Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 05/26/1987 l A G F N n A ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM MAY 26, 1987 7:30 P.M,' City Council Members: (Seating from Left to Right: ) Council Member Norris Michael Shelton Council Member Bourbeau City Manager Mayor Mackey Jeffrey G. Jorgensen Council Member Handshy City Attorney Council Member Borgeson Boyd C. Sharitz City Clerk RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION * Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. * A person may speak for three (3) minutes. If a group has a spokesperson, the spokesperson may speak for five (5) minutes. * No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so. * No one may speak more than twice on any item. * Council members may question any speaker; the speaker may respond; but after the alloted time has expired, may not initiate further discussion. * The floor will then be closed to public participation and open for Council discussion. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Invocation: Pastor Phillip W. Sievers Roll Call (Approximate Time 30 Minutes) COMMUNITY FORUM The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas, and comments from you the citizen. The public comment period is provided to receive comments from the public on matters other than scheduled agenda items. To increase the effectiveness of Community Forum, a the following rules will be enforced: * A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, unless Council authorizes an extension. * All remarks shall be addressed to Council as a whole and not to any individual member thereof. * No questions shall be asked of a Council Member or City staff without permission of the Mayor. * No person shall be allowed to make slanderous, profane, impertinent, or personal remarks against any Council Member. * Any person desiring to submit written statements may do so by forwarding to Council, prior to the Council Meeting, nine (9) copies to the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceeding the Council Meeting. A. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed be- low. There will be no separate discussion of these items. A member of the Council or public may, by request, have any item removed from the Consent Agenda, which shall then be added to and taken up at the end of the "New Business" section of the agenda. 1. Approval of Minutes of the Regular C 1 M M PPounce Meeting of May Y 12, 1987 2. Approval of Finance Director ' s Monthly Report April, 1987 3. Approval of Treasurer ' s Monthly Report 1987 4. Authorization for Mayor to Enter into Agreement with "ARE" - Preparation of Atascadero Creek Bridge Traffic Study (Council approved ARE proposal on 5/12/87) 5. Approval of Tentative Lot Line Adjustment 8-87 - 9351-9385 Musselman Road - Norton/Cuesta Engineering 6. Authorization to Establish Traffic/Pedestrian Control Devices at San Anselmo and E1 Camino Real (K-Mart) A. Resolution 44-87 - Establishment of two Pedestrian Crosswalks B. Resolution 45-87 - Installation of a Traffic Signal : 7. Authorization to Solicit Bids Grounds Maintenance Services - Park Areas y 8. Authorization to Solicit Bids - Irrigation and Fencing - Paloma Creek Park (Phase II) 2 9. Deny Claim by D.N. Baxter - Personal Damages of $100,000 10. Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 13-85 - 4595 Traffic Way - Bentley B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES/REPORTS - (Approximate Time - 5 Minutes) 1. Urgency Ordinance 152 (Revised) - Clarifying the Minimum Lot Size in the LSF-X and RSF-X Zones - Requiring a Net Minimum Land Area of 20,000 Square Feet with Sewer (exluding land area needed for street right-of-way whether public or private) (FIRST AND FINAL READING) (Cont'd from 5/12/87) (Approximate Time - Minutes) 2. Public Hearing - Weed Abatement " (Approximate Time - 20 Minutes) 3. Consideration of General Plan Amendment Proposals for Cycle 2, 1987 (Approximate Time - 5 Minutes) 4. Ordinance No. 153 —Authorizing an Enabling Ordinance for Underground Utilities (FIRST READING) (Approximate Time - Minutes) - 5. Zone Change 23-86 (Revised) - 7421 Santa Ysabel - California • Manor (Young) A. Ordinance 150 (Revised) - Revising Existing Zoning to Lot 6, Block 1-A, from Residential Multiple Family, 16 Units Per Acre to Residential Multiple Family, 16 Units Per Acre with a Planned Development Overlay (allowing reduced lot size development (FIRST READING) (Cont'd from 4/14/87) C. NEW BUSINESS (Approximate Time 15 Minutes) 1. Resolution 38-87 - Authorizing Expenditure of total 1986 Community Parkland Funds of $54,000 to Rehabilitate Youth Sports Fields on Traffic Way (Approximate Time 20 Mintues) 2. Approval of Tentative Tract Map 21-86 - Lots1,2,4,5,6,7; & 8 of PM 28-30 (Santa Lucia and Lomitas Rds) Subdivision of 6 Existing Lots Totaling 119. 6 Acres into 22 Lots Varying from 26.3 Acres to 3.1 Acres (Cont'd from 4/28/87) 3 ;9 r; (Approximate Time - 5 Minutes) 3. Authorization for Mayor to Accept Proposal and Enter into Agreement - Design San Andreas and Garcia Roads Bridges • (Approximate Time - 5 Minutes) 4. Authorization for Mayor to Enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the North Coastal Transit Authority (Approximate Time - 10 Minutes) 5. Authorization for Mayor to Enter into Agreement with Property Protection Company - City-wide Weed Abatement Contract (Bid 87-3) D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Approximate Time - 15 Minutes) 1. Authorization for Mayor to Enter into Agreement with Bruce Walker Consultants - Administration Building Fourth Floor Rotunda Room Acoustics and Sound Reinforcement System Improvements (Cont'd from 4/28/87) (Approximate Time - 20 Minutes) 2. Conceptual Approval of Proposed Rules and Fee Schedule for Use of Fourth Floor Rotunda Room Rental for Private Individuals or Groups (Approximate Time - 20 Minutes) 3. Committee Status Report - Economic Develo ment Anal sis P p y Study • Proposals E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (Council will recess and convene as the Atascadero County Sanitation District Board of Directors) (Approximate Time - Minutes) 1. Appeal of Sewer Annexation Fee Revised Requirement 10705 E1 Camino Real (Casa Camino Apartments) - Messer (Cont'd from 4/28/87 & 5/12/87) (The Board of Directors will Adjourn and Reconvene as the City Council) I F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council A. Traffic Committee Representative - Appointment of Planning Commission Member 4 B. Atascadero Lake Park Ad Hoc Committee Report 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5. City Manager ** NOTE: THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO A SPECIAL "OPEN" COUNCIL SESSION ON MAY 27, 1987 AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING FOURTH FLOOR CLUB ROOM FOR 1987/88 PROPOSED BUDGET REVIEW • 5 n ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1987 Atascadero Administration Building The regular meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Mackey, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL-CALL Present: Council Members Borgeson(*) , Bourbeau, Norris and Mayor Mackey (*) Councilwoman Borgeson was excused after Council action on Item - C-4. Absent: Councilman Handshy (Vacation) STAFF Mike Shelton, City Manager; Henry Engen, Community Development Direc- tor; Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director ; Bud McHale, Police Chief; Mike Hicks, Fire Chief; Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney; Bob Best, Rec- reation Director; Boyd Sharitz, City Clerk; Cindy Wilkins, Deputy City • Clerk COUNCIL COMMENT Mayor Mackey presented employees, Capt. Vern Elliott, Fire Department, and Sgt. John Barlow, Police Department, with plaques honoring them as City Employees of the Year . City Clerk, Boyd Sharitz, administered the Oath of Office to newly- appointed City Treasurer Gere Sibbach. COMMUNITY FORUM Anita Sari, AFS foreign exchange student at Atas. High (since last August) , spoke briefly about her city and country, Surabaya, Indones- ia, where she will return in July, following graduation in June. She noted that Surabaya is the second largest city in Indonesia, with approx. 3 million people. She presented Mayor Mackey with a plaque bearing the symbol of Surabaya and a scarf bearing the map of Indones- ia, gifts from the Indonesian government to her host City, Atascadero. Bud Tanner , a volunteer worker at the Charles Paddock Zoo, relayed difficulties incurred in trying to get an inspection on the kitchen and hospital addition (s) at the zoo. He also expressed difficulties in meeting with the Chief Building Inspector to discuss certain • requirements, which he feels are beyond the UBC. Mr. Best, Rec. Dir- ector , responded that there is a meeting scheduled tomorrow between 1 himself, Mr. Fielding (Chief Bldg. Insp. ) and David Main (the project architect' s representative) to discuss the situation. A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of April 28, 1987 2. Approval of Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of April 15, 1987 3. Acceptance of Offer of $1,500 for Sale of Surplus Dial-A-Ride Bus by Paul Torba 4. Authorization for Police Department to Offer for Public Sale Lost and Unclaimed Property on May 16, 1987 5. Approval of Award Backhoe Tractor Bid for the Street Division to Ryan Equipment - $31,272. 65 6. Proclamation Acknowledging the Month of June, 1987 as Zoo and Aquarium Month 7. Approval to Award Play System Bid for Paloma Creek Park to Miracle Recreation Equipment - $19 ,356. 53 8. Approval of Traffic Control Items: A. Resolution 41-87 - Designating a 2-Hr . Parking Zone in Areo Previously Designated as Loading Zone - Traffic Way East of El Camino B. Resolution 40-87 Designating a Stop Intersection on Old Santa Rosa Road at Intersection with West Front C. Resolution 42-87 - Designating a Stop Intersection on Llano Road at Intersection with Santa Lucia 9. Proclamation Acknowledging May 17-23, 1987 as Traffic Safety Week 10. Approval of Tentative Tract Map 6-87 - 8784 Plata Lane - Creation of 6 Industrial Air-Space Condominium Units on a .509 Acre Parcel - Palmer/Cuesta Engineering 11. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 8-87 - 8660/8700 Coromar (Lots 33J & 33K, Block 7) - Subdivision of 2 Parcels Totaling 1.95 Acres into 4 Lots of Approximately 201,000 Sq. Ft. Each Silber- stein/Barbieri/Volbrecht Surveys 12. Approval of Tentative Lot Line Adjustment 7-87 - 5703/5705 Del Rio ' Rd. - Adjust Lot Line Between 2 Existing Lots - Cropper/Twin Cities Engineering 13. Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 9-86 - 8971 San Gabriel Road - Warhurst/Tartaglia • 2 0 0 14. Acceptance of Final Tract Map 20-84 - 5600 West Mall - Dennis Bethel and Associates MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to approve Items Al-14, seconded by Councilman Bourbeau; passed by 4:0 roll-call, with Councilman Handshy absent. B. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Zone Change 1-87 - 9385 Vista Bonita (Lots 6, 7 & 10-15) - Nimmo/ Yeomans A. Ordinance 151 - Amend Existing Zoning of Residential Single Family, 1-1/2 to 2-1/2 Acre Minimum Lot Sizes to Residential Single Family with a Planned Development Overlay Zone 7 (SEC- OND AND FINAL READING) (Cont'd from 4/28/87) Mr. Engen, Commun. Devel. Director , gave staff report. There was no public comment. MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to read Ord. 151 by title only, sec- onded by Councilman Bourbeau; passed unanimously. Mayor Mackey read Ord. 151 by title only. MOTION: By Councilman Bourbeau that this constitutes the second read- ing and adoption of Ord. 151, seconded by Councilwoman Nor- ris; passed by 4:0 roll-call, with Councilman Handshy absent. 2. Tentative Parcel Map 3-87 - 9005 Atascadero Avenue - Subdivision of .93 Acre Parcel into two .46 Acre Lots - Shultz/Baumberger (Cont'd from 4/2/87 Consent Calendar) Mr. Engen, Commun. Devel. Director, gave staff report (noting this item is similar to Item B-3 as both relate to the issue of how to han- dle a contribution toward sidewalks for future route to school plan) . Mr. Engen relayed that he did meet once with the PTA groups from the various schools, and there will be another meeting in June. There was no public comment. MOTION: - By Councilwoman Norris to approve TPM 3-87, subject to the findings and revised conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission with the exception that Condition No. 11 will be revised to read as follows: "11. The applicant shall deposit with the Director of Pub- lic Works $1,853.00 , which shall be utilized for future implementation of the sidewalk route to school plan serving Santa Rosa Elementary School. 3 Motion was seconded by Councilman Bourbeau; passed unanimous- ly, with Councilman Handshy absent. 3. Tentative Parcel Map 4-87 - 9240 Atascadero Avenue - Subdivision of a 4.93 Acre Parcel into 10 Lots Containing Between 20 ,100 and 24,720 Sq. Ft. - Hawkins/Cuesta Engineering Mr. Engen, Commun. Devel. Director , gave staff report. There was no public comment. MOTION: By Councilman Bourbeau to approve TPM 4-87, subject to the findings and revised conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission with the exception that Condition No. ,.",, 13 will be revised to read as follows: 4 ; "13. The applicant shall deposit with the Director of Public Works $3,982.00 , which shall be utilized for future implementation of the sidewalk route to school plan serving Santa Rosa Elementary School. " Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Norris; passed 3 :1, with Councilwoman Borgeson opposed and Councilman Handshy absent. C. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES/REPORTS (*Council consented to change the order of items; C-4, a proposed UP ` gency ordinance, considered first. ) *4. Urgency Ordinance 152 - Clarifying the Minimum Lot Size in the LSF-X and RSF-X Zones - Requiring a Net Minimum Land Area of 20, 000 Sq. Ft. with Sewer (excluding land area needed for street right-of-way whether public or private) (FIRST AND FINAL READ- ING) Mr. Engen, Commun. Devel. Director, gave staff report reviewing al- ternatives available to Council. He noted that there is currently one relative application in the pipeline, which will be before the Planning Commission at their next meeting for consideration with con- ditions for approval. Mr. Jorgensen, City Atty. , noted that should Council not take action on this item tonight, it could be brought back at any future meeting without additional notice. Public Comment Jack Bray, 8480 Atas. Ave. , expressed complete agreement with the pro- posed urgency ordinance; however, he requested TPM 9-87 -- the one in the pipeline (noted above in Mr. Engen' s comments) -- be exempt from the ordinance or that this amendment be held over to allow his cli (J. Kuhlman) to complete the parcel map. He added that both he lb his client were informed by Planning Divn. staff that TPM 9-87 met the 4 criteria of the ordinance in effect, or they would not have gone to the expense of both time and money in pursuing the application. Mr. Jorgensen, City Atty. , noted options available to Council, in view of the previous speaker ' s comments: (1) Continue this matter to the next regular meeting, at which time staff could prepare an amendment to the urgency ordinance which would exempt applications filed prior to a specified date; (2) Continue consideration of an urgency ordinance until such time as there are other applications pending that would violate the intent; (3) Take action tonight if Council thinks it is appropriate. Dennis Lockridge, 8935 Atas. Ave. , urged Council approval of the pro- posed urgency ordinance, feeling it addresses the Council and Planning Commission' s intent at the time of the Gen. Plan amendment; however, he expressed his feeling that it has come a little late, in that many builders have taken advantage of the 20,000 sq. ft. gross. Councilwoman Borgeson requested the record reflect her agreement with the comments of the previous speaker. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson to adopt Urg. Ord. 152, which shall take immediate effect and preclude approving any future par- cel maps or tract maps in LSF-X or RSF-X zones which contain lots proposed to be less than 20, 000 sq. ft. after streets have been deducted from the acreage, seconded by Councilwoman Norris; failed by 2:2 roll-call, with Councilman Bourbeau and Mayor Mackey opposed and Councilman Handshy absent. Council discussed the option of postponement in order to amend the proposed language in consideration of the pending (Kuhlman/Bray) ap- plication. MOTION: By Councilman Bourbeau to direct staff to bring back (at the next regular meeting) an amended urgency ordinance to in- clude a statement exempting applications submitted prior to 5/12/87 , seconded by Councilwoman Norris; passed unanimously, with Councilman Handshy absent. *Mayor Mackey announced that Councilwoman Borgeson is excused, due to health problems. 1. Presentation by John Bart elt - Proposed Nuclear Free Zone Ordi- nance 5 Mr. Bartelt spoke in support of the above, summarizing that the pro- posed ordinance suggests that we limit, with reasonable exceptions exclusions, the City' s ability to accept bids and contracts from bu nesses that are involved in nuclear weapons production, and it would deny business licenses to local weapons-related businesses. He noted that, according to figures compiled by Nuclear-Free America, more than 15 million Americans now live in such zones nationwide. He expressed he has no dilusion that Council action in favor of this proposal will have any major impact on the American economic situation; this is a simple request that the Council take action in some form toward the end that our nation' s economy be curbed away from its dependence on arms dollars and redirected toward reliance more on socially respon- sible products. He went on to summarize the current level of the nuclear weapons arsenal and production. Ray Jensen, 6665 County Club Dr. , spoke in support of this proposal. 4�< He expressed his confidence in the Council' s judgment and commitment,11 w to whatever action is morally right and in their common sense regard ' for humanity. He urged that Council will not consider this proposal .' from the viewpoint of pressure politics, believing that communities such as ours ought to utilize the freedom to act for what is right in the interest of all communities. <j Chuck Smith, 7955 Valle, expressed opposition to Council acting on what, he feels, is a national policy, although agreeing the issue is one that should be debated. He countered some of the comments of the previous speakers, saying that people who are actively involved in peace movement should realize that nuclear weapons are an import instrument of peace and that they create the incentive for nationstoo cooperate with one another. He spoke of the overall reduction in nuc- lear firepower as a result of the arms race. Valerie Hamilton, 5650 Portola, expressed support for this proposal, feeling it is an issue that transcends politics and political boundar- ies. She feels it is the responsibility of the citizens to insure . ,; that the City adopts laws/ordinances such as that proposed. Paul Rose, resident, expressed that this proposed ordinance is one of hope, not of fear, intended to serve as a statement from our community that we' re trying to work together for a solution to a problem we all share. He feels any reduction in the nuclear arsenal is attributed to statements such as this proposal. John Baker , Santa Margarita resident, spoke in support of this propos- al, feeling it is appropriate to address this .. issue from the local level. He noted a provision in the proposed ordinance which would_ :' allow Council discretion to do business with certain companies if there are no others available. Ron Lapp, 6805 Los Gatos Rd. , spoke in support of this proposal, be- lieving it provides the opportunity for the City to make a symbolic gesture regarding this issue. Council expressed individual opinions regarding this proposal. 6 0 • Mayor Mackey expressed her belief that this is a local, as well as a national, issue but suggested the voters pursue a ballot initiative in view of the fact that only three Council members are present to con- sider it. No formal action was taken. 2. Business Improvement Association Report - Request for Initiation of Special Zoning District for Central Business District and an In-Lieu Fee Parking Program Mr. Engen gave staff report and responded to questions from Council. There was no public comment. Council consented (with the noted absence of Councilmembers Handshy and Borgeson) to agree with the concept of this request but would like more details in coordination with the economic analysis study. No formal action was taken. 3. Presentation on Proposed Boundaries for Undergrounding Utilities in the Downtown Area Mr. Sensibaugh, Pub. Works Director, gave staff report. He introduced Mr. Wayne Cooper, PG&E, who has replaced Mr. Don Smith and will be attending Council meetings representing PG&E. There was no public comment. MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to concur with staff recommendations as outlined in staff report (dated 5/4/87) , seconded by Coun- cilman Bourbeau; passed by 3:0 roll-call with Councilmembers Borgeson and Handshy absent. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Authorization for Mayor to Enter into Agreement with "ARE" - Prep- aration of the Atascadero Creek Bridge Traffic Study - $5, 000 Mr. Sensibaugh, Pub. Works Director, gave staff report. There were no public comments. MOTION: By Councilman Bourbeau that Council accept the ARE, Inc. pro- posal for the Traffic Circulation Study and Impact Mitigation Analysis for the Atascadero Creek Bridge, seconded by Coun- cilwoman Norris; passed by 3:0 roll-call, with Councilmembers Borgeson and Handshy absent. 2. Authorization for Mayor to Enter into a Memorandum of Understand- ing with Atascadero School District - Joint Use of Recreational Facilities . Mr. Best, Rec. Director, gave staff report. 7 Public Comment Mr. Collie Kidwell, representing the City/School subcommittee wh* has been discussing this issue, spoke in support of the development of this MOU. He noted it would serve to provide the philosophy behind the formation of a JPA, should it be approved by both the Council and the AUSD Board. He summarized the subcommittee' s recommendations. MOTION: By Councilman Bourbeau to approve the MOU as presented, sec- onded by Councilwoman Norris; passed unanimously, with Coun cilmembers Borgeson and Handshy absent. 3. Authorization for Mayor to Enter into Agreement with Alderman En- ;, gineering - Design Phase of Atascadero Lake Improvement Project - $17,850 Mr. Best, Rec. Director, gave staff report. There was no public s comment. MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to approve staff recommendation to award the design phase of the Atascadero Lake Improvement Project to Alderman Engineering for $17,850.00, seconded by Councilman Bourbeau; passed by 3:0 roll-call, with Council- members Borgeson and Handshy absent. 4. Authorization to Establish an Employee Service Award Program 0 Approve Appropriation of Funds for First Year Costs Mr. Shelton, City Mgr. , gave staff report. There was no public com- ment. MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to approve appropriation of $3,000 from the Council contingency funds to cover the first year costs to establish an employee service award program, second- ed by Councilman Bourbeau; passed by 3:0 roll-call, with Councilmembers Borgeson and Handshy absent. Mr. Shelton noted it would be important and appropriate to recognize those employees who have tenure beyond five years (prior to incorpora- tion) . MOTION: By Councilman Bourbeau to recess as Council and convene as the '- Atas. County Sanit. :Dist. Board of Directors, seconded by Councilwoman Norris; passed unanimously. E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (ACSD) 1. Authorization for Public Works director to Solicit Bids for Inflow and Infiltration Analysis Project to the Wastewater Treatment Plant (Cont'd from 4/28/87) 8 Mr. Sensibaugh, Pub. Works Director , gave staff report. There was no public comment. MOTION: By Director Norris to approve staff recommendation as out- lined in staff report (dated 5/5/87) , seconded by Director Bourbeau; passed unanimously, with Directors Borgeson and Handshy absent. 2,2". Appeal of Sewer Annexation Fee Revised Requirement- 10705 E1 Cam- ino Real (Casa Camino Apartments) - Messer (Cont'd from 4/28/87) Mr . Sensibaugh, Pub. Works Director, gave staff report. He noted the receipt late today of a letter from Atty. Glen R. Lewis, on behalf of Mr. Messer. Mr. Jorgensen, City Atty. , commented that he would like to thoroughly review Mr. Lewis' s letter and recommended it would be appropriate to continue this item. Mr. Jorgensen noted that he has reviewed a theory ` outlined in a letter, dated 4/21, from Mr. Lewis alleging that this project constituted a vested tentative map; he found that said theory is not applicable. Commenting further on the letter received today from Mr. Lewis, Mr. Jorgensen stated that it appears clear that there was no development agreement entered into between the City and the applicant, noting that the precise plan does not constitute a develop- ment agreement. Public Comment Glen Lewis, Atty. for appellant, stated that Mr. Messer is willing to have this item continued for further review. He expressed agreement with Mr. Jorgensen regarding the vested right issue, noting that the thrust of the development agreement is getting to the point of a nego- tiated agreement between the City and the applicant relative to Res. No. 20-84. MOTION: By Director Norris to continue this item to the next regular meeting on 5/26/87, seconded by Director Bourbeau; passed unanimously, with Directors Borgeson and Handshy absent. 3. Marchant Way (Lots 72 & 73) Sewer Connection - Request for Excep- tion Mr. Sensibaugh, Pub. Works Director, gave staff- report and responded to questions from the Board. There was no public comment. MOTION: By Director Bourbeau to adopt staff recommendation for ap . proval of connection of two buildings to the public sewer by a common building sewer conditional upon recordation of an appropriate easement and a maintenance agreement by the ap- plicant for connection, seconded by Director Norris; passed unanimously, with Directors Borgeson and Handshy absent. 9 4. Approval to Award Backhoe Tractor Bid for the Sanitation District-t to Ryan Equipment - $31,272. 65 0 Mr. Sensibaugh, Pub. Works Director, gave staff report. He pointed out that the Ryan bid is not the lowest but more closely meets speci- fications; also, the City already has Case equipment and can inter- change parts, in some instances. Further, the recommended bid amount is under budget. MOTION: By Director Norris to accept the bid from Ryan Equipment of Santa Maria in the amount of $31, 272.65, seconded by Director Bourbeau; passed by 3:0 roll-call, with Directors Borgeson and Handshy absent. MOTION: By Director Bourbeau to adjourn as ACSD Board and reconvene as City Council, seconded by Director Norris; passed unani ;i mously. F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council Committee Appointments: a. Traffic Committee (Consideration to appoint Planning Commission Member) MOTION: BY Councilman Bourbeau to continue this item to Ve next meeting, seconded by Councilwoman Norris; passed unanimously. b. City/School Committee Council consented to appoint Councilman Bourbeau to this committee (with the noted absence of Councilmembers Borgeson and Handshy) . c. San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council (alternate repre- sentative - _unexpired term vacated by G. Molina) MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to appoint Mayor Mackey to fill the unexpired term on the SLOACC, seconded by Council- man Bourbeau; passed unanimously, with Councilmembers Borg"eson and Handshy absent. d. Ad Hoc Committee on Acquisition of Property along_ Frontage of Atascadero Lake Park Mayor Mackey commented that she and Councilwoman Borgeson have met once, last week, as part of this committee and another meet- ing is scheduled for this Friday to consider Mr. Guidry' s and other property along -- Morro Rd. Mr . Guidry has requested t Councilmembers Borgeson and Mackey remain on this committee, Council consented (with Members Borgeson and Handshy absent) . 10 e. Solid Waste Management Commission (Note: This item added. ) Mayor Mackey announced that this appointment is per direction of the County Bd. of Supvrs. and State Legislature; appointment ratifications must be made tomorrow, 5/13/87 . MOTION: By Councilman Bourbeau to appoint Councilwoman Norris to this committee, seconded by Mayor Mackey; passed unanimously, with Councilmembers Borgeson and Handshy absent. Mr . Shelton noted that he will be presenting a proposal to Coun- cil at their next regular meeting which will petition the N. Coastal Transit Authority JPA to enable the City to participate. Following that action, the Council will be requested to appoint a representative. Mayor Mackey made several announcements: - Councilman Handshy, Chmn. for the Council U.S. Constitution Committee, is requesting a community member chairperson be appointed; Mayor Mackey has scheduled a meeting for Wed. , 5/20/87 , at 7:30 p.m. in the 4th Floor Club Room, and she encouraged public attendance. - Announced receipt of invitation to Council to attend the Santa Maria Rodeo Weekend - Announced she will be attending a legislative conference on June 1-2 in Sacramento; - Noted Council may need to have earlier or extra meetings due to the length of the agendas recently. Mr. Shelton commented on the tentative budget schedule: - Special Meeting on 5/27 for budget overview; - Presentation of the preliminary budget on 6/9; - Morning budget workshops on 6/16, 17 and 18; - Public hearing and adoption on 6/23. City Clerk - Mr. Sharitz complimented the Council for adoption of the Employee Awards Program. City Manager - Mr. Shelton announced that the City' s labor negotiat- or has been rescheduled for 5/19 at 6:00 p.m. and requested that the Council adjourn this meeting to that date and time for a closed ses- sion; the purpose is to advise Council of employee budget requests and to provide direction to our negotiator. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10 :15 P.M. TO A CLOSED SESSION ON 5/19 AT 6:00 P.M. IN THE FOURTH FLOOR CLUB ROOM FOR THE PURPOSE OF LABOR NEGOTIA- TIONS. 11 MINUTES RECORDED BY: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk PREPARED BY: CINDY WILKINS, Deputy City Clerk 12 . ETINGAGENDA �J ITEM# f4""I May 19, 1987 • To All Council Members: The breakdown detail on all accounts is available for your viewing in the Finance Department. 4J David Jorgensen Admin. Services Director • 3 CITY OF ATASCADERO FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT • APRIL 1, 1987 TO APRIL 30 , 1987 BALANCE AS OF MARCH 31, 1987 155,084-3a DEPOSITED BY TREASURER, SEE RECEIPTS, -TREASURER'S REPORT, PAGE 1 979,334..92 TOTAL 1,134,'9+-773).,r HAND CHECK REGISTER DATED 04/30/87 390,11IL-M CHECK REGISTER DATED 04/03/87 167,:[,M-25 CHECK REGISTER DATED 04/08/87 14;,,4 .- CHECK REGISTER DATED 04/17/87 117,@x.,713 CHECK REGISTER DATED 04/24/87 67.95,2-3.1 SERVICE CHARGE-MASTERCARD 2-r-w EXPENSE LISTING 243,4%T_117 TOTAL 1,000.6 . BALANCE AS OF APRIL 30, 1987 134.,,203-.,BSS PETTY CASH « ,TREASURY INVESTMENTS SEE TREASURER'S REPORT, PAGE 2 3,641,, I- TOTAL 3,775,,82:1_M � I, DAVID JORGENSEN, do hereby certify and cM-w3m'r& that demands enumerated and referred to in the foTe*W-JxT register are accurate and just claims against the C-ItT and that there are funds available for payment thereoTim City Treasury. DATED: May 19, 1987 DAVID JORGENSEN Admin. Services rx- 4 . CITY OF ATASCADERO FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT APRIL 1, 1987 TO APRIL 30 , 1987 EXPENSE LISTING PAYROLL DATED 04/01/87 CHECKS #38940-39098 88,774.10 PAYROLL DATED 04/15/87 CHECKS #39099-39213 86,856.72 PAYROLL DATED 04/29/87 CHECKS #39214-39329 85 ,317.84 VOID CK#34037 CK. REG. DATED 03/27/87 (49.50) VOID CK#34208 CK. REG. DATED 04/03/87 (452.09) VOID CK#34397 CK. REG. DATED 04/17/87 (16,560.84) VOID CK#34302 CK. REG. DATED 04/17/87 (139.06) VOID CK#34352 CK. REG. DATED 04/17/87 (250.00) TOTAL 243,497 .17 5 CITY OF ATASCADERO TREASURER'S REPORT • APRIL 1, 1987 TO APRIL 30 , 1987 TAXES Property Tax 222, 387.99 Cigarette Tax 6,103.98 Business Inventory 5,337.46 Motor Vehicle "In Lieu" 61,387 . 22 Sales Tax 83,400 .00 Franchise Tax 152,807.78 Livestock-Head Day Tax 222.60 Development Impact Tax 64 ,270.00 Occupancy Tax 10 ,202. 23 LICENSES/PERMITS/FEES 111,364.19 DEVELOPMENT FEES 44,864.78 PARKS & RECREATION FEES 16,422.08 GAS TAX 24,942.21 LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND 65,000.00 TRANSPORTATION SB-325 2,990 75 STREET ASSESSMENT 1,115 50 TRAFFIC SAFETY 7,272.17 ZOO TRUST 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS • Assessment District #4 3,902.78 Investment Earnings 63,031. 15 Bails/Bonds 161.00 Sale Maps/Publications/Reports 436.86 Special Police Services 162.00 Fines & Penalties 602.24 Planning Permit Deposits (13,531.02) Business Improvement Assn. Fee 25.00 Overages & Shortages (. 25) P.O.S.T. Reimbursement 745. 57 Reimburse to Expense 1,200 .57 Rents/Concessions 250.00 Refunds 3,042.25 Sanitation Reimbursement 38,854.42 Weed Abatement 807.75 Miscellaneous 63.66 TOTAL - 979,894.92 l • CITY OF ATASCADERO TREASURER'S REPORT • APRIL 1, 1987 TO APRIL 30 , 1987 INVESTMENTS LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND $3,641,000.00 TOTAL INVESTMENT DEPOSITS $3,641,000.00 i Gere Sibbach _ City Treasurer 2 MEETi r" AGENDA • MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council. i,� Through: Michael Shelton, City Manager Y' , From: Paul Mensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Subject : Traf is Impact-Mitigation Analysis Contract Date: May 15, 1987 Recommendation: The City/School Committee recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with ARE, Inc. for the Traffic Impact- Mitigation Analysis Study for the Atascadero Creek Bridge for the amount of $5, 000. Backround: At the last regular Council Meeting the Council approved the Proposal from ARE for the above study and directed staff to bring back a contract for approval . Discussion: (Staff report from the May 12 meeting attached. ) Fiscal Analysis: The not-to-exceed cost is $5,000 and will be provided out of the $101,000 appropiated for the engineering and right-of-way for this project . • AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES This Agreement is entered into this day of , 1987, between A.R.E. Inc. ("Consultant") and the City of Atascadero, a municipal corporation. RECITALS This Agreement is predicated on the following facts: 1. City requires certain services to conduct a traffic study. 2. Consultant is qualified to provide these services and is willing to provide them according to the terms of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Duties of Consultant a. Consultant agrees to conduct a traffic study in conformance with its proposal to City dated April 15, 1987 (attached and incorporated as Exhibit "A"). Consultant agrees to diligently perform these services in accord with the standards of its profession and to City's satisfaction. b. Consultant agrees to prepare a final report and attend one City Council and one school board meeting to present the report and answer any questions regarding same. c. In addition to the services described above, the parties may from time to time agree in writing that Consultant, for additional compensation, shall perform additional services in connection with the Report including but not limited to: 1) changes in the services because of design changes in the project; 2) additional studies or modifications of existing documents because of changes in requirements of any governmental authority with jurisdiction over the project. d. Consultant shall furnish City with copies of all Reports indicated in Exhibit "A", Section 4, Page 22. These documents become City's sole property for use and distribution as City may direct. 1 2. Duties of City a. City agrees to make available to Consultant relevant public records including copies of reports, maps, traffic data and other file materials and to cooperate in the collection of information which Consultant may request. b. City shall promptly: 1) notify Consultant of any design changes in the Project; 2) notify Consultant of any defect in Consultant's performance; and 3) review any documents submitted by Consultant for City's comment. 3. Consultant's Status Consultant is an independent contractor and is solely responsible for its acts or omissions. Consultant (including its agents, servants and employees) is not City's agent, employee or representative for any purpose. 4. Conflict of Interest Consultant understands that its professional responsibility is solely to the City. Consultant warrants that it presently has no interest and will not acquire any direct or indirect interest that would conflict with its performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall not in the performance of this Agreement employ a person having such an interest. 5. Compensation a. City agrees to pay Consultant's lump sum price as described here: See Exhibit "A", Section VI, Option 'A' , attached not to exceed a maximum contract price of $5,000.00 dollars for all services performed under this Agreement. b. Consultant may bill City monthly, on a percentage basis, for work done in the preceding month. The bill shall describe services rendered and fees charged in reasonable detail. City shall pay Consultant within 30 days of receipt of the bill. c. The parties shall agree in writing to any changes in compensa- tion due to changes in Consultant's services under paragraph 1(d) above. 2 i • 6. Time of Performance Consultant shall begin performance of its services as of the date this Agreement is executed and shall diligently pursue to completion, according to the schedule set forth in Exhibit "A", Section V, attached. 7. Termination City may terminate this Agreement by giving 30 days written notice to Consultant describing that party's substantial failure to meet its obligations. On termination, Consultant shall give City all work done toward completion of its services. City shall pay Consultant an amount which bears the same ratio to the maximum contract price as the work delivered to City bears to the completed services under this Agreement. 8. Ownership of Work All documents furnished to Consultant by City and all reports and supportive data prepared by Consultant under this Agreement are City's property and shall be given to City at the completion of Consultant's services. 9. Litigation If either party brings an action to enforce this Agreement the prevailing party is entitled to reasonalbe attorneys' fees and costs. 10. Assignment; Subcontracts Consultant's services are considered unique and personal. Consultant will not assign or transfer its interest or obligation under this Agreement without City's written consent. Consultant shall not subcontract its duties under this Agreement without City's written consent. 11. Liability and Insurance The CONSULTANT shall indemnify and defend CITY and its officers, agents and employees and hold them harmless from and against all losses, damages and expenses including attorneys' fees and court costs and liability resulting from injury to or death of any persons and loss of or damage to property or claims of such injury, death, loss or damage to the extent they result from the negligent act, errors, or omission of the CONSULTANT in the performance of its services under this agreement, and to the extent caused by the negligence of the CONSULTANT shall maintain in effect at all times during the performance of this agreement at least the following coverage and limits of insurance: a. Worker's Compensation Insurance as required by the laws of the State of California. Comprehensive Automobile and General Liability Insurance covering bodily injury and property; 3 0 0 damage with combined single limit of $1,000,000 per occurence. Policies shall name CITY, its officers, agents and employees, individually and collectively, as additional insureds and shall contain an endorsement providing that written notice shall be given to the CITY at least 30 days prior to termination, cancellation or material change in the policy. Errors and Omission Insurance in the amount of $500,000. The CONSULTANT shall, prior to commencement of performance of work under this Agreement, deliver to the CITY certificates of insurance reflecting the required insurance coverage set forth herein. 12. Equal Employment Opportunity Consultant is an Equal Opportunity employer and agrees to comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. 13. Notices Any notice given under this Agreement shall be in writing and deemed given when personally delivered or deposited in the mail (certified or registered) addressed to the parties as follows: City Consultant Paul Sensibaugh A.R.E. Inc. Public Works Director/City Engineer 20 Victor Square City of Atascadero Scotts Valley, CA. 95066 P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA. 93423 14. Waivers Waiver or a breach or default under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 15. Modification No waiver, modification or termination of this Agreement is valid unless made in writing. 16. Severability If any term of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction the remainder of this Agrement shall remain in effect. 17. Entire Agreement This Agreement and its Exhibit(s) set forth the entire under- 4 • 0 standing between the parties. Changes or amendments shall be made in writing and signed by the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date above written. CITY CONSULTANT City of Atascadero A.R.E. Inc. - Engineering Consultants 20 Victor Square Scotts Valley, CA. 95066 By By 5 0— MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Through: Michael Shelton, City Manager From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Subject : Traffic Study Proposals-Atascadero Creek Bridge Date: May 5, 1987 Recommendation: The City/School Committee reccommends that Council accept the ARE, Inc. proposal for the Traffic Circulation Study and Impact Mitigation Analysis for the Atascadero Creek Bridge . Backround: Council authorized staff to proceed with requests for proposals for the above project on Feburary 23, 1987. Proposals were originally accepted on March 16, but no entries were received. The scope of services was slightly adjusted with respect with the origin- destination portion of the study and proposals were again sought on April 15. Discussion: Two proposals were received, both of which adhered closely to the scope of services. Both consultants were well qualified and offered Prompt response to our needs . Both firms have excellent references and resourses and are able to supply adequate insurance protection. Following is a summary of the proposals: Consultant : ARE, Inc-Scotts Valley ATE,-Santa Barbara Cost : $5,000 $11 , 050 Time: 60 days 75 days Man-hours: 154 230 .Fiscal Impact: The budget for the design and right-of-way and impact mitigation is currently $101, 000. This portion of the preliminary design was targeted at approximately $5,000. The proposal from ARE, Inc . is recommended by Staff as the best proposal and the least costly selection. It should be understood that this is the first step in a long process to make the bridge a reality and that upon completion staff will be recommending -to Council to request proposals for the structural design of the bridge . MEEr:Nv�--/� AG"NDA *E�1� ITEM J M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council May 26, 1987 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director +'► SUBJECT: Lot line Adjustment 8-87 LOCATION: 9351-9385 Musselman (Ptn. Block 7, Eaglet #2) APPLICANT: Norman Norton (Cuesta Engineering) REQUEST: To adjust the property line between five existing lots of record. BACKGROUND: On May 5, 1987, the Planning Commission considered the above-refer- enced matter on its consent calendar, unanimously approving the lot • dine adjustment request subject to the findings and conditions con- tained in the attached staff report. There was no discussion or public testimony on this item. RECOMMENDATION: Approval per Planning Commission' s recommendation. HE:ps cc: Norm Norton Cuesta Engineering • City of Atascadero Item: A-2 STAFF REPORT FOR: PlanningCommssion Meeting Date: 5/5/87 • 9 BY: p4pSteven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: LLA 8-87 Project Address: 9351-9385 Musselman (Ptn. Block 7; Eaglet #2) SUBJECT: Request to adjust the property line between five existing lots of record. A. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Norman Norton, et al 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cuesta Engineering 3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.84 acres 4. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF/16 5. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Parcel A - single family dwell. Parcel B - single family dwell. . Parcel C - vacant Parcel D - single family dwell. Parcel E - single family dwell. 6. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Multiple Family 7. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt (Class 5) B. ANALYSIS: The property involved in the proposed lot line adjustment is loca- ted in an RMF/16 (Residential Multiple Family - 16 units per acre) zoning district. The minimum lot size in this zone is 0.5 acres. Although three of the lots involved in this action do not current- ly meet this minimum (pre-existing nonconforming lots) , no reduc- tion in their size is being proposed. -These lots will remain at their current size upon completion of the lot line adjustment. Parcels. A, B, D, and E are developed with single family homes. Parcel C is the site of a proposed multiple family (condominium) development. Exhibit B shows that each of the four single family homes is "split" by an existing lotline. This situation has re- sulted from what was apparently an historical surveying error. It is the intent of the lot line adjustment application to rectify that historical error. As a result of this application, lot lines • will be moved to what had been assumed to be the property lines by Lot Line Adjustment*87 (Norton/Cuesta Engineang) the property owners. The proposed lot line adjustment does not appear to present any significant planning issues. The proposed map complies with City policies and standards. C. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Lot Line Adjustment 8-87 based on the Findings in Exhibit C and the Conditions in Exhibit D. SLD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location and Zoning Map Exhibit B - Proposed Lot Line Adjustment Map Exhibit C - Findings for Approval Exhibit D - Conditions of Approval 2 ` II EF x 4115 17, , CITY OF ATASCADERO r�9q•'.4 T.