Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 10/12/1999 AGENDA ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1999,7:00 P.M. City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue, 4t" Floor Atascadero, California REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY,6:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION: (Immediately following Redevelopment Agency Meeting) 1. Performance Review: City Manager(Govt. Code§ 54957.6) REGULAR SESSION, 7:00 P.M.: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Luna 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 1999, "Crime Prevention Month" 2. Proclamation declaring October 23-31, 1999, "Red Ribbon Week" 3. Battalion Chief Stone will introduce newly appointed firefighter Casey Bryson. 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: h it own initiative Council Members m make a brie announcement or a brie report on Ont e o f f p ( may 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.) 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. City Council Minutes—September 14, 1999 ■ City Clerk recommendation: Council approve the City Council minutes of September 14, 1999 [Marcia McClure Torgerson] 2. Atascadero State Hospital/ Chalk Mountain Golf Course Annexation-Pre-zoning and Initiation of Annexation ANX 99001 /ZC 99009 ■ Fiscal Impact: Will generate positive revenue ■ Staff recommendation: Council introduce for second 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] 3. Zone Chanize #99008 Auto Dealers/Sales Lots Code Text Amendments (Staff Initiated) ■ Fiscal Impact: None ■ Staff recommendation: Council introduce for second reading by title only, Ordinance No. 364, amending zoning code text associated with auto dealers and sales lots [Community Development Department] 4. Memorandum of Understandini Atascadero Firefighters Bargaining Unit ■ Fiscal Impact: Included in FY 1999-2000 budget ■ Staff recommendation: Council approve the Memorandum of Understanding authorizing salaries and benefits for the Atascadero Firefighters Bargaining Unit for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. [City Manager's Office] B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. General Plan Text Amendment#99009—Sewer Service Extensions for Failed Septic Systems beyond the USL ■ Fiscal Impact.: None ■ Planning Commission recommendation: Council adopt Resolution.No. 1999-061, adopting the Statutory CEQA Exemption Section 15061.b.3 and approve General Plan Text Amendment 99009. [Community Development Department] 2 2. Colima Road Sewer Line Extension Authorization ■ Fiscal Impact: Minimal ■ Staff recommendation: Council adopt Resolution No. 1999-062, adopting the Statutory CEQA Exemption Section 15061.b.3 and approving the extension of sewer service and initiation of a project engineering study. [Community Development Department] 3. El Centro Oaks—General Plan Amendment 97005, Zone Change 97005 and Tentative Tract Map 99008 (8605 El Centro Road-Andrew Charnley/Frank Henderson) ■ Fiscal Impact.: Increased property tax base Planning Commission recommendations: ;Council: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 1999-057, certifying the Negative Declaration; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 1999-058, approving General Plan Amendment 97005, changing the land use designation and zoning of the site from High Density Single Family to High Density Multiple Family; 3. Introduce for first reading by title only Ordinance No. 366,approving Zone Change 97005, changing the zoning of the site from RSF--X to RMF=16 (PD-7); 4. Adopt Resolution No. 1999-059, approving Vesting Tract Map 99008 based on the Findings and Conditions of Approval..[Community Development Department] C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. Information Bulletin D. COMMITTEE REPORTS. (The following represent standing committees. , Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary.): I. 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 3 E. INDIVIDUALDETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1. City Council 2. City Attorney ` • 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer F. ADJOURNMENT: THE CITY COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO A SPECIAL MEETING ON OCTOBER 13, 1999 AT 6:00 P.M. THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION IS SCHEDULED ON OCTOBER 26, 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 ATASCADER0 CITY COUNCIL MEETING GENERAL INFORMATION ON 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. "WED RIBBON WEEK" October 23 31.9 1999 WHEREAS, Tobacco, alcohol and other drug use and abuse has reached pandemic stages in California and throughout the United States;and, WHEREAS, It is imperative that community members launch unified and visible tobacco, alcohol, and other drug prevention education programs and activities to eliminate the demand for these substances;and, i WHEREAS, Californians For Drug-Free Youth, Inc. (CADFY), coordinates the California Red Ribbon Celebration in cooperation with National Family Partnership to offer our citizens the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to healthy, drug free lifestyles;and, WHEREAS, President Bill Clinton is the National Honorary Chairman, and Governor Wilson and Mrs. Gayle Wilson are the State Honorary Chairpersons to provide national and state focus on a Drug-Free America; and, WHEREAS, The Red Ribbon Celebration will be observed across America during RED RIBBON WEEK, October 23-31, 1999; and, WHEREAS,Parents, Youth, Government, Business, Law Enforcement, Schools, Religious Institutions, Service Organizations, Social Services, Health Services, Media, and the General Public will demonstrate their commitment to drug free communities by wearing and displaying Red Ribbons during this week-long celebration;and, WHEREAS, The Community of Atascadero fitrther commits resources to ensure the success of the RED RIBBION CELEBRATION and year round tobacco, alcohol and other drug prevention efforts; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Atascadero does hereby support October 23-31 1999 as RED RIBBON WEEK, and encourages all citizens to participate in tobacco, alcohol, and other drug prevention programs and activities, making a visible statement and commitment to healthy, drug free communities in which toraisea generation of drug- free youth;and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,;that the City Council of the City of Atascadero. encourages all community members to pledge: NO USE OF ILLEGAL DRUGSNO EGAL USE OF LEGAL DRUGS. Ray Jo nso , Mayor City o Atascadero October 12, 1999 000001 Crime Prevention Month October,y1999 Whereas, the vitality of our city depends on how safe we keep our homes, neighborhoods, schools, workplaces, and communities; Whereas, crime and fear of crime destroy our trust in others and in institutions, threatening the community's health,prosperity, and quality of life; Whereas, people of all ages must be made aware of what they can do to prevent themselves, their families, neighbors, and coworkers from being harmed by drugs, violence, and other crime; Whereas, the personal injury,financial loss, and community deterioration resulting from crime are intolerable`and require investment from the whole community; Whereas, crime prevention initiatives must include self-protection and security, but they must go beyond these to promote collaborative efforts to make neighborhoods safer for all ages and to develop positive educational and recreational opportunities for young people; Whereas, adults must invest time, resources, and policy support in effective prevention and intervention strategies for youth, and teens must be engaged in driving crime from their communities; Whereas, effective crime prevention programs excel because of partnerships among law enforcement, other government agencies, civic groups, schools, faith.communities, businesses, and individuals as they help to nurture communal responsibility and instill pride; Now, therefore, I Ray Johnson, Mayor do hereby proclaim October 1999 as Crime Prevention Month in Atascadero and targe all citizens, government agencies, public and private institutions, and businesses to invest in the power of prevention and work together for the common good. Rco,John on, Mayor City ofA ascadero,,Ca 'ornia October 12, 1999 000002 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 10/12/99 MINUTES ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 CLOSED SESSION,6:45 P.M.: 1. Conference with legal counsel [Govt. Code §54956.9] Existing litigation: Atascadero Unified School District City of Atascadero 2. Personnel: City Manager(Govt. Code Seca 54957.6) City Attorney Roy Hanley announced there was no reportable action taken. REGULAR SESSION,7:00 P.M.: Mayor Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Council Members Arrambide,Clay,Lerno, Luna and Mayor Johnson Absent: None Others Present: City Clerk Marcia Torgerson and City Treasurer David Graham Staff Present: City Manager Wade McKinney, Police Chief Dennis Hegwood,Fire Chief Mike McCain, Community Services Director Brady Cherry, Administrative Services Director Rachelle Rickard, Community and Economic Development Director Paul Saldana,Assistant City Engineer John Neil,Principal Planner Warren Frace and City Attorney Roy Hanley. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide to approve the agenda. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll call vote. CC 09/14/99 Page 1 of 16 000003 PRESENTATIONS: 1. Proclamation declaring the week of September 20-26, 1999,"Pollution Prevention Week" Mayor Johnson read the Proclamation and presented it to Mark Elliott of the Air Pollution Control District(APCD). Mr. Elliott thanked the Council and explained the current activities of the APCD. 2. Proclamationdeclaring September 1999, U.S. Constitution Observance Month Mayor Johnson read the Proclamation and presented it to Frank Franscioni of the Atascadero Free Masons. Mr. Franscioni thanked the Council and invited the community to attend a picnic at Templeton Park on September 25, 1999. COMMUNITY FORUM Raymond Jansen, 6655 Country Club Drive,spoke about his views of political'reform. Bonita Borgeson, 4780 Del Rio Road, stated that she no longer believes the Council is acting in the best interest of the public. She explained her comments are a result of the lack of participation from Council Members Clay and Lerno due to their conflicts of interest. Mayor Johnson closed the Community Forum period. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS: Council Member Luna stated the he had the pleasure of being interviewed by the Atascadero News. He corrected a quote he had made regarding the speed the electric car can go up the grade, as his original quote exceeded the speed limit. Council Member Clay stated that he is concerned with the policy of the Planning Commission to have the members of the public fill out speaker cards and not allow those who have not filled out a card to speak. He also stated that he has never had any business dealings with,Kelly Gearhart. Mayor Johnson clarified that speaker cards are merely used at Council meetings to assist the City Clerk in obtaining correct spelling for the record and are not a prerequisite for speaking. Council Member Luna commented that the Planning Commission does not use the cards in the same way and suggested that they take a cue from the Council meetings: Council Member Clay also suggested that we have two microphones for controversial issues: one for those in favor and the other for those who are opposed. CC 09/14/99 0000( Page 2 of 16 A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - July 06, 1999 iCity Clerk recommendation: Council approve the City Council/Redevelopment Agency minutes of July 06, 1999 [Marcia McClure Torgerson] 2. City Council Minutes—August 10, 1999 ■ City Clerk recommendation: Council approve the City Council minutes of July 13, 1999 [Marcia McClure Torgerson] 3. Amend Atascadero Municipal Code - Section 2-4.03 Temporary Manager ■ Fiscal Impact: None ■ Staff recommendation: Council introduce for second reading, waiving reading in full, Ordinance No. 363, amending the Atascadero Municipal Code Section 2-4.03. [Wade McKinney] 4. Zone Change #98010 - 3055 Traffic Way (Mackey) ■ Fiscal Impact: Negative, exact number unknown ■ Planning Commission recommendation: Council adopt Ordinance No. 361, approving Zone Change 98010, on second reading by title only, approving and adopting the rezone and Planned Development Overlay #7 for the Mackey subdivision located at 3055 Traffic Way [Paul Saldana] 5. Final Parcel Map #97006 /AT 97-176—4605 Traffic Way (Smallwood—Poulin/ Shounders) ■ Fiscal Impact: None ■ Staff recommendation: Council: 1) Accept the Final Map #97006; 2) Reject without prejudice the 5-foot wide offer of dedication for street purposes along the property frontage of Traffic Way; 3) Accept a 6-foot wide Public Utility easement contiguous to the Traffic Way propertyfrontage [Paul Saldana] 6. Portola Road Overlay Project ■ Fiscal Impact: None,project covered by STIP funding, STP Urban funding and TDA Article 8 Streets funding ■ Staff recommendation: Council authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement with A.J. Diana Construction Company to construct Portola Road Overlay Project at a maximum cost of$285,100 and make the necessary appropriations [Brady Cherry] 7. State-Local Transportation Partnership Program (STLPP) Program Supplements—for road improvement projects ■ Fiscal Impact: Revenue of$63,731 ■ Staff recommendation: Council authorize the Mayor to sign Sate-Local Transportation Partnership Program Supplements 004, 005 and 006 [Brady Cherry] 8. No Parking Zone— Santa Lucia at Ardilla ■ Fiscal Impact: $300 from street division funds ■ Staff recommendation:-Council adopt Resolution No. 1999-046, establishing a No Parking Zone on Santa Lucia Avenue between Ardilla Road and Venado Avenue [Brady Cherry] CC 09/14/99 Page 3 of 16 000W 9. No Parking Zone—Atascadero Avenue at Navajoa Avenue ■ Fiscal Impact: $50 from street division funds ■ Staff recommendation: Council adopt Resolution No. 1999-051, establishing a No Parking Zone on Atascadero Avenue at Navajoa Avenue [Brady Cherry] 10. Establishment of Speed Limit—on portion of Los Gatos Avenue ■ Fiscal Impact: $200 of currently budgeted funds ■ Staff recommendation: Council adopt Resolution No. 1999-052, which formally establishes a speed limit on the portion of Los Gatos Avenue [Brady Cherry] Council Member Luna pulled Items #A-2, 4 and 10. Council Member Clay stepped down on Items #A-4 due to a potential conflict of interest. Council Members Clay and Lerno stepped down on Item#A-1 as they did not attend the July 6, 1999 meeting. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide to approve Items #A-1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. (Clay and Lerno abstained on Item #A-1) Item #A-2: Council Member Luna asked that on page 35 and on Attachment D "respectively" be changed to "respectfully." MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide to approve Item #A-2 as amended above. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. Item #A-4: Council Member Luna stated that he would be voting "no" on this item. He also asked from which direction the sewer line would come to this project. City Manager Wade McKinney responded it would go down El Camino Real. Council Member Luna also asked if the sewer line were to go down Traffic Way, if it would be a conflict of interest. City Attorney Roy Hanley stated that if the property was within 300 feet of the Mackey property, the law would presume that there would be a conflict of interest. Mr. Hanley continued to state that the Council Member would have to decide if the project would have a beneficial financial effect based on what facts they know, if the project was more than 300 feet away. Council Member Luna also asked the status of the access to water for this project. Mr. McKinney reported that there is no conclusive decision. He stated that he spoke with the Water Company today and the developer has made contact with the Water Company. Mr. McKinney stated that there is a condition of approval with the subdivision that requires water service. Mayor Johnson asked if that would mean adequate water service as defined by our regulations. Mr. McKinney replied that the statement was true. He also confirmed that without water service there would be no approval of the project. PUBLIC COMMENT Becky Pacas, 4305 San Benito Road, thanked her neighbors for their time and effort in gathering information for this issue. She read a prepared statement in which she explained that she feels Council Member Lerno should not have voted on the General Plan Amendment for this project in 1998. She explained that since Council Member Lerno derives income from Kelly Gearhart, who either owns or has property in-escrow adjacent to this project, Council Member Lerno would have a conflict of interest. She also commented that many people are not convinced that Kelly Gearhart will not participate in the Mackey project. She commented that without Council CC 09/14/99 Page 4 of 16 000001 Member Lerno's participation in the "Mackey" project, it would not have passed (see Attachment A). • Rush Kolemaine, P.O. Box 1990, expressed his concerns over the passage of this item including; - issues of potential conflict of interest of Council Member Lerno, lack of a"will serve" notice from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company for this project; the change in designation of Traffic Way from Industrial Arterial, rezoning of the acreage on the project without adequate public review, the piece meal planning approach by the developers and the City does not benefit the general public and shows favoritism to developers of the project. He stated that by changing the designation of Traffic Way from Industrial Arterial we have cut off the small acreage available for industrial development. Andy Smith, 5005 San Benito, stated that he is opposed to this project. He said that he feels this is the first step to high-density housing in this neighborhood. He expressed concern that these houses will degrade over time and that he is concerned about the safety issue with shared driveways. Marisa Todd, 4500 Del Rio Road, stated she is opposed to this project. She expressed concern that an individual would be allowed to subdivide in to one-acre lots when it was not compatible with the general plan. She also said she is concerned about the possibility of a conflict of interest. Tom Hembry, 1725 Ferrocaril Road, stated he is opposed to this project. He supported the views of the previous speakers. Greg Walker, 4375 Del Rio Road, said that he is opposed to this project as it amends the General Plan to create a high-density neighborhood in a rural neighborhood. He stated the Council has not acted in the best interest of the community. Kathleen Vaughn, 4355 Del Rio Road, stated she supports the previous speakers and opposes this project. Marge Mackey, 5504-A Tunitas, stated she is opposed to this project. She suggested that fewer houses be built if any at all. Carol Pellett, 4405 San Benito Road, stated she is opposed to this project. She also stated that she agrees with the previous speakers. Sue Wassum, 245 Santa Ysabel, Paso Robles, stated she is opposed to this project. Gary Pellett, 4255 San Benito Road, stated he is opposed to this project. He expressed concern that the road conditions will not be aided by additional traffic. He suggested that staff document the trees that are currently on the lot but not on the plans. Mary Pellett, 4320 Del Rio Road, stated he is opposed to this project. He stated that Mayor Johnson is quoted in The Tribune saying that he "will preserve the rural atmosphere of Atascadero." He stated that at the August 10th meeting, Mayor Johnson asked for conformation . that the sewer line from the Home Depot would go down El Camino Real. Mr. Pallet said that surveyors have been surveying for a sewer line down Del Rio Road to Traffic Way. He also stated that Council Member Lerno does have a conflict of interest with respect to the Mackey proj ect. CC 09/14/99 00000111 Page 5 of 16 Eric Greening, 6600 Lewis Ave., stated that the Council needs to consider the safety of future residents with plans being made for increased volume and speed of passenger rail traffic. • Becky Pacas, 4305 San Benito Road, quoted a section of the staff report for Item#C-1 concerning General Plan update. She stated that subdivision approval requires a General Plan with which it would be consistent. Karen Harper, 4560 Yerba, stated she supports the previous speakers and opposes this project. Sheri Pellett, 4255 San Benito Road, stated she is opposed to this project. She expressed concern that her and her neighbors' American Dreams would be compromised with the approval of this project. Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, said that in March and April 1999, the Engineering Department stated that the application for this project did not list an owner of the property. She suggested that sufficient evidence be provided, prior to accepting an application, to show that a water supply for each lot is adequate. She stated that in a memorandum from Mr. McKinney he stated that small lots with wells are a health hazard and unrealistic, and he also said fire protection had been identified. Ms. O'Keefe said that by speaking with the staff, fire hydrants are available but the Fire Department did not review it. She continued by stating that Mr. McKinney reported that it would be a financial drain on the City. She explained that the greatest problem with the project is the water issue. David Smith, 8800 Pino Solo, stated he is opposed to this project. He said that he does not live . in the area but this project is inappropriate for the rural area. Bonita Borgeson, 4780 Del Rio Road, stated the Council should send this project back to the Planning Commission. She also said that she is surprised that the Fire Department did not review this project or make recommendations. She stated that it makes her leery since the Fire Department, specifically the Fire Chief, has become political by placing ads in the newspaper supporting Council candidates. Mayor Johnson stated the Firefighters Association supported candidates during the election, not the Fire Chief. The Fire Chief is not a member of the Firefighters Association. Tracy Silva, Morro Road, stated that she owns property on Traffic Way and would like the Council to stay with the General Plan. John Falkenstein, Cannon and Associates, stated he also works for Greenberg and Ferrel Architects of Santa Ana and they are working together on the Home Depot project. He also stated that Wilson Land Survey is working on a subcontract basis to design a sewer system for Home Depot. He explained the Home Depot will have a pressurized system which others will not be allowed to hook up to. Council Member Luna asked about surveyors' flags along Traffic Way. Mr. Falkenstein stated the Wilson Land Survey is also working for Mr. Mackey. John McGoff, 9192 Maple St., stated there is too much controversy surrounding this project. He also stated that tonight there is an appearance of a conflict of interest and it should be avoided. GregWalker, 4735 Del Rio Road-asked the Council to consider their actions if this project was p J occurring in their respective neighborhoods. CC 09/14/99 Page 6 of 16 00000)1. Gary Pellett, 4255 San Benitio Road, asked for clarification of the sewer issue for this project. Mr. Falkenstein confirmed that the project currently being worked on at Del Rio Road is for the Home Depot project. - Andy Smith, 5005 San Benito Road, stated that he was still a little confused on the sewer issue and is opposed to the project. Sheri Pellett, 4255 San Benito Road, asked if Kelly Gearhart could hook up to the Mackey sewer line. Mayor Johnson asked staff to respond. Becky Pacas, 4305 San Benito, also asked for clarification on whether the sewer service to this project could benefit Kelly Gearhart's property across the street. Mr. McKinney responded that the Mackey project is not related to the Home Depot project. He also stated that currently no plans have been submitted for the placement of a sewer line at the Mackey project area. Eric Greening, 6600 Lewis Ave., stated he felt the previous speakers were asking if in the future the Mackey project would be able to hook up to the Home Depot sewer system. He recommended that the Council take the General Plan seriously. Rush Kolemaine, P.O. Box 1990, said that he is surprised this project, with all the unanswered questions, made it this far. He recommended the Council send this project back to the Planning Commission for review. Dorothy McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista, recommended the Council vote no on this item. Mayor Johnson closed the Public Comment period Council Member Luna asked if the comment about the Fire Department having not reviewed the project was true. Mr. Hanley replied that they had reviewed this project. Council Member Luna asked if all the trees on the site have been marked, accounted for, and monitored. Mr. Saldana responded that he was unsure whether the trees are physically marked but they did show up on the maps. Council Member Luna asked if all the trees are there or only those that exceed a specified height. Mr. Saldana replied that everything over four inches in diameter is to be shown on the map and are subject to the native tree ordinance. Council Member Luna asked what the implications would be for the City if there were a conflict. Mr. Hanley replied that a court can void an action taken if the vote of a conflicted public official was necessary for the passage of an action item, then the item could be set aside. Council Member Lerno stated that as an elected official he has an obligation to vote on matters that come before the Council. He explained that when this project came out, he researched it and hired attorneys to look into any possible conflicts he may have. He stated that he will continue to favor the project. MOTION: By Council Member Lerno and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide to adopt Ordinance No. 361 approving Zone Change 98010, on second reading by title only, approving and adopting the rezone and Planned Development Overlay 47 for the Mackey subdivision located at 3055 Traffic Way. Motion passed 3:1 by a roll-call vote. (Clay abstained) CC 09/14/99 Page 7 of 16 000009 Item #A-10: Council Member Luna asked about the problem with the existing median at Los Gatos and Las Flores. Community Services Director Brady Cherry stated that he and Chief Hegwood met with some of the residents and agreed that the median was larger than necessary and would need to be reduced in size. PUBLIC COMMENT Roland Brown, 6800 Los Gatos Road, asked if any additional marks have been made. He stated that he believes that the current marks will not be adequate. Mr. Cherry responded that it has not been marked with the final marks. Mayor Johnson closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide to adopt Resolution No. 1999-052,which formally establishes a speed limit on the portion of Los Gatos Avenue. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. Mayor Johnson called a recess at 8:45 p.m. Mayor Johnson called the meeting to order at 8:55 p.m. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Adoption of Building Reizulations ■ Fiscal Impact: a minor increase in review and construction permit fees ■ Staff recommendation: Council: 1) Introduce on first reading, waiving reading in full, Ordinance 4360, adopting the 1997-98 Model Building Codes; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 1999-053, adopting the plan review and building fees consistent with the 1997 code [Paul Saldanaj Community and Economic Development Director Paul Saldana gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. PUBLIC COMMENT: None MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to introduce on first reading,waiving reading in full, Ordinance#360, adopting the 1997-98 Model Building Codes. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to adopt Resolution No. 1999-053, adopting the plan review and building fees consistent with the 1997 code. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. Mayor Johnson called a recess at 9:06 p.m. • Mayor Johnson called the meeting-to order at 9:44 p.m. CC 09/14/99 00000 Page 8 of 16 2. General Plan Amendment#99001, Zoning Map Change 999001 and Tentative Parcel Map#99003 - 8930 Junipero Ave. (Bunyea) ■ Fiscal Impact: None ■ Planning Commission recommendation: Council adopt Resolution No. 1999-054, - „ enying the requestfor GPA 999001, ZC 999001 and TPM#99003 [Paul Saldana] Mayor Johnson asked for Mr. Bunyea to state his request. John Bunyea, applicant, asked for a continuance until the next meeting as he was not notified in advance that his project was on the agenda. Mayor Johnson asked the neighbors of this project who were prepared to speak on this item if they would be in agreement with a continuance. They agreed. There was Council consensus to continue this item to the next regular Council meeting. C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 2. Salinas Dam Expansion—Research potential effect on Atascadero ■ Fiscal Impact: Appropriate share of 5500,000 to be determined ■ Staff recommendation: City Council cooperate with the Atascadero Mutual Water' Company (AAMC), Templeton Community Services District (TCSD), the City of Paso Robles and authorize thefollowing: 1) Participation in a review of the structural and downstream impacts of the Salinas Dam Expansion; 2) Protest the extension of San Luis Obispo's water rights at the Water Resources meeting of October 12, 1999; 3) Cooperate in studies of the hydrological conditions in the Atascadero/Paso Robles area; 4) Cooperate with AAMC TCSD and Paso Robles authorizing the Mayor to execute a joint litigation agreement; 5) Authorize S50,000 from unallocated reserves to implement the strategy to oppose the Salinas Dam Expansion. [Wade McKinney] City Manager Wade McKinney gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. PUBLIC COMMENT George Highland, 30594155 South Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, stated he has been a part of the North County Water Resources Forum for the last four years. He urged the City to participate in this, particularly in the proposed transfer of the dam from the Corp of Engineers to the Flood Control District (not yet formed) and give operation of the Salinas Dam to the City of San Luis Obispo. Eric Greening, 6600 Lewis Ave., stated that he supports the recommendations before the Council. He made suggestions of steps the Council could take. He urged the City to express concern that the dam is not safe enough at a hearing on Thursday, September 23” . Mayor Johnson closed the Public Comment period CC 09/14/99 Page 9 of 16 00®0A1 MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to �• cooperate with the Atascadero Mutual Water Company (AMWC), Templeton Community Services District (TCSD), the City of Paso Robles and authorize the following: 1) Participation in a review of the structural and downstream impacts of the Salinas Dam Expansion; 2) Protest the extension of San Luis Obispo's water rights at the Water Resources meeting of October 12, 1999; 3) Cooperate in studies of the hydrological conditions in the Atascadero/Paso Robles area; 4) Cooperate with AMWC, TCSD and Paso Robles authorizing the Mayor to execute a joint litigation agreement; 5) Authorize 550,000 from unallocated reserves to implement the strategy to oppose the Salinas Dam Expansion. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. Mayor Johnson announced that he has been asked to revisit Item #A-4. Council Member Clay stepped down due to a potential conflict of interest on this item. Council Member Lerno announced that he would like to rescind his vote on this item made earlier in this meeting due to new information that was brought to his attention. City Attorney Roy Hanley stated that any member from the winning side of an action may make a motion to revisit the issue. Council Member Lerno and seconded b Ma MOTION: By Cou y or Pro Tem y Arrambide to reopen the adoption of Ordinance No. 361 approving Zone Change 98010, on second reading by title only, approving and adopting the rezone and Planned Development Overlay #7 for the Mackey subdivision located at 3055 Traffic Way. Motion passed 4:0 by a voice vote. (Clay abstained) Council Member Lerno announced that he will be stepping down on Item#A-4 due to new information that was a brought to his attention which may indicate a potential conflict of interest. There was no motion made on this item. Therefore, there was no second reading of Ordinance No. 361 and it was not adopted. 1. Options for Update of the General Plan ■ Fiscal Impact: $25,000- $350,000 depending on preferred option ■ Staff recommendation: Council: 1) Direct staff to implement comprehensive update of the General Plan,- 2) lan;2) Adopt Resolution No. 1999-055, enacting a moratorium on the application of new General Plan amendments for the amendment cycle beginning October 1, 1999; 3) Approve appropriation of$200,000 from reserve funds for General Plan update [Paul Saldana] i Community and Economic Development Director Paul Saldana gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. CC 09/14/99 ���®1�2 Page 10 of 16 Mayor Johnson thanked Mr. Saldana for his report and asked for clarification on some issues. Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide stated that he believes that our General Plan does have some flaws. He expressed concern for the fact that increases in density in areas affect the ultimate build-out. He stated that he would like to see, established as a goal, the ultimate build-out. Also, he expressed concern for the protection and enhancement of our urban forest. Council Member Lerno asked if the moratorium would be for a full year. Mr. Saldana responded that it would be a year plus, or four cycles. Council Member Clay asked if 92% of the property is built out. Mr. Saldana replied that actually it was 92% of the undeveloped inventory of property that is single-family residential. Mr. Saldana stated that 13.5% remains to be developed. Council Member Clay stated that he did not believe the housing element and land use element would be able to come together. He commented that strip development is used in many other cities and he would expect to see some development along El Camino Real. Council Member Luna thanked Mr. Saldana for his presentation. He stated that there is a problem; it is usually two, sometimes three votes that determine what the outcome is. He asked who was responsible for bringing this item forward. Council Member Luna assured the public that he is not in favor of a rewrite of the mandatory elements of the General Plan. Using an overhead, he reviewed the City's Community Survey Results from June of 1999, pointing out that the General Plan is not a high demand. As a rhetorical question he asked who would want to amend the General Plan. He stated there are seven mandatory elements of the General Plan and we have more than seven. He asked again why we would spend so much money updating the General Plan that is not a problem. He commented that the staff stated that there is conflict between the circulation element and the conservation and open space element because of the Ardilla Road extension. Council Member Luna asserted that there is no more of a conflict than there was with the 400 trees and the 12 houses scheduled to be removed for Highway 41. He expressed that many of the conflicts can be fixed in-house. He stated that there are limits to growth. He also stated that redefining the urban services line is not the answer. Council Member Luna stated we need a Council that has the strength to say no. He announced that he would like to see the Zoning Ordinance, which has not been updated since 1989, come before the Council to be made consistent with the present General Plan. Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide stated that he supported updating the General Plan. He also stated that he believes going beyond a minimum is a"journey toward excellence." He said the idea of disposing of an economic plan is prosperous, and this community needs progress. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to continue past 11:00 p.m. Motion passed unanimously by a voice vote. Mayor Johnson stated that he did not agree with Council Member Luna that Atascadero should only have the General Plan elements required by the State. He also stated that the Council does not want to downsize all lots, as some of the public have suggested. He stated that there are inconsistencies in the General Plan. Council Member Luna stated that the Tree Ordinance argument is a bogus one because the Zoning Ordinance implements the General Plan. He also stated that it was the policies of the CC 09/14/99 Page I1 of 16 1�0 -013 General Plan that saved the Tree Ordinance. He suggested that we do not even need to make our Downtown Plan part of the General Plan. Mayor Johnson stated that if the Tree Ordinance is not a worthy argument, then the argument about the State minimum is not worthy either. Council Member Clay expressed concern for the time frame of these plans with elections approaching. PUBLIC COMMENT George Highland, 3059-#155 South Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, explained to the Council how the General Plan came to be, referring to the handout he provided the Council (see Attachment B). A committee was appointed in 1972 to write the original General Plan after the County had proposed a Plan that was not well received. He explained the basic goals of the first General Plan. Kim Jeanes, 6280 San Anselmo Road, stated that she supports the update of the General Plan. John Heatherington, 7790 Yesal Ave., stated that he is opposed to updating the General Plan. Gary Pellett, 4225 San Benito Road, stated this City does not have a shortage of homes; it has a shortage of good paying jobs. Jennifer Hageman, 8005 Santa Lucia Road, thanked Council Member Luna for his comments. She stated that she is opposed to updating the General Plan when our Zoning Ordinances, which are required by law to be updated every two years, have not been updated in ten years. Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, stated that she has noticed that staff has/could put together a consistent plan but when it is brought before the Council, they change it, put in inconsistencies and give direction to staff to bring it back with the changes. She asked what happened to the goal that was made to bring in revenue by bringing in commercial development and industry, not high-density rezones. She stated that many of the inconsistencies in the General Plan that have been mentioned tonight are due to the fact that there have been so many changes in the zoning. She referred to the Ardilla Road project saying that putting in a road will require the removal of several trees; however, the issue is safety. She stated that the road was supposed to be put in before the houses were developed. Ms. O'Keefe stated that Council . Member Luna was correct with regard to the housing element. She asked about the lines drawn on the west side and their purpose. She expressed concern for the amount of money an update of the General Plan would require. William Zimmerman, 6225 Lomitas Road, stated he is opposed to updating the General Plan (see Attachment Q. Fred Frank, 3615 Ardilla, stated he is opposed to updating the General Plan. He agrees that there are inconsistencies with the General Plan, but he feels that is the result of Council actions. Monica Pacas, 4305 San Benito Road, stated she is opposed to updating the General Plan. CC 09/14/99 Page 12 of 16 100014 Beck Pacas 43005 San Benito Road stated she is opposed to updating the General Plan. She Y � Pp P g expressed her dissatisfaction with the City Council and their decision-making policies. . Mary Hickey, 7950 Santa Rosa Road, expressed her opposition to updating the General Plan. She expressed amazement for the lack of understanding that the Council and staff have of the goals of the General Plan. Mary Pellett, 4320 Del Rio Road, suggested the Council make few changes to the General Plan. Bonita Borgeson, 4780 Del Rio Road, stated that she agrees with Council Member Luna and his concerns with updating the General Plan. She suggested that staff could find the inconsistencies and correct them. She is opposed to updating the General Plan. John McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista, stated a $350,000 update of the General Plan.is a waste of taxpayers' money (see Attachment D). Marge Mackey, 5504—A Tunitas Ave., stated she supports the existing General Plan. George Highland, 3059-9155 South Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, gave the Council his recommendations on this item. He explained that there are inconsistencies but an entire update of the General Plan is unnecessary (see Attachment B). Gary Pellett, 4255 San Benito Road, stated he is opposed to updating the General Plan. Dorothy McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista, expressed her opposition to updating the General Plan by reading a prepared statement (see Attachment E) John Bunyea, Atascadero, stated that he supports the update of the General Plan. He explained that in his neighborhood of 120 lots, 117 of them are not consistent with the General Plan. Sheri Pellett, 4255 San Benito Road, stated she is opposed to the update of the General Plan. Mayor Johnson closed the Public Comment period. Mayor Johnson called a recess at 12:18 a.m. Mayor Johnson called to meeting to order at 12:21 a.m. Council Member Clay stated that there are few rentals in our city. He asked Council Member Luna if he supported the housing element of the General Plan. Council Member Luna responded that he did. Mayor Johnson stated that he is interested in a comprehensive update of the General Plan. He also stated that he would be in favor of moving ahead on staff recommendations number one and two and would like to see number three brought back later by staff. Council Member Clay stated that he is not interested in spending $350,000 on this project. He also stated that he would like to see staff handle the areas of inconsistency. He expressed concern for the time span of the project. CC 09/14/99 Page 13 of 16 000015 MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide and seconded by Council Member Lerno to direct staff to implement comprehensive update of the General Plan. Motion passed 3:2 by a roll-call vote (Clay and Luna opposed) MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide and seconded by Council Member Luna to adopt Resolution No. 1999-055, enacting a moratorium on the application of new General Plan amendments for the amendment cycle beginning October 1, 1999. Motion passed 4:1 by a roll-call vote (Clay opposed) MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide and seconded Council Member Lerno to approve appropriation of$200,000 from reserve funds for General Plan update. (Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide withdrew his motion and Council Member Lerno withdrew his second) There was a Council consensus for staff to provide a budget for the $200,000 expenditure at the City Council meeting on October 12, 1999. 