. Respectfully submitted, LARRY J. RED, upervisor Subdivision Review Section ca Attachment cc: County Engineer County Health Department REPORT OF THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 5, 1979 RE: CO 79-40, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF LOT 38, BLOCK 13, ATASCADERO COLONY; SAN GABRIEL ROAD NEAR ATASCADERO AVENUE, CITY OF ATASCADERO (A-1-111: LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (FAIRBANKS - HILLIARD) SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #5 (884: 5/10/79) RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSISTENCY AND FOR APPROVAL SRB Members in Attendance: Acting Chairman, Larry Red, John Hofschroer, Bill MacDonald, Jerry Erickson, John Wallace Planning Commissioner in Attendance: George Rathmell Legal Counsel Present: None PROJECT DESCRIPTION This application proposes a subdivision of a 5 acre site into two parcels of 2.5 acres each. The site is located on the north side of San Gabriel Road just west of Atascadero Avenue. Zoning: A-1-1h: "Light Agriculture" (111 acre minimum) General Plan: 1978 Atascadero Area General Plan: "Low Density Single Family Residential" (22 - 10 acres without sewer service) COMMENTS Environmental Determination: A Conditional Negative Declaration was issued by the Environmental Coordinator on October 12, 1979, stating that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, subject to the following conditions: 1. Drainage, erosion control, septic system, and access plans to be submitted to and approved by the County Engineering Department. 2. Access to proposed Parcel A to be reviewed and approved by the County Planning Department. Site and Area Considerations The site is characterized by gently sloping terrain. Vegetation on the site consists of grasses, oaks and landscape plants. There is an existing residence and stables located on proposed Parcel B. Parcel A is proposed to have access to San Gabriel by the use of a 20 foot easement that follows the east side of proposed Parcel B. Based on site characteristics, it is recommended this access easement be shifted to l CO 79-40 the westerly line of the property to coincide with the existing driveway. Community water is available, but the site is outside the sewer service boundary. Single Family Residential is the predominant land use of the surround- ing area. Surrounding parcel sizes are generally in the 2 to 7 acre range. The area is one that is undergoing land division activity. In March, 1979, an EIR was approved by the Board of Supervisors for similar parcel map divisions located on the south side of San Gabriel Road. Both of the above mentioned parcel map divisions were approved (CO 78-164, CO 78-121 and CO 78-107) . Zoning and General Plan Considerations The site and properties on either side and to the south are zoned A-1-1�, Light Agriculture, with a li acre minimum. Properties to the north are zoned R-A, Suburban Residential, with a 20,000 square foot minimum. The 1978 Atascadero Area General Plan designates the area as Low Density Single Family Residential. The site is outside the Urban Services boundary, and San Gabriel Road is designated as a Collector Street. The General Plan contains the following comments pertinent to this project: Land Use Policy Proposals 2. The type and extent of services provided within the Urban Reserve Area will depend on whether land is in the Urban or the Suburban Services Area. Properties outside the Urban Services Line should be evaluated for lot size based on the Suburban Residential range (22 to 10 acres) until sewers are available. (P. 42) Low Density Minimum lot sizes within the Urban Services Area should range from 11i to 2h acres. Determination of appropriate lot sizes should be based upon such factors as the availability of services, especially sewers; slope of access road to building site; distance from the center of the community; general character of neighboring lands; soil percolation; and the area needed for access roads to the building sites. (P. 44) Residential Policy Proposals 5. Residential density should decrease as one moves outward from the core, in order to maintain the rural atmosphere of the community. This can be accomplished by a graded increase in lot size and a graded decrease in the permitted density of population. 10. Lot splits should be thoroughly evaluated and be in accordance with community plans and principles. Strict adherence to the lot sizes defined in this plan is essential in order to retain the desired CO 79-40 • • character of the community. Creation of lots smaller than those recommended must not be permitted if the maximum population of approximately 30,000 is to be maintained. 11. Attention should be paid to the aesthetic result of land division. Building sites should be encouraged on natural slopes, with minimal disruption of native vegetation and watersheds, and efficient layout of access and utilities. 12. A program should be developed to encourage the preservation of trees, watersheds and natural slopes and other natural amenities from abuse and destruction resulting from poor design and development practices. (P. 45 $ 46) The Suburban Residential Section also contains the following guidance: Lot sizes should be 22 acres or more. Determination of appropriate lot sizes should be based upon such factors as slope of the access road to the building site, availability of services, distance from the center of the community, general character of neighboring lands, percolation and the area needed for access road to building site. (P. 44) RECOMMENDATION Although the City Planning Commission and the City Council will take final action on this project, the Subdivision Review Board may still take action on this matter. Any action taken will likely constitute an informal recommendation to the City Council. It should be noted this staff report and the recommendations are based on County policy, procedure and ordinances. After review of applicable General Plans and other available infor- mation, the Subdivision Review Board recommends approval to the City Council and that the proposed subdivision be found consistent with the General Plan in accordance with Section 65302.5(a) (4) of the Government Code. Provided that a finding of consistency is made and the application ultimately approved, the following conditions are hereby established regarding the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision; which conditions when satisfied will mitigate the environmental concerns expressed by the Environmental Coordinator in his Conditional Negative Declaration of October 12, 1979. 1. That the following "NOTES" shall be placed on the final map: A. No sewage disposal system installations are to be placed closer than 100 feet from the top of the existing creek bank, drainage swales or areas subject to inundation. CO 79-40 • • B. Sewage disposal systems shall be separated from any individual domestic well and/or agricultural well, as follows: (1) leach fields, one hundred feet (1001) , and (2) bored pits, one hundred fifty feet (1501) . Wells intended for two or more parcels shall be separated by two hundred feet (2001) from any subsurface sewage disposal system. C. Septic tanks will be acceptable method of sewage disposal, if soil tests and plans are acceptable, until public sewers may become available. D. Water is to be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. 2. Prior to the filing of the parcel map, the applicant shall submit to and be jointly approved by the Planning Department and Health Department, results of percolation tests and the log or logs of soil borings performed by a registered civil engineer. For this purpose, the applicant shall perform one or more soil borings to be a minimum depth of ten (10) feet in the area of the proposed sewage disposal system to determine the: (a) subsurface soil conditions, (example: impermeable stratas which act as barriers to the effective percolation of sewage) ; (b) and the presence of groundwater. And the applicant must perform a minimum of three (3) percolation test holes per lot, to be spaced uniformly in the area of the proposed sewage disposal system. Percolation tests shall conform to the methods and guidelines prescribed by the Manual of Septic Tank Practice as adopted by the County Building and Construction Ordinance Title 19, Chapter 10.24, for parcel "A" only. 3. That water operable facilities exist prior to the filing of the Final Map. A letter shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and submitted to the Health and Planning Departments for review and approval stating there are operable facilities immediately available and ready for connection to the parcels created. 4. That the applicant offer for dedication to the public for future road widening purposes 10 feet along San Gabriel Road; said offer to be made by Certificate on the Parcel Map. S. That a private easement be reserved on the Parcel Map for access to Parcel "A." 6. That the applicant submit a preliminary Title Report at the time the parcel map is submitted for checking. 