HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 09/28/1999 AGENDA
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue, 4th Floor
Atascadero, California
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 6:30 P.M.
CLOSED SESSION: (Immediately following Redevelopment Agency Meeting)
1. Conference with legal counsel [Govt. Code §54956.9]
Existing litigation: Atascadero Unified School District v City of Atascadero
2. Performance Review: City Manager (Govt. Code § 54957.6)
3. Conference with labor negotiator(Govt. Code § 54957.6)
Agency Negotiator: City Manager
Employee organizations: Atascadero Firefighters and Department Heads
REGULAR SESSION, 7:00 P.M.:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Clay
ROLL CALL: Mayor Johnson
Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide
Council Member Clay
Council Member Luna
[Vacancy]
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Roll Call
PRESENTATIONS:
1. Proclamation declaring October 3 —9, 1999, "Fire Prevention Week"
2. Proclamation declaring October 1999, "Domestic Violence Awareness Month"
3. Presentation of Certificates of Recognition—John Jamar, Ellie Ameday and
Esther Moore—Police Department RSVP Volunteers.
COMMUNITY FORUM:
(This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wanting to address the Council on any
matter not on this agenda and over which the Council has jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to
five minutes. Please state your name and address for the record before making your
presentation. The Council may take action to direct the staff to place a matter of business on a
future agenda.)
COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENT AND REPORTS:
(On their own initiative, Council Members may make a brief announcement or a brief report on
their own activities. Council Members may ask a question for clarification, make a referral to
staff or take action to have staff place a matter of business on a future agenda. The Council may
take action on items listed on the Agenda.)
1. Council Vacancy
■ Alternatives:
1. Hold Special Election
2. Appoint new Council Member
3. Adjourn to a meeting within 30 days to make a choice between 1 or 2
above.
CORRESPONDENCE:
1. Atascadero Unified School District Strategic Planning
■ Staff recommendation: Council appoint a representative to serve on the
Atascadero Unified School District Strategic Planning Committee.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Roll Call
(All items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and non-controversial by
City staff and will be approved by one motion if no member of the Council or public
wishes to comment or ask questions. If comment or discussion is desired by anyone, the
item will be removed from the consent calendar and will be considered in the listed
sequence with an opportunity for any member of the public to address the Council
concerning the item before action is taken.)
1. Adoption of Building Regulations
■ Fiscal Impact: a minor increase in review and construction permit fees
■ Staff recommendation: Council introduce for second reading, waiving reading in
full, Ordinance 4360, adopting the 1997-98 Model Building Codes[Community
Development Department]
2
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. General Plan Amendment 999001, Zoning Map Change #99001 and Tentative Parcel
Map #99003 — 8930 Junipero Ave. (Bunyea)
■ Fiscal Impact: None
■ Planning Commission recommendation: Council adopt Resolution No. 1999-054,
denying the request for GPA #99001, ZC#99001 and TPM#99003 [Community
Development Department]
2. Zone Change#99008 —Auto Dealers/Sales Lots Code Text Amendments (Staff Initiated)
■ Fiscal Impact: None
■ Planning Commission recommendation: Council introduce on first reading by title
only, Ordinance No. 364, amending zoning code text associated with auto dealers
and sales lots [Community Development Department]
3. Atascadero State Hospital/ Chalk Mountain Golf Course Annexation—Pre-zoning and
Initiation of Annexation - ANX 99001 /ZC 99009
■ Fiscal Impact: Will generate positive revenue
■ Planning Commission recommendations: Council:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 1999-056, adopting a Class 19 categorical exemption from
CEQA and initiating an application to LAFCo for annexation of the Atascadero
State Hospital and Chalk Mountain Golf Course Territory;
2. Introduce for first reading by title only, Ordinance No. 365,for the pre-zoning of
the Annexation Territory to 606±acres to the P (Public) District and 278±acres
to the L (Recreation) District on the City Zoning Map[Community Development
Department]
C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS:
1. Lighting in Atascadero Lake Park—Requested by the Atascadero Rotary Club
■ Fiscal Impact: approximately$1,250 annually for additional electrical service
■ Staff recommendation: Council:
1. Adopt proposed Negative Declaration of environmental impact;
2. Approve a modified request by the Atascadero Rotary Club to install thirteen
additional decorative lamp posts and the relocation of six standard street lights in
Atascadero Lake Park. [Community Services Department]
2. Chamber of Commerce—Review options for shared position with City of Atascadero
■ Fiscal Impact: $30,000 annually.
■ Staff recommendation: Council review options for shared position with Chamber of
Commerce and provide staff direction. [Community Development Department]
3. Wastewater Treatment Facility— Stage I Upgrade
■ Fiscal Impact: $1,560,1 00from the Wastewater Fund
■ Staff recommendation: Council authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement with
James C. Cushman, Inc. To construct the improvements required to upgrade the
wastewater treatment facility. [Community Services Department]
4. Information Bulletin
D. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
(The following represent standing committees. Informative status reports will be given,
as felt necessary.):
1. S.L.O. Council of Governments/S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority
2. Finance Committee
3. Water Committees:
a. SLO County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Water Resources
Advisory Committee
b. Nacimiento Water Purveyors' contract Technical Advisory Committee
C. North County Water forum
4. Integrated Waste Management Authority
5. North County Council
6. Air Pollution Control District
7. County Mayor's Round Table
8. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors
9. City/ Schools Committee
10. Economic Opportunity Commission
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
1. City Council
2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk
4. City Treasurer
F. ADJOURNMENT:
THE CITY COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO THE NEXT REGULAR SESSION
SCHEDULED ON OCTOBER 12, 1999, AT 7:00 P.M.
Please note: Should anyone challenge any proposed development entitlement listed on this
Agenda in court, that person may be limited to raising those issues addressed at the public
hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or
prior to this public hearing.
4
City of Atascadero
WELCOME TO THE A TASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
GENERAL INFORMATION
The City Council meets in regular session on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m.,
in the Council Chamber of City Hall. Matters are considered by the Council in the order of the printed
Agenda.
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the
Agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk(Room 208), and in the Information Office (Room 103),
available for public inspection during City Hall business hours. An agenda packet is also available for
public review at the Atascadero Library, 6850 Morro Road.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in
a City meeting or other services offered by this City, please contact the City Manager's Office, (805)
461-5010, or the City Clerk's Office, (805)461-5074. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting
or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can
be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.
TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS
Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. The Mayor will identify the subject,
staff will give their report, and the Council will ask questions of staff. The Mayor will announce when
the public comment period is open and will request anyone interested to address the Council regarding
the matter being considered to step up to the podium. If you wish to speak for, against or comment in
any way:
• You must approach the podium and be recognized by the Mayor
• Give your name and address
• Make your statement
• All comments should be made to the Mayor and Council
• All comments limited to 5 minutes (unless changed by the Council)
• No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity
to do so, and no one may speak more than twice on any item.
The Mayor will announce when the public comment period is closed, and thereafter, no further public
comments will be heard by the Council
TO SPEAK ON SUBJECTS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Under Agenda item, "COMMUNITY FORUM",the Mayor will call for anyone from the audience
having business with the Council to:
• Please approach the podium and be recognized
• Give your name and address
• State the nature of your business
This is the time items not on the Agenda may be brought to the Council's attention. A maximum of 30
minutes will be allowed for Community Forum (unless changed by the Council).
TO HAVE ITEMS PLACED ON AGENDA
All business matters to appear on the Agenda must be in the Office of the City Manager ten days
preceding the Council meeting. Should you have a matter you wish to bring before the Council, please
mail or bring a written communication to the City Manager's office in City Hall prior to the deadline.
FIRE PREVENTION WEEK
October 3-9, 1999
WHEREAS, The week of October 3-9, 1999, has been designated as
Fire Prevention Week nationwide; and
WHEREAS, Fire Prevention Week is held in commemoration of the
anniversary of the "Great Chicago Fire"; and
WHEREAS, The 1999 Fire Prevention Week theme nationwide is
"Fire Drills: The Great Escape"; and
WHEREAS, The City of Atascadero Fire Department andfrefighters
nationwide symbolize Fire Prevention Week as a time to stress the
importance of fire prevention and education to the public;
NOW THEREFORE, I, Ray Johnson, Mayor of the City of
Atascadero, do hereby proclaim the week of October 3-9, 1999, as "Fire
Prevention Week
YJO NSON, Mayor
City o Atascadero, CA
Dated: September 28 1999
000001
"Domestic Violence Awareness Month"
October, 1999
WHEREAS, Every 13 seconds in the United States, an incident of violence
occurs against a woman by her partner, recognizing that men can also be victims of
domestic violence,-.and
WHEREAS, Most people feel helpless, afraid, embarrassed and guilty after
someone in their family beats them, emotions that often foster the belief that violence
will never happen again, keeping victims from taking any action; and
WHEREAS, Domestic violence affects not only the couple involved,but also
any children who witness it, making it imperative that we take steps to stop the
violence so that future generations will not grow up to be victims or batterers; and
WHEREAS, Domestic violence not only endangers family members but also
permeates and threatens all levels of society in epidemic proportions; and
WHEREAS, The District Attorney's Victim Witness Assistance Center, the
North County Women's Shelter and Resource Center and the Women's Shelter
Program of San Luis Obispo offer a variety of services including: a 24-hour Shelter, a
Temporary Restraining Order Clinic, individual and family low-cost counseling,free
support groups including a_bilingual group to victims of domestic violence and their
children; and
WHEREAS, The theme for 1999 is "Domestic Violence has NO Place in Our
Community". our goal is to prevent domestic violence through education, especially
to school children, thereby breaking the cycle of violence which is passed down from
one generation to the next; and
WHEREAS, By learning more about domestic violence and the services
available to our citizens, we are taking active steps to protect ourselves from violence
and join with others to make San Luis Obispo County a safer place to live.
NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of cadero joins with
Governor Gray Davis in recognizing Octo 199 s omestic Violence
Awareness Month."
VAtascader
ns , May
City , California
September 28, 19 9
000002
DATE: 09/28/99
■ ®i0 NA
1 7
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report - City Manager's Office
Council Vacancy
DISCUSSION:
Council Member Ken Lerno resigned his Council position September 21, 1999. Government
Code § 36512 requires, "the council shall, within 30 days from the commencement of the
vacancy, either fill the vacancy by appointment or call a special election to fill the vacancy." If
the Council fails to appoint a new member to the City Council within thirty(30) days, the special
election must be held on the next regularly established election date not less than 114 days from
the call of the special election. If the Council chooses a special election, it will be held on March
7, 2000.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Hold Special Election
2. Appoint new Council Member
3. Adjourn to a meeting within 30 days to make a choice between 1 or 2 above
000003
q/ai/4 �/
DATE: 09/28/99
■1 Big
K
191$ * 1 9
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report - City Manager's Office
Atascadero Unified School District
Strategic Planning
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council appoint a representative to serve on the Atascadero Unified School
District Strategic Planning Committee.
DISCUSSION:
The School District has requested that a representative from the City Councilartici ate in their
P p
Strategic Planning process.. Information about the process is attached.
ATTACHMENTS:
AUSC Strategic Planning Information
000005
C-�-D�
AUSD 5trate, ic, Flannln
"Growing 7-oda for
t 16M
GrGreet7omorrowoljDS�Hooti-
September 1999
THANK YOU...:
for takiMB the time to find out more about Strategic Planning. A5 the district's
internal coordinator, I intend to provide monthly articles that will communicate
the status of the process. It i5 my greatest desire to guide the development of
the Strategic Plan. It's impact will provide direction to the district for at least
five years. A5 I See it, the phrase "Growing Today for Great Tomorrows!" conveys
what can happen. Please feel free to contact me at San Benito 5chool ifyou
have any questions.
-Dan Mosunich
STRATEGIC PLANNING? WHAT 15 IT?
The Atascadero Unified 5chool District 15 about to begin a discipline and process
that has the power to transform our district! You are invited to participate.
Thio proce55 will take the better part of the 5chool year. Staffs, parents and
community groups will be introduced to the Strategic Planning proce55 during
the month of September. A Planning Team will be meet in October to reach
conocnsu5 on beliefs, mission, objectives and strategies for our district. Next,
Action Teams will meet from November to February to identify the activities that
will allow the strategies to be implemented. The Planning Team will meet again in
March to consider the work of the Action Teams before Submitting the Strategic
Plan to the Board of Trustees on April 4, 2000.
Strategic Planning i5 intended to focus the effort and energy of our district. It
does not have predetermined outcomes. Rather,the Strategic Plan is developed
through consensus-building, is fully participative, focuses on results, and is fully
implementable.
CON5EN5U5-BUILDING
In order to receive the greatest support, Strategic Planning requires consensus-
building when developing beliefs, mission, parameters, objectives, and 5trategie5.
000006
By building this type of agreement, the Planning Team ensures that everyone
feels they have a Say in the document.
•
FULLY PARTICIPATIVE
Strategic Planning i5 intended to include everyone who wants to participate in
the process. No one will be excluded! Opportunities to participate include -
membership on the Planning Team, Action Team Leader and Action Team.
Remember, everyone's involvement creates a stronger plan.
FOCU5E5 ON RESULTS
Intended on -having the greatest impact on 5tudente, the Strategic Plan
identifies agreed-upon results. Thio allows u5 to focus our reeourcco, training,
effort and time on commonly accepted outcomes. Process is important but
without intended objectives, the Strategies are likely to lose their power and
Support.
FULLY IMPLEMENTABLE!
Unlike other planning we have been involved with, Strategic Planning iS intended
to be fully implementable. Following the approval of the plan by the Board next
Spring, the priorities that were approved as a part of the plan will be budgeted
and administrative roles identified to carry out the plan.
See you in September during the Strategic Planning
Introduction Prcoentationo!
00000'7
0 cu
z
W cu M
'� p a: 0 a.
_�
Ov a ^" O Cn ami a) .p Cd
Ts
Ei o C7 � z cz CI-
C14 � o
W 0 Cl) cu L.
C3 a� O o �. o Z ° o 0
E-+ o o ,� cn U o 13F,
C.)
cna
`n Qj E L " c
c"G O O � M c -
i
�. Q.� �u
a) >1 � O w o >1 � tiff cp o o
+ CZ -4-1 $. � o � 4 cCS -65
p r, a) N O
CZ
z� p o o O C) o oLZ cl)
cc 0 o
cosem, E- dA o "°, o .o o co
a o U - 5in
o
o -
° CZ =1a U
E--( El o o ccs 4-> =" 'L� o 4-3 b F +
El O � '� 'z3 �' � � � ° a) � ;' ° r. -4-a
�
CO ° > 4 " bD tin !" r 0 — .� c�
o > a 0 Q � y
Q
° a� a .a d O a 1° E-++ �; CO -
p � o :a a)
(2)
a�
o 0 y -0
r� O p +' bp 4] a) O
VbA CO � bA � O tOi ° Jam, a) 4-3
oW s� o 0 o ;-4 p 4-,
cc a) 1) r. T3 a) �+ O �_ .a+ tO CCS
C0 Q. O O a) x `o O .x
p000008
4 � U) 0 ° u CO U E-+ Q � 't3 ° � 41 0 m , ✓ � a)
N C
O
N
U
L l O
o
O
k
L �
p .
L .
p
L �
� tol� e�
v Z 0
Q
C) o
000009
Atascadero Unified School District
19
"Great Tomorrowo!
Strategic Planning Timeline
Date Activi
May 4, 1999 Superintendent makes introductory Board presentation.
June 30, 1999 Initial Orientation to Administrative Team.
August 4-5, 1999 Administrative Workshop
Augusf-Sept., 1999 School Staff presentations, PTA presentations
Community presentations
Sept. 1999 Planning Team developed.
Oct. 7-9, 1999 First Planning Session, San Simeon
Oct. 11, 1999 Communicate Draft of Strategic Plan to School Board
Oct. 12-27, 1999 Develop Action Teams and Action Team Leaders
Oct. 28, 1999 Action Team Leader Training
Nov. 4, 1999 First Action Team Meeting, Junior High School Cafeteria
Nov. 1999- Feb. 2000 Action Team Meetings
Mar. 2-3, 2000 Second Planning Session
Mar. 6-17, 2000 Action Plan Modifications (if necessary)
by Mar. 24,2000 Implementation Schedule Developed
Apr. 4, 2000 School Board receives First Presentation of Strategic Plan
Apr. 18, 2000 School Board vote regarding Strategic Plan
April-May, 2000 Budget Alignment with Strategic Plan
June 26-27, 2000 Translating Plan into Action, Administrative Team Workshop
April, 2001 Update of Strategic Plan
April-May, 2001 Budget Building around Updated Strategic Plan
P g
June,2001 Translating Plan into Action, Administrative Team Workshop
Fall, 2001-Spring, 2002 Strategic Plan Revision 0000,10
•iElt 3 c+�:JACTION
t
�a St Pa4re_r-. 1� 4.Yr CONFIRM
D •
PEV
COMMITMENT AND PLANS
10. Action plans
s
READINESS
Con
duct basic awareness
7 .e
Explore system . . •
design
CONDUCT SECOND
PLANNING SESSION- on action plans
Affirm the strategic plan
2. PREPMIE FOR
PLANNING
- Communicate about planning
Collect vital signs d, PREPARE
. • IMPLEMEN
` • SCHEDULE
(wrm SUPPORTING
3. BUILD snuTEGIC RESOURCE PLAN)
PLANNING IT."
110. OBTAIN BOARD
:Q
r
rte.#�•..moo"� �.
4 jClF:-eYW��Y.lY :_
r 11 PLANNING
*2.Mission
*3. Parameters 11. DEVELOP CAPACITY
4. Internal Analysis IN ACTION
5.
External
Understand strategic intent
6. Competition
De ielop mutual expectations
7. Critical Issues
and commitments
ni" Objectives
Create system designs & patterns
*9. Strategies
elit * Systemize site action
5.
e
1 i TJr t7 ' COMMUNICATE
-jyysi S.
Regular reviews
ITEM NUMBER: A- 1
DATE: 09/28/99
1918 A 19
,ArASc.�nERO//
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report - Community Development Department
Adoption of Building Regulations
(Ordinance 360)
RECOMMENDATION:
Council introduce for second reading, waiving reading in full, Ordinance No. 360, adopting the
1997/98 Model Building Codes.
DISCUSSION:
On September 14, 1999 the City Council conducted a Public Hearing to consider adoption of the
model Building. Codes, as adopted by the California Building Standards Commission, and
required by the State to be implemented locally effective July 1, 1999. Following the close of
the Public Hearing, the City Council introduced the Ordinance for its first reading. No changes
were made to the ordinance during its first reading and it is ready for final adoption as attached.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance 360
i
000012
ORDINANCE NO. 360
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF TITLE 8
(BUILDING REGULATIONS) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE,
ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CERTAIN MODEL BUILDING
CODES BY REFERENCE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY
FIND AND ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapters 1 through 11 of Title 8 inclusive, are hereby repealed in
their entirety.
Section 2. Chapter 12, and all references thereof, is hereby readopted as
Chapter 3 of this Title.
Section 3. Title 8 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended as shown on
exhibit 1 attached hereto and made a part
Section 4 Pursuant to Section 17958.7 of the California Health and Safety
Code, the City Council of the City of Atascadero, does hereby find that the local
amendments as hereby proposed are necessary due to local climatic, geological or •
topographical conditions, as expressed below
A. Changes to the plumbing code, as proposed, are necessary due to the
variety of local soils conditions that vary throughout the community and
are necessary to conform to the requirements of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board local regulations; the varied topography and
environmental conditions, such as the location of streams, creeks and
other water courses, native trees, and other unique local physical
conditions for which the amendments are designed to provide for design
alternatives to mitigate impacts to such physical conditions..
B. Changes to the fire code, as proposed, are necessary due to the varied
topographical changes in the community that result in the location of high
fire severity zones and varied response times for emergency vehicles.
Section 5. The Building Official/Community Development Director is hereby
directed to file a copy of this ordinance with the California Building Standards
Commission of the State of California, pursuant to applicable State law.
Section 6. This ordinance is enacted pursuant to and in compliance with Health
and Safety Code Section 18941.5 and is expressly permitted in Government Code
Section 50022.2. For all codes the effective date of this Ordinance shall be July 1,
1999.
0000IL3
1 -
Section 7. The enactment of this Ordinance and implementation of the
regulations contained herein is found to be exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080(b)(15) pertaining to the implantation of state rules
and regulations for the adoption of uniform building codes.
Section 8. The Mayor is authorized to execute this Ordinance on behalf of the
City and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the
same to be published as required by law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of September, 1999.
Ray Johnson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Marcia M. Torgerson, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Roy Hanley, City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Paul M. Saldana, Building Official
Community Development Director
00014
2
Title 8
Building & Construction Regulations
Chapter 1
Adoption of Model Codes
1.01 Model Codes —Adopted.
The Atascadero Building Code includes all provisions within this title and those
certain model codes listed below which codes were promulgated within the
California Building Standards Code, known as the California Code of
Regulations, Title-24, published by the International Conference of Building
Officials, and the California Building Standards Commission the purpose and
subject matter of which among other things is to protect the public health and
safety. Further these codes listed below are adopted by reference with the same
force and effect as if fully set forth in this code with the modifications as set forth
in this Title
1998-California Building Code, Volumes I, II, and III
1998 California Fire Code
1998 California Electrical Code
1998 California Plumbing Code
1998 California Mechanical Code
1998 California Energy Code
1997 Uniform Administrative Code
1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings
1997 Uniform Housing Code
Chapter 2
Amendments to Model Codes
2.01 Local Amendments - Adopted
Pursuant to Section 17958.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, the
modifications of the model codes are enacted due to local climatic, geological
and/or topographical conditions, as contained in the enabling ordinance.
2.02 California Building Code - Amendments
The California Building Code, as adopted by Section 1.01 is amended as follows:
A. Roofing Materials. The following is added to Section 1503:
000015
3
Roof covering for all new residential buildings and for any g re-roofin of
existing residential buildings shall be no less than Class "A" rating,
regardless of building type or occupancy. Any reference to the approved
use of roofing materials in residential buildings with less than Class-"A"
rating is hereby deleted. Exception: roof coverings on additions to
existing wood shingle roofs amounting to no greater than twenty-five
percent (25%) of the existing roof area may be Class "B" rating.
B. Fire Sprinkler Systems. The following is added to Section 904.2.1:
904.2.1.1 In all new buildings having a total floor are (outside walls) of
5,000 square feet of gross area or more.
904.2.1.2 In all existing buildings of less than 5,000 square feet which
undergo addition sufficient to make the total floor area greater than 5,000
square feet.
904.2.1.3 In all existing buildings or structures with a total gross
(outside wall) floor area exceeding 5,000 square feet which undergo any
addition or change in use.
In regards to building additions, and for the purpose of this section, the
total floor area shall be computed without regards to area separation walls
and floors of less than 4-hour fire resistive construction as defined in the
Uniform Building Code. For the purpose of this section, the provision of
utilizing an area separation wall may only be allowed once in a particular
building or structure. The area separation wall shall have no openings.
2.03 California Plumbing Code —Amendments.
The California Plumbing Code, as adopted by Section 1.01, is amended as
follows:
A. Building Sewers. The following requirements shall apply to building sewers
and related drainage piping.
1. All building sewers shall be constructed with pipe of internal diameter not
less than four (4) inches, unless a pipe of internal diameter not less than
three (3) inches is approved by the Administrative Authority.
2. A cleanout shall be placed in every building sewer within five (5) feet of
each building, at all changes in alignment or grade in excess of forty-five
(45) degrees, within five (5) feet of the junction with the public sewer, and
at intervals not to exceed one hundred (100) feet in straight runs. The
cleanout shall be made by inserting a "Y" fitting in the line and fitting the
000016 -
4
cleanout in the "Y" branch in an approved manner. In the case of a
cleanout near the junction of the public sewer, the "Y" branch riser shall
be extended to a depth of not more than one (1) foot. All other cleanouts
shall be extended to finish grade.
3. Drainage piping serving fixtures located at an elevation of less than one
foot above the nearest upstream manhole cover in the main sewer
serving said fixtures shall drain by gravity into the main sewer, and shall
be protected from backflow of sewage by installing an approved
backwater valve. Each such backwater valve shall be installed only in
that branch or section of the drainage system which receives the
discharge from fixtures located less than one foot above the nearest
upstream manhole cover.
B. Private Sewage Disposal Systems. The design, installation operation and
maintenance of private sewage disposal systems shall be in conformance
with Appendix I of the Uniform Plumbing code and with standards specified
in this Section. Where specific standards are not provided within this
Section or where the Administrative Authority determines that higher
requirements are necessary to maintain a safe and sanitary condition, the
"Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin" (Adopted by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board of the Central Coast Region) or other
recognized industry standards may be used as a Guideline by the
Administrative Authority.