3. Reorganization of City Manager's Office, Community Services Department and Public Works Department ■ Fiscal Impact: Savings of$737.00 annually ■ Staff Recommendation: Council concur with the City Manager's recommendation to create a Public Works Director / City Engineer position and an analyst position [Wade McKinney] City Manager Wade McKinney gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. PUBLIC COMMENT: John McGoff, 9192 Maple St., asked for specifics concerning the positions being proposed to be reorganized. Mayor Johnson closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Lerno to concur with the City Manager's recommendation to create a Public Works Director/City Engineer position and an analyst position. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. 4. Transit Services—Contract Extension, Transit Advertising, El Camino Shuttle-Status ■ Fiscal Impact: Contract Extension - Two-year savings of$50,911, Advertising — Potential to generate revenue of$875.00 per month, Fixed Route Service—None ■ Staff recommendation: Council: . 1) Approve the attached contract extension with Laidlaw Transit Services; 2) Approve the attached Advertising Specifications and Policies; 3) Receive the report on the status of the Fixed Route Transit System [Brady Cherry] CC 09/14/99 Page 14 of 16 000016 Community Services Director Brady Cherry gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. Irwin Rosenberg, Regional Vice President of Laidlaw asked the Council to support the staff recommendation. PUBLIC COMMENT Carol McCulley, 9850 San Marcos Road, owner of the Sign Outlet, asked the Council not to approve advertising signs on the bus benches in Atascadero. Mayor Johnson closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Council Member Clay and seconded by Council Member Luna to approve the attached contract extension with Laidlaw Transit Services. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. MOTION: By Council Member Clay and seconded by Council Member Lerno to approve the attached Advertising Specifications and Policies. Motion failed 2:3 by a roll-call vote. (Luna,Arrambide, and Lerno opposed) There was a Council consensus to receive the report on the status of the Fixed Route Transit System. 5. Information Bulletin D. COMMITTEE REPORTS: S.L.O. Council of Governments/S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority Mayor Johnson reported they adopted the Highway 101 Corridor study. Water Committees Council Member Clay stated that the information had been previously discussed under Item#C-2. Integrated Waste Management Authority Council Member Luna announced that the 1998 diversion rate for Atascadero is 44% and the county is 20%. The IWMA is going to re-establish the base year to 1998 and study the diversion on a regional basis to attain 50%. North County Council Mayor Johnson reported that the executive committee met about the water issue discussed earlier. Air Pollution Control District Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide stated that there is a massive radio campaign on backyard burning. He expressed concern for finding an alternative method to backyard burning. CC 09/14/99 Page 15 of 16 �� Yf County Mayor's Round Table Mayor Johnson announced that they will meet on Friday. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors Mayor Johnson announced that they would meet next week. Economic Opportunity Commission Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide reported that they need some space in the north county for youth health services. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: City Council Mayor Johnson reported that San Luis Obispo asked us if we would join them in a joint letter from all the cities in the county expressing concern for the kind of county developing in the urban reserve line. He stated that, unless there is an objection, he will sign off on the letter on the general issue. City Treasurer City Treasurer David Graham announced that we have received the money from FDIC today for payment in full. F. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 1:16 a.m. to the next Regular Session scheduled for September, 28, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. MEETING RECORDED BY: Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk MINUTES PREPARED BY: Melanie Whaley, Deputy City Clerk ATTACHMENTS: A- Prepared statement by Becky Pacas, September 14, 1999, and copies of a deed granted to Kelly Gearhart along with a map of the area. B- Outline of the General Plan Update, 1999, and some personal recommendations. C- Prepared statement by John McNeil, September 14, 1999. D- Prepared statement by Dorothy McNeil, September 14, 1999. E- Prepared statement by William Zimmerman, September 14, 1999. CC 09/14/99 000018 Page 16 of 16 Attachment: A Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: 9/14/99 . September 14, 1999 - Honorable Mayor and Honorable Councilman: First I need too extent a heartfelt thank you to all of my neighbors, who have dedicated their time energy and money to accumulate the information that we have. We are truly a neighborhood in every respect, and we are concerned for our well being and our future. We are what makes Atascadero a wonderful place to live and we reflect the integrity of Atascadero. Per the Conflicts of Interests, 1998, California Attorney General's Office: Ken Lerno should have abstained from participating in the General Plan Amendment #98003, Zone Change #98010, and 30-lot Tentative Tract Map #99001 (Dan Mackey), because he has a potential financial interest in the passing of the project. It is our understanding that Ken Lerno's, source of income, Kelly Gearhart, owns or has in escrow 6.57 acres of the land that is adjacent to the "Dan Mackey" project. There are a total of only 10.26 acres adjoining the "Dan Mackey" project that are not owned by the Atascadero School District. This would mean that, Kelly Gearhart owns or has in escrow, over 64% of the privately owned land that borders the half mile long "Dan Mackey" project. Considering the subject of the closed session prior to this meeting, I doubt that San Benito Elementary, which is on its own leach field should like to hook up to the City's Sewer in the near future. The "Dan Mackey" project had three requisite effects that have the potential to increase the value of the Kelly Gearhart Traffic Way property value. 1. It required an amendment to the General Plan, and Negative Declaration. 2. It involved a Zone change from Suburban Single Family to Residential Multi Family. 3. and It extended the Urban Services Line to include the project and foreseeably to include Kelly Gearhart's Traffic Way property. We have no reason to believe that Kelly Gearhart will not request every benefit that the adjoining "Dan Mackey" land has. At the very least (with the availability of sewer) he would probably ask for one half acre lots, however he has the potential to ask for lots from 9000 to 5000 square feet like the "Dan Mackey" project. Using the value of $40,000. per building lot, this could potentially increase the value of Kelly Gearhart's Traffic Way property by over one and a quarter million dollars. Furthermore, many of your public are not convinced that Kelly Gearhart will not actually be the developer of the "Dan Mackey" project. Kelly Gearhart and his projects were mentioned many times at the August 10th meeting, by people opposing the project, supporting the project, and even by "Dan Mackey's" representative from Cannon Associates, John Falkenstein, who is also a representative of Kelly Gearhart. One aspect of the August 10th meeting that raised suspicions even more was the nexus of the people who spoke in favor of the project: Michael Shearer (and family), 000019 Kelly Gearhart's Realtor; Jay Miller (and Family) Hurst Financial, Ken Lerno"s employer and Kelly Gearhart's Financial Backer; Mary Chastain (and family), was with Bank of Santa Maria, Ken Lerno owned stock; the Athletic director and a coach from the high school, (where Kelly Gearhart so generously donated a track) one of them, Mike Molina, even made a campaign contribution to Ken Lerno; and the one and only neighbor, who spoke in favor of the project, has arranged to sell their property near the project to Kelly Gearhart. Now we all understand that these people have a right to speak. The common thread did, however; elevate suspicions, and indicate a potential interest on Ken Lerno's behalf. The actions on the "Dan Mackey" project, could not have taken place without the involvement of Ken Lerno. Section 2-1.09 of our Municipal Code adopted in 1980 requires three affirmative votes to pass an ordinance. Per the Conflicts of Interest, Penalties and Enforcement sections: The Political Reform Act of 1974 provides administrative, civil and criminal ,penalties for its violation. In the event of violation of the Reform Act, a Court is empowered to void the decision. Civil prosecutors may also seek civil damages for violations of the act. In addition, any person who purposely or negligently causes any person to commit a violation, or aids and abets in the commission of a violation, is liable to civil, criminal and administrative sanctions. ( 83116.5, 91006.). The plaintiff or plaintiffs who prevail in the action brought pursuant to this section may be awarded attorneys fees. A prevailing defendant, however, may be awarded attorney's fees only if the plaintiffs suit is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. t7000^w v1 a t" 1: RECORDING REQUESTED BY: NO:Doc NO; 1.999 t CUESTA TITLE COMPANY -0559 2 Rpt 00069484 4 AND.WNEH RECORDED MAIL TO: f Official Records ;RF —1 "N 10.00 I Kelly V..Gearhart San Luis Obispo Co. ;AT ...� ' 6205 Alcantara J u l i e L Rodewa 1 d 24 50 Atascadero, CA 93422 Recorder Aug 02, 1999 ' i Time: 08:00 21 ;TOTAL 257 .50 i THIS SPACE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY: ESCROW NO.AT-74327-BJC TITLE ORDER NO. 74327 GRANT DEED THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(S) DECLARE(s) i DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX Is $247.50. 1X1 computed on full value of property conveyed, or I 1 computed on full value less value of(fens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale. _ I 1 Unincorporated area EX) City of Atascadero, AND 1_ f i FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which Is hereby acknowledged,4=1 JON-DARBY PATTERSON and ROBIN PATTERSON, Husband and Wife hereby GRANT(s) to: FI D FEE P'�IO EXEMnT CUT OF :�� S7ATE KELLY V. GEARHART, a Married Man, as his sole and separate property '+) that certain real property in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, �+ described as follows: e LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT A AND MADE A PART HEREOF. I� A.P. #049,071,013 DATED July 20, 1999 STATE OF CALI /NIA �0 COU*F On ,TY ,, Jon- by a rson before me, 1 c/ s otsry ii in nd for s_s{ St per onally appeared Robin Pa t son P4"Ans"Y 14046 M 10-me-ter proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the parson(s) whose name(s) Isla subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that ho/sher.11 executed the same in his/her/ air authorized capacity Iasi,and that by his/her ei Ignaturats) on the Instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,executed the Instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. p 6-j• V# 1 t LOComm. lt,4 - 29o Notary Public '4, r ILUIS LS Olilsnid SAN 111 l S 0111 SPU l'UUtlTT `. Ky:orm, fnDlret aprtI 19, 2003 /112 Signature (This area for official notarial seal) Mail tax statements to: Kelly V. Gearhart.6205 Alcantara Atascadero CA 93422 000021 1!1 •` EXHIBIT "A" i PARCEL 1• LOT 2 IN BLOCK 21 OF ATASCADERO COLONY, IN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, i ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED OCTOBER 21, 1914 IN BOOK 3, PAGE 24 OF MAPS. EXCEPT THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE LINES OF SANTA CRUZ ROAD (NOW KNOWN AS TRAFFIC WAY) AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ABOVE REFERRED TO. Ll AN EASEMENT FOR WATERLINES OVER THE SOUTHWESTERLY 7 FEET OF THE �. NORTHEASTERLY 27 FEET (MEASU...:D FROM'THE CENTER LINE OF SANTA CRUZ ROAD, NOW KNOWN AS TRAFFIC WAY) , OF LOT 1—D IN BLOCK 21 OF ATASCADERO COLONY, IN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED OCTOBER l.. 21, 1914 IN BOOK 3 , PAGE 24 OF MAPS . i EXCEPTING THEREFROM TKk— PORTION OF SAID LAND INCLUDED WITHIN THE LINES OF SANTA CRUZ ROAD, (NOW KNOWN AS TRAFFIC WAY) , AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP. I�r t vw ..l c END OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION +000022 i r I , —I ORIGINAL '-� Cuenta Title AT-72907-LSN ' RECORDING REQUESTED BAND- WHEN WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Kelly Gearhart r1 6205 Alcantara DOC No: 1999-007612 Rpt No: 000097191 Atascadero, Ca. 9342216.00 Official Records SRF - 1 t34,1� � San Luis Obispo CO. :UN 10.00 Julie L. Rodewald SMF I MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: F. Recorder i eb 02 , 1999 ; •• . Time: 08:00 ' , Kelly Gearhart Ll 6205 Alcantara [ 41 ;TfiTAL tG0�117G Atascadero, Ca. 93422 t SMF $10.00 (Space above line for Documentary Tranafer Tax -,$134.75 Recorder's use only) A.P.N. Portion of 049-063-02 1" 1674-76 S AUNT DEED FOR VALUE RECEIVED, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD .COMPANY, a Delaware VW corporation ("Grantor"), formerly known as Southern Pacific Transportation Company, a Delaware corporation, grants to KELLY GEARHART. an individual ("Grantee"), all of its �.' right, title, and interest in and to that certain real property (the "Property") situated in Atascadero,-County of.San Luis Obispo, State of California, and as more particularly described in Exhibit A, hereto attached and hereby made a part hereof. By acceptance of this Deed, Grantee, her heirs and assigns, at Grantee's sole expense, shall Install and forever maintain, repair and,if necessary, replace a six (6) foot fence alor!gahe eastedy_boundaryof the Property. EXCEPTING AND RESERVING UNTO GRANTOR, its successors iand,assigns, forever,allminerals`and all mineral rights of every kind;and character now known to exist or hereafter dlscoyered underlying the Property, including;wlthoutlimiting the generality of the foregoing;-oil and gas:and rights thereto;aogether with-the sole,.exclusive and perpetual sight to explore for, remove and dispose of said minerals by any means or methods *suitable to Grantor, its successors and assigns, but without entering upon or using the.surface.of the Property.and In such.manner as not to damage the surface of the Property,of to i"nw4re MW the use thereof by Grantee, its successors or assigns. Y F - d000* UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY I Atascadero,San Luis Obispo,California EXHIBIT"A" That portion of Rancho La Asuncion and Atascadero in the County of San Luis Obispo, 1 State of California,described as follows: 1 Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Santa Cruz Road (now named Traffic Way)and Potrero Road as shown on the reap of Block 21 of Atascadero Colony as recorded October 21, 1914 in Book 3 of Maps of Atascadero,Sheet No.24 in the Recorder's Office of said County and State;thence along the centerline of Santa Cruz Road South 54°26' 00"East a distance of 2335.03 feet(2334.36 feet Record) to the Ll centerline of Chico Road(shown on said map as Santa Cruz Road); thence along the centerlinc of Chico Road North 35° 13' 00"East a distance of 105.00 feet more or less to i a point 25.00 southwesterly measured at right angles from the centerlinc of the main Ll track of the Union Pacific Railroad Company right of w•zy;thence pW-allel with and 25.00 feet southwesterly measured at right angles with the centerline the Union Pacific Railroad Company right of way North 54°26' 00"West a distance of 2334.39 feet to a point on ' the northwesterly line of Lot 45A of said Block 21 as shown on said map;thence along said northwesterly line South 35° 34' 00"West a distance of 105.00 feet more or less to 'ow the Point of Beginning. Ll Containing an area of 5.62 acres,more or less I Officc of Real Estate f Omaha,Nebraska J January 18, 1999 j Written by:JCO f 167476.lcg ASN 4lk- • ;• ,f.� � - -�.. .�; �- fir- •-•� W 00 &YT w Cn � ti •ti c�. � Q-1 06Nag KVS r b �. 00-5 ;- ... I �- •vim•. •�� �� v- by ,.. ire SSS . .fi •.�• { ^ .w _�m*.%t•iliF+l.'a4u-�,.-,.a.+..�.w-..-.•1....n....N�..'tr-...�...r•+-•.+r-...a.-... n o� Q� t inQ (IVO'\d O H JLO(l % Attachment: B GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - 1 g g g. Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: 9/14/99 A. 1979/80 Plan - "The People' s Plan" 1 . Atascadero Advisory Committe, 1966-79. a. 26 organizations + 4 at-large members ( 1 for each quadrant) , totalling 82 citizens. Monthly & bi-monthly meetings. b. Land developers, real estate people, environmentalists, business owners, youth groups, senior citizens, pro-growthers, no-growthers, left & right wing, etc. c. 1968: County Planning Dept. presented their General Plan for Atascadero, developed under the direction of Henry Engen, Asst. Director for Advanced Planning. Plan rejected by the Advisory Committee. 2. General Plan Subcommittee, 1972-78. Weekly meetings. a. 7 member committee, with 9 persons serving over the 7 years. b. Highland (Churn) , G. Davis, W. Lewis, B. Miller, E. Oglesby, J. Stinchfield, S. Summers, R. Wilkins Jr. , R. Wright & P. Putnam (tech. consultant) . c. 150 citizen volunteers. d. Each section reviewed & revised by full Adv. Comm. , page by page, line by line, often word by word. e. Ultimate population estimated between 30-34 , 000 at build-out. f. Adopted by Board of Supervisors 12/78. g. Adopted by 1st City Council, after Public Hearings, in 1980. 3. Basic goals!. a. Relatively low density community - large lots with "elbow room" . b. Residential areas permitting ownership & housing of animals, primarily horses & FFA & 4H projects . c. Winding, tree-lined streets. d. Secluded home sites. e. Road walkways, horse trails & bikeways without curbs & gutters . f. Tree-covered hills. 4. Population growth/yr 1960-70: 6. 3% 1970-75: 8. 3% 1975-98: 3. 9% *1968-1972: Completion of sewer system Population 1970: 9, 091 1975: 12, 413 1998: 25, 300 B. 1987 Update 1 . Existing Available Total Dwelling units 7, 537 41874 12, 411 Population -- 20, 449 12,413 33, 388 000026 C. Important Statements 1 . "Strict adherence to the sizes chaaacterdof• theessential community" . in order to retain the desired 2. "Maximum population is a theoretical figure which cannot be attained or surpassed without changing the character of the community. RECOMMENDATIONS 1 . Resolve internal inconsistencies. 2. Multi-Family Residential (MFR) a. Few apartments or condos constructed in recent years. Use this zoning for single family, small lot PUD' s. "Affordable" . 3. Minimum lot sizes a. To maintain the buildout population of 30-34, 000, if lot sizes reduced in one area, they must be increased by an equal amount somewhere else. b. Areas where, many lots are less than minimum zoning for the f area: i. Create no lots of less than IA, except for PUD ' s . ii . If more than 70% of lots are less than the zoned minimum, but greater than the next lowest zoning, rezone to the next lowest zoning. e.g. Current zoning = 1A. 70% of lots less than 1 A. Rezone to IA. Current zoning = 1A. Less than 70% of existing lots less than 1A. Retain 1A, zoning. Attachment: C Atascadero City Coun Meeting Date: 9/14/99 John - McNeil 8265 Sierra Vista Rd. Atascadero , CA 93422 Sept. 14, 1999 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmen: The proposed update of the General Plan at a cost to the taxpayers of $350,000 is an unconscionable waste of our money. The update is not now necessary as staled by the mayor; the pre- scribed period will not end until the year 2002/5, except for the Housin. - Element . Moreover, if the General Plan were no,,-r updated, it should not cost $350,C'00. The last update was done by a staff member, Henry Engen. (Perhaps Henry Enggen would do it now for IW5,000?) In any event , the developers should pay the $350,000. Kelly Gearhart alone should pay about X300,000. ghat provisions of the General Plan are now inhibiting development? Lot splits are easily approved by the City Council , aid '.mendments to the general Plan are easily obta--ned. lot • easy _ can i� ,�;et? The General Ilan is no better than the City Council at any time . Don' t :•porn- about the General Man update . update the Cit,: Council by voting in neer City Cov.ncil persons viho will resect the General Plan, and reser-:-e tie rural cahracter of our city. Respectively submitted, Attachment: D September 14, 1999 Atascadero City Council To: Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: 9/14/99 Re : General Plan Update From: Dorothy F. McNeil Honorable Councilmembers :: Atascadero is being ill-informed and mis-informed by the- press. The Atascadero News has no coverage of the proposal to rewrite the-- entire General Plan. The Tribune has mis-informed-not told the truth- by quoting only Wade McKinney and Ray Johnson. Johnson said the General Plan "Has not been revamped for several years and is out of date. " And he says "'the revision is necessary and is required �by law. " Wrong on both counts. All elements of the G.P. must be reviewed every 10 years with the exception of the Housing Element which is every 5 ' years. Only the Housing Element is due. Other elements were redone in 1992 and 1995 thus not due until 2002 and 2005. The proposed cost is up from $150,000 to' 5350,000 and the hiring of a consultant . Previous updates were done "in-house" by our own quali- fied planner, Henry Engen. Much less costly. Why do we now have no qualified person on staff? Why are Johnson, McKinney and company pushing this; Johnson says :: it residents may fear the upd.ate will spoil Atascadero ' s quaint small town feel. .the council has no intention of bringing urban sprawl to the city. . .fror my point of view, we 're not interested in rezoning the western hills . " ',that is the point of view of Lerno, Clay, Arrambide and McKinney? Johnson again, "I don't see the update changing the rural character of our town. " "Me thinks he does protest too much, " said Shakespeare . An excuse for redoing the entire plan is "other cities are doing it" . It sounds like a teenager's excuse for staying out too late or drink- ins:: "Other kids are doing it. " The fact is most other cities are NOT doing it. The Tribune told us city officials plan workshops "to receive commun- ity input and to allow residents to help determine what Atascadero should look like in 10 or 20 years" . 