� --r — —cin 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SPD o 1 t ` / CR� T StIC --vC R- , 9353 Mus�L�►+,ah KMF • tb �. -R-S, EX1kl BI( B `� :.. . . CITY OF ATASCADERO r.sl Ie °- . " �eJs-7 r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A�j DEPARTMENT �ttio j a7 CL QW 5aa o ag: Q z a r'—• I s t LTJa ` s WNINaaVAI � t. .3 •,Y €es a� e ? y: 3sr i° Y 't o iki52�Ya�� b IN U—i v _—Wn akwV CO L--J ,n Ijr A.N'vJ M.Af.w'.IfN Lot Line Adjustmen0-87 (Norton/Cuesta Engin aing) EXHIBIT C - Findings for Approval Lot Line Adjustment 8-87 (Norton/Cuesta Engineering) May 5, 1987 FINDINGS 1. The application as submitted has been determined to be categori- cally exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. The application as submitted conforms with all applicable zoning, General Plan and subdivision regulations of the City of Atascadero Lot Line Adjustment*87 (Norton/Cuesta Engine4ng) - EXHIBIT D - Conditions of Approval Lot Line Adjustment 8-87 (Norton/Cuesta Engineering) May 5, 1987 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The lot line adjustment as generally shown on the map attachment provided herein shall be submitted in final map format or reflec- ted in a record of survey to be approved by the Community Develop- ment Department prior to recordation by the County Recorder ' s Office. 2. The proposed adjusted lot lines shall be surveyed and monuments set at the new property corners prior to recordation of the final map or record of survey. 3. The proposed lot line adjustment shall be drawn to insure that the resultant lots do not deviate from existing lot sizes. 4. If a final map is to be recorded, all existing easements shall be delineated thereon. 5. Approval of this lot line adjustment shall expire two years from the date of approval unless a time extension has been granted pur- suant to a written request prior to the expiration date. :'ETiNv AG'No* 4,Tt; �� % - M� • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works c5' SUBJECT : K-Mart Improvements DATE: May 18, 1987 Recommendation : Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolutions authorizing the installation of a Traffic Signal and crosswalks at San Anselmo and El Camino Real . Background: Due to the increase in traffic generated by the new shopping center on the corner of San Anselmo and E1 Camino Real the K-Mart Corporation was conditioned to install a traffic signal and appropriate crosswalks prior to the opening of the store. Discussion : Although K-Mart has been conditioned to provide the intersection improvements , nine other businesses north of the K-Mart location have also been conditioned to contribute to the signal construction , Fiscal Impact : Once the signal installation is complete the City will be responsible for the repair and maintenance. We currently have a contract with Lee Wilson Electric from Arroyo Grande to maintain our existing traffic signal Is at a cost of $900. 00 per signal and will add this signal to our current contract . • • • RESOLUTION NO. 44-87 • RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE C= OF ATASCADERO TO AUTHORIZE THE ESTAB11T131;1T-MqF1Vr OF TWO CROSSWALKS AT THE INTERSECTIO-M' 07 SAN ANSELMO AVENUE AND EL CAMINOTERMR1 WHEREAS, Section 4 .2 .404 et . seq, of -tibk3t, AAiaacatberro Municipal Code allows the City Traffic y rs determine the location of Traffic Control ID xd1re ,, avad ', place and maintain appropriate signs or mark ,n a, im-dj3j.=m+LaMS the same; and WHEREAS, as a condition of developm 0i_ thhe� iT � Corporation is required to construct a tr fio x:iSpal, at the intersection of San Anselmo and El Camino Res ) ;, al, WHEREAS, a signalized intersects= i % 1Wew determined to be an appropriate location fa ,at crosswalk and it has been determined that c1mxz warranted at this location . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that take tj o:f Atascadero directs the Traffic Engineer tr,a) ex€ `t-&e installation of crosswalks at the inters,*TAA am ofSzm Anselmo Avenue and El Camino Real as illustr ti i !F ib:bdt "A" attached hereto . On Motion by Councilman seconded by Councilman Resolution is hereby adopted in its er.tLmatt T the following roll call vote : > AYES : NOES: ABSENT : DATE; ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARTIZ, City Clerk MARJORITE 1i.:, AIC:%X Mayor APPROVED AS TO CONTENT : APPROVEP XS' 110 FUM.- PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH JEFFREY G.- Director .Director of Public Works City Attzrrp. City Engineer ....... . ......- EXHIBIT "A" .............-.......... 06P ,-21 ...... ........ F 06P .............. ... CO .. ........... .......... ........... ........................ .......... ............ ........................... ...................... . ......... ........... .......... ............. . ...........Er ........... .... ............ ........... ... ........... .............. .......... ...........- to a 08 08 V, :G xl��)S, 6 J4 L lw 06 ........... ............. 41 ......................... . ..... .... ........... .... ....... ..... .......... ............... .......................... ........................ ........... ............. ........... ............. ..... .......... ... ....... 6J4U GO ............. ............ .. ......... ......... .. l5cD ........ ......... ........ ........... ............ .......... ..... .......a .............. 6x35 �1 02 -0— Fq .............. ... . .......... ......... Ol .......... .............. 02..: 04 02, 0 . ........................ 04 2pO 08P /0\ AA A RT Z Ln co IA\ 0 RESOLUTION NO, 45-87 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO TO AUTHORIZE THE INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF SAN ANSELMO AVENUE AND EL CAMINO REAL WHEREAS, Section 4-2 .403 et , seq, of the Atascadero Municipal Code allows the City Traffic Engineer to determine the location of Traffic Control Devices , and to place and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating the same; and WHEREAS, as a condition of development the K-Mart Corporation was required to provide a Traffic Report for the intersection of San Anselmo and El Camino Real and to provide traffic controls as are determined necessary by the Report and the City Traffic Engineer; and WHEREAS, the City Traffic Engineer has studied the traffic reports prepared in conjunction with the development of commercial property adjacent to this intersection and concurred with the findings that a traffic signal is warranted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Atascadero directs the Traffic Engineer to oversee the installation of a Traffic Signal at the intersection of San Anselmo Avenue and E1 Camino Real . 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 : DATE: ATTEST : BOYD C . SHARITZ, City Clerk MARJORIE R. MACKEY, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT : JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH City Attorney Director of Public Works/ City Engineer DAML MEMORANDUM • May 26 , 1987 To: City Council Via: Mike Shelton , City Manager From: Bob Best , Parks and Recreation Director-94 Subject ; Authorization to Bid Grounds Maintenance Services 'b e BACKGROUND Grounds maintenance services for Park areas has been provided for the City by private contractor since incorportion. Due to unexpected circumstances, it is necessary to bid out these services again two months ahead of schedule . RECOMMENDATION Authorize Staff to bid out Grounds Maintenance Services for the City of Atascadero. FISCAL IMPACT Estimated financial impact to the City is $18 ,000 - $22 ,000 yearly. Funds are available in the Parks budget to cover expenses in this range . !?A + AG,--NDA -a MEMORANDUM ITEM# • May 26 , 1987 To : City Council A Via: Mike Shelton, City Manager From: Bob Best , Parks and Recreation Director Subject : Authorization to Bid - Irrigation and Fencing Materials Paloma Creek Park BACKGROUND ,k . The Parks and Recreation Department is currently working on Phase II development of Paloma Creek Park. As part of the process, it is necessary to bid out certain items. Irrigation and fencing materials are the first materials needed for this phase of development . RECOMMENDATION Authorize Staff to go to bid for Irrigation and Fencing materials for Phase II development of Paloma Park. .FISCAL IMPACT _ Materials costs will be 100% funded by the State Grant awarded to the City. MEETNNG AG7NDA AT: /�o�I T ITEM i • M E M O R A N D U M To: Mike Shelton, City Manager Fes' . From: David G. Jorgensen, Admin. Svcs. Director Date: May 19, 19187 Subject: Claim of DeAnn Baxter RECOMMENDATION City Council deny the above-mentioned claim which was submit- ted on April 29, 1987. Damages of $100,000 .00 are claimed. BACKGROUND • Claimant alleges she tripped and fell in a trench while walking down her driveway. City' s adjustors, Carl Warren & Co. , have reviewed this claim and recommend denial at this time. ME :NG AGEENDA • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council April 28, 1987 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager / -� 1" FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 13-85 LOCATION: 4595 Traffic Way APPLICANT: Jesse Bentley, et al On January 13, 1986 , the City Council approved Lot Line Adjust- ment 13-85 subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The required con- ditions have been complied with and the final map is recommended for approval and also to accept dedication for public road purposes. HE:ps cc: Jesse Bentley • O � r W ��Foa :Roi b. �� • CR1 • Q N�d�r y Ai Y Fth �D��,� •}�; a�•',�ir^� � �.-. d 2, �� .. +`� , � . h MEEii r' ftp PIJA �J DATE Z6 ?ITEM 164 M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council May 26, 1987 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager , FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director,QxfA SUBJECT: A report to City Council Relative to Clarifying 20, 000 Square Foot Minimum Lot Site Requirement BACKGROUND: At their May 12, 1987 meeting, the City Council held this matter over so that the details regarding exemptions for those subdivisions in process as of May 12th, 1987 could be incorporated. Section 3 of the urgency ordinance No. 152 has been amended to incorporate such language. For the Council' s information, it should be noted that only one parcel map which would be affected by this ordinance was in process as of May 12, 1987. • RECOMMENDATION: Adopt-' the attached Urgency Ordinance No:.152 which would go into effect immediately., Enclosures: Memorandum to City Council - 5/12/87 Draft Ordinance No. 152 Government Code Excerpt Section 65858 DATcjZ/Z/9,? iTEM ® M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council May 12, 1987 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: A Report to City Council Relative to Clarifying 20, 000 Square Foot Minimum Lot Size Requirement BACKGROUND: At the City Council' s meeting of April 26, 1987 , Council requested that staff report back on the matter of minimum lot sizes required in the LSF-X and RSF-X Single Family Residential Districts. In amending the minimum lot size in such zones from one-half acre with sewer to 20 ,000 square feet, the Council had intended to establish a net ac- reage standard, i.e. , 20 ,000 square feet minimum exclud ni g street " rights-of-way whether owned or not owned by the abutting owner. Sub- sequently, lot splits have been received which "net" to less than 20,000 square feet when roads are excluded. The Planning Commission is recommending to the Council that the General Plan and related zon- • ing language be amended to establish a net density standard as part of the next cycle of amendments. ANALYSIS: The General Plan of the City currently states as follows with respect to minimum lot area (page 58) : "8. In the calculation of lot area for the purposes of con- sidering land divisions and in determining permitted numbers and types of animals allowed, gross acreage shall be used. However in determining permitted densities for multiple fam- ily residential developments, net acreage (excluding land area needed for streets rights-of-way) shall be used. " In reviewing this language with the City Attorney, the opinion was given that the Council could consider a zoning text amendment to tighten up the language with respect to minimum lot size on . 20,000 square foot lots. The normal process for a zoning text amendment would be to refer the matter to the Planning Commission for study and public hearing - and then forward a recommendation to the City Council for first and second reading with an effective date thirty-one days ` thereafter. • The Council also has the option of adopting clarifying language as an urgency ordinance which is permitted pursuant to Section 65858 of the Government Code (see attached) . This language allows for adopting on a four-fifth vote an urgency ordinance which is effective for forty- five (45) days, and which permits subsequent extension for ten months and fifteen days pending conclusions of ongoing studies pertinent to the issue at hand. As noted, the Planning Commission will be recom- mending to the City Council on the matter of establishing a tighter definition of net minimum lot size in residential districts. A draft urgency ordinance reciting requisite findings changing the zoning text is enclosed for Council' s consideration. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are available to implement a net acreage lot size standard: 1. No action - in anticipation of receipt of a recommendation from the Planning Commission to initiate this change in both the gen- eral plan and zoning as part of the current General Plan cycle. 2. Initiate a conventional zoning text amendment to be referred to the Planning Commission, or 3. Adopt the attached ordinance No. 1.52 , which would go into immed- iate effect and preclude approving any future parcel maps or tract maps in LSF-X or RSF-X zones which contain lots proposed to be less than 20, 000 square feet after streets have been deducted from the acreage. Ph nclosures: Draft Ordinance No. 152 Government Code Excerpt Section 65858 REV. 5/11/87 & 5/26/87 ORDINANCE NO. 152 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING TITLE 9 ZONING REGULATIONS BY CLARIFYING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT SIZE IN THE LSF-X AND RSF-X DISTRICT AS REQUIRING A NET MINIMUM LAND AREA OF 20 ,000 SQUARE FEET WITH SEWER (EXCLUDING LAND AREA NEEDED FOR STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY WHETHER PUBLICLY OR PRIVATELY OWNED) WHEREAS, Section 65858 of the Government Code authorizes the adoption by local legislative bodies of interim ordinances as urgency measures to protect the public safety, health and welfare; and WHEREAS said ordinances may be adopted as urgency measures pro- hibiting actions which may be in conflict with a contemplated zoning proposal which the legislative body, Planning Commission or Community Development Department is considering, or studying, or intends to study within a reasonable time; and WHEREAS, the City is presently studying amendments to the City' s General Plan and zoning regulations to clarify definitions of minimum lot areas required; and , WHEREAS, the City Zoning Ordinance Sections 9-3.154 and 9-3.164 were recently amended (Ordinance 145) to reduce minimum lot size in the RSF-X and LSF-X districts to 20 ,000 square feet with sewers; and WHEREAS, said revision was a reduction from one-half acre minimum lot size to eliminate disputes as to credit for fee ownership of roads with the objective of setting a minimum net lot area of 20,000 square feet in these districts where sewer is available regardless ownership of said fee title to the roads; and WHEREAS, applications for the subdivisions of land with lot sizes of less than 20, 000 square feet net have been submitted contrary to the City Council' s intent; and WHEREAS, such urgency measures shall require a four-fifths vote of the legislative body for adoption. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Council Findings. 1. The proposed code amendment is in conformance with Section 65800 et seq of the California Government Code concerning zoning regulations. 2. The proposed zoning text amendment will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Preparation of an Environ- mental Impact Report is not necessary. 3. That there are pending applications for subdivisions of land in conflict with general plan and zoning changes being studied. 4. That further study is necessary to determine what legislation, if any, is proper for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. 5. That there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of addition- al subdivisions inconsistent with the zoning text changes pro- vided for herein, would result in a threat to public health, safety, or welfare. Section 2. Zoning Text Change. That the chart in Section 9-3.154 Minimum Lot Size in the Resi- dential Single Family zone and 9-3.164 Minimum Lot Size in the Lim- ited Residential Single Family Zone shall be changed to read as fol- lows in relation to the Symbol X: SYMBOL MINIMUM LOT SIZE X 20 ,000 square foot net area (excluding land area needed for street rights-of-way whether publicly or privately owned) with sewer ; half acre net area (excluding land area needed for street rights-of-way) whether publicly or privately owned) where sewer is not available. *Section 3. All applications for a permit for a subdivision of land which had been pending before the City on May 12, 1987 shall not be affected by or subject to the restraints herein enacted. Section 4. This ordinance is adopted under Government Code Section 65858 . Section 5. The City Council hereby declares that this is an urgency ordinance necessary to preserve the public peace, health and safety due to the facts set forth above. Section 6. This ordinance being an urgency ordinance for the immediate pro- tection of the public safety, health and general welfare, containing a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency and passed by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the Council shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Section 7. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be pu within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the AtascaderoeNews,lca newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance, and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City. On motion by and seconded by ' the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its en- tirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED:, CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA MARJORIE R. MACKEY, Mayor ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, City Attorney PREPARED BY: AH ' ENRY ENGEN, Community DfSNe lopment Director 0 G E�l�1 M�I�LT CO OE ex CCA- P-1-(Amended by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009.) Commission revieV.. of 65857. The legislative body may approve, legislative body's modify or disapprove the recommendation of the changes planning commission ; provided that any modification of the proposed ordinance or amendment by the legislative body not previously considered by the planning commission during its hearing, shall first be referred to the planning commission for report and recommendation, but the planning commission shall not be required to hold a public hearing thereon . Failure of the planning commission to report within forty (40) days after the reference, or such longer period as may designated by the legislative body, shall be deemed to be approval of the proposed modification. (Amended by Stats. 1973, Ch. 600.) _Urgency measure 65858. [Text of section operative until Interim zoning _January 1, 1989.] ordinance (effective (a) Without following the procedures otherwise until 1/1/89) required prior to the adoption of a zoning ordinance, the legislative body, to protect the public safety, health and welfare, may adopt as an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses which may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal which the legislative body, planning commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time . That urgency measure shall require a four-fifths vote of the legislative body for adoption. The interim ordinance shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption. After notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, the legislative body may extend the interim ordinance for 10 months and 15 days and subsequently extend the interim ordinance for one year. Any such extension shall also require a four-fifties vote for adoption. Not more than the two such extensions may be adopted. (b) Alternatively, an interim ordinance may be adopted by a four-fifths vote following notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, in which case it shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption. After notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, the legislative body may by a four- fifths vote extend the interim ordinance for 22 months and 15 days. (c) The legislative body shall not adopt or extend any interim ordinance pursuant to this section unless the ordinance contains a finding that there is a current and immediate threat to 107 the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivisions , use permits , variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in a threat to public health, safety, or welfare. (d) Ten days prior to the expiration of an interim ordinance or any extension, the legislative body shall issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the ordinance. (e) When any such interim ordinance has been adopted , every subsequent ordinance adopted pursuant to this section, covering the whole or a part of the same property, shall automatically terminate and be of no further force or effect upon the termination of the first such ordinance or any extension of the ordinance as provided in this section. Repealer This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 1989, and as of such date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute , which is chaptered before January 1, 1989, deletes or extends such date. (Amended by Stats. 1982, Ch. 1108; Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009.) Note: Stats. 1982, Ch. 1108, also reads: Urgency measure: SDC. 20 65858. [Text of section operative Interim zoning January 1, 1989.1 ordinance (operative Without following the procedures otherwise 1/1/89) required preliminary to the adoption of a zoning ordinance, the legislative body, to protect the public safety, health and welfare, may adopt as an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses which may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal which the legislative body, planning commission, or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time . That urgency measure shall require a four-fifths vote of the legislative body for adoption. The interim ordinance shall be of no further force and effect four months from its date of adoption. After notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, the legislative body may extend the interim ordinance for eight months and subsequently extend the interim ordinance for one year. Any such extension shall also require a four-fifths vote for adoption. Not more than the two such extensions may be adopted . Alternatively, an interim ordinance may be 108 EETING AGINDA ITEM • M E M O R A N D U M DATE: 5/19/87 TO: City Council VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Mike Hicks, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Weed abatement public hearing - 5/26/87 Recommendation: I recommend action by motion, i .e. , "I move that the Fire Chief or his authorized representatives are ordered to abate the nuisance of noxious or dangerous weeds on the lots identified in Resolution 31-87 . " Background: • As part ofthe weed abatement process , the City Council is required to hear objections to the proposed removal of weeds, rubbish, and other combustible material . This hearing allows any affected property owners to protest the proposed abatement of hazards on their property. After hearing the objections , the City Council - overrules or allows any objection. This can be done by resolution or motion. I recommend action by motion, i .e. , "I move we (allow - overrule) the objections to the proposed removal of noxious or dangerous weeds on the lots identified. " After disposing of the objections, or if no objections are made, the Council orders the abatement of the nuisance . This also can be done by motion or resolution. As of this date we have received no written protests Fiscal Impact• None. • MIKE HICKS FIRE CHIEF MH:pg Ail F G ` AGENDA /� DA cs��l g7 ! �l# K6_ ? M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council May 26 , 1987 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager . FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director �'rY SUBJECT: Consideration of General Plan Amendments for Cycle 2. - 1987 BACKGROUND: At their May 5, 1987 meeting, the Planning Commission considered ex- panded study areas for the next General Plan amendment cycle as refer- enced in the attached staff report. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to prepare analysis and bring to public hearing the Gen- eral Plan. amendment areas recommended by the Planning Commission. (Following Planning Commission hearings, their recommendations on each proposed amendment will be the subject of hearings before the City Council). HE:ps Enclosure: May 5, 1987 Staff Report to Planning Commission City of Atascadero It iC-1 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Da#t > Nom. SM 1987 BY: Joel Moses, Associate Planner File Nv GPI CVi=Ie 2-87 SUBJECT: Preliminary review of General Plan Amendment Appla: 3°.b ass adbmitted for General Plan Amendment Cycle 2 of 1987. BACKGROUND: The application period for the second cycle of Geral. T3am ammmd1ments for 1987 closed on April 1, 1987. This report will. 7g.:an-ffiing Commission an opportunity to initiate any additional ftmenit-m or to recommend approval or modifications to the 2 a -d � of property-owner initiated amendments. As with pries • _ e ccy-c3es, staff will recommend that Zoning Ordinance text amdV/,v• m > an �men'ts be processed concurrently with the corresponding GenmiraO, _7P11unAmend- ments. Following is a brief description of the ami r*}q.sts currently in process and staff's recommendation fcu,- slmiky &Teia - aries. Also included are possible amendments prev�amwa dba-vuismed by the Commission or staff. GP: 2A-87 - 8500 El Dorado Road (Lindsey/Funk) The applicant has proposed a General Plan Amendm-e� ri the modification of the existing Land Use Map desigiatl= beam WIgb Den- sity Single Family (1/2 acre without sewer or 20,10M aq ;e Itt With sewer minimum lot size) to Low Density Multiple Famd3y umdti s mer acre) . The applicant has proposed a coinciding tion (ZC:(ZC: 3-87 ) to revise the existing RSF-X (Res-m, AIA. SIngIL- Fam- ily 1/2 acre without sewer or 20 ,000 square feet wdtib _a3eWWr m nimum lot size) to RMF-4 (PD) (Residential Multiple Family„ 46�d�l.tt~ � L vwit',h a Planned Development Overlay) . The proposed emit nylay would allow for a small lot subdivision (Exhibit X anib EarIjbA!t, !Packet B) . GP: 2B-87 —8430 Santa Rosa Road (Messer/Cuesta) The applicant has proposed a General Plan Amend-me t xegm- timg the modification of the existing Land Use Map des din cow Ir ;Sn�urban Single Family (2 1/2 to 10 acres minimum lot sizer" _ mmte . s ty Single Family (1 acre with sewer 1 1/2 acre withcmti, &Aawmr arImalmmo lot size) . The applicant is also requesting the ,sm mff the 'Urban Services Area to include the site. The proposal ausm lms .a coinciding Zone Change Application (ZC: 5 -87) to revise theis-tlm-g ((iftsiden- tial Suburban 2 1/2 - 10 acres minimum lot size) tr, 3W--f RemMent al Single Family (1 acre with sewer, - 1 1/2 acres wiftIbmat aeweT mmnimum lot size) (Exhibit A and Exhibit Packet C) . • Staff Report - GP Cycle 2-87 May 5, 1987 Page Two GP: 2C-87 - 9300 El Bordo (McCaslin/Hawkins) The applicant has proposed a General Plan Amendment requesting the modification of the existing Land Use Map designation from Low Density Single Family (1 1/2 - 2 1/2 acres minimum lot size) to High Density Multiple Family (maximum 16 residential units per acre) . The appli- cant has proposed a coinciding Zone Change Application (ZC: 6-87) to revise the existing RSF-Z (Residential Single Family (1 1/2- 2 1/2 acres minimum lot size) to RMF/16 (PD) Residential Multiple Fam- ily (maximum 16 residential units per acre with a Planned Development Overlay) . The proposed Development Overlay would allow for a small lot subdivision. (Exhibit A and Exhibit Packet D) . The staff has also received two written requests for General Plan Amendments without a formal application. The first request is from the Atascadero Unified School District; the second is from John Fal- kenstien. The staff has records noting three staff generated or Com- mission directed amendments. GP: 2D-87 - 10785 El Camino Real (Atascadero Unified School District The District has submitted a letter requesting that the site be desig- nated as a school site in the General Plan. This would be a revision to the Public and Quasi-Public Element of the General Plan. (Exhibit A and Exhibit Packet E) No request for rezoning was made. The site is presently outside the Urban Services Area. GP: 2E-87 - 5599 Traffic Way (Parks and Recreation Department) The City Parks and Recreation Department has submitted a request to modify the Open Space & Conservation Element of the General Plan. Also requested is a zone change to allow for the upgrading of the site as a park. The request is also based on a need for General Plan con- formity in receiving funds for work on the site. The proposed site also contains the City' s old sewer treatment plant. (Exhibit A and Exhibit Packet F) . GP: 2F-87 - City Wide (Planning Commission) The Planning Commission, in the past with staff' s concurrence,_ noted the question of the use of gross or net acreage for determining lot size. An amendment would be needed to the Land Use Element text re- vising specific policies related to determining lot size. (Exhibit G) Staff Report - GP Cycle 2-87 May 5, 1987 Page Three GP: 2G-87 - City Wide (Planning Commission) The Planning Commission and City Council in reviewing and adopting the Appearance Review Manual concurred with staff' s recommendation that revisions would be needed in the Community Appearance Element. The proposed revisions would be eliminating references to a Design Review Board and to substitute language on the appearance review process. GP: 2H-87 - City Wide (Staff) The circulation element contains a Capital Improvements program (Table VIII.2) . This could conflict with any proposed Capital Improvement proposed by the City. (Exhibit H) City Wide - (Falkenstien/Cuesta Engineering) Mr. Falkenstien has submitted a letter requesting that the criteria for determining lot size in the Suburban Residential areas be revised. This would also cover the request that the Zoning Ordinance be re- vised. (Exhibit I) ANALYSIS: In reviewing the applicant initiated requests (GP: 2A-87, GP: 2B-87 , GP: 2C-87) , they are logical extensions of existing land use designa- tions to study. No expansion of areas is needed to review the pro- posals. The School District' s request for the initiation of an amendment would be another logical request for a revision. The need for additional sites for schools will continue. The site' s location within a devel- oping multiple family area will locate the proposed school within walking distance of a goodly number of students. The Parks and Recreation Department' s request is to revise the ex- isting text of the Open Space & Conservation Element along with the Land Use Map and zoning designation on the site. The need for the revision is based on the Parks and Recreation Department' s desire to develop the site. The present General Plan notes that the site should be abandoned as a park site in favor of industrial development. A new park would be developed in the Northeast Quadrant of the City in con- junction with a future school site. The proposal proposes only one of the governmentally owned properties in the area. The property to the southeast and west are governmentally owned. Staff Report - GP Cycle 2-87 May 5, 1987 Page Four Mr. Falkenstien' s request is a general request to revise the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance with regards to determining minimum lot sizes in the Suburban Single Family Residential designated area as implemented within the RS (Residential Suburban Zone) . The proposal would require extensive changes in the General Plan and Zoning Ordi- nance. These possible items could, and undoubtedly will, be reviewed under the overall General Plan review now underway. It should also be noted that the letter should also address the General Plan designation of Low Density Single Family (RSF-Z and LSF-Z) whose method of deter- mining minimum lot size is similar. The request could be expanded to cover the new multi-family hillside standards due to the slope calculations. RECOMMENDATION: GP: 2A-87 - 8500 El Dorado Road (Lindsey/Funk) - review as proposed. GP: 2B-87 - 8430 Santa Rosa Road (Messer/Cuesta) - review as pro- posed. GP: 2C-87 - 9300 E1 Bordo (McCaslin/Hawkins) - review as proposed. GP: 2D-87 - 10785 E1 Camino Real (Atascadero Unified School Dis- trict) - initiate general plan amendment to cover both land use designation and expansion of the Urban Services Area. GP: 2E-87 - 5599 Traffic Way (City) - initiate general plan amend- ment and expand to cover governmentally owned property fronting on Traffic Way from Olmeda to Bajada. GP: 2F-87 - Land Use Element text (City) - initiate general plan amendment. GP: 2G-87 - Community Appearance Element text (City) - initiate general plan amendment. GP: 2H-87 - Circulation Element text (City) - initiate general plan amendment. No action on request to modify Land Use Element as requested by Mr. Falkenstien. I EXHIBIT A LOCAT CITY OF ATASCADERO ION MAP T97.-7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT � 0. CYCLE 2 - 1987 DEPARTMENT -GP-2E-87 ( City ) GP-2C-87 (McCaslin/Hawkins) GP-2D-87 (A°U°S.D. ) 5599 Traffic Way 9300 E1 Bordo Road . 10785 E1 Camino Real Industrial to Public Low Den.Single Family to High Density Multi Famil High Den.Mult.Family to Public (School Site) _ x 4 a. .�- `•� 1 �/ 10, y f _ Y J ,t' ° V. •, ' \ ATASCADERO ' \\\ -�- j ° '' GENERAL PLAN MAP x °i `: i LAND USE AND CIRCULATION \ \ NIGN pENS NULT FIN RE CCDM RCIA LOW GENS NULT FAM RETAF CpNNE RCIAL ACC[�p \ X\ I NiGN pENS.SNCL FAM CONN RCIAL PAR' YE•E�� N00 DENS SNGL FAN SPECIAL CCNF•f RCIAL RE Ai pv LOw pENS SNGL.fA PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, .•i..Y ro.ae / $URURRAN SNGL.FAN. INOLISTRIAL PAR' """"'••••••<w..co-. v vvRLt /, INDUSTRIAL -- GP-2A-87 (Lindsey/Funk) GP-2B-87 (Messer/Cuesta) 0 500 El Dorado Road 8430 Santa Rosa Road igh Den. Sing.Family to Sub.Single Family Low Den.Mult.Family Den-Single Famil &° Mod. - Y Expan of Urban Services Area DONALD J. FUNK Planning and Design 1606 Valley VieVAK P.O.Box 6291 Los Osos,CA 9342. (805)528-0632 March 27 , 1987 Joel Moses Community Development Department City os Atascadero 6500 Palma Ave. Atascadero , CA 93422 RE : Proposed amendment of approx . 3.33 acre portion of 4.7 acre property , Lindsey Dear Joel , Attached is the proposed development layout for a 20 unit single-family project located northeast of El Centro . The project involves two phases: three - 20,000 square foot lots along E1 Dorado and 17 - 8 ,000 average square foot lots to be located nearest El Centro. We propose to leave the northeast 60 ,000 square feet as RSF-X zoning and amend the zoning for the remaining 3 .3 , acres to RMF/5 (5 units per acre) . The proposed plan is designed to maximize protection of the existing oak trees by reducing the amount of impermeable paving surfaces and careful street and lot design. The project is designed to fit the natural terrain and produce a quiet and pleasing environment for the residents . Architectural renderings are being prepared which will describe the traditional architectural theme for the homes . We have appreciated your assistance in developing a plan that should be an asset to the community and perhaps might set a precedent for future development adjacent to shopping centers . If you have any questions , please call . Sincerely, 2naldD J . Funk RECEIVED MAR 341587 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT A - LOCATION MAP `S_CAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT G.P. AMENDMENT GP: 2A DEPARTMENT ZONE CHANGE ZC: -3 -8 8500 E1 Dorado Road SITE 8500 E1 Dorado Road � � y High Den. Sing. Family to Low Den. Multi � . — -- Family RSF-X to RMF/5 (PD-7) (Lindsey & Funk) i M • (PD.6E O AV J \ f(-ft 1cr°RTf o Nt O f J �a _ W cqs r RCT a Cr J f 1 ° • J rA5CADERO Cr AVE ° 1 I q a 76 $ 00 A e Mvi d j` 11 ti i 0 0s- VIEWS \ ' CI TY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT B SITE PLAN LA") COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT G.P. AMENDMENT GP:2A-87 DEPARTMENT ZONE CHANGE ZC: 3 -87 8500 E1 Dorado Road (Lindsey/Funk) >° a W a - • �� ' _ k ya C iJ t� i 1 � �� I ' 0 , �.... 01 a - LU =1J a Ea 3 a ` 7 j J L W tY-i x 8 Iibv/ f z y = g$ k --I •'. L J I .���-- r F t3ic Z I tj a ` 4^�r r J;J r = A ,,.. , . . CITY OF ATASCADERO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT SANTA ROSA AVENUE ZONE CHANGE LOT 6, BLOCK 13 ATASCADERO The enclosed application requests a zone change from RS to RSF.Y for a 6.5-acre parcel on Santa Rosa Avenue. The subject property is a moderately hilly site x ; located on the south side of Santa Rosa Avenue between Atascadero Avenue and the Lake. The property is currently zoned RS and is contiguous with properties zoned RSF.Y to the east and to the north across Santa Rosa. The property is just outside the Urban Services Line which bounds the site on the east and along Santa Rosa. The existing Urban Services Line roughly reflects the existing limits of sewer service in the area. The existing sewer main in Santa Rosa actually extends some 300 feet across the frontage of the site. The applicant requests that the Urban Services boundary be extended to include the site and that connection to sewer service be permitted. Sheet 1 of 3 shows the existing and proposed Urban Services boundaries. A zone change to RSF.Y will undoubtly prompt the maximum development of the site, ie. a subdivision into 1-acre parcels. This ensures some better design of development such as sewer, limited drive access at Santa Rosa, and limited work within the drainage swale for access. Sheet 2 of 3 describes such a possible subdivision of the site according to RSF.Y standards. Access would be provided by a private road with a gravity sewer main provided in that easement road. The existing house on the property would remain on one lot. The five new building sites range from 4% to 10% slope. A project like this proposal would be in keeping with the neighborhood character. The site is immediately adjacent to current RSF.Y zoning where numerous lots are at minimum size. In addition, Sheet 3 of 3 highlights some 22 existing lots in the RS zone which are approximately 1 acre or less. • . , "All DININION 10.ell j�� ►� .� ♦ �� • ♦. . .� � SII • � ♦� �►�' ►� I 1 � � 1 L .. -�� CI a�_. • 'TY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT B - CONCEPT PLAN v Sireir're °' r 19-79-7 � S -d COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT G.P. AMENDMENT GP: 2B-87 DEPARTMENT ZONE CHANGE ZC: 5-87 c° 8430 Santa Rosa Road (Messer/Cuesta) PROPO 6-� PRI LA4rc ROA ; EASEMrT ap r i qbo '` /��' ♦ � � 6X. HOt/SE 10 / J I I SCALE:/>iooP90A95CO 0,cVR0j0NC)Vr CONCEPT LOT G BLOU( /J ,4rA6CAOERO NET ACRES -LOT to G.5 4CRE5 PROP05E0 - !o LOTS /AC. M/N. WiTN 9F1./ER NOV.10, 1986 1. D K-C:ASLIN, DICK 11AWKINS BEITER I-0MI:S, 10205 PLANNING COMMISSION CAMINO `?L. VIAS. CA CITY OF ATAS. ATSACADERO CA RE PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVF,LOPMENT ON EL FORDO AVE ATAS. CA 93422 DEAR COMMIONERS IN VIEW OF THE CURRENT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY IN THE AREA OF111E ATASC:ADERO REGIONAL PARK AND GOLF COURSE, WE FELL IT IS AT THIS APPROPRIAIE TIME: IC) I'UT FUR'Il! A PLAN TO CREATE A SINGU FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PLkk NED DEVLLODMENT ON EL BOR1Y,) AVE. THE IDEAL IS TO CREATE SMALL LOTS OUT OF LARGE €IJ'TS,TUIS WAY WE' WILL BE ABLE: TO PRODUCE A REASONABLE COST PER H(?ti!E,THE SURROUNDING CITY HAS BF114 USING; 1111S APPR(r1G11 FOR SOME TIME,AND IT IS WORKING QUITE WELL,THESE ARE INDIVIDUAL LOT FOR HOMES N61' CONDOS. THIS PROJECT IS CENTRALLY LOCATED" NEAR THE GOLF COURSE, SHOPPING CENtIN, SCHOOL. AS YOU ARE UNDOUBTEDLY AWARE THE SURRON-DING AERA IS CIIRRFNIIY UEVE'[DPEU WI'II1 RICH DENSITY MUTI FAMILY RENIA UNITS.IT IS OUR FEELING THAIASINGIE FAMILY PROJECT Al' TIiTS i LOCATION WOULD PROVIDE A PLEASING AND FUNCTIONAL BUFFER LEADING 10 TILE GOLF COURSE AND RECREATIONAL AREAS JUST TO THE FAST OF T .. OUR SITE,. �N ADDITION, OUR THINKI"JC, W)UI.D TARGET' THESE AlFIORDABIE HCX S SATES TWORD RETIF''RD PERSONS WHO WOULD BE ABL': 10 TAKE ':'11i-L, ADVANTAGE OF THE RECREATIONAL AND OT�t SERVICE FACILITIES, WI'ITi MINIMUM INPACI` C)N }IL'111C:(;tAR CIRCULATION IN T:n' AE-RA. SITE IS CDyrlGUOUS WITH WITH 211E EXISTING CI'1Y SL;IL'!t DISTRICT AND A FORMAA L APPLICATON FCR &NTNTyJVr-ION TO TIE DISTRICT 'JAS BENIN INI' A'lH) WI'I11 'i1lE CITY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMIENT. WE STNC'ERLY HOPE YOU WILL CONSIDL-�R OUR 1`014 A GHNERAL PLAN AME'�TDi°ERTI AT 1i1IS TDE, ANTO WE LOOK FORWA: D TO DISCUSSING '11!iS l'!2(I)hY COM€r1ISSION IN FUMIIER DETAIL AT YOUR NEXT RFS13ECT!;1 1T 1 Y I, D MLCASLIN . ` CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT A - LOCATION MAP `S 1979-7 �SCAD - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT G.P. AMENDMENT GP:2C- �� DEPARTMENT ZONE CHANGE ZC: 6-87 9300 E1 Bordo Road 0 SITE 9300 El Bordo Road Low Den. Sing. Family to _ High Den. Multi Family & RSF-Z to RMF/16 (PD-7) M (PD VE —z o z 7, _ F-� E 046�__ II � � //) Q> y O � caMJ � ` R .` is a CO y CR 3 14`^VE 4vf CTT " H4T P Pq P 4V/`� f i$ R o�K-D i / w� VIEW \ Z ! '` 70 IVE �,( �rJ co Oq L( �, �, r �yCITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT B - SITE PLAN 197*-7 ` 6 ZONE CHANGE zc:COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT G.P. AMENDMENT 6 7-87 DEPARTMENT 9300 El Bordo Road (McCaslin/Hawkins) -H9 Ft 1 EI jilt Q.Q iiJ ii:JJ�S3 W � OR{1f\OW _ Z , F, 111 ui m < < t - - - : -_ - �00z Woy ulo Inp • _ :�� ��-�_���:� yob .. , • . in �.� IL .. f I us J mi �� ORE CEIVED IN-AiP J �� 4 ��J!' Atascadero unified School District flip "Where students and their education are paramount" 6800 LEWIS AVENUE ANTHONY AVINA, Ed.D. ATASCADERO, CA 93422 District Superintendent PHONE: (805) 466-0393 March 4, 1987 Henry Engen, Community Development Director City of Atascadero P.O. Box 747 `L Atascadero, CA 93423 Dear Henry: The Board of Trustees of the Atascadero Unified School District have directed the Administration to proceed with the acquisition of a school site in the southeast Atascadero area . Specifically, the District wishes to have the following properties designated as a future school site : Block 321 APN #45-321 -02 Block 321 APN #45-321 -03 The School District would appreciate it if you would take this matter under considera ' on as you revise your General Plan . Si ly1_ Ernest W. Taylor Business Manager EWT: rr Carrisa Plains Elementary • Creston Elementary • Lewis Avenue Elementary • Monterey Road Elementary Santa Margarita Elementary Santa Rosa Road Elementary • Atascadero Junior High School Atascadero Senior High School • Atascadero Adult School Oak Hills Continuation High School O - -- ,; CITY ATASCADERO EXHIBIT A i - LOCATION MAP G.P. AMENDMENT GP:21:>-8 7 -s COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 10785 E1 Camino Real DEPARTMENT - -- -- SITE 10785 El Camino Real High Den. Multi Family to Public (Atascadero Unified Sch. District) C m , / Tader s -1 75 _/Tr • LIMIT C R 3� O6 T T!" cs ' C, b 4TAVIEJO l v C4M/ 1 � 'b E <c Cq MiN Obi RS O RE°L O R S ix a .. w �t- Y 4QJ CO Oq iO , / 71 i 1 f J ATASCADERO / yP LU / a I 0 MA IN WE /ll// 1111111111 111111 -"- �, ��� so oiI��iui ►iuimrt�;�llu�. ----_ MCMW=MOR -- A` .� � _� , 11. .E •�� w- , � yip' � �.�'��. ., ♦ ������1 �`'� � • �� ����� 1• • ,-� �i ���... . moi M E M O R A N D U M April 27 , 1987 To: Community Development Department From: Parks and Recreation Department Subject : Request for General Plan Amendment (Traffic Way Softball/ Baseball Fields) The Atascadero Parks and Recreation Department is requesting the $° Planning Commission initiate a General Plan Amendment at 5599 Traffic Way. This area is currently being used for recreation purposes by the q youth of Atascadero. l This area (APN 29-091-07) is currently designated for industrial uses in the General Plan, and these fields should be re-located to meet the current language . It is the request of the Parks and Recreation Department to have the current language in the General Plan eliminated, and allow for "Recreational" use of the existing area. It is our intent to make major improvements in this area in the future , and it is neces- sary that we be able to provide certification to the State of California that the improvements planned for this area are consistant with the park and recreation plan. This project is a priority to the department and to the City Council , . and request your assistance in amending the General Plan to allow for continued recreational usage of this area. t , landscaping with appropriate trees and shrubs would enrich the now barren appearance of the west end of the park. More (and more attractive) trash receptacles and a stricter maintenance program are desirable. The successful reactiva- tion of the fountain by community groups suggests that further community and service club donation of money, talent and time is the route to follow in restoring this small remaining fragment of what was once one of the glories of Atascadero. The Chalk Mountain Regional Park is a County project with is nearly completed. In 1970, the State of. California declared 200 acres of Atascadero State Hospital to be surplus. The Board of Supervisors directed the Planning Department to explore the feasibility of constructing* a golf course and : related facilities. In 1973 , a 10-year minimum development t' plan was approved in principle by the Board of Supervisors. a,> In 1977, having funded the project, the Board has directed the implementation of Phase I. Maps VI-3 and VI-3A. Of the three Little Leaaue Baseball Fields, two are located in the sewage plant area and one in the Atascadero Lake Park area. The acreages are about 1. 5 and 1. 0 , respectively. Because the two fields located adjacent to the sewage lant are designated for industrial uses in this Plan, another site nearby shall be found to relocate them. In addition, the northPa� n tan+ nr�eds _a field:_ The Wranglerette Arena is an area of 5 acres of bottomland, consisting of a fenced arena, clubhouse and improvements , along with 25 acres of Salinas River bed. In event of dissolution of the organization, this property cannot be sold for profit of the membership and possible would be deeded to the community. ; Nedghborhood Parks provide recreational opportuni.ties� not available on private residential land. They can be coos- dinated in a community recreation program that meets the needs of all age' groups . These parks shall be properly located so they best serve the population intended to use them. Examples of recreation facilities that shall be con- sidered include: community rooms, playgrounds and picnic equipment, ball fields and courts. 