1. Percolation Test. An on-site investigation shall be made by a registered
engineer competent in sanitary engineering in order to determine the
suitability of a particular site for a private sewage disposal system and to
provide the data necessary to design a private sewage disposal system.
A percolation test shall be required prior to issuance of a permit for all
new or enlarged private sewage disposal systems. The following
percolation test procedure shall be used in performing percolation tests,
except that other accepted test procedures may be used when approved
by the Administrative Authority.
a) Number and Locaiton of Test Holes. A minimum of three
separate test holes s[ace uniformly through and located in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed leach field site are to be made.
b) Type of Test Holes. The test hole shall have horizontal
dimensions between 4 and 12 inches and vertical sides to the
depth of the absorption trench.
C) Preparation of Test Holes. Smeared soil surfaces shall be
removed from the sides and bottom of the test hole to provide a
natural soil interface. All loose material shall be removed from the
0000- '7
5
test hole. Two inches of coarse sand or fine gravel shall be
added to the test hole to protect the bottom from scouring and
sediment.
d) Soil Saturation and Swelling. The test hole is to be carefully-filled
to a depth of one foot above the gravel or sand with clear water
which is to be kept in the hole for at least four hours but preferably
overnight. This step may be omitted in sandy soils containing little
or no clay.
e) Measurement of Percolation Rate. The percolation rate shall be
determined twenty-four hours after water is first added to the test
holes; except, in sandy soils containing little or no clay, the
percolation rate shall be determined after the water from one filling
of the test hole has completely seeped away.
(i) If water remains in the test hole after the overnight swelling
period, adjust the depth to approximately six inches over
the gravel or sand and, from a fixed referenced point,
measure the drop in water level over a thirty minute period
to calculate the percolation rate.
(ii) If no water remains in the test hole after the overnight
swelling period, add clear water to bring the depth of water
in the test hole to approximately six inches over the gravel
or sand. From a fixed reference point, measure the drop in
water level at approximately thirty minute intervals over
four hours refilling six inches over the gravel or sand as
necessary. The drop that occurs during the final thirty
minute period is used to calculate the percolation rate. The
drops during prior periods provide information for possible
modification of the test procedure to suit local conditions.
(iii) " ` In sandy soils (or in other soils in which the first six inches
of water seeps away in less than thirty minutes after the
overnight swelling period), the time interval between
measurements shall be taken as ten minutes and the test
shall run for one hour with the drop during the final ten
minutes being used to calculate the percolation rate.
f) Deep Boring. A soil boring, to a minimum depth of ten (10) feet
below the bottom of the absorption trench or pit, shall be. made in
order to determine the presence of impermeable bedrock and/or
ground water.
6 000018
2. General Design Standards. The following standards shall be used in the .
design of new or enlarged private sewage disposal systems where the
percolation rate does not exceed 120 minutes per inch.
a) Determination of Size of Absorption Area. The absorption area,
measured in lineal feet of absorption trench, shall be calculated as
set forth in this Section. Tables 4-1 (Absorption Area
Requirements) and 4-2 (Standard Trench Adjustment Factors),
included in this Subsection, shall be referred to as necessary.
(Absorption Area per Bdrm) X (No. of Bdrms) X Adjustment
Factor
b) Location of Private Sewage Disposal Systems. The minimum
distance between components of a private sewage disposal
system and other site features shall be as set forth in Table 4-3
(Horizontal Distance Separation) and Table 4-4 (Vertical Distance
Separation). Where physical limitations on a site preclude
conformance with distance separation requirements, the
Administrative Authority may approve a lesser separation when
the design is prepared by a registered engineer competent in
sanitary engineering and when adequate substantiating data is
submitted with the design. The Administrative Authority shall not
approve a separation less than that set forth in the "Water Quality
Control Plan - Central Coast Region" unless the Regional Water
Quality Control Board or its designated representatives have
previously approved the design.
3. Additional Standards
a) Existing legal building sites which are served by an individual on-
site well may be approved for a private sewage disposal system
only if the site meets lot size standards for private sewage
disposal systems.
b) Private sewage disposal systems proposed to be installed on
slopes of 20% or more shall be designed by and have their
installation inspected and certified by a registered civil engineer.
The design shall minimize grading disruption associated with
access for installation and maintenance. Such systems shall be
prohibited on slopes of 30% or more, unless approved by both the
Administrative Authority and the Regional Water Quality Control
Board.
c) When the percolation rates is more then 30 minutes/inch, a
private sewage disposal system shall be designed, inspected, and
certified to work by a registered civil engineer.
000019
d When theercolation rates tes exceeds 120 minutes/inch, a private
sewage disposal system, using solely dependent upon soil
absorption, shall not be allowed.
e) The design of private sewage disposal systems shall incorporate
an approved filtering device to remove solids from effluent at the
outlet of septic tanks.
f) When the percolation rate exceeds 30 minutes/inch, a private
sewage disposal system using a seepage pit shall not be allowed.
g) Expansion area shall be provided on all building sites, shall be
identified on all plans submitted for private sewage disposal
systems, and shall remain available for system expansion. If
areas reserved for system expansion are not accessible for future
installation, then the expansion area shall be installed with the
original system.
h) Inspection risers with four inches minimum diameter shall be
installed at the ends of each absorption trench or bed.
i) Septic tank manholes more than 24 inches below grade, valves,
distribution boxes, and pumps shall be permanently accessible to
the surface in a manner acceptable to the Building Official.
4. Special Design Standards. The following standards shall be used in the
design of new or enlarged private sewage disposal systems where the
percolation rate exceeds 60 minutes per inch. Designs for alternate
types of private sewage disposal systems shall be by a registered civil
engineer and may be approved by the Administrative Authority when the
design engineer submits adequate substantiating data with the design.
a) Determine of Size of disposal Field. The size of the disposal field
shall be determined by the design engineer using methods of
accepted engineering practice including manuals and documents
specified in this Chapter or as otherwise approved by the
Administrative Authority.
b) Location of Private Sewage Disposal System. The minimum
distance between components of a private sewage disposal
system and other site features shall be as set forth in Table 4-3
(Horizontal Distance Separation) and Table 4-4 (Vertical Distance
Separation) using the column entitled "Leach Field or Seepage
• Bed."
0000; 0
8
c When private sewage disposal systems are designed pursuant to
this Section, the design engineer shall provide the owner with
information on the location, design operation and maintenance of
the private sewage disposal system.
d) Existing legal building sites which are served by an individual on-
site well may be approved for a private sewage disposal system
only if the site is one acre or larger in size and meets other
regulations and requirements regarding distance separation.
e) Expansion area shall be provided on all building sites.
5. Replacement of Existing Private Sewage Disposal System. Where an
existing private sewage disposal system has failed, the replacement
system shall be designed in conformance with this Chapter and shall be
designed, inspected and certified to work by a registered civil engineer.
In the event that the replacement system cannot be designed to conform
with this Chapter, the Administrative Authority may approve a system
designed to lesser standards when it is designed, inspected and certified
to work by a registered civil engineer.
a) A private sewage disposal system shall not be replaced by
another system if sewers are available.
b) The Administrative Authority shall not approve a replacement
system which does not conform with prohibitions set forth in the
"Water Quality Control Plan Central Coast Basin", unless the
Regional Water Quality Control Board or its designed
representative has previously approved the design. The
Administrative Authority may authorize a temporary means of
sewage disposal pending such approval.
0000 1
'U
9
TABLE 4-1. Absorption Area Requirements
Percolation Rate Absorption Area Per Bedroom
(Minutes/Inch) (Square Feet)
0-09 150
10 165
11-15 190'
16-20 215
21-25 230
26-30 250
31-35 270''
36-40 285
.41-45 ' 300
46-50 315
51-60 330
61-70 380
71-80 430`
81-90 520
91-100 660
101-110 830
111-120 1250
TABLE 4-2. STANDARD TRENCH ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
Depth of Gravel Trench Width (in inches)
Below Pipes
(in Inches) 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
12 .75 .78 .80 .82 .83 .85 .86 .87 .87
18 .60, .64 .66 .69 .71 .73 .75 .77 .78
24 50 .54 .57 .60 .62 64 .66 .68 .70
- 30 .43 .47 .50 .53 .55 .58 .60 .62 .64
36 .37 .41 .44 .47 .50 .52 :.54 .56 .58
42 .33 .37 .40 , .43 .45 .48 .50 .52 .54
48 30 .33 .36 .39 .42 .44 .46 .48 .50
Note 1. For trenches not shown in Table 4-2, the standard trench adjustment factor
may be computed as follows: (Where W= width of trench (in feet)
D = depth of gravel below pipe (in feet)
W + 2
W + 1 + 2D
,000022
10
TABLE 4-3. HORIZONTAL DISTANCE SEPARATION (IN FEET)
Building Septic Leach Seepage
Sewer Tank Field or Pit
Seepage
Bed
Buildings or structures, including porches, steps, breezeways, 2 5 80) 80)
patios, and carports whether covered or not
Property Line Clear(2) 5 5 10
Water supply well 50(3) 50 100 150
Streams, when shown7 '/2 minute USGS Map and when a defined 50 50 100 100
channel with definite bed and banks exists
Swales, ephemeral draws or other natural watercourses with 50 50 50 50
drainage areas larger than 10 acres
Trees 10(*) 10(*)
Seepage Pits -- 5 5 12
Leach Field or Seepage Bed -- 5 6 5
On-site Domestic water service line 1(4) 5 5 5
Distribution Box -- -- 5 5
Pressure Public Water Main 10(5) 10 10 10
Sloping ground, cuts, or other embankments -- -- 15(6) 15(6)
Reservoirs, including ponds, lakes, tanks, basins, etc. for storage, 200 200 200(7) 200(7)
regulation and control of water recreation, power, flood control or
linking
Springs 100 100 100 100
Notes:
(1) Distance separation shall be increased to twenty (20) feet when building or structure is located on a
downward slope below a leach field, seepage bed or seepage pit.
(2) See Section 315 (c) of Uniform Plumbing Code.
(3) Distance separation may be reduced to twenty-five (25)feet when the drainage piping is constructed
of materials approved for use within a building.
(4) See Section 1108 of Uniform Plumbing Code.
(5) For parallel construction or crossings, approval by the Health Department shall be required.
(6) Distance is measured as horizontal distance to daylight. This distance may be reduced where it is
demonstrated that favorable geologic conditions and soil permeability exist based on a report and
analysis prepared by a licensed geologist or soils engineer.
(7) Distance is measured at spillway elevation.
(•) See tree protection guidelines.
00®023
11
TABLE 4-4 VERTICAL DISTANCE SEPARATION (IN FEET)
Leach Field or Seepage
Seepage Bed Pit
Ground water 5 5
Bedrock 10 4
Note: Distance is measured from bottom of trench or pit.
2.04 California Fire Code —Amendments.
The California Fire Code, as adopted by Section 1.01, is amended as follows:
A. The limits referred to in Sections 7902.2.2.1 and 7904.2.5.4.2 of the Fire
Code in which the storage of flammable or combustible liquids in outside
aboveground tanks is prohibited is established as the city limits of the City
of Atascadero.
B. The limits referred to in Section 7701.7.2 of the Fire Code in which the
storage of explosives and blasting agents is prohibited is established as
the city limits of the City of Atascadero.
C. The turning radius as referred to in Section 902.2.2.3 is defined as 28 feet
inside radius and 48 feet outside radius, or as otherwise approved.
D. Section 902.2.2.6 is amended to read as follows: The gradient for a fire
apparatus access road shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) at any point
along its length.
E. Alarm Signals, as defined in Section 202, shall not conflict with the
response of emergency vehicles or civil defense systems and shall be
approved by the Police Chief and Fire Chief prior to installation.
F. Section 1003.2.1 is amended to read as follows: An automatic fire-
extinguishing system shall be installed in the occupancies and locations
as set forth in Section 1003.2. In addition to those locations as set forth in
Section 1003.2, automatic fire-extinguishing systems shall also be
installed within the City of Atascadero:
12
000024
1. In all new buildings having a total floor are (outside walls) of 5,000
square feet of gross area or more.
2. In all existing buildings of less than 5,000 square feet which undergo
addition sufficient to make the total floor area greater than 51000
square feet. In regards to building additions, and for the purpose of this
section, the total floor area shall be computed without regards to area
separation walls and floors of less than 4-hour fire resistive
construction as defined in the Uniform Building Code. For the purpose
of this section, the provision of utilizing an area separation wall may
only be allowed once in a particular building or structure. The area
separation wall shall have no openings.
3. In all existing buildings or structures with a total gross (outside wall)
floor area exceeding 5,000 square feet which undergo any addition or
change in use.
4. In all residential occupancies within the area defined by the Fire Chief
and Community Development Director that is located within the
designated "high fire severity zone" and has an eight (8) minute or
longer response time as indicated on the "Mandatory Automatic Fire-
Extinguishing Area Map" on file in the Community Development
Department. The Fire Chief and Community Development Director
shall annually update such map.
13 000025
RESOLUTION NO. 1999-053
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING A
REVISED FEE SCHEDULE FOR BUILDING PERMITS
AND PLAN REVIEW SERVICES
WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Section 17951 provide the authority to local
governments to prescribe fees that are reasonably required to administer and process building permits,
including but not limited to plan examination, inspection, enforcement and other services; and .
WHEREAS, the City's Building Official is required to perform plan reviews, inspections and other
services to safeguard the public health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the International Conference of Building Officials has prepared standardized fee
schedules which are based on average costs for permit, plan review and inspection activities;
WHEREAS, the fee schedules for these services must be revised from time to time to assure the
City recovers the costs associated with rendering such services; and
WHEREAS, the Building Official has conducted a review of the current fee schedule and has
proposed revisions to the fees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on September 14, 1999 to consider the
proposed revisions to the fee schedule.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO,
CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby adopts the fees for Building and Safety permits, plan review
and other services set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated here in by this reference.
SECTION 2. The Building Official shall determine valuation of construction projects using square
foot value for the type of construction as found in the latest publication of Building Standards as published
by the International Conference of Building Officials
SECTION 3. Upon the effective date of this Resolution, the fees adopted herein shall supersede
fees previously adopted by this City Council for those purposes. This Resolution does not supersede or
repeal any other portion of any other Resolution other than the fees, unless amended or repealed herein.
SECTION 4. The fees established in this Resolution do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost
of providing the service for which the fee is imposed.
0W zb
SECTION 5. This Resolution shall become effective on November 1, 1999,
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of September 1999.
Ray Johnson
Mayor
ATTEST:
Marcia Torgeson
City Clerk
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on
the day of September 1999, by members of the City Council voting as follows:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: COUncilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
00002'7
• Resolution 1999-053
EXHIBIT A
1. Building Permit Fees
Total Valuation Fee
$1.00 to$500.00 $23.50
$501.00 to$2,000.00 $69.25 for the first$500.00 plus$3.05 for each additional
$100.00 or fraction thereof,to and including$2,000.00
$2,001 to S-25,000.00 $69.25 for the first$2,000.00 plus$14.00 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including$25,000.00
$25,001.00 to$50,000.00 $391.25 for the first$25,000.00 plus$10.10 for each
additional$1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including
$50,000.00
$50,001.00 to$100,000.00 $643.75 for the first$50,000.00 plus$7.00 for each
additional$1,000.00 or fraction thereof,to and including
$100,000.00
$100,001.00 to$500,000.00 $993.75 for the first$100,000.00 plus$5.60 for each
additional$1,000.00 or fraction thereof,to and including
$500,000.00
$500,001.00 to$1,000,000.00 $3,233.75 for the first$500,000.00 plus$4.75 for each
additional$1,000.00 or fraction thereof,to and including
$1,000,000.00
$1,000,000.00 and up $5,608.75 for the first$1,000,000.00 plus$3.65 for each
additional$1,000.00 or fraction
2. Plan Review Fees:
The plan review fee shall be 65% of the permit fee
3. Energy Conservation:
Plan review and permit fees shall be increased by 10% where compliance with California energy
conservation laws is required.
4. Disabled Access:
Plan review and permit fees shall be increased by 10% where compliance with California access law
is required.
5. Strong Motion (SMIP):
Permit fees shall be increased in amounts as required by state law to support the State of California
Strong Motion Instrumentation and Seismic Hazard Mapping Program.
6. Mechanical, Plumbing and Electrical Permit Fees:
Plan review and permit fees shall be based on Tables 3-B, 3-C and 3-1) of the 1997 Uniform
Administrative Code. Electrical permit fees for commercial projects shall be determined at a rate of
0.074 per square foot. The Building Official may establish other formulas in place of the tables
listed above provided the fees are not in excess of the fees established by the tables.
0000�;8
7. Miscellaneous Services Fees
Fees for the following miscellaneous services shall be charged at actual cost plus 15%
administrative processing:
A. Inspections outside of normal business hours(minimum charge 2 hours)
B. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of UBC Section 305.8
C. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated
D. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions
E. For use of outside consultants for plan checking and inspections or both (including
administrative and overhead costs).
F. For plan review and inspection services for demolition of buildings.
G. For the installation of temporary trailer facilities.
0000fOZ,9
RESOLUTION NO. 1999-053
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING A
REVISED FEE SCHEDULE FOR BUILDING PERMITS
AND PLAN REVIEW SERVICES
WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Section 17951 provide the authority to local
governments to prescribe fees that are reasonably required to administer and process building permits,
including but not limited to plan examination,Inspection, enforcement and other services; and
WHEREAS, the City's Building Official is required to perform plan reviews, inspections and other
services to safeguard the public health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the International Conference of Building Officials has prepared standardized fee
schedules which are based on average costs for permit, plan review and inspection activities; ,
WHEREAS, the fee schedules for these services must be revised from time to time to assure the
City recovers the costs associated with rendering such services; and
WHEREAS, the Building Official has conducted a review of the current fee schedule and has
proposed revisions to the fees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on September 14, 1999 to consider the
proposed revisions to the fee schedule.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO,
CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby adopts the fees for Building and Safety permits, plan review
and other services set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated here in by this reference.
SECTION 2. The Building Official shall determine valuation of construction projects using square
foot value for the type of construction as found in the latest publication of Building Standards as published
by the International Conference of Building Officials
SECTION 3. Upon the effective date of this Resolution, the fees adopted herein shall supersede
fees previously adopted by this City Council for those purposes. -This Resolution does not supersede or
repeal any other portion of any other Resolution other than the fees, unless amended or repealed herein.
SECTION 4. The fees established in this Resolution do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost
of providing the service for which the fee is imposed.
000030
SECTION 5. This Resolution shall become effective on November 1, 1999.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of September 1999.
Ray Johnson
Mayor
ATTEST:
Marcia Torgeson
City Clerk
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on
the day of September 1999, by members of the City Council voting as follows:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers
VU00.0A
Resolution 1999-053
EXHIBIT A
1. Building Permit Fees
Total Valuation Fee
$1.00 to$500.00 $23.50
$501.00 to$2,000.00 $69.25 for the first$500.00 plus$3.05 for each additional
$100.00 or fraction thereof,to and including$2,000.00
$2,001 to 525,000.00 $69.25 for the first$2,000.00 plus$14.00 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof,to and including$25,000.00
$25,001.00 to$50,000.00 $391.25 for the first$25,000.00 plus$10.10 for each
additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof,to and including
$50,000.00
$50,001.00 to$100,000.00 $643.75 for the first$50,000.00 plus $7.00 for each
additional$1,000.00 or fraction thereof,to and including
$100,000.00
$100,001.00 to$500,000.00 $993.75 for the first$100,000.00 plus$5.60 for each
additional$1,000.00 or fraction thereof,to and including
$500,000.00
$500,001.00 to$1,000,000.00 $3,233.75 for the first$500,000.00 plus$4.75 for each
additional$1,000.00 or fraction thereof,to and including
. $1, 00,000.00
$1,000,000.00 and up $5,6608.75 for the first$1,000,000.00 plus$3.65 for each
additional$1,000.00 or fraction
2. Plan Review Fees:
The plan review fee shall be 65% of the permit fee
3. Energy Conservation:
Plan review and permit fees shall be increased by 10% where compliance with California energy
conservation laws is required.
4. Disabled Access:
Plan review and permit fees shall be increased by 10% where compliance with California access law
is required.
5. Strong Motion (SMIP):
Permit fees shall be increased in amounts as required by state law to support the State of California
Strong Motion Instrumentation and Seismic Hazard Mapping Program.
6. Mechanical, Plumbing and Electrical Permit Fees:
Plan review and permit fees shall be based on Tables 3-13, 3-C and 3-1) of the 1997 Uniform
Administrative Code. Electrical permit fees for commercial projects shall be determined at a rate of
0.074 per square foot. The Building Official may establish other formulas in place of the tables
listed above provided the fees are not in excess of the fees established by the tables.
000032
7. Miscellaneous Services Fees
Fees for the following miscellaneous services shall be charged at actual cost plus 15%
administrative processing:
A. Inspections outside of normal business hours(minimum charge 2 hours)
B. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of UBC Section 305.8
C. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated
D. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions
E. For use of outside consultants for plan checking and inspections or both (including
administrative and overhead costs).
FF For plan review and inspection services for demolition of buildings.
G. For the installation of temporary trailer facilities.
000033
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 09/28/99
isis
�Sran'�x+oi/
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report - Community Development Department
General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Change and Tentative Parcel Map
GPA 99001, ZC 99001, TPM 99003
8930 Junipero Avenue (Bunyea)
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission recommends Council adopt Resolution No. 1999-054, denying the
requested for General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Parcel Map.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
The project applicant wishes to subdivide his property on Junipero Avenue (project site) into two
separate lots. The existing lot is 1.07 acres and the minimum lot size in the RSF-Y zoning
district is 1 acre with sewer (which is available). In order to process the parcel map application,
a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change were submitted to change the minimum lot size to
'/2 acre. Since the project site is not immediately adjacent to the RSF-X (1/2 acre minimum)
Zoning District, the amendment application includes 16 neighboring lots located to the west of
the site. The net result is that the amendments will extend the RSF-X District±800-feet east and
affect a total of 17 existing lots. The application request consists of the following 3 actions:
1. General Plan Amendment 99001 would change the land use designation from Moderate.
Density Single Family (MDSF) to High Density Single Family (HDSF).
2. Zoning Map Change 99001 would change the zoning district from RSF-Y (Residential
Single Family ]acre minimum with sewer) to RSF X (Residential Single Family '/ acre
minimum with sewer).
3. Tentative Parcel Map 99003 would subdivide the existing ±1.07 acre parcel at 8930
Junipero Avenue (APN 030-071-042) into two lots of 0.58 acres and 0.49 acres
respectively.
Analysis:
The Planning Commission's recommendation followed a public hearing that included testimony
from the applicant and a number of neighbors that were opposed to the project. The neighbor's
000034
ITEM NUMBER:- B-1
DATE: 09/28/99
concerns primarily focused on changing the character of the existing neighborhood and the
concern that rezoning the neighborhood may eventually increase traffic. The Planning
Commission Minutes and Resolution are attached as Attachment 5 and Attachment 6. During
the Commission hearing the applicant raised questions about the accuracy of the staff exhibit
indicating the existing lot pattern. Staff found that a 3-lot subdivision had not been shown on
Palomar Avenue within the RSF-X district. This change is reflected on Attachment 4 and does
not affect staff's original analysis or recommendation on the project.
Summary of the General Plan Amendment Request
The appjicant's positions is that the General Plan Amendment merely corrects the General Plan
to better reflect the actually conditions that are found within the neighborhood. The predominate
lot size within the amendment area boundary is generally 1/4 acre, with the exception of the
applicants lot. Staff agrees, that when the project is viewed internally, in relationship to the 1/4
acre lots, then the request appears to be a reasonable to change the General Plan. However, a
project of this type needs to be assessed based on the area adjacent to the amendment as well.
The area surrounding the external boundaries of the amendment is comprised of lots almost
exclusively larger than %2 acre including numerous lots larger than 1 acre. If the amendment is
approved, similar amendments that incrementally expand the RSF-X district into the RSF-Y
district may follow. Since the lot pattern situation found on Junipero Avenue is not unique, but
is common throughout the community, this project could create a precedent throughout the
community. Consequently, while the project may appear reasonable within its boundary, the
precedent it would create beyond its boundaries may be significant.
Potential Precedents
The primary concern that the Planning Commission voiced was the project's potential to create a
precedent for General Plan amendments throughout the community to facilitate minor lot
divisions. The concern is that the approval of this project could create the impression that
property owners are entitled to split their lot down to %2 acre regardless of zoning district. Once
approved, adjacent property owners surrounding the site might request the same type of
amendment.