7. That a practical plan and profile for access to Parcel "A" be submitted to the County Engineering and Planning Departments for approval. CO 79-40 • 8. That any private easement as shown on the Title Report be shown on the Parcel Map with recording data. 9. That a drainage and erosion control plan relative to construction of access, be submitted to the County Engineer for approval. 10. FIRE PROTECTION STANDARDS The applicant must comply with state, county and district laws/ ordinances applicable to fire protection and consider increased fire risk to area by the land proposed. 11. All conditions of approval herein specified are to be complied with prior to the submittal of the Parcel Map Original to the County Engineer for approval. 12. That a Final Parcel Map shall be filed in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, prior to sale, lease or financing of the subject property within a period of one year from approval date of the Tentative Map. 13. After approval by the Board of Supervisors, compliance with the preceeding conditions will bring the proposed subdivision in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances. 14. The Tentative Parcel Map will expire one-year (12 months) from the date of Board of Supervisors approval. The Tentative Parcel Map may be extended one year by the Subdivision Review Board. Written requests with appropriate fees must be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the expiration date. DISCUSSION Applicant and engineer attended the meeting. The drainage plan was discussed. The Subdivision Review Board unanimously adopted the preliminary report as amended. `-�,'�t2: ' ''�sq�� •;: � `�: _ N w ; J �. ��;, ;•;,� � i ,.:ate - 1 �-- dr. 00f rill ��; ^'''''i•�� ]� : 'may _ 66 14 IE uk �;` "��, ate '-� *_T, � a./+� `;.^ �,��1��" '. .�4� / .'• o� -� -�� .,'•�"Z0 -tom 'yZ�' ..� r � " y .//08 v" i �_�: / � I , •�� `/�y • pb /��r � 880. —ice i L.- �--/_ :4;�j y /:.� J /. d"`' �j• •• i r_ i Z S ao 2 C E __�<�• � '� � , 1 �� / w •� �_o' -- 2 trio R .0; 9/Z iA '� � 40 .�• 7.tWb/r6'i \gyp ,r� L 9 - ' _ \ 000 f �600 T v• � 40 it Y �% 1200 12 ' 6+ VICI&I ^40112 Go 64 T C4o``3 • � ��WVVVW�< �, �t��C� � � �� Q� ti W� V w� �0� o '" cq rj jj �r of �i 11 All 14 4• FY a y n` ..x:13 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Atascadero City Council FROM: Planning Consultant/Director SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meetings of December 17, 1979 and January 7, 1980 The following items have been reviewed by the Planning Commission and are forwarded to the City Council for final action: 1. PROPOSED STREET NAME CHANGE - CASTENADA LANE The Planning Commission recommends establishing Castenada Lane as the street name for this unnamed road. Residents previously supportive of the change are now requesting that the street be named Toloso Way, Toloso Circle, or a similar variation from Toloso Road since lots on the unnamed road are currently addressed on Toloso Road. Fire Chief Don Sylvia stated that the residents ' request could cause confusion in the routing of emergency services to the area. The avoidance of the unnecessary and potentially confusing duplication is the primary reason for the Commission recommendation. At the same meeting the Commission transmitted two other street name change requests back to the County Planning Department so that residents could reconsider their requests in light of a new policy for street names. The Commission unanimously supported a policy that the naming of streets in Atascadero be with either Spanish names or with names of non-living person of historical significance. 2. PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, AL 79-77, VADEN/RANCOUR (HILLIARD) The Planning Commission recommends approval subject to Conditions 1-5 as set forth by ' he Subdivision Review Board. The applicants are in agreement with these conditions. The equalization of lot sizes to allow both parcels to conform with existing zoning is the primary reason for the Commission recommendation. 3. PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, AL 79-79 , STEVENSON (STEWART) The Planning Commission recommends approval subject to condi- tions 1-4 as set forth by the Subdivision Review Board. The applicant is in agreement with these conditions. Improved use of the sites based on topographic conditions is the primary reason for the Commission recommendation. 4. CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE, CC 56-111-26, SEITZ/FARMER The Planning Commission recommends approval as requested. The primary reasons for the Commission recommendation are that the parcels comply with the existing zoning and proposed general Memorandum to the City Council Page Two plan and that the parcels were established in compliance with regulations in effect in 1925 when they were initially established. 5. PROPOSED LOT DIVISION, CO 79-116, GOSSELIN (HILLIARD) The Planning Commission recommends approval subject to Condi- tions 1-13 as set forth by the Subdivision Review Board except that' Conditions 3 and 5 relating to dedication and improvement of a road easement to Mountain View are modified to allow the Planning Department to waive these conditions if the applicant can provide satisfactory evidence that the owners along the now-private "access" known as Pine Dorado object to dedication and improvement of that area as an access to Mountain View. If Conditions 3 and 5 are so waived, access to Parcel l of the proposed division shall be via an easement from Portola along the "flag" and across Parcel 2 with said easement to be established in conformance with County and Fire Department standards for such access. The applicant objects to the dedication and improvement requirements along Pine Dorado to Mountain View preferring the easement alternative and the applicant's representative indicated that several persons .along Pine Dorado had expressed to him objections to the dedi- cation and improvement requirement. The desirability of correcting problems associated with Pine Dorado (i.e. , legality of access, inadequate construction) is the primary reason for the Commission recommendation; however, it was also felt that some flexibility should be allowed if the Pine Dorado owners were not cooperative. Several Commission members felt that access from Portola would be sufficient indicating that it was onerous to require access to Mountain View across property not owned by the applicant. 6. PROPOSED LOT DIVISION, AT 79-077, HURDLE (HILLIARD) The Planning Commission continued this matter to its meeting of February 4, 1980, to obtain additional information on County standards for private driveways. Since required notices for the City Council public hearing have already been made, it would be appropriate to continue the public hearing to the Council meeting of February 11, 1980 . 7. PROPOSED LOT DIVISION, AT 79-139, HARTMAN (BRAY) The Planning Commission recommends approval subject to Conditions 1-13 as set forth by the Subdivision Review Board with the added condition that the lot sizes be modified so that each parcel will be one acre net (excluding the right-of- way for Atascadero Avenue) . The applicant is in agreement with these conditions. Compliance with existing zoning regula- tions and general plan proposals is the primary reason for the Memorandum to the City Council Page Three Commission recommendation. There was considerable discussion with this item (and AT 79-077) concerning the use of gross or net acreage in the computation of lot sizes. 8. PROPOSED LOT DIVISION, AT 79-106, BALDWIN (SAN LUIS ENGINEERING) The Planning Commission recommends approval subject to Condi- tions 1-13 as set forth by the Subdivision Review Board. The applicant or a representative was not present. Compliance with existing zoning regulations and general plan proposals is the primary reason for the Commission recommendation. The Commission expressed strong concern that the condition on zoning compliance be used as a tool to clean up the property. 9 . PROPOSED LOT DIVISION, CO 79-46, BEWSEY (ORTON) The Planning Commission recommends approval subject to Condi- tions 1-20 as set forth by the Subdivision Review Board with the added recommendation that the applicant seek a road exception as a means for determining in a more exact manner those improvements that would be necessary to comply with .Condition 8. The applicant' s representative objected to bringing San Dimas Road up to standard extending to Los Osos Road but did not object to improvement requirements on San Diego Road. With respect to thiscondition, there was consi- derable discussion relative to the need for the County Engineering Department to specify exactly, rather than generally, what improvements are intended by Condition 8. The applicant's representative indicated that he had tried unsuccessfully to obtain this. information. Compliance with existing zoning regulations and general plan proposals is the primary reason for the Commission recommendation. 