20 years? ! Wade' s quote about the -workshops was my favorite: "It is important for the General Plan to be seen as a document representing the community. " A real Freudian slip. "To be seen as a document . . " not to- be a document that :represents the community. Roy Patrick, editor of the Shafter Press where Wade was city manager, said, "I never saa a city administration that is better at smoke and mirrors. " 000029 9/14/99 Page 2 D'.McNeil With a 4-l:..council which has never denied a lot split or a General Plan Amendment and Wade McKinney at the helm, who believes the workshops will be more than windowdressing, especially since the •Redevelopment workshops were such a farce. A brochure of glade' s previous town, Shafter, bragged about "' a healthy growth rate of just under 10;x." Our . General Plan calls for a a,�Lf6growth rate. Shafter annexed 6.5 sq. mi. and quadrupled in size. I guess Wade wants to double , tripleorquadruple the size of Atascadero so it can go on his resume when he applies to an ever- larger city for an ever-greater salary. This proposed update is NOT required by law--only the Housing Element. Tell the Council to stick to the law. We want the people ' s General Plan, not a McKinney plan which will mainly serve developers like Kelly Gearhart whose naive is on every agenda. Doroth�F. Plc Neil 8765 Sierra Vista Rd. Atascadero, CA 93422 00003C Attachment: E Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: 9/14/99 WILLIAM J. ZIMMERI+�AN 6225 LOMITAS RD. SEPT. 14, 1999 I 'M SPEAKING AS AN INDIVIDUAL, BEFORE PROCEEDING , THE CITY SHOULD COMPLETE THE PRESENT SURVEY TO GET A BASE. YOU ALREADY HAVE A PROJECTED COST OF $15, 000 - $20, 000 FOR THIS. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT WOULD BE UNCONSCIONABLE TO SPEND $200,000 - $3500000 FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES TO REVIEW THE GENERAL PLAN. OVER THE YEARS THE CITY HAS SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON CONSULTANT SERVICES WHOSE RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED. ATASCADERO IS BECOMING A CONSULTANTS FULL EMPLOYMXNT ACT. THE BEST JOB WAS DONE B�' OUR FOUNDERS WHO, AS VOLUNTEERS, DEVELOPED THE ORIGINAL PLAN AND SET THE VISION FOR ATASCADERO TO BE THE JEWEL OF THE NORTH COUNTY. SPENDING A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY ON REVISING THE GENERAL PLAN WON'T MAKE A PROFIT. IT IS HARD TO FATHOM WHERE A MEANINGFUL RETURN ON INVESTMENT WILL BE GENERATED. WHY IS THERE A NEED TO DEVELOP INCREASED RESIDENTIAL BUILDOUT? ATASCADERO ALREADY FSS A VISION TO BE A SPECIAL PLACE UNLIK EVERY OTHER TOWN. THIS VISION SHOULD RESULT IN INCREASED. PROPERTY VALUES AND A GREAT QUALITY OF LIFE FOR RESIDENTS. WILLIAM J Z • IMM:ERMAN • 00001 ITEM NUMBER: A - 2 DATE: 10/12/99 gin leis 1_9M9 Atascadero City Council Staff Report-'Community Development Department Zone Change 99009; ANX 99001 Atascadero State Hospital / Chalk Mountain-Golf Course Annexation Pre-zoning and Initiation of Annexation RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council introduce for the second 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 second reading. DISCUSSION: On September 28, 1999, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing to consider a pre-zone change and annexation that would: • Provide the City with more logical and uniform boundaries that are consistent with State, County, and local plans. • Provide more efficient public services to the territory considered. • Provide additional revenue to the City that would help off set the impact these facilities have on the City. 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: The City could expect to receive an additional State allocation of approximately $60,000, based on the State Hospital's current population, and would also receive a minor amount of monies from the sales tax revenues from the golf course. The exact revenue that will be generated from the annexation is dependent on the tax sharing agreement with the County that is still being negotiated. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 365 000032 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 admittedonthe 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 Chante: 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, 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, 000033 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 31st day after its final passage. 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: CITY OF ATASCADERO By: Ray Johnson, Mayor Attest: Marcia M. Torgerson, City Clerk Approved as to form: Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney 0000311 ITEM NUMBER: A - 3 DATE:-1 0/12/99 . e,M 0i IM 1-07-9 s � e i Atascadero City Council Staff Report - Community Development Department Zone Change 99008 Auto Dealers/Sales Lots Code Text Amendments (Staff initiated) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council introduce, for second reading by title only, Ordinance No. 364, amending zoning code text associated with Auto Dealers and Sales Lots. DISCUSSION: On September 28, 1999, the CityCouncil conducted a Public Hearing to consider adoption of amendments to the zoning text that 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. Following the -close of the Public Hearing, the City Council introduced the Ordinance for its first reading. Changes made by the City Council to the Ordinance during its first reading have been incorporated and it is ready for final adoption as attached. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 364 000035 ORDINANCE NO.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 t ob e 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. 0 4. The proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan of the City of Atascadero. 000036 • City of Atascadero Draft Ordinance No. 364 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 31"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 X0003'7 Exhibit A Ordinance 364 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 MehTseheffte and Veh-i�Dealers (new and used) and Supplies : Retail trade establishments selling new and used automobiles and light trucks, beats,—ffieb; ,�ehefR_s, V eei-eatreTa,�T ��ie, � -(rare-l-tt hells) , reei-eatrenal and iatility tY__ile_s, fRetei-izee faVm egd±p--tent . 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 ffietei- vehieles, –recreational vehicles, recreational and utility trailers, motorized farm equipment, boats, heavy trucks (eveL- 1 ten) , mobilehomes, construction equipment, .,h nei-y or other heavy equipment; outdoor equipment rental yards; or large scale temporary or permanent outdoor sales activities, si:ieh– including but not limited to, a--+ swap meets and flea markets . 000038 Exhibit B Ordinance 364 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. 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 0909:39 (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) (9) Ame�eb�ehe�e,- ,;ehiel e—dealer—and��5�i ems—(-Ste Z' Seetie �'—'6 . 16Ste— (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) (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 uses shall be as provided by Section 9-2 . 109 (Conditional Use Permits) x (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 . 000041 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 0000,12 • (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 (g) Public assembly and entertainment (h) 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 . 00' 0,3.3 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 '—zTrc r}ce�Re�3 Raeler; s eh erie and ;oL.esere dealers and 5idplier=3–(See- Geetien 9 616�;) (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) -(tee-)—ales lets (See Seetien -9 6.1�39)- 0000,1111 (t) Small scale manufacturing (u) Stone and cut stone products (v) Temporary events (See Section 9-6 . 177) (w) Temporary or seasonal sales (See Section 9-6 . 174) (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 000045 (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. • 000 f, 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) —Gales le to (See--S ee t l ozn—a . 1��9)- (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 (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) (t) Sales lots (See Section 9-6 . 139) 9-3 . 304 . Lot Size : There shall be no minimum lot size in the Industrial Park Zone . 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) (i) Transit stations and terminals 0 � (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 . Exhibit C Ordinance 364 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 4:n the GR, GG and-GPK zenes are subject to the following 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, i-eei-eatier vxehieles 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 -�-ehieles shall be limited to new and used automobiles in operable condition. ewe ept that he—eudleei- display er- stegg e ef any—p=tee t e- pi-ehibited. (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. feL- ffieteiceyele—ee fReped deale=c en (f) Site Surfacing: Auto Dealer display lots shall be surfaced with concrete or A.C. paving. 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 50 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 000051 screened from public views . (h) Street Frontage Fencing: Fencing along street frontages shall 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 Wised-ems -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. ewee-spaee . (moi ii) Landscaping: A Vie- ten foot wide landscaping strip is 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) . (47v iii) Screening: All interior property lines are to be screened with a six-foot high solid wall or fence that provides similar screening effect . (�iv) 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) . (Af-irv) Site Surfacing: A sales lot is to be surfaced with concrete,- or A.C. paving in the CS zone.jIn 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 type 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 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. 000053 ITEM NUMBER: A - 4 BATE: 10/12/99 Ito IM iaia ps s C1lD Atascadero City Council Staff Report - City Manager's Office Memorandum of Understanding for the Atascadero Firefighters Bargaining Unit RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council approve the Memorandum of Understanding, authorizing salaries and benefitsfor the Atascadero Firefighters Bargaining Unit for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. BACKGROUND: The City of Atascadero and the Atascadero Firefighters Bargaining Unit have completed the required"meet and confer"process to an agreement for labor for the,1999-2000 fiscal year. The City and the Bargaining Unit have employed the "Interest Based Bargaining" process for the second year which has enhanced communications throughout the organization. DISCUSSION: The attached Memorandum of Understanding reflects some minor cleanup language and a salary inequity adjustment consistent with the Council's authorization. The inequity adjustment was initially reviewed last fiscal year and has been reviewed by all the employee associations/union throughout this last year. A plan to adjust salaries bringing Atascadero Firefighters closer to the average salaries for San Luis Obispo County is implemented by this document. On the average, Atascadero salaries remain below the county-wide average for similar positions in the other cities. The salary changes are included in the Annual Budget approved by Council`. The Atascadero Firefighters Bargaining Unit has been supportive of the Council and understanding of the City's financial`condition. They have worked steadfastly to improve conditions and build a healthy financial climate where the City can again compete with the surrounding cities. FISCAL IMPACT: _ The costs for the proposal are contained within the Annual Operating Budget. Total increased costs for this unit is approximately 5%of salary. 000054 ITEM NUMBER: A - 4 DATE: 10/12/99 RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT: Administration- City Manager _ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum of Understanding Atascadero Firefighters Bargaining Unit 000055 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE ATASCADERO FIREFIGHTERS BARGAINING UNIT AND CITY OF ATASCADERO JULY 11 1999 TO JUNE 30, 2000 000056 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING • ATASCADERO FIREFIGHTERS' BARGAINING UNIT AND CITY OF ATASCADERO JULY 1, 1999 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE I-GENERAL PROVISIONS.....................................................................................1 SECTION1.1 PREAMBLE....................................................................:..............................................................1 SECTION1.2 RECOGNITION.............................................................................................................................1 SECTION1.3 SEVERANCE.................................................................................................................................1 SECTION1.4 SOLE AGREEMENT.....................................................................................................................1 SECTION 1.5 FULL FORCE AND EFFECT........................................................................................................2 ARTICLE H-RESPECTIVE RIGHTS........................................................................................2 SECTION2.1 ASSOCIATION RIGHTS...............................................................................................................2 SECTION2.2 CITY RIGHTS................................................................................................................................2 SECTION 2.3 PEACEFUL PERFORMANCE..............................................................................2 ARTICLE III-HOURS OF WORK AND OVERTIME....................................................................3 SECTION3.1 HOURS OF WORK........................................................................................................................3 SECTION'.2 OVERTIME....................................................................................................................................3 SECTION3.3 CALLBACK PAY..........................................................................................................................4 SECTION ".4 STANDBY TIME...........................................................................................................................4 ARTICLE IV-PAY PROVISIONS.............................................................................................4 SECTION4.1 SALARY........................................................................................................................................4 SECTION4.2 RETIREMENT...............................................................................................................................4 SECTION 4.3 SICK LEAVE/STAY WELL PLAN..............................................................................................5 SECTION4.4 VACATION LEAVE......................................................................................................................5 SECTION4.5 HOLIDAYS....................................................................................................................................5 SECTION4.6 BEREAVEMENT LEAVE.............................................................................................................5 SECTION4.7 MILITARY LEAVE.......................................................................................................................6 SECTION4.8 PARAMEDIC PAY........................................................................................................................6 SECTION 4.9 COMMON MESS ARRANGEMENT...........................................................................................6 ARTICLE V-HEALTH AND WELFARE.................................................................................6 SECTION 5.1 MEDICAL AND DENTAL INSURANCE COVERAGE..............................................................6 SECTION5.2 PROBATION..................................................................................................................................6 SECTION 5.3 PROMOTIONAL OPPORTUNTIES ............................................................................................7 SECTION 5.4 PHYSICAL FITNESS.........................................................................................7 ARTICLE VI-CLOSING PROVISIONS....................................................................................7 SECTION 6.1 COMPARATIVE SALARY AND BENEFITS.............................................................7 SECTION6.2 TERM.............................................................................................................................................7 SECTION6.3 SIGNATURES................................................................................................................................7 000057 ARTICLE I-GENERAL PROVISIONS SECTION 1.1 PREAMBLE This Memorandum of Understanding is made and entered into between the City of Atascadero,hereinafter referred to as the"City"and the Atascadero Firefighters' Bargaining Unit,hereinafter referred to as the"Association"pursuant to California Government Code Section 3500,et seq.and the City's Employer-Employee Relations Policy. The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding(MOU)is the establishment of wages,hours and other terms and conditions of employment. The City and Association agree that the provisions of this MOU shall be applied equally to all employees covered herein without favor or discrimination because of race,creed,color,sex,age,national origin,political or religious affiliations or association memberships. Whenever the masculine gender is used in this MOU,it shall be understood to include the feminine gender. SECTION 1.2 RECOGNITION a. The City of Atascadero recognizes the Association as the recognized and exclusive representative for the following classifications: • Firefighter • Fire Engineer b. This recognition is exclusive of management employees and temporary employees. c. The City agrees to meet and confer and otherwise deal exclusively with the Association on all matters relating to the scope of representation under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act(Government Code Section 3500, et seq.),and as provided under the City's Employer-Employee Relations Policy. SECTION 1.3 SEVERANCE a. If any provision of the Agreement should be found invalid,unconstitutional,unlawful,or unenforceable by reason of any existing or subsequently enacted constitutional or legislative provision shall be severed, and all other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for the duration of the Agreement. b. In the event that any provision of the MOU should be found invalid, unconstitutional, unlawful or unenforceable, the City and the Association agree to meet and confer in a timely manner in an attempt to negotiate a substitute provision. Such negotiations shall apply only to the severed provision of the Agreement and shall not in any way modify or impact the remaining provisions of the existing MOU. SECTION 1.4 SOLE AGREEMENT a. The City and the Association agree that to the extent that any provision addressing wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment negotiable under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act found outside this MOU and are in conflict thereof,this MOU shall prevail. b. If,during the term of the MOU,the parties should mutually agree to modify,amend,or alter the provisions of this MOU in any respect,any such change shall be effective only if and when reduced to writing and executed by the authorized representatives of the City and the Association. Any such changes validly made shall become part of this MOU and subject to its terms. Firefighters' MOU 1999/00 - Page 00005S SECTION 1.5 FULL FORCE AND EFFECT a. All wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment that are negotiable subjects of bargaining under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, including those set in this MOU,shall remain in full force and effect during the term of this MOU unless changed by mutual agreement. b. The City will abide by the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act where and when it applies to the Association. ARTICLE II-RESPECTIVE RIGHTS SECTION 2.1 ASSOCIATION RIGHTS The Association shall have the following rights and responsibilities: a. Reasonable advance notice of any City ordinance,rule,resolution,or regulation directly relating to matters within the scope of representation proposed to be adopted by the City Council. b. Reasonable use of one bulletin board at all Fire Department stations. c. The right to payroll deductions made for payments or