The Commission raised an additional concern of the potentialprecedent that would be set for the
rest of the community. If the application were approved, numerous similar applications could be
submitted for sites throughout the community. It may become increasingly difficult to protect
the integrity of the RSF-Y, RSF-Z and RS districts if changes were allowed based on the
existence of lots that are smaller than the district minimum. In staff s estimation, lots smaller
than the zoning district's permitted minimum are more the rule than the exception in the RSF-Y
District. The precedent would allow the piecemeal expansion of the RSF-X District into large lot
districts thereby undermining the intent of the General Plan to preserve large lots throughout the
community.
While the Commission understood that the parcel map portion of the project could be viewed as
minor, based on the big picture of the cumulative impact of numerous similar amendments the
000035
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 09/28/99
Commission considered the project's impact to be potentially significant. It was the
Commission's opinion that the issue of lot size consistency within this area should be dealt with
as part of a comprehensive General Plan update process rather than on a piecemeal, case by case
basis.
The Planning Commission made a separate recommendation to the City Council to include the
area in any future General Plan Update and to assess the appropriate minimum lot sizes for the
neighborhood on Junipero Avenue.
Environmental Review
Since staff originally recommended denial of the project due to its inconsistency with the Goals
of the General Plan, an Environmental Document was not prepared for the project. Section
15061(b)(4) of the CEQA guidelines allow projects to be disapproved without environmental
review. If the City Council disagrees with the recommendation on the project, then the project
will need to referred back to staff for preparation of an environmental document.
Conclusion:
• The project is a simple lot split that requires a potentially precedent setting General Plan
Amendment.
• If the General Plan Amendment were approved then similar applications may occur
throughout the RSF-Y, RSF-Z and RS districts.
• The piecemeal expansion of the RSF-X District into large lot districts may undermine the
intent of the General Plan
• The issue of lot size consistency on Junipero and throughout the community should be
addressed with a comprehensive General Plan update rather than piecemeal amendments.
ALTERNATIVES:
Since the project has been recommended for denial, the environmental review process and map
conditions have not been prepared for the project. Therefore, the project cannot be approved by
the City Council at this time. If the Council disagrees with the recommendation then the
following alternative actions would be recommended.
1. Refer the project back to staff for preparation an environmental document and project
conditions; or,
2. Refer the project back to staff for analysis of a different General Plan Amendment study area
that does not create an RSF-X peninsula.
000036
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 09/28/99
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Attachment 1: Vicinity Map
2. Attachment 2: Existing General Plan and Zoning
3. Attachment 3: Proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Change
4. Attachment 4: Existing Lot Area Pattern
5. Attachment 5: Planning Commission Minutes
6. Attachment 6: Planning Commission Resolution 1999-039
7. Attachment 7: Tentative Parcel Map
8. Attachment 8: Correspondence Received
9. Attachment 9: Draft Resolution of Denial
000037
II�Wf �'�'• ��
AAAA
I
Am
its' in
�_
1
44 f
MAl
i
nM' •
�► . _ .
Amp
�A I Vit• •d
MM
Oki
Am. LAI IL
Y
for
Jje
• . ..
i • ,, 4A
OEM
Ban
/' ' ► i �,�
oil
ARM
► rig ��. ..... �, � 1��r
i
f1�1�!*,� *� +"�].,, '�s ice',- •: �`,
� �i� ��� � �� sus � �-•; ��.
�� � � � � ilk � t� o��`�►�•�r
Ab ��
U
Attachment 4: Existing Lot Area Pattern (Revised)
GPA 99001, ZC 99001, TPM 99003
8930 Junipero Avenue
UL
z
M
" � o C5 u. W
IL
No
w
C) Z
� 0
0 - U
� M
d
o .
�
LU
so� � � — N g N
a o ^ w
N OZ;IQ U
° Q
N v �
o o
O (:5 65
0
0 Or 0 O„ Or V
IL >
0000113;
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Minutes
GPA 99001, ZC 99001, TPM 99003
8930 Junipero Avenue
PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION MINUTES
City Administration Building
August 17, 1999 7:00 P.M. DRAP
CALL TO ORDER
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bentz, Carden,Eddings, Fonzi, Jeanes and Zimmerman
COMMISIONERS ABSENT: Clark
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Saldana, Community Development Director,
Warren Frace, Principal Planner; Philip Dunsmore,
Assistant Planner, and Patricia Schulz, Recording
Secretary
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approval of minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of August 3, 1999.
ACTION: Moved by Commissioner Eddings and seconded by Commissioner
Fonzi to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission
meeting of August 3, 1999 as submitted.
AYES: Commissioners Carden, Eddings, Fonzi, Jeanes, and Zimmerman (5)
NOES: None (0)
ABSENT: Commissioner Clark (1)
ABSTAINED: Commissioner Bentz (absent from previous meeting) (1)
MOTION PASSED: 5-0
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. General Plan Amendment 99001, Zone Change 99001, Tentative Parcel Map 99003
—8930 Junipero Avenue (John Bunyea)
Consideration of a proposed general plan amendment and zone change to allow a 2-lot
parcel map at 8930 Junipero Avenue. The general plan amendment and zone change are
proposed for 17 parcels located between Junipero Avenue and Palomar Avenue east of
the existing High Density Single Family General Plan Designation. An initial study and
• environmental document have not been prepared for the project because staff is
recommending denial of the project. Staff is recommending a CEQA exemption per
Section 15061(B)(4).
This item was continued from the July 10, 1999 public hearing.
000042
Planning Commission Meeting—August 17, 1999
Page 2 of 8
Warren Fra e, Principal Planner, presented the staff report and
addressed questions
presented by the Planning Commission and general public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Chairman Carden clarified that the original map shown on the overhead projector was not
updated to reflect current subdivisions along Curbaril. Warren Frace, stated that the map
referred to is the General Plan base map which has not been updated with current parcelization
patterns. The Commission was provided with an exhibit with current parcel sizes (which is
different from the General Plan base map that the City has been using for the past 6 to 7 years).
With this information, staff has tried to show what the current pattern of lot sizes are.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked for clarification of the lot to be divided (by pointing to the
map).
TESTIMONY:
John Bunyea, 8939 Junipero Avenue, explained that his proposal (changing the zoning
designation from RSF-Y to RSF-X)would reflect the current lot patterns in the neighborhood.
Mr. Bunyea addressed Planning staff concerns as follows:
• The maps are 15-20 years out of date and do not reflect the lot splits that were done
during that time frame. Most parcels are consistent with RSF-X not RSF-Y zoning.
• Each application must be judged by its own merits.
• Other larger lots would not be divided as the lots are too steep.
• The precedent has been set many times before throughout Atascadero prior to this
project.
• Talked with Mark Markwort who stated that with the situation as it is, to clean up the
sewer system, and connect others to it and keep it operational, 600 homes would have to
connect to make it financially feasible.
• 99% of parcels surrounding his parcel do not meet minimum lot size of RSF-Y zoning.
• Further up Junipero and throughout the City there are different zoning designations
across the street from each other.
• Benefits to the City include an increase in property tax (6 times the amount at present).
Commissioner Bentz asked the following:
How long the applicant has lived in the house? (Mr. Bunyea replied that he has lived in the
home since November but has lived in Atascadero for 19 years. He is planning to build
another home on the lot for his adult children while they attend college.)
• How large is the present house and the proposed house? (Mr. Bunyea responded that the
plan [1600 sq. ft.] is the same for both homes, only reversed and with different facades.)
• What is the anticipated value/selling price? (Mr. Bunyea replied between $190,000 and
$199,000.)
Duncan Wallace, neighbor to Mr. Bunyea on the north side, purchased the rural lot a year ago •
and wants the atmosphere to remain rural. He also read letter from Mr. and Mrs. Drysback who
Planning Commission Meeting—August 17, 1999
Page 3 of 8
recentlypurchased a lot 129A behind Mr. Bunyea and strongly 0 '
p y �� ppose Mr. Bunyea's project,
wishing the area to remain rural.
Sandra Neuschafer, 8953 Junipero, spoke in opposition to the project, and noted that most of the
small lots were created before the City incorporated. The General Plan after incorporation set
the pace for the future.
Cindy Vance, 9031 Palomar, spoke in opposition to the project stating that she owns a smaller lot
but wants zoning to remain as is. Ms. Vance also expressed concerns with drainage problems
and traffic problems.
John Neuschafer, 8953 Junipero, spoke in opposition to the project stating that there are currently
63 homes on Junipero and expressed concerns with traffic.
Ray Slater, 8939 Junipero, spoke in opposition to the project reiterating concerns previously
expressed and doesn't want a precedent set.
Mr. Bunyea explained that there are only two lots large enough to split but those lots are too
steep. Mr. Bunyea read a survey supporting 30 signatures (out of 40 homes) stating that they
were not opposed to his proposal.
Commissioner Eddings, stated that there are in fact many lots in Atascadero that do not meet the
minimum lot size in their specific zoning designations, however he is opposed to bringing the
zoning down to the smallest lot size within that specific designation.
Commissioner Bentz asked Warren Frace if his opinion changes knowing that several of the lots
in the proposed amendment area have previously been split and are smaller than the lot size
requirements for the designation?
Warren Frace responded that the concern remains the same, that approval of the project would
have a tendency to set precedence for the entire City. The issue is better addressed with a global
revision of the overall General Plan through a general plan update process, looking at the entire
community and all of these issues at once.
Commissioner Bentz stated that he feels'the precedent has been set by virtue of the fact that
smaller lots already exist prior to this proposal.
Commissioner Fonzi asked the following:
• Definition"urban core".
• How far, ori Junipero, does the sewer extend?
• Is it permissible to build on the smaller lots that are vacant at this time, even though the lot
size is non-conforming?
Warren Frace responded to the questions as follows:
• The "urban core" generally refers to lots which are smaller at the center and become larger
as one goes away from the center.
• The Junipero sewer extends 3-4 lots past the project site.
000044
Planning Commission Meeting—August 17, 1999
Page 4 of 8
Q
Any legal lot that can meet the setback and parkin) requirements is buildable regardless of
size.
Chairman Carden asked if there is a problem with the base map. Warren Frace stated that the
General Plan Base is out of date and a staff person has been working to update the map all
summer.
Commissioner Jeanes asked for clarification of smaller lots during County jurisdiction, before
incorporation. Would like to know if any of the smaller lots were split after the General Plan
Update. .Warren Frace stated that staff understood that the smaller, %4 acre lots were likely
created under County jurisdiction.
Commissioner Zimmerman concurred with the possibility of an overall domino effect and
setting precedents.
Chairman Carden asked if General Plan Update and Zoning Ordinance Updates are coming
before the City Council in the very near future, and suggested tabling this project until Council
addresses the General Plan Updates.
Commissioner Eddings suggested putting this project to vote, and consider the General Plan
Update at another time and not link the two tonight.
Warren Frace suggested that the Commission could recommend that the Cit Council den this
og Y Y
particular project and recommend separately that the Council consider this area in any future
general plan updates to address some of these issues.
ACTION: Moved by Commissioner Zimmerman and seconded by
Commissioner Eddings to adopt Resolution PC 1999-039
recommending that the City Council deny General Plan Amendment
99001, Zoning Map Change 99001 and Tentative Parcel Map 99003.
AYES: Commissioners Eddings, Fonzi, Jeanes, and Zimmerman (4)
NOES: Commissioners Bentz and Carden (2)
ABSENT: Commissioner Clark (1)
ABSTAINED: None (0)
MOTION PASSED: 4-2
ACTION:. Moved by Commissioner Carden and seconded by Commissioner
Fonzi to recommend that the City Council consider revised General
Plan lot size minimums for the Junipero District to more accurately
reflect the underlying development as part of a comprehensive
General Plan update process.
AYES: Commissioners Bentz, Carden,Eddings,Fonzi, and Jeanes (5)
NOES: Commissioner Zimmerman (1)
ABSENT: Commissioner Clark (1)
000045
Planning Commission Meeting—August 17, 1999
Page 5 of 8
ABSTAINED: None (0)
MOTION PASSED: 5-1
3. Zoning Code Text Amendment 99008
Consideration of an amendment to the City.of Atascadero Zoning Ordinance regarding
the approval process and development standards for Auto Dealerships and Sales Lots.
The proposed amendments would include (1) clarification of the definitions of Auto
Dealerships and Sales Lots [Chapter 3, section 9-3.701], (2) requirement of a Condition
Use Permit for Auto Dealerships and Sales Lots in the zoning districts where they are
now permitted uses [Chapter 3, section 9-3.22, 23, 25, 30, and 31], and (3) the addition of
new development standards for Auto Dealerships and Sales Lots [Chapter 6, section 9-
6.139 & 163]. The Planning Commission may recommend other development standards
or regulations consistent with the purpose and intent of the General Plan or applicable
City policy.
Environmental Status: Staff is recommending a General Rule Exemption per Section
15061, (b-3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Philip Dunsmore, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and addressed questions presented
by the Planning Commission and the general public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Eddings asked how this enables staff to enforce the improvements on existing car
lots. Is there any way to clean up some of the existing lots? Phil Dunsmore responded that
existing car lots will not be affected. They will become existing non-conforming lots, but would
not be permitted to be expanded.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked that in the spirit of the Main Street Program, could that (the
Program) be used to urge some of the existing car lots to come into compliance?
Paul Saldana responded that in terms of the lots that are in the downtown area, staff would not to
encourage the expansion of non-conforming uses. In terms of the other dealerships in the area,
staff would try to get their voluntary cooperation.
Commissioner Jeanes suggested that the incentive should be to get the lots downtown to relocate
not put in a pathetic hedge to hide ugly cars. Phil Dunsmore stated that staff is working on this
particular property as a code enforcement issue. Commissioner Jeanes questioned the paving
aspect of the changes.
Phil Dunsmore responded that the initial intent was to have the sales lot area paved but not the
vehicle storage area.
0000
Planning Commission Meeting—August 17, 1999
Page 6 of 8
Warren Frace referred to the staff report, page 45 exhibit C number f. There is a caveat that
crushed rock will be allowed for vehicle storage areas in the rear half of the lot that are not
accessible to the general public.
Chairman Carden asked if the zoning ordinance precludes "big rig"dealers from coming in. Phil
Dunsmore answered that currently the auto dealership section does not specify: Staff wants to
place "heavy" trucks into the sales lot category rather than the auto dealer category. Page 32
shows definitions.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked where is the one-acre minimum mentioned. Warren Frace
responded page 45 Exhibit C, Item E and page 46.
Chairman Carden referred to the "shade trees" stating that these trees may be creating a problem
with birds messing the cars and sap dropping. Warren Frace responded that the intent was to
plant trees along the frontage,not in the lot itself.
Commissioner Bentz asked about weight of trucks. What happens with Ford and Chevrolet
dealerships and trucks over one ton?
Commissioner Fonzi commended staff on the report and asked for clarification of site surfacing
on page 45 F. The intent was not for the pavement to be at the back of the lot,just not visible.
Warren Frace responded the intent was to provide verbiage that would not be left to
interpretation but rather specific to enforce.
Commissioner Fonzi referred to section H regarding street frontage fencing, remove limitations
and change to subject to staff review, giving flexibility to staff and Planning Commission. With
regard to screening, 6ft. high solid wall or fence, what type of fence? Warren Frace stated that
chain link fencing with slats for screening.
TESTIMONY
None
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Chairman Carden asked staff to reiterate the recommended changes. Warren Frace stated the
following:
1. Eliminate the requirement for shade trees.
2. Page 46, item H regarding fencing - to be decorative wrought iron, wood rail fencing or a
comparable alternative subject to staff review.
3. Page 46 - Sales Lot Standards under Screening, staff recommended the wording that all
interior property lines are to be screen with a 6' high solid wall or fence that provides a
similar screening effect.
Commissioner Eddings suggested that the existing non-conforming dealers/car lots, out of the
downtown area, comply with the new ordinance.
000047
Attachment 6: Planning Commission Resolution 1999-039
GPA 99001, ZC 99001, TPM 99003
8930 Junipero Avenue
RESOLUTION NO. PC 1999-039
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL DENY AMENDMENTS TO
THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING MAPS,
AND DENY A TWO-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
AT 8930 JUNIPERO AVENUE
(GPA 99001, ZC 99001, TPM 99003)
WHEREAS, an application has been received from John Bunyea, 3310 Rio Vista Lane,
Atascadero, CA 93422 (Applicant and Property Owner) to consider at 8930 Junipero Avenue and
the area to the west (1) a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from
Moderate Density Single Family (MDSF) to High Density Single Family (HDSF), (2) a Zoning
Map Change to change the zoning district from RSF-Y (Residential Single Family I acre
minimum with sewer) to RSF-X(Residential Single Family % acre minimum with sewer), and (3)
a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the existing ±1.07 acre parcel at (APN 030-071-042) into
two lots of 0.58 acres and 0.49 acres respectively; and,
WHEREAS, no environmental review of the project was conducted based on staffs
recommendation to deny the project in accordance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) section 15061(B)(4); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a Public Hearing noticed for August 3, 1999,
and continued to August 17, 1999 considered General Plan Amendment#99001, Zone Change
#99001, and Tentative Parcel Map 99003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that it is in the best interest of the
City to deny these amendments to the General Plan Land Use Plan and the Zoning Ordinance
Map to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission hereby takes the following actions:
SECTION 1. Finding. The Planning Commission finds the following:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendments, Rezoning and Parcel Map are inconsistent
with the General Plan Land Use Element Goal of protecting and preserving the rural
atmosphere of the community by assuring"elbow room" for residents by means of
maintenance of large lot sizes
2. The proposed General Plan Amendments, Rezoning and Parcel Map would have a
long term detrimental effect of undermining the Goals and Policies of the General
Plan to protect large lot sizes.
D000_4$
SECTION 2. Recommendation for denial. The Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the City Council deny the request for General Plan Amendment 99001, Zone
Change 99001, and Tentative Parcel Map 99003 as shown on Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be delivered forthwith by the
Planning Commission Secretary to the City Council of the City of Atascadero.
On motion by Commissioner Zimmerman, and seconded by Commissioner Eddings the
foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Eddings,Fonzi, Jeans, Zimmerman (4)
NOES: Commissioners: Bentz, Carden (2)
ABSENT: Commissioners: Clark (1)
ADOPTED: August 17, 1999
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA
Harold L. Carden III, Chairperson
Attest:
Paul M. Saldana
Community Development Director
-0000.19
�► -��i - ,mow# -.
�f 1 rd
Lul
all
pa
11 Miami
Am Aff
ANN
a..�.
kA-b
ITEM NUMBER:
DATE: 9/14/99
Attachment 7: Tentative Parcel Map .
GPA 99001, ZC 99001, TPM 99003
8930 Junipero Avenue
N \
r � '
s
Y 4
W
O~
O
h
O�
4
f P F - • . • r s • �
R
z �r•m TENTATIVE PARerL MAPi SL
: 5UNYEA PROPERTY --. }-_ j(CJmj 00005
Attachment 8: Correspondence Received
GPA 99001, ZC 99001, TPM 99003
8930 Junipero Avenue
AW --
�•0MMLWF:YtDEVEtoF'l�ifE�` T
D
A 14—A
i
va n
1.41 1Lk
C�
Al (--14 LZ-.� 4-a L7Q,�n A-L,-c
I" A A��
r
�V -1 4) Tr "/-//v
(Nl�j
VIA AL"
IL� - b Y-
Q 17L
I L rOL-
Oma�
-- - -.+
—' — —
, i
Y
U O `-'w
O
MAA
CPO
F
000053
€ i
. Attachment 9: Draft Resolution of Denial
GPA 99001, ZC 99001, TPM 99003
8930 Junipero Avenue
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 1999-054
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO TO DENY
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99001, ZONING MAP CHANGE 99001,
AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 99003
AT 8930 JUNIPERO AVENUE
(GPA 99001, ZC 99001, TPM 99003)
WHEREAS, an application has been received from John Bunyea, 3310 Rio Vista Lane,
Atascadero, CA 93422 (Applicant and Property Owner) to consider at 8930 Junipero Avenue and
the area to the west (1) a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from
Moderate Density Single Family (MDSF) to High Density Single Family (HDSF), (2) a Zoning
Map Change to change the zoning district from RSF-Y (Residential Single Family 1 acre
minimum with sewer) to RSF-X(Residential Single Family % acre minimum with sewer), and (3)
a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the existing ±1.07 acre parcel at (APN 030-071-042) into
two lots of 0.58 acres and 0.49 acres respectively; and,
WHEREAS, no environmental review of the project was conducted based on staff's
recommendation to deny the project in accordance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) section 15061(B)(4); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a Public Hearing noticed for August 3, 1999,
and continued to August 17, 1999 considered General Plan Amendment#99001, Zone Change
#99001, and Tentative Parcel Map 99003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council that it is in
the best interest of the City to deny these amendments to the General Plan Land Use Plan and the
Zoning.Ordinance Map to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council, conducted a duly noticed Public Hearing on September
14, 1999 to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation and public testimony
concerning General Plan Amendment#99001, Zone Change #99001, and Tentative Parcel Map
99003; and,
NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council hereby takes the following actions:
SECTION 1. Finding. The City Council finds the following:
000054
1. The proposed General Plan Amendments, Rezoning and Parcel Map are inconsistent
with the General Plan Land Use Element Goal of protecting and preserving the rural
atmosphere of the community by assuring"elbow room"for residents by means of
maintenance of large lot sizes.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendments, Rezoning and Parcel Map would have a
long term, detrimental effect of undermining the Goals and Policies of the General
Plan to protect large lot sizes.
SECTION 2. Denial. The City Council hereby denies the request for General Plan
Amendalent 99001, Zone Change 99001, and Tentative Parcel Map 99003 as shown on Exhibit
A.
On motion by Council Member , and seconded by Council Member
the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Member:
NOES: Council Member:
ABSENT: Council Member:
ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA
Ray Johnson, Mayor
Attest:
Marcia M. Torgerson, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney
000055
�► . � _ ;� � _ ate -
..
• �����R ���� --�--� �� =air_ _�
WON.Ow"
• •••��SII//� '�'.. -„�'"'` .�+�.�:
JIM
=r9* jai 1111M
ig a v
1/ �i� ISI/,� �•. -,.�. � �,,�;�
r�I _�y��•'��
\ �. _ �.
ITEM NUMBER: B-2
R®aoil P.®
DATE: 09/28/99
•f.•1s••• *
19 � 1979
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report - Community Development Department
Zone Change 99008
Auto Dealers/Sales Lots Code Text Amendments
(Staff initiated)
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission recommends Council introduce, for first reading by title only, Ordinance No.
364, amending zoning code text associated with Auto Dealers and Sales Lots.
DISCUSSION:
Background: At a Planning Commission Hearing on August 17, 1999 staff identified inconsistencies
and insufficient standards in regards to auto dealers and sales lots within the Zoning Ordinance. Staff
incorporated Planning Commission recommendations and formulated draft amendments to the zoning
text.
The inconsistencies in the Zoning Ordinance create standards that allow the development of auto
dealers and sales lots in a wide variety of zones, without sufficient site development standards and
sometimes without a sufficient review process. The amendments to the zoning text will clarify the
categories of auto dealerships and sales lots, and add appropriate development standards, that will
provide uniform requirements for these important local businesses.
Summary: The proposed amendments would include the following (refer to Attachment B, C, D for
the proposed changes to the text):
1. Clarification of the definitions of Auto Dealerships and Sales Lots (Chapter 3, Section 9-3:701)
(Attachment B)
2. Requirement of a Conditional Use Permit for Auto Dealerships and Sales Lots in the zoning
districts where they are now allowed uses (Chapter 3, section 9-3.22, 23, 25, 30 and 31)
(Attachment C), and
3. The addition of new development standards for Auto Dealerships and Sales Lots (Chapter 6,
Section 9-6.139 & 163) (Attachment D)
000057
ITEM NUMBER: B-2
DATE: 09/28/99
Analysis: The existing definitions for Sales Lots and Auto Dealers overlap and lack specificity. The
definitions are not clear on new or used dealerships and also combine sales lots uses with auto
dealership uses. Sales lots are defined in such a manner as to allow sales of automobiles, in effect
allowing auto dealers in all of the aforementioned zones with an approved business license. The
recommendation for this section will be to remove vehicle sales from the Sales Lot definition. Farm
equipment, boats, mobilehomes, recreational vehicles trailers etc. will likewise be removed from the
Auto Dealers description and placed within the Sales Lot description. These changes will remove
inconsistencies and clarify the proper descriptions of Sales Lots and Auto Dealers. See Attachment
"B" for the zoning text changes recommended for this section.
Currently, Auto Dealers are an allowed use in the Commercial Retail (CR), Commercial Service
(CS), and Commercial Park (CPK) zones. Sales Lots are an allowed use in the CR, CS, CPK,
Industrial (I) and Industrial Park (IP) zones. Staff recommends moving Sales Lots from the allowed
uses section into the "conditionally allowed uses" section of the CS, CPK, IP and I zoning text. In
addition, staff recommends deleting sales lots from the allowed or conditionally allowed uses sections
of the CR zone.