10. PROPOSED LOT DIVISION, CO 79-40, FAIRBANKS (HILLIARD) The Planning Commission recommends approval subject to Condi- tions 1-14 as set forth by the Subdivision Review Board. The applicant is in agreement with the conditions. Compliance with existing zoning regulations and general plan proposals is the primary reason for the Commission recommendation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Planning Commission recommendations with the exception of Item 6, which must be continued. Submitted by: Concur: /4WW14t LAWRENCE STEVENS Y L//WARDEN Planning Consultant/Director Cil Ma ager M E M_O_R A N_D_U M_ TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Utility Franchises Attached are the ordinances necessary to take over the franchises for the gas and electric company operations within the City limits. They are standard franchises which have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. Both the Gas Company and P.G. &E. are public utilities controlled by the Public Utilities Commission with little latitude granted to the City. The franchises allow the use of public rights-of-way by the utility companies for which they pay to the City up to 2% of their gross annual receipts derived from their activities covered by the franchises. This amount is approximately $69 ,000 annually. The Government Code requires that these ordinances be heard at advertised public hearings. This Council meeting will constitute the first reading of the ordinances with the second reading being the next Council meeting and the .ordinance becoming effective thirty days thereafter. MU Y WARDEN W:a 1-10-80 ORDINANCE NO. ! 1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO GRANTING TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, A CORPORATION, THE RIGHT, PRIVILEGE AND FRANCHISE TO LAY AND USE PIPES AND APPURTENANCES FOR TRANSMITTING AND DISTRIBUTING GAS FOR ANY AND ALI, PURPOSES UNDER, ALONG, ACROSS OR UPON THE PUBLIC STREETS, WAYS, ALLEYS AND PLACES, AS THE SAME NOW OR MAY HEREAFTER EXIST, WITHIN SAID MUNICIPALITY. The City Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: SECTION ONE Whenever in this ordinance the words or phrases hereinafter in this section defined are used, they shall have the respective meanings assigned to them in the following definitions (unless, in the given instance, the context wherein they are used shall clearly import a different meaning) : (a) The word "Grantee" shall mean the corporation to which the franchise contemplated in this ordinance is granted and its lawful successors or assigns; (b) The word "City" shall mean the City of Atascadero, a municipal corporation of the State of California, in its present incorporated form or in any later reorganized, consolidated or reincorporated form; (c) The word "Streets" shall mean the public streets, ways, alleys and places as the same now or may hereafter exist within said City; (d) The word "Engineer" shall mean the of the City; (e) The word "Gas" shall mean natural or manufactured gas, or a mixture of natural and manufactured gas; ( f) The Phrase "Pipes and Appurtenances" shall mean pipe, pipeline, main, service, trap, vent, vault, manhole, meter, gauge, regulator, valve, conduit, appliance, attachment, appurtenance and any other property located or to be located in, upon, along, across, under or over the streets of the City, and used or useful in transmitting and distributing gas. (g) The phrase "lay and use" shall mean to lay, construct, erect, install, operate, maintain, use, repair, replace, or remove. SECTION TWO That the right, privilege and franchise, subject to each and all of the terms and conditions contained in this ordinance, and pursuant to the provisions of Division 3, Chapter 2 of the Public Utilities Code of the State of California, known as the Franchise Act of 1937, be and the same is hereby granted to Southern California Gas Company, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, herein referred to as the "Grantee", to lay and use pipes and appurtenances for transmitting and distributing gas for any and all purposes, under, along, across or upon the streets, of the City, for an indeterminate term or period from and after the effective date hereof, that is to say, this franchise shall endure in full force and effect until the same shall, with the consent of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, be voluntarily surrendered or abandoned by its possessor, or until the State of California or some municipal or public corporation thereunto duly authorized by law shall purchase by voluntary agreement or shall condemn and take under the power of eminent domain, all property actually used and useful in the exercise of this franchise, and situate within the territorial limits of the State, municipal or public corporation purchasing or condemning such property, or until this franchise shall be forfeited for non-compliance with its terms by the possessor thereof. SECTION THREE The Grantee shall pay to the City at the times hereinafter specified, in lawful money of the United States, a sum annually which shall be equivalent to two per cent (2%) of the gross annual receipts of Grantee arising from the use, operation or possession of said franchise; provided, however, that such payment shall in no event be Less than one per cent (1%) of the gross annual receipts of the Grantee derived from the sale of gas within the limits of the City under this franchise. The Grantee of this franchise shall file with the Clerk of the City within three (3) months after the expiration of the calendar year, or fractional calendar year, following the date of the grant of this franchise, and within three (3) months after the expiration of each and every calendar year thereafter, a duly verified statement showing in detail the total gross receipts of the Grantee, its successors or assigns, during the preceding calendar year, or such fractional calendar year, from the sale of the utility service within the City for which this franchise is granted. It shall be the duty of the Grantee to pay to the City within fifteen (15) days after the time for filing such statement in lawful money of the United States, the specified percentage of its gross receipts for the calendar year, or such fractional calendar year, covered by such statement. Any neglect, omission or refusal by said Grantee to file such verified statement, or to pay said percentage, at the times or in the manner hereinbefore provided, shall be grounds for the declaration of a forfeiture of this franchise and of all rights thereunder. SECTION FOUR This grant is made in lieu of all other franchises owned by the Grantee, or by any successor of the Grantee to any rights under this franchise, for transmitting and distributing gas within the limits of the City, as said limits now or may hereafter exist, and the acceptance of the franchise hereby granted shall operate as an abandonment of all such franchises within the limits of this City, as such limits now or may hereafter exist, in lieu of which this franchise is granted. 2 - SECTION FIVE The franchise granted hereunder shall not become effective until written acceptance thereof shall have been filed by the Grantee thereof with the Clerk of the City. When so filed, such acceptance shall constitute a continuing agreement of the Grantee that if and when the City shall thereafter annex or consolidate with, additional territory, any and all franchise rights and privileges owned by the Grantee therein shall likewise be deemed to be abandoned within the limits of such territory. SECTION SIX The franchise granted hereunder shall not in any way or to any extent impair or affect the right of the City to acquire the property of the Grantee hereof either by purchase or through the exercise of the right of eminent domain, and nothing herein contained shall be construed to contract away or to modify or to abridge, either for a term or in perpetuity, the City's right of eminent domain in respect to the Grantee or any public utility. Nor shall this franchise ever be given any value before any court or other public authority in any proceeding of any character in excess of the cost to the Grantee of the necessary publication and any other sum paid by it to the City therefor at the time of the acquisition thereof. SECTION SEVEN The Grantee of this franchise shall (a) construct, install and maintain all pipes and appurtenances in accordance with and in conformity with all of the ordinances, rules and regulations heretofore, or hereafter adopted by the legislative body of this City in the exercise of its police powers and not in conflict with the paramount authority of the State of California, and, as to State highways, subject to the provisions of general laws relating to the location and maintenance of such facilities; (b) pay to the City, on demand, the cost of all repairs to public property made necessary by any operations of the Grantee under this franchise; (c) indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers from any and all liability for damages proximately resulting from any operations under this franchise; and be liable to the City for all - damages proximately resulting from the failure of said Grantee well