1. All school grounds shall be avilable for public rec- reational use when classes are not in session, as shall the High School tenniscourtsand 50-meter Olympic pool when not in scheduled use. 2. An area of approximately five acres shall be acquired adjacent to each new school site wherein playground and recreational facilities could be constructed to supple- ment school facilities. 86 . EXHIBIT G •4. Large lots. are a distinguishing characteristic of Atas- cadero. Proposed density standards 'shall preserve this feature and thus ensure "elbow room" for present and future inhabitants } 5. The keeping of domestic animals for pleasure and hobby 1:' is common in the community and shall be allowed in sub t. urban and }�rbax� eas with, adequate ,Protection o Ruby health 'and wdifa 4. ,to,,•.. 6. High priority is placed upon ,publicand private open a space as a land use element. This includes the protec- tion and preservation of scenic areas, watercourses, ~; hazard lands, hilltops, etc. that add much to the quality of the rural atmosphere in Atascadero. , �4= 7. It is an objective of this Plan to strongly support sr g y pport and encourage continuation of the County Agriculture Preserve program. r In the calculation of lot area for the purposes of� con- _ - sidering land divisions and in determining permitteff numbers and types of animals allowed, gross acreage shall 3' be used. However, in determining permitted densities for multiple family residential developments, net acreages ` 1 Y ` (excluding land area needed for streets rights-of-way) Y shall be use 9. The Land Use Map of 'the General Plan is not a specific - * diagram, especially in areas where there is a transition between different types of land uses, such as residential adjacent to commercial. Since the • transition 'will occur • over a period of time -and since' it is desirable to pro- Y tect existing, generally less. intensive .uses while en- couraging- newer, generally more -intensive uses, the .use of a concept known as the "wavy 1•ine" concept may be ap- propriate. This concept will encourage retention of the zoning for the less- intensive use until demand dictates a • change of zoning for the more intensive use while clearly supporting that future change when the time is appropriate K. Factors to consider in the timing of these changes will include existing development, property ownership, devel- opment potential, access and related physical features, and compliance with zoning and General Plan standards and - x .policies. (As an example, an area designated by the Gen- eral Plan for commercial' use should be granted consistent zoning when contiguous property in the transition area is under the same ownership and can be developed in 'a compat- ible manner; but, when such property, although contiguous, °> is in another ownership and is developed with a less in- tensive use, such as a residence, or is vacant, zoning may be withheld. until the time is right for the more >` intensive commercial use. ) 58 . EXHIBIT H 5. Pedestrians Pathways shall be incorporated in -some bikeways and equestrian trails. Busy areas magnify the importance of providing space for the Pedestrian. Of special importance is a pedestrian-oriented Central Business District. TABLE VIII-2 RECAPITULATION OF PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE COLONY UNDER VARIOUS FISCAL JURISDIC'T'IONS 1. Primary arterial (2.1 miles) parallel to E1 Camino Real, with a heavy-duty bridge over Atascadero Creek. E 2. A bridge over Graves Creek to connect San Gabriel Road with Graves Creek Road. 3. Multi-purpose bikeways. 4. A new fire house. 5. New schools. 6. Acquisition of Stadium Park. 7. Development of Chalk Mountain Regional Park. 8. Development of SEDES Creekways Plan. 9. New Post Office. 10. Landscaping of Freeway 101 to San Luis Obispo standards . 11. Freeway 101 overcrossing at the Mall. 12. Reacquisition of that part of the Sunken Gardens now occupied by the Junior High School campus . 13. Acauisition of Graves Creek Reserve. 14. Acquisition of Wranglerette Arena. 15:. Acquisition of Chandler Parkland. Circulation Policy Proposals 1. Freeways and major highways shall be effectively land- scaped to screen urban land uses and improve community appearance. Refer to Chanter XIII , ' COMMUNITY APPEARANCE. 129. EXHIBIT I CUESTA ENGINEERING 7401-B EI Camino Real/P.O. Box 2066 Atascadero, California 93423 (805)466-6827 ' r April 8, 1987 Mr. Jerry Bond Chairman City of Atascadero Planning Commission 6500 Palma Atascadero, CA 93422 Subject: Review of RS Zone minimum lot size criteria x: Dear Jerry: In my experience as a professional representative to property owners in this community, one of my most difficult tasks has been to accurately present to my clients their potential with regards to subdividing their lots or adjusting their lot lines in the RS Zone. The criteria in use today is not applicable to the impacts of lot subdivisions and is not equitable among property owners in the RS Zone. The criteria is also very cumbersome and costs a tremendous amount of valuable city staff time and my working time. , - Realtors in this community must approach someone in my business who is familiar ' with the City zoning text in order to advise their client as to the feasibility of a lot split or lot line adjustment. ' In order to determine this I prepare a request to City staff to determine average slope and neighborhood character. It is essential that staff perform this work so that there is no question of interpretation of these criteria. In the past I have prepared maps and have expanded U.S.G.S. topography so that staff could make these determinations. If after these criteria are established the potential land division is still in question, soil percolation tests must be performed in order to determine the septic suitability. Each of the five criterion has serious short-comings in its use in determining minimum lot sizes. Distance from town is not an equitable factor and it is particularly inappropriate when one considers that all of the colony lots outside city limits are zoned 2.5 acre minimum without regard to this factor. Septic suitability car percolation rates should not be used as a lot size factor. Septic system designs are based upon factors other thaner rates such as depth and width of leach trenches. When rates are betweention 0 and 60 min/inch at depths of. 30" orreater sizes of leach each areas do not vary substantially, and certainly will not push the limits of a 2.5 acre Y parcel . I recommend that demonstration of a reasonable septic system design be required on a proposed lot with no suitable area sloping less than 30% or with percolation rates greater than 60 min/inch. it- Mr. Jerry Bond April 8, 1987 Page 2 r Slope considerations should be limited to proposed building sites rather than taken as an average over an entire lot area. Consideration should be given to requiring preliminary soils and geological investigations . = where building sites are proposed on slopes in excess of 30%. Road improvement conditions are imposed regularly'in accordance with standards adopted by staff. This is appropriate and should eliminate the need for lot sizes to be based upon adjacent road conditions. z. Neighborhood character has .been the primary source of discontent with the criteria system. This very cumbersome process has a tremendous • impact on lot sizes and yet has no basis for use as a planning tool . € The potential of lot splits is being determined by whether adjacent property has been divided. When adjacent property does divide the F number changes, this very arbitrary procedure should not continue. I have discussed my concerns with staff regarding the use of these criteria in the RS Zone. Their discontent with the system with regards to its impact on available staff time was first expressed to me more than a year ago. I must complement Steve De Camp and his crew for their continued co-operation and willingness to help me contend with preliminary lot size determinations. Their efforts have reduced lost time on my part and have reduced expenses to these property owners who are trying to obtain information.that should be readily available. I am being informed by staff now that the criteria system will be reviewed in a complete General Plan update with changes being brought about in one and a half to two years. In my opinion this work is overdue and the RS staff criteria problems should be addressedrn this cycle of General Plan amendments. Staff time in preparing and recommending a better zoning ordinance will be made up quickly by avoiding time lost to the current cumbersome ordinance. As a citizen in this community with knowledge in this regard, I would be pleased to donate time to this review and -make recommendations upon request. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I look forward to a continued good working relationship and I appreciate your efforts towards providing direction for the growth of our community. r Sincerely, i John Falkenstien R.C.E. 33760 Exp. 6/30/90 JF/emp -- T(NG� ` AG-IVDA 11EM.# • MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Through: Michael Shelton, City Manager From: Paul �M.ensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Subject : Undergrounding Enabling Ordinance Date : May 15, 1987 Recommendation: The Undergrounding Committee recommends that Council adopt the attached enabling ordinance. Backround: At the last regular meeting Council gave tentative approval of the downtown area as the first priority location for the expenditure of Rule 20-A PG&E funds, and directed staff to bring back an enabling ordinance at the next regular meeting which would allow a future • resolution to establish boundaries for a district in the downtown area. Discussion: The attached ordinance will allow the Council to entertain a resolution for an undergrounding district and to hold public hearings with respect to a specific project as described in such resolution. It also sets forth procedures for dealing with the private connections . The Undergrounding Committee plans to meet on May 19 at which the schedule for bringing back a resolution will be discussed. The schedule ,which will show proposed dates for the complete project, will be provided to you seperately as it is not a part of this Particular agenda item. Fiscal Impact: There are no costs associated with the subject ordinance . Subsequent actions will determine how the $730,000 now available will be expended. • • 0 ORDINANCE N0. 153 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE REMOVAL OF OVERHEAD UTILITY FACILITIES AND THE INSTALLATION OF UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IN UNDER- GROUND UTILITY DISTRICTS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY __OF_ATASCADE{ZQ______ AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 DEFINITIONS Whenever in this ordinance the words or phrases hereinafter in this section defined are used, they shall. have the " 'k = respective meanings assigned to them in the following Wit; definitions: (a) "Commission" shall mean the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. (b) "Underground Utility District" or "District" shall mean that area in the City within which poles, overhead wires, -and associated overhead structures are prohibited as such area is j described in a resolution adopted pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 of this ordinance. i (c) "Person" shall mean and include individuals, firms, corporations, partnerships, and their agents and employees. (d) "Poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures" shall mean poles, towers, supports, wires, conductors, guys, stubs, . platforms, crossarms, . braces, transformers, insulators, cutouts, switches, communication 1 OF 13 { 0 icircuits, appliances, attachments and appurtenances located above-ground within a District and used or useful in supplying electric, communication or similar or associated service. (e) "Utility" shall include all persons or entities supplying electric, communication or similar or associated l service by means of electrical materials or devices.. :l Section 2 - PUBLIC HEARING BY COUNCIL The Council may from time to time call public hearings . to ascertain whether the public necessity, health, safety or welfare requires the removal of poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures within designated areas of the City and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication, or similar or associated service. The City Clerk shall notify all affected property Iowners "as shown on the last equalized assessment roll and utilities concerned by mail of the time and place of such i hearings at least ten (10) days prior to the date thereof. Each such hearing shall be open to the public and may be continued from time to time. At each such hearing all persons interested shall be given an opportunity to be heardl The decision of the Council shall be final and conclusive. 2 of 13 Section 3 — COUNCIL MAY DESIGNATE UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICTS BY RESOLUTION If, after any such public hearing the Council finds that the public necessity, health, safety or welfare requires such removal and such underground installation within a designated area, the Council shall, by resolution, declare such . designated area an Underground Utility District and , order such removal and underground installation. Such resolution shall include a description of the area comprising such district and _. shall fix the time within which such removal and underground installation shall be accomplished and within which affected property owners must be ready to receive underground service. A reasonable time shall be allowed for such removal and underground installation, having due regard for the availability of labor, materials and equipment necessary for such removal and for the -installation of such underground facilities as may be occasioned i thereby. Section 4 - UNLAWFUL ACTS Whenever the Council creates an Underground Utility District and orders the removal of poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures therein as provided in Section 3 hereof, it shall be unlawful for any person or 'utility to erect, 3 of 13 construct, place, keep, maintain, continue, employ or operate Poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures in the District after the date when said overhead facilities are required to be removed by such resolution, except as said overhead facilities may be required to furnish service to an owner or occupant of property prior to the performance by such owner or occupant of the underground work necessary for such owner or, occupant to continue to receive utility service as provided in Section 9 hereof, and for such reasonable time required to remove said facilities after said work has been performed, and except as otherwise provided in this ordinance. Section 5-EXCEPTION,, EMERGENCY OR UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES Notwithstanding the provisions of this ordinance, overhead facilities may be installed and maintained for a period, not to exceed ten (10) days, without authority of the Council* in order to provide emergency service. The Council may grant special permission, on such terms as the Council may deem appropriate, in cases of unusual circumstances, without discrimination as to any person or utility, to erect, construct, iinstall, maintain, use or operate P .poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures. 40F 13 Section 6 — OTHER EXCEPTIONS This ordinance and any resolution adopted pursuant to Section 3 hereof shall, unless otherwise provided in such resolution, not apply to the following types of facilities: (a) Any municipal facilities or equipment installed under the supervision and to the satisfaction of the City Engineers. (b) Poles or electroliers used exclusively for street lighting. (c) Overhead wires (exclusive of- supporting i structures) crossing any portion of a District within which overhead wires have been prohibited, or connecting to buildings on the perimeter of a District, when such wires originate in an area from which poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures are not prohibited. (d) Poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures used for the transmission of electric energy- gY at nominal voltages in excess of 34,500 volts. (e) Overhead wires attached to the exterior surface of a building by means of a bracket or other fixture and extending from one location on the building to another location on the same building or to an Adjacent building without crossing any public street. I 5 of 13 f i • (f) Antennae, associated equipment and supporting structures, used by a utility for furnishing communication services. (g) Equipment appurtenant to underground facilities , such as surface mounted transformers, pedestal mounted terminal boxes and meter cabinets, and concealed ducts. (h) Temporary poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures used or to be used in conjunction with construction projects. Section 7 — NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND UTILITY COMPANIES Within ten (10) days after the effective date of a resolution adopted pursuant to Section 3 hereof, the Cit Clerk k shall notify all affected utilities and all persons owning real Property within the District created by said resolution of the adoption thereof. Said City Clerk shall further notify such affected property owners of the necessity that, if they or any person occupying such property desire to continue to receive electric, communication, or similar or associated service, they or such occupant shall provide all necessary facility changes on their;, premises so as to receive such service from - the lines of the supplying utility or utilities at a new location, subject to applicable rules, regulations' and tariffs of the respective I Utility or utilities on file with the Commission. 6 of 13 Notification by the City Clerk shall be made by mailing a copy of the resolution adopted pursuant to Section 3, together with a copy of this ordinance, to affected property owners as such are shown on the last equalized assessment roll and to the affected utilities. Section 8 — RESPONSIBILITY OF UTILITY COMPANIES If underground construction is necessary to provide utility service within a District created by any resolution adopted pursuant to Section 3 hereof, the supplying utility shall furnish that portion of the conduits, conductors and associated equipment required to be furnished by it under its applicable rules, regul ti and tariffs on file with the Commission. (a) Every person i"/,owning,,,)_ operating, leasing, occupying or renting a building orstructurewithin a District shall perform construction and provide that portion of the service connection on his property between the facilities referred to in Section 8 and the termination facility on or i within said building or structure being served, all in accordance with applicable rules, regulations and tariffs of the respective utility or utilities on file with the Commission. If the above is not accomplished by any person within the time provided for in the resolution enacted pursuant to Section 3 hereof, the City 7 of 13 s Engineer shall give notice in writing to the person in possession of such premises, and a notice in writing to the owner thereof as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, to provide the required underground facilities within ten (10) days after receipt of such notice. (b) The notice to provide the required underground facilities may be given either by personal service or - by mail. In case of service by mail on either of such persons, the notice must be deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope with postage prepaid, addressed to the person in possession of such premises at such premises, and the notice must be addressed to the owner thereof as such owner's name appears, and must be addressed to such owner's last known address as the same appears on the last equalized assessment roll, and when no address appears, to General Delivery, . City of ATASCADERO If j -•�-----=----------- notice is given by mail, such notice shall be deemed to have been received by the person to whom it has been sent within forty- eight (48) hours after the mailing thereof. If notice is given by mail to either the owner or occupant of such premises, the City Engineer shall, within forty-eight (48) hours after the mailing thereof, cause a copy thereof, printed on a card not less than eight (8) inches by ten (10) inches in size, to be posted in a conspicuous place on said premises . 8 OF 13 (c) The notice given by the City Engineer to provide the required underground facilities shall -particularly specify what work is required to be done, and shall state that if said work is not completed within thirty (30) days after receipt of such notice, the City Engineer will provide such required underground facilities, in which case the cost and expense thereof will be assessed against the property benefited and become a lien upon such property. (d) If upon the expiration of the thirty (30) day Period, the said required underground facilities have not been provided, the City Engineer shall forthwith proceed to do the work; provided, however, if such premises are unoccupied and no electric or communications services are being furnished thereto, the City Engineer shall, in lieu of providing the required underground facilities, have the authority to order the i disconnection and removal of any and all overhead service wires and associated facilities supplying utility service to said I property. Upon completion of the work by the City Engineer, he shall file a written report with the City Council setting forth the fact that the required underground facilities have been provided and the cost thereof, together with a legal description of the property against which such cost is to be assessed. The Council shall thereupon fix a time and place for hearing protests I 9 of 13 against the assessment of the cost of such work upon such premises, which said time shall not be less than ten (10) days thereafter (e) The City Engineer shall forthwith, upon the time for hearing such protests having been fixed, give a notice in writing to the person in possession of such premises, and a ' notice in writing thereof to the owner thereof, in the manner hereinabove�_ provided for the giving of the notice to provide the required underground facilities, of the time and place that the Council will pass upon such report and will hear protests against such assessment. Such notice shall also set forth the amount of the proposed assessment. (f) Upon the date and hour set for the hearing of protests, the Council shall hear and consider the report and all protests, if there by any, and then proceed to affirm, modify or i - reject the assessment. (g) If 'any assessment is not paid within five (5) days after its confirmation by the Council, the amount of the assessment shall become a lien upon the property against which the assessment is - made by the City Engineer, and the City Engineer is directed to turn over to the Assessor and Tax Collector a notice of lien on each of said properties on which 10 of 13 the assessment has not been paid, and said Assessor and Tax Collector shall add the amount of said assessment to the next regular bill for taxes levied against the premises upon which said assessment was not paid. Said assessment shall be due and payable at the same time as said property taxes are due and Payable, and if not paid when due and payable, shall be interest at t rat of r cent (6% perannum. F 4Seec ion if 9 'RESPONSIBILITY OF CITY City shall remove at its own expense all City—owned equipment from all poles required to be removed hereunder ' in ample time to enable the owner or user of such poles to remove the same within the time specified in the resolution enacted pursuant to Section 3 hereof. Section 10 — EXTENSION OF TIME In the event that any act required by this ordinance or by a resolution adopted pursuant to Section 3 hereof cannot be performed within the time provided on account of shortage of materials, war, restraint by public authorities, strikes , labor disturbances, civil disobedience, or any other circumstances beyond the control of the actor, then the time within which such act will be accomplished shall be extended for a period equivalent to the time of such limitation. 11 or 13 i • Section 1..1 - PENALTY It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision or . to fail to comply with any. 'of the requirements of this ordinance. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance or failing to comply with any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of' a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars (5500.00) or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each day during any portion of which any violation of any of the provisions of this AVOL ordinance is committed, continued or permitted by such person, and shall be punishable therefor as provided for in this ordinance. ' Section 12 - CONSTITUTIONALITY If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the ordinance and each section, sub-section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sub-sections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declares invalid. 12 or 13 Section 13 - PUBLICATION The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause this ordinance to be published by one insertion in the ATASCADERO NEWS a newspaper of general circulation printed, published and circulated in City and hereby designated for that purpose by the Council. Section 14' - BFF_BCTIVB DATE This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. This ordinance was introduced and read on the day qf ----------------sand passed d adopted 19__-' anao P on the _____________ day of 19____, by the following vote: - --- AYES NOES: ABSENT: ATTFrST: BOYD C. SHARITZ MARJORIE R. MACKEY, Mayor City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH City Attorney Director of Public Works 13 of 13 MEF;' � r � A( DA DAT�c lam. ;' Si T EM .- M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council May 26, 1987 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager ]] Y� FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development DirectorA/,A SUBJECT: Zone Change 23-86 LOCATION: 7421 Santa Ysabel k . n APPLICANT: California Manor/Ted and Judy Young REQUEST: To revise the existing zoning from RMF/16 to RMF/16 (PD-7) to allow for small lot development. BACKGROUND: On April 14, 1987 the City Council conducted a public hearing on the subject matter. Upon review, the Council directed the applicant to - reduce the number of lots for the planned development from five units to four units. The applicants have submitted a revised exhibit which is attached to Ordinance No. 150. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Ordinance No. 150 revising the existing zoning from RMF/16 (Residential Multiple Family, 16 units per acre) to RMF/16 (PD) (Resi- dential Multiple Family, 16 units per acre, with a planned development overlay) -to allow for small lot development (with four units) . HE:ps Enclosures: Memo to City Council - 4/14/87 Staff Report - 3/17/87 Ordinance No. 150 cc: Ted and Judy Young (California Manor) Alan Volbrecht �EET:NG % AGSNDA DAT? M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council April 14 , 1987 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager , FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director ,, SUBJECT: Zone Change 23-86 LOCATION: 7421 Santa Ysabel APPLICANT: California Manor/Ted and Judy Young REQUEST: To revise the existing zoning from RMF/16 to RMF/16 (PD) to allow for small lot development. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Ordinance No. 150 revising the existing zoning from RMF/16 (Residential Multiple Family, 16 units per acre) to RMF/16 (PD) (Resi- dential Multiple Family, 16 units per acre, with a planned development overlay) to allow for small lot development (less than the allowed 1/2 acre minimum lot size) BACKGROUND: On March 17, 1987, a public hearing was conducted by the Planning Com- mission on this matter with the Commission unanimously recommending approval of the zone change request. Alan Volbrecht, agent for the applicants, expressed support for the zone change request. Judy Young, applicant, summarized particular features of the proposed units. She explained that a planned unit development was chosen be- cause it was felt that Santa Ysabel already has a great amount of apartments/condominiums and that their proposed five unit single fam- ily approach will decrease traffic on the street as well as provide affordability to first time homeowners. There was no other public comment. HE:ps ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report - March 17, 1987 Ordinance No. 150 cc: Ted and Judy Young (California Manor) Alan Volbrecht 2 � City of Atascadero Item: B.5 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: Mrch 17, 1987 BY: Joel Moses, Associate Planner File No: ZC 23-86 Project Address: 7421 Santa Ysabel SUBJECT: Zone Change Application ZC 23-86 initiated by California Manor (Ted & Judy Young) to revise existing zoning from RMF/16 (Residential Multi- family 16 units per acre) to RMF/16 (PD) (Residential Multifamily 16 units per acre with a Planned Development Overlay). The Planned De- velopment Overlay to allow for small lot development (less than the normally allowed 1/2 acre minimum lot size) . BACKGROUND: The applicant has applied for both the proposed Zone Change (ZC 23-86) and a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 37-86) implementing the pro- posed small lot development. Notice of a public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Friday March 6, 1987. All property owners of record located within 300 feet of the subject site were also noti- fied on that date. The applicant has previously received approval of a Precise Plan 48-86 and has obtained building permits to construct four (4) single family dwellings on the site. A. LOCATION: 7421 Santa Ysabel Lot 6, Blk lA (Atascadero Colony) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: - 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To revise the existing zoning from RMF/16 (Residential Multi- family 16 units per acre) , to RMF/16J PD) Residential Mult4- family 16 units per acre with a Planned Development Overlay) . The Planned Development Overlay to allow for small lot develop- ment (less than the allowed 1/2 acre minimum lot size) . Staff Report - ZC 23-86 7421 Santa Ysabel (Young) March 17, 1987 Page Two 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .California Manor/Ted & Judy Young 3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 acres 4. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Santa Ysabel - residential col- lector 5. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF-16 (Residential Multiple Family 16 units per acre) 6. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vacant (permits issued for four (4) residential units 7. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RMF/16 - residential to Entire Study Area South: RMF/16 - residential East: RMF/10 - residential West: RMF/16 - residential 8. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Multiple Family (maximum 16 units per acre) 9. Terrain_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sloping to Santa Ysabel 10. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing to revise the existing zoning from RMF/16 (Residential Multiple Family, 16 units per acre) to RMF/16 (PD) (Residential Multiple Family, 16 units per acre with a Planned Development Overlay) . The specific proposal is to allow for a small lot subdivision and a reduction in the required sideyard setbacks. The existing RMF zoning would require a minimum - lot size of 1/2 acre. The application proposes lot sizes of 5440, 3573, 3473, 3323, and 3172 square feet subdivided from a .44 acre parcel. The applicant also proposes the use of a 3 '-0" sideyard setback on the three rear lots. The standard zoning ordinance sideyard setbacks would be 5 '-0" . Staff Report - ZC 23-86 7421 Santa Ysabel (Young) March 17, 1987 Page Three Analysis - Cont'd The applicant is presently developing the site with four (4) single family dwellings (PP 48-86) . The site contains .44 acres and at a rate of 16 units per acre, the site would allow seven (7) units on the site. The applicants' proposal would be to allow for a total of five (5) single family dwellings on indi- vidual residential lots. This would represent a 28% reduction (2 units) in the potential number of dwelling units approvable on the site. This would represent an overall density of 11 units per acre. The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance allow for the proposed density. The Zoning Ordinance sets the minimum lot size as 1/2 acre in an RMF zone district. The General Plan reconfirms this, and allows for modification of the minimum lot size. Residential Land Use Policy 6 (page 62) (Exhibit F) notes "Smaller lot sizes may be allowed in conjunction with Planned Residential Developments. . . , provided that the overall density within the project is consis- tent with other density standards. . . . " . The Zoning Ordinance allows for the creation of areas of Planned Development Overlays " to accomodate the modification of the Zoning Ordinances Develop- ment Standards (Section 9-3.643) (Exhibit G) . In the past, the City has approved two Planned Development Over- lays dealing with residential developments that would allow smaller lots than normal. PD-6 and PD-2 allow for the residential development trade-offs. PD-2 deals specifically with large lots and PD-6 provides for smaller lots. This application - if ap- proved - would make a third PD modifying development standards for single family dwellings. The City is also presently review- ing and working with developers on two other PDs of similar de- velopments. The staff would note that the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance support such developments. The questions arising from these types of developments are all somewhat similar. The infra- structure's already in place to serve sites of an overall den- sity. Impacts would generally be mitigated by the existing service levels and development standards. The proposed lot size question would be — what is too small - (leaving the density as allowed) . In most cities, 6,000 square feet is a common stan- dard for most residential lots, and most cities go smaller. The real questions come down to the specifics of the proposal that differ from normal development standards and a specific design. • ! Staff Report - Zone Change 23-86 7421 Santa Ysabel (Young) March 17, 1987 Page Four Analysis - cont'd _Looking at the specific design, the applicant has worked with staff to provide alternatives that would provide adequate open space and safety measures for the residents. The normal fire ac- cess has been reduced by installing fire sprinkler systems in some of the units. Common access has been provided across a common drive. The units will have a continuity of architectural detail- ing. The applicant has requested a reduced sideyard setback. The three foot setback on both sides of the interior property line Would meet the minimum requirements of the building code. Staffs' concern with the overall project does not lay with the specifics of the project, but with the mechanism implementing the proposal. It is foreseen that the City will continue to receive and process requests for similar types of developments (small lot subdivisions) . With approval of these zone changes, the Zoning Ordinance text will have to be revised by adding additional text sections for individual Planned Development Overlays. The staff is concerned that each Overlay will require separate numbering and text section. Staff has discussed several alternatives that could solve the problem. The easiest solution, at this time, would be the establishment of a single PD Overlay Zone for small lot resi- dential PDs. The potential for individual conditioning would bele done by the approval of a specific site plan and conditioning of the subdivision tract map that would be processed for the indi- vidual projects. D. RECOMMENDATION• Based on the Analysis and Findings, staff recommends that Zone Change 23-86 as proposed be approved, and establish one specific Planned Development Overlay for small lot subdivisions in RMF (Residential Multiple Family) zone districts. JM:ph Attachments: Exhibit A - Location/Zoning Map Exhibit B Site Plan Exhibit C - Elevations Exhibit D - Perspective Drawing Exhibit E - Developers Statement Exhibit F - General Plan Section Exhibit G - Zoning Ordinance Sections Exhibit H Draft Ordinance � _��� iii �' . ►��o� mi I AM mm �•®� `oi t�� � � is���f�` . R����,�'y;� • IMP, on WMI all AS .ice 1 � '�� .I `� ♦ `: I jnumWA � Ili ♦ � :� �•��t� �i�i+ fie, ♦MIA Boa N 16 �,ter�� ' � �,� ��♦ �� �1���!•,�, �� � r�---�-1 Mull IN Rld �� ' • '■111 � ;�� •• . �� ►l�� � � it �r ♦, a♦ , WON - ���1►WI i►.►. ■ ♦.-� ♦ . � /�., •..��► �� �. ,►� .,moi .•! �/N 111\ ..�►.� .� r ♦� � X1111 ►�� • �' � I� �. . �' ' � ullli ' ►ur •• � �♦ ��"� i ♦ ' 11111 r / M \ ! CC-c ) rzO _ a ' �• T>• �� R �b�S�ap y��, �` nn z. o \ ES n o us 3 co Exiaibrr"E .5/-IT 77LZ)n. . ZDl7E cminq£ . 23-St, MAF'•`Co 7D MF-46(P5��) MA A-/))/a1��2 -.yOI 1� 0 10 N. i t --77 rl ' N I 'i j sr p - liALP; �s ry I � I i ; Ii . I 1 T HT1 i I i � it ®�13 '_Ile ..: li J JEIIE I E]I DH i . N 19rr-rtZ�-lJ/�T7Dn5 CAUIZ&NIA MANOIZ VOR(o a i s " 1 �� ll 1's'� '1 "?t:Fy�� 'Q ��0 _ --.sib •i,1 '� c.r_ �'.�. (''rl �'�.¢y Vie; _— -- _._ _ — •_,,..<�f--%`5 -?'i Air Al DW191T' D P07-5P-`�T/UE i 79Zl sranz y sA73Ez k fL F.It, 21MF`• I CPD 1 Cu RNA)/A MAIVM • 500n6 A`Q RECEIVED MAR 41987 DEVELOPER' S STATEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The Atascadero General Plan and Housing Element recognize the need for modest single family residential homes, particularly at' a more affordable price. Average in- come figures published by the State Board of Equalizat- ion for the County of San Luis Obispo indicated income for single person household in the $16, 000 range and i two person household $26, 000 range. It is apparent from these income figures that efforts need to be made to provide more adequate housing at lower cost within our community. With small affordable lots non existent in Atascadero f we come to the choice of Condo' s which our more affordable then the traditional single family residence, or Planned Unit Developments. We have chosen the P.U.D. which is similar to single family residence only on a very small size lot. Over -the past several months there has been considerable discussion concerning apartments and multi family high density property in our community. The lot which we propose the develope is zoned mult family high f density and provides for the development of seven _ i apartment units. Our request for P.U.D. with five . homes is a step toward the needs addressed in our Housing Element. As parents we made a decision several years ago to relocate here feeling Atascadero offered a better quality of life for our family. Now as the children have grown we realize that in order for them to re- main in Atascadero jobs and affordable housing EXHIBIT E' D01ULV1?)k r5 ATM our needed. One of our communities most valuable 7gZJ .5/?NTA -'15PZSE_L ZONIf,CJ1t)N6E Z3_6 IZMFJ4, TD RAF•11, cau !w mAnorz- � nl�s assets are the young people and steps need to be taken in order that they may remain in there home town. The Proposed project would be compatible with the surrounding area, and would reduce over all density. Edward Young 7421 Santa Ysabel Atascadero, Calif. 466-0759 • 2. The ideal development pattern that shall be promoted is similar to that conceived by E.G. Lewis, i .e. , a populaIc - tion of 20 ,000 to 30 ,000 people living in some 7,000 homes scattered over about 23,000 acres of the Colony. Residential densities are proposed which create a devel- opment potential that will reach an ultimate population of about 34 , 000 . 3. The residential densities proposed in this Plan automati- cally ensure considerable open space. 4 . High density residential land uses shall serve as a buffer between commercial and single-family residential areas where appropriate. 5. Residential density shall 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 per- mitted density of population. 6 . Multi-family residential use areas shall have a minimum building site of one-half acre. Smaller lot sizes may be allowed in conjunction with planned residential dev- elopments, including planned mobile home developments and subdivisions, provided that the overall density within • the project is consistent with other density standards contained herein. 7. Multi-residential density areas shall be considered in light of such specific factors as topography, traffic circulation, drainage fire protection and general level of use intensity at that location. 8 . In keeping with a basic goal to retain the rural atmos- phere of Atascadero, appropriate dens-ties , minimum lot sizes, setbacks and other development standards for dom- estic animal raising shall be established in the Zoning Ordinance. 9 . Hazard areas (geologic, land slide, flood, etc. ) shall have appropriate development standards . ' 10 . Lot splits shall 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 popu- lation of approximately 30, 000 is to be maintained. "Reduction in size of existing nonconforming lots shall, how- ever, only be allowed with lot line adjustments to correct historical and geographical use probl L-Xylg17,T= GL7JL,0ALYLAU 3M A the relocation of existing utilities, 74Z/ SANTA Y6,43EL easements where no increase in overall d ZONE CH"6E Z3-0f, TLri�IF•IG TU -pl�i1F•1&� PD) 62 . CA-Ll�G'�ZN Jp Mfl'Klfl� • G!'�Al f ADOPTED JUNE' 27, 1983 PD (Planned Development) Overlay Zone 9-3. 641. Purpose: The Planned Development Overlay Zone identi- fies areas where development standards or processing procedures dif- ferent from those established by the underlying zoning district, Chapter 9-4 or Chapter 9-6, are deemed necessary to promote orderly and harmonious development and to enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area. 9-3 . 642. Applicability of Planned Development Standards: The standards of Section 9-3. 645 et seq apply to all uses for which a zoning approval is required that are located in a Planned Development Overlay Zone. 9-3. 643. Minimum Development Standards and Processing Require- ments: The development standards, special use standards and pro- cessing requirements of the underlying zoning district shall apply in a Planned Development Overlay Zone unless specifically modified, to a greater or lesser extent, by a Planned Development Overlay Zone. The Planned Development Overlay Zone may be used as follows: (a) to modify setbacks; heights; parking and loading; landscap- ing, screening and fencing; signs; streets and frontage im- provements; and, other development and special use standards set forth in Chapters 9-4 and 9-6 ; and (b) to modify processing procedures set forth by the underlying zoning district (Chapter 9-3) ; and (c) to establish other development standards or processing re- quirements; and (d) to modify minimum lot sizes or permitted density. 9-3. 644. Required Findings: In approving the establishment of a Planning Development Overlay Zone, the following findings shall be made: (a) Modification of development standards or processing require- ments is warranted to promote orderly and harmonious development. (b) Modification of development standards or processing require- ments will enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area and will have a beneficial effect ,on the area. EX11 EIT G WM 1 NG OPD. 5E RDk 7gZI -eAk1Tla YSABEZ Z06.o C, V6E 23-�aG 3-59 ZMF•/G 7U Q94F •16, TD Cp-t-.)FWIVI A /MW O9. YOL;V1, 4PADOPTED JUNE 27, 198 (c) Benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be reasonably achieved through existing development standards or processing �. requirements. (d) Proposed plans, if any, offer certain redeeming features to compensate for requested modifications. 9-3. 645. Establishment of Planned Development Overlay Zone No 1 PD1. Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 1 is established as shown on the Official Zoning Maps (Section 9-1. 102) . The following modifi- cations to development standards and processing requirements are established: (a) A Master Plan of Development shall be approved prior to ap- proving a Plot Plan, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, or Tentative Parcel or Tract Map. The master Plan of Devel- opment shall be applied for and processed in the manner pre- scribed " for a Conditional Use Permit (Section 9-2. 109) . (b) In approving a Master Plan of Development, the level of pro- cessing for subsequent projects or phases may be reduced to a Plot Plan provided that the Master Plan contains sufficient detail to support such a determination. (c.) No subsequent Plot Plan, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Per- mit, or Tentative Parcel or Tract Map shall be approved unless found to be consistent with the approved Master Plan of Development. Any amendment to a Master Plan of Develop- ment, including conditions thereof, shall . be accomplished as set forth in Subsection (a) of this Section. (d) A minimum . front setback of twenty (20) feet shall be provided along the EI Camino Real frontage of all parcels. Rear set- backs shall be a minimum of ten feet. (e) Plans shall make provision to develop an attractive appear- ance along Highway 101 through the use of landscaping, building and parking orientation and other means. (f) The number of driveways along El Camino Real shall be mini- mized to prevent potential traffic conflicts. (g) All utilities shall be installed underground. (h) Exterior building materials shall be reviewed for accepta- bility and shall exhibit compatible relationships between buildings on a particular site or parcel. 9-3. 646. Establishment of Planned Development Overlay Zone No 2 PD2. Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 2 is established as shown on the Official Zoning Maps (Section 9-1. 102) . The following modifi- cations to development standards are established: 3-60 ORDINANCE NO. 150 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING SECTION MAP NUMBER 17 OF OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN AS LOT 6 , BLOCK lA (ATASCADERO COLONY) , FROM RMF/16 (RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY) TO RMF16 (PD-7) (RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY - 16 UNITS PER ACRE — PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 7) (ZC 23-86 - CALIFORNIA MANOR) t, WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amxL V. e General Plan as required by Section 658 t Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is n 65800 et seq. of the California Governn - ulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendmentwi] - verse effect upon the environment. n prepared on the project. WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Cc g on March 17, 1987, and has recommenc \ e Change 23-86. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the .. �y �, "...,.�..�__ __ _ _ n as follows: Section 1. Council Findings. 1. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land uses and ex- isting zoning in the area. 2. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map des- ignation for the site and is consistent with other policies of the General Plan. 3. The proposal will .not result in any significant adverse environ- mental impacts. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. Ordinance No. 150 Page Two 4. Benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be reasonably achieved through existing development standards or processing re- quirements. 5. Proposed plans offer certain redeeming features to compensate for requested modifications. 6. Modification of development standards or processing requirements is warranted to promote orderly and harmonious development. 7. Modification of development standards or processing requirements will enhance the opportunity to best utilize special character- istics of an area and will have a beneficial effect on the area. Section 2. Zoning Map. Map Number 17 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City ' of Atasca- dero on file in the City Community Development Department is hereby amended to reclassify Lot 6, Block lA (Atascadero Colony) as shown on attached Exhibit "A" which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Section 3. Zoning Text Change. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 23-86 is approved to change the text of the Zoning Ordinance to read as follows: 1. Section 9-3.651 is added to the Planned Development Overlay Zones to read as follows: 9-3.651. Establishment of Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 7 (PD7) . The Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 7 is es- tablished as shown on the official zoning maps (Section 9-1.102) . The following development standards are established: a. The Master Plan of Development of the site is approved as shown on Exhibit B which is hereby made a part of this ordin- ance by reference. All construction and development shall be done in conformance with the approved Exhibit. Any modifica- tion in density will require a rezoning. Modification of the Master Plan site design may be approved in a manner pre- scribed for a Conditional Use Permit (Section 9-2.109) . b. In approving a Master Plan of Development, the level of pro- cessing for subsequent projects or phases may be reduced to a Plot Plan provided that the Master Plan contains sufficient detail to support such a determination. Ordinance No. 150 Page Three C. No subsequent Plot Plan, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Per- mit, or Tentative Parcel or Tract Map shall be approved un- less found to be consistent with the approved Master Plan of Development. Any amendment to a Master Plan of Development, including conditions thereof, shall be accomplished as set forth in Subsection (a) of this Section. Section 4. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in this City in accordance with Government Code Section 36933; shall cer- tify the adoption of this ordinance; and shall cause this ordinance and certification to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of this City. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and ef- fect . at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage. On motion by and seconded by the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: BY: MARJORIE MACKEY, Mayor City of Atascadero, California Ordinance No. 150 Page Four i ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: H MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager . APPROVED AS TO FORM: F Y G SEN, City Attorney P ARED HENRY ENGE Community D velopment Director J_ FBIt RMF/16 ,,. ;f 9F• . RMF/16 t. ;e+• /// r, f� 0 t ,� .: r,. •! (,X3 •'°,•,,. Oma• �> ,• t /:;> � • lb f�. ►�M 'v'i f • d 'L' -'!I tai i .,,' G f •, , -+'' _ _ 1 , ^.� .•.:- -.:..... k' 4.: °�?�• ",.�[b li o,[a,� �`S� •�n lw .'a-0 •'� `LL '' ,4'�t •-L \ ' �\•�4 �,' :J;acr.c a�•ai•.- .l .r,Jr -':�.v ra: y :`'•" \ -� •, ,•, a L.. •� yn ;. ••y6~ -.:+�.," <:[. ,L,rr1 �8 ,•E arM; { �, t,L ...i'-,� •4 'y �''- i,�/r['��` ii . n '- °?�o :�-- oe>u A• M •o ' ` . L° Mb , > '.*' ;.F,u T• ��T aey -.f ,� � �' ,]r = �,>• ^/^ �L y N N N'T ..;t ),> L' • t,• ;� JL � ,A`` `b,,er r.t , ,•• tiff�».� �r ���?_. % �: )t`a°ief"• 1�> • @ �y,>, L~ v f'- N +� ,a �M✓W `9yr .]:y t.t ..�G• - b;r:`b 'r„• r/ `• .e '>� ,L ,� .°'S- Y't} } >` *" ;�5t`. .,�� •,�. iy. V ]` 'mr�)rr' "'�''' wal � • ;FIs _ � �` > ,. � .,) •,+ ,>� et> ,� �.-•'�.1�5 , >�,,�'r f>'7`l •wf olla, ) Y 11 � > t°- `' e> i•l7rJ )�. wt:� \i-, �+� • f e,.� 't •• P„so ra >s; ,,,,s.• r>��'” t r f. @- ,',i , N•"A =to: 4 , • T� • ..t nos lwe .\ - i - LF f ..yr.`f 1 lb. =ifr��.i„ /i�, t. ''e> t ,�f; 10 a,m \ :. •,?• �� '` /•L , N'Tt � *• >y,>¢yy � / =J t• ,rl• "t• if nso im • \a A..•• , �a/ .`Tat.; _ ,';� •kr�'�'3 >traC ft♦ >�¢ >�,€' t• f0 nos/ Leo• .�;. '=• T` \ yR L� a\ r • �- II � .v.� p io� 19 a� Ma>' •,,t LL:w J 1•' ,. •4 >,t2 ,,v ro :\ roto /. 7 r•s `,v' -'S •^`` ', _e )� �•• • ,lee Liao .uft• 7, >� w%s ... 4,~ 1l ''a 1 .,.., -i._?,• >ro, 'lr Sin. .ry - .v. ,,et •:;+��.� +aZ>`<,1,.,°, �r:• ;>re ''.',rw s r= � < 22 :1\ ro s, to AT-80-041 12-31 ".': 7 - :: • �= q.f, ;a 'ss� seo fa r7 25.; 1, , AT-78-? 1�-9I t CJV(POW ri? '� '� >' >s'.r t,r ,' t LSF-Y(FH) AT- 78-r,5 12-81 ai ;• ; ' "zj ) a "� >.,ca„ ��;f -r 4.- \�i+ , '.• AT-78-LIL IL•31 l <. �C. II=r �. ,.,},• -t1 IFlr���t _b .•, 4T1 iiw "l� ��l>R ... .....,.. .r.•v.—„ :a - U >,�!• ;-Jro b =,,.,,•�,-' u ',?: 7� -T �s'� • _ • -• - .-. . TA4CT 100•{ -..� • ''1 ?a`% ••- r -.'� yl ry?v/l�flo ZOEMGNAKG[: Z3 rblo u"�, :..• e � _J j�.,3• :,_"' --- D� Iia rp r� > e1 7 izi 5ANTA Y5A'BLZ LSF-- Y .6`'a '��rZ'Iil1y>�'.;;�•w. =f..rs•t1•,>>a, �•,;,,�,52,.3,=.>,r/t4 a .�!. 4,µe,.y.•a••tO \\•or> „•.�,V\�\1fy�"io,t :f.°,?- i.N JK�t�.,�16\�0Lr 13-�1}�e!`�Lt•P _ LOT6 BLOC LGLl !/ (A �r�l TD EM / TL>t 11•C _ • �' her , b: '_ . > , :..1 Zrtt•'t•' - t't f Lert+k° �oO - LO F—Y F �, *rYZRYq' , .S =-�,' v 'rK = ,art�'� 'oh!r.=' ,`,_�``�•f • Si q�y46'i` -y 27 oDS•y`,-° `, _,•`a r f r.. ,rf .. �r �'*w .,,,�`:J�, ,.,, . 6�' �,; a �Lw ^`3 - 3 it=, x => I -erti•`7 / ... .>,� • 28 b i •,�' > �.,, S~L�r° 'o `y eF , ,�' tee. , ,Ff s •61 �9�' �•� 6:.`�Le� a _ e �`. ,L f.- •a` jy ,� � � , .3:�• 6e�/.L- •o* •r o-A *RM i(FH) ° \6" , a���/; .►���;� ' - e - -�� n'i/y'e .._�-'-_ 12 iS,l,4l�w er �...A.�:;i•'> _ 22 Q a A .�'� Gam•`e_ UA O CITY OF ATASCADERO T � Plannino Departmentr ra, ^ ,•-: 1 �p 16 G .�� '•..�r F<<rra�`'/;�l b :t ZI>..+r r�n211•Zy..> . a....�Hwr Liz; �. ' 1�.4`. r r 'i\• t^ r-�• f /s ...atv.�.r s`u>•r...jTti.l..n...= �.a. , .`-•4I.r i1 41 +o�l� , 191!)1 i ( ,pYt17,/ff/• l,.,wN>rW i1 1 11�r•w•.wu 14 DCH/LS IT R OT(D"ANCC Map No. .17 .. ZONE GI-IAn6E-_ 23 -8& Y5ABEL f . . :. RNI F-!(o 7D TZ/y)F•• I ra(PD•7) RECEIVED MAY - 4 z � z ;F fed '`G - I ZZ Rl � � N MA57Z•Ze PLAN — — OVa1B1T 3 OTMINAMCC MNC UtAWSE" U -910 Z j7- SANTI1 YSABEL O �7y z --*Al rA (4�4,66e RN!T�16 M ZM F-t 6 (PIS•7� f� r�-��T�rt,nr;� NSF►.:�� _,,,, T o %uUc M wT '� ✓ AG'7,�IrA OA i EM MEMORANDUM To: City Council May 26 , 1987 • Via: Mike Shelton, City Manager From: Bob Best , Parks and Recreation Director`p &a4l Subject : Community Parklands Act of 1986 Project Selection INTRODUCTION: 1: In June 1986, the voters of the State of California approved proposition 43 (Community Parklands Act of 1986) . This act allocated a total of $54,000 to the City of Atascadero for development or acquisition projects. BACKGROUND: The Parks and Recreation Commission has been actively working to provide Council with the recommendation of how the grant funds should be utilized. An Ad Hoc Committee was formed to recommend to the Commission the typeof facility and project location. At their April meeting, the formal recom- mendation was made to the Commission. On May 14 , the Parks and Recreation Commission formally recommended the funds be allocated to rehabilitate the youth fields on Traffic Way. RECOMMENDATION: Allocate the total grant funds for the development and rehabilitation of the youth fields on Traffic Way , and approve Resolution No . 38-87 approv- ing the application for grant funds under the Parklands Act 'of 1986. FISCAL IMPACT: The grant is 100% funded - no City match is required. Phase I development of the Traffic Way Fields will not exceed the grant amount . Additional funds will be needed in the future to complete the project , and these will be addressed through other grants and/or the department ' s CIP program. There will also be increased maintenance expenses once this area is devel- . oped, and is addressed in the 5-year CIP. • RESOLUTION NO. 38-87 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR. GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE COMMUNITY PARKLANDS ACT OF 1986 FOR THE YOUTH SPORTS COMPLEX (TRAFFIC WAY) WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the Community Parklands Act of 1986, which provides funds to the State of California and its political subdivisions for acquiring and develop- ing facilities for public recreational and historical purposes; and WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the state, setting up necessary procedures governing applica- tion by local agencies under the program; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and Recreation require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval of application (s) before submission of said application (s) to the state; and WHEREAS, said application (s) contain assurances. that the appli- cant 'must comply with; and WHEREAS, the applicant agency will enter into an agreement with the State of California for acquisition, development, rehabilitation or restoration of the project (s) .- NOW, roject (s) ;NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby: 1. Approves the filing of an application for Community Parklands Act of 1986 state grant assistance for the above project; and 2. Certifies that said agency understands the assurances and certi- fication in the application form; and 3. Certifies that said agency has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project; and 4. Certifies that said agency will complete the project within three years from date of approval by the state; and 5. Appoints the Director of Parks and Recreation as agent of the City to conduct all negotiations, execute and .submit all docu- ments including but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests, and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project. RESOLUTION NO. 38-87 N i On motion by and seconded by the resolution was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO By: MARJORIE R. MACKEY Mayor ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MI EL —SHELTUN, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, City Attorney PREPARED BY: lrvkul- ROBERT BIT-ST, Parks and Recreation Director PCENG-, / AC;NDA �4 'IF 7 M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council May 26 , 1987 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development DirectorAO SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 21-86 LOCATION: Northside of Santa Lucia and Lomitas Roads APPLICANT: Glen Millhollin (Robert Tartaglia) REQUEST: To resubdivide six existing residential lots containing 119.6 acres into 22 lots varying in size from 3.1 acres to 26.3 acres. BACKGROUND: ti This matter was continued from the City Council' s April 28, 1987 meet- ing in order to allow neighboring property owners the opportunity to review the conditions of approval with staff. These have been trans- mitted, and a meeting was held at on May 18th with the neighbors and staff to discuss the issues of concern. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Tentative Tract Map 21-86 subject to the Planning Commis- sion's revised findings and conditions of approval. HE:ps cc: Glen Millhollin Robert Tartaglia OKFTING - _ AG�i�3'DA ATEE Z EM ;T i M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council April 28, 1987 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager k1 FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 21-86 LOCATION: Northside of Santa Lucia and Lomitas Roads APPLICANT: Glen Millhollin (Robert Tartaglia) REQUEST: To resubdivide six existing residential lots containing 119.6 acres into 22 lots varying in size from 3.1 acres to to 26.3 acres. On March 17, 1987 and April 7, 1987, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above-referenced subject, unanimously approv- ing the land division request (on a 5:0 vote) subject to the findings and conditions as revised at the March 17th meeting (attached) . i There was considerable discussion and public testimony specifically relating to road safety and bridge concerns as reflected in the at- tached minutes excerpts. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Tentative Tract Map 21-86 subject to the revised findings and conditions of approval. HE:ps ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Memo - April 7 , 1987 Planning Commission Staff Report - March 17, 1987 Revised Findings and Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt - March 17, 1987 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt - April 7, 1987 CC: Glen Millhollin Robert Tartaglia Item . C.2 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning Commission April 7, 1987 FROM: Joel Moses, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 21-86 - Millhollin/Tartaglia (Northside of Santa Lucia and Lomitas Roads) At its March 17, 1987 meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing concerning TTM 21-86. During the hearing, the Commission - heard testimony from the general public regarding off-site improve- ment to the Santa Lucia Road Bridge over Graves Creek. Preliminary investigation by staff on the structure has found the following: 1. The City has no traffic count specifically for the bridge. The closest count the City has is at Santa Lucia Road at Portola Road. Three day traffic counts show an average daily count of 2136 (1986) . These counts should be considered in light of the fact that they are approximately 1 1/4 miles from the bridge. . 2. The bridge' s last CalTrans inspction for structural soundness and design, was done in 1985. Per State law, another inspection is set to be done within the next three (3) months. This inspection could lead to the bridge qualifying for a State Reconstruction Grant within the next year. 3. The intersection is being reviewed for sight distances and design. The intersection will be reviewed by the Traffic Committee for its April 22, 1987 meeting. Paul Sensibaugh will be present at the Planning Commission to answer any further questions. JM:ph Enclosure: Staff Report, dated March 17, 1987 City of Atascadero Item: B.4 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: March 17, 1987 BY: Joel Moses, Associate Planner File No: TTM 21-86 Project Address: Northside of Santa Lucia and Lomitas Roads SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 21-86 submitted by Glen Millhollin and Robert Tar- taglia & Associates to resubdivide six (6) existing residential lots containing 119.6 acres into 22 lots containing 26.3 to 3.1 acres. BACKGROUND: � ,tY• is Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Fri- day, March 6, 1987. All property owners of record located within 300 feet of the subject property were also notified on that date. A. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glen Millhollin 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Robert Tartaglia 3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119.6 acres 4. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban) 2 1/2 to 10 acre minimum lot size RS (FH) (Residential Suburban with a Flood Hazard Overlay) 5. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 6. Adjacent Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . .North: RS-Residential Suburban South: RS-Residential Suburban East: RS (FH) -Residential Suburban (Flood Hazard Overlay) West: RS-Residential Suburban 7. General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Single Family 8. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted Staff Report - TTM 21-86 Page Two B. ANALYSIS: The application before the Commission proposes the subdivision of six (6) parcels containing 119. 6 acres into 22 parcels varying in size from 26.3 to 3.1 acres. The property proposed for subdivi- sion is located in a RS (Residential Suburban) zoning district. Minimum lot size in this zone ranges between 2.5 and 10.0 acres depending upon the "score" of the various performance standards. Distance from the Center of Community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 Septic Suitability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Average Slope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 Access Condition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 General Neighborhood Character. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 3.09 The proposed lot size of 3.09 is in conformance with the stan- dard set by the Zoning Ordinance. In reviewing the site for potential impacts, the staff required an Archaeological Site Study. The survey was carried out by Dr. Robert Hoover. Dr. Hoover has noted in a written report that there is no evidence of any archaeological resources on the site. This does not mean that no archaeological sites are present, but it is believed that none exist on this site. If an archaeological site is discovered, the Zoning Ordinance sections related to Arch- aeological Finds will be implemented. The site also contains a ridge line that peaks along the eastern property line. The ridge is highly visable .to the area in and around the Paradise and Long Valley areas. The applicant has rec- ognized this, and has proposed the property line along the ridge to prevent construction along the ridge. Staff has reviewed the possibility of an open space easement along the ridge to assure the area remaining in Open Space. The access and construction along the ridge line would be difficult at best, and adequate building sites exist along the lower areas of the site. The resubdivision does require the movement of a property line that is used for a zone district boundary. Lots 14 to 20 adjust a property line to the west from the existing property line that acts as a boundary for a Flood Hazard Overlay District. The ad- justment has been reviewed by staff and a determination that no zone change is required. The adjustment would be covered by Sec- tion 9-1.109 (c) . The section notes "Where a boundary is shown as approximately following a lot line, the lot line shall be con- sidered to be the boundary" . This would leave lots 21 and 22 with a Flood Hazard Overlay. i Staff Report - TTM 21-86 Page Three Responses from outside agencies express concern for development of some public facilities; such as roads, fire hydrants and road right-of-ways. The applicant has received a precise plan and im- provement plans approval to construct a private road between Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4. This road will replace the existing private road between Lots 10 and 11. C. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map 23-86 based on the Findings in Exhibit D and Conditions of Approval in Exhibit E. JM:ph Attachments: Exhibit A - Location and Zoning Map Exhibit B - Tentative Tract Map Sec. #1 Exhibit C - Tentative Tract Map Sec. #2 Exhibit D - Findings for Approval Exhibit E - Conditions of Approval -46 r, it .r /19 .ten• �J ._� �V ��,�—" �I`� �y f,'D 'jj j -�. ��_� nsrs r..se�} ,�, �- `fi,,j � I /�'+,�. ��•��q LA .• I `.ersrl,/ssp"•\ ` O ' _ �`_i'WD � / f d� e`b 1 1i t „ '' na•rslj} zoo r" 3 _``_ G 1 �..—._._..._.__...� {1 `; . i 11=,•0•� i �-xO~ I 1 t�.' /bass 'c roe .los ?A 1 to ------ A I 00 its K• + 'ayr t w (� ' _ S7co I'.�eor I I/p>,Tp k � '`\ �_�.1-•�-!'�,. by V �\•:\ i� All 1700 �! ar v�l O ICS .\ jo C6 ' IF41j Al b w.e •qS IIsi � + 1l1 1110 S / OCLIIEin- A LOCA-nON MAP j1e•16 ,..o• RFs �• a �qs;� I`E/ I -n VC-. 1. AC MA{' Lb`L /" C ♦. Il.06 EREEK \\\ • s•r ,5AVlLVTO) A + L.OM/Th5 fl•gA-DS • lVll ./4& r ,N • 1ACM6UA 4• \ I ~ Ile �• \\'',r a _ x�'a f.� - � �;;.- ...?_,'..�:='•+'iV ;.. °y,..:/_.,��Si^��r a�,,r y�p'i`l ...�'' �- ,,,� 1 � L T- 1\ ���'• ��° � ,i \ tie°� e � � � � � - =. zi 31. DWI F2 IT G T2AC r MhP 5 1 &2 ;< T;71mvc TTLAGT' M 6ftgl4 ULM 1. LE AITAI5 1M!LLHOLLIA/ i TAf A.,, UQ. s • EXHIBIT D - Findings of Approval TTM 21-86 (Santa Lucia & Lomitas Roads) March 17, 1987 . 1. The creation of therse parcels will conform to the Zoning Ordin- ance, the General Plan, Land Use Element, Land Use Map, and other General Plan Policies. 2. The creation of these parcels is categoriclly exempt from the pro- visions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15301 (k) ) . 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of residential devel- opment that is proposed. '' 4. The site is physically suitable for the residential density of development that is proposed. 5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife of their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvement will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or� that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474.6 of the State Subdivision Map Act as to methods of handling and discharge of waste. 0 0 EXHIBIT E - Conditions of Approval TTM-21-86 (Santa Lucia & Lomitas Road) March 17, 1987 1. Road Improvement Plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer must be submitted to an approved by the Community Development, Public Works, and Fire Departments prior to recording final map. Plans shall include Fire Hydrants along all fronting roads at 800 foot spacing. Design and locations to be approved by the Fire Department. 2. Prior to recording final map, a soils report or Engineer ' s Certi- fication Statement shall be submitted to the City Engineering De- partment stating that existing soils on the site are adequate to support proposed structures per Chapter 70, Subsection (e) of the Uniform Building Code. 3. Install all street signs, traffic delineation devices, warning and regulatory signs, guardrail, barricades, and other similar devices where required by the Director of Public Works. Signs shall be in conformance with the Department of Public Works standards and the current State of California Uniform Sign Chart. Installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review and modifications after construction. 4. Offer of Dedication to City of Atascadero the following rights of Way: Street Name: Unnamed common to Lots 1,2, 3, and 4 Limits: From Lomitas to northly lot line of Lot 3 Minimum Width: 20 ' from centerline of right-of-way Street Name: Unnamed common to Lots 10 & 11 Limits: From Lomitas to northly line of Lot 11 Minimum Width: 40' 5. Submit engineering calculations, elevations, and cross-sections to the satisfaction of the City Engineer which locate the limits and depth of flooding on the subject property considering the effects of potential improvements on neighboring properties. 6. Obtain sufficient title or interest;., in offsite right-of-way to dedicate right-of-way along properly frontage of Lomitas Road and Puerta Road and Llano Road. Minimum width 20 ' from centerline, minimum 150 ' centerline radius. Conditions of Approval - TTM 21-86 Santa Lucia and Lomitas Roads Page Two 7. Provide proof acceptble to the Director of Public Works that Lo- mitas Road and Puerta are constructed to City Standards with structural section meeting City Standards. Base upon a T.I.= 4.0. If structural section is deficient, then additional pave- ment (A.C. ) shall be added to meet minimum City Standards as de- termined by Director of Public Works. 8. Obtain Encroachment Permit from City of Atascadero (Public Works Department) . Sign an Inspection Agreement and a Curb and Gutter Agreement, guaranteeing that the work will be done and inspections paid for, prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit, and con- struct improvements as directed by the Encroachment Permit prior to final building inspection. 9. Improve private road to the following standards: 20 ' wide A.C. Traveled Way within a 40 ' right-of-way as determined by Director of Public Works. Realign and reconstruct intersection of Lomitas Road and Puerta Road and Llano Road to provide a minimum 150 ' centerline radius or as determined by Director of Public Works. 10. Construction of road improvements shall be completed (or bonded for) prior to recording final map. 11. A 75'0" wide openspace easement shall be provided along the east- erly property line of Lots 5 to 20. 12. A final map, in compliance with all conditions set forth herein, shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners have been set or shall be set by a date specific and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be sub- mitted for review in conjunction with the processing- of the final map. Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. EXHIBIT D - Findings of Approval TTM 21-86 (Santa Lucia & Lomitas Roads) March 17, 1987 (R E V I S E D) 1. The creation of therse parcels will conform to the Zoning Ordin- ance, the General Plan, Land Use Element, Land Use Map, and other General Plan Policies. 2. The creation of these parcels, in conformance with the recommended conditions of approval, will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of residential devel- opment that is proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the residential density of development that is proposed. 5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife of their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvement will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474.6 of the State Subdivision Map Act as to methods of handling and discharge of waste. • EXHIBIT E - Conditions of Approval TTM-21-86 (Santa Lucia & Lomitas Road) March 17, 1987 (R E V I S E D) 1. Road Improvement Plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer must be submitted to an approved by the Community Development, Public Works, and Fire Departments prior to recording final map. Plans shall include Fire Hydrants along all fronting roads at 800 foot spacing. Design and locations to be approved by the Fire Department. 2. Prior to recording final map, a soils report or Engineer ' s Certi- fication Statement shall be submitted to the City Engineering De- partment stating that existing soils on the site are adequate to support proposed structures per Chapter 70 , Subsection (e) of the Uniform Building Code. 3. Install all street signs, traffic delineation devices, warning and regulatory signs, guardrail, barricades, and other similar devices where required by the Director of Public Works. Signs shall be in conformance with the Department of Public Works standards and the current State of California Uniform Sign Chart. Installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review and modifications after construction. 4. Offer of Dedication to City of Atascadero the following rights of Way: Street Name: Unnamed common to Lots 1,2, 3, and 4 Limits: From Lomitas to northly lot line of Lot 3 Minimum Width: 20 ' from centerline of right-of-way Street Name: Unnamed common to Lots 10 & 11 Limits: From Lomitas to northly line of Lot 11 Minimum Width: 40 ' 5. Obtain sufficient title or interest in offsite right-of-way to dedicate right-of-way along property frontage of Lomitas Road and Puerta Road and Llano Road. Minimum width 20 ' from centerline, minimum 150 ' centerline radius. Conditions of Approval - TTM 21-86 (R E V I S E D) Santa Lucia and Lomitas Roads Page Two 6. Provide proof acceptble to the Director of Public Works that Lo- mitas Road and Puerta are constructed to City Standards with structural section meeting City Standards. Base upon a T.I.= 4.0. If structural section is deficient, then additional pave- ment (A.C.) shall be added to meet minimum City Standards as de- termined by Director of Public Works. - -7. Obtain Encroachment Permit from City of Atascadero (Public Works Department) . Sign an Inspection Agreement and a Curb and Gutter Agreement, guaranteeing that the work will be done and inspections paid for, prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit, and con- struct improvements as directed by the Encroachment Permit prior to final building inspection. 8. Improve the private road between Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 to the fol- lowing standards: 20 ' wide A.C. Traveled Way within a 40 ' right-of-way as determined by Director of Public Works. Realign and reconstruct intersection of Lomitas Road and Puerta Road and Llano Road to provide a minimum 150 ' centerline radius or as determined by Director of Public Works. 9. Construction of road improvements shall be completed (or bonded for) prior to recording final map. 10. A 75 ' 0" wide openspace easement shall be provided along the east- erly property line of Lots 5 to 20. 11. A final map, in compliance with all conditions set forth herein, shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate, by certificat(_: on the final map, that corners have been set or shall be set by a date specific and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be sub- mitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 12. Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. TTM 21-86 (MillhollfoTartaglia) (R E V I S E Page Three 13. Creation of a 75 foot wide open space easement shall be accom- plished across the ridge line area of the lots to assure that the project area is kept free from construction. Minutes - PlanniA Commission - March 4. Tentative Tract Map 21-86 : Request initiated by Glen Millhollin (Tartaglia Engineering) to subdivide 6 existing lots, totaling 119.6 acres, into 22 lots var- ying in size from 26 .3 acres to 3.1 acres. Subject property is located on the north side of Santa Lucia and Lomitas Road, Lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of PM 28-30 (being a resubdivision of Lot 10A, Block 43 in Atascadero Colony) . Mr. Moses, Assoc. Planner, gave staff report. He noted revisions to the Findings of Approval, Exh. D, and Conditions of Approval, Exh. E: - Finding #2 should be changed to reflect a standard Negative Dec- laration; Finding #5 should be deleted, after discussion with the appli- cant's engineer and Public Works Dept. staff today; Condition #9 should read, "Improve private road between lots . 1, 2, 3 and 4 to the following standards. . . " . Staff recommends the addition of a Condition #13, that creation of a 75' wide open space easement be accomplished across the ridge line area of the lots to assure that the project area is kept free from construction. Commissioner Nolan expressed concern regarding the need to widen the bridge at Santa Lucia Rd. , noting a recent, similar application when same concern was raised (re: Drake application) ; Mr. Moses responded that Pub. Works did note a possible need to improve the bridge, how- ever, did not specify any finite details regarding this application. Mr. DeCamp commented that the Pub. Works Director expressed that dev- elopment fees on each of the lots, as they' re developed, will earmark money for specific off-site improvements, feeling this is an equitable way to fund such improvements as widening the bridge. Commissioner Nolan expressed he feels it is appropriate that a Pub. Works represen- tative be present to address the bridge concerns; Mr. Engen noted the Pub. Works Director or his representative will be present when the Drake issue is before the Commission again. Public Comment Robert Tartaglia, Tartaglia & Assoc. , commented he and his client are in agreement with the conditions as stated. Joe Wilmore, 5500 Llano Rd. , reiterated his concerns (expressed at hearing for Drake application) regarding the narrow Santa Lucia Bridge conditions, requesting installation of4stop signs at either end of said bridge. He expressed opposition to further development until road safety concerns are remedied. Bruno Adamoli, 5800 Llano, seconded the comments of the previous speaker. He urges maintainence/trimming of shrubs along Llano to im- prove poor site distance/visibility, expressing that past requests of Pub. Works have been futile. Contrary to his comments at the Drake hearing, he feels the improvement of Llano Rd. is the City' s responsi- bility and not Mr. Drake' s. 4 Minutes - Planno Commission - March 17, 07 Robert Nimmo, 7375 Bella Vista, expressed support for the concept expecting that development fees are a reasonable approach to resolve.< g bridge problems; he suggested the Commission approve TTM 21-86 ryas proposed. Discussion by staff and Commission revolved around bridge concerns. MOTION: By Commissioner Hatchell for continuance of this item pending review by the Traffic Committee for the possibility of a 3-way stop sign at Llano Rd. & Santa Lucia Rd. and the con- sideration of either (or both) the Traffic Committee or Pub. Works Dept. regarding the possibility of widening the bridge on Santa Lucia Rd. , seconded by Commissioner Kidwell; passed by 4:3 roll-call, with Commissioners Copelan, Michielssen and Bond dissenting. COMMISSION RECESSED FOR BREAK AT 9:23 P.M. CHAIRMAN BOND CALLED THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER AT 9 : 36 P.M. Chairman Bond requested the following two items be combined, as they pertain to the same property. 5. Zone Change 23-86 : Request initiated by California Manor (Ted and Judy Young) to vise the existing RMF-16 (Residential Multi-Family 16 units 0- acre) by adding a PD (Planned Development) overlay allowing for a reduced lot size and a reduced sideyard setback. 6. Tentative Tract Map 37-86 : Tract Map request initiated by Ted and Judy Young (California Man- or) implementing Zone Change 23-86 to divide a .44 acre parcel into five (5) lots of 5440 , 3473, 3323, 3172 and 3573 square -feet. Subject property is located at 7421 Santa Ysabel, Lot 65 of Block lA in Atascadero Colony. Mr. Moses, Assoc. Planner, gave staff reports and responded to ques- tions from the Commission. Public Comment Alan Volbrecht, agent for applicants, expressed they have no. questions with regard to conditions as presented. Judy Young, applicant, summarized particular features of proposed un- its: 3-bdrms. , 2-story, approx. 1400 sq. ft. , designed for purchase (not rental) by first home buyers, with a price goal of $89,900 . All have their own side or backyards. She explained that the P.U.D. con- cept was chosen because they felt Santa Ysabel already has a great amount of apartments/condominiums, and they believe their 5-u approach will decrease traffic on the street; affordability and concept of owning a home was considered for the benefit of young fam- ilies. 5 • i Minutes - Planning Commission - April 7, 1987 MOTION: By sioner Lopez-Balbontin n roue the hearing on Tentative ap ntil such time that the applicant and staff c a-- agreement satisfactory to both a motion passed with ioner Copelan dissenting. 2. Tentative Tract Map 21-86 : Request initiated by Glen Millhollin (Tartaglia Engineering) to subdivide six existing lots, totaling 119. 6 acres, into 22 lots varying in size from 26.3 acres to 3.1 acres. Subject property is located on the northside of Santa Lucia and Lomitas roads, Lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of PM 28-30 . (CONTINUED FROM REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 17, 1987) Mr. DeCamp noted the action taken by the Commission at the March 17th meeting to postpone a decision on the map pending a decision by the Traffic Committee concerning the possiblity of stop signs on the Santa Lucia bridge, and pointed out that the request was again on this agen- da due to the similarities with this map and the previous one (Drake) pertaining to the development problems associated with both maps. He further pointed out that in order to re-open the matter for discus- sion, it would be necessary for one of the commissioners who previous- ly made a motion to continue the matter (at the March 17th meeting) to make a motion to reopen the matter for discussion. Chairman Bond asked Mr. Tartaglia, agent for the applicants if this was his desire, to which Mr. Tartaglia stated he would like to see the matter go ahead. Mr. DeCamp stated that a decision could not be made on the conditions of the bridge issue due to the Traffic Committee's decision being made after the Planning Commission' s second meeting. MOTION: By Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin to re-open the hearing on Tentative Tract Map 21-86; seconded by Commissioner Nolan; passed unanimously. Mr. DeCamp presented the staff report on the matter providing a back- ground on the request. He pointed out the memo describing the infor- mation presently available on, the Santa Lucia bridge. In response to question from Chairman Bond, Mr. Moses stated he has been in contact with CalTrans noting that the structure is scheduled for review within three months, but that CalTrans would try to move ahead to do the inspection as soon as possible. Mr. Sensibaugh elaborated on the available bridge monies as a result of the recent passage of a highway bill. Mr . Tartaglia stated that with regard to condition #2, he has submit- ted the necessary soils report. Mr. DeCamp stated that the condition could not be deleted but that the condition had been met by the appli- cant; he .further. stated that there were some revisions to the condi- 4 Minutes - Planning Commission - April 7, 1987 tions from the March 17th meeting which were inadvertently left ou* from this agenda, but should be included. Mr. Tartaglia stated he would like to have approval of the map with exception of the bridge issue. Bruno Adamoli commented on the map request. Bonita Borgeson asked why an Environmental Impact Report was not re- quired for this project to which Mr. Engen explained that this project involved large acreage parcels proposed with the net increase being 16 three acre parcels which is consistent with the neighborhood. The bridge widening is not part of the project description although it has become an issue as an off-site question for the area; he elaborated on the various development issues in relation to the area. r K Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin asked if it is determined that the crea- tion of the proposed 16 lots would have an impact on traffic, would the applicant be required, to participate in the cost for portion of the bridge improvement. Mr. DeCamp stated there would be a way to determine what the exact impact of the 16 new lots would be on that bridge in terms of the average daily traffic that is generated com- pared to the amount of traffic on the bridge presently. He explained the difficulties in requiring this because of the "open-ended" nature of the condition. Mr. Engen added that if the Commission felt it may take too long for bridge improvements to be addressed through fees, there could be recommendations made by the Commission to looking a0 other revenue raising mechanisms to speed up the process. A traffic study could be required of the applicant. In response to question from Commissioner Michielssen, Mr. Sensibaugh elaborated on the cost comparisons per square foot for bridges. MOTION: By Commissioner Nolan to approve Tentative Tract Map 21-86 - based on the findings and revised conditions of approval (re- vised at the March 17th Commission meeting) ; seconded by Com- missioner Copelan. Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin asked that consideration be given in . the .future to have some sort of mechanism that would require developers to pay for whatever improvements must be made. Commissioner Michielssen asked for clarification on the revised conditions of approval. Motion passed 5:0 with a roll call vote. 3. Ten a Parcel Ma 3-87: Request in ' i ted by Robert and Bert u tz (Thomas E. Baumber- ger) to allow su 'vision of arcel containing 0.93 acres into two lots containing res each. Subject property is located at 9005 Atsac Aven ortion Lot 12, Block 10, Atascadero Colony) — z 5 x 1NG AGfilDA IT # _3 • MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Through: Michael Shelton, City Manager From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Subject : Proposals for Professional Engineering Services-San Andres and Garcia Rd. Bridges . Date: May 18, 1987 Recommendation: Staff will make a verbal recommendation at the meeting and will provide Council with a proposal summary p to the et Backround: Council authorized staff to request proposals for the design of the above bridges at the March 3rd regular council meeting. The proposals are due at noon on May 20 and therefore are not available at ® this writing. Discussion: Although the proposals have not been received at this writing it is urgent that this item be considered at this meeting due to the requirement by Caltrans to have a consultant agreement approved within four months of the grant offer. Council may recall that previously Council denied staff ' s request to solicit RFP's and subsequently reversed its decision. The timing became more critical as approximately 30 days was lost to an already tight time schedule . Caltrans is working with the City, however, to extend the deadline if every effort is made to accomplish the overall goals of their program. Once _ the proposals are received staff will analysis the backround, resources and costs of each and prepare a summary for your review. A recommendation will be verbally presented at the council meeting. • Fiscal Impact: • The engineering services are grant-eligible and were included in the project estimate reported earlier. The City share of each project, based on 20% of the total project costs, including design and construction engineering, is: San Andres $68, 000 Garcia Rd. $33, 000 Total $101,000 These matching funds were anticipated to be taken out of development fees as Gas Tax funds were not to be utilized for this program. With the passage of the Highway Bill which held the funds for these bridges also came the allocation of Federal Aid Urban (FAU) funds. The 1987-88 budget is now proposing the use of FAU funds for our match. FAU funds will amount to about $75,000 per-year over five " years retroactive to October, 1986 . Therefore, approximately $150,000 of new funds are available for highway projects this next fiscal year. The use of the balance of FAU funds and development fees will be discussed during the 1987-88 Budget hearings. Fiscal Impact: The engineering services are grant-eligible and were included in the project estimate reported earlier. The City share of each Project, based on 20% of the total project costs, including design and construction engineering, is: San Andres $68,000 Garcia Rd. $33, 000 Total $101,000 These matching funds were anticipated to be taken out of �� development fees as Gas Tax funds were not to be utilized for this ,' program. With the passage of the Highway Bill which held the funds for these bridges also came the allocation of Federal Aid Urban (FAU) funds. The 1987-88 budget is now proposing the use of FAU funds for our match. FAU funds will amount to about $75,000 per year over five Years retroactive to October, 1986 . Therefore, approximately $150,000 of new funds are available for highway projects this next fiscal year. The use of the balance of FAU funds and development fees will be discussed during the 1987-88 Budget hearings. MEMORANDUM To : Honorable Mayor and City Council Through: Michael Shelton, City Manager From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Subject : Award of Prosals—San Andreas and Garcia Rd. Bridges Date : May 26, 1987 Recommendation: San Andres: Staff recommends that Council award John Wallace, Assoc. the design and construction engineering for an amount not to exceed $65, 900, and direct staff to bring back a contract approved in concept by Caltrans . Garcia Rd. : Staff recommends that Council give tentative award to John Wallace, Assoc . for an amount not to exceed $55, 620, but subject to Caltran' s approval and subject to the alternatives below. Backround: Attached is the summary for the respective bridges which show John Wallace, Assoc . as the lowest cost proposal . The three firms that entered proposals were all well qualified and would be acceptable to the City based on professional capabilities alone . Discussion: Caltrans has a predetermined figure for its expectation of the engineering costs for a project . The Garcia Rd. project is a small job and the normal percentages do not seem to fit into Caltran' s expectations for this project as is seen on the three quotes . Any amount awarded over their figure, however, will not be included in their 80% participation, regardless of the ability of the City to obtain that price . Caltrans will allow more time to enter into this agreement since the City has requested a meeting with them and the prospect consultant . This meeting will determine if the $15, 000 credit offered by Wallace if both projects are awarded to them can be subtracted from Garcia only. Alternatively, staff has the option of doing this work in—house . At least presently we have two professional engineers and could do the work within Caltran' s budget but would probably take longer to do the work. An advantage to this approach would be that the City could be reinbursed up to $40, 000 for their work which would pay the salary of the Senior Civil Engineer for over a year. About 500 man hours would be consumed or about three months on this project, not Projecting any overtime . More evaluation is needed on this alternative before staff can make a firm recommendation. 376 -- 37, 530 - i o • �r �7fl,�c�fj �r�8r�e 0 . " 4 �4 s l I t f I - IN 1_g87. i r i ✓SAL __ _ _i � __.l_ _ _ _ � I � - � 4L- NN I : i , i4L- f I , , 1 I - _� i i i � , � I I I ►_� \ I ■ ■ ■ ■ �Wa ■ ■ mm Effm JOHN L. WALLACE & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS may 19, 1987 City of Atascadero P.O.Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 Attn: Mr. George Wolfrank, Senior Engineer Subject: Proposal to Provide Engineering Services for the San Andres Avenue Bridge and the Garcia Road Bridge Replacement Projects Dear Mr . Wolfrank, Accompanying this letter are two proposals to provide engineering services for the bridge design projects in the City of Atascadero. While each proposal defines the scope of work for each design project separately, we recommend that the City consider the advantages of proceeding with the construction of the two bridge projects concurrently. As a result, the City would benefit from significant cost savings, particularly in the area of Resident Engineer and Inspection services, if the two projects were undertaken simultaneously. Based on the assumption that the Graves Creek bridge construction will require three months and- that the Atascadero Creek bridge construction will require four months, and assuming that the bridges were to be constructed concurrently, the savings in inspection fees will be approximately $15,000 . JLWA would be willing to negotiate a reduction in inspection fees if concurrent construction scheduling can be arranged, and if the City and CALTRAN3 will authorize the use of a single Resident Engineer for both projects . Also, as both CALTRANS and the City staff has voiced satisfaction with the past work of Moore and Taber for the completion of the foundation investigations, we have included Moore and Taber in our proposal . However we have determined that a local firm could be employed with a cost savings to the City. If the City will authorize the use of Buena Engineers, a local soils firm, the project fees in our porposal for foundation reports can be further reduced by $2, 530 for the San Andres bridge and by $1, 650 for the Garcia Road bridge. A cost summary showing the various alternatives above is attached to facilitate your analysis of our proposals . Finally, as you know we have in the past included Mr . Harvie Olsen as an Associate for our bridge related work . Mr . Olsen was the County's head Construction Engineer for many years and- oversaw virtually all of the County's wjor construction projects. Because he- lives in Atascadero, we boleive that he would be our logical choice for a Resident Engineer If he is 1329 CHORRO STREET-SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93401-(805)544-4011 available at the time of construction. However, because of the uncertainties of construction scheduling at this time, other staff may be assigned. I hope that you find our proposals acceptal and if you have any questions or comments during your review, please don't hesitate to call . Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Sjxce.rely, V(�/ t- wxpa-,� John L. Wallace, P.E. Principal SUMMARY OF COST ALTERNATIVES SEPARATE - COMBINED LOCAL CONTRACT CONTRACT SOILS FIRM SAN ANDRES AVENUE BRIDGE $65,900 $55,900 $53, 370 GARCIA ROAD BRIDGE $55,620 $50,620 $49,970 ------------------------------------ TOTAL $121,520 $106,520 $102,340 Note: The combined contract option assumes concurrent contract startup Also, the local soils firm (Buena Engineers) asssuaies the previous cost savings from a combined contract i _�LZL_181 IiFh,k M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council Members May 26, 1987 FROM: Michael Shelton City Manager SUBJECT: NORTH COASTAL TRANSIT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION City Council direct staff to prepare a letter : 1) Requesting the North Coastal Transit Joint Powers Authority Agreement be amended to include Atascadero as a Member ; and 2) Requesting the Authority, in recognition of the San Luis Obispo/Atascadero Route, change the title to Central Coast Regional Transit Authority. BACKGROUND Attached is an historical overview of the North Coastal Transit Authority (NCT) from the Fall of 1985, San Luis Obispo Regional Transit System Study, prepared by the San Luis Obispo Area • Coordinating Council (SLOACC) , and San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Agency (RTA) . As you will note, the City is required to fund a portion of NCT (San Luis Obispo to Atascadero route) , as directed by the Area Coordinating Council, but does not have membership in the NCT Joint Powers Authority. City participation in the JPA will enable the City a voice in operational and budget issues, and will enable greater awareness of transportation issues affecting the City. Upon City request, it is expected that an amendment (#4) will be processed, renewing City membership in the Transit Authority. Council will then be requested, at a future meeting, to designate a delegate to serve on the Transit Authority. ALTERNATIVES Council may continue, as at present, as a non-member of the Joint Powers Authority. FISCAL IMPACT Now, the City is required by State Law to utilize Transportation • Development ACT (TDA) Funds, on a priority basis, towards meeting L unmet transportation needs, as determined by the local regional government. Membership in the North Coastal Transit Authority • Joint Powers Authority will enable the City to have a voice in the expenditure of City Transportation Development Act Funds for transit purposes. MS:kv File: MNCT • J } CRGANIZATION a ;here is a variety of different organizational forms for transit systems. Ihe organizational structure may largely be based upon the transit service area, sources of available revenue and the extent of desired representa- tion and contact. The transit systems in this region consist of two primary types: single-entity, self-governed systems and joint powers agencies governed through a cooperative agreement between several govern- mental entities. The following is a listing of the present organizational arrangements for the transit systems in the region. 1. Specialized multi-governed Joint Powers Agencies a. Regional Transit Authority (RTA) operating the Regional Handicapped System, a dial-a-ride system for the handicapped. b. North Coastal Transit (NCT) operating the regional fixed route transit between San Luis Obispo and Atascadero and between San Luis Obispo and the Morro Bay/South Bay areas. C. South County Area Transit System (SCAT) a fixed route system in the Five Cities area. %, 2. Single-entity, self-governed systems. a. San Luis Obispo County Area Transit (SLOCAT) . South Bay Dial-A-Ride . Morro Bay to San Simeon Acres (fixed route) Bay Osos Direct, (South Bay to San Luis Obispo--fixed route V_ b. Atascadero Dial-A-Ride * yam c. Morro Bay Dial-A-Ride k d. San Luis Obispo Transit (fixed route) e. Paso Robles Taxi Subsidy Program The governing structure and organization of each of these systems discussed in detail below. JOINT POWERS AGENCIES Regional Transit Authority (RTA).. The RTA is a region-wide transit authority comprised of the county and the seven cities in the region. A Joint Powers Agreement (JPA), forming the transit authority was executed by all members in 'October, 1978. The stated purpose of the RTA is to own, 1-15 operate and administer a county-wide public transportation system for the handicapped and the general public (on a space available basis). Termed the "Runabout," the system began operation in December, 1979 providing door-to-door county-wide service on a space available basis with four accessible vans. The city of Atascadero entered the JPA in August, 1981. -The RTA has the same membership, staff and representation as the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council, the Regional Transportation Planning Agency for San Luis Obispo County. Its Board of Directors are the same delegates who also serve on the Area Council. Moreover, meetings are conducted as a part of the Area Council's regular meeting with special agenda provisions to conduct ..business of the Authority. Meetings are generally held every other month beginning in January. In May, 1978 the Authority designated the County Engineer as the Regional Transit Manager to "...operate the Authority until a Transit District or new Joint Powers Agreement is created." The County Treasurer was appointed to handle the RTA finances. The JPA requires the Regional Transit Manager to prepare monthly operational reports, an annual report and the annual budget. In addition to identifying all projected costs and expenses, the- budget also apportions the projected costs of the system among all members on a per capita basis. The population ratio used is the same as that used by the Area Council to apportion Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds. The Area Council contracts for the annual fiscal and compliance audit of the operation and of all TDA fundtransactions between the Area Council, all ..member agencies and the RTA. Once every three years the Area Council also contracts for a performance audit of the system as required by the TDA. The original Joint Powers Agreement was developed to provide a comprehensive region-wide transit system. It was subsequently reduced in scope after the Area Council reconsidered its prior Unmet Needs directive for the region-wide transit system. An amendment to the JPA was proposed to again expand the scope of the document to the proposed San Luis Obispo to Atascadero service. The proposed amendment was abandoned after a decision to provide the service using North Coastal Transit. } North Coastal Transit (NCT). In accordance with the Area Council directive (Resolution 78-12), the city of San Luis Obispo entered into a Joint Powers Agreement with the city of Morro Bay and the county to i provide transit services between these cities and the unincorporated community of South Bay. In August, 1979, the San Luis Obispo County Community College District (Cuesta College) entered into the agreement to fund a proportionate share of that portion of the system known as the "Cuesta Shuttle" (Amendment W. The city of Atascadero was subsequently included in the Agreement in April, 1982 (Amendment #2) upon initiation of a pilot transit service operated by NCT between San Luis Obispo and the city of Atascadero. This transit service was found to be a success and became a part of the regional system over the objections of the city of Atascadero. The city subsequently withdrew from NCT in June, 1984 (Amendment #3), but continues to fund their designated share of the service as directed by the Area Council. 1-16 i The NCT Board of Directors consists of one representative from each member agency including Cuesta College. Since their withdrawal in June, 1984, r the city of Atascadero has no representative on the NCT board even though they pay for a third of the Atascadero/San Luis Obispo transit service. Each member agency has one vote and appoints one regular member and an s alternate member to the Board of Directors. Unlike the Regional Transit Authority (RTA), the North Coastal Transit's (NCT) Joint Powers Agreement e (JPA) also allows representatives to either be elected officials, officers e or employees of the member agency. Agency staff acting in this capacity 1 was the norm rather than the exception prior to 1984. e e Appointment to the Board of Directors is at the discretion of the r appointing entity. It has not been the practice of NCT member agencies to s necessarily appoint the same representatives to serve on the governing e boards of the NCT and San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council. Hence, e further coordination and communication is required to educate board n members of the actions, policies and programs of both authorities. 0 r North Coastal Transit's Agreement specifies regular monthly meetings with e the additional provision to ".. .adjourn meetings from time to time. . . ." e and hold special meetings under the provisions. In August, 1985, a e schedule was adopted to provide regularly scheduled quarterly meetings. 1 Similarly to the Regional Transit Authority, North Coastal has appointed a o transit administrator to serve at the pleasure of the Board. The present administrator is a staff member of the city of San Luis Obispo assigned to also administer the municipal transit system. In a like manner, the a treasurer of the system is the city's Finance Manager. n e During the past several years, an average of 2-4 city staff would be d present at NCT meetings; although more recently, staffing has been limited .o to the Transit Coordinator and occasionally a recording secretary. In a addition to member agency staff acting ns governing board delegates during NCT meetings (common practice prior to 1984), usually 3-4 member agency staff attend these meetings in addition to representatives from Caltrans .1 and the Area Council. These same staff also usually attend the RTA's a meetings. The RTA meeting, however, is consolidated into the same agenda .o as that provided before the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council. ,d As in the case of the RTA, the NCT Transit Coordinator is required to prepare an annual budget for governing Board adoption. The NCT's JPA is :t different in that it provides more specificity and/or limitations than the •e RTA's JPA. In addition to specifying procedures and time requirements for t budget adoption, the NCT JPA includes a more specific funding formula for n member contributions. The funding contribution is apportioned by routes. e Routes 8 and 9 provide even one-third splits among participants. Route 7, s on the other hand, considers population of the area served and estimated e daily passenger miles emanating from each members jurisdictions based upon y annual rider surveys. s a 1-17 • Monthly operational reports are prepared and distributed by the transit coordinator. An annual fiscal audit and triennial performance audit is contracted and financed by the Area Council as is the adopted policy for all Transportation Development Act fund claimants. Other provisions of the NCT JPA are similar to the Regional Transit Authority's' JPA with minor differences including: the explicit power to purchase insurance, more specificity on competitive bidding, and a prohibition of entering contracts involving expenditures that exceed 12 months without the written approval of a majority of participating agencies. Although subsequent NCT JPA amendments recognize the withdrawal of Atascadero, the JPA is silent on funding arrangements for the San Luis Obispo to Atascadero transit route. South County Area Transit. A third JPA was formed in February, 1978, between the county and the cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover City and Pismo Beach. The purpose of this JPA is to operate a transit system, the South County Area Transit (SCAT), to serve the above three cities and unincorporated community of Oceano. Service began in June, 1978, with a two-bus, fixed-route, regularly-scheduled service provided by a private contractor. The SCAT is similar to the initial North Coastal Transit JPA with only minor changes. The SCAT JPA does not require periodic operating reports from its operations, although such reports are presently being provided by the contractor. The costs for the system are apportioned on the basis of population as is Lsimilarly provided by the Regional Transit Authority (the Regional Handicapped System). Similarly, the SCAT JPA does not include the more specific restrictions of the NCT JPA that prohibit the execution of contracts involving expenditures which exceed 12 months without the prior written approval of a majority of its member agencies. The city administrator for Grover City serves as the acting administrator of the system, although overall staffing is also shared among the, city " M administrators of Pismo Beach and Arroyo Grande and more recently the F assistant engineer of the county of San Luis Obispo. The bus contractor ;. Rp also attends all SCAT meetings and prepares the monthly operationalr ., reports. Accounting is provided by the city of Arroyo Grande and is administered by the city Finance Manager. The San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council contracts for the annual fiscal audit and recently completed a 5 year transit plan including SCAT's first line item budget. ** The Board of Directors are occasionally represented by agency staff. Meetings are held on an as-needed basis, usually once every 4-6 weeks. The meetings are usually attended by the three city administrators, theui� assistant county engineer (assistant transit manager), the bus contractor, a Caltrans staff member and, depending on the agenda, a staff member of the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council. 1-18 ' ,1N�rl AG-NDA ITEM • M E M O R A N D U M DATE: 5/19/87 TO: City Council VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Mike Hicks, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Weed abatement contract - Bid #87-3 Recommendation: It is my recommendation bid #87-3 be awarded to Property Protection for the city weed abatement contract. Background• Bids for the weed abatement contract were opened 5/4/87 . As . indicated on the attached bid summary sheet, four bids were submitted. Hourly bids ranged from $48 . 00 to $32 .00 for mowing (tractor work) . Bids for hand work (weed-eater) ranged from $24.00 to $12 .00 per hour. For bidding purposes the City was divided into two bid areas, however all bids received included both areas. The low bidder for both areas was Property Protection, with the following bids : Mowing $32 .00 per hour/$16 . 25 per half-hour Handwork $12 . 00 per hour/$6 . 00 per half-hour Property Protection has the equipment and manpower available to complete the program, has done previous weed abatement work for the City of Grover City and received a good recommendation. Due to the above factors, I recommend the bid be awarded to Property Protection. Fiscal Impact None. MIKE HICKS FIRE CHIEF MH:pg t � • L .r•-I Q) q CU �i C� F � U 4-J N O 3 D a-.+ a. O t— CL) U Cl +-J c c® ~ �■I z a Imo. '!!o UJI O1 a` C/) H z Ga q � -f•i i`i >'a f� >� �i �I S-I �-I S-I ��4 a) N N N 0 O N 0 N N Cl) N 0 N 0 N N N w N a s a s w 0404 a a w a s a a a a A4 b a a 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 o u, o o i i o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N o o 0 00 r- -t -It -t O N N N1�0 N %.0 O O 0 't N N '-+ M N N —4 M .--i .--i N —4 C) + L, a a a a M � N 3 z 3 z 3 z 3 z 3 z ON M �t O f. d N .'� a) rn u Cl) m cd • i ON 001 z p - U H � � 0) a� a � 0 <4 as ^ 04 0 aJ �4 m 0) u y0j O $4 CO p .o b ^ O 4) t I m cid H Pa co �+ G co N :j u aJ D, ai m u -Z m N O U 'd 41 U •ri c/1 N b Q ohm m � u aa) J..4 � a CO 'D QJ Q In O - o m P. o m M Q M M N a) N cd cd M 4� p cd cd Ln 41 cn ti � w hr` s a --IEnM � c7Lr, � CITI` OF ATASCADERU v Office of Purchasing Agent P.O. Box 747 , Atascadero , CA 93423 INVITATION, BID AND ACCEPTANCE Bid No. 87-3 Sealed bids , subject to the conditions hereon, will be received at the office of the City Clerk until 3 : 00 o 'clock, P.A. , May 4 , 1987 , and then publicly opened, for furnishing the following services at various locations within the City of Atascadero: t E, WEED ABATEMENT Bidder-Contractor: Address : J �f �Q�otMbtM�. g34o `7 Instructions • You may bid on any one or all of the following items . For the purposes of this project, the City has been divided into two abatement areas . Maps of the bid areas are available at the Fire Department. Detailed information is available from the weed Abatement Officer . It is our desire to have one contractor responsible for all abatement work in each abatement area, but consideration will be given to lowest bids on all items . The contractor must comply with the attached Legal Regulations and Responsibilities . The City reserves the right to reject any or all bids and to waive..any irregularity or informality of any bids to the extent permitted by law. The Fire Chief' , or his authorized representative, may exercise the authority- to reject any work not considered satisfactory. This bid includes both large parcels (tractor work ) and small lots ( hand wort: - weed eater) . The minimum time per job on any parcel or lot will be one-half hour. Please indicate tractor and mower size and type. Recommended equipment for large parcels is two 4-wheel drive tractors ; for small parcels ( hand cork ) is a O- man crew. Part I : Large Parcel : *lowing (one acre or more ) l Tractor with operator 5 r Q per hr 3), 4%/ "1XI S`v S JLi per 1/2 hr Part II : Hand work : Weed-eater ( small lots or lots not accessible with tractor) $ per hr 4 0J A $ 00 per 1/2 hr AANCA WEED ABATEMENT - Instructions ( continued} Bid o . 8'7-3 The Contractor upon being awarded the Abatement contract , shall provide evidence of insurance as per City requirements . He shall provide a camera and all the black and white film needed so as to take a picture of each lot he cleans (before and after work is completed) . The film shall be developed and submitted with the Contractor' s bill for abatement work . Each picture shall be identified by parcel number, date work completed, and operator . If the contractor cannot prove he did the work , then he is to absorb the cost. Include in your bid the cost of the film and film developing for each parcel . LEGAL REGULATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE PUBLIC Contractor's Insurance: The Contractor shall not commence work under this contract until he shall have obtained all insurance required, and such insurance shall have been approved by the City as to form, amount, carrier, nor shall Contractor allow any subcontractor to commence work in his subcontract until similar insurance required of the subcontractor shall have been so obtained and approved. (a) Compensation Insurance: The Contractor shall take out and maintain, during the life of this contract, Worker' s Compensation insurance for all his employees employed at the site of improvement, and in case any work sublet, Contractor shall required subcontractor similarly to provide Worker' s Compensation insurance for all of the latter ' s employees , unless such employees are covered by the protection afforded by the Contractor . Contractor indemnifies City for any damage resulting to it from failure of either Contractor or the subcontractor to take out or maintain such insurance . (b) Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance : The Contractor shall take out and maintain during the life of this contract, such public liability and property damage insurance as shall protect the City, it ' s elective board, officers , agents, and employees , Contractor and any subcontractor performing work covered by this contract from claims for damage for personal injury including death , as well as from claims for property damage which may arise from Contractor' s or subcontractor' s operations under this contract , whether such operations be by the Contractor , or by any subcontractor, or by anyone directly or indirectly employed by either Contractor or subcontractor, and the minimum amounts of such insurance shall be as follows : ( 1 ) Bodily Injury Liability 5500 , 000 . 00 $1 , 000 , 000 . 00 each person each occurrence Property- Damage Liability $250 , 000 . 00 $500 , 000 . 00 -- each person each occurrence WEED ABATEMENT - Instructions (continued ) Bid No . 87-3 ( 2 ) A single limit for Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability combined of - $500 , 000 . 00 each occurrence $1 , 000 , 000 . 00 aggregate ,PROOF OF CARRIAGE OF INSURANCE: CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH THE CITY" OF ATASCADERO, CONCtiRRENTLY WITH THE EXECUTION HEREOF WITH A CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE REQUIRED, WHICH SHALL CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING: "NAME AS ADDITIONAL INSURED PARTIES : CITY OF ATASCADERO ELECTIVE BOARD, OFFICERS , AGENTS AND ANY SUBCONTRACTORS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF WORI{ FOR THE CITY OF ATASCADERO. " THIRTY ( 30 ) DAYS PRIOR NOTICE SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE CITY OF ATASCADERO OF ANY REDUCTION IN INSURANCE COVERAGE OR OF CANCELLATION OF INSURANCE TO THE CITY PURCHASING AGENT: Date: - In ate:_In compliance with the above invitation for bids , and subject to all the conditions thereof, the undersigned offers , and a,rees , if this bid be accepted within days from the date of opening , to furnish any or all of the items upon which prices are quoted, at the price set opposite each item, delivered at the point( s ) as specified and, unless otherwise specified within days after receipt of order. Discount of % will be allowed for payment within 30 days from date of delivery. Bidder By 6t ( Signature of authorized person) Title-J) LAI: ` Address (,W �A -1 IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDER: Bids must be sealed and addressed to: City of Atascadero, City Clerk P.O. Box 747 , Atascadero, CA 93423 • (ONE COPY OF THIS, BID TO BE RETAINED BY BIDDER) WEED ABATEMENT - Instructions (continued ) Bld No . 87-3 ACCEPTED as to items CITY OF ATASCADERO Date by Purchasing Agent V GZAG_N1A MDS k 11 EM �—� • MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Through: Michael Shelton, City Manager From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer G� Subject : Acoustical Engineering Contract—Rotunda Date : May 15, 1987 .Recommendation: (Refer to the attached staff report from the April 28 regular Council Meeting. )/-'I/— (-P. eeting. )( ���� j Backround: Council held this item over for 30 days from the April 28 regular meeting to get some assurance that the expected results will be cost— effective. Discussion: Bruce Walker plans to attend this meeting to get a first-hand (or first—ear) experience of the acoustical problem. Mr. Walker will be available to answer questions regarding his expectations of increased audibility due to the suggested improvements . There was still a chance at this writing that Mr. Walker could be called back east to a Prior tentative commitment in which case he would not be available on the 26th. Recently the City has been approached by the Atascadero Unified School District regarding the future use of their proposed Administration Building. The new facility will have a Board room which will be suitable for holding Council meetings if the City and Schools can agree to a compatible arrangement . No doubt a monetary contribution or lease arrangement will be expected from the City. Regardless of any City/School arrangements, the Council needs to confront the problems with the public address system if the 4th Floor Rotunda is to be used for other meetings such as the Zoological Society meetings. The time frame of any such City/School agreement is also a factor in the solution to the accoustical problems at Council and Planning Commission meetings. Fiscal Impact : • (Refer to the April 28 staff report . ) • MEMORANDUM TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Proposal for Acoustical Consulting Services . DATE: April 22 , 1987 XRecommendation : Staff recommends that Council accept the proposal from Bruce Walker including the final testing and adjustment of the sound system and authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract not to exceed $2500 . Background: At the last regular Council meeting Council authorized the City Manager to obtain a request for proposals from acoustic specialist , Bruce Walker , the engineer that performed the acoustical study of the 4th floor rotunda . Discussion : Attached is a copy of the proposal for the design of the sound system and the acoustical materials and their placement . The proposal also includes the performance of final testing and adjustment of the sound system. This additional work is considered an important phase of the contract and could give the staff a hands-on look at trouble shooting, the equipment . Fiscal Impact : The proposal is on an hourly basis of $65 plus materials with all items except construction supervision not to exceed $2500 . The original estimate on August 21 , 1986 for items 1 thru 4 was $1750 maximum. The 1986-87 budget appropriated $26,000 for such work including design . CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this 28th day of April 19 87 , by and between the CITY OF ATASCADERO, hereinafter referred to as "City", .and Bruce Walker hereinafter referred to as "Consultant". Witnesseth For and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein- contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: Article 1 Authorization A. Consultant will perform this Agreement in conjunction with the Purchase Order issued by the Department of Public Works [City Department] . b. The following exhibits are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as though here fully set- forth. Exhibit "A" - Scope of Services Exhibit "B" - Payment Schedule Exhibit "C" - Subconsultant List - 1 Article 2 Responsibilities of Consultant A. Scope. Consultant will provide the following acoustical consulting services as described herein and under Exhibit "A" for the City project hereinafter described: Acoustical consulting services for the upgrading of the Atascadero City Council Chambers room acoustics and sound reinforcement system. B. Coordination. In the performance of Consul- tant's service under this Agreement, Consultant agrees that he will maintain such coordination with City officials as may be requested and desirable, including primary coordination with the Project Coordinator, herein designated as the Director of Public Works and also with the following City officials: C. Consultant's Services. Insofar as they may be applicable to the project contemplated by this Agreement, Consultant shall render the services and furnish the work tasks as described in Exhibit "A", commencing with receipt of a written Notice to Proceed signed by the Project Coordinator and by the City Manager. Article 3 Responsibilities of City City shall cooperate with Consultant on all phases of the work covered by this Agreement and will make available to him, as his needs indicate, all existing maps, topographic maps, aerial photographs, soils reports, and other similar data in possession of City covering the site as selected. City shall also be responsible for providing such staff production assistance as is specified in Exhibit "A". Article 4 r ; Fee and Provision for Payment c� City will pay Consultant a fee not to exceed $_ 2.500.00 for work contracted in this Agreement and billed for based on the payment schedule in Exhibit "B". Consultant shall be paid no later than thirty (30) days following receipt - by City of Consultant's progress report and invoice. Any additional applicable hourly rate billings as authorized in Article 5 shall be based on the Fee Schedule contained in Exhibit Article 5 Payment for Extra Work or Changes Any claim for payment for extra work or changes in the work will be paid by City only upon certification by the City Manager that the claimed extra work or change was authorized in advance by the Project Coordinator and the City Manager, and that the work has been satisfactorily completed. Claims for such extra work must be submitted by Consultant . within thirty (30) days of completion of such work and must be accompanied by a statement of itemized costs covering said work. Article 6 Suspension or Termination of Agreement A. Suspension of Agreement. If Consultant fails to comply with the conditions of the Agreement, Cit b g Y may, Y written notice of the Project Coordinator and the Citi Y Manager, suspend the Agreement and withhold further payments pending corrective action by Consultant or a decision to � ` terminate the Agreement. After receipt of notice of suspension, Consultant may not incur additional obligations of Agreement funds during the suspension unless specifically authorized by the Project Coordinator and the City Manager. B. Termination for Convenience. Either party hereto shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon giving ten (10) days written notice of such termination to the other party. In the event of the termination of this project in its entirety, notwithstanding any other fee provisions of this Agreement, based upon work accomplished by Consultant prior to notice of such termination, City shall determine the amount of fee to be paid to Consultant for his services based upon the provisions in Exhibit "B", and such findings of City shall be final and conclusive as to the amount of such fee. In the event of termination of any portion of this project, Consultant shall be entitled to the reasonable value of his services involved in the termination, as determined b City, Y, upon a finding which shall be final and conclusive as to the amount of fee due and owing. Article 7 Time of Completion Consultant agrees to diligently pursue his work under this Agreement and to complete the work as described in ~ Exhibit "A" in accordance with the standards of the profession within thirty_ ( 30 ) calendar days of receipt of the Notice to Proceed. Consultant shall not be responsible for any delay which is caused by City review, action or inaction of City and/or any state or federal agency, or acts of God, but shall be responsible for his own fault or negli- gence or that of any of his subcontractors. If the work is not completed by Consultant in the time specified for each item, or within any period of exten- sion authorized in writing by the Project Coordinator, it is understood that City will suffer damages and' Consultant will pay to City, as fixed and liquidated damages (not as a penalty) , the sum of $ -0- for each calendar day of the delay until the work is Completed and accepted. Consultant is liable for the amount thereof, and City -may deduct said sums from any money due or that may become due to Consultant. Article 8 Conflicts of Interest No member, officer, or employee of City, during his or her tenure, or for one (1) year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or. indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof. Article 9 Ownership of Data The ownership of all data collected for use by Consultant under this Agreement, together with working papers, drawings, and other materials necessary for a complete under- standing of the plans and necessary for the practical use of the plans shall be vested in City. Ownership of original drawings and documents shall be vested in City. Consultant may retain a copy of all work for his own use. Article 10 Covenant Against Contingent Fees Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide* employee working solely for him, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for him, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration contingent on or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to annul this Agreement without liability or, in its discretion, to deduct from the contract price or consideration or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage fee, gift, or contingency. Article 11 Contract Personnel The work to be done pursuant to this Agreement shall be done by Bruce Walker , Consulting & Research in Acoustics and such other personnel in the employ or under the supervision of Consultant who shall be approved by City. The City official who shall be vested with the right of approval of such additional personnel or outside contracting parties shall be Public Works'Director. City reserves the right ;to reject any of Consultant's personnel or proposed outside consultants, and City reserves the right to request that acceptable replacement personnel be assigned to the project. Consultant shall provide a list (Exhibit "C") of all other consultants or outside contracting parties. • Article 12 Indlnd=y Clause Consultant shall defend, indemnify, and save harm- less the City of Atascadero, its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, and liabilities arising out of this Agreement or occasioned by the negligent performance or attempted negligent performance of the provisions hereof, including, but not limited to, any negligent act or omission to act on the part of Consultant or his agents or employees or independent contractors directly responsible to him, except that the above shall not apply to the sole negligence or willful misconduct Of City or City's agents, servants, or independent contractors who are directly responsible to City. This indemnification provision shall apply even if there is concurrent or joint negligence of indemnitor and indemnitee, and even if there is active or passive negligence by either or both parties. Article 13 Automobile and Public Liability Insurance. Consultant shall also maintain in full force and effect for the duration of this Agreement, automobile insurance and- public liability insurance with an insurance carrier satisfac- tory to City, which insurance shall include protection against claims arising from personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and damage to property resulting from any actual occurrence arising out of the performance of this Agreement. The amounts of insurance shall be not less than the following: Single limit coverage applying to bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and property damage or a combination thereof in an amount not less than $ 300,000 The following endorsements must be attached to the policy or policies: (1) If the insurance policy covers on an "accident" basis, it must be changed to "occurrence". (2) The policy must cover personal injury as well as bodily injury. (3) Broad form property damage liability must be afforded. (4) The City of Atascadero, its officers, employees, and agents, shall be named as insureds under the Policy, and the policy shall stipulate that the insurance will operate as primary insurance and that no other insurance effected by City will be called upon to contribute to a loss hereunder. (5) The policy shall contain contractual liability, either on a blanket basis or by identifying this Agreement within a contractual liability endorsement. (6) The policy shall contain "cross-liability" such that each insured is covered as if separate policies had been issued to each insured. (7) City shall be given thirty (30) days notice' prior to cancellation or reduction in coverage of the insurance. Article 14 Status Consultant shall, during the entire term of this Agreement, be construed to be an independent contractor, and in no event shall any of his personnel or subcontractors be construed to be employees of City. Article 15 Non-Discrimination Consultant shall comply with the provisions of Presidential Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, and all other orders, regulations, and laws governing non- discrimination in employment, including in particular, Section 122 (a) of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. Article 16 Modification of Agreement This Agreement may be modified only by a written amendment signed by both parties hereto. Article 17 Law Governing This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Article 18 Communications Communications between the parties to this Agreement may be sent to the following addresses: City: CITY OF ATASCADERO 6500 Palma Avenue P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 Attn: Paul Sensibaugh Public Works Director Consultant: 7 "1 O wt S BrUCe Walker, Con-lilting 9 Research in Acoustics 96_ Tr. ,n atP Rnarl #161 , Westlake Village, Ca. 91361 ACCEPTED AND AGREED this gR- day of anri1 , CITY: CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal co �,. p corporation 'p By By MARJORIE R. ACKEY Mayor PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH Public Works Director/Project Coordinator ATTEST: BOYD C. SHA TZ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROV*AORM: MICHAEL SHELI`ON CITY MANAGER F City Attorney JGJ: fr/2/24/87 C:AGATA339 BRUCE WALKER (805) 497-1902 Wc7oniuIting anal =REiEa%c`z in c4coustics 2659 TOWNSGATE ROAD • SUITE 101 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91361 March 4, 1987 Mr. Don Leib City of Atascadero P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 Subject: City Council Chambers - Proposal for Acoustical Consulting Services Dear Mr. Leib: Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal to provide acoustical consulting services for the upgrading of the Atascadero City Council Chambers room acoustics and sound reinforcement system. I have reviewed my files from the measurements taken and recommendations presented last year. Based on those findings, I propose the following: I . Meet with City personnel to discuss operational requirements, equipment budget, design and installation schedule, etc. 2. Design and specify a new loudspeaker system which will provide more uniform coverage of the seating and council desk areas while minimizing excitation of the rever- berant sound field. One important consideration will be architectural integration of the system. 3. Review once again the existing electronic equipment (amplifiers , mixers , equalizers, etc. ) and prepare a specification for additional or replacement equipment where k it is judged necessary for proper operation of the system. We will maintain a close working relationship with City personnel in order to make the most efficient use of existing equipment and to preserve operational priorities. - 4 . Design and specify efficient sound absorbing treatments for applicable room boundaries, so that rever- beration can be more nearly optimized. Again, architectural integration will be an important consideration. Mr. Don Leib Page -2 March 4, 1987 5. Provide ongoing assistance and supervision as required for installation of both the sound reinforcement equipment and the acoustic treatments. 6. Perform final testing and adjustment of the system. This will include equalizer settings for feedback sup- pression and loudspeaker adjustment for optimal uniformity of coverage. We propose to provide the above services on a time and materials basis at a standard rate of $65 per hour. The "not-to-exceed" cost for items 1-4 and 6 will be $2, 500.00. Item 5 would be charged on a straight time and expenses basis. Travel time is charged at $25 per hour. We are prepared to meet any reasonable schedule for completion of this work, and are prepared to begin within two weeks of authorization to proceed. Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information regarding this proposal . I ' ll look forward to working with you again. Sincerely yours, W Bruce Walker, Ph.D. Member, INCE i Exhibit "B" Payment Schedule City will pay Consultant a fixed fee equal to $ for work contracted for in this Agreement when completed and accepted by City, based upon the following disbursement and preliminary project schedule. 'yytt Description Schedule I Complete Amount ` ax S S S S S S S S S TOTAL $ Hourly fee schedule for extra work: - r . Exhibit "C" Subconsultant List N 0 N APPL I CA B L E Name (Firm) : Address: j Telephone: ,, Responsible Individual: �� Project Responsibility: Name (Firm) : Address: Telephone: Responsible Individual: Project Responsibility: Name (Firm) : Address: Telephone: Responsible Individual: Project Responsibility: AAEWI - AGENDA DA i ITEM • MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Through: Michael Shelton, City Manageri1,� , From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Subject: Use of the 4th Floor Rotunda Room for Private Functions Date: May 15, 1987 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the attached rules and fee schedule, edited as necessary, be adopted if Council desires to rent the 4th Floor Rotunda Room to private individuals or groups . Backround: The Committee appointed by Council to address the use of the Rotunda Room by private individuals or groups has discussed such useage at length over the past nine months . The room was used at one time for such functions as dances, weddings and other social activities, however, due to the question of structural safety and fire exposure the use was discontinued a few years ago. Since that time the floor of the room has been made earthquake resistant, but the vertical shafts that present a danger to fire intensity have not been sealed. That work is scheduled but is part of the historical grant project that has been put on hold by the Office of Historical Preservation. Discussion: The County and the City have had both good and bad experiences with the rental of the Rotunda Room in the past, dependent upon the point of view taken. It is acknowledged, however, that alcohol consumption during many of the functions caused a lot of damage and - liability exposure to the governmental agency. The following set of rules and fees is a copy of the Counts Present procedures for renting their facilities . The above committee Proposes to ' use these same rules, with the references changed to reflect the City instead of the County, as a starting point for future functions. The fees circled would be suggested as well as the following regulations: Non-Profit Organizations Only No Alcohol Deposit Required Security Provided where applicahle Limit to 235 Person Occupancy Food OK - Not to be prepared on premise Liability Insurance Required Fiscal Impact : The fiscal impact of this proposal is not known, but is intended to be, at minimum, self-supporting. C1 IC6+\, �. BUILDING USE PERMIT THIS PERMIT MST BE PRESENTED UPON DD" Date: Building: RoaMArea Taken By: Date of Use: Hours of Use: (Includeset-up a clean-up) Organization/Activity: Penin ttee: Phone: Address: ity State Zip Number in group: Department Use Only RESERVATION REQUIR94NTS - OBTAIN ITEMS CHECKED BELOW Sales Permit: Dance Permit: ilea]th Permit: LiquorLicense: SecurityGuards: Fire Marshal Permit: General LiabiTity Insurance: =iquor LiabilityT rance ACMEWT FOR USE OF CUM BUILDINGS We/I hereby accept this Reservation Permit for the use on the date, between the hours and at the facility as sham above and have received, read, understand and agree to abide by the Rules and Regulations as approved by the County Board of Supervisors, and further agree to abide by all applicable Federal, State, County and City ordinances, regulations and laws, and further agree as follows: 1. To be responsible to the County for any damage to equipment or facilities beyond reasonable wear and tear. 2. To defend and save harmless the County, its officers, agents, and employees from any liability arising out of the use of this facility as a result of this use from whatever cause during the term of this Permit. 3. That all fees may be refunded only if reservation is cancelled at least thirty (30) days prior to day of use. 4. That proof of issuance of Liquor License, Health Department Permit, Fire Marshal approval, Security Contract and Certificate of Insurance, as required, will be provided and approved by the County Department of General Ser- vices prior to this permit becoming effective and at least thirty (30) days prior to function. 5. Fees, rules and regulations are subject to change each July 1, as approved by the Board of Supervisors. 6. An overtime fee may be assessed if function continues beyond reserved eight (8) or four (4) hour block of tine in the amount of $15 per hour. All buildings close by 2:00 AM. 7. A $20 reservation fee for the buildings is required within 10 days from date reservation was made. Balance is due at least thirty (30) days before function. 8. If security is required, a security guard must remain on premises until facility is closed and all people are out of the facility. 9. We/I hereby acknowledge that we/I have read and understand the rules and regulations as set forth in Exhibit Initial. MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, RM. 460 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93408 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Will you be selling food/beverages?— YES C NO C ] Will you be using sound arrp. equipment? YES C 7 NO [ ] Will you be serving or furnishing food? YES C ] NO C ] Will you be charging admission? YES [ ] NO ] 'Will you be selling alcoholic beverages? YES C ] NO [ ] Will this be open to the public? YES C ] NO [ ] (Mist be 21 or over) If yes, permit is required. Will you be serving alcohol? YES [ ] NO [ 7 Signature: Address Date: Drivers License: PLEASE SIGN AND RETURN THE YELLOW AND PINK COPY WITH YOUR PAYMENT. THANK YOU kph r'' jan/2799w/PMA1 .•..tet�+, 0 EIQiIBIT "A" RULES MD REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF COUNTY COW LAITY AND VETT3M BUILDINGS All persons or groups requesting to use County Connmity buildings and Veterans buildings must first obtain a license for that use from the County of San Luis Obispo, Department of General Services, hereinafter called "Courrty". By accepting said license, that person or group, hereinafter called "licensee", agrees to faithfully apply with the following terns and conditions: 1. Licensee will have the right to use those areas, between those times and for the rate as shown on the County license. County is under no obligation to allow the use of additional areas to Licensee, nor, unless previously arranged, provide Licensee with the exclusive use of the subject building. A cleaning and damage deposit may be required. Such deposits shall be payable at the same time as the fees provided herein. Appropriate refund shall be made after inspection and corrective action, if required, has been taken. Refunds will be processed within thirty (30) days. - There will be no refund of fees for a cancellation less than thirty (30) days from date of function. However, a refund may be made by the County if the building, or reserved area thereof, is rented to another party for the previously reserved but cancelled time. 2. All reservations for the use of the subject building shall be made and confirmed through the: DEPARTMX17 OF GEWRAL SERVICES RESERVATIONS CLERK COUNTY GOVSHIENT CENTER SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93408 (805) 549-5219 Reservations must be paid for at least thirty (30) days in advance at the Department of General Services. In the event that conflicting requests for facility use are made by two or more parties, priority shall be determined on the basis of full payment of fee first received. The number of advance reservations by arty particular individual, group, or organization nqy be limited wieh such is in the public interest. All functions taking place within the subject building shall cease by 12:00 midnight except by prior approval. 