Current Zoning Ordinance:
A= Allowed use
C= Conditionally allowed use
N=Not allowed
Sales Lots Auto Dealers
Commercial Retail (CR) A A
Commercial Service (CS) A A
Commercial Park (CPK) A A
Industrial Park(IP) A N
Industrial (I) A N
Recommended Zoning Ordinance Amendment:
A= Allowed use
C= Conditionally allowed use
N=Not allowed
Sales Lots Auto Dealers
Commercial Retail (CR) N C
Commercial Service (CS) C C
Commercial Park(CPK) C C
Industrial Park(IP) C N
Industrial (I) C N
000058
ITEM NUMBER: B-2
DATE: 09/28/99
Auto Dealers will be changed from the allowed uses section in the CR, CS, and CPK zoning text to
the conditional uses section of these zones. In summary, a Conditional Use Permit will be required to
establish an Auto Dealer or Sales Lot in these zones, however sales lots will not be allowed in the
Commercial Retail (CR) zone. See Attachment "C" for these text changes.
Chapter six of the Zoning Ordinance applies certain standards to the development of special uses such
as Auto Dealerships and Sales Lots. Staff recommends some additions and modifications to the
sections pertaining to Auto and Vehicle Dealerships (Section 9-6.163) and, Sales Lots and Swap
Meets (Section 9-6.139). The amendments in these sections are intended to improve site development
features such as landscaping and surfacing requirements, and to insure adequate size area (staff
recommends a 1 acre minimum lot size for Auto Dealerships and any other vehicular sales lot). For a
review of these changes refer to attachment "D".
Environmental Review: Staff has determined that the proposed amendments will be exempt from
environmental review. A General Rule Exemption per Section 15061, (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines
can be applied "where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in
question may have a significant effect on the environment... ". The adopting resolution includes the
necessary finding for this determination. Staff considers the exemption appropriate because the
amendments increase the review requirements and does not expand the uses into new districts.
Conclusion: In addition to the removal of some inconsistencies, the proposed .amendments will
require a Conditional Use Permit for all new Auto Dealers and Sales Lots. The Conditional Use
Permit process will allow staff and planning commission to review and condition these uses, ensuring
adequate locations and site improvement for these uses in the future. Modifications to the
development standards for these uses will also create enhanced aesthetic appearance and more
uniform regulation of this common land use in Atascadero.
ALTERNATIVES:
The City Council may recommend other development standards or regulations consistent with the
purpose and intent of the General Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Map of affected zoning boundaries
Attachment B: Text Amendment: Land Use Definitions (Section 9-3.701)
Attachment C: Text Amendment: Zoning District Use Amendments (Section 9-3.22,23,25,30,31)
Attachment D: Text Amendment: Development Standards (Section 9-6.139, 163)
Attachment E: Planning Commission Resolution and Minutes
Attachment F: Draft Ordinance of zoning code text amendments.
000059
o.zapz)Su jv Jo AJID
Q C
W n
c O cl � � v
W
WWWWW
4���,
V� V Z �00 `a � � ��d�Up
CC3
v op 0000�;�
N 1 w
N
JE V����" C• a+ d Gl C
1
N 5}
K V
a x
N
k
�2
r
1
x
d
I
1
�� 000060
PtF"' Change 99008
LEGEND
L(PD9) P �'� AFFECTED ZONING BOUNDARIES
CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATIONS
AGRICULTURE
RS RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN
RSF RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY Q
LSF LIMITED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
RMF RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY
CN COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD
CP COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL
CR COMMERCIAL RETAIL
CS COMMERCIAL SERVICE V
A CT COMMERCIAL TOURIST
CPK COMMERCIAL PARK
IP INDUSTRIAL PARK
I INDUSTRIAL
._� L RECREATION
�i. LS SPECIAL RECREATION
P PUBLIC
4-4
(FH) FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY ZONE
P5
L X,Y,Z MINIMUM LOT SIZE SYMBOL 0
j'� -16 NUMBER OF UNITS PER ACRE
(PD3) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE
DZ
DOWNTOWN ZONE 4..I
yr `i
BOUNDARIES U
CITY LIMITS
a N COLONY BOUNDARY
0 1000 3000 6000
0 00 2000 6000
( l Scale: P =4000'
Prepared by
Department of Community Development
Draft Date August 16, 1999
000060
Exhibit A
Attachment B (Zoning text,Land use Descriptions)
Zone Change 99008
Zoning Text Amendment
The following zoning text has been modified as follows:
All faded, strikethrough text is recommended for deletion, all underlined text is recommended
for addition.
Land Use Descriptions 9-3 . 701 . (definitions)
Auto Paebileh^me and Veh-iele Dealers (new and used) and Supplies :
Retail trade establishments selling new and used automobiles and
light trucks, mebilehemes, reereatienal
metered farm equipfR , motorcycles and mopeds . Also includes
establishments selling new parts and accessories within a
building for the above. Does not include establishments dealing
exclusively in used parts . Includes automobile repair shops only
when maintained by establishment engaged in the sale of new
vehicles on the same site . Does not include "Service Stations"
which are separately defined.
Sales Lots :
• Sales lots consist of any outdoor sales area for permanent
display of meter vehieles, recreational vehicles, recreational
and utility trailers , motorized farm equipment , boats , heaves
trucks (over 1 ton) , mobilehomes, construction equipment, far
eh n^ry or other heavy equipment; outdoor equipment rental
yards; or large scale temporary or permanent outdoor sales
activities saeh-- including but not limited to, a-& swap meets and
flea markets .
00001
Exhibit B
Attachment C (Zoning Text, Zone Descriptions)
Zone Change 99008
Zoning Text Amendment
The following zoning text has been modified as follows:
All faded, strikethrough text is recommended for deletion, all underlined bolded text is
recommended for addition.
CR (Commercial Retail) Zone
9-3 . 221 . Purpose : This zone is established to provide for a
wide range of commercial uses to accommodate most of the retail
and service needs of the residents of the City and surrounding
areas .
9-3 .222 . Allowable Uses : The following uses shall be allowed in .
the Commercial Retail Zone The establishment of allowable uses
shall be as provided by Section 9-2 . 107 (Plot Plans) and Section
9-2 . 108 (Precise Plans) :
(a) Broadcast studios
(b) Building materials and hardware (See Section 9-6 . 165)
(c) Food and beverage retail sales
(d) Furniture, home furnishings and equipment
(e) General merchandise stores
(f) Mail order and vending
(g) Temporary or seasonal sales (See Section 9-6 . 174)
(h) Financial services
(i) Health care services
(j ) Offices
(k) Small scale manufacturing
(1) Temporary offices (See Section 9-6 . 176)
(m) Personal services
0000€;2
(n) Light repair services
(o) Accessory storage (See Section 9-6 . 103)
(p) Eating and drinking places
(q) Membership organizations
(r) Horticultural specialties (See Section 9-6 . 116)
,
vehiele dealers and supplieics (See
-GTe e t i 6'xz 9 6 . 163 . )
(t) Vehicle and equipment storage (See Section 9-6 . 183)
(u) Schools - business and vocational (See Section 9-6 . 125)
(v) Utility transmission facilities
(w) Business support services, where all areas of use are
located within a building
(x) Social and service organizations
(y) Collection stations (See Section 9-6 . 130)
(z) Sales—lets'(See Geetiett
(aa) Farm equipment and supplies
(bb) Fuel and ice dealers (See Section 9-6 . 134)
(cc) Hotels and motels
(dd) Skilled Nursing Facility (See Section 9-6 . 134)
(ee) Bed and Breakfast
(ff) Retirement Hotel
(gg) Funeral Services
(hh) Schools (See Section 9-6 . 125)
(ii) Utility service center
(jj ) Libraries and museums
(kk) Temporary Events (See Section 9-6 . 177)
(11) Sexually Oriented Businesses (see Ordinance No . 298)
9-3 . 223 . Conditional Uses. The following uses may be allowed in
the Commercial Retail Zone . The establishment of conditional
000063
uses shall be as provided by Section 9-2 . 109 (Conditional Use
Permits) :
(a) Amusement services
(b) Caretaker residence (See Section 9-6 . 104)
(c) Service Station (See Section 9-6 . 164)
(d) Public assembly and entertainment
(e) Indoor recreation services
(f) Animal hospitals (See Section 9-6 . 110)
(g) Auto Repair and Services (See Section 9-6 . 168)
(h) Churches and related activities (See Section 9-6 . 121)
(i) Food and kindred products (See Section 9-6 . 128)
(j ) Pipelines
(k) Outdoor recreation services (See Section 9-6 . 123)
(1) Sports Assembly
(m) Transit stations and terminals
(n) Kennels (See Section 9-6 . 111)
o) Auto dealers (new and used) and supplies (See Section 9-
6 . 163 . )
9-3 . 224 . Lot Size : There shall be no minimum lot size in the
Commercial Retail Zone .
•
1000061;
CS (Commercial Service) Zone
9-3 . 231 . Purpose : This zone is established to provide for light
manufacturing and large lot service commercial needs of the
residents of the city and surrounding areas .
9-3 . 232 . Allowable Uses : The following uses are allowed in the
Commercial Service Zone . The establishment of allowable uses
shall be as provided by Section 9-2. 107 (Plot Plans) and Section
9-2 . 108 (Precise Plans) :
(a) All uses listed as Allowable Uses in the CR (Commercial
Retail) Zone
(b) Wholesaling and distribution
(c) Light repair services ;
(d) Storage yards (See Section 9-6 . 140)
(e) Apparel and finish products, where areas of use are
less than 5000 square feet
(f) Electronic and scientific instruments, where areas of
use are less than 5000 square feet
(g) Furniture and fixtures, where areas of use are less
than 5000 square feet
(h) Animal hospitals (See Section 9-6 . 110)
(i) Auto Repair and services (See Section 9-6 . 168)
(j ) Laundries and dry cleaning plants
(k) Stone and cut stone products, where all areas of use
are less than 5000 square feet
(1) Contract construction services
(m) Food and kindred products (See Section 9-6 . 128)
(n) Kennels (See Section 9-6 . 111)
(o) Sexually Oriented Businesses (see Ordinance No. 298)
9-3. 233 . Conditional Uses : The following uses may be allowed in
the Commercial Service zone. The establishment of conditional
uses shall be as provided by Section 9-2 . 109 (Conditional Use
Permits) :
(a) Amusement services
000065
(b) Warehousing
(c) Vehicle and freight terminal
(d) Service stations (See Section 9-6 . 164)
(e) Caretaker residence (See Section 9-6 . 104)
(f) Transit stations and terminals
Public assembly Y and entertainment
4h) Indoor recreation services
(i) outdoor recreation services (See Section 9-6 . 123)
(j ) Apparel and Finish products, where areas of use exceed
5000 square feet
(k) Sports assembly
(1) Electronic and scientific instruments, where areas of
use exceed 5000 square feet
(m) Furniture and fixtures, where areas of use exceed 5000
square feet •
(n) Glass products manufacturing
(o) Pipelines
(p) Stone and cut stone products, where all areas of use
exceed 5000 square feet .
(q) Auto dealers (new and used) and supplies (See Section 9-
6 . 163 . )
9-3 . 234 . Lot Sizes : There shall be no minimum lot size in the
Commercial Service Zone .
00006(;
CPK (Commercial Park) Zone
9-3 .251 . Purpose : This zone is established to provide for large
lot commercial and light manufacturing uses . It is intended that
special attention be given to providing for comprehensive
development plans to achieve appropriate functional relationships
between various uses and preclude "piecemeal" development of
existing larger lots .
9-3 . 252 . Allowable Uses : The following uses shall be allowed in
the Commercial Park Zone . The establishment of allowable uses
shall be a provided by Chapter '2 of this Title :
(a) Apparel and finished products
/1_t z uteme3i le, mebileheme and ye ieledealers andsuppliers+(See—Seetien 9'--6 . 163)
(c) Accessory storage (See Section 9-6 . 165)
(d) Broadcasting studios
(e) Building materials and hardware (See ,Section 9-6 . 165)
(f) Business support services
(g) Contract construction services
(h) Electronic and scientific instruments
(i) Farm equipment and supplies
(j ) Food and kindred products (See Section 9-6 . 1280)
(k) Fuel and ice dealers (See Section 9-6 .129)
(1) Furniture and fixtures
(m) Horticultural specialties (See Section 9-6 . 116)
(n) Laundries and dry cleaning plants
(o) Light repair services
(p) Mail order and vending
(q) Roadside stands (See Section 9-6 . 117)
(r) Schools - business and vocational (See Section 9-6 . 125)
(s) Sales lets (See Seetien 9 6 . 139)
00006
(t) Small scale manufacturing
(u) Stone and cut stone products
(v) Temporary events (See Section 9-6 . 177)
P Y
(w) Temporary Tem or seasonal sales (See Section 9-6 . 174)
Y
(x) Utility transmission facilities
(y) Wholesaling and distribution
(z) The following uses when established in conjunction with
a commercial center containing at least one major com-mercial
tenant with a minimum of 20 , 000 square feet of floor area:
(1) Eating and drinking places
(2) Financial services
(3) Food and beverage retail sales
(4) Furniture, home furnishings and equipment
(5) . General merchandise store
9-3 . 253 . Conditional Uses : The following uses may be
established in the Commercial Park Zone . The establishment of
conditional uses shall be as provided by Chapter 2 of this Title :
(a) Animal hospitals
(b) Auto repair and services (See Section 9-6 . 130)
(c) Chemical products
(d) Concrete, gypsum and plaster products
(e) Glass products
(f) Lumber and wood products
(g) Machinery manufacturing
(h) Membership organizations
(i) Mini storage
(j ) Paper products
(k) Paving materials
(1) Pipelines
(m) Plastics and rubber products
000068
(n) Public assembly and entertainment
(o) Sales lots (See Section 9-6 . 139)
(p) Structural clay pottery products
(q) Textile mills
(r) Transit stations and terminals
(s) Vehicle and equipment storage (See Section 9-6 . 183)
(t) Warehousing
(u) Auto dealers (new and used) and supplies (See Section
9-6 . 163 . )
9-3 . 254 . Lot Size : The minimum lot size in the Commercial
Park Zone shall be two acres . Smaller lot sizes may be allowed
for planned commercial and industrial developments, including
condominiums, where the Planning Commission determines that such
smaller lot sizes will not be detrimental to the purpose and
intent of the Commercial Park Zone.
9-3 . 255 . Development Standards : The following development
standards may be modified through the Conditional Use Permit
process .
(a) Customer and employee parking areas designed to have
vehicles facing El Camino Real or the freeway shall be screened
with a landscaped berm a minimum of thirty inches (3011 ) in
height .
(b) A minimum freeway setback shall be provided. Said
setback shall be landscaped.
All new and existing utilities shall be installed underground.
000060
IP (Industrial Park) Zone
9-3 .301 . Purpose : This zone is established to provide for the
light manufacturing and large lot service commercial needs of the
residents of the city and surrounding areas .
9-3 . 302 . Allowable Uses : The following uses shall be allowed in
the Industrial Park zone . The establishment of allowable uses
shall be as provided by Section 9-2 . 107 (Plot Plans) and Section
9-2 . 108 (Precise Plans) :
(a) Farm equipment and supplies
(b) Laundries and dry cleaning plants
(c) Broadcast studios
(d) Stone and cut stone products
(e) Temporary events (See Section 9-6 . 177)
(f) Temporary or seasonal sales (See Section 9-6 . 174)
(g) Building materials and hardware (See Section 9-6 . 165)
(h) Utility transmission facilities
(i) Fuel and ice dealers (See Section 9-6 . 129)
(j ) Warehousing
(k) Wholesaling and distribution
(1) Light repair services
(m) Accessory Storage (See Section 9-6 . 103)
(n) Sales lets—(See—seetae_., 9 6 . 1391)
(o) Storage yards (See Section 9-6 . 140)
(p) Apparel and finish products
(q) Collection stations (See Section 9-6 . 130)
(r) Electronic and scientific instruments
(s) Furniture and fixtures
(t) Auto Repair and Services (See Section 9-6 . 168)
(u) Business support services
000070
(v) Vehicle and equipment storage (See Section 9-6 . 183)
(w) Contract construction services
(x) Small scale manufacturing
(y) Food and kindred products (See Section 9-6 . 128)
(z) Sexually Oriented Businesses (see Ordinance No. 298)
9-3 . 303 . Conditional Uses : The following uses may be allowed in
the Industrial Park Zone . The establishment of conditional uses
shall be provided by Section 9-2 . 109 (Conditional Use Permits) :
(a) Agricultural processing
(b) Chemical products (See Section 9-6 . 127)
(c) Concrete, gypsum, and plaster products
(d) Caretaker residence (See Section 9-6 . 104)
(e) Glass products manufacturing
(f) Machinery manufacturing
(g) Lumber and wood products
(h) Paving materials
(i) Pipelines
(j ) Plastic and rubber products
(k) Recycling and scrap (See Section 9-6 . 131)
(1) Schools - business and vocational (See Section 9 . 6 . 125
(m) Textile mills
(n) Transit stations and terminals
(o) Vehicle and freight terminals
(p) Paper products
(q) Structural clay pottery products
(r) Indoor Recreation
(s) Recycling Centers (See Section 9-6 . 132)
_Ct) Sales lots (See Section 9-6 . 139)
9-3 . 304 . Lot Size : There shall be no minimum lot size in the
Industrial Park Zone .
000071
I (Industrial) Zone
9-3 . 311 . Purpose : This zone is established to provide suitable
locations for heavy manufacturing and industrial uses within the
city.
9-3 . 312 . Allowable Uses : The following uses shall be allowed in
the Industrial Zone . The establishment of allowable uses shall
be as provided by Section 9-2 . 107 (Plot Plan) and Section 9-2 . 108
(Precise Plan) :
(a) All uses listed as Allowable Uses in the IP (Industrial
Park) Zone
(b) Agricultural processing
(c) Lumber and wood products
(d) Concrete, gypsum and plaster products
(e) Glass products manufacturing
(f) Paper products
(g) Paving materials
(h) Structural clay pottery products
(i) Machinery manufacturing
(j ) Sexually Oriented Businesses (see Ordinance No. 298)
9-3 . 313 . Conditional Uses : The following uses may be allowed in
the Industrial Zone. The establishment of conditional uses shall
be as provided by Section 9-2 . 109 (Conditional Use Permits) :
(a) Chemical products
(b) Caretaker residence (See Section 9-6 . 104)
(c) Petroleum refining and related products
(d) Textile mill
(e) Metal industries - primary
(f) Pipelines
(g) Recycling and scrap (See Section 9-6 . 131)
(h) School - business and vocational (See Section 9-6 . 125) 0
(i) Transit stations and terminals
0000'72
(j ) Vehicle and freight terminals
(k) Plastic and rubber products
(1) Recycling Centers (See Section 9-6 . 132)
(m) Sales lots (See Section 9-6 . 139)
9-3 . 314 . Lot Size : There shall be no minimum lot size in the
Industrial Zone .
r
000073
Exhibit C
Attachment D (Zoning text, Special Uses Section)
Zone Change 99008
Zoning Text Amendment
The following zoning text has been modified as follows:
All faded, strikethrough text is recommended for deletion; all underlined bolded text is
recommended for addition.
9-6 . 163 . Auto and Vehicle Dealerships :
Vehicle dealerships in—the—OR,—E'nd—GPK zenes are subject to
the fpllowing standards . Auto parts stores are not subject to
these standards when conducted entirely within a building.
(a) Limitations on Use : Vehicle dealerships are limited to new
and used automobiles, light trucks, reereeien vehi- es and
motorcycles (including mopeds) . Such new vehicle dealerships are
allowed provided all vehicles for sale are stored, displayed and
serviced entirely on the site .
(b)Access : From a collector, arterial or freeway frontage road.
(c) Setbacks : A minimum 10-foot landscaped setback with trees,
low shrubs and groundcover shall be required from all street
frontage property lines .
(d) Outdoor Use : The outdoor display or storage ef vehi-e es shall
be limited to new and used automobiles in operable condition.
r
Geela-ien 9 6 . 1z-49 (Sales ,
e i b trd
(e) Minimum Lot size The minimum lot size for auto and vehicle
dealerships shall be 1 acre (net) . Smaller lots may be approved
by the Planning Commission for motorcycle or moped dealers only.
(f) Site Surfacing: Auto Dealer display lots shall be surfaced
with concrete or A C waving. All vehicle drive areas , service
areas and customer parking areas are to be paved with concrete
asphalt or masonry paving units, including vertically oriented
concrete block with the block cells planted with grass Crushed
rock will be allowed for vehicle storage areas on the rear half
of the lot that are not accessible to the general public .
(g) Landscaping and Screening: Paved areas of display lots shall
provide landscape planters with trees on at least 5% of the lot
area Along U.S . 101 a ten foot landscape treatment with
decorative fencing shall be provided as a buffer between the
highway and sales lot All service and storage areas shall be
screened from public views .
(h) Street Frontage Fencing Fencing along street frontages shall
0000"74
be limited to decorative wrought iron, wood rail or other
alternative fencing subject to staff review not to exceed three
(3) feet in height and located three (3) feet behind the sidewalk
in the landscape planter. Chain Link fencing not permitted
9-6 . 139 . Sales Lots and Swap Meets :
Outdoor sales lots and swap meets are subject to the provisions
of this Section (Wrecking yards are subject to Section 96 . 131
Recycling and Scrap) .
(a) Sales Lots :
May be conducted as a principal use (as in the case of a
Recreational Vehicle ased ear--lot) , or as an accessory use (such
as a sales yard in conjunction with a building materials store) ,
subject to the following:
(1) Site Design Standards :
(i) Displays : To be limited to street .frontages only. All other
property lines are to be screened as set forth in Subsection
(1) (iv) of this Section.
Requirement : Gne spaee per f
et ,aree—spc e. ,
(i44- ii) Landscaping: A Vie— ten foot wide landscaping strip is
P g P
to be provided adjacent to all street property lines, consisting
of ground covering vegetation which may be maintained at a height
less than three feet and trees . This is in addition to any
landscaping required by Section 9-4 . 124 (Landscaping) .
(-i-v iii) Screening: All interior property lines are to be screened
with a six-foot high solid wall or fence that provides similar
screening effect .
(viv) Office Facilities : When no buildings exist or are proposed
on a sales yard site, one commercial coach may be utilized for an
office, provided that such vehicle is equipped with skirting and
landscaping, and installed pursuant to the permit requirements of
Title 8 (the Building and Construction Ordinance) .
(v4-v_) Site Surfacing: A sales lot is to be surfaced with
concrete; or A.C. paving in the CS zone.;In the CPK. IP and I
zones crushed rock, or other materials maintained in a dust-free
condition may be allowed. All vehicle drive areas and customer
parking areas are to be paved with concrete, asphalt or crushed
rock.
(vi) Minimum Lot Size: The minimum lot size for sales lots for
any tXpe of vehicle shall be 1 acre . Smaller lots may be allowed
by the Planning Commission for other outdoor sales lot uses
(vii) Street Frontage Fencing: Fencing along street frontages
0000,75
shall be limited to decorative wrought iron or wood rail fencing
not to exceed three (3) feet in height and located three (3) feet
behind the sidewalk in the landscape planter. Chain Link fencing
not permitted.
•
000074%
Attachment E
Planning Commission Resolution
Zone Change 99008
RESOLUTION NO. PC 1999-038
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF DRAFT REVISIONS TO THE ZONING
ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL
(ZC 99008,Auto Dealers and Sales Lots)
WHEREAS, The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Atascadero may require amendments
which will eliminate some inconsistencies, add improved, uniform development standards and
provide adequate review for Auto Dealers and Sales Lot land uses.
WHEREAS, Community Development staff recommends the following amendments, as
specifically shown in attachment A, to the zoning Ordinance:
1. Clarification of the definitions of Auto Dealerships and Sales Lots (Chapter 3, Section 9-
3.701)
2. Requirement of a Conditional Use Permit for Auto Dealerships and Sales Lots in the zoning
districts where they are now allowed uses (Chapter 3, section 9-3.22, 23,25,30 and 31), and
3. The addition of new development standards for Auto Dealerships and Sales Lots (Chapter 6,
Section 9-6.139 & 163)
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are in conformance with the Land Use Element of
the General Plan; and
WHEREAS; the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed
amendments on August 17, 1999 and considered testimony and reports from staff, and the
public; and
WHEREAS; Zoning Ordinance Section 9-1.114.(b)requires that the Planning
Commission submit a written recommendation to the City Council on the proposed amendment
setting forth findings in support of the recommendation; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero makes the
following findings:
1. The proposed amendments as shown in Attachment A are exempt from environmental
review under a General Rule Exemption per Section 15061, (b)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines.