organization dues and for City approved programs. d. The use of City facilities for regular,normal and lawful Association activities,providing that approval of the City Manager or his/her designee has been obtained.. e. Reasonable access to employee work locations for officers of the Association and their officially designated representatives for the purpose of processing grievances or contacting members of the organization concerning business within the scope of representation. Access shall be restricted so as not to interfere with the normal operations of any department or with established safety or security requirements. SECTION 2.2 CITY RIGHTS a. The authority of the City includes, but is not limited to the exclusive right to determine the standards of service; determine the procedures and standards of selection for employment and promotion; direct its employees; take disciplinary action for"just cause",relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reason;maintain the efficiency of governmental operations;determine the methods,staffing and personnel by which governmental operations are to be conducted;determine the content of job classifications;take all necessary actions to carry out its mission in emergencies; exercise complete control and discretion over its organizations and the technology of performing its work; provided, however, that the exercise and retention of such rights does not preclude employees or their representatives from consulting or raising grievances over the consequences or impact that decisions on these matters may have on wage, hours and other terms of employment. SECTION 2.3 PEACEFUL PERFORMANCE a. The parties to this MOU recognize and acknowledge that the services performed by the City employees covered by this Agreement are essential to the public health,safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of Atascadero. Association agrees that under no circumstances will the Association recommend,encourage,cause or promote its members to initiate,participate in,nor will any member of the bargaining unit take part in,any strike,sit-down, stay-in,sick-out,slow-down,of picketing(hereinafter collectively referred to as "work- stoppage) in any office or department of the City,nor to Curtail any work or restrict any production,or interfere with any operation of the City. In the event of any such work stoppage by any member of the bargaining unit, Firefighters' MOU 1999/00 Page 2 00 the City shall not be required to negotiate on the merits of any dispute which may have risen to such work stoppage until said work stoppage has ceased. b, In the event of any work stoppage,during the term of this MOU,whether by the Association or by any member of the bargaining unit,the Association by its officers,shall immediately declare in writing and publicize that such work stoppage is illegal and unauthorized,and further direct its members in writing to cease the said conduct and resume work. Copies of such written notices shall be served upon the City. If in the event of any work stoppage the Association promptly and in good faith performs the obligations of this paragraph,and providing the Association has not otherwise authorized,permitted or encouraged such work stoppage,the Association shall not be liable for any damages caused by the violation of this provision. However,the City shall have the right to discipline,up to and including discharge, any employee who instigates,participates in, or gives leadership to,any work stoppage activity herein prohibited, and the City shall also have the right to seek full legal redress, including damages,against any such employees. ARTICLE III--HOURS OF WORK AND OVERTIME SECTION 3.1 HOURS OF WORK a. Work Period The normal work period shall be seven (7) days with a maximum non-overtime of fifty-six (56) hours. This is equivalent to 121.33 shifts per year. ib. Definition of Shift Employees `�■� Shift employees(excluding administrative assignments)are assigned to positions which duties are performed on a twenty-four(24)hour day,seven(7)days a week basis,and include: Firefighters Fire Engineers SECTION 3.2 OVERTIME a. Rate Employees shall be paid overtime at the rate of time and one-half his/her regular rate of pay. b. Hours Paid Overtime shall be paid after fifty-six(56)hours worked in a work period. Paid time off shall be considered time worked for overtime purposes. c. Compensating Time Earned(CTE) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section,employees may be granted CTE for overtime credit computed at time and one-half at the mutual convenience of the Fire Department and the employee. Employees may accumulate up to six(6)shifts(144 hours)of compensatory Time Earned. d. Scheduling Compensating Time Off(CTO) • Requests to use CTO shall be granted with due regard for operational necessity such as staffing levels. Firefighters' MOU 1999/00 Page 3 SECTION 3.3 CALLBACK PAY Employees who are called to duty at a time they are not working shall be compensated a minimum compensation of two (2)hours at time and one-half rate of pay. SECTION 3.4 STANDBY TIME a. Employees assigned standby duty shall receive Twenty-five Dollars($25.00)for each day of standby duty. b. Employees responding to work from standby shall receive a minimum of two hours pay at straight time except as provided herein. Employees working in excess of one hour and twenty minutes once called back shall receive time and one-half pay for hours worked in excess of one hour and twenty minutes,or two hours straight time,whichever is greater. Employees responding to work as a result of an emergency callback request shall receive a minimum of two hours pay at time and one-half. c. The Fire Chief may place employees on standby status. Standby duty shall not be considered as hours worked for the purpose of computing overtime. d. Employees on standby status provide the Police Dispatcher with a telephone number where he/she can be reached directly; and be able to respond to the predetermined duty assignment within twenty minutes from the time of notification. ARTICLE IV- PAY PROVISIONS SECTION 4.1 SALARY The following monthly salaries become effective July 1, 1998. CLASSIFICATION RANGE A B C D E Firefighter 24 2,921.27 3,067.34 3,220.71 3,381.74 3,550.83 Fire Engineer 26 3,067.34 3,220.71 3,381.74 3,550.83 1 3,728.37 a. Steps B,C, D,and E may be paid upon completion of twelve months of employment at the preceding step where the employee has demonstrated at least satisfactory job progress and normally increasing productivity, and upon recommendation of the Department Head and approval of the City Manager. b. The Association and the City recognize that the 1999-00 Memorandum of Understanding is the first step in correcting salary inequities between Atascadero employees and the comparisons within San Luis Obispo County. It is further recognized that the salary schedule is the first attempt at documenting Atascadero salaries following the initial inequity adjustment and may be subject to change in future negotiations. SECTION 4.2 RETIREMENT a. Employees will be provided retirement benefits through the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). Firefighters and Fire Engineers will be provided benefits pursuant to the 2%@ 50 formula (Section 21252.0 of the Government Code)for Sworn Safety Members(as defined by CalPERS)and the City will pay the employee contribution of nine(9%)percent. b. The CalPERS retirement for Sworn Safety Members(as defined by CaIPERS) includes Level Four(4)of the 1959 Survivor's Benefit. The employees shall pay the monthly cost of the benefit. Firefighters' MOU 1999/00 Page 4 i0000,61 • c. The City shall implement the Military Service Credit(Section 20930.3 of the Government Code)provided there is no direct cost to the City. SECTION 4.3 SICK LEAVE/STAY WELL PLAN a. Unit members shall earn and use sick leave subject to the provisions of the City of Atascadero Rules and Regulations. Sick Leave credited from either District or City service may be used as available and needed subject to the City's Personnel Rules and Regulations,except that any sick leave used shall first be deducted from the credited amount carried over from District service until such credits are exhausted. It is agreed that nothing herein shall be construed as providing any vested right,monetary or otherwise,to any unused sick leave existing at time of discharge or voluntary separation from City service,or at time of retirement in accordance with the City's Public Employees Retirement System contract. b. Sick leave accumulates at a rate of 5.54 hours per pay period. There is no limit to the accumulation. c. Employees with 576.16 or more hours of accumulated sick leave shall be eligible for the Stay Well Bonus.The Stay Well Bonus will be implemented as follows: 1. The sick leave pay-off will occur during fifty-two(52)week period(ending generally on the last day of the second pay-period in November) after an employee has accumulated and maintained 576.16 hours of sick leave. 2. Once the eligibility requirements have been met,an employee may opt to receive a pay-off equal to one-third (1/3))of the unused annual allotment of sick leave. (The annual allotment is 144.04 hours). 3. Checks will be prepared by December 15 of each year. If the 15`h is a Saturday or Sunday, check will be prepared the following Monday. SECTION 4.4 VACATION LEAVE a. Employees shall be entitled to vacation leave consistent with the City Personnel Rules and Regulations. b. It is agreed and understood that the taking of vacation shall be as scheduled by the Fire Chief subject to the needs of the City. SECTION 4.5 HOLIDAYS a. Employees shall receive five and 6/10 (5.6)shifts annually. Said holidays shall be credited in accordance with procedures established by the Personnel Officer. b. Holiday time may be used as either paid time off or paid in cash at the option of the employee with the approval of the Fire Chief. SECTION 4.6 BEREAVEMENT LEAVE Employees shall be granted bereavement leave pursuant to the City Personnel Rules and Regulations in the event of death of his/her spouse,child,parent,grandparent,grandchild, son-in-law,daughter-in-law, mother-in-law, father- in-law, brother,sister,brother-in-law,and sister-in-law. Firefighters' MOU 1999/00 Page 5 000062 SECTION 4.7 MILITARY LEAVE Military leave shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of State and Federal law. All employees entitled to military leave shall give the appointing power an opportunity within the limits of military regulations to determine when such leave shall be taken. SECTION 4.8 PARAMEDIC PAY The City shall pay three hundred fifty dollars$(350)per month to those employees who are trained,qualified and assigned by the Fire Chief to E.M.T.Paramedic duties. SECTION 4.9 COMMON MESS ARRANGMENT Unit employees under a common mess arrangement,agree to contribute to congregate meals at the station house in the amount required to cover the cost of those meals, irrespective of whether the employee chooses to eat the meal. ARTICLE V-HEALTH AND WELFARE SECTION 5.1 MEDICAL AND DENTAL INSURANCE COVERAGE a. City shall pay all medical, dental,vision and life insurance benefit premiums for each unit member employee for the term of this agreement, under the City sponsored plans based upon HMO plan costs b. The City agrees to pay 5305 per month,per employee,toward the monthly medical,dental,vision and life insurance premiums for all eligible employee spouses,children or dependents as defined by the insurance agreements.The City will contribute 50%of increased costs for dependent health insurance premiums based upon the HMO plan premium costs. c. Any funds remaining from the City's contribution toward insurance coverage shall be paid to the employee as additional compensation. d. The City shall provide term life insurance coverage for each employee in a total amount of fifteen thousand ($15,000)dollars during the term of this agreement. e. The City shall provide a term life insurance policy for each eligible dependent enrolled in health coverage in a total amount of one thousand(S 1,000)dollars per dependent during the term of this agreement. f. The Medical Insurance Committee may recommend changes in the level of service and service providers to the City during the term of the agreement. Each recognized bargaining unit shall have authority to vote on a pro- rated basis. The ratio shall be based on the number of unit employees to the number of employees eligible for health benefits. g. Flexible Benefits Plan. The City shall make available to employees covered by this MOU a Flexible Benefit Plan, in compliance with applicable Internal Revenue Code provisions. The plan will enable an employee,on a voluntary basis, cover additional out of pocket premium expenses for insurance through pretax payroll dollars. SECTION 5.2 PROBATION The probationary period for newly hired Firefighters or Fire Engineers shall be eighteen months. The probationary Firefighters' MOU 1999/00 Page 6 000063 period for employees promoted to Fire Engineers shall be twelve months. SECTION 5.3 PROMOTIONAL OPPORTUNITIES Upon completion of the probationary period,qualified employees in the classification of firefighter will be provided an opportunity to be examined and promoted to the classification of Fire Engineer provided there is a vacancy. There shall be a maximum of ten(10)Fire Engineer positions funded. SECTION 5.4 PHYSICAL FITNESS The parties agree to establish a committee consisting of an equal number of representatives from the City and the Association for the purpose of developing a physical fitness program that will be implemented in the Fire Department for all employees in the unit. The committee will meet as needed to develop recommendations for the Fire Chief. The physical fitness program will include the following elements: 1)Mandatory participation;2)Established standards;3)City provided physicals. ARTICLE VI-CLOSING PROVISIONS SECTION 6.1 COMPARATIVE SALARY AND BENEFITS The parties agree that future Cost of Living Allowances and health benefits for bargaining units shall be equal to all other City employees. Unit employees shall receive any increases in benefits to COLA,health benefits and leave accruals in an amount at least equal to that which is received by other bargaining units. The cost of these additional benefits shall be calculated in a manner to provide accurate comparison with the other bargaining unit. SECTION 6.2 TERM The term of this MOU shall commence on July 1, 1998, and expire on June 30, 1999. SECTION 6.3 SIGNATURES This MOU has en ratified and adopted pursuant to the recommendation of the following representatives: Association D e Association Date CITY OF ATASCADE O Mayor Date City Manager Date Firefighters' MOU 1999/00 Page 7 00001;4 ITEM NUMBER: B—1 a r DATE: 10/12/99 Atascadero City Council Staff Report - Community Development Department Sewer Service Extensions for Failed Septic Systems Beyond to U.S.L. General Plan Text Amendment GPA 99009 RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommends Council adopt Resolution No. 1999-061, adopting a Statutory.CEQA Exemption Section 15061`.b.3. and approving General Plan Text Amendment 99009. DISCUSSION: Back rg bund: On December 12, 1992 the City Council adopted resolution 128-92 permitting the temporary sewer hook-up of the property located at 8475 San Gabriel Road (refer to Attachment 2). This property is located outside of the Urban Services Line (USL) and had a history of septic system failures related to the lack of suitable soils. When the Council adopted the resolution, they acknowledged that a permanent sewer connection could not be allowed until the General Plan Text was amended to allow for connections beyond the USL. To address this issue, Council directed staff to process a Text Amendment to expand the "cease and desist" exception language to apply to unique site conditions such as those at 8475 San Gabriel.' For reasons unknown to staff,the General Plan Text Amendment was never`processed. Analysis: General Plan Policy states that sewer service will be provided only to properties within the Urban Services Line (USL), with the exception of cease and desist areas beyond the USL. The primary land use beyond the USL is the Suburban Single Family (SSF) Designation, which is required to use septic systems. This policy creates an issue in certain areas within the SSF Land Use Area that lack soils that are suitable for septic systems. ;These areas are prone to system failures and.experience poor peculation rates of wastewater especially during the rainy season. Typically these areas, are not identified as cease and desist areas and therefore do not qualify for the extension of sewer service undercurrent General Plan policy. Under current General Plan policy, the only way to extend sewer service to these areas would be to extend the-USL and rezone the area to a' Residential Single Family Zoning District with smaller lot sizes. The drawback of this approach is the growth inducing potential and the creation of spot zones to address individual.lots like the one at 8475 San Gabriel. It appears that 1 000065 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 10/12/99 a more appropriate solution would be to allow the provision of sewer service outside of the USL that would not affect General Plan Land Uses or Zoning Districts. The Planning Commission has recommended the following Text Amendment to Section IIC.5.b. of the General Plan Land Use Element to address this issue. The Commission discussed in length the third criteria for sewer extension which required a finding that the extension wouldnot be growth inducing. Some Commissioners were concerned that the this criteria was not necessary since the General Plan sets development standards. Proposed General Plan Text Amendment Section ILC.5.b. Areas Not Requiring Amendment of the General Plan 1. Cease and desist areas and other septic problem areas with the Urban Service Line. 2.' Other areas with the Urban Services Line. 3. Cease and desist areas beyond the Urban Service Line. 4. Areas beyond the Urban Services Line that meet the following; criteria: (a) soil suitability for septic systems is inadequate, (b) there is no practical way of repairing existing failed systems, and (c) the extension of sewer service will not be growth inducing. Approval of the proposed Text Amendment would allow the temporary hook-up at 8475 San Gabriel, and others like it, to become legal permanent sewer connections. In addition to these existing "temporary" hook-ups, staff has received other requests for sewer hook-ups in areas where,existing septic systems are prone to failure and poor operation. A specific case is the neighborhood located on Colima Avenue north of San Anselmo Avenue. Staff has determined that this area should be considered for sewer service beyond the USL pending the approval the Text Amendment. Since the sewer extensions would occur outside of the USL and not change the . General Plan or g Zoning District, additional development from lot splits would not result. Additionally, the elimination of failing septic systems would reduce the potential for groundwater pollution and human health hazards. If the Text Amendment is not approved then the following may occur.; First, areas with failing systems will remain unaddressed, creating potential health and pollution risk and future cease . and desist areas. Secondly, there will be pressure to extend the USL and rezone these areas to allow sewer connection, which will have the effect of inducing growth by decreasing the minimum lot size in these areas. Environmental Review: Based on Section 15061.b.3. of the California Environmental Quality Act staff recommends that the project be determined to be Statutorily Exempt from the CEQA Review process and that no additional environmental review is required. The Section 15061.b.3. Statutory Exemption pertains to projects where it can be seen with certainty that there is no 000066 ITEM NUMBER: B—1 DATE: 10/12/99 possibility for a significant environmental impact resulting. The project description limits the provision of sewer service only to areas with failed septic systems and where additional growth would not result. Conclusion: • The Amendment would complete a text change that the Council requested in 1992, and would make existing temporary sewer connections permanent. • The Amendment could reduce public health threats without creating a growth inducing impact. • The Amendment would allow the City to provide sewer services to particular parcels and areas that are prone to septic system failures outside of the USL. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact will result directly from the General Plan Amendment. Future sewer projects allowed by the Amendment may have a fiscal impact. ALTERNATIVES: for the text amendment. 1. The Council may adopt revised language Any text changes should be stated in the motion. 2. The Council may decide not to amend the text of the General Plan. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Attachment 1: General Plan Text Section II.C.5.b. 2. Attachment 2: Council Resolution 128-92 3. Attachment 3: Planning Commission Minutes 9/21/99 4. Attachment 4: Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Approval 5. Attachment 5: City Council Resolution of Approval 000067 Attachment 1: General Plan Text Section II.C.5.b. GPA 99009 Sewer Service Extensions for Failed Septic Systems Beyond the U.S.L. Areas Not Requiring Amendment of the General Plan: 1. Cease and desist areas, and other septic problem areas within the Urban Service Line. 2. Other areas within the Urban Service Line. 3. Cease and desist areas beyond the Urban Service Line. ° Areas Requiring General Plan Amendment: 4. Other areas beyond the Urban Service Line requiring a more intensive General Plan map land use designation provided that the following findings are made: a. Extension of sewer service to the area will not overburden the city's sewer plant or collection system. b. Extension of sewer service to the area will not affect service to priority areas 1 through 3. A majority of the city's developed area will continue to be served by private sewage disposal. The Soil Conservation Service ranks much of the suburban residential and agricultural designated lands in the city of Atascadero as severe for septic systems, and most systems require engineered plans. Percolation tests shall be performed for each such lot prior to issuance of building permits. Percolation tests shall be 11-21 000068 Attachment 2: Council Resolution 128-92 GPA 99009 • Sewer Service Extensions for Failed Septic Systems Beyond the U.S.L. RESOLUTION NO. 128-92 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL PERMITTING TEMPORARY SEWER HOOK-IIP TO 8475 SAN GABRIEL ROAD WHEREAS, Deborah Goodyear, residing at 8475 San Gabriel Road has experienced numerous septic leach field failures on her prop- arty resulting in a health hazard; and WHEREAS, a Registered Civil Engineer, Eric J. Gobler, RCE 30438 , has determined that the soils are unsuitable for a conventional absorption system and the site's size, configuration, and topography preclude an alternative evapotranspiration type system; and WHEREAS, there is a sewer line in front of this property in San Gabriel Road serving the San Gabriel Elementary School; and WHEREAS, said property is located in the suburban residential (RS) land-use designation in the General Plan and is beyond the Urban Ser-iices Line; and WHEREAS, the extension of sewer service beyond the Urban Services Line is limited by the 1992 Land Use Element to "cease and desist" areas; and WHEREAS, this property is not within a "cease and desist" area as identified by the Regional Water Quality Control Board; and WHEREAS, the City Council is desirous of initiating a General Plan Amendment to consider expanding the "cease and desist" exceo- tion language in the General Plan to apply to unique situations such as is evident at 8475 San Gabriel where no increase in density or neighborhood character will result; and WHEREAS, processing of either an independent General Plan Amendment or awaiting the results of said General Plan recommendation could not be done in a timely way with respect to the failed system on the Goodyear property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. City Council agrees to permit Ms. Goodyear, at her. expense, to have a temporary sewer hook-up to 8475 San Gabriel Road; 2. Establishment of said temporary hook-up into a permanent service shall be contingent on amendment of the General Plan enabling this action; 000069 Resolution No. 128-92 Page 2 3 . Said temporary service shall be contingent on Ms. Goodyear agreeing, in writing, to immediately disconnect said service and repair said septic system and hold the City harmless should the contemplated General Plan Amendment not be approved. In such event, City shall refund sewer annexation fee and other charges, less administrative costs of providing such service. On motion by Council , and seconded by , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO By: ROBERT P. NIMMO, Mayor ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: HENRY ENGEN, Director Community Development 0000 0 Planning Commission Meeting—September 21, 1999 Page 13 of 16 MAttachment 3: Planning Commission Minutes 9/21/99 GPA 99009 Sewer Service Extensions for Failed Septic Systems Beyond the U.S.L. ACTION: Moved by Commissioner Zimmerman and seconded by Commissioner Fonzi to adopt Resolution PC 1999-048, making a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Class 19 Categorical Exemption from CEQA, approve Zone Change 99009 to adopt the pre-zoning of the territory and initiate Annexation 99001, an application to LAFCo for Annexation. AYES: Commissioners Bentz, Carden, Fonzi, and Zimmerman (4) NOES: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioners Eddings and Jeanes (2) ABSTAINED: Commissioner Clark (1) MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Commissioner Clark rejoined the Commission. 6. GENERAL PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT 99009 (1999 CYCLE 3) The proposed project consists of a staff initiated amendment to the text of the General Plan Land Use Element Section II.C.5.b. The proposed Text Amendment would add a new provision for the City to provide sewer service outside of the Urban Services Line (USL). The proposed amendment would apply to areas beyond the USL that meet the following three criteria: (1) where soils have inadequate septic system suitability, and (2) where there is no practical way of repairing existing failing septic systems, and (3) where the provision of sewer service would not be growth inducing. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the City to provide sewer service within the Suburban Single Family Land Use Area where there is a history of septic system failures and the potential for water pollution and a threat to public health. Warren Frace, Planning Services Manager presented the staff report and answered questions of the Commission and public. There is an application on file where the Colima Street residents have asked that the entire neighborhood be allowci to coiuiect to the sewer systems due to a history of failed systems on the street. Staff Recommends approval of the project. • COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Zimmerman asked how this request is affected by the Council moratorium. 0000?. 1 Planning Commission Meeting—September 21, 1999 Page 14 of 16 Paul Saldana, responded that the moratorium does not affect any general plan amendments already process. Commissioner Fonzi asked for clarification between cease and desist condition #4 regarding failed systems. Warren Frace responded that the cease and desist determination is established by the County where there is a clear threat to public health. In a cease and desist situation where the property cannot hook up to a new system or design a new system, the residence cannot be inhabited. Condition #4 allows for determination where there is an area that may become a cease and desist area before it reaches that point. Commissioner Clark asked the following: • What type of impact would this have on the sewer system? • If an individual has a failed system and is unable to fix their current system, what is the cost to connect to the urban service line, and could it be waived? Warren Frace responded that these are looked at on a case by case basis. Staff would not recommend hooking into a system that does not have capacity. One of the provisions is that the entire cost of extending the lines, etc. would all be financial responsibility of the residence owner, as to not create a financial burden upon the City. Commissioner Fonzi can neighbors be forced in if their septic system works but next door doesn't? Warren Frace responded that general plan amendment would not force anybody in or out. .On Colima, for example, the creation of an assessment district that would include all of the properties that would benefit from service. A majority vote of those property owners is required to create an assessment district. If the assessment district passed, even those voting against it would be included in the assessment district. TESTIMONY: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Chairman Carden asked if this doesn't create an entitlement,why is Item C included? Warren Frace stated that one reason to leave it in is if a sewer extension is granted to a neighborhood, the three findings are made, then subsequently someone comes back and apply for a rezoning based on the fact there is now sewer service available so that they can accommodate smaller lot sizes. Staff could go back to the approval and say that the approval was based on that there would be no additional growth as part of that sewer extension. After much discussion between staff and the Commission regarding striking item 4c, Commissioner Fonzi asked for clarification of the motion. 0000 Planning Commission Meeting—September 21, 1999 Page 15 of 16 Commissioner Bentz requested including in the minutes that the Planning Commission considered removing item 4c but made a motion to adopt Resolution PC 1999-047 as submitted and recommend that City Council approve General Plan Text Amendment 99009 as submitted, but consider item 4c. Warren Frace recommended that the Commission make a motion to approve and recommend the proposal as submitted and a qualifier, to be added in the Council staff report, that the Commission would like Council to specifically consider the issue. ACTION: Moved by Commissioner Carden and seconded by Commissioner Bentz to adopt Resolution PC 1999-047,. making a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Statutory EQA Exemption Section 15061.b.3. and approve General Plan Test Amendment 99009. AYES: Commissioners Bentz, Carden, Clark, Fonzi, and Zimmerman (5) NOES: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioners Eddings and Jeanes (2) ABSTAINED: None (0) MOTION PASSED: 5-0 ANNOUNCEMENTS & REPORTS 6. Community Development Staff Comments & Reports Paul Saldana stated that the City Council took action to authorize the update of the General Plan and requested that staff bring back to them at their next meeting, a strategy and budget for accomplishing that project. In addition to that the Council enacted a moratorium on any general plan amendment applications submitted by private parties, to be effective October 1, 1999. In terms of scheduling, there are only four general plan amendments currently being processed that have complete applications. Three of those have already beeri heard before the Commission, and one staff anticipates to be heard within the next 60 days. The remaining five applications that were received, either in the 1998 or 1999 cycles, will be incorporated into the General Plan Update. Chairman Carden asked which general plan amendment application will be processed within the next 60 days. Paul Saldana responded that it is a request to change the general plan from suburban single family to moderate density single family. It is the Davis property located on Traffic Way on the other side of the Lakes project. Commissioner Clark asked what issues lead to Council placing the moratorium. Paul Saldafia responded that if the cycles were left open during the general plan update process, said process would be a moving target. Commissioner Zimmerman stated that he requested a general plan amendment quarterly report, August 3, 1999. He asked again for a listing of the nine particular submittals that are either Ln process or deemed incomplete to be given to the entire Commission. 000073 Planning Commission Resolution 1999-047 Attachment 4: Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Approval GPA 99009 Sewer Service Extensions for Failed Septic Systems Beyond the U.S.L. RESOLUTION NO. PC 1999-047 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN SECTION II.C.S.B. ADDING ADDITIONAL CRITERIA TO EXTEND SEWER SERVICE BEYOND THE URBAN SERVICE LINE (General Plan Text Amendment 99009) WHEREAS, staff has initiated General Plan Text Amendment 99009, Cycle 3 1999 to add additional criteria to the General Plan Section II.C.S b. to allow sewer service to be extended beyond the Urban Service Line; and, WHEREAS, the project can be determined to be Statutorily Exempt from the CEQA Review process under Section 15061.b.3. pertaining to projects where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility for a significant environmental impact resulting, and the project description limits the provision of sewer service only to areas with failed septic systems and where additional growth would not result; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a Public Hearing noticed for September 21, 1999 received public testimony prior to consideration of General Plan Amendment#99009; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to recommend approval of the General Plan Land Use Element Text to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission hereby takes the following actions: SECTION 1. Satutory Exemption from CEQA. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is Statutorily Exempt from the CEQA Review process under Section 15061.b.3. pertaining to projects where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility for a significant environmental impact resulting. SECTION 2. Finding. The Planning Commission finds the following: 1. The proposed General Plan Text Amendment is consistent with the intent of the General Plan goal of providing adequate public services. 2. The proposed General Plan Text Amendment is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Planning Commission Resolution 1999-047 SECTION 3. Recommendation for approval. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 99009 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 Carden and seconded by Commissioner Bentz the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bentz, Carden, Clark,Fonzi, and Zimmerman (5) NOES: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioners Eddings and Jeanes (2) ADOPTED: September 21, 1999 CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA Harold L. Carden III, Chairperson Attest: Paul M. Saldana Community Development Director 00 �S Planning Commission Resolution 1999-047 Exhibit A: Proposed General Plan Text Amendment GPA 99009 Sewer Service Extensions for Failed Septic Systems Beyond the U.S.L. Proposed General Plan Text Amendment Section II.C.5.b. Areas Not Requiring Amendment of the General Plan 1. Cease and desist areas and other septic problem areas with the Urban Service Line. 2. Other areas with the Urban Services Line. 3. Cease and desist areas beyond the Urban Service Line. 4. Areas beyond the Urban Services Line that meet the following criteria: (a) soil suitability for septic systems is inadequate, (b) there is no practical way of repairing existing failed systems, and (c) the extension of sewer service will not be growth inducing. 0000e6 Draft Council Resolution 1999-061 Attachment .5: City Council Resolution of Approval GPA 99009 Sewer Service Extensions for Failed Septic Systems Beyond the U.S.L. DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 1999-061 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN SECTION II.C.5.B. ADDING ADDITIONAL CRITERIA TO EXTEND SEWER SERVICE BEYOND THE URBAN SERVICE LINE (General Plan Text Amendment 99009) WHEREAS, staff has initiated General Plan Text Amendment 99009, Cycle 3 1999 to add additional criteria to the General Plan Section II.C.5.b. to allow sewer service to be extended beyond the Urban Service Line; and, WHEREAS, the project can be determined to be Statutorily Exempt from the CEQA Review process under Section 15061.b.3. pertaining to projects where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility fora significant environmental impact resulting, and the project description limits the provision of sewer service only to areas with failed septic systems and where additional growth would not result; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, held a Public Hearing noticed for September 21, 1999 received public testimony prior to consideration of General Plan Amendment#99009; and WHEREAS; the Planning Commission has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to recommend approval of the General Plan Land Use Element Text Amendment to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, held a Public Hearing noticed for October 12, 1999 and received public testimony prior to consideration of General Plan Amendment#99009; and NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council hereby takes the following actions: SECTION 1. Satutory Exemption from CEQA. The City Council finds that the proposed project is Statutorily Exempt from the CEQA Review process under Section 15061.b.3. pertaining to projects where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility for a significant environmental impact resulting. SECTION 2. Findin . The City Council finds the following: 1. The proposed General Plan Text Amendment is consistent with the intent of the General Plan goal of providing adequate public services. 0000 '7 Draft Council Resolution 1999-061 2. The proposed General Plan Text Amendment is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. SECTION 3.Approval. The City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment 99009 as shown on Exhibit A. 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 UUUU 41 Draft Council Resolution 1999-061 Exhibit A: Proposed General Plan Text Amendment GPA 99009 Sewer Service Extensions for Failed Septic Systems Beyond the U.S.L. Proposed General Plan Text Amendment Section H.C.5.b. Areas Not Requiring Amendment of the General Plan 5. Cease and desist areas and other septic problem areas with the Urban Service Line. 6. Other areas with the Urban Services Line. 7. Cease and desist areas beyond the Urban Service Line. 8. Areas beyond the Urban Services Line that meet the following criteria: (a) soil suitability for septic systems is inadequate, (b) there is no practical way of repairing existing failed systems, and (c) the extension of sewer service will not be growth inducing. 0000 9 ITEM NUMBER: B-2 a � ® DATE: 01/12/99 dais a is a A.tascadero City Council Staff Report - Community Development Department Colima Road Sewer Service Extension Authorization to Extend Service Beyond the USL ISI RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council adopt Resolution No. 1999-062, adopting a Statutory CEQA Exemption Section 15061.b.3. and approving the extension of sewer service and initiation of a project engineering study for Colima Road. DISCUSSION: Back round: In February of this year, Colima Road resident Jennifer EickemeY er contacted the Engineering Department to discuss possible installation of public sewer lines on her street. Mrs. Eickemeyer indicated that many of the properties experienced septic.system failures on a regular basis and contamination of the area with septic runoff is a constant concern. Refer to Attachment 1. A study area was established and a questionnaire was sent to all properties to determine the level of interest in the project. Of the 65 properties polled, replies were received from 32 of the properties— 15 yes and 17 no. By plotting the votes on a map of the area, staff was able to refine the boundaries of the district based upon interest. Mrs. Eickemeyer'then canvassed this area eventually receiving signatures on a petition of interest from over 50% of the residents. Because of the considerable expenditure of staff time required for the formation of an assessment district,property owners must demonstrate that sufficient neighborhood interest exists. Analysis: Currently a sewer line exists on San Anselmo Avenue approximately 600 feet south of Colima Road. In order to serve the properties in question on Colima Road the sewer line will need to be extended up San Anselmo Avenue and north on Colima Road. The properties on San Anselmo are within the Urban Service Line (USL), while the properties on Colima are outside the USL. The boundaries of the sewer service area have been established based on the resident's 000080 ITEM NUMBER: B-2 DATE:, 01/12/99 preliminary polling results and the routing requirements of the sewer line. Refer to Attachment 2. The approval of General Plan Text Amendment 99009 will would allow the extension of sewer service beyond the USL in the following cases (1) where soils have inadequate septic system suitability, and (2) where there is no practical way of repairing existing failing septic systems, and (3) where the provision of sewer service would not be growth inducing. In staff's review of the project, it appears that the three findings can be made to approve the sewer extension beyond the USL. Formation of the Assessment District: The procedures and requirements for the formation of an assessment district are dictated by State Statute. These regulations have recently undergone a substantial revision with the passage of Proposition 218 the"Right to Vote on Taxes Act"passed in 1996. The steps required for the formation of an assessment are clearly defined as: PREPARATION OF ENGINEER'S REPORT Identify all parcels which will have a special benefit conferred upon them. ➢ Determine the proportionate special benefit to each property.' NOTICING ➢ Notice mailed torecordowner of each parcel 45 days prior to hearing. ■ Notice contains: Total assessment for entire assessment district • Assessment chargeable on owner's parcel; • Duration of proposed assessment; ■ Reason for assessment; ■ Basis on which amount of proposed assessment was calculated; ■ Date,time and place of public hearing; ■ Summary of voting procedures and effect of majority protest • Ballot VOTING ➢ Property owners may now express their support or opposition to proposed assessment by ballot: ➢ Ballots must be returned before the conclusion of the public hearing ➢ Ballots tabulated at the public hearing ➢ No assessment if a majority protest exists.