3. Licensee may be held personally responsible and accountable for the condition of the building and actions of attendees, whether invited or not, and for any damage caused by attendees, during Licensee's function. IfLi is a group or organization, a single person must be named as the responsible party for that groups' or organ s' function. All minors, entering subject building as a result of Licensee's use, shall be kept under di . ., and immediate supervision and control by Licensee. 4. Licensee hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and save harmless the County and its officers, agents and employees, in any and every way from any and all manner of damages, charges, suits and expenses which they may sustain or be put to reason by a Licensee's occupancy or use of subject building, br arty activity carried on by Licensee in correction therewi th. 5. Rates for the use of subject building as set by the County Board of Supervisors shall be available for inspection at the offices of the County DeparbTent of General Services. County Board of Supervisors reserved the right to modify those rates and/or dawid deposits, based on Licensee's proposed use. 6. County shall provide a Building Attendant, during Licensee's occupancy of subject building, to assist in Licensee's use of the Building. Building Attendant will lock and unlock subject building. Licensee will not be given a key. Building Attendant is not responsible for the collection of fees or returning of deposits paid. Building Attendant will not be responsible for setting up tables or chairs, moving furniture or equipment, or cleaning up after LicenseesTfunction. Set-up and clean-up is the responsibility of the Licensee. 7. Licensee shall have the right to inspect subject building prior to function in the campary of Building Attendant and submit to same a list of deficiencies for which Licensee does not wish to be held accountable. Failure by Licensee to request said inspection shall, in itself, constitute an ackncwledgrent that the subject building is in good condition. Ary deficiencies or damage, which are in evidence upon completion of Licensee's function, and for which Licensee may reasonably be held accountable, shall become Licensee'sresponsibility. Licensee shall have the right, at the end of Licensees' function, to re-inspect subject building in the company of Building Attendant, to discuss specific deficiencies and damages, if any, for which Licensee will be held accountable. 8. Licensee shall leave subject building in as clean and neat a condition as was received, subject to the discretion of the Building Attendant. Said condition will include, but is not limited to, the following: A. Proper storing of all tables, chairs. etc. B. Replacement of any furniture moved or relocated. C. Removal of all trash and garbage to proper container as directed by Building Attendant. D. Cleaning of all kitchen equipment and utensils used if any. County does not guarantee the fact that said kitchen equipent and utensils are sanitary and clean prior to use. It will be the responsibility of Liscensee to inspect said equipment and utensils prior to use. E. Sweeping and/or vacuuming of all floors. Floors need not be mopped or cleaned by Licensee except in the case of ex`essi,e use. Licensee shall be held responsible for ary cleaning or excessive cleaning resulting fron use. Licensee shall allow agile tine for cleaning of the building during the hours it is reserved. Licensee be :hanged by the hour for any holding over of time beyond the tine reserved, %fetter for continuing the fundi or _ :leaning, at the current rate approved by the Board of Supervisors. Shculd Licensee wish to return after the function is complete for the purpose of cleaning, arrarrgatmertts should be ode at the ti-1e of reservation to avoid conflict witn another function. Should Licensee fail to return to clean s:nject building within ore Lire allawd, Count] reserves the right to clean said space and bill Licensee for actual ` .usts. Said cleaning by Cc:nty will be based on current rate of labor plus overtead and supplies. 9. G=77V reserves the right to re-assign areas used, if necessary, to provide for the maximum use of the xui)ding. 10. County reserves the right, at County's sole discretion, to require that property damage and liability insurance running County as insured, be provided by Licensee, at Licensee's sole cost and expense, at such limits as set by the County Insurance Manager. 11. Exhibits and decorations must be approved by the Building Attendant prior to installation. At no time may _icensee nail, staple, tape, or glue decorations to ceiling, walls, painted surfaces, fabrics, or floors. All iecorations nest be flame proof in accordance with local fire regulations. Permission to place signs on the exterior pf the building nust be obtained in advance fran the Building Attendant. 12. County reserves the right, through its Building Attendant to regulate the use of equipnent, devices, or rctivities which Building Attendant dearrs unsafe or which niay constitute a hazard to Licensee or other users of premises, including but not limited to: A. Keeping access ways free of obstructions. B. The covering or bridging of exposed wiring, piping or conduit used for supplying electrical service. Thermostats and fuses shall not be tanpered with. In the event of any difficulties with thermostats or fuses, _icensee shall immediately notify Building Attendant. Licensee shall not rerove equipment or furnishings fran the building. Licensee acknowledges liability for the Jestruction or removal of equipment and furnishings during the period of Licensee's use of the premises. Regalia and paraphernalia of organizations Boom shall be kept in a neat and orderly manner. 13. The sale or consurption of alcoholic beverages is hereby prohibited unless permission is specifically granted, in advance, by County. Any sale and/or consurption of alcoholic beverages shall be subject to the rules and ^egulations of the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. Proof of application for an alcohol beverage control permit must be submitted to the County prior to the function. The County reserves the right to charge an additional fee when allowing the sale of alcoholic beverages at the subject building. 14. Licensee shall bear full responsibility for obtaining any and all permits and clearances necessary to hold the proposed function, including, but not limited to, the following: A. Health Permit- When offering food for sale. B. Alcohol Use Permit-As noted in paragraph 13 C. City and/or County Permit for dances, concerts and other applicable functions. D. Fire Marshal clearance. E. Liability Insurance naming County an additional insured. Proof of receipt of proper clearances must be received by the Deparbrent of General Services at least thirty (30) Jays prior to function. Any requirenents for inspections, security officers, or Fire Marshals shall be the sole ,esponsibility of Licensee. Licensee shall determine if a City Business License is required for function and apply for said license, if required, at the City Were the building is located. Licensee nest provide County with a copy of license, executed py the City prior to date of function. 15. At any large gatherings, Licensee may be required to provide, at no cost to County, a Deputy Fire Marshal to assure carpliance with local fire safety ordinances. At no tirrre shall Licensee allow function to exceed posted roan occupancy levels without waiver frau Fire Marshal. Licensee acknowledges responsibility for carplete security in the subject building during Licensee's occupancy. At any function in which the Licensee conducts a public dance, or any dance where teenagers are in attendance, _icensee shall provide, at no cost to the County, adequate security protection. Said protection shall include, but shall not be limited to, at least two uniformed peace officers in attendance at and during the entire duration of any said activity. 16. Licensee agrees and promises that it will carply with and observe all applicable statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations, of the Federal, State, Municipal, County or other public authority. 11. Violation of any of the rules contained herein by Licensee shall be sufficient cause for the County to terminate existing license and refuse any future requests for a license and shall further be sufficient cause to derd _icensee any future use of the facilities. 18. Nothing contained in these rules shall be deared or construed in any way to create an interest in real property or in the facility of the Licensee, not to limit the County's authority to exercise any rirght or power :orcerning the utilization of the building. Every use of the building shall be subordinate to the County s use during tines of election, veterans use (where applicable), national or local emergency, or at arty other time when, pursuant to law, such use of the building is required. ' 19. County reserves the right to make and Licensee agrees to abide by such rules and regulations, which fran time to time, shal-1 be necessary to protect take subject building, or the health, safety or rRlfare of its users. 20. All users, including both private..and goverYrrnntal users of the Veterans and Co munity Buildings, will pay the standard rates approved by the Board of Supervisors with the following exceptions: A. Veteran organizations will be exerrpt fran charges for their neetings, not to exceed two (2) meetings per :alendar rronth. B. County General Fund functions will have free use. However, free user will provide their aom staff to set pp, take down and clean buildings, or reinburse the Departrrent of General Services for actual costs for doing sane. C. County Board of Supervisors, approved advisory councils, ad hoc ca=ttees and special district boards are Jot required to pay fees. Non-general fund County, State and Federally funded programs will be required to pay. D. The County Library, a ron general fund County Deparb,&,t, will be allowed free use of the County Regional :enter for special functions, and the Cayucos Veterans' Building for library use and/or special functions. County _ibrary shall reinturse Depart:ent of General Services for any actual costs incurred as a result of said use, p including excess utility, janitorial and overt d expenses, if any. Special functions will not exceed four (4) in wt er per calendar year without prior approval of Board of Supervisors. County Library Director my additionally reserve a Veterans or Carunity Building for one annual book sale. Reservations for said special functions will be on r space available basis. 21. Priority will be given to the paid user. Free use will be on an "as available" basis. Ary free use function where tickets for entry or food and drink is sold will require pAWmt. 22. A Use Permit may be negotiated and issued to a Licensee in the case of heavy use over a period of several ionths for a particular building. Said Use Penrrit to be approved by the Board of Supervisors. 23. Ary exceptions to fees beyond those stated should be requested in writing and submitted to the Director, )eparbrent of General Services. The Director will accept or reject each request on a case by case basis. Decisions rf Director may be appealed to the County Board of Supervisors. I have read, understood and will carply with the above stated Rules and Regulations. ;IGN D: DATED: it/jan/1667p/PM#1 r " j 4- 0 0 i N O L L L N LAW L � v m L N N L d dIA 7 _ O N >r 0 Y Y- 7 0 m 1T1 Y r C C 1 ^ d C L O ` S O O O O S S S S S OO to S SOS >I 7 OC Y m O to O O u•1 0 L O 0 O01!1 N ON CA O to C C7 M Cl)Ln Ln r,1l1 N Ln rr-.- ct CO CO 7 L r N v M .- .- O U N t Y _ N /p n N N e G CA U d > - 4J Ip 61 0 L u r V L N Y _ L d C E 4 Y > H L Y 7U O m d L m 1 C L Y b 10 L L m Y U U L N d A 7 d n N•.U- u NI OE > N V N L V'N p 1 v Y O u X C Y q d O C L n v v L >>d C L W C t9 i� w a m L r N w CO-.L - m O O L N v tff G O N >r L1 410 L Y V- OM N N c -----�— " u Ou 6/l4 O O O 0000 001 N > Y O O S O O 0 00 O t[1 O L L U p O •C)0 C;0 0 0 N 0� w In '•••i sJ M In In n IA M r-r• r•N - L L r My y 7 Y O Ip N L N O. d d Y co C N c.7 •- N .. •� N p i O q N V N i m Y L C L 7 10 L C N L C/ O O 0 c a :n E _ -C L m N p C L L L CO \ d V l0 1 O �O UJ G d 1041kA COV X. N CLM V) N OI U In C Y p d 2 d QO p C C W L. L �•-1 C C C p O.d CD vJ L 40- m Oq Y O N r N m O 6 G 7 m Y co C 1p L L v0—M 0 _ �•• A m Y J L N Q/ � y Y QC1 C Y r C N w Y t O r y/ N .•• 1 E G7 M C= =p T�[ Y L L Y C O C 10 ^ G1 L N O V Y O T b m N C m•.- r O r• (U N N in N O Y 4- C Or• r K r• L Ili .; �+ w m•r a 10 \ A n OL N U ••2 4m2 N W 1 m O m m tJ C7 6 U =Y .M C/ C m L U Gl O N N _ m C C v O O v Y r 11 N C C C A L U 4. r-.- C =C N r• O•r ^•r v 4J C 10 q• 2 2 C C Y C 10 r• T• 10 _ N E L N b •7 S23 W W mmN 0 LS to LfOE V d E L J Y Y mL C C L d L N 7 N IV O N C C 41 L L C U•r .- U U Y C•U O 3L, U N m Y C - V m m:1 C C Y d Y U•r C1 2 p 10 N N A q u••- '- O•r r Ql•r O b n N M L ll V ? N 2�_I OC d'JY Om le C0 Y.JE N at m jjjiE ;N G AGENDA • WT-7 , S/Z(a 7l7CPY1 D-3 M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council Members May 26, 1987 FROM: Michael Shelton Get City Manager SUBJECT: COMMITTEE STATUS REPORT —ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS STUDY PROPOSALS RECOMMENDATION City Council hold a Special Study Session: 1. To review recommendations of sub-committee to appoint a con- sulting firm to perform an Economic Development Analysis Study. 2. To consider continued City participation in City/BIA/Chamber of Commerce Committee. BACKGROUND Per the General Plan Work Program and recommendation of the BIA/ City/Chamber of Commerce Committee, at the March 10, 1987 City Council Meeting, Council authorized staff to solicit proposals for an Economic Base Analysis Study. Accordingly, Requests for Proposals were transmitted to nine potential firms, of which seven submitted proposals prior to the April 27, 1987 deadline. At the April 24, 1987 BIA/City/Chamber of Commerce Committee Meeting, the committee established a process to review the proposals to report back to the committee on May 15, 1987 in order to formulate a recommendation for Council. At the May 15, 1987 committee meeting, considerable discussion ensued as to broadening the proposal selection committee, reviewing further the scope of services, and pros and cons of the recommended firm of ERA. A unanimous consensus was not obtained. Staff feels it important that the selection process be open to interested . groups allowing broadbased participation in an effort to promote information and understanding. It is also important that the firm address a scope of services that meets the needs of the community, and that the firm selected bring a solid technical and experienced background to the City. Due to the lack of consensus at the meeting, staff recommends a study session be held by Council to review the study purposes, scope of services, and provide direction for selection of con- sultant. If Council desires, this meeting can be held prior to the next regularly scheduled Council Meeting of June 9, 1987 at 6:30 p.m. Council may also want to discuss further needs for City • participaton in the City/BIA/Chamber of Commerce Committee. ALTERNATIVES 1: Council may accept recommendations of sub-committee and award study to ERA. 2. Council may serve as a screening committee, review all appli- cations, and make a selection. 3.' Council may reject all proposals. FISCAL IMPACTS Proposal costs range from $20 ,000 to $50,000. MS:kv File: Mecoanal CC: MAGGIE RICE, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE KIRK PEARSON, BIA . " N J NDA syr a•'�=` i � �! r MEMORANDUM 49- i •� •r*.i•'[ i 'i ro _ aka �' k TO City Council March ` 10, ,1987 ' `14a} VIA Michael Shelton, City Manager :[ �%ifl'.+'t'•t Y,.t t t ! ' ,tk". r . j ` � Y�„��+Fr rr s'' i` Yf�d�5-it 'FROM: Henry Engen,''Community Development Directorrt�> Dave Jorgensen, `Administrative Services Director { Y , "' � :i :1 S fS;.nS,. .. ',G�`:. i .. . .'� lj.+;.' ...„ate' v:'. ,h -Lt� l"�. Y,a"4.."q���� • .'4tSUBJECT• Request to Seek Proposals Economic Base .Analysis, ka City of Atascaderor � .t;y !• A '7' k.q 7 n BACKGROUND. 6 'g' J�p �-.✓ : �+tl�•j�� .r h 'f � n. t r'� �t4+- �q�rk� Vy` '1i`Y�..\ The City+'_s General Plan Work Program states` the` need-"for '!Ari Eco - knomic Base Analysis . to provide direction for .a strategy for, ;the ' future" .r,a ; The. =*City ; has =also Mbeen ;:workingwitlthe� a BIA/City%Chamber �Of Commerce 'Committee towards `downtown 'revitali-: zation. The attached draft "Request For Proposal" was `"endorsed r,� Eby ',said .:committee `""at y .-their meeting of. March 4'; 1987, to. 1.,, j ,` • :provide for -'an overall evaluation `of ;'the City' secoriomic sbase, 2. aceto make recommendations on the economic role of the "down- � . town' area as a basis for preparing a future downtown plan. : r• ,�yJs',t'��4 t Ms " t F wY � '§ `. 4 #�c .,•� ti. � 3 r i r�. -s a } , ,. a !,t 4 �,�• .d e. vF Ys 4;c 2 s t r s f'. *. a 4N ° "� `" { FISCAL IMPACT: r y r r� � � +' _ d ♦ a i=4,'T�r�`'y *w y s 'x:�,Z}l�1':;f. ,+.:;v� ;v"{•}a i,:� ;,C�� �..s..i �k ..N::'",�u�,..,1`!�u c,a�}.3� �"i'i u.$ '�.r- = -`rr,(`'4 t 7�3.w' �a ,,,ft��` ` ° tkw�N� '�' t `�,`. �f �'�:�:a`bTxzpy j;er _Y1 � .cAs part of this year 's budget, some $50,000 was set aside • for -e redevelopment contingency monies, and an additional $50,000 fore f Y ' >-Phase I of General Plan Update. The latter has been utilized ' to r employ interns and contract planners, but will not be fully ex- pended proposed 7 sa pended by of fiscal year. It is that the '`:cost for ' 3` the Economic Base Analysis be funded out of both of these. ;author- {qf : h;..ized budget accounts. The "amount would be' determined on ' the = Y >� basis of the proposal selected, which would be a Council decision � w n ~ "based on "evaluation of all the proposals. w ,F etP •r R`°+i w.., Zt+,�tt -:t 'k-'+'? c'z 4 1 - > - 7 H ”' .-> ,- 3.F'�} 5, 'L }}.yy (( .t � ro ,6r; � _R �!" —>N.Y.•'. �.�:,'a` - -f'-..+ f ..: k rFT�+ "kY - 1 f(.S' 'T Ys_a�,� t #dx .yAr. .:! r•' d4ttP .`" $k RECOMMENDATION $ , a -.- :. : -.; . .+- .` -r:;• ..'. . . '« � •mss s'^•-�` .,.f F y,.'�k�YY�q Authorize staff to solicit proposals 'for an Economic Base Analy- � ruY ;sis (see attached draft) . ` Following t4:Le evaluation of -the .:pro- posals, it would be brought back to the Council for formal budget ` 3 , action on selection of a consultant. }L k k x q z i etiyw �7 ""h R L , -% . _.. - .•r' ,� i!* �> �N.:s; - :' k f� i ! y t +,-',9i��ka'?�{z#.r '�y,:r{vaz+4�l�r.":t" }� r't > "3 �`5� ♦ 'k f1 yl+ p r"f 5 t tr 3f S kyr f 3 4 x #�a i t r1 r -f ', J. cc Maggie Rice, ' Chamber of Commerce } Kirk Pierson, Business Improvement Area !q ` nMf _,+� Jerr Bond Chairman, Planning Y . Commission 5 =/ $ q k M 4 k{ :.. +J+k LM •y2 ,F•.R G Z t T{r1v� "`M'•A{ s�rk�a*'f N%_ „ Enclosures Draft Request for 'Proposal = s' �'�. ��_��� ""*2° '�� y Y v 'C;uv� .� :5�.+ 4 �' Y, - . x m:-f . r��j'�.�.`�t � `��` +'A+r+e•4 e� `'�� x x, d¢ .3.`R'y �` r, � ."� � '' t tr#` '�i a'7 nt Yo- tr c .7 �''� �° �T•e`a' -'g. �x� W,: . ;:s.f�d,�# 1 C3`- �C q}f j rV� ��i� .Y �.� � Y �',• q l.q} :f S•'•1y' ..,,yyttr,�c. a 417 ��!R 6 (s�' Y tsk qT w 1 6«ir!t l `�"�` j?*�s y l�. �,. F`x ,4 r f' � ^�'f��•r v"•• a y?^kl'r iik'r 4'''°y rr L �,y.' s. t :'r at'� 3'. �Z. � :=�' ?+'+• s'� ;,,eek i� � �a ,e-.� rkw _..-'xnK r3�t�` ed r'.i"�#3 't.`4`�� _a .K,�,d`�dfsfs 4 ;.E'a ''F`ftY„{F,.� 'Tyt�' ,.; s D R A F T S:/./87) 3 a (Consultant Address) z, j is l W I y11 1 r„+ ff SUBJECT �, Request” for Proposal Economic B � �Il � City of Atascadero 'y • � !`gy p'„.1 r 'v H �.9' i k`. +1>�i ?i ” k f j�4"�'^) q \ 2'Y.,,y'.. } � M ." 3 * N �s`*�4, k M Dear Consultant• '° 3we i,You are"'invited oto submit a proposal to �thez to prepare P P �an economic base analysis for 'tf' fco=mn� # � . n providing direction for downtown revitali 'Yra y ,t r! y ,. �tS'R,he Citi41 �,. '� ",y, y ;is an the ,process of updating ;,.the i1 work program "'states �the `need for an econam ' n ; t r, provide directionfor .a strategy for :the ,futUM.. � { een; ;working` with , °the "9;Chamber of Commero � rI1 t �. r rH? Business Improvement Association fOXIMed (represents tf e, Y' `` ` (see attached map) towards revitalization of tae T F Despite strong residential construction row ' " 9 , a notable lag in retail sales trends which ham Uezm W arm at the City and its business community. The City., s ° 24 square ',.miles r _ and :-was .pre-subdi.vid1nZ RUMuWn& r , a , utopian master plan in 1914 ' . - ". ... ,f-. �k( Ni ., ., i .•� Y .� M^'�.yM#.1 Y SM"� l-t4'�Ctr f. Z ..L Y y,�.. Views are mixed as to 'whether ` redevelopment iIIIA , downtown. ..The :,Cityrecognizes the need t7j) bility ,for downtown revitalization, `prepare a second economic analysis,`` and to then deterwime BE is the "appropriate mint pp priate tool for implementing the pl��n., Yourproposal should be submitted to the Canmt , yrN)VTnt Department no later than 5:00 p.m. on , Please include an "estimated time frame for c a�3 rn„ air znn f =r istrative draft report, and final draft :tcrpEejFjiL"jam imft-, �a^yy 4 TY A `ri TV� cation>of the 'principal rep�;. sentative who woaiIla n�ac�xm� ble " o for directing the work and presentation to cii-e� �n�3 � its Advisory Agencies. Sincerely y. n s Henryn Y gen Community Development Director r r � 'f >,! "�`••� .;�' i r 'rr ' p e[xy d, c15'kyd'ak?rt 'y` .3` ; }w'eh.": z L' r,r+' d t 1 s, f`?1 Enc. Work Proram: � �� a� sx Boundary Map FileBIAMIN ,k� < , 4 � " t ,' ir� xr i Wmar WORK PROGRAM ECONOMIC BASE ANALYSIS CITY OF ATASCADERO PURPOSE The purpose of the study is to provide an overall evaluation of the City of Atascadero' s economic base. Analysis and recommen- dations derived from overall evaluation of the City' s market area should be followed by recommended strategies for the future, including specific recommendations for revisions to General Plan Policies with respect to long-range growth objectives. Within the context of the overall evaluation, the study will also recommend an optimum economic strategy for the downtown area. It will provide the basis for subsequent preparation of a master plan for the downtown area. STUDY OUTLINE A. Inventory 1. Trade Area Definition - Examine past and present growth trends in the Atascadero market area, in the con- text of the overall region. 2. Population - Evaluate existing demographics and projec- tions of population. 3. Retail Sales - Evaluate existing retail sales, sales tax data, and other available data in relation to market area population growth and income potential. 4. Employment Evaluate existing data with respect to existing and projected employment levels, including industrial job potential. 5. Existing Land Use - Evaluate existing data with respect to land use patterns and vacant land inventory. B. Analysis 1. Attitude Surveys - Review previous attitude surveys compiled by the Chamber of Commerce and California Polytechnic State University with respect to shopping patterns, desires, etc. r 2. Planning Policies - Evaluate existing General Plan and zoning policies in relation to contemporary economic development standards. C. Recommendations 1. General Plan/Zoning - Based on analysis of the City' s current economic development strategies, offer specific proposals to redefine General Plan policies. Proposed General Plan language should be drafted for City consideration to incorporate into it's General Plan. It should be predicated on evaluation of the City' s potential for tourism, specific categories of retail and service activities, office uses, and industry. 2. Downtown Development Strategy - Provide recommendations as to the optimum economic role of the downtown area within the context of overall strategies noted above. The general scale of proposed land area needed to accomo- date the extent of economic activities proposed will be provided together with steps recommended to implement such a strategy. MEETINGS City staff will coordinate appropriate meetings with the Chamber of Commerce, Business Improvement Association, Planning Commission and City Council prior to preparation of an administrative draft report. There will be a min- imum of two (2) such meetings together with one (1) meet- ing to present the final report to the City Council and Planning Commission. REPORTS Thirty (30) copies of the administrative draft report and one hundred (100) copies of the final report will be required. The final report will be based on the Consultant' s professional evaluation of input received in review of the administrative draft. _ :.yPRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE/Ea?PERIENCE Indicate the principal representative from the consult- ing firm together with others assigned to the work. The consultant' s experience in similar communities should be cited together with examples of work testifying to the credibility of the firm' s economic analysis to both public agencies and the private sector. FEES - Proposals should indicate a lump sum figure or upset price for the work cited together with `f costs of unforeseen study activities (e.g. additional meetings, report copies, etc.) TIME SCHEDULE .Indicate the time line for completion of the work. 5 fe M E M O R A N D U M RE-: C I , TO: B. I.A./City/Chamber Committee MAY 1 X198/ May 13, 1987 FROM: Henry Engen �� C1T'\1' AIC«L� Community Development Director RE: ECONOMIC BASE ANALYSIS AND DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PROPOSALS BACKGROUND: At the April 24th meeting, the committee established a process for recommending a consultant to prepare the Economic Base Study for the City with a focus on downtown revitalization opportunities. (See attached March 26, 1987 request for proposal sent to nine consulting firms.) Subsequently, a screening committee comprised of Eric Hagen, Robert Nimmo, David Jorgensen, and myself met on May 8, 1987 to review the seven responses (refer to attached RFP analysis) . It was the unani- mous conclusion of the committee to concentrate on doing a background evaluation on Economic Research Associates (see attached proposal) , and to negotiate with them in terms of possibly reducing costs ($49,040) and the overall time frame (7 months) . They had the most thorough proposal with the most extensive background in serving both public and private clients. BACKGROUND EVALUATION: Since the meeting on May 8th, I have contacted individuals who have employed Economic Research Assocites including persons not specifi- cally listed as a reference. A summary of comments received on the firm in general and the specific individuals who would represent the firm are as follows: "Outstanding, we utilized the firm for 1 1/2 years. " "They hired a good employee from us, and if you have him and Dave Wilcox, you will ,have an especially effective team. " "The work was always submitted on time, they did a fine job, and were very effective meeting with merchant groups. " "They were easy to work with-. . . .The emphasis of the study was on hotel and tourism potential and advisability of annexing a large area. . . .We were very pleased with their work, they gave us a good balance between fiscal and environmental impacts, and as a result, the annexation proposal was rejected as being negative to the City' s cash flow. " r, Economic Base Analysis & Downtown Revitalization Proposals "I worked with Dave Wilcox. . . .Ours is a built-out town seeking help with the downtown area; they have a good reputation and wele had no problems with ERA; they were on time and good with the cit- izens advisory and economic development groups. . . .They handled issues well at public meetings. " "You are not going to find any skeletons in ERA' s closet. " "They are a great firm. WORK PROGRAM REFINEMENT: In reviewing ERA' s proposed scope of work, it appeared that the major negative was a -seven (7) month time frame. It was determined that .,; some data details might not be necessary. I have talked with their _ staff, who are in the process of preparing an adjustment that will result in less costs ($45,740) and a time frame of 5 months. This modification to the proposed work program will be distributed May 15. In addition to an excellent proposal, the firm does not have any built-in bias in favor or against redevelopment as a possible tool for meeting community revitalization objectives. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council that the firm of Economic Research Associates (ERA) be selected to undertake the Economic Base Analysis and Downtown Revitalization Evaluation called for in the request for proposals. HE:ps Enclosures: March 27, 1987 Request for Proposals and Work Program Economic Base RFP Analysis April 24, 1987 ERA Proposal Background of Firm Materials File: biamemo 2 s 13 2, s?`wCF�4 .4. AIv)Zcs 477O-Z;; 3. 6AV6 t a�ssQc . -- 4. 7w E &a anter Goa�,o March 26, 1987 r�. A40p it/J ���• L'aN, I �Sd'dG . �• Z�tiy� ,oSsaG, SUBJECT: Request for Proposal - Economic Base Analysis City of Atascadero Dear Consultant: You are invited to submit a proposal to the City of Atascadero to pre- pare an economic base analysis for the City with a focus on providing direction for downtown revitalization. The City is in the process of updating the General Plan whose work program states the need for an "economic base analysis to provide di- rection for a strategy for the future. " We have also been working with the Chamber of Commerce and a newly formed Business Improvement Association representing the downtown area (see attached map) towards revitalization of -the downtown area. Despite strong residential construction growth, there has been a not- able lag in retail sales trends which has been a concern to the City and its business community. The City encompasses over 24 square miles and was pre-subdivided pursuant to a utopian master plan in 1914. - Views are mixed as to whether redevelopment should be pursued down- town. The City recognizes the need to examine the feasibility for downtown revitalization, prepare a plan based on a sound economic analysis, and to then determine.. if redevelopment is the appropriate tool for implementing the plan. Your proposal should be submitted to the Community Development Depart- ment no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 27, 1987. z Request for Proposal - Economic Base Analysis City of Atascadero Page Two Please include an estimated time frame for completion, together with an indication of the principal representative who would be responsible for directing the work and making presentations to the City Council and its Advisory Agencies. Sincerely, Henry Engen Community Development Director City of Atascadero HE:ph Enclosures: Work Program Boundary Map ,N WORK PROGRAM ECONOMIC BASE ANALYSIS CITY OF ATASCADERO PURPOSE The purpose of the study is to provide an overall evaluation of the City of Atascadero's economic base. Analysis and recommen- dations derived from overall evaluation of the City' s market area should be followed by recommended strategies for the future, including specific recommendations for revisions to General Plan Policies with respect to long-range growth objectives. a Within the context of the overall evaluation, the study will also recommend an optimum economic strategy for the downtown area. It will provide the basis for subsequent preparation of a master plan for the downtown area. STUDY OUTLINE A. Inventory 1. Trade Area Definition - Examine past and present growth trends in the Atascadero market area, in the con- text of the overall region. 2. Population -" Evaluate existing demographics and projec- tions of population. 3. Retail Sales - Evaluate existing retail sales, sales tax data, and other available data in relation to market area Population growth and income potential. 4. Employment - Evaluate existing data with respect to existing and projected employment levels, including industrial job potential. 5. Existing Land Use - Evaluate existing data with respect to land use patterns and vacant land inventory. B. Analysis 1. Attitude Surveys - Review previous attitude surveys compiled by the Chamber of Commerce and California Polytechnic State University with respect to shopping patterns, desires, etc. 0 2. Planning Policies - Evaluate existing General Plan and zoning policies in relation to contemporary economic development standards. C. Recommendations 1. General Plan/Zoning - Based on analysis of the City' s current economic development strategies, offer specific proposals to redefine General Plan policies. Proposed General Plan language should be drafted for City consideration to incorporate into it's General Plan. It should be predicated on evaluation of the City' s potential for tourism, specific categories of retail And service activities, office uses, and industry. 2. Downtown Development Strategy - Provide recommendations as to the optimum economic role of the downtown area within the context of overall strategies noted above. The general scale of proposed land area needed to accomo- date the extent of economic activities proposed will be provided together with steps recommended to implement such a strategy. MEETINGS City staff will coordinate appropriate meetings with the Chamber of Commerce, Business Improvement Association, Planning Commission and City Council prior to preparation of an administrative draft report. There will be a min- imum of two (2) such meetings together with one (1) meet- ing to present the final report to the City Council and Planning Commission. REPORTS Thirty (30) copies of the administrative draft report and one hundred (100) copies of the final report will be required. The final report will be based on the Consultant' s professional evaluation of input received in review of the administrative draft. PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE/EXPERIENCE Indicate the principal representative from the consult- ing firm together with others assigned to the work. The consultant' s experience in similar communities should be cited together with examples of work testifying to the credibility of the firm' s economic analysis to both public agencies and the private sector. FEES -_ Proposals should indicate a lump sum figure or upset price for the work cited together with • 0 • � P T � costs of unforeseen study activities (e.g. additional meetings, report copies, etc. ) TIME SCHEDULE Indicate the time line for completion of the work. a Boundaries of the Atascadero Business Improvement Associa :•. .r. ...........:.:..:. ......................... .:.•:. -�►:--... :six.'•::. ............ ....:n-:w:v:._::::::::::•::::::.�.�::::::v::. ....... -� - ..... ='-:i:•i:?moi:::_... .. ... ..... :•:is •::ice{::• :;.; ............................................... '�' •.:,.: .. :' :-:+:< .... ...... ... :•.v:.,x:::w:::.�::.�:::::.�•.�r::::::w::;f:'v::4i: ::•:: -:::•: .:.� �.-. :::.�::. ........ �F � :.A:':ii -.34i$i;-i^.;+;;t{.,v,:_::.:i:• i£1:1::`y — •:.r:::•s?:•?:•:::::;::;:::i::}::�:::::•?:.;.... c•.l.•: :Vii::� ••.r:::..:::.. ....... ................ .......... ............. '.i: w::::.......,:.�:.�::.�::::.�:. ............. ? ..... v:.. - ?X•i:•i?:^:{•:J};v:4:?}•i:::ii::'}:{v�?$•:i::i:::`v r:•::::::v=_ r:.c ....... ............ :::.,w::::::- .:i:•i. .::•. Siii:?:}iiiii}ii iiiii i:.. .. :4:<•i. '� :i�i : d ................ w :r.•:�itic :.�: :: :::vii.... i:v. w:.�:.�::::.�::::• `}:�.'Ile I .:.... is t ..::a.. ..... ....... �. :}:. �:..�.: .:... •i}}'•?ilii i': :{.; - :,...:.,. \ ..ir.:i�' ......r...... ;.}7L{. :'' vii.:;�.�::}:: -:'.:i:-ii':�:•::�-::i:!::•:L{}:.:�•.:::}5::;�:4f'v:.�:i::: rr .'!.. . V V -}%E::�!':4:,.•x::74_'Q3:;M:{ 71 '4 .. ::.::.::.::.: .:..... . w:►I' wS N w "ice:-:::: d c - 1 - z E hv 6 I► L M A - P t } p '� M Q :ii.....::i:;::i::i: Z.. A u► < 1 C1 d ' 3 a Z i 4 L C YN E A� ! At p . �No P. ............ ............ «;: < .................... .... .. . ......... ..... ....... ....... ........ ........ ........... ...... -x.: x ...... ............. 7777= r u1Wr/I�W� : •..� ....... ............. :•-:::.. ..........::. iii .:ii: .,-:.�. ':->?:moi. :•::::;. .;.; }r:-. _ '- � •ii::•? •i':..... ........ ::'.:� .. ... ii}::.:'�. :ilii: '.}}iii?: -'- i • �- - 87 D Pvr5,uc;/PQaV;�-fv,- C24w-r- ty /-Li3d�J� �OS�YIGL Fr_----�D�Y�t,u/�,Y� I Gvv�'...�C.fs�O _G�+✓!,6 _ I .cc tC 3 n �����"� Id• _ ��f L(.�I S----SJLr-✓�- �IfL�S f_2 _� I� �.4'O�W __.J1/Lt T�L�S/�GjOS•_ �1��: ?/ N'SGG. C3131�fJQ (uc1-•9 m�3A) - -- G�j ra LILT (2•S— 3.3 maws' /�sp�►..rJ/YG JUyLsf.J 800 TAb, — T� bt: r� .Mesh ra l f�•�.1yi,.rp .r ��,.C>,"�iipTflL G1T�--L�t7�� Q;r�.�r_��.��7-� __ _ -- ---- /�✓,or�-T_ c�Z�__moi Lt�.� '_ "7.55o cera rJ ©i0 ��f 6/✓r= ev i i 1 ----F/�--- �G:A1�lj�/��/•rc:�p� _�n'1c�- ��'��r —�amm����' E t ASSG�L.nTG ; � N,r.t,� Cr,�tJEy,i �"24. 5u0 arrr. (sem/ti.� / vl3.fc�)�a�S to 05r»JfTt= i X �lr�Tio�rJ , cl.au���LBr 4. TrJ� GC�c7Di1I�1 LApLL - 1.tlJtf.�jJr.[�'L�Q.JI�. Lvjc _ ' Alavrc T6 SH/ �' MO.)5t'+Jta�1O ClGJ4LJti f o!nd—Ziz-�2 � c4ov P F C7E�f,��6i7 J.,. 407T i r6 - i 121 - - �'✓CLE.�FN� '(�C.o,�'crn,cJ;wrar�,..�,rza (�S me� ��:rJ�Q i.fJ' oi.1 fc£aS-�reN�v� ;�—�T-��- �j(cvuG�y �._�ccwomiGS_ OS..a.tC;Et.� _Da✓:D�„v,�. S.L� � — ' ' - c- -�-I (7 u.r. Q � ; sip w<IirC- ,rte.gflc�. ( 7 Ina,) i r 7. PHAsrv.QC-- -�'�v 0 5_� -:d�.�-j1•,r �i► f srou�-res' ! 24JC s$53 H C ,, r Economics Research Associates C ► Los Angeles,California San Francisco,California RECEIVED A h L 71937 Seattle,Washington Chicago,Illinois Boston,Massachusetts Washington,D.C. Ft.Lauderdale,Florida Fl A PROPOSAL TO THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA TO PREPARE A CITYWIDE ; ECONOMIC BASE ANALYSIS AND A DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY PREPARED BY ECONOMICS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES APRIL 24,1987 PROPOSAL NO.23689 10960 Wilshire Boulevard,Suite 2400 0 Los Angeles,California 90024 0 (213)477-9585 Telex:857661 0 0 ` 10960 Wilshire Boulevard,Suite 2400 Economics Research Associates Los Angeles,California 90024 e-rlg& Los Angeles•San Francisco•Seattle-Chicago•Boston•Washington,D.C.•Ft.Lauderdale (213)477-9585 Telex:857661 April 24, 1987 Mr. Henry Engen Community Development Director City of Atascadero P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, California 93423 Proposal No. 23689 Dear Mr. Engen: w4 Economics Research Associates (ERA) is pleased to submit a proposal to prepare a comprehensive Economic Base Analysis for the City of Atascadero. We understand that part of the intended scope of analysis is framed by the City's current update of the City's General Plan and the need for an economic base analysis to provide direction for an overall economic development strategy for the City's future. We understand that some of the issues which the City recognizes include: o Strong residential growth, but a notable lag in retail sales trends. o An outdated master plan that may be considered idered contrary to current development standards and modern economic development potentials and constraints. The City has begun General Pian revision activities. o A need to examine feasibility for downtown revitalization via a downtown development strategy based on a comprehensive economic analysis and 'a determination of redevelopment potentials. o A need to prepare an overall economic base analysis and inventory of the Atascadero marketplace to frame the current update of the City's General Plan and provide direction for a citywide economic development strategy for the future. ERA is uniquely qualified to undertake a project of this type. We have considerable experience in the California. General Plan process and the ' redevelopment feasibility analysis process based upon 28 years of consult- ing. We have prepared the Economic Development Strategies as part of the General Plans for several California communities. Some of our most recent assignments have been prepared for- the cities of Bakersfield, Gardena, Bell Gardens, West Hollywood, Indio, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Lancaster, and so forth. 2 We have also completed formal redevelopment feasibility analyses for the cities of West Hollywood, Norwalk, Buena Park, Lancaster, Fontana, San Bernardino, Sacramento, and San Diego, and for Los Angeles County and numerous other local jurisdictions. Based upon our vast experience and several conversations with City staff, we have prepared a practical and straightforward proposal that is outlined in the several sections which follow, supported by several qualifying attachments. We are very enthusiastic about the prospect of working with the City of Atascadero on what we anticipate to be a very interesting and challenging project. l Sincerely, G1U David A. Wilcox, AICP Senior Vice President ZL. W�h Sidney L. White, AICP C Senior Associate Attachment: Proposal Enclosures: Resumes Qualifications Client References Corporate Brochure 4/24/87 No. 23689 A PROPOSAL TO THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA UNDERSTANDING OF THE ASSIGNMENT The City of Atascadero has requested proposals to prepare a compre- hensive study to provide an overall evaluation of the City's economic base. Analyses and recommendations derived as a result of an evaluation of the City's overall marketplace should be followed by recommended economic devel- opment strategies for the future, including specific recommendations for revisions to General Plan policies with respect to long-range growth objectives. - The study should also recommend an-optimum economic development and revitalization strategy for the Atascadero downtown area and provide the basis for subsequent preparation of a master plan for the downtown area. SCOPE OF WORK The ERA technical proposal is based upon the City's RFP and detailed study outline. The study approach that has been developed by ERA is organized to provide systematic research and technical base information followed by the complex translation of economic descriptors to provide a framework for the City's General Plan update and an overall economic development strategy for the City of Atascadero with respect to long-range growth objectives -- to the year 2000. All recommendations are framed by detailed analyses and an evaluation of the City's potential for tourism, specific categories of retail and service activities, office uses, and industry. Aland use analysis based upon development potentials will be translated to yield a determination of the general scale of proposed land area needed to accommodate the extent of economic activities proposed. ERA notes the interesting scale of the City, which occupies roughly 24 square miles, is aligned along about 6.5 miles of E1 Camino Real, and currently contains nearly 20,000 residents. At such scale, issues of land use allocation become paramount as true future-shaping decisions. _ 1 or • V � ATAS Thursday, April 23, 1987 Page 1 AREA PROFILE: 1980 URBAN DECISION SYSTEMS, INC. ATASCADERO PLACE 6 (CA) 145 04/23/87 POPULATION 16232 RACE: Black 1.0% HOUSEHOLD INCOME % In Grp Qtrs 1.6% Other 4.5% 0-10T 1516 25.7 HOUSEHOLDS10-20T 1783 30.2 5899 FAMILIES 4475 20-25T 929 15.7 1 Person 18.5% W/children 52.9% 25-30T 733 12.4 2 Person 35.9% Marr Couples 86.6% 30-35T 394 6.7 3-4 Person 34.8% W/children 49.8$ 35-40T 235 4.0 5+ Person 10.78 Avg Family Size 3.10 40-50T 171 2.9 Avg Hshld Size 2.71 NONFAM HSHLDS 24.18 50-75T 97 1.6 SPANISH ORIGIN 6.78 IN ARMED FORCES 0.28 Median 47 0.8 804 $ 17804 AGE $ OCCUPATION $ Average $ 19399 0-5 1544 9.5 Prof/Tec 1075 15.6 AGG.INCOME 115.5M 6-13 2011 12.4 Mgr/Prop 593 8.6 14-17 1034 6.4 Clerical 963 13.9 SCHOOL YRS COMPLETED 18-20 723 4.5 Sales 615 8.9 Pop Age 25+ 9930 21-24 991 6.1 WH/COL 3247 47.0 Median Sch Yrs 12.7 25-34 3131 19.3 Crafts 1253 18.1 High Sch Only 38.58 35-44 1905 11.7 Opertivs 609 8.8 Any College 39.9% 45-54 1433 8.8 Service 1370 19.8 55-64 1511 9.3 Laborer 208 3.0 18-34 IN COLLEGE 17.28 65+ 1951 12.0 Farm Wrk 224 3.2 Median 30.7 BL/COL 3664 53.0 VEHICLES/HSHLD 8 SEX 0 190 3.2 8 LABOR FORCE UNEMP PARTIC 1 1697 28.8 Male 7944 48.9 4354 6.18 74.48 2 2205 37.4 Female 8288 51.1 3014 6.38 47.68 3+ 1807 30.6 HOUSING UNITS 6457 HOUSING VALUE 8 RENT Owner-Occ 63.2% 0-30T 139 4.3 0-99 50 2.9 Renter-Occ 28.28 30-50T 302 9.2 100-199 348 20.2 Vac/Yr-Rnd 8.38 50-80T 1500 45.9 200-299 786 45.6 Vac/Season 0.38 80-100T 724 22.2 300-399 347 20.1 Condominiums 71 100-150T 505 15.5 400-499 100 5.8 Mobile Homes 458 150T+ 96 2.9 500+ 18 1.1 Stability 34.88 Median $ 73838 Median $ 257 Turnover 14.88 Average $ 79239 Average $ 260 UNITS/STRUCTURE 8 MOVED IN 8 BUILTY 1 5120 79.3 1970-80 83.2 1970-80 47$0 2 214 3.3 1960-69 3-4 11.1 1960-69 19.6 341 5.3 1950-59 3.6 1950-59 14.7 5+ 783 12.1 <--1949 2.1 <--1949 18.7 DEMOGRAPHIC TRENbS: 1980- ] UFWAN UtUlblUly0a.Lrvj.,,, 11 " ATASCADERO PLACE 6 (CA) 145 04/23/87 1980 Census 1986 Est. 1991 Proj . POPULATION 16232 21271 24265 In Group Quarters 266 339 393 HOUSEHOLDS 5899 8 8020 % 9313 % 1 Person 1094 18.5 1639 20.4 2018 21.7 2 Person 2118 35.9 2861 35.7 3293 35.4 3-4 Person 2055 34.8 2814 35.1 3289 35.3 5+ Person 632 10.7 707 8.8 712 7.6 Avg Hshld Size 2.71 2.61 - 2.56 FAMILIES 4475 5950 6821 $ g $ RACE: White 15594 96.1 20493 96.3 23403 96.4 Black 164 1.0 122 0.6 Yt.r Other* 473 2.9 656 3.1 766 3.2 SPANISH/HISPANIC 1088 6.7 1255 5.9 1353 5.6 AGE: 0 - 5 $ $ $ 6 - 13 1544 9.5 2398 11.3 2902 12.0 2011 12.4 2405 11.3 2973 12.3 14 - 17 1034 6.4 1128 5.3 1087 4.5 18 - 20 723 4.5 713 3.3 746 3.1 21 - 24 991 6.1 1120 5.3 1007 4.2 25 - 34 3131 19.3 4332 20.4 4682 19.3 35 44 1905 11.7 3007 14.1 3829 15.8 to 45 - 54 1433 8.8 1740 8.2 2189 9.0 55 - 64 1511 9.3 1860 8.7 1899 7.8 65 + 1951 12.0 2569 12.1 2952 12.2 Median Age 30.7 31.6 32.3 MALES 7944 $ 10100 $ 11347 $ 0 - 20 2694 33.9 3304 32.7 3803 33.5 21 - 44 3020 38.0 4081 40.4 4497 39.6 45 - 64 1412 17.8 1668 16.5 1861 16.4 65 + 818 10.3 1047 10.4 1187 10.5 FEMALES 8288 $ 11171 8 12918 % 0 - 20 2617' 31.6 3339 29.9 3905 30.2 21 - 44 3006 36.3 4378 39.2 5021 38.9 45 - 64 1531 18.5 1932 17.3 2227 17.2 65 + 1133 13.7 1522 13.6 1765 13.7 HOUSING UNITS 6457 g Owner-Occupied 4080 63.2 5611 6566 Renter-Occupied 1819 28.2 2409 2747 *Other race reported in 1980 Census modified to be consistent with current Census Bureau definition Source: 1980 Census, July 1,1986 UDS Estimates " (DTF) qkrba. n Decision Systems/PO Box 25953/Los_Angeles, CA 90025/(213)-820-8931 N � Within the context of our overall evaluation and recommendation of General Plan policies, we will also recommend an optimum economic develop- ment strategy for the Atascadero downtown area intended to provide the basis for subsequent preparation of a downtown master plan. Specific analyses will also consider redevelopment as an implementation tool for downtown economic development, based upon its potentials and constraints. Detailed tasks and work products are presented below. Task I -- Organizational Meeting On award of contract the consultant will conduct an organizational' ` Y-? meeting to: o Introduce principal consultants t o be involved in the work program. o Meet with the Business Improvement Association and the Chamber of Commerce. o Tour the entire City with staff in order to grasp scale and issues. o Review the proposed work program and product delivery. o Establish coordination procedures for the City and consultant. o Review and confirm significant -issues and development objectives for the Central Business District. o Identify data sources and obtain base maps. o Identify and review existing studies and plans, as well as proposed projects, which may impact development of the Central Business District. 