and faithfully to observe and perform each and every provision of this franchise and each and every provision of Division 3, Chapter 2 of the Public Utilities Code of the State of California; (d) remove or relocate, without expense to the City, any facilities installed, used and maintained under this franchise if and when made necessary by any lawful change of grade, alignment or width of any public street, way, alley or place, including the construction of any subway or viaduct by the City; and - 3 - (e) file with the legislative body of the City within thirty (30) days after any sale, transfer, assignment or lease of this franchise, or any part thereof, or of any of the rights or privileges granted thereby, written evidence of the same, certified thereto by the Grantee or its duly authorized officers. SECTION EIGHT The Engineer shall have power to give the Grantee such directions for the location of any pipes and appurtenances as may be reasonably necessary to avoid sewers, water pipes, conduits or other structures lawfully in or under the streets; and before the work of constructing any pipes and appurtenances is commenced, the Grantee shall file with said Engineer plans showing the location thereof, which shall be subject to the approval of said Engineer (such approval not to be unreasonably withheld); and all such construction shall be subject to the inspection of said Engineer and done to his reasonable satisfaction. All street coverings or openings of traps, vaults, and manholes shall at all times be kept flush with the surface of the streets; provided, however, that vents for underground traps, vaults and manholes may extend above the surface of the streets when said vents are located in parkways, between the curb and the property line. Where it is necessary to lay any underground pipes through, under or across any portion of a paved or macadamized street, the same, where practicable and economically reasonable shall be done by a tunnel or bore, so as not to disturb the foundation of such paved or macadamized street; and in the event that the same cannot be so done, such work shall be done under a permit to be granted by the Engineer upon application therefor. SECTION NINE If any portion of any street shall be damaged by reason of defects in any of the pipes and appurtenances maintained or constructed under this grant, or by reason of any other cause arising from the operation or existence of any pipes and appurtenances constructed or maintained under this grant, said Grantee shall, at its own cost and expense, immediately repair any such damage and restore such street, or portion of street, to as good a condition as existed before such defect or other cause of damage occurred, such work to be done under the direction of the Engineer, and to his reasonable satisfaction. SECTION TEN (a) If the Grantee of this franchise shall fail, neglect or refuse to comply with any of the provisions or conditions hereof, and shall not, within ten (10) days after written demand for compliance, begin the work of compliance, or after such beginning shall not prosecute the same with due diligence to completion, then the City, by its legislative body, may declare this franchise forfeited. (b) The City may sue in its own name for the forfeiture of this franchise, in the event of non-compliance by the Grantee, its successors or assigns, with any of the conditions thereof. 4 - a SECTION ELEVEN The Grantee of this franchise shall pay to the City a sum of money sufficient to reimburse it for all publication expenses incurred by it in connection with the granting of this franchise; such payment to be made within thirty (30) days after the City shall furnish such Grantee with a written statement of such expenses. SECTION TWELVE Not later than thirty (30) days after the publication of this ordinance, the Grantee shall file with the City Clerk a written acceptance of the franchise hereby granted, and an agreement to comply with the terms and conditions hereof. SECTION THIRTEEN The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published once in the Attest_ City Clerk Mayor I hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was adopted by the of the City of __ _---, on the day of , 191 by the following votes: Ayes: Noes: City Clerk Approved as to form: Approved as to content: City Attorney City Manager 5 - Applicant accepts the franchise granted by this ordinance, subject to the terms and conditions thereof, this day of 19 79. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY By 6 - Elec. Indet. A.P. ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE GRANTING TO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, THE FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND USE POLES, WIRES, CONDUITS AND APPURTENANCES, INCLUDING COMMUNICATION CIRCUITS, NECESSARY OR PROPER FOR TRANSMITTING AND DISTRIBUTING ELECTRICITY TO THE PUBLIC FOR ANY AND ALL PURPOSES IN, ALONG, ACROSS, UPON, UNDER AND OVER THE PUBLIC STREETS AND PLACES WITHIN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO The City Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Whenever in this ordinance the words or phrases hereinafter in this section defined are used, they shall have the respective meanings assigned to them in the following definitions: (a) The word "Grantee" shall mean Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and its lawful successors or assigns. (b) The word "City" shall mean the City of Atascadero a municipal corporation of the State of California, in its present incorporated form or in any later reorganized, consolidated, enlarged or reincorporated form. (c) The word "streets" shall mean the public streets, ways, alleys and places as the same now or may hereafter be established within City, and freeways hereafter established within City. (d) The phrase "poles, wires, conduits and appurtenances" shall mean poles, towers, supports, wires, conductors, cables, guys, stubs, platforms, crossarms, braces, transformers, insulators, conduits, ducts, vaults, manholes, meters, cut-outs, switches, communication circuits, appliances, attachments, appurtenances, and, without limitation to the foregoing, any other property located or to be located in, upon, along, across, under or over the streets of City, and useful in transmitting and/or distributing electricity. -1- Elec. Indet. A.P. (e) The phrase "construct, maintain and use" shall mean to construct, erect, install, lay, operate, maintain, use, repair or replace. Section 2. The franchise to construct, maintain and use poles, wires, conduits and appurtenances necessary or proper for transmitting and distributing electricity to the public for any and all purposes, in, along, across, upon, under and over the streets within City is hereby granted to Grantee. Section 3. Grantee shall relocate, without expense to City, any poles, wires, conduits and appurtenances constructed, maintained or used under this franchise, if and when made necessary by any lawful change of grade, alignment or width of any streets by City, including the construction of any subway or viaduct, provided, however, that the cost of any such relocation made necessary by the construction or any lawful change'of grade, alignment or width of any freeway constructed by the State of California shall be divided equally between Grantee and the State of California Section 4. Said franchise shall be indeterminate, that is to say, said franchise shall endure in full force and effect until the same shall, with the consent of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, be voluntarily surrendered or abandoned by Grantee, or until the State or some municipal or public corporation thereunto duly authorized by law shall purchase by voluntary agreement or shall condemn and take under the power of eminent domain, all property actually used and useful in the exercise of said franchise and situate in the territorial limits of the State, municipal or public corporation purchasing or condemning such property, or until said franchise shall be forfeited for noncompliance with its terms by Grantee. -2- Elec. Indet. A.P. Section 5. Grantee shall during the term of said franchise pay to City two per cent (2%) of the gross annual receipts of Grantee arising from the use, operation or possession of said franchise; provided, however, that such payment shall in no event be less than one per (1%) of the gross annual receipts of Grantee derived from the sale of electricity within the limits of City. Section 6. Grantee shall file with the City Clerk of City, within three (3) months after the expiration of the calendar year, or fractional calendar year, following the date of the granting hereof, and within three (3) months after the expiration of each and every calendar year thereafter, a duly verified statement showing in detail the total gross receipts of Grantee during the preceding calendar year, or such fractional calendar year, from the sale of electricity within City. Grantee shall pay to City within fifteen (15) days after the time for filing such statement, in lawful money of the United States, the aforesaid percentage of its gross receipts for such calendar year, or such fractional calendar year, covered by such statement. Any neglect, omission or refusal by Grantee to file such verified statement, or to pay said percentage at the time and in the manner specified, shall be grounds for the declaration of a forfeiture of this franchise and of all rights of Grantee hereunder. Section 7. Said franchise is granted under the Franchise Act of 1937. Section 8. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its final passage unless suspended by a referendum petition filed as provided by law. -3- i Elec. Indet. A.P. Section 9. Grantee shall pay to City a sum of money sufficient to reimburse it for all publication expenses incurred by it in connection with the granting of said franchise. Such payment shall be made within thirty (30) "days after City shall have furnished Grantee with a written statement of such expenses. Section 10. The franchise granted hereby shall not become effective until written acceptance thereof shall have been filed by Grantee with the City Clerk of City. Section 11. The City Clerk of City shall cause this ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of City held on the _day of , 19 , and finally adopted and ordered posted at a regular meeting of said Council held on the day of 19 , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen NAYS: Councilmen ABSENT: Councilmen Mayor of the City of Atascadero ATTEST: Clerk of the City of Atascadero -4- 7 �`5b _M_E M_O_R A N—D-U—M (p z TO: City Council 9 FRO14 City Manager SUBJECT: Implementation of the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) To implement the decision to adopt PERS for City employees, the attached resolution of intention must be passed. In addition, the Government Code requires that a notification of costs be announced in a public meeting, and that an election be held involving present employees to secure their approval or disapproval of the City's par- ticipation in PERS. Once these three items have been complied with, the PERS offices in Sacramento will review and approve the procedure. If approved, than an ordinance will be returned to us for adoption and, after adoption, we will be a participant in PERS To comply with the announcement as to costs, the following is provided: Assuming April 1, 1980 to be the start of participa- tion, the next calendar year costs, ending April, 1981, for miscellaneous employees will be $61,292. The rate for computation of that cost to the City is 12. 769% of the gross pay paid by the City. This rate will continue until the year 2000 unless there is a change in future actuarial data. As to the local safety employees, police and fire, the estimated cost for the twelve month period starting April, 1980 and ending April, 1981 is $57,650. This amount is based upon a cost rate to the City of 14.575% of gross pay. The rate will continue for all safety members through the year 2000, except when the City absorbs the Fire District on July 1, 1980. The entire safety category will then be reevaluated along with the new police department personnel. There are some problems attached with absorbing the Fire District PERS contract which I am not yet able to isolate, but I will have an analysis for you prior to your final commitment to the system. In consideration of the foregoing, it would be appro- priate for you to pass the resolution of intention and to assure that the cost factors above are announced in public meeting. The entire process will not be fully completed until sometime in April depending upon the speed with which they return the completed documents to us. t:-., WARDEN RESOLUTION NO. 1-80 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO APPROVE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO WHEREAS, the Public Employees Retirement Law permits the par- ticipation of public agencies in the Public Employees' Retirement System, making their employees members of said System, and sets forth the procedure by which participation may be accomplished; and WHEREAS, one of the steps required in the procedure is the adoption by the Governing Body of the Public Agency of a resolution giving notice of intention to approve a contract for such partici- pation between said Governing Body and the Retirement System Board _ of Administration, which resolution shall contain a summary of the major provisions of the proposed retirement plan; and WHEREAS, attached is a summary of the major provisions of the proposed plan: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Governing Body of the above agency gives, and it does hereby give notice of inten- tion to approve a contract between said Governing Body and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System, providing for participation of said agency in said Retirement System, a copy of said contract and a copy of the summary of the major provisions of the proposed plan being attached hereto, as an "Exhibit" , and by this reference made a part hereof. On motion by Councilman ' and seconded by Councilman the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ROBERT J. WILKINS, Mayor ATTEST: MURRAY L, WARDEN, City- Clerk SIr."IlUff OF ",AJOR PROVISIO%rS e at 60 (1/50) Retirement Program Local AMiscellaneous Members NEKBERSHIP Compulsory for all employees except those specifically excluded. Exclusions include; (1) special contract exclusions; (d) employees who work less than half time; (3) employees who work half time or more but who will work six months or less; , (4) temporary or seasonal full-time employees who will work six months or less. SERVICE RETUO-ENT The earliest retirement age is 50; the normal retirement age is 60; and the compulsory retirement age is 70 . An employee may retire any time between these ages, 50 and 70, provided he meets the minimum requirements that he either have 5 years of service or have attained the compulsory retirement age of 70 . The monthly income is determined by age at retirement, years of credited service, and final compensation". The basic benefit will be 413 of ^final compensation, for each year of credited service upon retirement at age 60. If retirement is deferred beyond age 60, the percentages of ,final compensation" for each year of service are increased up to age 63 but not beyond. If retirement is earlier than"age 60 the percentages of ,final compensation" for each year of service are decreased. "Final compensation" is average monthly salary (full time rate excluding over- time) earned during the final 36 consecutive months unless member specifically re- quest another 36 consecutive month period. A minimum service retirement allowance of $100 per month is guaranteed upon, compulsory retirement with credit for prior service. DISABILITY RETIRE SITT An employee becoming disabled to the extent that he is incapable of performing his duties shall be eligible for disability retirement provided he has at least 5 years of service. The monthly retirement allowance is 1.80% of "final compensation" for each year of service, with a minimum guarantee of one-third of final compensation for most er7ioloyees who have rendered qt 7.A�Q+ 1.0 vpa.rg of SArvi.ce, the d Qability r tirement allowance shall under no circumstances exceed the service retirement all- owance payable upon retirement for service at age 60 if e-ployment could be continued to that age. DEATH BE,•U ITS Death Before uet .re ent Basic Death Benefit This benefit is a refund of the 'member's accumulated cori.Y"1'Ji`vJGYl:�Px�� pix months' salary provided he has been member for six years or 7o`e. For those who die before completing six years' • of membership, the benefit is one month's salary for each year of membership plus refun-11 of contributions. The salary referred to is that earned durins* the year preceding death. Prior service does not count toward this benefit. IM Survivor RAnefit Employees with 5 or more years of service who have reached the minim.= age for service retirement have further death protection under this item. here the surviving spouse can elect to receive either the basic death benefit or a monthly income equal to one-half the unmodified retirement allowance the employee was eligible for on the date of his death. The monthly income last until the spouses death or remarriage with a guarantee that the System will pay as much as under the basic death benefit. Death After Retirement The death benefit is $500 if death occurs after retirement. This amount will be in addition to any payment which might be made under an optional retirement benefit chosen by the member at his retirement. TERMINATION OF E 4PLOYMEPJT Upon termination of employment, an employee with 5 or more years of service may either leave his contributions with the System and receive, upon attaining retirement age, the retirement benefit he has earned, or he may withdraw his contributions (plus interest), thus, terminating his membership in the System and receiving no retirement benefits. Except, (1) a member with less than 5 years of service shall automatically have his contributions, plus interest, refundsd upon termination of employment and (2) a member who is transferring to employment with another agency which is covered under the System shall not have the right of withdrawing his accumulated contributions. EMPLOY:E COINTRIBUTIO TS Each miscellaneous member, whether a new member or a member with years of membership, will start contributing at the uniform rate of 7% of salary earned, e=lusive of overtime on the date this formula becomes effective. The employer also contributes toward the cost of the benefits. The amount contributed by the employer for current service retirement benefits will, on the average, exceed thecostto the employee. In addition, the employer bears the i entire cost of prior service benefits. All employer contribution rates are subject to revision by the Board of Administration. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS Local Safety Members - 2% at 55 Retirement Program MEMBERSHIP Compulsory for all employees except those specifically excluded. Exclusions included; (1) special contract exclusions; (2) employees who worklessthan half time; (3) employees who work half time or more but who will work six months or less; (4) temporary or seasonal full-time employees who will work six months or less. SERVICE RETIREMENT The earliest retirement age is 50; the normal retirement age is 55; and the compulsory retirement age is 65. A local safety member may retire any time after age 50 provided he either has at least 5 years of service or has attained the compulsory retirement age. The monthly income is determined by age at retirement, years of credited service, and "final compensation". The latter term means the average monthly salary (excluding overtime) earned during the final 36 consecutive months unless member specifically request another 36 consecutive month period. The unmodified life allowance will be 112% of final compensation" for each year of safety service upon retirement age 55 with the percentage remaining at 2% up through the maximum retirement age of 65. Service retirement benefit is subject to a limitation of 75% of final compensation. A minimum service retirement allowance of $100 per month is guaranteed upon compulsory retirement with credit for prior service, or upon retirement at age 65 with 20 years of service. DISABILITY RETIREMENT An employee becoming disabled to the extent that he is incapable of performing his duties shall be retired for disability. His disability will be either employment connected (industrial disability) -or otherwise (nonindustrial disability). An employee who becomes disabiled while a member of this System for reasons arising out of his employment, will be eligible for life income of fifty (50%) percent of his final compensation. If his disability is such that he is also entitled to a disability income form Social Security, the State System benefit wil be reduced by the amount of his Social Security benefit. An employee becoming disabled for reasons not connected with his employment shall be eligible for disability retirement provided he has at least 5 years of service. This disability allowance is equal to 1.8% of final compensation for each year of service; with a guarantee of 1/3 of final compensation for most employees who have rendered at least 10 years of service. The "ordinary disability" retirement allowance shall under no circumstances exceed the service retirement allowanceb which would become payable at age 60 if employment could be continued to that age. DEATH BENEFITS (1) Death Before Retirement Basic Death Benefit: This benefit is a refund of the members accumulated contributions plus six months' salary provided he was a member for six years or more. For those who die before completing six years of membership, the benefit is one month's salary for each year of membership plus refund of contributions. The salary referred to is that earned during the year preceding death. Prior service does not count toward this benefit. Industrial Death Benefit: If death is service-connected in the judgement of the Industrial Accident Commission, a monthly income is paid to the spouse for life (or until remarriage) instead of the above basic death benefit. However, if the spouse is also eligible for survivor benefits from Social Security because of the member's death, the PERS benefit will be reduced by the amount of such Social Security so long as Social Security benefits are payable (usually until the youngest child reaches 18). The total, including Social Security, would be 50% of •final compensation". If defth was caused by external violence or physical force, the total benefit (including Social Security) would be increased to the following percentages of "final compensation" so long as the spouse lives and does not remarry: Spouse with 3 or more children under 18 75% Spouse with 2 children under 18 70% Spouse with 1 child under 18 623 1957 Survivor Benefit: Members with 5 or more years of service who have reached the minimum age for service retirement have further death protection under this item. Here the surviving spouse can elect to receive either the Basic Death Benefit or a monthly income equal to one-half the unmodified retirement allowance the members was eligible for on the date of his death. The monthly income lasts until the spouse's death or remarriage with a guarantee that PERS will pay at least as is entitled under the Basic Death Benefit. (2) Death After Retirement The death benefit is $500 if death occurs after retirement. This amount will be in addition to any payments which might be made under an optional retirement benefit chosen by the member at his retirement. TERMINATIOI OF E`21LOYMNT Upon termination of employment, an employee with at least 5 years of service may either leave his contributions with the System and receive, upon attaining retirement age, the retirement benefit he has earned, or he may withdraw his con- tributions (plus interest) , thus terminating his membership in the System and receiving no retirement benefits. :except, (1) a member with less than 5 years of service shall not have the privilege of leaving his contributions with the System, but shall automatically have his contributions, plus interest, refunded upon termination of employment, and (2) a member who is transferring to employment with anothar agency which is covered under the Syst.m shall .not have the right o withdrawing his accumulated contributions. TMOY✓3 C0NTRIBUTIONS ?ach member rakes monthly contributions to the System which are deducted from his salary. The rate of contribution. (percentage of pay) is io of salary earned, exclusive of overtime, on thedatethis formula becomes effective. The employer also contributes toward the cost of the benefits. The amount contributed by the employer for current service retirement benefits will, on the average, exceed the cost to the employee. In addition, the employer bears the en- tire cost of prior service benefits. All employer contribution rates are subject to revision by the Board of Administration. CONTRACT BETWEEN TH", 90ARD OF ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC F APLOYEES' RETIRElENT SYSTPI AND THE • CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASC,ADERO _ �` ,� i In consideration of the covenants and agreement hereafter contained and. on the part of both parties to be kept and performed, the governing body of above public agency, hereafter referred to as "Public Agency", and the Board of Administration, Public Fmployees' Retirement System, hereafter referred to as "Board" , hereby agree as follows: 1. All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public , Employees' Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise specifically provided. "Normal retirement age" shall mean age 60 for local miscellaneous and age 55 for local safety members. 2. Public -Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from and after making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law except such as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not provided for herein and to all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except such as by express provisions thereof apply only on the election of contracting agencies. 3. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or this agreement: a. Local Policemen (herein referred. to as lobal safety members) b. Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as ' local miscellaneous members) In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not become members of said Retirement System: NO ADDITIONAL EXCLUSIONS i 4. The fraction of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local miscellaneous member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21251.13 of said ' Retirement Law (20' at s-e 5. The fraction of final c3mpen,sation tc 'be provided for each your of credited prior and current service as a local safety member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21252.6 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 55) . • 6. The following additional provisions of the Public Employees' Retire- ment Law which apply only upon election of a contracting agency shalt apply to the Public Agency and its employees: a. Section ?0952.5 Mge 50 voluntary retirement) for local safety members only. b. Section 20963.6 (Waiver of age 70 retirement) for local miscel- laneous members only, 7. Public Agency, in accordance with Section 20759. 