(Majority protest exists if ballots submitted in opposition exceed ballots submitted in favor of assessment.) t?U0081 ITEM NUMBER: B-2 DATE: 01/12/99 Environmental Review: Based on Section 15061.b.3. of the California Environmental Quality Act staff recommends that the project be determined to be Statutorily Exempt from the CEQA Review process and that no additional environmental review is required. The Section 15061.b.3. Statutory Exemption pertains to projects where it can be seen with certainty that there, is no possibility for a significant environmental impact resulting. The project description limits the provision of sewer service only to areas with failed septic systems and where additional growth would not result. Conclusion: • Extension of sewer service to Colima Road would be consistent with the General Plan following the approval of GPA 99009. • The cost of the project will be the responsibility of the neighborhood. • Extension of sewer service will improve wastewater disposal in the neighborhood and correct a historic pattern of failing septic systems. FISCAL IMPACT: Minimal: The engineering report and construction will be the responsibility of the neighborhood. Costs associated with preparation of the Engineer's Report will be the responsibility of the property owners. It is estimated that these costs could be between $7500 and $10,000. If approved, construction, engineering and financial service costs will be paid through the sale of bonds. The bonds will be repaid by the property owners at a term to be determined at the bond issue. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Council may revised the sewer service area diagram to include or exclude certain properties. 2. The Council may decide not to provide sewer service beyond the Urban Service Line. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Attachment 1: Petition for Sewer Service 2. Attachment 2: Sewer Service Area Diagram 3. Attachment 3: City Council Resolution of Approval Attachment 1: Petition for Sewer Service 3/22/99 Letter from Jennifer Eickemeyer Colima Road Sewer Service March 22, 1999 M Honorable Mayor and City Council 6500 Palma Ave. Atascadero,CA 93422 Re: Sewer Extension Dear Honorable Ray.Johnson and City Council: Over the past few months I have been working,with the cooperation of the Engineering Dept.,(Le.,Valerie Humphrey), to establish a sewer district along my street.After I received 60% of my neighbors'signatures-showing interest in such an endeavor-,Valerie was kind enough to explain the details to me; I now cn&-stand the costs and procedures. I also understand that our.proposed district is outsiae the Urban Service Line.Therefore,I _.-.�_.and.my neighbors-are asking special permission f am.you t-extend service outs.* the USL due to extenuating circumstances and problems experienced by us. (The following points which strongly support the need for a new sewer district were revealed after I circulated an informal written survey and spoke with all of my neighbors. I do not list the specific sources of these quotes and comments since neighbors were fearful of the city's potential actions.) -Septic tanks back up into homes(i.e. through kitchen sinks,bathtubs,toilets and showers) regardless of proper maintenance and equipment (e.g., traps, pumps, etc.)in their septic systems. Several families indicated worry about potential diseases and lack of sanitation in their homes. -Showers are limited to 2-3 minutes!/person to prevent septic overflow. -'Before guests arrive for visits of 2 or more days,we have to pump/empty the septic tank to handle the extra load." -Laundry water is diverted to anywhere but the septic systc.-n. -During heavier rains, dishes are washed in a basin in the sink; the water is discarded in the yard. Dishwashers are only used during dry spells. -Toilets are not flushed except after many useages even though properties have installed low-flow toilets. -"During wet winters it is necessary to flush the toilet twice before it removes all material." -"No grass will stay green -it is brown most of the time-above our tank which is located in front of our front door.It is unsightly;clearly chemicals are leaking out." -"High ground water caused our leach field to spring leaks when the pump cycled on, with the attendant smell." "We smell an odor in our backyarc .rithout s'.g sof uaylightirg on our property." 0O0083 -"Whenever I drive home from work in the evening along our street I smell septic stench." -"The septic gives off an odor in our shower in the mornings." -"Many plants burned by septic runoff,which flowed from other properties across Colima,down our fenceline." -"The enormous seepage and runoff from the Colima hill is evidenced by the 'lake' -of several feet of water- that developer at the rear end of our property. (Our neighbors below had to build a'dam' to protect their property.) Clearly, our leach line is failing and will have to be replaced soon." sits at la3vn level or„ pror-sties during most of the_year._ -"Although we have sandy soil,the enormous runoff of the Colima hill is sufficient to thoroughly saturate our soil and,consequently,our leach/septic system. Our home lies at the bottom of a'gulley'. From multiple properties above, the water converges into our yard by running above ground and by percolating up from below.We have installed drains around our yard to try to catch this water and have extended our raingutters to divert it further,nevertheless: A)We still have septic back-ups into our clean home. B)Our children all take a bath together to decrease water overload into the septic tank. C)We rent a porta-potty during the winter when we have guests staying with us. D)We always smell the septic contents in the bathroom(and in the neignborhood). E)We rarely run our dishwasher. F)We flush toilets only when we defecate or when they are extremely full. G)Our children are terrified of flushing toilets and running water in the house. H)We 'time'when we drain the bath. I)We use a sump pump to drain the bath into our yard in the winter(by running a hose through our home) to divert water from the segt'sc. Besides the inconvenience and distasteful stench,I am most concerned about my childrens'health, since my one-year-old now reaches into our toilets(that are full) and they all play in the yard in the run-off areas." When considering our request,please think how you might feel living with the indignity of these unsanitary and nerve-racking conditions.PLEASE grant us special permission to extend the USL. 00008,1 Thank you kindly for your time and consideration, i. Jennife . Eickenneyer and the San Anselmo/Colima neighbors) 3605 Colima Road Atascadero,CA 93422 (805)466-7912 cc: Valerie Humphrey i OOOOS.5 VIA I IVAF I OWN Owl ON Ar WRAP I MA I MA IN M, 10. Draft Resolution 1999-062 Attachment 3: City Council Resolution of Approval Colima Road Sewer Service Area DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 1999-062 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING SEWER SERVICE OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN SERVICE LINE TO COLIMA ROAD WHEREAS, a request has been received from Jennifer Eickemeyer of 3605 Colima Road to provide sewer service to properties along Colima Road which have experienced numerous septic system leach field failures resulting in health hazards; and, WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the soils within the area of Colima Road are unsuitable for a conventional absorption system and that alternative evapotranspiration type systems are not feasible; and, WHEREAS, an sewer line with adequate capacity to serve the area is located on San Anselmo Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the area of Colima Road is located in the Single Family Suburban Land Use area outside of the Urban Service Line; and, • WHEREAS, the General Plan allows for the extension or sewer service outside to the Urban Services Line when the following conditions exist, (1) where soils have inadequate septic system suitability, and (2) where there is no practical way of repairing existing failing septic systems, and (3)where the provision of sewer service would not be growth inducing; and, WHEREAS, the project can be determined to be Statutorily Exempt from the CEQA Review process under Section 15061.b.3. pertaining to projects where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility for a significant environmental impact resulting; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, held a Public Hearing noticed for October 12, 1999 and received public testimony prior to consideration of the sewer service extension; and NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council hereby takes the following actions: SECTION 1. Satutory Exemption from CEQA. The City Council finds that the proposed project is Statutorily Exempt from the CEQA Review process under Section 15061.b.3. pertaining to projects where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility for a significant environmental impact resulting. SECTION 2. Finding. The City Council finds the following: 1. The soils in the general area of Colima Road have inadequate septic system suitability. ;l7G0:067 Draft Resolution 1999-062 2. There is no practical way of repairing existing failing septic systems. 3. The provision of sewer service to Colima Avenue would not be growth inducing. 4. The provision of sewer service is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. SECTION 3. Approval. The City Council hereby approves the extension of sewer service outside of the Urban Service Line to the area of Colima Road as shown on Exhibit A subject to the following conditions. 1. The cost of all engineering studies and sewer system design and construction shall be the financial responsibility of the properties owners that will received service as shown on Exhibit A. 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 • �f ►,s i,._ _ .. ..., . ITEM NUMBER: B-3 a.. ria Is DATE: 10/12/99 1g � 18 8 i CAD�� Atascadero City Council Staff Report Community Development Department El Centro Oaks General Plan Amendment 97005, Zone Change 97005 Tentative Tract Map 99008 (8605 E1 Centro Road: Andrew Charnley/Frank Henderson) RECOMMENDATION; Planning Commissionrecommends Council: I. Adopt Resolution No. 1999-057, certifying the Negative Declaration; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 1999-058, approving General Plan Amendment 97005, changing the land use designation and zoning of the site from High Density Single Family to High Density Multiple Family; and 3. Introduce for first reading by title only Ordinance No. 366, approving Zone Change 97005, changing the zoning of the site from RSF-X to RMF-16 (PD-7) 4. Adopt Resolution No. 1999-059, approving Vesting Tract Map 99008 based on the Findings and Conditions of Approval. DISCUSSION: Background: The applications include a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change the land use designation from High Density Single Family Residential (LUE map) and RSF-X (Zoning map) to High Density Multiple Family Residential (LUE Map) and RMF-16 (Zoning map), including a request for a Planned Development (PD-7) overlay zone, and a vesting subdivision map. Since incorporation, several requests have been reviewed for the site, among them a zone change application in 1984 and an application for subdivision in 994-1995. On July 20, 1999 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a proposed subdivision on this property. This original proposal contained 20 lots; 19 for single family residential and one lot for a park/detention basin. After lengthy public testimony and Commission discussion, the project was recommended for denial to the City Council. The primary 1 U00090 ITEM NUMBER: B-3 DATE: 10/12/99 concerns of the Commission at the initial public hearing were traffic, density, and drainage, as well as issues related to public improvement maintenance, neighborhood character and the need for affordable housing. In response to the Commission concerns, the applicant revised the project to address these issues. The revised project is 16 parcels; 15 lots for single family residential (the previous project had 19 units). The smallest proposed lot is now;6,048 square feet and the average lot size is 7,500 square feet (the previous project's smallest lot was 3,580 square feet with an average lot size of 6,320 square feet). The lots to the rear, adjacent to the existing homes to the north (east), are all over 8,000 square feet. Neighboring lots in this vicinity currently average 20,000 square feet.All units are single-story, with no two-story units proposed. The reduced number of lots has "opened up" the site and eliminated the areas that were tight regarding the required setbacks. Also, the revised plan has eliminated the turn around access lane. Access to fourteen of the parcels are from the extension of Cascada Road, with the exception of Lots 14 and 15 which gain access from El Centro Road. On September 21, 1999, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the revised project at the hearing,the majority of the Planning Commission (4 out of 5, believed that the. developer had made an honest attempt to address the concerns of the Commission and the neighborhood. After extensive discussion,the Commission felt comfortable with the ability of a homeowners association to maintain the roads, sewers, drainage facilities, and park. The revised plans include a storm drain system to the rear of the lower lots and anew culvert to divert additional water into the detention basin. In addition, the owner, Andy Charnley, offered to help solve existing neighborhood drainage problems. Other issues were discussed, such as fencing, parking, and tree protection/removal, and found tote adequately addressed by the site design and conditions of approval. Anal General Plan Amendment The amendment requests a change to the Land Use Element map, from High Density Single Family to High Density Multiple Family. A General Plan Amendment is, by definition, a change to the General Plan and therefore"inherently inconsistent with the present plan. To approve a map change, the Planning Commission and City Council must find that the proposed change is consistent with General Plan policies and that it furthers General Plan goals. The project upholds a number of General Plan policies related to land use, housing, and open space. Land Use Element: The project site is close to the City's commercial corridor,is within the Urban Services Line, and is adjacent to development with a similar density. The lots on Arcade Street (to the north) are approximately 5,000 square foot each - quarter-acre parcels exist to the south: The proposed amendment complies with the high density multiple family residential policies which call for such development on land ringing the downtown, the central commercial corridor and the Atascadero State Hospital" (LUE p.II-10). ' A single family subdivision at 2 000091 ITEM NUMBER: B-3 DATE: 10/12/99 . the higher density.of a multiple family project, is a good transition between the El Camino Real commercial district and lower density residential uses to the east. Housing Element: The City's current Housing Element was adopted in 1994. Housing goals, consistent with State Law, include the overriding goal of facilitating development of housing to meet the needs of all economic segments of the community. Atascadero was required by the Regional Housing Needs Plan to encourage the creation of 1,673 housing units in the City from January 1991 to July 1997, affordable to four different income levels. To meet these goals, the element policies encourage use of innovative techniques, such as planned development zoning and the use of density bonuses, to allow development that might not otherwise be feasible. According to the Housing Element, the City has not met its regional housing needs. The proposed project would further the City's housing goals for moderate-income households. The proposed project speaks directly to some Housing Element policies and conflicts with none: Home Ownership (E.2) - Policy 2.e "encourages, where suitable, Planned Development Overlay zones, particularly the PD7 zone of small lot subdivisions for single family ownership." Home Ownership (E-2) - Program 2.1 encourages this project specifically: "Process and hold public hearings on the Lindsey project; a 25-unit small lot subdivision for home ownership." (Note: In 1994, the property was owned by Joe Lindsey and the proposed project included a density bonus of six units.) Competition for Available Land - Policy 7.b "encourages infill and intensification of land which is suited to meet the housing needs within the Urban Services Line." Open Space Element: The Open Space element (included with the Land Use Element) says that "scenic and open space easements, parklands and open space dedications shall be obtained through the subdivision and development review process, including but not limited to: floodplains, creek reservations, wooded areas, scenic backdrops, sensitive areas, historic sites and similar suitable areas." The subdivision proposes a small (8,800 square feet) neighborhood park. The park will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. Zoning consistency The request is to change the zoning from High Density Single Family Residential (RSF-X) to High Density Multiple Family (RMF-16). The applicants have also requested approval of a Planned Development Overlay,to allow creation of lots smaller than the minimum lot size of one-half acre (using the PD7 zone). The Zoning Regulations say that the purpose of the (Planned Development) PD overlay zone is to identify areas "where development standards or processing procedures different from those established by the underlying zoning district...are deemed necessary to promote orderly and harmonious development and to enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area." 000092 ITEM NUMBER: B-3 DATE: 10/12/99 Standards of the underlying zoning district will apply to a planned development zone, except where specifically modified by the overlay zone. The overlay zone may be used to modify physical standards: setbacks, heights, parking and loading requirements, landscaping, screening, signs, streets and frontage improvements requirements, as well as other development and special use standards. It can also be used to "establish other development standards or processing requirements" (see section 9-3.644 of the Zoning Regulations). To approve a planned development overlay zone, the following findings must be made: (a) Modification of development standards or processing requirements is warranted to promote orderly and harmonious development. Comment: The proposal meets a defined goal of the City's housing programs that would not be possible without reduction of lot sizes. The project promotes orderly development by providing a density transition from the commercial district to lower density single family areas. (b) Modification of development standards or processing requirements will enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area and will have a beneficial effect on the area. Comment: The site offers an opportunity for "infill" development. It is located near the commercial corridor and all public services and utilities are available. (c) Benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be reasonably achieved through existing development standards or processing requirements. Comment: The modification of lot sizes allows for the provision of housing units affordable to moderate-income households. This would not be possible with a minimum lot size of one-half acre. (d) Proposed plans, if any, offer certain redeeming features to compensate for requested modifications. Comment: The provision of moderately priced homes is a redeeming benefit and directly contributes to carrying out the City's housing goals. PD7 Standards The PD7 standards are contained in Zoning Ordinance Section 9-3.651. The project is in compliance with the PD7 standards, including setbacks, area coverage, frontage, fencing and landscaping. Attachment "D" provides additional information about the projects conformance with PD-7 standards. Tentative Tract Map The project includes a homeowners association that will be responsible for maintenance of the park (Lot 420). The street system will be constructed and maintained to City standards. All necessary public utilities are available to the site. 4 00009; ITEM NUMBER: B-3 DATE: 10/12/99 The subdivision complies with the Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 8 - Subdivision Design and Improvements). The layout of lots and streets is consistent with the General Plan and the proposed Planned Development. The subdivision recognizes the physical conditions of the site and takes the terrain into account. The subdivision design preserves many of the existing large oaks on the property and provides as much protection as possible for the trees to remain. The subdivision proposes no flag lots or narrow lots (greater than a 3:1 depth to . width ratio). Environmental Review An Initial Study was prepared, which concluded that the project could have significant impacts on the environment without the inclusion of adequate mitigation measures. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared which identified the land use and planning, water, transportation/circulation and biological resources impacts as potentially significant. Additional analysis and studies were conducted and mitigation measures were developed and are incorporated in to the project through the recommended conditions of approval. Conclusions The proposed map and text amendments (including the Planned Development overlay) are consistent with General Plan policies. The revised plan is a better project as it proposes a lower density project of 15 homes providing more open space on the site and more compatible lot sizes in the neighborhood. Environmental impacts of the project have been reduced with a fewer number of units and the environmental impacts identified can be mitigated to a level below significant - mitigation measures are incorporated into recommended conditions of approval. The project upholds General Plan policies, particularly the Housing Element, which encourages infill development (policy # 7.b), PD7 zones (policy # 2.e), and an action program for this specific site as a home ownership opportunity (Program # 2.1). Alternatives 1. The City Council may approve the General Plan and zoning map amendments, but not the planned development overlay zoning amendment or the subdivision map. This action, would change the land use designations of the site to High Density Multiple Family Residential, but would require the submittal of another subdivision map. 2. The City Council can deny the amendments and the subdivision map. The parcel would retain its designation of High Density Single Family Residential. 