2 • Task II -- Baseline Inventory and Analysis (Citywide) A. Population and Employment Baseline data on population and employment characteristics will be compiled as reported by the U.S. Census for the census tracts that comprise of the City and overall market area. Selected demographic and economic data of both 1970 and 1980 will be collected and examined in conjunction with current data available from the City, the County, and the local Chamber of Commerce, State of California Department of Finance, regional tourist boards and ERA's on-line computer services. All data will be analyzed and relevant growth rates will be projected in five-year intervals to the Year 2000 for each category. 1. Population Population data collected will generally include the following characteristics: o Total population o Age distribution o Racial characteristics o Ethnic characteristics Total population and households are projected in five-year increments to the Year 2000. Two sets of projections are made: one set based on historical growth, another set based - on changes in land use policies that would alter historical growth patterns. 2. Employment and Income Employment and income data collected generally include the following characteristics: o Employment by industry o Employment by occupation o Income distribution (household, per capita) o Source of income o Poverty rate . 3 r CB.. Economic Base Analysis The existing economic base for the City and overall market area in 1980 and 1985 will be described from available data with respect to: o Employment groups o Labor pool, participation rate, and unemployment o Industry types and specializations o Product and service values produced . o Sales tax revenue trends by outlet type o Assessed valuation trends o Capital investments in physical developments . o Educational program linkages to industry o Rates of land absorption for urban land uses o Business formation rates o Trends in infrastructure development and utility service increments o Share and proportion of growth and economic capture within the region C. Economic Base Projections The city and sphere of influence rates of change will be projected by key economic activity indicators for five-year increments to the Year 2000: o Industry type and specialization growth probabilities o Labor pool growth and match to forecasted employment opportunities o Capital investment requirements to meet residential and nonresidential land absorption rates o Expected business formation rates and employment requirements o Potential nonresidential land use types demands 4 Product Pertinent demographic and economic data will be documented and included as part of the determination of Atascadero overall marketplace potentials and constraints. Task III -- CBD Market Analysis The consultant will prepare a retail/commercial market analysis and assessment of the Atascadero CBD marketplace. o Identification of the Atascadero CBD Marketplace This subtask requires the assessment of the Atascadero market- place and the trade area definition of primary, secondary, and tertiary markets. Next, for each basic activity market, we will then identify the existing penetration and capture of the Atascadero CBD. Our analysis will include a review of previous attitude surveys compiled by the Atascadero Chamber of Commerce and California Polytechnic State University with respect to shopping patterns, desires etc. o Forecast of CBD Trade Area Changes Population changes within the three sets of market areas (primary, secondary, tertiary) will be forecast in five-year increments from 1985 through the Year 2000. Basic changes in the ages, ethnicities, and income/expenditure patterns of the market area populations -during this forecast period will be indicated. We will identify any specialized populations to which the CBD businesses can more effectively market their goods and services. Existing and future market support for the. CBD. will be analyzed and projected to the Year 2000. 5 o Business Indicators The purpose of this subtask is to develop an understanding of the performance of the CBD business community. The consultant will synthesize taxable sales data with gross leasable square footage 4 to derive sales per square foot estimates, by business type, for the preceding three years. Results will be correlated with the available purchasing power of the three market area populations to determine CBD leakages. Where specialized population groups display unique household purchasing criteria, the impact upon business activity within the CBD will be considered. o Effect of Competition Competitive retail/commercial centers within the three market areas will be analyzed to determine the nature and extent of competition for the goods and services dollars which may be spent in the Atascadero CBD. The consultant will identify competitive locations that act as interceptor capture points and differen- tiate by types of retail and office/commercial uses. This analy- sis will identify not only the existing competition, but also proposed projects in order to determine oncoming competition and, thus, assist the consultant and City in selecting the market approach which is best justified for the Atascadero CBD. Product The output of the business indicator and market analysis will be a freestanding working paper that should be reviewed and commented upon by the City and others who are part of the planning process. 6 Task IV -- Land Use Analysis Based upon the recently compiled land use information resulting from the ongoing General Plan update, the consultant will evaluate the City's existing land use patterns and vacant land inventory in order to frame appropriate land use policies and potentials. The analysis will include an evaluation of the existing Atascadero General Plan and Zoning policies in relation to current economic development standards. ERA will be particularly concerned with Highway 101 ramp locations, E1 Camino Real and freeway frontages, and potential "freestanding" locations which may enhance the City's economic base, disperse it, or cause unwar- ranted internal competition. ERA will request guidance from City staff concerning several related issues: o Is there a Jobs/housing balance objective? o Is there a utilities extension management plan? o What is County policy concerning zoning of adjoining properties? o Does the City seek particular land uses not now in place, and therefore anticipate use of incentives to capture such new uses? Product The results of this task will be documented to provide a framework for General Plan/Zoning recommendations based upon various development potentials and constraints. Task V -- Retail Development Potential The preceding tasks provide the inventory of data necessary to assess the potential for capture of additional retail activity by the Atascadero CBD. Based on these, we will determine the prospects for existing retail businesses and future expansion within the CBD. 7 o Retail Demand Analysis Purchasing power and related floor space requirements, defined in the preceding subtasks, will be analyzed to project proposed floor space allocation for specific retail uses within the CBD. This analysis will identify types of businesses that are currently underrepresented in the CBD, and also point to "target businesses" that might have a high growth and success potential. Specific retail business activities will be identified by type, size, and scope of service. �. Product The results of this task will be documented to provide direction and an economic development strategy for stimulating reinvestment and deliberate outreach to capture diversified retail activities for the Atascadero CBD, and to recapture resident purchasing power now being lost. The demand will be quantified in land and floor space figures. Task VI -- Professional Office/Commercial Development Potential o Office/Commercial Demand Analysis Utilizing information generated by the previous tasks, we will assess the employment base of the Atascadero market areas to determine current unmet demand and future potential for office/ commercial development within the Atascadero CBD. Demand will be translated into floor space requirements and analyzed to project proposed land and floor space allocation for specific office/ commercial uses within the CBD. This analysis will identify types of office/commercial uses that are currently underrepre- sented in the CBD and also point to "target businesses" that might have a high growth and success potential. Specific - office/commercial business activities will be identified by type, size, and scope of service. 8 Product The results of this task will be documented to provide direction and an economic development strategy for stimulating reinvestment and deliberate outreach to capture office/commercial activities for the Atascadero CBD. Task VII -- Industrial Development Potential o Industrial Demand Analysis Utilizing information generated by the previous tasks, we will assess the employment base and industrial growth patterns to '< determine historical absorption, current inventory or unmet demand, and future potential for industrial development within the Atascadero overall marketplace. Industrial potentials will be translated into land and floor space type requirements and analyzed to project proposed industrial land allocation within the Atascadero overall marketplace. This analysis will identify specific types of industry that are currently underrepresented in the Atascadero economic base (shift/ share analysis) and also point to "target industries" that might have a high growth and success potential and also fulfill economic development goals for the City of Atascadero. Product The results of this task will be documented to provide direction and an economic development strategy to target those industries which might balance the Atascadero marketplace and also fulfill general economic devel- opment goals of the Atascadero General Plan update. Task VIII--- Tourism Based Development Potential The preceding tasks provide the inventory of data necessary to assess the potential for capture of tourist dollars by the Atascadero CBD, principally in visitor accommodations and pass-through tourist services 9 uses. We will determine the prospects for existing tourist-related businesses and their future expansion within the CBD. Tourist-related purchasing power will be translated into specific land and floor space requirements that will be analyzed to project proposed floor space alloca- tion for specific tourist-related uses within the CBD. This analysis will identify types of businesses that are currently underrepresented in the CBD and also point to "target business" that might have a high growth and success potential. Specific business activities will be identified by type, size, and scope of service. Product The results of this task will be documented to provide direction and a marketing strategy for stimulating reinvestment and deliberate outreach to capture tourist-related activities for the Atascadero CBD. Task IX -- Policy Formulation Based upon the categorical development potentials for the Atascadero marketplace, the consultant will determine effects of the City's current economic development strategies, General Plan policies, and other available but not utilized economic development powers and authorities. Effect on the City's development potentials of various economic development programs will be evaluated, including: o Redevelopment'potential and feasibility o Infrastructure financing plans o Mixed-incentive programs (e.g. , redevelopment, assessment district, and enterprise zones) o Industrial land promotion activities o Availability and capacity of utilities network o Major land holder development programs o Locational and access/image strategies o Specialized efforts for. key industry evolution o Specialized efforts for economic diversification 10 o Establishment of new proprietary/enterprise agencies of the City or its special districts, if applicable o Specialized educational and research efforts to match identifi- able city and regional growth specialities o Formation of a "Fund" for the express purpose of achieving annually identified "doable" projects as a partnership on a citywide basis between the city and private enterprise o Creation of "public facilities districts" for funding of essen- tial facilities defined by the General Plan as required during phased built-out o Definition of "affordable improvement programs" for enhancement . at least cost and highest participation rates by the city and residents Task X -- Policy Specification/Development Strategies A. General Plan/Zoning A General Plan must contain new instruments which can be targeted to opportunities as they arise. Based upon an assessment of the effectiveness and practicality of those economic development mechanisms which should be part of the City's General Plan up- date, ERA will propose General Plan language for the City's consideration to incorporate into its updated General Plan. The proposed economic development strategies will be predicated on each development potential as presented above. B. Downtown Development Strategy 1. The consultant will provide specific and straightforward recommendations as to the optimum economic role of the Atascadero downtown area within the context of the General Flan economic developme1t srategies noted in the preceding subtask. . 11 2. The consultant will provide an analysis of pre-redevelopment feasibility to determine whether redevelopment is economic- ally feasible in the potential Atascadero downtown project area. Subtasks that will be carried out will include: o Definition of overall economic constraints and opportuni- ties within which redevelopment may work in Atascadero. o Consideration of blighting characteristics evident in the Atascadero downtown area based upon specific references to data already collected via the General Plan xtr f�> activities. o Report upon the economic feasibility, now and in the future, of implementing a redevelopment project in the Atascadero downtown area. In order to instill clear objectivity, and to show specific example analyses, ERA will use a series of investment -- return models to demonstrate the feasibility of individual development projects. (ERA will be identifying the likelihood of reasonable tax increment generation and debt coverage within three to five years after project startup) . A specific project "pro forma" partnership format that incorporates all program parameters and alternative land use criteria will be used to define between three and five explicit practical development and rehabilitation projects. This analysis will provide a hallmark of reality for this important feasibility study. Task XI -- Final Report to City Council Having prepared a series of typical working memoranda during the entire period, for purposes of meetings and review in Atascadero with the client group, ERA will have prepared and submitted a draft final report at the conclusion of Task X, above, in 30 copies. We anticipate City and client group review during a two-week period, our response to your comments 12 and requests for corrections. Thereafter, ERA will prepare and submit 100 copies of a final report and will make a public presentation in Atascadero before the City Council and Planning Commission. We would also anticipate a separate presentation on that day to the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Improvement Association. PROJECT TIME SCHEDULE Time to Complete Anticipated from Date of Consultant Authorization Hours "` Tasks to Proceed Required I. Organizational Meeting*M 1 week 20 II. Baseline Inventory and Analysis* 5 weeks 80 III. Market Analysis 9 weeks 64 IV. Land Use Analysis* 11 weeks 40 V. Retail Development Potential 13 weeks 64 VI. Office/Commercial Development Potential*M 15 weeks 44 VII. Industrial Development Potential 17 weeks 44 VIII. Tourism-Based Development Potential's 19 weeks 64 IX. Policy Formulation 23 weeks 32 X. Policy Specification/Development Strategies* 27 weeks 80 A. General Plan/Zoning B. Downtown Development Strategy XI. Final Report to City Council*M 30 weeks - 40 Total 572 hours * Seven anticipated trips to Atascadero. M Three proposed meetings with client groups in Atascadero. 13 0 MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING ERA will commit Mr. David A. Wilcox, Senior Vice President, as Project Manager. He will be supported by two economic development specialists in our Los Angeles office. Mr. Sidney L. White, Senior Associate, and Mr. Estevan R. Valenzuela, Senior Associate, will form an interdisciplinary team to evaluate demographics and economic trend information and to identify development potentials. The resume of each staff member is enclosed for your information. RECOMMENDED COMPENSATION ERA recommends a total lump sum price of $49,040 for the proposed t, scope of work. The cost components have been built up from our estimate of H the need for professional consultant time shown above in the Project Time Schedule and the direct supporting costs, and are as follows: Professional Consultant Labor and Attendance at 3 Meetings (572 at $75 composite billing rate) $42,900 1 Report Production $ 4,340 o Typing, graphics $ 3,000 0 30 copies draft 240 0 100 copies final report 800 o Graphics boards 300 Travel and per Diem (based upon seven round trips by ERA staff) $ 1,000 Other (data purchase/computer analysis) $ 800 14 AUTHORIZATION OF THE WORK If the arrangements described above are satisfactory and Economics Research Associates is selected to conduct the work, this letter contract may serve as our business agreement. The signature upon and return of one copy to ERA will be our authorization to carry out the assignment. Respectfully submitted, 4 David A. Wilcox, AICP , Senior Vice President Sidney L. White, AICP Senior Associate ACCEPTED: Date: ACCEPTED: Date: 16 BACKGROUND OF THE FIRM Economics Research Associates (ERA) was founded in 1958. Since 1981, the firm has been owned as a California Corporation by its principal consul- tants. Headquarters are in Los Angeles, California, with offices in Boston, Chicago, Ft. Lauderdale, San Francisco, Seattle, and the Washington, D.C. , area. There are 90 members of the staff; professional consultant tenure ,with the firm averages eight years. In domestic and international projects, ERA has completed more than 8,000 research and consulting assignments for both public and private cli- ents. Fusing talents of a multidisciplined staff, the firm's experience has concentrated in five interrelated fields: (1) urban economic development and planning; (2) transportation systems; (3) real estate and land use; (4) recreation, tourism, and leisure time; and (5) management and marketing services. In urban economics, ERA has conducted major studies for public and private clients in many major metropolitan areas. These have included economic base studies, urban redevelopment feasibility assessments, long- range master plans, and analysis of interactions of urban transport with metropolitan development. The firm is frequently called upon to assess fiscal impacts of development policies and projects, and to recommend reve- nue diversification programs. ERA's consultation in transportation planning and economics spans urban, intercity, and international transport problems, in both cargo and passenger transport. The firm's research involves infrastructure planning (airports, ports, highways, railways, and mass transit systems) as well as transport operations analysis; the emphasis is with traffic forecasting and financial planning. Real estate and land use studies constitute a primary area of ERA ro ect p j experience. ERA has studied the marketability, feasibility, and evaluation for all types of real estate uses. A specialization of the firm involves adaptive use and commercial property revitalization. ERA's work in the field of recreation, tourism, and leisure time incorporates experience in formulating tourist development plans for major geographic regions and subregions, evaluation of specific public and commer- ' cial recreational facilities, and analysis of special mass attraction events. In management and marketing consultation, ERA has provided both public and private clients with vital information and guidance with respect to program design and planning, organization, public finance, governmental relations, management information systems, long-term planning, marketing. and acquisition programs. ERA has established one of the finest research libraries in the country during its 28-year history. This library contains 250 active peri- odical subscriptions, more than 4,000 books, and over 10,500 other docu- ments. including ERA and other firm reports, census and other government publications, geographic files, and so forth. This library is staffed by a full-time professional librarian and part-time assistants. ECONOMICS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES DAVID A.WILCOX, A.I.C.P., Vice President Qualifications in Economic Development Mr. Wilcox has a concentrated background in the planning,programming,and management of economic development, redevelopment, rehabilitation, and reinvestment projects for both public and private groups. He has implemented a variety of research and consulting assignments in the areas of project budgeting, program guideline development,organization and staffing recommendations,facilities utilization,project operations management,and the capture of funds. Recently, Mr.Wilcox has carried out economic development program formulation for Yuma, Arizona;Fairbanks,Alaska;and Bellflower,California. He has assisted Compton,California, in the successful capture of an Urban Development Action Grant and has successfully assisted four cities seeking economic development and public works grants. As a member of special ERA task teams he has participated in complex studies ranging from projection of the cum- ulative local economic impact of the cancellation of the B-1 Bomber contracts to the deter- mination of financial viability of two new counties proposed to be established within Los Angeles County and proposed Ponderosa County within Fresno County. He has recently completed both value capture and joint development potential analyses at 17 proposed rapid transita st tions in Los Angeles for the SCRTD. During 1981,the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted community business revitalization program plans for 11 project areas for which Mr.Wilcox acted as planning project manager. Mr.Wilcox has conducted land market and development feasibility studies for Garden Grove and redevelopment project adoption for Buena Park and Lancaster,California. In an era of tightening local government resources imposed by Proposition 13 movements,he has carried out attractions management programs which coordinate existing facilities and historic struc- tures in Wichita,Kansas,and Virginig,Minnesota,in order to increase revenues to public and private operators from local residents and visitors. The primary emphasis in Mr. Wilcox's current work involves the creation of local economic- development programs and the organization of viable financial strategies for both existing and new urban renewal and economic development projects. He has participated in seven EDA Title IX Economic Adjustment Strategies for municipal and regional clients. At a discrete project level, Mr. Wilcox has identified a "market rate" off-street parking develop- ment program for the city of San Juan Capistrano. He has also carried out fiscal and eco- nomic analyses for proposed general plan amendments and redevelopment projects in Lakewood, Bellflower,Santa Ana,and San Clemente,California. Before his assignments with ERA, Mr. Wilcox was director of urban planning for Genge Consultants, where he carried out community development consultant work.. Mr. Wilcox served for eight years with the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, where he was deputy administrator for project operations, in which capacity he supervised a staff of project managers, community liaison, and residential rehabilitation personnel implementing nine redevelopment and rehabilitation projects. In addition, Mr. Wilcox worked at the Bureau of the Budget in Washington,.D.C., as a regional planner and management analyst. His responsibilities included the preparation of organization and management studies,agency reorganization plans, analyses of regional planning coordination, and legislative recommendations for planning grant programs. Mr. Wilcox's experience also includes.leaching in urban and regional pLbning at UCLA and most recently at the University of Southern California where he teaches graduate courses in community redevelopment and in the management of planning practices. From 1962 to 1964, he.served as a Peace Corps volunteer at the University of Ife in Ibadan,Nigeria,where he lectured in government and history. He is currently a member of the Board of Directors .. of Los Angeles Beautiful and a member of the Urban Forestry Advisory Committee to the California Department of Forestry. Mr. Wilcox received a B.A. degree in political science and an M.A. degree in history from the University of Michigan. He also holds a Master of Regional Planning degree from the Harvard Graduate School of Design. He is a member of NAHRO,CALED,CRAA,APA,and AICP. Mr. Wilcox is a partner of the firm. ECONOMICS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES SIDNEY L.WHITE,AICP, Senior Associate Qualifications in Economic Development -Mr. White has over ten years of experience in all facets of urban redevelopment and economic development. He has initiated and implemented projects ranging from a Central Business District rebirth in the Northeast to more recent Redevelopment Projects in California. In the Northeast,Mr.White directed the economic development activities for the Troy Urban Renewal Agency and served as Principal City Planner for Troy,New York. In this capacity, he designed a marketing program to redevelop the City's vast holdings of vacant urban renewal structures, and as a result, implemented the development of over 500,000 square feet of modern residential,office,and retail space. Mr.White negotiated a variety of public/ private partnerships that utilized Urban Development Action Grants, Municipal Bonds, Industrial Development Bonds, Historic Tax Credits, property donations, private syndica- tions and municipal cash flow participation. Mr.White also completed a major land acquisi- tion/relocation program for a downtown mass transportation facility. He was responsible for feasibility and budget justification, the negotiated-acquisition of fifty-six individual par- cels, the relocation of residential and commercial tenants, and site preparation to allow single parcel transfer. Implementation of a major downtown Capital Improvement Program to stimulate private investment in the local economy was conducted by Mr.White. He designed and managed a multi-year financial program that included Federal, State, and Local funds to construct a River Front Park, several Downtown parking structures, pedestrian bridges, building facade rehabilitation, and overall streetscape improvements. The redevelopment efforts were well- received by the local community, and have received statewide recognition. The City of Troy was the recipient of the New York State Main Street award for 1984. Mr. White also served as Secretary of the Troy Industrial Development Authority. He pro- vided economic analyses and recommendations resulting in over $17 million of tax-exempt bond authority for projects that included a regional shopping center, a retail furniture com- plex, a high-technology incubator project, a hydroelectric plant, and a major industrial expansion. He also utilized a local program of tax abatement, and a "one-stop" municipal permit process to stimulate:the reuse or modernization of several manufacturing facilities. Mr. White's grantsmanship experience has included the design and preparation of several complex Federal funding applications. In addition to over $4 million of Urban Development Action Grants, he has prepared Urban Mass Transportation Administration and Economic Development Administration grant applications and received approvals for various redevelop-, ment projects. Recent efforts by Mr. White have included management and administration for the Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency. In this capacity, he managed the design, cost estimation, tax increment bond financing and implementation of a $7 million capital improvement pro- gram for the Ocean Park Project, a major'beachfront residential and public recreation area. He also proposed fiscal year budgets for all Agency activities, and managed the day-to-day cash flow and investment of over $8 million of Agency funds. Mr. White received a B.A. degree from Albright College and a M.S. degree in Urban and Environmental Studies from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He is a fully certified member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. ECONOMICS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES QUALIFICATIONS IN THE PREPARATION OF ECONOMIC AND FISCAL ANALYSES IN SUPPORT OF GENERAL PLANS, GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR GENERAL PLANS General Plans Bellflower 1977 Land Use and Circulation Elements Santa Ana 1981 Economics San Clemente 1982 Economics Westlake Village 1983 Economics and Fiscal Altadena 1985 Economics Bakersfield 1986 Economics/Economic Development West Hollywood 1986 Economics/City Promotion Parks and Recreation/Open Space Elements San Clemente 1980 Carlsbad 1982 Local Coastal Plan Malibu LCP (Los Angeles County) 1982 Economics Redevelopment Element EIR Bakersfield 1984 Economics and Fiscal Housing Element EIR Santa Barbara 1982 Economics and Fiscal Area Plan Amendment Anaheim Hills General Plan Amendment 1980 Fiscal Impacts Economic Development Analyses (prior to or in concert with General Plan updates) Bell Gardens 1986 Gardena 1986 ECONOMICS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND ECONOMICS ASSIGNMENTS CITY OF BUENA PARK Central Business District Redevelopment Project ERA assisted the Buena Park in all aspects of redevelopment planning and adoption procedures, leading to adoption of its first redevelopment project after two previously unsuccessful attempts by the city itself. Services included analyses of project gross and net costs, support of city intentions before the Orange County Fiscal Review Committee, and extensive public meetings over an 11-month period. ERA was then asked to help devise a low-interest rate commercial rehabilitation loan program for implementa- tion within the project area, and also assisted the city staff in selection of a major bank as the program lender. CLIENT: Ms. Felice Acosta Community Development Manager (714) 521-9900 BELL GARDENS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Redevelopment Projects and Citywide Economic Development Strategy ERA prepared a citywide analysis of the realistic options available to a built-out city with two existing redevelopment projects. A third project was recommended and will shortly be adopted. Considerable addition- al community resident purchasing power which could support more retail space was discovered after a careful assessment of nontraditional data sources. CLIENT: Mr. Robert Dickey Community Development Director (213) 927-8301 3/87 par SAN BUENAVENTURA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Downtown Redevelopment Project Feasibility Studies ERA carried out extensive analyses of two multi-block development sites by testing effective market demand for housing, retail, office, and hotel uses within realistic design schemes. Thereafter, ERA was retained to assist the Agency in discussions with potential owner participants. CLIENT: Ms. Miriam Mack Redevelopment Manager (805) 654-7833 OXNARD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Heritage Square Concept Development and Feasibility As part of a design team, ERA prepared land tenancy recommendations, project costs and return estimates, and market demand analyses for a themed project proposed to adaptively reuse historic homes in the downtown project area. CLIENT: Mr. Dennis Matthews Redevelopment Director (805) 984-4624 CONCORD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Concord Downtown Redevelopment Bank of America is planning to develop a 1+-million-square-foot computer center in downtown Concord. Since this project will dramatically alter the face of downtown, the Concord Redevelopment Agency selected ERA to assist in the planning for its development. CLIENT: Mr. Patrick O'Keeffe Concord Redevelopment Agency (415) 671-3355 3/87 % eye- EMERYVILLE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Emeryville Redevelopment Plan - ERA was retained by the City of Emeryville to conduct a series of market and fiscal impact evaluations of its Bayfront Redevelopment Plan. Pacific Union is proceeding with the development of a 592-unit high-rise condominium project as the first phase of implementation. CLIENT: Mr. Mark Buell Executive Director Emeryville Redevelopment Agency (415) 658-8901 CITY OF LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA a I Central Business District Redevelopment Project ERA led a team of consultants and the contract redevelopment agency staff in the preparation and adoption of a large-scale downtown redevelop- ment project. The effort followed a redevelopment project recommendation from the preceding ERA study of the potential downtown economic future. Following successful adoption of the CBD project, the City asked ERA to assist in negotiations concerning tax increment use and distribution formu- las between the City and Los Angeles County. This latter effort resulted in a precedent-setting agreement which provides the City with virtually all of the increments earned during the first 15 years of the project. CLIENT: Mr. Kyle Kollar Director Community Development (805) 945-7811 LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Los Angeles Metro-Rail Stations The City of Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) retained ERA to evaluate the real estate development potential near the proposed Metro-Rail rapid transit stations-. The P analysis examined development oten- y P tial with and without Metro-Rail and suggested methods of capturing a por- tion of the value created for station improvements. ERA is presently - assisting CRA with developer negotiations on transit station area cost sharing. CLIENT: Mr. Charles Loveman Mr. Henry Madrid Community Redevelopment Agency (213) 977-1660 3/87 LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Community Business Revitalization (CBR) Planning for 12 Unincorporated Commercial Areas of Los Angeles County ERA, acting as team leader, conducted comprehensive evaluations of market, physical and socioeconomic conditions and trends in each of 12 older target communities in an effort to ascertain the most efficient use of CDBG funds to cause commercial and industrial reinvestment. A separate implemen- tation program plan, involving merchant associations, was created for each district, with a partnership investment schedule. A proposed rehabilitation loan and rebate program has been implemented. The planning process culmi- nated in the formulation of community-specific business revitalization plans now in implementation, drawing down over $7 million in HUD funding. CLIENT: Mr. Steven Dukett Director Economic Development (213) 725-7402 LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION East Compton and West Altadena Redevelopment Projects ERA prepared the redevelopment plans and all legally required docu- ments, helped establish the project advisory committees, produced the project information brochures, and participated in the conduct of the eventual public hearings which lead to adoption of the two projects. CLIENT: Mr. Steven Dukett Director Economic Development (213) 725-7402 NORWALK PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Norwalk Redevelopment Feasibility Analysis ERA conducted a comprehensive economic:, financial, and physical evaluation of the Firestone corridor and �Civic Center area of the City for the Blue Ribbon Committee and the City Council. The overall study, con- ducted with Envicom, led to City Council formation by ordinance of a Redevelopmentenc in � y order to proceed with project planning.. CLIENT: Mr. Donald Rouly Director of Planning and Development (213) 929-2677 3/87 . t er& CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Project Implementation Strategy The Carlsbad Agency had experienced rapid build up of developer demand and sought ERA advice concerning market demand, potential tax incre- ment projections, public improvements and streetscape amenities, and a phasing program. ERA led a comprehensive team which developed an overall implementation program for the next five years of project area activity. CLIENT: Mr. Chris Salomone Redevelopment Director ' (619) 438-5593 CITY OF SAN DIEGO r Mid-City Areas Redevelopment Feasibility ERA was retained by the City to assess the practical feasibility of establishing new redevelopment projects in portions of an 8-square-mile analysis area. ERA simultaneously completed economic and fiscal analyses of a proposed cut-and-cover extension of the I-15 Freeway through the commu- nity. Both assignments required extensive community participation and input. CLIENT: Mr. Graham Powers Economic Development Division (619) 234-8484 PASADENA REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Various Downtown Redevelopment Assignments - Since 1970, Economics Research Associates has conducted over two dozen separate assignments for the Pasadena Redevelopment Commission ranging from citywide retail, office, residential, and mixed-use market studies to parcel-specific reuse appraisals. CLIENT: Mr. Bill Reynolds Director Pasadena Redevelopment Commission (213) 577-4650 3/87 7 EWA. SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 12th Street Commercial Area Revitalization - ERA was retained by the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Authority to study the 12th Street/Alkali Flat Commercial Area. ERA examined the performance of existing establishments, studied the market potential of the area, evaluated the pressure for conversion to office use, and determined the likely impacts of the planned light rail system to final- ly recommend a specifically targeted low-interest rate rehabilitation loan program to protect healthy existing establishments. CLIENT: Mr. Val Toppenburg ti Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment04 Authority (916) 444-9210 w SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Yerba Buena Center Economic Planning ERA has served as the economic consultant to the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency on the Yerba Buena Center Project over the past three years. Responsibilities have included market planning, the creation of a viable mixed-use development package which included Yerba Buena Gardens, evaluation of developer qualifications, selection of the Olympia York - Development Team, refinement of the developer's proposal, and negotiations with the developer. CLIENT: Ms. Helen Sause Project Manager San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (415) 771-8800 SAN JOSE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY San Jose Downtown Development ERA contributed heavily to the creation of a realistic downtown redevelopment package for the City ofSan Jose, California; whl:<<:h attracted 13 major mixed-use development proposals after the previous plan had generated no activity for five years. In addition to market analysis and planning evaluation, ERA assisted the Redevelopment Agency with preparation of the solicitation package, evaluation of development teams, selection of the Campeau/Hahn team, negotiations with the development parties, and refinement of project plans. CLIENT: Mr. Frank Taylor Executive Director San Jose Redevelopment Agency (408) 277-5187 3/87 10960 Wilshire Boulevard,Suite 2400 _ Economics Research Associates Los Angeles,California 90024 Los Angeles•San Francisco•Seattle•Chicago•Boston•Washington,D.C.•Ft.Lauderdale (213)477-9585 Telex:857661 May 12, 1987 RECEIVED MAY 13 1987 Mr. Henry Engen Community Development Director City of Atascadero P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, California 93423 Proposal No. 23689R1 RE: Economic Base Analysis for the City of Atascadero Dear Mr. Engen: This letter is a follow-up to our several conversations concerning our proposed scope of services and compensation to provide an Economic Base Analysis for the City of Atascadero. During our conversations, you have indicated that a certain amount of land use information on a gross basis has previously been prepared for the City of Atascadero as part of a General Plan update process. As a result, you have requested and we have agreed to a revision of our scope of work and compensation that is based upon our utilization of as much of the existing information as possible albeit with continued assurance of an adequate and reliable work product. Our original proposal was based upon compilation and/or verification of all information to establish a precise baseline inventory and subsequent analysis of each development potential -- Retail, Office/Commercial, Industrial and Tourism for the City as a whole and for the downtown area as a focused subsector. Upon your approval and assurance that a certain amount of baseline information is currently available and acceptable for analysis without additional verification, we would suggest certain aspects of our analyses might utilize this gross information to establish baselines and development potentials. Specifically, we will utilize the gross data to analyze the Retail, Office/Commercial, Industrial and Tourism potentials for the City as a whole and to establish their concomitant baseline inventories for the City as a planning unit. On the other hand, we recommend that adequate detail of analyses remain as part of the focused downtown policy development. This consideration .is based upon your desire to precisely focus upon the future of Atascadero',s downtown and the potential for our study to be a basis for subsequent preparation of a downtown master plan. Accordingly, we have decreased our budget to reflect the above considerations and present a revised Time Schedule, Consultant Hours and Compensation as follows. x Proposal No. 23689R1 5/12/87 PROJECT TIME SCHEDULE Time to Complete Anticipated from Date of Consultant Authorization Hours Tasks to Proceed (R) Required I. Organization Meeting*M 1 week 20 II. Baseline Inventory and Analysis* 4 weeks 68 (R) III. Market Analysis 7 weeks 64 IV. Land Use Analysis* 8 weeks 40 V. Retail Development Potential 10 weeks 56 (R) VI. Office/Commercial Development Potential*M 11 weeks 36 (R) VII. Industrial Development Potential 12 weeks 36 (R) VIII. Tourism-Based Development Potential* 13 weeks 56 (R) IX. Policy Formulation 15 weeks 32 X. Policy Specification/Development Strategies* 18 weeks 80 A. General Plan/Zoning B. Downtown Development Strategy XI. Final Report to City Council*M 20 weeks** 40 Total 528 *One of seven anticipated trips to Atascadero. **Contingent upon length of review period by City and appropriate others. M=A total of three proposed meetings with client groups in Atascadero. (R).Revised 5/12/87. 3 • Proposal No. 23689R1 5/12/87 RECOMMENDED COMPENSATION As revised, ERA recommends a total lump sum price of $45,740 for the proposed scope of work. The cost components have been built up from our estimate of the need for professional consultant time shown above in the Project Time Schedule and the direct supporting costs, and are as follows: Professional Consultant Labor and Attendance at 3 Meetings (528 at $75 composite billing rate) $39,600 " Report Production $ 4,340 o Typing, graphics $3,000 - o 30 copies draft 240 0 100 copies final report 800 o Graphics boards 300 Travel and per Diem (based upon seven round trips by ERA staff) $ 1,000 Other (data purchase/computer analysis) 800 Unforeseen Additional Services Will Be Billed At: Professional Consultant Labor Principal $115 per hour Senior Associate 85 per hour Associate 65 per hour Report Production Typing, Duplication $ 30 per hour Graphics 40 per hour Travel Car, per Diem @ $1.10 x actual Other Data Purchase/Computer Analysis @ $1.10 x actual 4 Proposal No. 23689R1 5/12/87 AUTHORIZATION OF THE WORK If the revisions described above are satisfactory and Economics Research Associates is selected to conduct the revised scope of work, this letter should be attached to our original submission, the complete package serving as our revised business agreement. The signature upon and return of one copy to ERA will be our authorization to carry out the assignment. Respectfully submitted, 1 David A. Wilcox, AICP Senior Vice President _ Sidney L. White, AICP Senior Associate ACCEPTED BY: Date: Date: e • i • • I V N13 ®' � /� AGENDA / • MEMORANDUM To: Atascadero County Sanitation District Board of Directors Through: Michael Shelton, City Manager From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Subject: Messer Request for Interpretation of Applicable Sewer Fees Date : May 15, 1987 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the current fees be levied on this project. Backround: This item was continued from the last regular meeting. Council received a last—hour letter from Mr. Messer's attorney, Glen Lewis which indicated that the sewer annexation resolution constituted a Developer's Agreement . Council , the City Attorney, and staff did not have sufficient time to review the letter prior to the meeting. This item was also continued to the last regular meeting from the previous (April 28) meeting. This item is on the agenda at the request to the developer. Discussion: (Refer to previous staff report . ) Fiscal Analysis: (Refer to previous staff report . ) 4(TE2T1N37_­­, r �G MEMORANDUM • TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS-ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT THROUGH: MICHAEL SHELTON, CITY MANAGER , FROM: PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT : INTERPRETATION OF RESOLUTION 20-84 AND APPEAL OF SANITATION FEES - CASA CAMINO APARTMENTS/DON MESSER RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board support the payment of sewer annexation fees and sewer charges now in effect . BACKGROUND: July 1 , 1986 was the effective date of the sewer ordinance update with respect to fees . The above project has proceeded with two phases of 48 units and 52 units . The initial 48 units was applied for under the old fee structure, but the 52 units filed for a permit after July 1 , _ 1986 . Staff is charging fees for this second phase based on current fees . The developer has cited Resolution 20-84 (attached) which reffis in part " . . .payment of all connection and extension fees . . . " . Staff has interpreted this to mean the fees and charges in effect at the time of connection . Mr . Messer and his attorney (letter attached) disagree with this position and are asking for relief under sanitation code section 12 . 