2. The proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan of the City of Atascadero.
3. The proposed amendments will not negatively affect the health, safety or welfare of the
general public.
0000177
Planning Commission Resolution 1999-038
Zone Change 99008
Page 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero
does hereby recommend the zoning code text amendments, as shown in exhibits A, B and C be
reviewed and adopted by City Council
On motion by Commissioner Fonzi and seconded by Commissioner Eddings,the
foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bentz, Carden, Eddings, Fonzi, Jeanes, and Zimmerman
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Clark
ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA
Harold Carden,Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
PAUL M. SALDANA, Director
Community Development Department
0000178
Planning Commission Meeting—August 17, 1999
Page 5 of 8
ABSTAINED: None (p)
MOTION PASSED: 5-1
3. Zoning Code Text Amendment 99008
Consideration of an amendment to- the City of Atascadero Zoning Ordinance regarding
the approval process and development standards for Auto Dealerships and Sales Lots.
The proposed amendments would include (1) clarification of the definitions of Auto
Dealerships and Sales Lots [Chapter 3, section 9-3.701], (2) requirement of a Condition
Use Permit for Auto Dealerships and Sales Lots in the zoning districts where they are
now permitted uses [Chapter 3, section 9-3.22, 23, 25, 30, and 31], and (3) the addition of
new development standards for Auto Dealerships and Sales Lots [Chapter 6, section 9-
6.139 & 163]. The Planning Commission may recommend other development standards
or regulations consistent with the purpose and intent of the General Plan or applicable
City policy.
Environmental Status: Staff is recommending a General Rule Exemption per Section
15061, (b-3)*of the CEQA Guidelines.
. Philip Dunsmore, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and addressed questions presented
by the Planning Commission and the general public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Eddings asked how this enables staff to enforce the improvements on existing car
lots. Is there any way to clean up some of the existing lots? Phil Dunsmore responded that
existing car lots will not be affected. They will become existing non-conforming lots, but would
not be permitted to be expanded.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked that in the spirit of the Main Street Program, could that (the
Program) be used to urge some of the existing car lots to come into compliance?
Paul Saldana responded that in terms of the lots that are in the downtown area, staff would not to
encourage the expansion of non-conforming uses. In terms of the other dealerships in the area,
staff would try to get their voluntary cooperation.
Commissioner Jeanes suggested that the incentive should be to get the lots downtown to relocate
not put in a pathetic hedge to hide ugly cars. Phil Dunsmore stated that staff is working on this
particular property as a code enforcement issue. Commissioner Jeanes questioned the paving
aspect of the changes.
Phil Dunsmore responded that the initial intent was to have the sales lot area paved but not the
vehicle storage area.
000079
Planning Commission Meeting—August 17, 1999
Page 6 of 8
Warren Frace referred to the staff report, page 45, exhibit C, number f. There is a caveat that
crushed rock will be allowed for vehicle storage areas in the rear half of the lot that are not
accessible to the general public.
Chairman Carden asked if the zoning ordinance precludes "big rig" dealers from coming in.- Phil
Dunsmore answered that currently the auto dealership section does not specify. Staff wants to
place "heavy" trucks into.the sales lot category rather than the auto dealer category. Page 32
shows definitions.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked where is the one-acre minimum mentioned. Warren Frace
responded page 45 Exhibit C, Item E and page 46.
Chairman Carden referred to the "shade trees" stating that these trees may be creating a problem
with birds messing the cars and sap dropping. Warren Frace responded that the intent was to
plant trees along the frontage, not in the lot itself.
Commissioner Bentz asked about weight of trucks. What happens with Ford and Chevrolet
dealerships and trucks over one ton?
Commissioner Fonzi commended staff on the report and asked for clarification of site surfacing
on page 45 F. The intent was not for the pavement to be at the back of the lot,just not visible.
Warren Frace responded the intent was to provide verbiage that would not be left to
interpretation but rather specific to enforce.
Commissioner Fonzi referred to section H regarding street frontage fencing, remove limitations
and change to subject to staff review, giving flexibility to staff and Planning Commission. With
regard to screening, 6ft. high solid wall or fence, what type of fence? Warren Frace stated that
chain link fencing with slats for screening.
TESTIMONY
None
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Chairman Carden asked staff to reiterate the recommended changes. Warren Frace stated the
following:
1. Eliminate the requirement for shade trees.
2. Page 46, item H regarding fencing - to be decorative wrought iron, wood rail fencing or a
comparable alternative subject to staff review.
3. Page 46 - Sales Lot Standards under Screening, staff recommended the wording that all
interior property lines are to be screen with a 6' high solid wall or fence that provides a
similar screening effect.
Commissioner Eddings suggested that the existing non-conforming dealers/car lots, out of the
downtown area, comply with the new ordinance.
0000650
Planning Commission Meeting—August 17, 1999
Page 7 of 8
Commissioner Bentz suggested sending an information package to all existing non-conforming
auto dealers prior to the City Council hearing alerting them to the changes. This way those
dealers could address their concerns with changes at the City Council meeting.
Commissioner Fonzi concurred with Commissioner Bentz.
Paul Saldana stated that staff could distribute the information regarding changes to the ordinance,
however it would have to include a caveat that this would not impact their existing use. They
could attend the Council meeting speaking in opposition to the changes thinking that the changes
would be enforced against them.
Commissioner Bentz stated that dealers would have to conform if they desire to add to an
existing structure or remodel.
Commissioner Jeanes asked if the changes proposed will affect any existing car dealerships even
if they vacate and a new nonconforming use comes in? Phil Dunsmore stated that is true.
Commissioner Eddinas asked what would trigger conformance to the recommended changes.
Phil Dunsmore reiterated enlarging the building or lot size.
Commissioner Jeanes recommended that the lots located in the downtown work with BIA. Have
BIA contact these individuals as one of the purposes of the BIA is beautification. .Chairman
Carden concurred and added that it may have a more positive impact if the dealers are
approached by the Chamber of Commerce and the BIA.
Commissioner Zimmerman inquired about the legal requirement - will it be published in the
newspaper? Warren Frace responded that this hearing was noticed in the newspaper as will the
City Council hearing.
Commissioner Fonzi reiterated that she agreed with Commissioner Bentz' intent that this was to
be a catalyst for improvement not a means of upsetting anyone. The car dealerships provide a
good deal of tax revenue to the City.
ACTION: Moved by Commissioner Fonzi and seconded by Commissioner
Eddings to adopt Resolution PC 1999-038 and recommend the City
Council approve Zone Change 99008 (Auto Dealer Sales Lot Code
Text Amendments) with the following changes:
4. Eliminate the requirement for shade trees.
5. Page 46, item H regarding fencing - to be decorative wrought
iron, wood rail fencing or a comparable alternative subject to
staff review.
6. Page 46, - Sales Lot Standards under Screening, staff
recommended the wording that all interior property lines are
to be screen with a 6' high solid wall or fence that provides a
similar screening effect.
00008 .
17
Planning Commission Meeting—August 17, 1999
Page 8 of 8
AYES: Commissioners Bentz, Carden,Eddings,Fonzi,Jeanes, and Zimmerman (60
NOES: None (0)
ABSENT: Commissioner Clark (1)
ABSTAINED: None (0)
MOTION PASSED: 6-0
ANNOUNCEMENTS & REPORTS
6. Community Development Staff Comments & Reports
Paul Saldana reminded that August 31, 1999 is a study session to review the update of the
Subdivision Ordinance and Appearance Review Guidelines. The study session will be
held in Room 102 at 7:00 p.m.
7. Commissioner Comments & Reports
Commissioner Fonzi asked Paul Saldana if Atascadero is joining in the law suit against
the city of San Luis Obispo regarding the Salinas River Dam. Chairman Carden
interjected that the city of San Luis Obispo is it's own water company which is not the
case in Atascadero. Paul Saldana concurred with Chairman Carden stating that this is in
the purview of the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. Mr. Saldana also noted that
Councilmember Clay, a member of the Water Committee, was in the audience and asked •
him to address the question.
Councilmember Clay stated that he, the Mayor, the City Manager and Mr. Ken Weathers
of the Atascadero Mutual Water Company were going to meet and determine which way
the Water Company wants to go.
ADJOURNMENT— 8:55 p.m.
Minutes Prepared By:
Patricia Schulz, Recording Secretary
0000S2
Attachment F
Zone Change 99008
Draft Ordinance 364
ORDINANCE N0. 364
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
AMENDING THE ZONING TEXT ASSOCIATED WITH SALES LOTS AND AUTO
DEALERS
(ZC 99008,Auto Dealers and Sales Lots)
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission, at a Public Hearing held on June 15, 1999
studied and considered Zone Change 99008; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission recommended (7-0) approval of the zone text
change; and
WHEREAS, a timely and properly noticed Public Hearing upon Zone Change
recommendation was held by City Council, at which hearing evidence, oral and documentary,
was admitted on the Zoning Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Findings for approval of zoning text change. The Council does hereby make
the following findings:
1. Public necessity, convenience, or welfare requires the Zoning text to be amended for Auto
Dealers and Sales Lots in order to ensure adequate site review for these land uses and correct
inconsistencies within the Zoning Ordinance. The following amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance are necessary in order to achieve consistency and ensure adequate review;
a. Clarification of the definitions of Auto Dealerships and Sales Lots (Chapter 3, Section
9-3.701)
b. Requirement of a Conditional Use Permit for Auto Dealerships and Sales Lots in the
zoning districts where they are now allowed uses (Chapter 3, section 9-3.22, 23,25,30
and 31), and
c. The addition of new development standards for Auto Dealerships and Sales Lots
(Chapter 6, Section 9-6.139 & 163)
2. Modification of the development standards associated with Auto Dealers and Sales Lots is
warranted to promote orderly and harmonious development, because the standards will create
consistent guidelines that will enhance the appearance of Auto Dealers and Sales Lots.
3. The proposed amendments as shown in Attachment A are exempt from environmental review
under a General Rule Exemption per Section 15061, (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
4. The proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan of the City of Atascadero.
000083
Draft Ordinance 1999-
Zone Change 99008
Page 2
Section 2 Zoning text change
The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Atascadero is hereby amended as shown on the attached
exhibits A, B and C which is made part of this ordinance by reference.
Section 3 Publication.
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within(15) days after its passage
in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation,printed,published, and circulated in
the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting
and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with
proof of posing to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City.
Section 4. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall be effective at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after its final passage.
On motion by and seconded by , the
foregoing Ordinance is hereby introduced for first reading:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
Ray Johnson,Mayor
ATTEST:
Marcia M. Torgerson, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney
000084
ITEM NUMBER: B-3
8:11 Big s:w DATE: 09/28/99
i9ia � i e
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report - Community Development Department
Atascadero State Hospital / Chalk Mountain Golf Course Annexation
Pre-zoning and Initiation of Annexation
ANX 99001 / ZC 99009
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Planning Commission recommends Council:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 1999-056, adopting a Class 19 Categorical Exemption from CEQA
and initiating an application to LAFCo for Annexation of the Atascadero State Hospital
and Chalk Mountain Golf Course Territory.
2. Introduce for first reading by title only, Ordinance No. 365 for the pre-zoning of the
Annexation Territory to 606± acres to the P (Public) District and 278± acres to the L
(Recreation) District on the City Zoning Map for first reading.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ATASCADERO STATE HOSPITAL AND CHALK MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE
ANNEXATION• PRE-ZONING MAP CHANGE 99009 AND INTITATION OF
ANNEXATION 99001: The proposed project consists of the reorganization(annexation) of 884±
acres of unincorporated territory lying within the general boundaries south of Palomar Avenue
street, east of El Camino Real, north of Halcon Road and west of the Salinas River. The territory
is contained within the City's 1984 Sphere of Influence boundary and represents an
unincorporated enclave that is bound by the City Limits on the south, north and west. The project
includes the pre-zoning of 606± acres to the P (Public) District and 278± acres to the L
(Recreation) District on the City Zoning Map.
000085
ITEM NUMBER: B-3
DATE: 09/28/99
DISCUSSION:
Background
The Atascadero State Hospital, Chalk Mountain Golf Course,Heilmann Park and Paloma Creek
Park are significant land use features located in the southeast quadrant of the community. The
territory they occupy comprises approximately 884 acres and is bound by the City Limits on the
north, south and west. The territory has been included in the City's LAFCo Sphere of Influence
(SOI) since 1984, which identifies the area as appropriate for annexation to the City. The current
General Plan land use diagram identifies the use of the area with Recreation and Public land use
designations.
The City of Atascadero has been actively pursuing annexation of the area since the late 1980's.
In 1997 the City Council Adopted resolution 04-97 to initiate annexation of the territory. Due to
issues arising with the County, the 1997 annexation application was never completed. Staff is
currently in the process of resubmitting the application to LAFCo for consideration. One of the
required elements of the application is for the City to adopt a pre-zoning of the territory.
Summary:
The subject territory consists of the 629 acre Atascadero State Hospital Facility including Paloma
Creek Park (City) and 255 acres of San Luis Obispo County parkland containing the Chalk
Mountain Golf Course and Heilmann Park, and a segment of the Union Pacific Railway
(formally S.P.R.R.). No privately owned land is included in the territory. The majority of the
territory is already built-out to its highest and best use as a State Hospital Facility and public
parklands. No changes in land use patterns or additional private or commercial development
would result from the project. The project is consistent with the City's existing General Plan
PUB (Public) Designation and REC (Recreation) Designation. The territory is completely within
the City's Urban Services Line (USL) and the City currently provides sewer and street services
to the existing facilities. The territory would be detached from the County Sheriff Department
and California Department of Forestry (fire protection), these services would become the
responsibility of the City of Atascadero. The State Hospital currently provides its own water,
sewer, police and fire protection services with mutual aid agreements with the City; no changes
would result from the project. Since the patients at the State Hospital do not have voting rights
the annexation area is considered uninhabited for purposes of determining the annexation
approval process.
Analysis:
Consistency with Existing Plans
Annexation of the subject territory would implement the 1984 LAFCo Sphere of Influence and
the 1994 City General Plan. The County's Salinas River Area Plan also designates the State
Hospital and adjoining public lands as ultimately being within the City Limits. The entire
territory is owned by either the State of California or Sari Luis Obispo County. The City has
received approval from the State to support annexation to the City. Staff is currently in the
process of negotiating a tax sharing and service agreement with the County. The proposed pre-
000086
ITEM NUMBER: B-3
DATE: 09/28/99
zoning of the site to L District (Recreation) and P District (Public) would be consistent with the
current City General Plan designations of the area.
The pre-zoning and annexation would be consistent with existing State, county and local plans.
Logical City Boundaries
The annexation would provide the City with a more logical and uniform corporate boundary by
eliminating an unincorporated county enclave. Although both the County Parks and State
Hospital are located outside of the City limits, the only access to these facilities is through the
City creating impacts on the City street system. The territory is located with the Urban Service
Line (USL) of the General Plan and City currently provides sewer service for County facilities.
Through mutual aid agreements, the City's Police and Fire Departments provide service to this
area.
Annexation of the territory would create more logical City boundaries and provide for more
efficient public services.
Paloma Creek Park
The City operates Paloma Creek Park located at the south end of town along Viejo Camino
Avenue and Halcon Road. This City park is located outside of the City Limits on State Hospital
property, that is leased and maintained by the City. Because the park in outside of the City limits
it is not officially served by the City Police and Fire Departments.
Annexation of this area would reflect the existing City use of the park and provide for more
efficient emergency services.
Environmental Revievv
Staff is recommending a Class 19 categorical exemption be adopted for the proposed project:
Consistent with Section 15319 of the California Environmental Quality Act, staff has determined
that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the CEQA Review process and that no
additional environmental review is required. The Class 19 Exemption pertains to the annexation
of existing public facilities where there is no potential for future development and adequate
facilities exist to provided services. Since there are no private lands within the annexation
territory and the State Hospital and County Parks are already existing, no new development or
impacts would result from the annexation project. Currently, the City already provides adequate
streets, sewer and mutual aid emergency services to the territory.
Conclusion:
• The pre-zoning and annexation of the territory would provide the City with more logical and
uniform boundaries that are consistent with State, county and local plans.
• More efficient public services could be provided to the territory if it were included within the
City.
• Annexation of the territory would provide additional revenue to the City that would help off
set the impact these facilities have on the City.
00008'7
ITEM NUMBER: B-3
DATE: 09/28/99
FISCAL IMPACT:
Annexation of the territory would add the population of the State Hospital to the City for
d capita subvention monies from the State. With the
purposes of establishing population, anper ca p
Hospital's current population, the City could expect to receive an additional State allocation of
approximately $60,000. The City would also receive a minor amount of money from the sales
tax .revenues of the golf course. This revenue would help the City off set some the existing
impacts these facilities create on City streets and services. The exact revenue that will be
generated from the annexation is dependent of the tax sharing agreement with the County that is
still being negotiated.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Council may refer the project back to staff and/or the Planning Commission for
additional analysis.
2. The Council may decide not to pursue annexation.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Attachment 1: 1984 LAFCo Sphere of Influence
2. Attachment 2: 1994 General Plan Diagram
3. Attachment 3: Annexation and Pre-zoning Diagram
4. Attachment 4: 1997 Plan for Services
5. Attachment 5: Draft Resolution to Initiate Annexation
6. Attachment 6: Pre-zoning Draft Ordinance 365
00000;8
ITEM NUMBER:
DATE: 9/28/99
Attachment 1: 1984 LAFCo Sphere of Influence
ZC 99009/ANX 99001
Atascadero State Hospital/Chalk Mountain Golf Course Annexation
• F
ADOPTED SPHERE OF SERVICE ARD SPHERE QF INFLUENCE
FOR THE ATA,S•CA13ERD
CITY OF ATASCADERO L�a
11 sR
Atascadero City
raffic h { Limits
t� �� - �� �' • + Atascadero Colony
Boundary
ri
IF
�
21L
s+r %, I $aart Adopted Sphere of Service
,`' and Sphere of Influence
'r.
k
Adopted October 4, 1984
000089
ITEM NUMBER:
DATE: 9/28/99
Attachment 2: 1994 General Plan Diagram
ZC 99009/ANX 99001
Atascadero State Hospital/Chalk Mountain Golf Course Annexation
OTHER
PUBUC P OUAS�—PUBUC
REC RECREATION ----
A AGRICULTURE
�r I SPECIFIC PLAN`AREA
FAMI Annexation Area
884±acres
RECREATION
Qm PUBUC
�+ O,
Camino Real e -P-
00.
i
c `J j,• T i P � Ef' d10,
a t�
'y/ r r VS vua�ct.:
• ,rear
0000sO
ITEM NUMBER:
DATE: 9/28/99
Attachment 3: Annexation and Pre-zoning Diagram
ZC 99009/ANX 99001
Atascadero State Hospital/Chalk Mountain Golf Course Annexation
� �n/o'Paej�'eR Sd/'dS Rrver
3
L
(Recreation)
+/- 255 acres +/- (584 otal acres
-Z
F-4 G) Chalk Mountain Atascadero
Golf Course State Hospital
(Public)
+/-
Hellmann GOG acres
Park
t
I g wt
RANCHO
DCL BM00ree
sn�Cr
3% p rK, Pa
y Parrkk
CN
7r
ATASCADERO STATE HOSPITAL/ CHALK MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE
PREZONING DIAGRAM
ANX. 99001 / ZC 99009
� ANNEXATION BOUNDARY
NOT TO SCALE
CITY OF ATASCADERO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
000091
ITEM NUMBER:
DATE: 9/28/99
Attachment 4: 1997 Plan for Services
- ZC 990091 ANX 99001
Atascadero State Hospital 1 Chalk Mountain Golf Course Annexation
SOUTHEAST ATASCADERO PUBLIC LAND ANNEXATION
The following summarizes how various urban services are presently provided together with the
opportunities that annexation invites for efficiencies.
1. WATER:
The city provides irrigation water for Chalk Mountain Golf Course. The Atascadero
Mutual Water Company provides for Heilmann Park, and Paloma Creek Park. The
Atascadero State Hospital has its own wells. During emergencies, the Mutual Water
Company and Atascadero State Hospital cooperate.
2. ES WER:
City sewer serves the Paloma Creek Park, one restroom on the Chalk Mountain Golf
Course, the Golf Course Club House, and a restroom and maintenance building at
Heilmann Park. The Atascadero State Hospital has its own sewer plant. The City would
like to be able to run a gravity flow line from the south part of the city across hospital
property to the sewage treatment plant on the other side of the railroad tracks. The
Hospital is interested in the possibility of using reclaimed water to irrigate the farm
adjacent to the city's wastewater treatment facility, subject to negotiations with the lessee.
3. STREETS:
All of the streets serving the four public properties are the responsibility of the City of
Atascadero. Recently, El Camino Real in front of the State Hospital was improved by the
city with the State contributing$150,000. The State Hospital funded a traffic study
showing that the intersection warrants a traffic signal, which was installed June of 1996.
4. RECREATION:
The city is interested in negotiating with the State Hospital to acquire Paloma Creek Park
in fee, or to significantly extend the lease,together with possibly adding adjacent acreage
for park expansion. The city agrees to maintain such area in permanent open space uses
as part of the Atascadero State Hospital's land use buffer strategy.
5. POLICE PROTECTION:
Atascadero State Hospital has its own police organization with the capability to continue
to provide all necessary criminal and traffic-related investigations and services. In keeping
with this, the City Police Department will not conduct any investigations at Atascadero
State Hospital, but sill be available for emergency mutual aid assistance. At the present
time, the County Sheriffs Office is responsible for the provision of law enforcement
services at Chalk Mountain Golf Course, Heilmann Park and Paloma Creek Park. Upon
annexation, city police services would replace those of the County Sheriff.
6. FERE PROT'ECTTON:
The California Department of Forestry is responsible for fire protection for the four public
sites. However, there is a mutual aid agreement with Atascadero and the State Hospital
Fire Departments. Upon annexation, fire protection responsibilities for the recreation sites
would be the obligation of the Atascadero Fire Department. Atascadero State Hospital
would continue to provide its own fire protection services unless increased city services
were negotiated with the city.
000093
Draft Council Resolution 1999-056
Attachment 5: Draft Resolution to Initiate Annexation
ZC 99009/ANX 99001
Atascadero State Hospital/Chalk Mountain Golf Course Annexation
DRAFT COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 1999-056
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO TO INITIATE ANNEXATION THE
884 +/-ACRE ATASCADERO STATE HOSPITAL AND CHALK
MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE TERRITORY
(ANX 99001)
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the
Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1995 commencing with Section 56000
of the California Government Code, for reorganization which would annex territory to the City
of Atascadero that is currently unincorporated territory of San Luis Obispo County; and,
WHEREAS, notice of intent to adopt this resolution of application has been given, and
this Council has conducted a public hearing based upon this notification; and,
WHEREAS, the principle reasons for the proposed reorganization are as follows: (1)to
provide more logical and uniform corporate boundaries consistent the 1984 Sphere of Influence
by eliminating a County enclave, (2) to provide more efficient public and emergency services to
the territory, (3)to place the existing Paloma Creek City Park within the City, and (4)to offset
the fiscal impacts and public service requirements the territory has on the City; and
WHEREAS, the following agencies would be affected by the proposed jurisdiction
changes:
Agency Nature of Change
City of Atascadero (all services) Annexation
and,
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be reorganized is uninhabited, and a map and
description of the boundaries of the territory are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B an by this
reference incorporated herein; and,
WHEREAS, it is desired to provide that the proposed reorganization be subject to the
following terms and conditions: None; and,
WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the adopted sphere of influence for all of the
agencies that would be affected by the organization; and,
000094
Draft Council Resolution 1999-056
WHEREAS, the adoption of a Class 19 Categorical Exemption for the proposed project
is consistent with Section 15319 of the California Environmental Quality Act and that no
additional environmental review is required; and the Class 19 Exemption pertains to the
annexation of existing public facilities where there is no potential for future development and
adequate facilities exist to provided services; and,
WHEREAS, this Council has determined that this proposal meets the criteria for waiver
of Conducting Authority proceedings as set forth in Government Code Section 56837(c); and,
NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council hereby takes the following actions:
SECTION 1. Class 19 Categorical Exemption: the proposed project is consistent with
Section 15319 of the California Environmental Quality Act pertaining to the annexation
of existing public facilities where there is no potential for future development and
adequate facilities exist to provided services.
SECTION 2. Finding. The Council finds the following:
1. The annexation of the territory is consistent with the Goals and Polices of the
General Plan; and,
2. The annexation of the territory is necessary to assure the City of Atascadero the
ability to appropriately regulate and serve property within it's immediate environs
and adopted Sphere of Influence; and,
3. The Annexation is consistent with the City's adopted Sphere of Influence and
would create a regular and uniform corporate boundary; and,
4. The annexation of the territory would allow for the more efficient provision of
City,services to the territory; and,
5. The annexation of the territory would not be detrimental to the health, safety and
welfare of persons living in or around the area.