1 Government Code, shall not be considered an "employer" for purposes of Chapter 6 of the Public Employees' Retirement Law. Contributions of the Public Agency shall be fixed and determined as provided in Section 20759, Government Code, and such contributions hereafter made shall be held by the Board as provided in Section 20759, Government Code. 8. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System as follows: a. With respect to miscellaneous members, the agency shall con- tribute the following percentages of monthly salaries earned as miscellaneous members of said Retirement System: (1) 0.364 percent until June 30, 1999 on account of the liability for prior service benefits. (2) 12.405 percent on account bf the liability for current service benefits. b. With respect to local safety members, the agency shall contribute the following percentages of monthly salaries earned as local safety members of said Retirement System: 14.5�� IZ1a'a (1) P6.9e9 percent on account of the liability for current service benefits. C. A reasonable amount per annum, as fixed by the Board to cover the costs of administering said System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the costs of special valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations required, by law.' d. A reasonable amount as fixed by the Board, payable in one install- ment as the occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valua- tions on account of employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. 9. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public. Employees' Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement ";Y tem as determined by th._ p:;ricdic investi; aticn and valuation required by said Retirement Law. 10. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public agency to the Retirement System within thirty days after the end of the period to which said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. If more or less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper adjustment shall b.� in de in connection with subsequent remittances, or adjustments on E-^.count of errors in contributions required of any employee may be made by direct cash payments between the employee and the Board. Payments by Public AZency to Board may be made in the form of warrants, bank checks, bank drafts, certified checks, money orders or cash. Witness our hands the day of 19_. BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO BY BY Carl J. Blechinger, Executive Officer Presiding Officer 4 Approved as to form ► est i� U2 thia G. Besembr, Legal Office, Date Clerk: PERS CON-702 APPROVED AS TO FORM ——CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Cable ,TV franchise Over the past few months, the City Attorney and I have reviewed the Cable TV franichise as it ;applies to the newly ;incorporated areas of Atascadero. The franchise was originally granted by the County to a different company than nour operating the system. The franchise area was rather loosely defined, but only included more densely populated areas of Atascadero. The original franchisee, Sonic Cable TV, sold its interests to the ;present franchisee, Falcon Cable Corporation. At the time of sale in 1978, the County Engineer's office noted areas of non-compliance with particular' reference to completion of construction dates. Since the franchise was in jeopardy because of non-compliance, the County extended the time limits for construction. These dates were established for completion during 1979 and, to this date, .the cable company is in essential compliance with the franchise as amended by the County. While reviewing the franchise, a question arose as to how the cable TV service area could be extended. From the cable company's standpoint, there are cost problems in extending cable service to relatively low density areas since the cost per mile goes up rather quickly in relation to number of customers served. The cable com- pany has asked that their franchise area be extended to include all of the incorporated areas of Atascadero. However, they would not be able to `construct service to some of the less densely populated areas until either the population increased to where it was economi- cally feasible for the company to build all the service facilities,' or some arrangement was made whereby residents in an area paid for costs of installation. A method of doing this is known in the cable. TV trade as a line extension policy. I' am informed that the cable company's costs at this time are approximately $7,000 per plant mile under average construction conditions, If there are at least 60 homes per plant mile of which 42 subscribe to the service with the normal $7,000 per mile, then no cost to the consumer .is required other than the normal installation and monthly service fees. As the number of subscribers drops, the cost to the company increases. If the subscribers in the lower density areas are willing to pay part of the cost on the understanding that, as new subscribers entered into the system, the original subscribers would be reimbursed their original construction costs, then the cable company would be able to extend into areas of less than, 42 customers The customers sharing construction costs would receive a refund under this concept of line extension according to the depreciated value of their initial share at. the time new subscribers enter the system, Memorandum - Cable TV franchise Page Two As an example of the effect of the line extension policy, using construction costs of $7,00 per plant mile, but with only 40 dwelling units and 24 subscribers per mile, the cost per subscriber would be $75.25 or an aggregate subscriber cost of $3,010. In the case where project costs were greater than $7,000 because of terrain, undergrounding, or other differences, then with 40 dwelling units and 24 subscribers per mile, the cost would be $187. 92 per subscriber with an aggregate cost of $4,510. And a third example, with 40 dwelling units, 24 subscribers and a project cost of $15,000, the additional per subscriber cost would be $458.75 with an aggregate of $11,010 per subscriber cost. The attached cable company letters of December 18th and November 19th address both these problems and provide examples in more detail. With respect to the company' s request for Council approval to extend the franchise area, I don't see any compelling reason why this should be done at this time unless the company has accomplished certain things. Such as, a survey of residences within non-service areas to determine the potential number of subscribers and, depending on the amount of interest indicated, a commitment by these potential subscribers to enter into an extension agreement of the sort men- tioned above. After these arrangements were reached, then the cable company could petition Council for extension of its franchise to those areas actually being served. This should result in a marketing, merchandising incentive for the cable company in order to assure its ability to serve new areas in Atascadero'. The extension of the current franchise at this time to the full extent of the City limits would lock the entire Atascadero area to Falcon Cable for a long period of time and would not provide an incentive for them to aggressively expand their services , since the threat of a competing franchise or compliance with the franchise would be minimized. If the Council feels that the approach suggested here is appropriate, then your direction to the City Manager to that end would be needed so that more detailed arrangements can be made with the Cable Corporation. Y WALDEN MLW:ad 1-10-80 e Dacombc r 19, 197 ;Murray L. tiVarclur: .ntascadero City hanaer F' .u. 3ox 747 Atascadero, Ca. )3,121".) 3)ear :,Ir. vdarr.lei., In our coraversatior last week, you re+:;4ue6tecl a method by which a time table could be drafted. to complete those areas within the; city boundaries, but outside our franchise area. It seems that what is needed' is a met'iod that will r.ot oiily apply to the areas presently ii. questinn, but a trig-erin.1, device that would apply to any area that mi _;ht be incor- porated into the city in the future. If we take the present city limits outsirie our area as the example, this is what I propose; . 1. Within 45 days, survey thy: entire area in order to compile all of the addresses of thu residences . If a house has no address, wc: w.i_il """Ll a ( oor ta;; askii�,, the r,�sic.'_ent to call t4e com )any. 2 . Withir. 