3 (copy attached) . DISCUSSION: Due to treatment plant problems prior to the opening of the new plant , the District included in the annexation resolutions of the south side of town language that would add $70 per unit to apartments constructed in this area . This fee was to be added to the normal annexation fee which is not specified by a dollar figure . The revised fee schedule eliminated the special $70 per unit and incorporated that fee into the new charges . Certain provisions regarding on-site lift stations are conditioned during the map filing process . Mr . Lewis' letter (attorney) claims that Precise Plan 11-84 for this project is protected by Map Act section 66498 . 1 which addresses vested rights . Section 66452 (c) states that a map so considered shall include the words "Vesting Tenative Map . Section 66498. 1 (e) , 1986 ammendment says that the local agency may impose reasona conditions on subsequent required approvals or permits necessary f the development . • In October of 1986 Mr . Messer filed Tract Map 1389 which supercedes the previous Precise Plan 11-84 . As a Condition of Approval of the Tract Map the Applicant was conditioned to "pay all appropriate fees in force at the time of recordation of the final map or construction of additional units ." A copy of the Tract Map and Condition of Approval #3 are attached. Staff' s position is that the resolution gave the right to annex based. upon fees in effect at the time of application for sewer service. FISCAL IMPACT: The old fee was $725 per unit plus $70 per unit , or $795 per unit times 52 , or a total of $41 , 340 . The new fees and charges are $1123 for annexation plus $533 per unit for the connection fee, or $1656 .per unit , or a total of $86, 112 . The loss to the sewer facilities sinking fund for capital improvements if the old fee is allowed would be $44 ,772 . It is pointed out here that this and other developments anticipated after July 1 1986 were used in the calculation of the current fees and that future improvements and expansions will rely on the collection of those fees . It should be noted that the unit costs quoted above are for apartment units . If these units are converted to condominiums there is an additional $123 per unit . DOI MESSER CONSTRUAON CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. 294114 7450 MORRO ROAD P. O. BOX 1958 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 PHONE (805)466-0549 Atascadero City Council 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Enclosed is information regarding the approval for Casa Camino Apartments and ;'. the related sewer agreement. I thought it would be helpful for you to be in- formed as to our position and the problems relating to our developement. x4 When we conceived this project, it was critical that we know in advance what the overall costs pertaining to city requirements and fees were before we could commit to this large, long-range project. I doubt if there is another project in town that has had prior approval and has made the financial commitment that we have. We stuck our necks out for several million dollars in loans and suf- fered ed the agonizing period of negative income to get this project where it is and create a desireable, affordable place for peole to live. The overall fees have increased from approximately $30,000 to $240,000 on Phase III, not includ- ing the new school fees that we did avoid. The interest alone on the fees equals approximately $50 per month per unit and, of course, our rents have not increased to include this increase. Phase III cannot absorb any additional costs. In fact, we had to add "out of pocket" $185,000 for the permit to cover the current fees because the project does not support that additional cost at the current rent structure. This is not a protest against the new city fees. We supported most of the new fees as Molina suggested as necessary to support the city's needed improve ments. We will add the fees into our next projects' costs, or we will not develope until the project can support the total costs including all the nec- essary fees. This sewer fee protest is strictly a question of what our prior agreement was -- whether our overall project should be allowed to connect to"-,the sewer at the original fees as provided in the sewer agreement. As noted, the entire project was included in the original agreement, and a fee was assessed for future im- provements. We obviously negotiated this agreement to "lock in" our right to sewer annexations and the future fees, so we could proceed with our project with certainty of financial stability. I hope this discussion does not get down to one lawyer's opinion of the technical legalities of an agreement against another lawyer. That's what lawyers like to do. It tends to eliminate common sense, fairness, and understanding and reduces a disagreement to the letter of the law analysis and disregards what was the original intent. I hope you can take the time to talk to the prior council and those involved in this agreement, and consider the city attitude and policies before these fees become an issue. I'm sure if you look hard enough and try to appreciate our extremely difficult position, you will appreciate our need for relief from this extra fee that was added after an agreement had been approved that esta i nrc%inCAr71A/__ :. __ _ .__.__r,naIMFRCl4l "REAL ESTATE "'` • Page 2 blished the fee and the fairness of our request. Thank you for taking time to consider our Y q problems. Sincerely, Don Messer i � .S�nS/1�uti5�i MEMORANDUM City of Atascadero May 18, 1987 TO: Board of Directors, Atascadero County Sanitation District FROM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney SUBJECT: Appeal of Sanitation Fees Casa Camino Apartments/Messer This matter was continued from the May 12, 1987 City Council meeting, at which time the appellant's attorney submitted a letter suggesting that the appellant had entered into a "development agreement" with the City of Atascadero, and therefore the appellant should only be required to pay the connection and extension fees which existed in 1984. A previous letter dated April 21, 1987 from the appellant's attorney, alleging that the City had entered into a vesting tentative map, was superseded by the May 12, 1987 letter, as the appellant's attorney conceded that the vesting tentative map provisions of the Government Code were not applicable to this situation. CONCLUSION: After reviewing the materials submitted to the City by the appellant's attorney, the applicable Government Code sections, and the background material approving the Casa Camino Apartments, it is my conclusion that there is no basis for the argument that the City entered into a development agreement concerning this matter, and therefore the Board of Directors of the Atascadero County Sanitation District may impose the annexation fees and sewer charges currently in effect. It is my recommendation that the Board of Directors deny the appeal and uphold the staff recommendation contained in the May 12, 1987 Council agenda report. ANALYSIS: The appellant's attorney has relied upon the provisions of . Government Code § 65864, et seq. concerning development agreements. In reviewing the provisions of the Government Code, it is clear that the City of Atascadero never entered into a development agreement with the appellant. Government Code § 65865(c) provides that the city shall, upon the request of an applicant, by resolution or ordinance, establish procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements. No resolution or ordinance estab- lishing such procedures has ever been adopted by the City of MEMORANDUM: Board of Directors Atascadero County Sanitation District May 18, 1987 - Page 2 I Atascadero, and no application for such a resolution or ordinance has ever been submitted, either by the appellant or any other person. Consequently, the periodic review called for in § 65865.1 has similarly never been implemented. Further, the definition of "rules, regulations, and official policies" contained in § 65866 applies only to rules, regula- tions, and official policies governing permitted uses of the land, density, design, . improvement, and construction standards and specifications, and does not apply to fees and charges. Therefore, even if a development agreement had been entered into, it would not preclude the City from imposing new or amended fees. § 65867 provides that a public hearing shall be held by the planning commission and city council on any application for a development agreement, and that notice of intention to consider adoption of a development agreement must be given. No public hearing or notice on an application for a develop- ment agreement has ever been conducted with respect to the appellant's project. § 65867.5 requires that a development agreement must be approved by ordinance after necessary findings of consistency with the general plan. No ordinance was ever adopted approving a development agreement with respect to the appellant's project. § 65868.5 requires that no later than 10 days after approval of a development agree- ment, the city clerk shall record a copy of the agreement. No such copy of any agreement was ever recorded by the City Clerk, because there never was one. Based upon the above discussion, it is clear that the alleged agreement referred to by the appellant's attorney does not meet even the minimal statutory requirements or intent to constitute a development agreement. The only reference made by the appellant's attorney to formal action of the City is to Resolution No. 20-84, which approved extension of sewer service to the appellant's property and established conditions of approval for that extension. A resolution does not meet the minimal requirements for a development agreement discussed above. In addition, by its very terms, Resolution No. 20-84 provides for "payment of all connection and extension fees as provided in the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code." This provision is not limited as to time, and it is my opinion that by itself, it would authorize the imposition of the current fees charged by the District. MEMORANDUM: Board of Directors Atascadero County Sanitation District May 18, 1987 - Page 3 Finally, the appellant has conveniently ignored the conditions of approval of tentative tract map 6-86, which specifically provide: ". . .The applicant shall pay all appropriate fees in force at the time .of recordation of the final map or construction of additional units. This shall include the difference between the fees for apart- ments and single family residences."' If there was any doubt on the matter, this condition clearly indicates that the fees to be imposed should be based upon the rates currently in effect. Respectfully submitted, gjityJ GENSEN t ney JGJ: fr A:MMATA497 cc: City Manager J Public Works Director Community Development Director ADMINISTRATION BUILDING !� POST OFFICE BOX 747 ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93423 PHONE: )805)466-8000 - POLICE DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 747 CAOERO.CALIFORNIA 93423 CITY COUNCIL tascadeiC® ATASPHONE: )805) 466.8600 CITY CLERK CITY TREASURER CITY MANAGER INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE -RUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ATASCAOERO.CALIFORNIA 93422 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT PHONE: )60S)496-2141 w April 6, 1987 Mr. Don Messer 7450 Morro Road Atascadero, CA 93422 SUBJECT: Casa Camino Project - South E1 Camino Real Dear Mr. Messer: Please disregard the March 2 letter from George Wolfrank regarding the Casa Camino downstream improvement fees . I am working with Dennis Bethel on on-site improvements that will satisfy our downstream requirements and credit the $6000 against your sewer fees for the next phase of your project . The records show that you have paid the $6000 for downstream improvements in leiu of on-site improvements . If there are further questions please contact either Dennis , George or myself. Very truly yours , PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH Director of Public Works/City Engineer NOTE*** It is interesting to note that the city did charge an additional $6,000 for downstream improvements. As you can see, we have already paid our share of the downstream improvement costs for Phase II and this proportional amount would be acceptable for Phase III. We have also agreed to downsize our pumps to reduce the discharge rate, and thi's would require additional storage for Phase III. It seems that we are being asked to pay for both ends of the problem. We are willing to work with the city regarding the holding tanks, but that extra expense should eliminate the need for extra fees. • f GLEN A. LEWIS A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 5275 EL CAMINO REAL POST OFFICE BOX 1980 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 TELEPHONE (805) 466-6644 April 21, 1987 Paul Sensibaugh Public Works Director City of Atascadero City Administration Building Atascadero, CA 93422 RE: CASA CAMINO APARTMENTS/DONALD MESSER Dear Mr. Sensibaugh: This law office has been contacted by Mr. Donald Messer with reference to the proposed fees to be charged for the erection of Phase III of the 140-Unit Casa Camino Apartment Project. In reviewing the documentation supplied to me, more particularly the precise Plan 11-84 Approval and Resolution Number 20-84, it is clear that this particular project comes under the vested right theory under Government Code Section 66498. 1. In reviewing Resolution Number 20-84, Subpart 1 (a) through (c) , it is clear that the only additional fees to be charged the project developer would be $70.00 per residential unit as stated in item 1(b) . No other fees are recited in the Resolution Number 20-84. With reference to the precise Plan 11-84, the conditions stated in that precise plan will be met by my clients. Except for the additional fees of $70. 00 per residential unit and the other conditions in the original precise Plan 11-84 presented to the developer as of July 9, 1984, Government Code Section 66498. 1 prevents the City of Atascadero or any subagency of the City from imposing any additional fees. Please have this letter presented to the City Council and City Attorney with reference to an application being presently processed on behalf of Don Messer Construction. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, SGRL:rg GLEN R. LEWIS DOW MESSER CONSTRUW ON CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. 294114 7450 MORRO ROAD P. O BOX 1958 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 PHONE (805)466-0549 April 14, 1987 Paul Sensibaugh Public Works Director Atascadero, CA 93422 RE: Casa Camino Fees Dear Paul, I have reviewed the precise plan approval and resolution I 20-84, the Sewer District extension agreement for the entire 140 unit Casa Camino project in order to understand how the city can increase our sewer fees. It appears clear to me that we have an approved project (all 140 units) and have agreed in advance to what the fees will be. Item # 1B of re- solution 20-84 is very specific as to the amount $70.00 and for future cost of upgrading the local sewer collection system. Condition lA clearly refers to the existing fees and has no reference to future fees since the next item 1B addresses future cost of improvements. Our group has invested a considerable amount of time and money into im- provements related to the development of Phase III: 1. Sewer lift pump and collection system 2. Access roads 3 Frontage road improvements 4. Swimming pool. 5. Parking 6. Engineering 7. P G & E Service All of these improvements and expenses were sized in order to accomodate Phase III (52 units) . Had we not had an agreement that assured our ability both physically and economically to build Phase III we would not have in- curred as much expense. We feel we have a vested interest in this project and that the prior approval has properly addressed the future fees with item 1B. INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE Condition 1C also addresses future systems by requiring us to design our system to minimize pumping during peak-flows. I thought we had met your requirements for Phase III, but now I understand we may have to install holding tanks for Phase III. We will co-operate with the city in this regard, but the additional sewer fees were not planned for and could -destroy the project after all our efforts and expenses. I have asked Glen Lewis attorney to better explain our position for the benefit of the city attorney. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, 111_��/co Dcn Messer 11 EM RESOLUTION NO. 20-84 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT- APPROVING EXTENSION OF SEWER SERVICE OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS FOP. APPROVAL OF SAID EXTENSION FOR APN #45-320-01 WHEREAS, Allen Grimes, -Tom McNamara, Bill McNamara, Stan Cherry, Gayle Sharp and Dennis Bethel own the property described in Exhibits A and B, as attached to this Resolution, and; WHEREAS, the property owner wishes to connect to an existing sewer main in E1 Camino Real, fronting said property, and; WHEREAS, the property described in Exhibits A and B is not within the limits of Improvement District No. 1, and; WHEREAS, an engineered study of the effect of adding this property to the sewer system has been submitted, reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director, and; WHEREAS, said study indicates the future necessity of improvements to ` the local sewer collection system, with the cost of these improvements pro- rated equally to new connections outside Improvement District No. 1, and; WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the Sanitation District to provide sewer service to residential development in this area of the City. Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved by the Board of Directors of the Atascadero County Sanitation District, as follows: 1 - That the property owned by Allen Grimes, Tom McNamara, Bill McNamara, Stan Cherry, Gayle Sharp and Dennis Bethel, as described in Exhibits A and B is approved for extension of sewer service subject to the following conditions: a - Payment of all connection and extension fees as provided in the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code. b —Payment of an additional $70.00 per residential unit, such payment to be in consideration of the future cost of upgrading the local sewer collection system. c - Any on-site sewer lift or pump station must be designed and constructed to eliminate pumping into the collection system during periods of peak sewer flows. The system must be designed by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California, and approved by the City Engineer. Said on-site pump station shall have pro- visions for monitoring, by District employees to determine pumping time utilized. d - Obtaining all necessary plumbing and street encroachment permits. On motion by Director Molina and seconded by Director Wilkins the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote: AYES: Director Wilkins, Molina, Nelson, Stover and Mackey NOES: None ADOPTED: April 23, 1984 ATTEST: &UA Y L. ART�EN, Secretary MARJORI R. 1�,ACKEY,.Chairman PROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FOR. UR Y L. ARDEN, City Manager ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney . w J LLJ --- W W - -- -- - ---. i U CfJ I J F W i i ti Exhibit B Legal Description Lot 9 in Block 7 of Eaglet No. 2, according to the Map of Mitchell's Re-subdivision of Rancho Atascadero, as per map recorded January 1, 1920, in Book 2, Page 39 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of San Luis Obispo County. / i i i i i i /®l�''.. of 9D i t l t © 1 •sw _„q. - � O © I R Ma i II DCN I]SIT IS 7VPdT M!t-P Tint'n V>✓ 7rA7 O — ,r---�— 1U705 EL CfrM I KID FZEM `.0 NM i' !-W-1 -()A 117 177P!�I/lt-1 ,77 N Pl 11 Jr) 0 0 Tentative Tract Map 6-86 (Casa Camino/Dennis Bethel) EXHIBIT D - Tentative Tract Map 6-86 Findings for Approval October 6, 1986 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and Restric- tions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control of nuisances and architectural constrol for all buildings. a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney and Community Development Department prior to approval of the final map. b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by a Condominium Homeowners Association. 2. Submit a soils report or engineer 's certification that existing soils on the site are adequate to support proposed structures q PP p p tures per Chapter 70, subsection (e) of the Uniform Building Code. 3 The applicant shall pay all appropriate fees in force at the time of recordation of the final map or construction of additional units. This shall include the difference between the fees for apartments and single family residences. 4. All requirements of state law (Subdivision Map Act) concerning the conversion of occupied residential units to air-space condominiums shall be complied with. 5. All conditions of approval herein specified are to be complied with prior to the filing of the final map. 6. A final map, in compliance with all conditions set forth herein, shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners have been set or shall be set by a date specific and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit- ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 7. Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. 4 Consolidated Ord.* 12.3 Relief: Any person, who by reason of special circumstances believes that the application of any of the provisions of this Ordinance Code to him is unjust or inequitable, may make written application to the Board of Directors for relief therefrom. Said application shall set forth all of the special facts and circumstances and shall request the specific relief or modification desired. The Board of Directors upon receipt of such application and after such investigation as deemed necessary may take action to grant such relief or modification as it finds necessary. The Board of Directors, on its own motion and without application, may, when special circumstances make the application of any of the provisions of this Ordinance Code unjust or inequitable, modify or suspend the rules and regulations for the period during which the special circumstances exist y SII t i f t 0"O w m m m a O m Q� w p.=-a c �^ n m o n 7 > >� y - -� Q� a w o m r° o O� c ° 3w t ° p_ �,< °rroa000 < m moo A O w < _-0 ^ > > 663 +' ° { ap^.a wd ao ^.ac°o � r°o � � ^ sem ° aD � o3 � cj �.o°oawCCcn'n� � � c i 3 (D < :� 3 o w - , aro sm m T O R (3DQ0 o o(D-<3 c3D o ° am M < r, am 3 � V a- � o � ��-^- n < o m rCL*a amc s� � �? 1 s° � � ° ° n a3'3 $ > > � aSi m M w m .m �p 0-p s o m - m w O �D O 3 ;" roc (D -- --,.O �, a w = c 0o y' O .. w ^,O > > > ,< c p m w O c M c < .. < O m w � = w w 7 < ^• > > a v ^. a 00 < n ?sz m f o -,7 O Z M cu MS� -"� p d° < 7 =_ am m , < m H m N S fo D m U, m"a s-* m n.N D �=" " _ y m w 3 (Dm aO N m O (D C to = w �. d 3 � w ?o n vS� o c O �sm a (D °: .. CD-C D 3 rD S3 ° j w � c 0 < www Ra a 'O m c m m � � » �O m osm ° c oo mp ^ooy � � ELM w^-p w <'O °' m �n.O SaoSSSm SS_N d > m n m 2 a ^'� a,-. m O m 3' �'� N E'm"' o � 3 .. C1 n c m < a �°° -3�o wao m;< m^'. °" w°c•na'_a o 3 «�°_ ro m ^-.m cp m. 2 c N N °' n w < n w o S m � N 3cu vi < o ° o rr m w O `< `^-m ° m m m -, S r,:3 fDw � m w p00Nw � p � 'a Sa.+ � m <> mCn � � ?AQ w O- < mmwo powm S� p (DIm �-o wo a s an v mow' o am o m m s��'=: mm �o m o ca. :3 ° M c =c c m ar �a""�< 3 Q sm A 3 0 v,� s(R w< �a'_c n s�B d o o 3 S� ° c<o w m O > V < vpn O v ; < '' < coWtmD� mn,� m =_0, Sm -m 0o Q3 Z 7 - sw m m (mm - p N 0 C M Oc m m � m �'' A www 33m < . m3iua-0 0o 0 3 � Tm m momR p ° � m a o ,N. O to 3 O ° ~ m m 7'O o O m w m p w w o m .+ v+ O 3 'O ^ N 7 7 r-r �C a N O SS7 ,.., N a=Tw O C7 °: w m ="c w (^D O c O 3 O -c ° Q m Ts° .. N m m woo 3 N c c < O �, < 7 m m rci C r�i a,m 3 - .N 3 ,n .m•. �.m p: N � 6'O -nf71 d-m m c <^ =o A Sa 3 'i S� SH p- =C (p " (fD N dam 3 p�•rC1 7 S �..'. c .:O - ° m m m m 000 -m w m ^. < m A '_' m N ' ,mi, < T°'v M > > ?� _m N m z S<� o� 0 _� c<o w C m R mo ° am o oc, �cNcSfl' 3a N _ 0 M a p a7 N "'. nq' p � _.� -, w 3 n m j sO m .� O '< S((DD ^ ms ��� t^� �`'� O•� 'p a a+ .. p m m O S w 3 m .. o to S`C W CCD c •w0 C%T ryD _'m �'=.S t'D '"m O m m (zD <0 •O C ''] fa> > ,.. m m .. w w A v 'O O in > > m 00 rm^. o m o0 o m ,-.omo R Omc p o_< m r'Yp c.a N CL - A n v �' �c -� '* ter. m � m , � � 0a- m om O m .^tMO'D ,� �pco0 '^ •3mN 33S � 3 � mN -• om n < � 3w, � n N d O�n > to O� N ,n o w p w O m woo Ai � c -a ;n O m :: ^' 7 ° .* _ .S^ S C O N _+ Q Q `< 7 �'rD < O < C z .+`< rr o o rte. �gy p+. s =ra,�o m .. Sn rD C m p n T p v?K m -(D ,mi m Sm� S•+ ^�^ Q 7 (ND a��1(nD w (<D m a c c�< C z Q•] n•C m m -3 S.+ S N O m p:r. Q.' j N ? a00, m ��m < 3 � '" � ° �� oaC m Z < o 300 o_mo a'= m s- „ v' m 3 O m :P.- 0-M � v Amo'^< �a ° < � o� � �3 °� � .�° � M _ mo_ ° � °o o ia� D° c n a 3 so .. sss�� S ssom ° aSoo mwc � m �, mmm °' aP: mmwOAi °'`, m ° a %o �� � � �, 3M :3 w : o mnZ-Abmp _ � ^. A 3� �a =.w-0 O- m ° vmm sm Z co o O_U M ,., w 3 C m m m s� CO p cm < 0 0'= `O a-„o o -. oa m 3 0< 0 ° m V ° j0i 7 (<D =- <-Woo SO0 _ a-Zm .mm <.3 < > O O < 2 as a o, N� m a+ n O !p °°°' c s o-7 sm ^ ° am (nD ° w 3 a -.m =rnre �' �� Q rD '^ ° m -i o p v °a m n m m a<'° m z- 3"0 O « w w DoD Z an s a a m m 3 a� °: � m m moo° °� ��° CLrD -"m-0 M m a-(D � o ° P: c a3w S <o° � Na � wm3 .. a° N.n4r. " o °i �oQA `�° aom^. � _ac's• ^ ° ^ � �_.� � k ° w ° .5 �� sa n o� wS. � ,3 �" d °°O `�° �c°, < c �' ^ m s� o Sam w - m vu (D o. Dj n p y p, � Sa=a ' O Dcv�o n y ° w ° �c m _ao° M m o a 3 Y v mO -3o m3 < �' 3°° m <"° sw' mr^D .. 3aoo'ro r° sn c ° a 3a aa ° moo' mm " 7 m ° a- m m c ,00 O o � O- m o 'r3 o pao ry n o a=o < m ° - ?m c� n o 3'3 R, o sm > > o ° 0. " o ° m ro s g - 3T ao Sox w a� o xm o m3 ID - > > o .T3'm m w 3 < N a Q=a v+a n, c = o m ^ - a ° m <a a - cr - m < a .. mw v _ n =.00n' <' . o °'o � m 0 xc m = 1 o 0 0o s a * _. � _. m _ w m _ w < a c a w• O m C 7 O O < n_ O - - w m" O 3 _ < _. o m � w m m > > > m n O ^ _ m m n Q C m o Q o Aw ?<_ o p •* ^.oa r) m a O � .. a� 3 Z-Z-,;. °' o' c m o � ° a ° s ' a° rrDD°°° m � ". — a o m > > n3, c o o a o'c Qa Q aim ° oo m ,� O [D -w y' s ma •O<..... m 3 y C /p -, C Q,O a Cr,n w !p O ?c Cui <CL o= -. 7 m �• o �a p rn�m m m °: " o D, O a m rn a c, 3 �° R =o �'��� m w > > s n.r- s N -�� N �_.� ° p <'> > °,' o ��„�� c m ��_. c O p-c m m n m T * Q •n fmD j j > S p N•A+ m G _^. O W n.su < QZZ:aN,< c � : d W M Q O` v S,m„ p" m m (<D m (D :3 y S 0=0 N Q H vm, Q r. a f3D ^ a'C OrC v, .' 7 a _a m 'r s ° O"O - a,PS+ 0o rD y'j r=i 7..p w _ r^D A „' ip j.�-O a » °' '< rrb c w m 7' p''^ m m w - raD p `^ N O- Q m ^--., G c-�'w 7 "m' 0 j N raD rD n N rD 0+ O w a�'j ° a 7 On �- 7 6< w < o m 3 0 m� m s ° m a a ° m a w w w ^ QO- ,n v , O j p -y r?p - O Sm OT E; cu �a 01-0 rQ O a a SN � cm 00 =„mow •O O ° d N S m 3 Ow`� S m m N 3 .0. w'a 0 o < O �o z o, r<D o w m m O a 7 p o c m °�' �? w Tv,a j m aj� a Q°;a ID m ° �,n rn ] a m Sw O ,c. N �� m n' a'�� a R-0 n > >'o r<o 0"o ° 3 c m �� o maw 3 r. 0 3 0iD' O 3 m p w a Q ;. _ O p v, m 3'0'0 3 s° sow 3 ° rnD 3 p (�D o Q o c a 3.w< 0 S� O S n w n m ^ p+ j m m O w n a O o = a— RL m< n o n m m m e S 7 a c "Q cu c L, p ^' O 3 3 ' (7—m -• - W o a Q a moo R'3 a• N rn 3 a O2 O' am :r w A < N m j w w a (�j' _�. 3 c Qo Q j �. ,n 3 d .^. 3'� N m j d a N �o� v a .D 7 � � O a--Ir^D ^ �y SM D Cr � n o 3 NO Cu v cu a O O O � d O0 rm. vwi w, 0�0 0'o m 7 m 3 7 ? S r. O , m 3'cu cr,s a m S Sr •-+ 7 w w ml<m O o =° a ^oo� m O ° o Os m m o a p c a0 (�o� <a rAD�c S� o o 3 w a S�. o°'+ a x ° 0 v 04 n .n. 3 cD O _ ? a n+• O °- _ O n O (D A ^ N T 3 5 _ a 3 _.m a� cn * - m Oo S a O _.�,•O c j ao rD OID ,� 7 �' O N•N w O_fD cD l a r CD (D r7. d d 7 w (D 7+ 0.M a W- S p �.ao P+ O Q 7 T Q "^ O 0 °ao O (D O.v W O n,'7 7 O n �' OT vCi �_ O_O 7 a ° �_ O c A3+ G 7 d 3 7 �_ a 7 ?,.. '.'�n O N `G S m c 7 c On 7 fD = Q(°D c a C o(D� !SD C Sm 7 ma 7 C a Sa (D �� j ,< m� �o (per w o 2'Ww 3'O o� a- n a� -'0 O �� 3 O a O aO m 0 7 c Z a+w O A' a w -a p+ a d 7 _ n 7 a fD O 7 < S fD �, 0 j cn(D �'(D O (D � n °-N�a .Ow n d CL M n p M p m n p O o+a j 7 0 S- a w _S S t X S 0 rnr °- n 7 0 ° �.ao S O O (D A D m (D (D < w < 7 A+ �.^ O _ O O 7 (D •' 7• 'Y O N t0 •'`Y -7i.` 7 ((D n' N N CD Q 3 O O O y a w co (D w N oo O oo O O ao S 0 w 7 w 0 (D no Sa ° n 7 d H N O O 0_..a N Q- 7 (D (1 O.<`� A j�a t0 N 7 c I If O 7 K j 7 �•7 =v -`=. c o o a O p 7 0 2 A 7 (D O (ND r+ Q,n CO C 3 7 O_ 0 G O ° w a p O n O cam» AS n n O j a 7 7 o j Q' �' n'a CD c c 7 j (D " O Rn C _0 �. -,.7'p ,�: O w p f1 � AD O fD :N (=D O N (D lD �.a d O m`G o O U�-, `n w d a ao o�- Q N =r0-0 A°i O ° n' O CD 0 7 .x-r n (D O- 7 S 'OT c C CO FD-W 7 a' -' n �^ a d- ? c n d (D O v+ 3 S r) mAni p_T .� P+ S- n (D `n p -(ClD 7 ?n'� �' �' 0 .< w C - O .. o_y(D 0-= �(�D w CDS (D c o3 ;< Da- 3 � � � 3 -- aw o7� � 7p pS OD 0 N =fin tu �n n°-n O� O w O �.m y 7•mm p' N �m 7 n fl-� C WO,a "' ' S� n O pr+ c n 0 S? - A°+.0 O K N O n S S(D .cr p T 0 N 0-0-0 m O 0-O 'a 0 v CD w�° 7 � a n� �70 �.0 2.-C-4 -0-0 o ^ O C Q7 a.0 c rr p 3 (D K (D 7 -- 7 ^ 7 7 �'.w c C K O SQ 0 ,••' w H 7 ° (D n-Oc -' 7 O 7 C <ID (D CSD 7 n ° m N c O m (cD-°O-°a 03 m a O v N d,.'^< �' Q: ' 0.5• =O 0 � o 0 14 Vp AS,-00 -�0 (D lD n0 n v' 7 n ��= n w 7 7 m �.�n O"a� 0 3 N (m N N' a =.. w�� a,0 rnao p �m o � p 3 D m T� (D �0 ad 0 Sv S y w _Sn ' p O su 3 a m = = a n aa w 7 -<�3 sm �0 c ° M°� ao �.saco ID o Oaco __l � S S��' M, 0 w eD o o O O D�' n �_ n `� 3 Pi (D S�.O a m p d 7 �^O x N w R O R+ n. a O n . 0 < w0 � 700o � O- =ma-aN ° mw � a0 CD 7'ao(nD � =wy0 m CO�(oOQ ° � 3 O w 7 lD 7 7 (D O S-0 m x N .••. O v' 7 .7•. o 7'OR Un (D �._ �• ' ej m a w ° a+ r w oar °' �m m3 (7D n c a n Q�^�„n n(3D o� a a o w< c 3 n c 0 O C7 (�D �aa (D c a o m.c�a° �+ 0 r:¢, N c �°n° < �n. �m a� � c a� p o (per o ' 3 w rD m °;c a (D R (fDD �a ° � 0 (D °-' c X X o o � �o N act 3 �D �• r7D c 3 tea+ ° ° 0 p p 7 O Q-�fD.ao A 0 a 3 0 w 3 7 = �v, 7 O_7 w a O Q3p o�S 7.w fnD_ a0• _ CD - n O - n 3 3 a 0 3 3 c-0 a3 0_ 0-a � N'^.v ^.m O-" o m (aD `� 3 0 n 3 0 ,� c "CD O 7 c o m M -nn d 7' O0 vci 7 '.n<azo O N j G•O O � a O a w O0 O0 m O vw, 3 m (ND vci -0OON Ono a�+ 3-A' cls 00 m O < ° w K � ao p0 N a0 ^ m0 03 0.D= ?O 7 �� A w 7 a� S A ? C c C�-0 M viCSD n� 7 7 O Oo°_7,Y" n (D -.O n. (D 7 --& w �_. N N "0 A C h o N N 7 T 7 ] a r. C m S A 3 ?+ O 6m TNs c �.0 �_' c D w a y Qm D D O m 0 SDO 3 0 jo=a (So �(D STa+ n O ^ < � 0 7 ro �.m SAO M " rD 0 °; w a 7 (o n.O SO O__• T R 0 S n vci 7 p w (p w p 7 y Q? a, 0' (D 0 7 w '+ r+O-(D 3•w N O a n m 7 �•n �� < u,� (D (D Qm _ O m a" oaQ au' Z �•3 p °;a -"a (7D mc' j n 0 a Q m d Q (D _�a �O� O -7 r:a O p ._., 777 < <' n 7 Cly � n nn ..Opn � n . NCD s3 � Oa � aa < 3'm0 < 73 3R'°o oN.� °=((eo � � < < MM ° (o m (�° 3 :3 :3 —3 ce oa CD w y O 0 °°a0 w vi A (D �•N N � (D 0 3 w .. D � o O O_� �`^ w cu [D ao fD N O �n v7+ m On _ (D < 0 O 7 pi (D 7 (D a aQ o D Q a c c -w o p p"0 O (D (D 0 a s ID (D 'G ao (D 7 A' w A Q (D ((D O a <' (D S.t A0 -0 Q`G 7 n _ O L3. Q.S _ vi w oN < c S CI-:3 o='-C (D _. 0O m < 7 °' a n (D n (D r) c �_ �_ w CL v ' 37m nS"2 L 'a ru O w e w (ow o � w �� (6D N u 7 S M� c c �' so c n y w n --O < a O (D a O -, • `° w a- nY - (D 7 7 rIn ". n Oaa - c< S roOca ' cw 0< QO O M pRS (D m ? or mEr 3wyw wmm n_� rt °i w< (o p '^'o ° (nD a 0. � 7Ns o (�oa wa� c� - 3 omss w A+ a w 7 ° °'� ao� �a °c oom 7Cu .. _ (D m n m n'M 0 ? 7 S 0 0(3! cu ala a S (DG,m (gyp o n A Z c c - a'0 D T C ao N W w ID w m'7 M fD S ?(p N••! C -i vi a 7 .[D 3 '' f1' a -0 a O n'7 N C 7 (D -a-W , •_• N' .O N N m j 7. 0-"O 7 `n< 7r A+ 0 °: 3 ;.O-0 S (D O S w °.d 3' 3 n m a m ma.. 5.o a a fD p - o' w w 3 a a(D w < a rD Z n v a �Wa w•=< (D 7 0 3Q0M < 0 Oo m ° O6"O C �°O n a r9 Ln -•, 3 g 7 -o a�+ ,< m �� 3 �- w^ Do v -< wa M t. n 3. nw-am ,:3 �3 .. p .n+,-0 (o a 0'�•j (D �•w y 1' aw w 0 (p < O o 3 0 �.W a• > eD �' o < c 77s� < c j � � �'m � wrno o� oM aS a ° Sao A � � 0 3 aa° a (Dw n � a 7Ow p o -_ 0_3 a a o� a n (0 7 7 = n m I aw M (� o < `aa7 m a ao <0a j m vo w o � Cu no m �a� w a <, S 7 as .. Q. ,�� 7 r. n 7 w 1 n 3.a w 3 ^n �' � min A aa (ciMwc w ° a 0 3 7 n � < 3 (o `gym c � 3 o n m v, a� rD o 3 a _ o w °� o,7 N. C: 0 oo m m.?� 0 • DENNIS BETHEL & ASSOCIATES, INC. W CIVIL ENGINEERS I 313 B East Plaza Drive,Suite 9 • Santa Maria,California 93454 • (805) 928-7666 April 13, 1987 DB-7108 City of Atascadero Post Office Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 Attn: Paul Sensibaugh SUBJECT: Casa Camino Sewer Fees Dear Paul: We ve reviewed ,-I& approv s for Casa Camino Sewer Extension and Pr cise Plan ,and find the ewer fee to be $70. 00. We believe th' s establishes the fees t� be paid and request the permits be is ued based ori this fee. 1 Sin erely, Dennis Bethel, P.E. DB:cb t { 'rC 'ADMINISTRATION BUILDING -� CITY ATTORNEY POST OFFICE BOX 747 POST FICE BOX 749 ,TASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93423 - ATASCADE OF CALIFORNIA 93423 PHONE: (805) 466-8000 PHONE: (805) 466-5678 CITY COUNCIL � ® ► PA CITY CLERK POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY TREASURER POST OFFICE BOX )4; CITY MANAGER AINCORPORATED JULY 2, 1979 ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA FINANCE DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805) 466.8600 PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT - - - - PLANNING DEPARTMENT .PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - FIRE DEPARTMENT RECREATION DEPARTMENT - - 6005 LEWIS AVENUE - ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93422 PHONE: (805) 466-2141 June 25, 1984 Dennis Bethel and Associates 313 B East Plaza Drive - Suite 9 Santa Maria, CA 93454 RE: PRECISE PLAN 11-84 (10705 E1 Camino Real) 140 unit multiple family residential project (Lot 9, Block 7, Eaglet #2) Dear Mr. Bethel: The City of Atascadero has received and reviewed your application for a Precise Plan and Environmental Determination for approval of devel- opment of a 140 unit multiple family residential project at the above referenced location. The proposed site is zoned RMF/16 (Residential Multiple, Family, 16 units per acre) and the proposed use would be allowable as defined as Multiple Family Dwellings (Section 9-3.172 (f) ) . The surrounding properties are all zoned RMF/16 and are partially dev- eloped with residential uses, with the exception of the property to the north and east that is in the County and contains the State Hospital. The proposed project is in compliance with -the provisions of the Zon- ing Ordinance with the exception of: Section 9-4.115 (c) - Requiring the provision of five handicapped stalls Section 9-4.104 (b) - Requiring a front yard setback of 25'-0" for 6 ' -0" fences Section 9-4. 129 (b) (1) :.- Requiring trash enclosures to be within 100 feet of each building A review by the Planning Director of the Environmental Description form and application along with other background information shows that the project will have no detrimental effect upon the environment, therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Director has also found the project to be in compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance with the exception of those sections stated a�?Et 0 308 # .. t By The proposed Precise Plan is approved as shown on attached Exhibit A (site plan) , Exhibit B (elevation) , and subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit C. Final approval of the Precise Plan will become effective. at 5:00 p.m. on July 9, 1984, unless appealed. In the event you intend to appeal any of the conditions, your appeal should be in writing and should state the reasons for the appeal. Any appeal would be scheduled for Planning Commission consideration as a public hearing. You should, however, discuss any objections to the conditions with the Planning Staff as it may be possible to alter con- ditions after such discussion. If you should have any questions concerning this project, you are wel- come to contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, Joel Moses Associate Planner JM:ps Enclosures y 2 Z7&=- z : Lad 0 ti fly (n > D aO O n nx '01 o D Z --I- En Enn o > 0 1 10 Ir ' t �t r�satr��u• rsa�saa�,�ss�es►�n��s��► rs�� • � � .eOsrl�sll ai^tnft=c -.�, •�aat'►�`'•riE'�e1 �QI Via_ �� t `k. eek O ,T•�, ��� � �. iii'i c T ' ,.. �a a ..... -� ��,.' ' r y � ` � � � �� �� 1 m� �r et:-f�pf .mow �� r-tit'_`�-ice` �r � � .._,t i . Q 1 '►� r` � �� A � � • 4�: "'!hcsr ice- �':�= t M t �+� � s p .�; � s �. � =� �� � o '� �� �:� � w-�� fa � �� �.liQl f�.. p • � 3 � �� a :� Nr a -s-s '� i. o ""�'►'�"4 �.s 1 � ,.:..__ � e �. �0 � * � s. a � �� � 4 .. t F- r m u •. m � < u < F : > - . 4 r p E_- Ztr VA w► y 1 Y, N .I I -n O Z e D(NNU bTTHl1 A AWK'IATE� CASA CAMINO APARTMENTS ---- -- EXHIBIT C Conditions of Approval Precise Plan 11-84 10705 El Camino Real (Casa Camino Properties/Bethel) 1. All construction shall be in conformance with approved Exhibits A (site plan) , B (elevations) , and C (conditions of approval) along with all other applicable codes and ordinances of the City of Atascadero. 2. Each phase shall conform to all sections of the Zoning Ordinance including the required handicapped parking stall requirements and trash enclosure requirements. 3. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. The wall along the front property line shall be relocated outside the front yard setback or reduced to 3 '-0" in height. 5. Improvement plans for curb, gutter , sidewalk and paveout shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6 . A second access shall be provided to E`1 Camino Real for emergency access with the design to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department prior to the issuance of a building perit. Improvement plans sh-.11 also . include a fire hydrant with the type and location to be approved by the Fire Department. 5.. This Precise Plan approval is approved for one year from the date of final approval. 3 ADA4l+JISTRATION BUILDING CITY ATTORNEY PG5. FICE BOX 747 POST OFFICE BOX 749 BATAS ..SERO,CALIFORNIA 93423 ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93423 PHONE: (805) 466-8000 = PHONE: (805) 466-5678 CITY COUNCIL .P. CITY CLERK S Ara 4M POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY TREASURER POST OFFICE BOX 747 CITY MANAGER INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA ' FINANCE DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805) 466-8600 PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT � - - - PLANNING DEPARTMENT -. .. w. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - FIRE DEPARTMENT RECREATION DEPARTMENT; 6005 LEWIS AVENUE - - - - ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93422 r� - PHONE: (805) 466-2141 . July 26, 1984 Dennis Bethel and Associates 313 B East Plaza Drive - Suite 9 Santa Maria, CA 93454 - SUBJECT: PRECISE PLAN 11-84 _ ___ _.. 10705 E1 Camino Real Dear Mr. Bethel: This is to advise that approval of the above-referenced applica- tion concerning your request to approve a 140 unit multiple fam- ily residential project became effective at 5:00 p.m. on July ,!, 9, 1984. No .appeals were received during the appeal period which ended on that same date. Enclosed please find a Final Notice of Approval for the project. If you should have any questions or concerns regarding this matter , please feel free to contact the Planning Department. Sincerely; Joel Moses Associate Planner JM:ps cc: Casa Camino Properties snp FILO c, JOB # n X111-T / NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF PRECISE PLAN SUBJECT: PRECISE PLAN 11-84 LOCATION: 10705 El Camino Real (Lot 91 Block 7) APPLICANT: Dennis Bethel and Associates REQUEST: To approve development of a 140 unit multiple family resi- dential project. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Precise Plan 11-84 has been approved by the Planning Director. Copies of the Staff Report, plans, and re- lated project information are available for public review and comment in the Planning Department (Room 103) , Administration Building, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California. The Planning Director has prepared a Negative Declaration indica- ting the project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment. This is to advise that approval of Precise Plan 11-84 became ef- fective at 5:00 p.m. on July 9 , 1984. Dated: July 26 , 1984 WAYNE LOFT S, Pla ing irector City of Atascadero, California cc: City Council City Manager City Attorney Planning Commission MJ O'Brien CM Colombo Victor Mori Jr. Holiday Paper Products Inc. BH Baker G Wood c/o JK Nelson /1DMINISTRATION BUILDING - �) CITY ATTORNEY POST OFFICE BOX 747 POST OFFICE BOX 606 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93423 PHONE: (805) 466-8000 PHONE: (805) 466.4422 . �. CITY COUNCIL e ® CITY CLERK POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY TREASURER INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 POST OFFICE CALIFORNIA A CITY MANAGER PHONE: (805) 466-8600 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT �+ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT - FIRE DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 PHONE: (805) 466-2141 June 23 , 1986 Dennis Bethel and Associates 313 B East Plaza Drive' - Suite 9 Santa Maria, CA 93454 RE: Time Extension: Precise Plan 11-84 (10705 El Camino Real - Casa Camino Apartments) Dear Mr. Bethel: I have reviewed your request for a time extension for the above-referenced precise plan. The approval would normally expire on July 9 , 1986 . Pursuant to Section 9-2 . 118 of the Zoning Ordinance, the approvals have been extended to July 9, 1987 . Normally, a second time extension would require Planning Commission approval . In that the previously granted time extension was unnecessary, this extension will be con- sidered the first one . If you should have any questions concerning this matter, please contact the Community Development Department for assistance. Sincerely, Doug Da idson Assistant Planner DDp s -- - FILE - '—i_ JOB J# _ - r<fi Cr'/Aftf� By IOA NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF PRECISE PLAN SUBJECT: PRECISE PLAN 11-84 LOCATION: 10705 E1 Camino Real (Lot 9, Block 7) APPLICANT: Dennis Bethel and Associates REQUEST: To approve development of a 140 unit multiple family resi- dential project. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Precise Plan 11-84 has been approved by the Planning Director . Copies of the Staff Report, plans and rela- ted project information are available for public review and comment in the Planning Department (Room 103) , Administration Building, 6500 Pal- ma Avenue, Atascadero, California. The Planning Director has prepared a draft Negative Declaration indicating the project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment. The final date for appeal is fourteen (14) days after the decision of the Planning Director, or until 5:00 p.m. on July 9 , 1984 . Anyone wishing further information on this proposed project may do so by appearing in'-.person at the Planning Department or by phoning 466-8000. Unless appealed, the approval of Precise Plan 11-84 will become effective at 5:00 p.m. on July 9 , 1984. Dated: June 25 , 1984 WAYW LOFTU , anning Director City of Atascadero, California cc: City Council City Manager City Attorney Planning Commission Dennis Bethel and Associates Casa Camino Properties MJ O'Brien CM Colombo FILE Victor Mori Jr. Holiday Paper Products Inc. JOQf� BH Baker G Wood c/o JK Nelson 12Y , w � �; E MEET�1G AGENDA �_ �lZ(o187 {TEMP A-V-S M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council Members May 26, 1987 FROM: Michael Shelton City Manager SUBJECT: ATASCADERO LAKE PARK PROPERTY ACQUISITION AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT DISCUSSION .At the May 12, 1987 Council Meeting, Council appointed an Ad Hoc Committee for the purpose of persuing acquisition of property fronting Atascadero Lake Park and adjacent to Highway 41. The Lake Park parcels presently owned by the City are shown on the attached map. Desired parcels not owned are numbers 31-361-05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33. On May 15, 1987, committee members, consisting of Mayor Mackey, Councilwoman Borgeson, and City Manager Mike Shelton met with property owners Phil and Shirley Guidrey to discuss acquisition terms for parcels 31-361-05, 04, 29, 30 and 31. Mr. and Mrs. Guidrey expressed a desire to sell their property to the City and indicated that they would "carry paper" on debt financing. The price for the property would be established by appraisal. The appraisal firm would be selected by the seller and paid for by the City. Mr. . and Mrs. Guidrey desire the City to make an expedicious decision on acquiring their property. Based on the discussion with Mr. and Mrs. Guidrey, staff feels that all remaining t*#cels, including the Guidrey' s, can be acquired at approximately $550 ,000-$600 ,000 . The committee felt it would be important for the City Council to be aware of approximate annual debt service financing costs, if the City were to enter into long-term debt financing for a 20 to 30 year period. Based on 30 year financing, utilizing lease/ purchase debt financing, an annual payment for acquisition of all parcels would be approximately $60 ,000 per year at 8-1/2% inter- est. The proposed financing is tax free and acquired through a third party owner (League of California Cities California City Finance Corporation, Association Bay Area Governments, or local group such as the Pavilion Committee) which would enter into a leasehold agreement, with the City given full control over the property. • RECOMMENDATION None. The committee report is only to apprise Council of • estimated property costs and annual debt service costs if property was purchased through debt service. The committee felt that this information would be useful in reviewing next year ' s budget. MS:kv File: mataslal cc: Robert Best David Jorgensen • Z _ � - eY ....w(L 4�-::..,..�y%•..may':. ;rot_ --ppR ::,E "1 „a :: r:_ r:> .: ::a::: ♦ .1• •\` a /.�::..::: Al .•-` t� le .31 - -�-�. �FRa / ru 11 .'rt X. (b 10 1 1104." 1 ::..; ":]• r. .'t :j.•: :..:•;:¢••'Y }3iz't':- 1 ATA Zl : 0 _ II Z - ; ::'::6::k�:::.'.p=:l:,_ �v� o , 398 L/'�'- 1 5 :v SD's 1 � J.t6L.01.. \ Lw Ora r 1e. 3 j :�:�:�: .�}K .� :'•:..rd(6: - �� :F;��. :;�: 5� :;�'.:::`;':: . PTN. CITY OF ATASCADERO - r=j li`'ii�:�}::`i cd+Ti'!`'qi.:i �'� .Z;b'•:: ;Sjr:-: .._ �::. (, :: .10e:...:'::::: A .:/.'`.-. •y-r::....:1.•.:::'SII:=:. fr.. 1'� ����1 I .iMD)�tdi::i.: p. ( ..:. .r� :•::. . �_-:•, �:�. ,...::. ,:•:is :':•::..•.6: ci cc so �" �1'.5-- '}'�:•?::: }::�':::•:j:is:;:-'••..:;^:•. -::9e. ':.:4. moi'\ 1 no/::.:9c:. q!•D::mss[ ::}q:64�060°'�`::::•::::::��•• �� 1 r i -y:':{!f��::at/'��'e�:�'''� r.J•.�?.-} .:,DgAN::•pF7:... .;�.::�':'{i•:..i:itS:::':•:.e Y 35 li 20LLI O �. W •1 ra u . . _ - •o Ix it 5 e U 1 f 8.2 0 1r .5. 52 O 39 O 19 1 Isusr O 1 w vrx•r� O�73 SB Oy^ > 1. icrwaGff W 1' Q ' .. I`�Isr teeae u%u. n 53 - s s.e we.s.. Irj .......Orpplynr. Iu .moi• _� , !t N ;� n•.7e Sit+ Nf 1 st O� ........... _ Q O 17 55 a° - V • 0 -