000095
Draft Council Resolution 1999-056
SECTION 3. Approval. The City Council hereby initiates proceedings for annexation of
the territory as shown on Exhibit A and B.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
,
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
By:
Ray Johnson,Mayor
Attest:
Marcia M. Torgerson, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney
000096
Draft Council Resolution 1999-056
Exhibit A: Annexation Map
Draft Resolution 1999-056
ANX 990011 ZC 99009
Atascadero State Hospital/Chalk Mountain Golf Course Annexation
' �rne'Pd Sd6'ds
4he R 'mer
Annexation Area #5
+/- 884 otal acres
Chalk Mountain Atascadero
Golf Course 5tate Ho5pital
t� Heilmann
Park
y8 RANCHa
s x DEL 80R00 ST4Fcr
h9
Pa
INA reek
t
Park
ATASCADERO STATE HOSPITAL/ CHALK MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE
ANNEXATION AREA #5
ANNEXATION BOUNDARY
• NOT TO SCALE
CITY OF ATA.SCA.DERO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
00000'7
Draft Council Resolution 1999-056
Exhibit B: Legal Description of Annexation
Draft Resolution 1999-056
ANX 99001 /ZC 99009
Atascadero State Hospital/Chalk Mountain Golf Course Annexation
ANNEXATION #5 TO THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
EXHIBIT A
• Being .a portion of Lots 3 and 4 of George Story' s subdivision in
Block 7 of Rancho Atascadero along with Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 of
Eaglet No. 2 as shown on map recorded in Map Book 2 at Page 38,
. along with Lots 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 of A.D.S.
Addition No. 1 as shown ori map recorded in Map Book 5 at Page 1,
along with Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and a portion of Lots 6 and 7.
of Tract No. 5 as shown on map recorded in Map Book. 5 at Page 24,
along with Lots 2, 3 , 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 in Block 67 of
Atascadero Colony as shown on Map recorded in Map Book 3AC at
Page 99A, all in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of
California, according to the records on file in the office of the
County Recorder of said county, being more particularly described
as follows :
Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 1 in Block 1 of Eaglet
No. 2 as shown on said map; said corner being also a point of the
Atascadero city limit line;
thence along said city limit line, being also the northeast line
of said Block 1, South 36010 ' 00" East 1867 .10 feet to the
centerline of La Linia Road;
thence South 2010100" West 20 . 00 feet to the south right-of-way
line of said La Linia Road;
thence along said right-of-way line the following courses:
North 87050100" West 95 . 97 feet;
South 69023100" West 318 .45 feet;
South 79000100" West 199 .45 feet;
South 66°151001,' West 253 . 61 feet to the east right-of-way
line of E1 Corte Road; .
thence along said east right-of-way line South 21000100" East
70 . 76 feet to the centerline of La Linia Avenue as shown on said
A.D.S. Addition No. 1;
thence according to said map South 1020100" West 20 . 00 feet to
the south right-of-way line La Linia Avenue;
thence along said right-of-way line North 88040100" West 172 .22
Page 1 of 8
000098
feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the southeast
and having a radius of 130 . 00 feet;
thence along said curve westerly and southwesterly 116 . 85 feet
through a .central angle of 51030100"
thence. South 39050100" West 20 .50 feet to the beginning of a
tangent curve concave to the northwest and having a radius of
180 :`00 feet;
thence along said curve southwesterly 30.51 feet through a
central angle of 9042145" to the east right-of-way line of Pino
Solo Avenue;
thence along said right-of-way line SOUTH 681.56 feet to the
south line of Lot 13 per said map;
thence along said south line EAST 443 .60 feet to the centerline
of a 16 foot alley per said map;
thence along said centerline SOUTH 847.80 feet to the north
right-of-way line of Las Lomas Avenue per said map;
thence along ' said right-of-way line North 44038100" East 115 . 19
feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the southeast
and south and having a radius of 302 . 90 feet;
thence along said curve northeasterly and easterly 211 .46 feet
through a central angle of 40000100" ;
thence North 84038.100" East 300 .33 feet to an angle point in Las
Lomas Avenue;
thence continuing along the north right-of-way of Las Lomas
Avenue as shown on the map per said Tract No.5, North 86009 ' 00"
East 179 .73 feet to the north prolongation of the west line of
Lot 2 per said map;
thence along said prolongation South 5022100" East 269 . 80 feet to
the southwest corner of said lot;
thence along the south line of said lot, North 84038100" East
181 . 00 feet to its southeast corner;
thence along the east line of said lot, North 5022100" West 13 . 92
feet to the southwest corner of Lot 3 per said map;.
thence along the south line of said lot, North 84038 ' 00" East
195 .15 feet to its southeast corner, said corner being a point in
the west line of Lot 4 per said map;
Page 2 of 8
000099
7 feet to the
along said
west line South 502210011 East 1 .3 ee
thence a g ,
southwest corner of said Lot 4;
thence along the south line of said lot, North 84038100" East
215 . 17 feet to its southeast corner;
thence along the east line of said lot, North 5022100" West 6 .46
feet - to the southwest corner of Lot 5 per said map
thence along the south line of said lot, South 80007100" East
246 . 63 feet to its southeast corner;
thence along a line described in a deed recorded in Book 1992 at
Page 935 of Official Records in the Office of said County
Recorder, South 80007100" East 153 .11 feet to a point on the line
common-to Lots 6 and 7 per said map, said point being South
9053100" West 136 . 90 feet along said common lot line from the
centerline of said Las Lomas Avenue;
thence continuing along the line described in said deed, South
64059138" East 179 . 01 feet to the corner common to Lots 7, 8 and
9 .per said map;
thence along the line common to said Lots 7 and 9, South
50°34 ' 00" West 137 .71 feet to the east right-of-way of E1 Dorado
Avenue per said map;
thence along said right-of-way and its southerly prolongation,
South 29028100" East 291 .28 feet to the south right-of-way of El
Bordo Avenue per said map;
thence along said right-of-way South 55021100" West 746 . 50 feet
more or less to a 3/4" iron pipe on the northeast right-of-way of
the un-named 40 foot road as shown on the map per said Eaglet
No. 2 ;
thence along said right-of-way South 34034100" East 1180 . 03 feet
to the centerline of the 30 foot road shown on said map;
thence along said centerline South 55026100" West 1472 . 00 flet to
the west corner of Lot 5 per said map;
thence South 34034100" East 1200 . 00 feet to the west corner of
Lot 9 per said map;
thence along the northwest line of said lot North 55°26 ' 00" East
1472 . 00 feet to the said northeast right-of-way of the un-named
40 foot road;
thence along said northeast right-of-way line South 34034100"
East 600 . 00 feet;
Page 3 of 8
000100
thence South 55026100" West 20 .00 feet to the centerline of said
un-named 40-foot road;
thence along said centerline South 34034100" East 600 . 00 feet to
an iron pipe, being the point of beginning for the parcel
described as SECOND per Deed recorded in Book 11, Page 132 of
Official `Records of said county;
thence along the boundary of said parcel South 34024100" 1010 . 00
feet to a fenceline;
thence continuing along the boundary of said parcel the following
courses:
South 6054100" East 241 . 60 feet;
North 89046100" West 224 .20 feet;
South 49029100" West 46 .30 feet to the north line of the
Atascadero Colony as shown on Map Book 3AC at Page 99A;
thence along said north line of the Atascadero Colony
South 89043100" East 231. 00 feet to the east corner of Lot 12,
Block 67 of said map;
thence along the southeast line of said lot South 51°11 ' 00" West
749 .46 feet to the east right-of-way line of the California State
Highway as shown on said map (now known as Viejo Camino) at the
beginning of a non-tangent curve concave to the southwest having
a radius of 1030 . 00 feet; A radial bearing to said point bears
North 34017124" East;
thence along said right-of-way and curve southeasterly 425 .33
feet through a central angle of 23039136" ;
thence continuing along said right-of-way South 32003100" East
999 . 85 feet to the northwest right-of-way of Halcon Road as shown
on said map;
thence along said right-of-way of Halcon Road North 57057100"
East 4 . 61 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the
northwest and west and having a radius of 159 .20 feet;
thence along said right-of-way and curve northeasterly and
easterly 155 .41 feet through a central angle of 55056100" ;
thence along said right-of-way North 2001100" East 124 .42 feet to
the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the east and having a
radius of 1452 . 50 feet;
thence along said right-of-way and curve northerly 208 . 72 feet
through a central angle of 8014100" ;
thence along said right-of-way the following courses :
Page 4 of 8
000101
North 10015100" East 378 .06 feet;
North 28015100" East 309 .94 feet;
North 14041100" East 139 . 87 feet;
North 04041100" East 376 .02 feet to a point on the north
line of said Atascadero Colony;
thence along said north line South 89043100" East 20 . 06 feet to
centerline of said Halcon Road;
thence along said centerline the following courses per Grant Deed
recorded in book 1816, page 929 of Official Records of said
county:
North 0058100" East 415 .99 feet;
North 38006100" East 83 .59 feet;
North 67049100" East 217 .43 . feet;
North 54059100" East 303 .51 feet;
North 44034100" East 183 . 95 feet;
North 26033100" East 461.81 feet;
North 47021100" East 234 .87 feet;
North 38040100" East 324 .04 feet more or less to the
southwest right-of-way line of the Southern Pacific Railroad
Company as delineated in the description of Parcel 1 per Deed
recorded in book 510, page 352 of Official Records of said
county;
thence following said railroad right-of-way southeasterly along a
compound curve concave to the northeast (the tangent of said
curve at its point of beginning bears North 40037143" West)
having the following radii, central angles and arc lengths :
Radius Central Angle Arc Length
2939 .83 feet 002111811 18 .21 feet
3379 . 08 feet 0031130" 30 . 69 feet
3894 .75 feet 0027100" 30 .59 feet
4658 . 68 feet 002213011 30 .49 feet
5804 . 60 feet 0018 ' 00" 30 .39 feet
7714 .45 feet 0013130" 30 .29 feet
11534 . 17 feet 0009 ' 00" 30 . 20 feet
22993 . 33 feet 0004130" 30 . 10 feet
to the EC . at Engineer Station 7780+30;
thence continuing along said railroad-right-of way the following
courses :
South 43005115" East 840 .00 feet,
North 46054145" East 50 . 00 feet to that portion of the
railroad right-of-way as described FIRSTLY and THIRDLY per Deed
as recorded in book 35, page 578 of Deeds of said county;
thence along said railroad right-of-way South 43005115" East
149 .70 feet to the beginning of a tangent compound curve concave
Page 5 of 8
000102
to the -southwest at Engineer Station 7790+19 .7;
thence southeasterly and southerly along said right-of-way and
curve having the following radii, central angles and arc lengths :
Radius Central Angle - Arc Length
11434 .19 feet 0009 ' 00" 29 . 93. feet .
5704 . 60 feet 0018 ' 00" 29 . 87 feet
3794 . 75 feet 0027100" 29 . 80 feet
2839 . 83 feet 0036100" 29 . 74 feet
2266 . 88 feet 0045100" 29 . 67 feet
1884 . 92 feet 0054100" 29 . 61 feet
1612 . 09 feet 1003100" 29 . 54 feet
1407 .47 feet 1012100" 29 .47 feet
1248 .32 feet 1021100" 29 .41 feet
1121. 01 feet 1030100" 29 . 34 feet
1016 . 84 feet 1039100" 29 .28 feet
930 . 04 feet 6036100" 107 . 13- feet
1016 .84 feet 1039100" 29 .28 feet
1121 . 01 feet 1030100" 29 .35 feet
1248 .32 feet 1021100" 29 .41 feet
1407 .47 feet 1012100" 29 .48 feet
1612 . 09 feet 1003100" 29 . 54 feet
1884 . 91' feet 0054100" 29 . 61 feet
2266 . 88 'feet 0045100" 29 . 67 feet
2839 . 82 feet 0036100" 29 . 74 feet
3794 .75 feet 002710011 29 . 80 feet
5704 . 60 feet 0018100" 29 . 87 feet
11434 . 19 feet 0004110" 13 . 88 feet
to the east line of the Rancho Atascadero as surveyed and platted
by G.L.O. Deputy Surveyor Brice M. Henry in June, 1858 ;
thence leaving said city limit line and along said rancho line
North 0011100" East 2104 .49 feet to "E. I . 100" per map recorded in
book A. page 1 of Maps of said county;
thence along the west boundary of said map the following courses :
North 31019100" West 2112 . 00 feet to "E. I . 12511 ;
North 09004100" West 2980 .56 feet to "E. I . 11511 ;
North 57019100" West 2774 .09 feet to an intersection with
the northeast extension of the southeast boundary of the
Atascadero County Sanitation District disposal facilities as
described in Exhibit "A" as recorded in book 2416 , page 598 of
Official Records of said county, also being a point on the
Atascadero city limit line;
thence along said city limit line and said southeast boundary and
extension thereof South 27021100" West 1389 .17 feet to the east
line of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company right of way as
delineated in the description of Parcel 3 per Deed recorded in
Page 6 of 8
000103
book 510, page 360 of Official Records of said county;
thence along said railroad right of way North 62021100" West
229 .30 feet to the beginning of a tangent compound curve concave
to the northeast and east, at engineer station 7708+09 .2;
thence northwesterly and westerly along said railroad right of
way and curve having the following radii, central angles and arc
lengths as delineated in the description of Parcels 2 and 3 per
said deed and the parcel described THIRD per deed recorded in
book 40, . page 409 of Deeds of said county:
Radius Central Ancrle Arc Lencrth
22893 .45 feet 0004130" 29 . 97 feet
11434 .17 feet 0009 ' 00" 29 . 94 feet
7614 .45 feet 0013130" 29 . 90 feet
5704 .60 feet 0018 ' 00" 29 .87 feet
4558 . 69 feet 0022130" 29 . 84 feet
3794 .75 feet 0027100" 29 .80 feet
3249 .08 feet 0031130" 29 .77 feet
2839 . 83 feet 0036100" 29 .74 feet
2521 .52 feet 0040130" 29 .71 feet
2266 . 88 feet 0045100" 29 . 67 feet
2058 .53 feet 0049130" . 29 . 64 feet
1884 . 91 feet 32058100" 1084 .54 feet •
2058 .53 feet 0049130" 29 .64 feet
2266 . 88 feet 0045100" 29 . 67 feet
2521 .52 feet 0040130" 29 . 71 feet
2839 . 83 feet 0036100" 29 . 74 feet
3249 . 08 feet 0°31 ' 30" 29 .77 feet
3794 .75 feet 0027100" 29 . 80 feet
4558 . 69 feet 0022130" 29 . 84 feet
5704 . 60 feet 0018 ' 00" 29 . 87 feet
7614 .45 feet 0013130" 29 . 90 feet
11434 .17 feet 0009 ' 00" 29 . 94 feet
22893 .45 feet 0004130" 29 . 97 feet
to the end of said curve at engineer station 7687+16 . 6;
thence continuing along said railroad right of way as delineated
in the description of Parcel 2 per said deed recorded in book
510, page 360 of Official Records and as described SECOND in said
deed recorded in book 40, page 409 of Deeds, North 19029100" West
1644 .33 feet to its intersection with the southeast line of Block
9 per said Atascadero Colony;
thence along said southeast line South 39022100" West 29 .21 feet
to the centerline of said railroad;
thence continuing along said southeast line South 39022100" West
Page 7 of 8
00010,1
75 . 95 feet to the northwest corner of Parcel 3 per book 25, page
28 of Parcel Maps;
thence along the northeast line of Parcels 3 and 4 per said map
South 20021113" East 381 .40 feet to the east corner of said
Parcel 4;
thence. along the southeast line of Parcels 4, 2 and "1 South
380,31103" West 955 . 07 feet to the south corner of said Parcel 1;
thence South 39022100" West 382 .00 feet per book 2075, page 486
of Official Records to the south corner of the property described
therein;
thence South 38022100" West 457 .10 feet per book 1834, page 924
of Official Records to the point of beginning.
Contains 884 Acres, more or less.
Alan L. Volbrecht L.S. 5201 (exp. 6-30-99)
Page 8 of 8
000105
Draft Ordinance 365
Attachment 6: Pre-zoning Draft Ordinance 365
ANX 99001 /ZC 99009
Atascadero State Hospital/Chalk Mountain Golf Course Annexation
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 365
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO TO PRE-ZONE
THE ATASCADERO STATE HOSPITAL AND CHALK MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE
TERRITORY AS PUBLIC AND RECREATION ZONING DISTRICTS.
(ZC 99009)
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission, at a Public Hearing held on September 21, 1999,
studied and considered Zone Change 99009, after first studying and considering the proposed
Class 19 Categorical Exemption prepared for the project, and,
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission recommended(approval/denial) of the zone
change; and,
WHEREAS,the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and public notice of
environmental documents, as set forth in the State and local guidelines for implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)have been adhered to; and,
WHEREAS, a timely and properly noticed Public Hearing upon the Pre-Zone Change
application was held by the City Council on September 28, 1999, at which hearing evidence, oral
and documentary, was admitted on the Zoning Map amendment; and,
WHEREAS,the Zoning Map Amendment was introduced for first reading on September
28, 1999:
NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Class 19 Categorical Exemption: the proposed project is consistent with
Section 15319 of the California Environmental Quality Act pertaining to the annexation
of existing public facilities where there is no potential for future development and
adequate facilities exist to provided services.
SECTION 2. Findings for Approval of Pre-Zoning Map Change: The Council does
hereby make the following findings:
1. The pre-zoning of the territory is consistent with the Goals and Polices of the General
Plan; and,
000106
Draft Ordinance 365
2. Public necessity, convenience, or welfare requires that the Zoning Map be amended
for the territory, to pre-zone 606± acres as "P" (Public Zone District) and 278± acres,
"L" (Recreation Zone District), to allow the initiation of an application of annexation
of the territory; and,
3. The pre-zoning of the territory is necessary to assure the City of Atascadero the
ability to appropriately regulate and serve property within it's immediate environs and
adopted Sphere of Influence; and,
4. The pre-zoning is consistent with the City's adopted Sphere of Influence and would
create a regular and uniform corporate boundary; and,
5. The pre-zoning of the territory would allow for the more efficient provision of City
services to the territory; and,
6. The pre-zoning of the territory would not be detrimental to the health, safety and
welfare of persons living in or around the area.
SECTION 3. Zoning Map Change:
The Official Zoning Map of the City of Atascadero on file in the Community
Development Department is hereby amended as shown on the attached Exhibit A, which
• is made part of this ordinance by reference, and that said pre-zonings shall become
effective zoning districts following annexation.
SECTION 4. Publication:
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days
after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed,
published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the
Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause
this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the
Book of Ordinances of the City.
SECTION 5. Effective Date:
This ordinance shall be effective at 12:01 a.m. on the.315`day after its final passage.
00010'7
Draft Ordinance 365
On motion by Council Member , and seconded by Council Member
the foregoing ordinance is hereby introduced in its entirety for first reading
by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
By:
Ray Johnson, Mayor
Attest:
Marcia M. Torgerson, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney
000108
Draft Ordinance 365
Exhibit A: Pre-zoning Diagram
Draft Ordinance.365
ZC 99009
Atascadero State Hospital/Chalk Mountain Golf Course Annexation
� Un/O"PdC� sd�°ds
n
L
(Recreation)
+/- 255 acres +/- (584 otal acres
_ -Z
F-4 6) Chalk Mountain Atascadero
Golf Course 5tate 1105pital
(Public)
+/-606 acres
tt, ;' lietirtiann
Part
•.n„n
3 $ RANCHO
DEL 3MMPa
S7Oc[T
P F I ti Pa k
a C
+
CN d P
n
ATASCADERO STATE HOSPITAL/ CHALK MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE
PREZONING DIAGRAM
ANX. 99001 I ZC 99009
ANNEXATION BOUNDARY
NOT TO SCALE
CITY OF ATASGADERO COMMUI`IITY 1]EVEL DPMEI`IT
000109
ITEM NUMBER: C- 1
DATE: 09/28/99
NJ min N4
isia p 1!8
\Ar'cmER+Di�
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report - Community Services Department
Request by the Atascadero Rotary Club to Install Lighting in
Atascadero Lake Park
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council:
1. Adopt proposed Negative Declaration of environmental impact;
2. Approve a modified request by the Atascadero Rotary Club to install thirteen
additional decorative lampposts and the relocation of six standard street lights in
Atascadero Lake Park.
DISCUSSION:
On Thursday, August 19, 1999, the Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to
recommend approval of a plan by the Rotary Club of Atascadero to install thirteen (13) new
lights in Atascadero Lake Park. The approximate locations of the proposed lights, following
mutually agreed-upon modifications resulting from meetings with City staff, are indicated on
Attachment#1.
The Parks and Recreation Commission also voted unanimously to recommend to the City
Council, approval of the following:
1. Place five of the replaced PG&E lights into the Morro Road Parking Lot and one into the
Pavilion Parking Lot of Atascadero Lake Park.
2. Direct staff to meet with the Rotary Club representatives to present options for different
pole colors
3. Replace the lights in the existing decorative lights in Atascadero Lake Park with high-
pressure sodium (HPS) light bulbs.
4. Adopt the proposed negative declaration of environmental impact (Attachment#4)
5. Direct staff to install a wall-mounted light on the Women's side of the restroom near the
Morro Road Parking lot at Atascadero Lake Park.
The Rotary Club seeks to install lights that are identical to six existing lights located along two
pathways between the Ranger House and the Morro Road Parking Lot. These existing Rotary
00020
ITEM NUMBER: C- t
DATE: 09/28/99
lights have historic style lampposts that are approximately 15 feet tall with a bell-shaped lamp.
These lampposts are turquoise in color and cast a white light from a 175-watt metal halide bulb.
The illumination pattern from these lights is directed toward the ground and cast an oval shaped
lighting pattern.
In response to the Rotary Club proposal, Community Services Department inventoried the
existing lights in Atascadero Lake Park (Attachment 92) and determined the areas at Atascadero
Lake Park, which according to staff's evaluation, warrant additional lighting (Attachment #3).
The inventory of existing lights completed by staff has determined that there are ten distinct
areas within Atascadero Lake Park and parking lots that need additional lighting. These ten areas
represent dark pockets within the park that warrant additional lighting under the current park use
patterns, established park rules and current park design. As evidenced by this map, staff is
primarily interested in lighting parking areas, pathways and areas around the two park restrooms
for safety purposes. Additional lighting within the park is not recommended because staff does
not want to encourage evening and nighttime use of the Lake Park when there are no on-duty
employees.
The modified Rotary lighting proposal is generally consistent with staff's lighting evaluation and
staff believes that all of the identified locations for additional lighting would most likely be
consistent with potential modifications to the park lay-out resulting from a future Master Plan.
In addition, both staff and the Rotary Club agree that the new lampposts be fitted with high-
pressure sodium (HPS) light bulb rather than the metal halide bulb. The HPS bulb has an amber
color that will match the existing light fixtures on the Pavilion and surrounding the lake frontage.
Staff also recommends that the additional lampposts retain the turquoise color of the existing
decorative lampposts. A list of optional lamppost colors is attached in the event that the City
Council desires a different color for the lampposts. (Attachment#6)
Staff also recommends that the City Council approve the placement of the six relocated PG&E
cobra-head style streetlights into the Morro Road Parking Lot of Atascadero Lake Park. Staff
recommends that all of the PG&E cobra-head style streetlights be placed in the Morro Road
Parking lot. The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that one of these lights be
place in the Pavilion parking lot near the Zoo Shop. With the addition of two Rotary lights in
this parking lot, there will be ample lighting without the addition of the PG&E cobra-head style
streetlight which would be better utilized in the larger/darker Morro lot.
A copy of a response to the Rotary Club's original proposal prepared by the Atascadero Lake
Park Neighborhood Association is included in Attachment#5.
Environmental Review
In order to evaluate the project's potential environmental impact related to glare, the Rotary Club
submitted a precise plan to the Community Development Department. Planning staff prepared
an initial study for the proposed project as required by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
000111
ITEM NUMBER: C- 1
DATE: 09/28/99
The initial study evaluated the addition of thirteen pole lights along the existing pathways and
adjacent to the lake in the vicinity of the park area surrounding the Lake Pavilion as originally
proposed by the Rotary Club. The proposed light fixtures are fully shielded with segmented cut-
off reflectors and 100 watt metal halide bulbs. The optical system installed will be a SG1, Type
1 asymmetrical lighting "footprint". When mounted on a 14-foot pole the photometric analysis
indicates that the illumination level of the ground will drop below 0.5 foot candles at a distance
of 30 feet from the pole. The shielded fixtures are designed to direct all light downward and will
not create a point of glare when viewed from a distance.