5 days after the acj.dresses ar : compiled, send a lcstter to all the potential subscribers, soliciting their interest in cable service. A busines-, reply card would be enclosed to increase the potential response. I would also include a copy of our line extension policy. ;i Zones would. than be set up on the basis of com- munity interest, with contracts aridconstruction to proceed as per my letter of november 19, 1979 . This method of extending; the cable plant places the: cable company in the position of the initiator, ;,cluarely where it belonbs. FALCON CABLE CORPORATION 5815 Traffic Way,Atascadero,Califomia 93422(805)466-3040 In conjunction with the line extension policy and the con- struction �, ched.ule that I have already proposed, this method will guarantee service to anyone who wishes, within a contractually agreed upon; time. I hope this meets with your approval. R ectful Y, 7 Peter ess General tiiana,-,er Falcon Cable Corporation e RECEIVED NOV 2 9 1979 Murray L. Warden November 19 1979 Atascadero City Manager P. 0. Box 747 Atascadero, Ca 93422 Dear Mr. Warden: In our meeting of October 24, you requested that Falcon more clearly define its construction schedule for those areas presently governed by the county franchise as well as some indication on expansion of service into those areas presently not included. Those areas marked in green on both Map A and B have been applied for by Falcon to Pacific Telephone and Telegraph. The areas in green on Map A will be cleared by Pacific Telephone and Telegraph by the end of February with cable construction to begin immediately. We are scheduled to complete construction sometime in June. With regard to the green areas on map B we have applied for the poles in this area but are stymied by solely owned PG&E poles and other construction difficulties. If a system extension policy based on density and cost were to be adopted these areas that now present problems could be built concurrently subject to the availability of man power and materials as well as procurement of private and public easements. The construction program that I have outlined is well within the schedule agreed to by the county as outlined in John Wallace 's letter of August 10, 1979. Our line extension proposal provides a plan so that anyone who requests cable service in theCity of Atascadero can have Cable T.V. One of the problems that we now face is ,that` some areas of the city are within our service area and some are not. I would ask that the city extend our service area to the city limits so that Cable T.V. might be provided to all those wanting the service. FALCON CABLE CORPORATION 5815 Traffic Way,Atascadero,Califomia 93422 (805)466-3040 -2- This line extension proposal is based upon the assumption that Falcon Cable Corporation will build contiguous aerial plant with 60 homes per mile and wherethe average subscriber saturation is 42 homes per mile (700). This anticipates that each subscriber connection (drop) will consist of less than 200 feet from the existing cable plant. During the conversation there were also questions with regard to lead time before construction and the length of payback periods. A. I would propose the following: 1. 60 - 90 days after a contract is signed for the extension of this system all needed applications will be submitted to the proper utilities or government agency. 2. No more than 60 days after utility clearances are obtained, building will begin. 3. If the project requires undergrounding, building will begin 60 - 90 days after all necessary easements are secured. 4. All projects will be done concurrently with projects now in the mill subject to the availability of man- power and equipment as well as utility clearances and easements. 5. Computations for refunds would be made every year for five years. B. One critical element of our line extension policy is that it is fair for everyone, expecially those who pay an extra installation charge to bring cable to their residential area. We don't want anyone to take advantage of the plan after it has beenopaid for by others. 'Thus, we will maintain a special project number for each extension and conduct a yearly accounting review of each project. The following schedule will be used to refund any additional excess installation fees during the year period from when each project was completed: During Year Refund 1 1000 2 805 3 600 4 40% 5 200 -3- The refund would be equally divided among all those who previously, paid the additional 'installation charge. Examples of refunds are contained in the Model assumptions. C. All signed agreements for extension and extra installation fees will be kept by the cable company and subject to review at anytime by the City of Atascadero. At no time will the consumer have to pay any proposed extra charges if they do not wish to subscribe to the service The determination of one's willingness to subscribe will be by written signature on a form approved by the City Counsel. However, once written commitment has been obtained and funds deposited with the cable company, no refunds will be made after the construction has commenced. The Company will not be responsible for delays in construction that are beyond its control. All money collected in advance of proposed extension project will be kept in an escrow account by the Company, and the exact policy for handling the advance funds will be worked out jointly with the City and Falcon to insure that the public is protected. The City Manager will review any extension request submitted by the public that claims the Company's charges are unfair. The purpose of this review is to determine if it is reasonable for the cable operator to charge the extra installation fees in order to build` the requested line exgension project in accordance with the attached model. The model would serve to make this a practical policy. This review by the City is in accordance with Falcon's existing franchise. The above recommendation is our basis for developing a line extension policy which is fair to the public and the cable operator. It is not intended to be all-encompassing. There will be exceptions or unusual circumstances where the model will not work. When this occurs, the Company will consult with the City before proposing any charges for unusual line extensions. Falcon will agree to build a mile of plant that passes 60 homes (or more) per mile of which 42 will subscribe to the service for its normal cost of $7000,00 per mile. (See model 1, column 7). All the models assume the following formula: Project Cost minus Company Costs divided by the number of subscribers equals the additional subscriber charges. ' 7000 - 7000 = 0 42 Thus, those desiring service would be charged an additional installation fee for all the costs above what the cable company would normally pay for it. These additional charges will be divided equally among all those who want the cable ser- vice and live in the extension area. The model shows several different variables that may apply in an individual extension project. One example shows the effect of when the cost is $7000 but the subscribers are less than 42 per mile (see Model 1). Two other examples indicate the effect of when the cost is greater than $7000 and the subscribers are less than 42 (see Model 2 and Model 3). The fourth example is when there is a greater cost per mile than $7000 and also more subscribers per mile than 42. (see Model 4) The higher cost could be due to several variables such as under- grounding, extra trunk to reach a project, terrain problems, etc. As we've already stated, neither costs truly cover the total cost of the extension in that the Company's overhead and head- end are not included but are absorbed by the Company. Res tfully, etetV4V-Z rH e General Manager Falcon Cable Corporation Enclosures CD d -3 Cl) y O H O" y H i W O vi W 04 O O N O O O O r r H IQ g oWo o o 0 0 0 0 C o z o O O O o � d H coO f✓ Z 0�4 O 004 -10- 0 O O w VI OO O O �n O 1.0 H 0 O cr- Op O O O O� O O IQ O N O D O l� d C o cl, d w F-3 W rr H co rl Z H O td O Com] ci CD CI] y C!] -IEi CJS H H tr�J O O CJn CA CI] C� F-3 H L=J ON H H O O H W H H O 0(:� O H H O O O uj\-n \-n N W lav O O O H O iv yy O LTJ vi O O O O d H W � O � IQ O W O H O O O W H W 'O O O W �n O O O v� CT H J O O O O �O H O O O O O O O iv O W Cn n cl. d CD o o CA Com!] Z cl, Co] H C] 1-3- W C!] CA C] H H tIJ" F� O O W 0* ON W O O F' W O ImJ 0 0 0 0 o S S S O OO O o w z o H Q W O1 oo4 VI ON Fes- �O O O F-' F-' vc O O O vt 2Wv O 03 N N o o w o .o N 0 APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR POLE CLEARANCE 1. The Cable Company maps and identifies the poles which it needs for the building of its s;rstem. The application is then sub- mitted to the Utility Company. 2. The Utility Company estimates the cost of rearrangement of its plant in order to accomodate the cable plant. The Utility Company will normally respond within 90 days. 3. A cost estimate for rearrangement is recO-ived by the Cable Company. The Cable Company must pay the Utility Company .the charges before work is begun. 4. From the time the Utility receives the money for rearrangement the Utility ha.s 90 days to complete the rearrangement work. 5. From the time the Utility notifies the Cable Company that the poles are cleared the Cable Company has 90 days to attach to the poles that have been cleared.