Based on the initial study, staff determined that the originally proposed Rotary Club lighting
project and the modified plan do not have the potential to create a significant environmental
impact by creating substantial light or glare. Staff has prepared and posted a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact (Attachment #4) and is recommending its adoption by the
City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of this request will cost the City of Atascadero approximately $1,250.00 annually for
additional electrical service.
ALTERNATIVES: None Recommended
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment#1- Staff/Rotary Club Recommended Locations for Additional Lights
Attachment#2- Inventory of Existing Lights at Atascadero Lake Park
Attachment#3- Recommended Areas for Additional Lighting
Attachment#4- Proposed Negative Declaration
Attachment #5- Atascadero Lake Neighborhood Association Response to Rotary Proposal
Attachment#6- Alternative Colors for the Lampposts
000112
�\ i• C �'� Z4
LWIJ
4�e
00000000oo° 1 GJY / At-
°°Oo ��
CP.
{ •3 _�X. 1 v )til:
IZ
7:2
V' v
cu
CL w
N O vi C:
�� uC O Ur
� 1,. - C _ •fIl� Co
0 v Pig`. O (�
J
CL
Co
CU E o
U E :-
Cl) O 'a i i
cu 0 -0 zOrf
Q , .000113
v
•�, {Iv-f -y U 1
�V) �PQ�
l' QL Li
Lo
cn
3z 9L
CIL000i
o
00000000000000
cp
-V-O
cn
CU ,
CCS �
-C/)
X C
O W � m
L
co
W J
C-6 m
to � �,,•�' - �
> � 0 3
0001111
City of Atascadero
Department of Community Services
Atascadero Lake Park
Recommended Areas for Additional Lighting
The following areas indicated on the attached map are based on staff review of the existing
Atascadero Lake Park lights and on the current Park use and design. The areas indicated for
additional lighting may require more than one light, depending on several factors, including
size of the area, size and style of the lighting fixtures and the amount of existing light from
' lights located in other areas of the Park.
#1. Charles Paddock Zoo Parking Lot
This area is located adjacent to Morro Road and includes the unpaved over-flow
parking lot and the first two rows of parking stalls next to the unpaved area. This
parking lot is frequently used by patrons of evening Pavilion events.
#2. Spillway Bridge
This area is located along the lake spillway in the area adjacent to the Morro Road
Parking lot, including the area on the Spillway Bridge. This area is also used by
patrons of evening Pavilion events, evening walkers and by patrons using Alvord field.
#3. Alvord Field Walkway
This area in located along the right field fence of Alvord field. The area in need of
additional lights is along the exterior pathway about mid-point between the right field
dugout and the Spillway Bridge. This area is also used by patrons of Alvord field and
evening walkers.
#4. Morro Road Parking Lot Restrooms
This area in located between the spillway and the restroom located next the Morro
Road Parking lot. The area in need of additional lights is primarily on the Women's
restroom entrance. These restrooms are open in the evening.
#5. Gazebo Restroom and Walkway
This area in located along the pathway adjacent to the restroom located near the
Gazebo. The area in need of additional lights is primarily on the Women's restroom
entrance. Evening walkers use this area.
#6. Walkway near the Ranger House
This area in located along the pathway adjacent to the Ranger House. The area in
need of additional light runs from the pay telephones near the Pavilion to the Gazebo
restrooms. Evening walkers and patrons of evening events at the Pavilion use this
area. .
000115
#7. Walkway on the Westside of the Pavilion
This area in located along the pathway adjacent to the Pavilion. The area in need of
additional lights is located on the West Side of the Pavilion near the basement
driveway. Evening walkers and patrons of evening events at the Pavilion use this
area.
#8. AARP Building Overflow Parking Lot
This area in located in the dirt overflow parking lot adjacent to the AARP building. This
area is used by patrons of evening events at the Pavilion and AARP Building.
#9. Walkway on the Eastside of the Pavilion
This area is located along the stairway on the eastside of the Pavilion. The area in
need of additional lights is located on the stairs that run from the upper Pavilion to the
basement. An oak tree blocks light from the side of the building. This area is used by
evening walkers, patrons of evening events at the Pavilion and by the Boy Scouts to
access the basement.
#10. Pavilion Parking Lot
This area is located in the Pavilion Parking Lot in front of the AARP Building. This area
is used by patrons of evening events at the Pavilion and AARP Building.
000116
v
ta
,00000000o0o00Lu
00 L `' IP/
&.
72
�� •2.—
s.. CDN X
CU c
CU o77
cu
Q 000117
F0 Ur T 0 P
1818 I o a CITY OFATASCADERO
Proposed NEGATIVE DECLARATION
6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero,CA 93422 805.461.5035
(ENDORSED)
APPLICANT: Rotary Club of Atascadero '" I L D
P.O. Box 1000
Atascadero, CA 93423
JUL 27 1999
PROJECT TITLE: Precise Plan 99012; Environmental Review 99018 dlil.lE L RODE+A'ALD,COUNTY CLERX
By Dadsne A.Robe
PROJECT LOCATION: 9305 Pismo Avenue VEPUTYCLERK
Atascadero;CA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Precise Plan 99012: Installation of thirteen (13) decorative
pathway lights around the Lake Pavilion building in Atascadero Lake Park. The light fixtures
will be fully shielded with 100-watt metal halide bulbs and a down directional lighting pattern.
The fixtures will be mounted on decorative 14-foot tall metal poles. The poles and fixtures will
be finished with a green power coat, heat-set polyester resin. The size and appearance of the
lights will be identical to the six existing lights. The existing fixtures contain 175-watt metal
halide bulbs; the proposed fixtures will be fitted with 100-watt metal halide bulbs. The General
! Plan designation for the site is Recreation and the Zoning District is "L"Recreation.
FINDINGS:
1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment.
2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals.
3. The project does not have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively
considerable.
4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly
or indirectly.
DETERMINATION:
Based on the above findings, and the information contained in the initial study (made a part
hereof by reference and on file in the Community Development Department), it has been
determined that the above project will not have an adverse impact on the environment.
PREPARED BY: Warren Frace,Principal Planner
DATE POSTED: 27 July 1999
PUBLIC REVIEW ENDS: August 16, 1999 000118
19'8 CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Atascadero Lake.Park: 9305 Pismo Avenue
Addition of pathway lighting to park
Precise Plan 99012; Environmental Review 99018
1. Project Title: Park pathway lighting
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Warren Frace, Principal Planner
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
4. Project Location:
9305 Pismo Street
Atascadero, CA 93422
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Rotary Club of Atascadero
P.O. Box 100
Atascadero, CA 93423
6. General Plan Designation:
Recreation
7. Zoning:
Recreation with Flood Hazard overlay (L (FH))
8. Description of Project: Precise Plan 99012: Installation of thirteen (13) decorative pathway
lights around the Lake Pavilion building in Atascadero Lake Park. The light fixtures will be
fully shielded with 100-watt metal halide bulbs and a down directional lighting pattern. The
fixtures will be mounted on decorative 14-foot tall metal poles. The poles and fixtures will be
finished with a green power coat, heat-set polyester resin. The size and appearance of the
lights will be identical to the six existing lights. The existing fixtures contain 175-watt metal
halide bulbs; the proposed fixtures will be fitted with 100-watt metal halide bulbs. The
General Plan designation for the site is Recreation and the Zoning District is "L" Recreation.
9. Surrounding.Land Uses and Settin The site is a large city park just east of Morro.Road
between Portola and Santa Rosa Roads. The park contains a lake and associated park
amenities. The site is surrounded by residential and commercial uses.
000119
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement): None
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
F] Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality
'Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Hazards&Hazardous Hydrology/Water Land Use/Planning
Materials Quality
Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing
Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic
F] Utilities/Service Systems F] Mandatory Findings of Significance
i On the basis of this initial evaluation:
® I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
F1 I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant effect"or"potentially significant
unless mitigated"impact on the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects(a)have been
analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards
and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
includin revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
July 27, 1999
Warren Frace,Principal Planner Date
For Paul M.Saldana,Community Development Director
City of Atascadero Page 2 of 13 Initial Study
000124.0
f f
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a Lead Agency cites following each question. A"No Impact"answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the
one involved(e.g.the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained
where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g.the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) AlLanswers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as
well as project-level,indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If
there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is
required.
4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact." The
Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less
than significant level(mitigation measVres from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses,"may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses
are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references information sources for potential
impacts(e.g.general plans,zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should,where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A
source list should be attached. Other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
City of Atascadero Page 3 of 13Initial
Q 01d
( 1
Initial Study 99018 Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Atascadero Lake Lighting(9305 Pismo Street) Significant Significant Significant ImpactImpact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
I.AESTHETICS--Would the project:
a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? El El ❑
b)Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited ❑ El El CZ211
to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings? 0 1 El El
d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would E ® El
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
SOURCES: Project description,Appearance Review Guidelines
DISCUSSION:The project is the addition of thirteen pole lights along the existing pathways in the park area surrounding the
Lake Pavilion. The new lights would be installed,between Pismo Avenue and the footbridge near the lake.The poles would
be mounted 14' above the ground, identical to the six standards already installed. The light fixtures are fully shielded with
segmented cut-off reflectors and 100 watt metal halide bulbs. The optical system installed will be a SG1,Type 1
asymmetrical lighting"footprint". When mounted on a 14-foot pole the photometric analysis indicates that the illumination
level of the ground will drop below 0.5 foot candles at a distance of 30-feet from the pole. The shielded fixtures are designed
to direct all light downward and will not create a point of glare when viewed from a distance.
The poles are to be finished with a green powder coat,consisting of a heat-set polyester resin, identical to the finish on the
existing fixtures. The existing lights blend well with surrounding trees and shrubbery.The new lights are expected to be
similarly unobtrusive and attractive.
CONCLUSION:The lights do not have the potential to create significant light or glare impact because the fixtures are fully
shield,located away from existing residence and fitted with low wattage bulbs. No mitigation measures are required.
ATTACHMENTS: Fixture Specifications
Photmetric Analysis
II.AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the
California Dept.of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.Would the project:
a)Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of El
Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson
City of Atascadero Page 4 of 13 Initial Study
000122
Atascadero Lake Park _
pV3
ls� Pavilion
rr
Gazebo Ran ouse
1 � t
Q . Area 13
ii
•` � �� Area #2
Area Tr
Charles
Paddock
zoo
1
000123
66c�S(Small) -
e-s �
ROBLES TEL :805-237-0229 Mar 28 ,95 12 :53 No .010 P . 0
12t 1? I-RCA-- GOLD COAST SF1t.Fu
Lamp Guide Series
' Domua luminsiras aocommodite Qptical System's
all H.LD,or Incandescent lam SPun and vast-aluminum •xterlor housing Integrates Segmented Oat-afi re-
t+p to 250W, large or small past-alumInym mounting adaptors and flactar;
The UL or CS.q.r•oppnlzed tyYVA• heat sinks while romovablt tempared-glass ions at. saem• Spy
WAtypbailees t ming a a .ty, a Thakluml aT es the s Ihousing assembly pivots to pormlt easy type I i symmetrical
I•S�C') tamp ntarttnp sagacity, a distribution,
POWar 110tor of 90% Or better, lamp and/or ballast access,
and a regulation of lamp power COMOMPorary
within 3to% of rated input DMS10 tiowint; with tare p Traditional .
vultaue. HPS bella5ie operate mounting adaptor Ms3Q Housing with largo SG2 Type 11 asymmetrloal
Within ANSI trappaoidallimlq, Mountingand flat a alu orl. mounting adaptor d'stnbution
The ballast Is Integrated within num skirt Integrates and bell-shaped
the Dontuy luminaires,or remota ballastp up to g�W, spun aluminum skirt is
I'll the pole baso or mounting. DMS10 with luml• integrates ballasts
Sao table, nova dome (Lo) al-
up
co 260W. $O$ Type Ill asymmetrical
DM810 with lumi- distribution.
ways requires a
remote ballast. nous dome (LD) 41-
DM910 with lunoways requires d Go
luno- Ways
requires
nous rind ILA) can balistL
DMS30 with lumi. 8Gn Typo V symmetric#,
accommodate bal- nous ring (LR) can
Wetts4s lasts up to 175W. accommodate bel-
distribution.
78 MH - • - lento up to 175W.
100 Mit • DMS20 Housing with smell DMS40 Housing with sall
IM
lis Mk m_ mounting adaptor mounting adaptor SGFM Forward-throw distr-
MH - • and flit •pun•eluml•
35 And ball shaped: bution. I
a5 tips - • _ „um skirt Integrates apvn-aluminum skirt
50 Mpg _ r ballast;up to 1175W. integrates bali415t5
70 MPS • - Luminous dome (LD) up to t7t5Vy.
160 Nps - • - and luminous ring Luminous dome(LD)
2$0160 Nps - e - (LR) options are not and luminous ring Ciser lamp not inciu•
so HPs • ' available with the g dad with these optical
76 My - • - (LR) options are not
76 My - • _ DMS• •vaileble with theen18'
100 My - • - DMS40.
170 MV - • -
2s4 My - • •
• RsmOt►Dsilsst»qulred.
Clear t+mA pot Included.. Rehr to the photomatrb gtilde for
fvrther Information.
70 HPS DMS30 SOS 1291201240/277/347140OVotts
Luminaire: Specification Features:
!=,I-
ptrn and o�rst-a►luminum housing
M+ttt1 csst,alurni turn mounting adaptor.
Superior construction anaurss durability,
8 mented"If1*•atsge muttifaosrted iero-tmaae duplicator
rstl"tvrs,avaf(lat4v In 1. 18. I,0,Ill and Y distributions,
and`FM-forward*roW dil=ons
Outatanding photomotdo performance
and application versatility.
Optical SWOm;*tags in 80'Inoremeaw,
FleAbllhy of orientation on the job trite,
Higt►-power factor ballast M07 or baths),
UnItlied ballast tray with gnlpk-dtaoonneat terminale,
Heat sinklbollast troy supp*M
Fug*riot VIgotrloal Components and
easa-of-mointanOno4 Oombine
to reduce aperstIng C=3.
t{omavttbte Boar frame wiKfi 00MM1004eslrtsnt hardware
mom 10 slxcQne~
Weattter'prootfnq Of optkal and etectricai
Chornber oaures Mendad life of components.
' Tontpetad plass lens
Provides hoat and impact msleper",
daoorathn luty dom PD)
lased ring(tA):
- Nlah rn•eraaaniw,�,.,t..t�..., -•--
cL :805-237-0229 Jtx.. 09 .99 9 :29 NO .005 P .01
PAx Qos 812 1164 YOUNG LTG UO2
:54. Fro�klY�t INS 7 r /SCt�oAt6 T-501 1,02/M F-954
180-FOOTCANDLE
• L uml�ira 1 t Tett as
Mown&*MeigM t4A' L+ mp: 1004M moo errs)
3 HOu=eta {
cum
o -a•1
021 i ! r as lrs; F
line, of
JS
Mounting m
4 •- - C - i:: .ac
.76E
_p 1 3 s s e r
_ r(.
UQ +cuft*bm dssRad line.
c vivai=aAftoCC I?h
Initial Study 99018 Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Atascadero Lake Lighting(9305 Pismo Street) . Significant Significant Significant ImpactImpact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
Act contract?
c)Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to E
their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to
non-agricultural use?
SOURCES:Land Use Element EIR
DISCUSSION:The addition of lights to the pathway will not affect the use of the property as a park.The land has been a
park for many years.
III.AIR QUALITY-- The significance criteria established by the Air
Quality Control District in its CEQA Guidelines may be relied upon
to make the following determinations.Would the project:
a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an El
existing or projected air quality violation?
c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 0
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including
releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ E (122111
people?
SOURCES: Air Pollution Control District(APCD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook,project description
DISCUSSION:The Air Quality Handbook finds that a project that produces 10 pounds a day of emissions will have a
significant effect on the environment.The project is not expected to have a measurable effect on air quality.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --Would the project:
a)Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat E EJ E
modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or
special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or
regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
City of Atascadero Page 5 of 13 Initial Study
000126
Initial Study 99018 Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant Significant Imo
Atascadero Lake Lighting(9305 Pismo Street)
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as ❑
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not
limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct removal,
filling,hydrological interruption,or other means?
d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or F-1 ®-
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratorywildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biologicalEl
resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation E
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,
regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
SOURCES: Project description,Land Use Element EIR,photometric graph and lighting fixture specifications
DISCUSSION: No sensitive species have been found near the site.The park is within an urban setting and attracts many
visitors daily. Only animals that can cope with the sounds,movements,and lights from recreational activities tend to live in or
near the park.The additional lighting is to be shielded so that light is directed to the pathways and up to about 45 feet on
either side of the center.Lighting levels drop off dramatically beyond about eight feet,however,dropping from three
footcandles on the ground to '/4 of a footcandle about 45'out.Shielding will assure that the lighting does not create glare nO
spill over into the lake so as to light the lake itself. The addition of thirteen lighting fixtures to this developed park is not
expected to raise lighting levels in the area more than an insignificant amount.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES --Would the project:.
a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a R ❑ 0
historical resource as defined in'15064.5?
b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of anEl F] 11'ZS1
archaeological resource pursuant to'15064.5?
c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
d)Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of ❑ ❑
formal cemeteries?
SOURCES:Project description,site visit,Land Use Element EIR
DISCUSSION: The project site is already developed with a park.The land has been disturbed previously,for the
construction of pathways and installation of landscaping.Any cultural resources would have been disturbed previously.The
installation of poles will involve limited grading and is not expected to affect any cultural resources.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS --Would the project:
a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, El F
City of Atascadero Page 6 of 13 Initial
00012'7
Initial Study 99018 Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Atascadero Lake Lighting(9305 Pismo Street) Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving:
i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most El El
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault?Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii)Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii)Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction?
iv)Landslides?
b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would
become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or
collapse?
d)Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the ❑ EJ El
EEK
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?
SOURCES:Project description,site visit,building permit files for previous projects
DISCUSSION: There are no slides in the vicinity. The property is gently rolling and contains no unusual geological
formations. Soils reports for projects in the vicinity have revealed no dangerous soils conditions.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the
project:
a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials?
b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ El
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutelyEl
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous El
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
City of Atascadero Page 7 of 13 Initial Study
000128
Potential) Less Than Less Than
Study 018 y
Initial S y 99
Atascadero Lake Lighting 9305 Pismo Street Significant Significant Significant Imp
g g Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e)For a project located within an airport land use plan area or,where El El F1 0
such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for
people living or working in the project area?
f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the 1:1 ❑
project result in a safety hazard for people living or working in the
project area?
g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted El
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or El 1:1 El
death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
SOURCES:Project description
DISCUSSION: Lighting fixtures do not involve the use of significant amounts of hazardous materials. The property is not
near an airport.The site is within the Fire Department's five-minute response area and fronts on an arterial street,easily
accessible by fire trucks. There are no known hazardous materials on the site or nearby.
VIII- HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY--Would the project:
a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ El I
requirements?
b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a
net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level(e.g.,the production rate of previously-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses
or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, F-1 El El
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or
off-site?
d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, E
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
that would result in flooding on-or off-site?
e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide AOL
City of Atascadero Page 8 of 13 Initial SCJ
000129
Initial Study 99018 Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Atascadero Lake Lighting(9305 Pismo Street) Significant Significant Significant ImpactImpact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a El El
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would
impede or redirect flood flows?
i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or El
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam?
j)Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ E
SOURCES: Project description,Flood Insurance Rate Map
DISCUSSION:The installation of thirteen lighting standards will have no effect on flooding in the area.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project:
a)Physically divide an established community? 1171
b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation of El
an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited
to the general plan,specific plan,local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural E El
community conservation plan?
SOURCES: Land Use Element,Zoning Regulations,project description
DISCUSSION: The Zoning Regulations require all fixtures over eight feet in height to have shielding that extends below the
lowest edge of the light source"a distance sufficient to block the light source from the view of any residential use within
1,000 feet of the light fixture" (section 9-4.137(d)(1)).The fixture incorporates a circular diffusing lens about two inches
above the base of the fixture, and the light source is above that diffuser a few inches more.The diffuser spreads the light
evenly,eliminating hot points.Most residences in the vicinity are beyond 1,000 feet from these fixtures.The low light level is
expected to be almost invisible from nearby residences,and existing trees tend to screen the fixtures as well.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES --Would the project:
a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan
City of Atascadero Page 9 of 13 Initial Study
0001130
Initial Study 99018 Potentially Less Than Less Than N
Lighting 9305 Pismo Street significant Significant Significant Imp
Atascadero Lake Li
g g� � Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
or other land use plan?
SOURCES: Project description
DISCUSSION:No mining is proposed as a part of this project. No known mineral resources have been identified in the area.
XI. NOISE--Would the project result in:
a)Exposur;of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of El 1-1 E
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne El
vibration or ground-borne noise levels?
c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ El
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels 11 ❑ 0
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such ❑ ❑ ❑
a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport,would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the ❑ ❑ El
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
SOURCES:Project description
DISCUSSION: The lighting fixtures are not expected to create noise,nor will they cause persons to be affected by noise.
Fx-1I. POPULATION AND HOUSING --Would the project:
a)Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly(for EJ
example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for
example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the E El
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c)Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the El ❑ EJ
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
SOURCES: Project description
DISCUSSION: .No housing or persons will be displaced.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
City of Atascadero Page 10 of 13 Initial SAW
000131
Initial Study 99018 Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Atascadero Lake Lighting(9305 Pismo Street) Significant Significant Significant ImpactImpact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities,a need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any
of the public services:
Fire protection? ❑ El El
Police protection? El E 0 (27,11
Schools? ❑ 0
Parks? D
Other public facilities? El
SOURCES: Project description
DISCUSSION:The addition of thirteen light standards is not expected to have a significant impact on any city services.The
provision of additional lighting on these pathways may serve as a deterrent to criminals and may prevent accidents associated
with walking in the dark.The project,then,may have a beneficial impact on city services to a minor degree.
XIV. RECREATION --
a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and ❑ ❑
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the El ❑
construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
SOURCES:Project description,Parks and Recreation Element
DISCUSSION:The project will assist in the use'of existing recreational facilities, in that the lights will serve those who use
the pavilion or areas nearby after dark.The project is expected to correct an existing problem because the lights will assist
persons entering and leaving park facilities after dark.
XV.TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC --Would the project:
a)Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the E El
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e.,result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume
to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)?
b)Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service El ❑
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
City of Atascadero Page 11 of 13 Initial Study
000132
Initial Study 99018 Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant
Significant Significant Im
ac
Ata cadero Lake Lighting(9305 Pismo Street) Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
designated roads or highways?
c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g.,sharp El F-1 ® El
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm
equipment)?
e)Result in inadequate emergency access?
f)Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g)Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting ® El
alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
SOURCES: Land Use Element,Circulation Element,project description
DISCUSSION: The project should have no effect on traffic in the area.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS --Would the project:
a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ®.
Regional Water Quality Control Board? El
b)Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction
of which could cause significant environmental effects?
c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage ❑ 11
facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that0 El
serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to E El El
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g)Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulationsEl F
related to solid waste?
SOURCES: Project description
City of Atascadero Page 12 of 13 Initial Stu
000133
Initial Study 99018 Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Atascadero Lake Lighting(9305 Pismo Street) Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
DISCUSSION: The project should have no effect on water supply or wastewater treatment.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE--
a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the El
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but El
cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively
considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c)Does the project have environmental effects that will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or
indirectly?
SOURCES
1. General Plan Land Use Element, City of Atascadero, 1992
2. Zoning Ordinance,part of Municipal Code,City of Atascadero,as amended through 1999.
3. Project description: includes:
Plans showing locations of fixtures,details of fixtures,including specifications and photometrics
4. Land Use Element Environmental Impact Report,Crawford,Multari,&Starr,adopted 1992
5. CEQA Handbook,Air Quality Control District,August 1995
6. General Plan Safety Element,City of Atascadero, 1980
7. General Plan Circulation Element,DKS Associates, 1993
8. General Plan Noise Element,Brown-Buntin Associates,adopted 1992
9. Acoustical Design Manual,Brown-Buntin Associates, 1991
10.Noise Ordinance,City of Atascadero, 1992
11. General Plan Noise Element,City of Atascadero, 1991
12. General Plan Parks and Recreation Element,Parks,Recreation,and Zoo Department,City of Atascadero, 1991
• City of Atascadero Page 13 of 13 Initial Study
000134
ATTACHMENT NO.
RECEIVED
fe
1t
DATE: February 11, 1999 (!
TO: Wade Mckinney
ATASCADERO CITY MANAGER I
Brady Cherry
Paul Saldana
FROM: AIan Thomas
Atascadero Lake Neighborhood Association(ALNA)
RE: Rotary Club Proposal for Additional Path Lights
Enclosed is a report from the ALNA Advisory Committee on Lake Park Lighting which
was established to review the Rotary Club's preliminary proposal for additional path lights.
We believe this report represents a thorough and objective review of the lights proposed.
If a formal plan for additional park lights is submitted by the Rotary Club, or any other
group or government agency,we hereby request that members of ALNA and all other
residents near the Atascadero Lake Park be informed in writing of this proposal.
In addition,in accordance with the terms and conditions of the California Environmental
Quality Act,we hereby request that members of ALNA and all other residents near the
Atascadero Lake Park be informed in writing of the results of any environmental review
related to any Lake Park lighting project, a minimum of twenty days prior to the public 0
disclosure of such results.
We believe that by working together and keeping lines of communication open, changes or
additions to Atascadero Lake Park lighting, if any, will be made in the best interest of the
community,Atascadero Lake, and the surrounding neighborhood.
Sincerely,
i
Alan J.Thomas
cc: Members of the Parks and Recreation Committee
Attached: ALNA Advisory Committee Report on Proposed Rotary Club Lights
000135
DATE: February 11, 1999
TO: Members of the Atascadero Lake Neighborhood Association(ALNA)
FROM: ALNA Advisory Committee on Lake Park Lighting
RE Report on the Atascadero Rotary Club's Proposed Lights
A. Overview
During the January 28, 1999 meeting of the Atascadero Lake Neighborhood Association
(ALNA), City Manager Wade McKinney distributed a rough diagram prepared by the Rotary
Club showing proposed locations for 13 new lights in the park/pavilion area (see Exhibit A, #7
to#19). These lights would conclude the Rotary Club's "light-the-lake"project.
Mr. McKinney explained that the diagram was for review and feedback purposes and was also
being distributed to pertinent city personnel and agencies for preliminary review and
comments. He also mentioned that if formal plans are submitted the project would go through
the regular city approval process, including an environmental review and appropriate public
hearings.
After some discussion, an advisory committee was formed to review the proposed lights in
detail and provide feedback to the members of ALNA and to the city. This report summarizes
the activities of the ALNA advisory committee, including observations and recommendations
regarding the Rotary Club's proposed lights.
B. Committee Meeting and Site Review
The members of the ALNA advisory committee met at 6:00 p.m. on January 30, 1999 at the
Ranger House. After some discussion, the following process was identified:
1. Review the existing lights in the park/pavilion area.
2. Identify areas where there is a potential need for additional lights.
3. Evaluate each of the 13 lights proposed by the Rotary Club in terms of need and possible
impacts on the park environment and neighborhood.
At approximately 6:30 p.m. the committee made a complete tour of the park/pavilion area,the
parking lots, and each of the Rotary Club's proposed light locations. The survey was
intentionally made after dark to ensure an accurate assessment of current park lighting and
determine the usefulness and need for additional lights.
C. Existing Lights in the Park/Pavilion Area (See Exhibit B,red (solid) dots)
There are currently 15 amber colored lights on tall standards and/or electrical poles in the
park/pavilion area. The standards are approximately 40 feet tall and the amber lamps cast
general lighting in a wide spread pattern.
The pavilion building has 22 wall-mounted lights. These are also amber in color and provide
considerable lighting in the immediate area surrounding the pavilion.
000136
ALN/4 Rannrt nn tha Rntn—i nrnnncar/I lahtc- 7/11/00 1
There are 6 path li hts between the zoo parking lot and the pavilion #1-#6 which were
P �. P g P ( )
previously installed by the Rotary Club. These lights feature turquoise green standards about 15
feet tall and have a bright,halogen-type light and lens system in a bell shaped fixture. It is our
understanding that the additional lights proposed are to be the same color and style.
D. Observations About Existing Lighting
After reviewing the existing lights, committee members reached a consensus on the following
points:
1. The many amber lights currently in place provide effective, general lighting in the areas
where they are located, especially:
0 Along the lakefront retaining wall north of the pavilion
• Along the beach area up to the bridge across the spillway
0 Portions of the parking lots
• All around the pavilion
2. The amber lamps cast a soft,pleasing light which is environmentally friendly, i.e.,not
harsh or glaring. The poles used for most of the freestanding lights feature a matte silver
finish which blends in well with the trees and other park features; they do not stand out or
draw attention to themselves. A few of the lights are mounted on wood utility poles.
3. While not extremely bright, it is easy to see where you are walking in the areas where the .
tall amber lights are located (within a radius of approximately 150 feet). The pathways
around the pavilion are very brightly lit.
4. Viewing the park and pavilion from the lake path and surrounding neighborhood homes,
the amber lights cast warm, pleasing reflections on the lake. The lights mounted on the
pavilion building cast similar reflections and coordinate well with the tall amber fixtures.
5. The 6 halogen path lights provide bright,target lighting along the path between the zoo lot
and pavilion in a pattern about 80 feet wide by 120 feet long. These cast a more
fluorescent looking or"cold" light and are somewhat glaring when you walk underneath
the lamps. The turquoise green standards are a bright, designer-type color and tend to
stand out in the park environment.
6. The 6 halogen path lights do not match the look and feel of the amber lighting located
throughout the rest of the park and parking areas.
E. Need for Additional Lighting
After reviewing the current lighting, committee members agreed that the following areas could
use additional lighting of some kind.
1. The zoo parking lot._ Three amber lights mounted on utility poles do a reasonable job of
lighting the first row of the zoo lot (closest to the park). The remainder of the parking area
is dark and could use additional lighting. The entrance off Morro Road has one light
mounted on a utility pole,but some additional lighting would be helpful in attracting 0
attention to the parking lot and zoo entrance.
00033'7
ALNA Report on the RotaClub's proposed Li hts-2/11/99 2
2. The pavilion parking lot. There are four amber lights in and around this lot but the
lighting is spotty as you move away from the pavilion. The lot near the AARP building is
especially dark.
3. The children's playground area. This area has some spill lighting from the tall amber
lights that are nearby, but it is mainly dark.
4. The main picnic ground. The large picnic table area immediately adjacent to the zoo lot
is very dark. The restroom area near the zoo lot is also dark.
5. Portions of park paths. The only very dark section of path in the main park is next to the
Ranger House between the telephone in front of the pavilion and the main restrooms.
Additional path lights would be useful here.
F. Review of the Rotary Club's Proposed Lights
After reviewing each of the 13 proposed locations for lights,the committee made the
following observations:
L Most of the proposed path lights are redundant with lights currently in place. This is
especially true of proposed lights 47—#12 along the lake front and beach area, #13 and
#14 on the south side of the pavilion, and#18 and#19 along the paths. These
locations are already adequately lit by nearby amber lights, either on poles or on the
pavilion. (See Exhibit B, red (solid) dots compared to the proposed light locations).
2. Lights#15 -#17 would be useful for lighting the dark section of path between the
telephone in front of the pavilion and the main park restrooms.
3. The bright turquoise green poles and the cold halogen lighting would not blend well
with park lighting already in place or any other park features. Lights#7 - #12 along
the water's edge and#13.and#14 south of the pavilion would look especially out of
place both during the day and at night.
4. Several neighbors who live on Lake View and Marchant Way have already expressed
concerns that the proposed lights would look out of place along the lake and on the
south side of the pavilion, and would not serve any real purpose or need.
5. Given the lighting already in place, it appears the idea behind some of the proposed
light locations is simply to put lights next to the lake, as opposed to placing lights
where they are needed.
G. Recommendations
Based on the observations noted,the following recommendations are offered:
1. It would be extremely useful to create a master park lighting/path plan before any
• additional lighting is added. This would help provide a more coordinated and
environmentally sound approach to park lighting and future path improvements in general.
2. While we recognize the interests of sponsors who donated money to the Rotary Club's
"light-the-lake"project,the first priority must be to place.lights in areas where additional
000138
A/NA J?— -t— fl— 1?-f—r1-1,'�nrnn—d I iohtc- 7/17/00
lights are needed. Therefore,we recommend that any additional lights be placed in the •
following areas:
zoo parking lot and main park entrance area
- pavilion parking lot, especially the area near the AARP building
- around the playground area
section of path from the telephone to the main park restrooms
- main picnic area
3. With the exception of lights#15 -#17,the lights proposed by the Rotary Club should not
be installed in the locations indicated. These areas are already well lit. The color and type
of light proposed would also adversely affect the lakefront/park environment.
4. Any additional path lights installed should feature amber colored lights to match the
existing park/pavilion lights. The light standards should also follow established city
guidelines for pedestrian lights and be black or dark in color so they blend in with the
surroundings.
5. Existing path lights# 1 -#6 should be changed from halogen bulbs to amber colored bulbs
or lenses so they match the other 37 amber lights now in the park and on the pavilion. The
turquoise green standards should also be painted black or a dark color to conform to city
guidelines for such lights on public property.
6. . The amber lights currently in place should NOT be removed or re-positioned to make way
for the proposed lights. Not only are the existing amber lights more environmentally
friendly, they provide a much more useful pattern of general lighting and coordinate well
with lights on the pavilion. The proposed path lights would not provide adequate park
lighting on their own and do not coordinate well with existing lights.
7. Under no circumstances should lights be placed on the path around the lake. The lake's
riparian habitat, rural aesthetics and evening/night sky are just a few of the invaluable
Atascadero Lake resources that should be protected,now and in the future.
We appreciate having an opportunity to respond to the Rotary Club's lighting proposal and we
hope you find this report useful. The observations and recommendations represent a
consensus among the advisory committee members. Please feel free to contact the city or
anyone on the committee to express your own opinions.
Barbara Combs Dick Pierce
Henry Engen Wendy Pierce
Sandy Engen Glenn Stewart
Clara Gilbreath Alan Thomas
cc: Wade McKinney
Brady Cherry
Paul Saldana
Members of the Parks and Recreation Commission
Attachments: Exhibits A and B 000139
ALNA Report on the Rota Club's nr
a
t � 1
4LA
�` �
CA
1 y7! vi
VV 6 0 d
ui
t7► � tt_ � �. 'tib• � - d�
V w
Ipm
� fl
j .
a
LQ
t,A � >>
�.w ,o >
� O4 ♦ V1 �a � �m
Allz
0
• � U Ri � � �a � , CA
ef
•r � • Pu
4 �• � n W �,,,�tVM
Be
• W
ti
• _ '
tvow - � o
�.. 5
000141,Q
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 09/28/99
is
Ar�s��oi/
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report- Community Development Department
' Chamber of Commerce - Economic Development Services
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council approve Memorandum of Understanding with the Chamber of
Commerce for economic development services and make appropriation of $30,000 from
unallocated reserves.
DISCUSSION:
Background: On June 10, 1999 the Chamber of Commerce submitted a request to the City
Council to explore the possibility of sharing a position with the Chamber to meet the City and
Chamber's needs. Staff held several meetings with the Chamber Board of Directors and their
personnel subcommittee to discuss the needs of the chamber and City and investigate the various
options.
Current relationship with Chamber: On August 11, 1992, the City Council approved an
agreement with the Chamber to provide "Community Promotion Services". The services the
Chamber performs as part of the existing contract include providing information to the general
public about the community, respond to inquiries, prepare articles and news stories, prepare maps
and promotional material, and other similar promotional activities. The City pays the Chamber
an annual amount based on a performance formula that uses business licensees, Transient
Occupancy Tax and Sales Tax revenues. The contribution averaged $30,000 for the last few
fiscal years.
Status of Chamber Manager position: The Chamber has been without an Executive Director
for the past 6 months. The Chamber has been operating with office staff and volunteers during
this time. The Chamber allocates approximately $28,000 annually for compensation for the
executive director position. The Board recently adopted a new job description for the Chamber
executive which will focus on the directing and implementing the Chamber's Program of Work,
long range planning, community promotion, and administrative management of the Chamber.
City policies related to economic development/business retention: The economic
development element of the general plan, adopted in 1995, established a number of goals and
000142
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 09/28/99
policies to "promote the economic health and vitality of its businesses to insure the creation of
jobs, the promotion of entrepreneurial efforts, and to generate adequate tax revenue for public
services". The policies included the establishment of an "Economic Development Commission"
which was recommended to be staffed with an "economic development professional or executive
director". The tasks identified in the element for accomplishment by the Commission/staff were
development of a pro-business community, support and promotion of the city's industrial
activities, promote economic development projects, support for retail and service commercial
businesses and "support and partnership with other city economic and business organizations
Status of City's economic development efforts: There are a number of projects that the City
has designed to achieve the tasks set forth in the general plan, including the implementation of
redevelopment and downtown revitalization through the Main Street program. These tasks are
being achieved through contract services and staff support. There are a number of areas where
the City's economic development efforts could be enhanced through a partnership with the
Chamber of Commerce.
Analysis: The proposed Memorandum of Understating would provide funding for the Chamber
of Commerce to hire an executive manager with more experience than they would attract with
the current salary. Having an experienced executive would have a number of advantages to the
City as well as the Chamber by allowing each organization to accomplish necessary and mutually
beneficial goals relating to business retention, expansion and overall economic development.
What would the City gain by the partnership.
• Business Retention & Expansion: Direct visitation with existing businesses to identify their
needs and provide a link with existing resources to address the needs; conduct business
forums to identify issues for consideration and potential action by the City or other
community resources; provide opportunities for existing business to communicate their
business plans and needs.
• Business Attraction: Assist in the development and implementation of marketing activities,
pursue leads and respond to requests for information, organize community meetings and
tours.
• Business Advocacy & Liaison: Serve as a focal point for information between the City and
the business community as an internal advocate for business, communicate with potential and
existing business and monitor legislation and make recommendations for policy
determinations by the City, assist City departments to develop outreach or liaison programs
between businesses and City staff.
• Business Resource: Maintain a network of organizations which bring resources to the City
and to the business community for both business attraction and retention purposes, and work
with City departments or other service providers to modify services to meet the needs of
businesses.
000143
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 09/28/99
Conclusion: The partnership with the Chamber of Commerce would reduce the financial
investment of the City in establishing a full time position. It would ensure that the City has an
established relationship with existing businesses in the community designed to address their
needs and issues.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Increase of expenditures of$30,000 annually. Staff believes that the investment would be offset
through- proactive business retention and business expansions that would be facilitated
throughout this partnership.
ALTERNATIVES:
There are several alternatives that were also considered that the Council may wish to have staff
further investigate.
1. City staff contracted to Chamber: The City could hire an economic development
specialist position and contract with the Chamber to have the staff person provide
Executive Manager services for the Chamber. The person would report to the City and
would be provided all the benefits associated with City employment. Under this option,
the work involving this position would be evaluated and supervised by the City. The
Chamber Board would have advisory supervision for activities related to the Chamber.
Fiscal impact would be higher due to additional benefits associated with the position.
2. Part time "shared" position: The City and Chamber could each hire the same individual
on a "part-time" basis, each paying the employee accordingly. The Chamber Board and
the City would provide supervision for the respective job duties being performed by the
individual. Fiscal impact may be similar to proposed option.
3. City staff only: The City would hire an economic development specialist to provide the
type of services as outlined in the staff report as well as manage other activities such as
the Community Development Block Grant program. Fiscal impact would be higher as
the City would cover the entire costs of salary and benefits.
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Memorandum of Understanding
000144
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO WITH THE
ATASCADERO DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 1999,
by and between the City of Atascadero and the Atascadero District Chamber of Commerce. The
parties agree as follows:
1. The parties to this Agreement are:
a. The City of Atascadero, a general law city, organized under the laws of
the State of California(hereinafter referred to as the"City"); and
b. The Atascadero District Chamber of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as
the "Chamber").
2. The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of one year, commending on the
date of execution by the City, hereof. However, the term of this Agreement shall be
automatically renewed upon the terms set forth herein upon the anniversary date, unless either
party hereto shall notify the other, in writing, six months prior to the anniversary date hereof, of
that party's intention not to renew this Agreement for another year.
3. The City agrees to provide the Chamber with the following consideration:
a. An annual stipend of thirty thousand dollars, ($30,000), to carry out the
activities set forth herein. This stipend will be paid in four (4) equal installments,
at the end of each quarter.
4. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, in the
event no funds or insufficient funds are appropriated in the budget or otherwise are unavailable
in any fiscal year for payment of all or any part of this remuneration, then the City will notify the
Chamber of such occurrence and this Agreement will create no further obligation of City to such
current or succeeding fiscal year and shall be null and void, except as to any portion of the
stipend and/or the rent herein agreed upon for which funds shall have been appropriated and
budgeted. In such event this Agreement shall terminate on the last day of the fiscal year for
which appropriations were received. No right of action or damages shall accrue to the benefit of
the Chamber as to that portion of the Agreement which may so terminate.
5. The Chamber agrees to perform the hereinafter enumerated activities;
a. Economic development related activities, which shall include but are not
necessarily limited to the following:
(1) Visitation of five (5) businesses per week by the Chamber
Manager;
000145
(2) Assistance to City in implementing business recruitment efforts.
b. Promotion of business interests in the area, including but not limited to
each of the following:
(1) Sponsorship of seminars and workshops for the business
community;
(2) Continuation of efforts to market the City of Atascadero;
(3) Upon request, will make reports to the City Council concerning the
Chamber's efforts to promote business interests in the area.
C. Upon the execution of the Agreement and then annually thereafter,
Chamber shall provide City with each of the following:
(1) A list of the goals and objectives of the Chamber for the year;
(2) A copy of the Chamber's annual budget, and then, at the end of
each quarter, quarterly financial reports.
d. During the life of this Agreement, the Chamber will provide City with the
following:
(1) Weekly reports of Economic Development contacts and activities,
including business visitations.
e. City Manager or designee shall serve as a member of the Chamber Board
of Directors.
6. Chamber shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from all claims or damages
arising from its activities including but not limited to those outlined in this Agreement.
a. The Chamber shall, at all times during the term of this Agreement,
maintain general liability policy in an amount of not less than $1,000,000,
insuring the Chamber against any and all liability for its activities. City shall be
named as an additional insured on that policy and shall be provided a Certificate
of Insurance and a current endorsement, as proof thereof, within fifteen days of
the execution of this Agreement. Such insurance may not be canceled or
terminated except upon fifteen days written notice to the City. In the event of
cancellation or termination of such insurance, this Agreement shall be voidable at
the discretion of City.
b. In any action to enforce the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party
shall be entitled to recover its attorney's fees and court costs and other non-
-2- 00011%
reimbursable litigation expenses, such as expert witness fees and investigation
expenses. .
7. In meeting the terms of this Agreement, any activities conducted by and any funds
received by the Chamber, whether enumerated herein or not, shall be the sole and exclusive
province and authority of the Chamber. All activities of the Chamber enumerated herein shall be
performed as an independent contractor and not as an employee or agent of the City.
8. The failure of any party to enforce against another a provision of this Agreement
shall not constitute a waiver of that party's right to enforce such a provision at a later time, and
shall not serve to vary the terms of this Agreement.
9. Chamber shall, at Chamber's sole cost, comply with all of the requirements of
municipal, state and federal authorities now in force or which may hereafter be in force,
pertaining to this Agreement, and shall faithfully observe in all activities relating to or growing
out of this Agreement all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes, rules or regulations
now in force or which may hereafter be in force.
10. This Agreement call for the performance of the services of Chamber as an
independent contractor, and Chamber will not be considered an employee of the City for any
purposes and is not entitled to any of the benefits provided by City to its employees. This
Agreement shall not be construed as forming a partnership or any other association with
contractor other than that of an independent contractor.
1 notices relative to this Agreement shall be given in writing and shall be sent
11. Al gr g g
by certified or registered mail and be effective upon depositing in the United States mail.
The parties shall be addressed as follows, or at any other address designated by notice:
CITY OF ATASCADERO
City Hall
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Atascadero District Chamber of Commerce
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
6550 El Camino Real
Atascadero, CA 93422
12. All reports, exhibits, data and other documents prepared by the Chamber in the
performance of its obligations shall be and remain the property of the City. The Chamber may
charge the City reasonable costs to reproduce those reports, exhibits, data and other documents
wh8ich are not part of the Scope of Services.
13. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement between the parties, and
supersedes all other oral or written representations made between the parties. All prior
agreements between the parties hereto concerning the subject matter of this Agreement are
-3-
aUOl,17
hereby rescinded, with the sole exception of that certain Rental Agreement by which City has
rented to Chamber the office space which Chamber occupies and which is referenced in Section
3 of this Agreement. This contract may be modified only in writing approved by the City's City
Council and signed by all parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed,
the day and year first-above written.
CITY:
CITYOF ATASCADERO Attest:
By
Ray Johnson,Mayor Marcia M. Torgerson, City Clerk
CHAMBER:
By
President of the Board of
Directors of the Atascadero
District Chamber of Commerce
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Roy A. Hanley
City Attorney
-4_ 000148
ITEM NUMBER: C-3
DATE: 09/28/99
iais 57-9
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report - Community Services Department
" - Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade Project
RECOMMENDATION:
Council authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement James C. Cushman, Inc. to construct the
Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade Project at a maximum cost of $1,872,120.00 and make
the necessary appropriations.
DISCUSSION:
An upgrade of the Wastewater Treatment Facility has been planned for several years. The
project will upgrade the current plant, improve the efficiency and quality of the operation. The
98/99 Budget provided funding for the design of the necessary changes, and the 99/00 Annual
Operating Budget allocates $2,000,000 for the construction.
The upgrade project will add four sludge drying beds, a sludge dredging system and an effluent
discharge pipeline. The project will also upgrade the existing infiltration basins and one of the
pumps that services them. The results of the upgrade will be to permit compliance with present
State and Federal requirements and to add capacity to accommodate future increases in flow
caused by community growth.
Design of the Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade Project improvements has been
completed. Bids were received and publicly opened on September 2, 1999. Consistent with City
procurement policies,the award of the contract requires Council approval.
A bid summary prepared by the City Clerk is included in this report for reference. The low bid
was submitted by James C. Cushman, Inc. in the amount of$1,560,100.
The bids have been checked for completeness and accuracy. Staff has made inquiries of the City
of Paso Robles and three other California agencies for whom James C. Cushman, Inc. has
recently completed projects. Favorable responses were obtained from all four agencies. Staff
finds James C. Cushman, Inc. to be the lowest responsible bidder.
0001,19
ITEM NUMBER: C-3
DATE: 09/28/99
FISCAL IMPACT:
PROJECT EXPENDITURES
Construction $1,560,100.00
Contingencies @ 10% $156,010.00
Construction Engineering (Inspection,
Contract Administration, Survey, Soils $156,010.00
Testing) @ 10%
TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES $1,872,120.00
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Award contract
2. Do not Award Contract - Improvements will not be constructed and the present procedures
will continue resulting in more discharge permit violations. As the wastewater flow increases
due to growth and development, the present procedures will become more inadequate and the
concerns of the Regional Water Quality Control Board will increase to the point that they
take disciplinary action against the City.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Bid Summary
000150
0
0 000
n � n
o �+
oo 00
F f
0 0
0 0 0 0
c o" vi
0
vMi� Co 0
"C O N 0
O 00e�0
O
6f9 64
O N O o
O �n O %0
1rV d N M
V V d fA 6q 6
0
0 C
voo ^- o r
eno
64 �
o 0 0
o 8 o C
o en
6
0ID
0
>° 00
00
69INA
b9 b9 Ff9
cis CD M O o
N O O
.� o M O NO
00N M
00
a d 4% 64 v) 64
cc
rn
� � gyp - o � ¢ z �
ITEM NUMBER: C-4
DATE: 09/28/99
.a Big i',111
57-9
Atascadero City Council
City Manager's Office
Information Bulletin
A. City Receives Department of Justice School Partnership Grant
The grant will be divided between the City and the Atascadero Unified School District. The
grant will be used in a partnership between the City and school district to develop a problem
solving strategy to solve persistent school related crime or disorderly conduct. The area of focus
for the grant application was the area commonly referred to as the school corridor. This is the
area between the junior high and high school. The area has long history of pedestrian and
loitering complaints. The grant will provide for analysis of the problems in the area and develop
a method of response that will address those problems. The grant provides for equipment,
consultants and temporary part-time personnel to assist in the analysis of the problems and
response plan. The award is $58,103.
The City had initially requested $56,599, and received most of what was requested with the
exception of a few items. Two digital cameras valued at $1,296 were disallowed from the
supplies. $2,800 was added for a final analysis required by the COPS Office.
The current funding includes $ 36,708 in funding for the Police Department (PD) and $ 21,395 in
funding for the school. The primary reason for the differences in the funding between the PD
and the School is that the PD is picking up the administrative overhead, reporting cost, web-page
design costs and will retain possession of the presentation equipment at the conclusion of the
grant.
B. Employee Update
Cheryl Gordon Sr. Building Inspector Resigned 9/10/99
Casey Bryson Firefighter Hired 9/11/99
David Matthews Fire Marshal/Bldg. Official Hired 9/13/99
Kaley Thornton PT Office Aide Hired 9/13/99
000152