3. The City Council may continue the action if additional information is needed. Direction on specific information should be given to staff or the applicant. 5 ITEM NUMBER: B-3 DATE: 10/12/99 FISCAL IMPACT: The project would result in increased property tax base to the City. Actual increase to City revenues would be nominal. ATTACHMENTS: A - Revised Site Plan B - Previous Site Plan(Denied) C - Proposed Building Elevations D - Supplemental Development Statement and Project Information E - Minutes from Planning Commission Meetings 7/20/99 and 9/21/99 F - Resolution No. 1999-057 certification of Negative Declaration G - Resolution No. 1999-058 General Plan Amendment approval H - Ordinance No. 366 Zoning Map Change approval I - Resolution No. 1999-059 Tentative Tract Map approval J - Resolution No. 1999-060 Denial of all Requests 6 000095 ATTACHMENT A Revised Site Plan ' GPA#97005 8605 EI Cento Road gill LAN05GAPE L 66NO uq I S 15 GAL. L, &IVE OAK ! 1 Q GKOUNO GOV6K ..I .....r1 ' ® LAWN ____.____'__- OMULCH W/ 00906K 15 ` • f 8�- of 7 14 13 12 u i �z - . _ � _ _ g �4i)- — 5 s - NI IN t - - 2 6g1/99 9e `9a00 S1TE / �AN05GAPE � FENGfNG - �- JU 000096 ATTACHMENT B Previous Site Plan (Denied) GPA#97005 8605 El Cento Road V161NIf YA/ /•lr/ / 7 ` �' ji �f Nouns asslcN kar ! /' i +.• ` .ten t s3� 16 Iti,90 �. ~� J'r ! ' ..�. l. wJ �� ,� •� I I * ..,rye r / ` r r 1JLS+ / 90003 Al C: c c� ca co a acr a� > 44 > > TUU _ Z UL r— Q 0 o I O . a\ o O O m N U w U CO00 x POOH Oj4uaO 13 5098 n 500L6 VdJ SU014CAB13 6ulplln8 3 4uaw40044V � C JLl LJL ]LJ CIE �F_1 . u > O> _ O u�t > V 000C)s 00 fir. �O 00 �0 ATTACHMENT D Supplemental Development Statement GPA#97005 8605 EI Centro Road F.L. HENDERSON &ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE ■ PLANNING ■ CONSULTING Frank L. Henderson, ArrhfC,'f Sept. 9, 1999 RE:Charnley General Plan/Zoning Change City of Atascadero 5600 Palma Ave. Atascadero CA Attention: Doug Davidson,consultant planner Subject: Developers Statement To Whom It May Concern: As Project Architect I have been requested to provide the following letter with respect to the above noted project. Our ooal is to amend the general plan to provide this site with a high density Multi Family zoning of RMF 16 w/a PD7 overlay. We have provided a proposed Tentative Map as well as project plans for a 16 lot subdivision,consisting of 15 single family residences and 1 common ownership lot to be utilized as both a retention basin and open space/park. The current Zoning would allow for approximately 7 homes This project was presented to the Planning Commission several months ago as a 20-lot subdivision. Not achieving our intended goal of a positive recommendation from the commission ,we chose to review the issues brought to the public hearing by both the commission as well as the public.We have attemptedto improve our proposal by addressing these issues. The primary issues we noted were drainage,density,and traffic. With secondary concerns regarding setbacks and the closeness of units to each other,in particular in the relationship of the two story units to themselves- 1 will briefly discuss how the new proposal addresses ca. Item. We have attempted to further mitigate drainage by the following actions. 1)Reduced the number or units contributing to the drainage.2)Eliminated the spur road thereby additional reducing the contribution to the drainage. 3)Added catch basins at the rear yards of the lowest units to bring that drainage forward to the detention basin. And 4) Met with City of Atascadero engineering representatives to determine minor offsite improvements that the developer could make to adjacent properties to improve the existing problem. In short this project by its existence alone will reduce the flow to the streets as well as to adjacent yards from its existing levels. The proposed improvements made in the streets and (4 the approaches will additionally improve the drainage from the current situation. 000099 ATTACHMENT D Supplemental Development Statement (cont.) GPA#97005 8605 EI Centro Road Density has been reduced as follows. (I By elimination of the spur road we have added area to the developable property. (2 The total buildable lots count have been reduced from 19 to 15. And (3 All lots at the rear of the property have been increased to between 8.000 and 10,000 sq. ft. The remaining lots are all in excess of 6,000 sq.fG This is a significant increase which allows for more elbow room and provides one quarter acre parcels at the rear with slightly smaller parcels closer to El Camino. We:believe this addresses the issue of providing a transitional environment based on lot size . Traffic impact has been reduced simply by the reduction of units. Less homes less traffic. The closeness of units and the relationship of these units to each other has bee addressed as follows:The two story units have been eliminated from the plan and he increase size of the lots has additionally increased the space available. We have made minor change to the floor plans to increase their size and make the yards more accessible where possible. It is our intention to make minor modifications of the basic plans to maximize the usability of the yard areas as well as create individuality between the neighboring units. It is our belief this property can still provide a benefit to the community in the following ways: 1)Provide the community with much needed moderate income housing.2) Implement a provision of the housing element addressing this property and moderate housing requirements.3)Preserve the natural environment and urban forest to the greatest extent possible.4)Attempt to provide common open space through the development of the retention area into usable space. We appreciate the consideration of this application. Thank you, Frank Henderson Architect FL Henderson&Assoc. F7 H 000100 ATTACHMENT D Supplemental Development Statement (cont.) GPA#97005 8605 EI Centro Road Area Information,for kMjg t 98003.-M Cerro 7 - c %of VaL Actuall FP to Req. Actual %of LS Flat- Design Lot Sq.Ft Storeys Allow FP Design FP SR* LS LS to Site work Type Lot 1 6390 Single 2307 2001 30.4% 2636 4211 64.4% 348 8 Lot 2 6800 Single 2390 2001 29.4% 2720 4462 65.6% 337 B LW. 3 6129 Singe 2'45 200! 32.6% 2452 3780 61.70.- 348 9 Lot 4 8275 Single 28% 2001 24.2% 3310 $407 65.3% 867 8 Lot 5 8016 Single 2805 2001 25.0% 3206 5627 70.3% 377 B Lot 6 8206 Single 2872 1935 23.6°% 3282 5746 70.0% S25 A Lot 7 10544 Single 3690 1938 18.4% 4218 TM 73.7% 839 A Lot 8 s577 Single 3002 1935 22.6% 3431 6186 72.1% 456 A lot 9 10380 Single 3633 2001 19.3'% 4152 7619 73.4% 760 B • Lot 10 6276 Single 2197 1935 30.8% 2510 4004 63.8% 337 A Lot 11 8048 Sime 2117 2001 33.1% 2419 3616 59.8% 431 B Lot 12 6897 Single 2414 2401 29.0% 2759 4364 63.3% 632 8 Lot 13 6362 Single 2227 2001 31.5% 2545 3976 62.5% 385 8 Lot 14 6186 Single 2165 1914 30.9% 2474 3661 59.2% 610 C Lot 15 636+9 Single 2229 1914 30.1% 2548 3854 60.5% 801 C Total 111,663 39,079 29,577 74,323 7,763 Avwape 27.4% Aw sp 66.7% Pub.lmpuv 26,508 Paris 5,282 Site Sum 138,161 Legend dote: FP=Feapirt All figures given in sgaure feet(s.f.) LS-taWscgw All figures rounded to the rmwest s.f. Porches,Padw Color-wiled by designIYPe • 000101 ATTACHMENT E Planning Commission Meeting—July 20, 1999 Page 3 of 10 C issioner Zimmerman commented that it is too late for a person traveling North on the El Cam' o Real at Curbaril as there is only a right turn in and out of center on Curbaril. Mr. King sponded that traffic traveling south will have the opportunity to turn right into the center. Commissioner Cl commented that the restaurant itself will be visible. Mr. King pointed out th 7-11, Tool Outlet and China Star are all packed up close together. Rush Kolmaine, P O Box 1 0, Atascadero, questioned staff regarding the monument sign on west side of property — why do n't that sign fall in the CalTrans jurisdiction? Warren Frace stated that the sign is on the appli is property. CalTrans was noticed and staff received no response. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Eddings stated that granting a ariance requires four findings where in this instance, only one could be made. Commissioner Jeanes understands wanting more signage ut can't see it in this instance. ACTION: Moved by Commissioner Fonzi and seconded Commissioner Zimmerman to deny the applicants appeal, thereby uphol ' g the Hearing Officer's decision limiting the Curbaril frontage to one (1) si AYES: Commissioners Bentz, Clark, Eddings, Fonzi,Jeanes, an Zimmerman NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Carden MOTION PASSED: 6-0-1 4. General Plan Amendment 97005, Zone Change 97005,Tentative Tract Map 99008— 8605 El Centro (Andrew Charnley) Consideration of a general plan amendment, zone change, and tract map to allow subdivision of an approximately 2.50 acre (net) site into 20 parcels; 19 for single family residential use and one for a park/detention basin. Environmental determination: a Negative Declaration was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project, and posted April 22, 1999. (Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. PC 1999- 019, 020 and 021, recommending the Environmental Determination, General Plan Amendment 97005, Zone.Change, 97005, and Tentative Tract Map 99008 to the City Council for approval.) 00030;2 Planning Commission Meeting—July 20, 1999 Page 4 of 10 Paul Saldana, introduced Doug Davidson, contract planner, who presented the staff report, distributed an amended Exhibit A and answered questions of the Commissioners. Mr. Davidson mentioned that the Tribune, Friday, July 16, 1999 stated "the site has 50 native oak trees which will have to be removed". Mr. Davidson spoke with author of the article who admitted the error and printed a correction. Mr. Davidson announced changes in Attachment L to condition 16 B, & 16 G (new), and condition 32 of 81 as follows: 16B. Private on-site street (ext of Cascada Rd) shall be constructed in conformance with City standard drawing 405 (local) or as directed by City Engineer. 50 ft wide private Rd easement shall be provided for this on- site street. 16G. Private on-site street serving lots'11, 15, 18, 19 shall be in conformance with City standard drawing 405 (local) with exception that minimum 1/2 width shall be 13 ft or as approved by City Engineer. 40 ft wide private Rd easement shall be provided for this on-site street. 32. Added sentence: Tree replacement shall be in compliance with the City's tree ordinance. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Eddings asked for a definition of"moderate priced". Commissioner Fonzi—asked staff to define "moderate income household." Doug Davidson defined moderate income as between 80-120% of median. These are not condominiums. They are single family homes on more affordable lot sizes. Commissioner Fonzi asked what type of park is beside the drainage basin. Doug Davidson responded that there are park benches in the open space. Commissioner Fonzi inquired about overflow parking for guests. Doug Davidson responded that the street is more than wide enough to handle on street parking for guests and garages are set back(2 car). Commissioner Clark expressed concern with the design of streets and the height to setback requirements on some of the two-story units that are side by side. Commissioner Zimmerman expressed concern about traffic mitigation per Lt. Watton's letter to Chief Hegwood. Doug Davidson said development impact and other fees will contribute to traffic circulation solution. Commissioner Zimmerman asked Doug Davidson if he had any relationship with the developer of this project. Doug Davidson responded that there is no conflict of interest. 000103 Planning Commission Meeting—July 20, 1999 Page 5 of 10 Commissioner Jeanes expressed further concerns about traffic mitigation per Lt. Watton's letter to Chief Hegwood. John Neal said the most recent traffic analysis indicates no significant mitigation impact. Commissioner Jeanes said she would like to see review of circulation element of master plan for area based on Lt. Watton's letter. Doug Davidson commented that emergency access requirements of the City are met for this cul-de-sac. Commissioner Eddings asked for clarification of the findings at 37A. How is PD overlay "more harmonious"? Doug Davidson responded that the City's General Plan calls out commercial zoning in the central core, residential multiple family and then residential single family as you move toward the outskirts providing a more harmonious development. TESTIMONY Tim Roberts,representing the applicant expressed the following: • Affordable lots $159,000 to $179,000 • Looked at plan from 2 years ago — not done well with no regard to trees - started with a clean slate actually removing only 8 trees • Knew traffic would be a controversial issue - traffic study expert determined impacts. • Drainage—reviewed by city engineer and recommended approval. • Parking—streets designed to City Standards • Walk to services as the project is close to commercial Commissioner Eddings asked the following questions: • What part of the site is to be publicly maintained and what part is privately maintained? • Are sewer systems, water lines, privately owned? • If the sewer breaks down, it the problem of the Homeowners Association? Tim Roberts responded: • The new policy of the City of Atascadero, according to the City Engineer, is that all new streets are private. John Neil stated that all services are privately owned. Commissioner Fonzi expressed concerns and suggestions as follows: • Tot lot or basketball hoop in park? • Will detention pond drain away?. • Are there any proposed fees at this time? Tim Roberts answered: • Ideas for the park could be considered. • The detention pond should drain off after storm subsides. • Commissioner Eddings clarified that this a detention basin not a retention basin. Tim Roberts concurred. 00010,1 Planning Commission Meeting—July 20, 1999 Page 6 of 10 Frank Henderson stated the following: • Concerning the 0-lot line, they worked around trees,preserving as many as possible. • Very little cut and fill and grading. • Recognized the neighbors by placing 2-story toward center of project. • Used existing trees as a buffer against existing neighbors. Commissioner Fonzi asked why there is no entrance to backyard for children? Frank Henderson stated that he would look into obtaining access to back yard. Commissioner Eddings asked who would be paying for street lights? Frank Henderson responded that the Home Owner's Association would be responsible for the lights. Jerry Arnett, 8520 El Dorado Road, referred to the City's request in the newspaper for community input and hoped his input would not fall on deaf ears. He opposes project density for this piece of land and asks that environmental impact be considered. Mr. Arnett lives behind the project space, which drains into his backyard. Mr. Arnett stated that he can't see any civic mindedness in this project, only that it is prompted by its potential for profit. Mark Barlow, 8500 El Dorado, stated that the lots on Arcade are actually 5,000 sq. ft. and on the north side are 1/4 acre lots, actually %2 acre lots. The majority of the proposed lots are actually 4,000 to 5,000 sq. ft (some are as small as 3,580 sq. ft.) only one lot is 8,600 sq. ft. . Open space referred to as a "park" is too wet to play in several months of the year. Distributed a plan . showing that the development could be 9 homes rather than 19 which would be more harmonious. The developers are trying to jam in as much as they can. There is no benefit to anyone else. Anne Arnett, 8520 El Dorado,purchased a %Z acre lot in the knowledge that surrounding property was %2 acre also. Now there is a dense project . Michael Gray, 8915 Arcade, is concerned with traffic problems. 19 houses is way too many. John Ludwig, 8550 El Dorado, is concerned with traffic, rain runoff, and no sidewalk. When there is a downpour, rain overflows culvert onto his property. He is curious regarding the plan Marie Bennett, 8440 El Dorado, was told when she moved in (1986) that the five-acre parcel next door was divided in 1 acre lots. She fought the change to 1/2 acre lots around 1992, and now it's multi-family lots. She stated that traffic noise and flooding will be a problem. Alan McLaren, 8530 El Dorado Road, has concerns with traffic and drainage also. Leaving a couple of oak trees is not an urban forest. He expressed concerned with moderate income families having the responsibility for sewer maintenance. He asks that the City stick to its rules to preserve neighborhood way of life. Dorie Smith, 8865 El Centro Road, read and submitted for the record, (Attachment A) a letter • written by her husband Ron Smith-stating that the wonderful feel of community is owed in part to open spaciousness, compromised this project. He asked if an EIR has been done and '00010;5 Planning Commission Meeting—July 20, 1999 Page 7 of 10 addressed the project's effect on drainage and parking, and depreciation in value of neighboring homes and in their quality of life. Janet S. Filmore, 8830 El Centro Road, expressed concern with drainage during the rainy season in winter of 6 to 12 inches of water. Charles Rhyne, 8480 El Dorado Road, can't see any reason to put that many houses on that size of parcel. Rick Randise, 8850 El Centro, has concerns with traffic. Professionals use models and tables prepared by other engineers who used models and tables, but do not navigate that traffic daily. He has concerns with sewage — works for sewage treatment plant. Drainage — 12 inches of top soil over volcanic ash which is compacted. The run off to is to the low point which is El Centro and El Dorado. William Bright 11875 Santa Lucia, questions the use of "moderate income housing" as justification for this project if it does not meet state definition for this category. Connie Barlow, 8500 El Dorado, challenges the idea that the average family has two cars. Teenagers have cars. Families often use garages for storage. Cars will end up in street. Why no EIR?. Impact Fees will not be able to address problems arising from this project. Its density pulls the rug out from under families who bought homes with large lots in mind. Andy Charnley developer of project, stated that the City needs affordable housing. He has a friend working at the men's colony who can't afford a home in Atascadero. With Lucky's on one side and junkyard on the other, this is a reasonable change for the area. Tim Roberts -Professionals deal with facts not emotions. The drainage issue will be addressed . COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Jeans—Asked for a staff response to following concerns, emotional or otherwise: • Why isn't there a need for an EIR? • Discrepancies in lot sizes brought out in Mark Barlow's remarks • Traffic studies — are they actually coming to the site and evaluating the flow or merely using maps and charts? • Plan development need for moderate income housing: will project meet state criteria? Doug Davidson stated that there is no EIR: • Full environmental review was done with five reports that directly addressed checklist of impacts: archaeology, traffic, drainage, trees, etc. Due to mitigation measures provided, a negative declaration was prepared because impacts were reduced to a less than significant level. It is as much information as an EIR would provide. Moderate income : -aC)fJ1L�b Planning Commission Meeting—July 20, 1999 Page 8 of 10 • Project is not asking for density bonus units, the typical vehicle by which City requires project to meet low to moderate income housing criteria of state. If the zone change is approved, it is within the confines of RMF16. We are using the term generally because it offers another housing option and takes a small step toward meeting the affordable housing needs of City. • This project provides 19 of 1670 units called for by the Regional Housing Needs Plan within 5 years. Commissioner Clark asked,with regard to the housing element and lack of City qualifying for it, whether the City had ever qualified to receive State or Federal funds for low to moderate income housing. Doug Davidson responded that the City cannot compete for State housing funds because the element adopted by the City Council does not comply with State housing guidelines. In the Federal program, we are entitled to about $250,000 a year. Commissioner Eddings clarified that the City shortage is in Lower rather than Moderate income housing John Neil stated with regard to traffic that there will be an impact to ECR but is still is in the range of target level of service. With regard to drainage, the city's requirement for drainage is one of the more stringent for the County. There should be a benefit to downstream property owners. Commissioner Jeanes' major concern is rezoning —neighbors are upset yet there is a large need for moderate income housing. How many areas are already zoned for this type of project? Doug Davidson answered that there are not many. The project occupies a unique site. Commissioner Fonzi asked if will drainage basin drain to El Centro or El Dorado? John Neil said half of site flows toward El Dorado but some of the water will be diverted into detention basin. There would be no increase in flow.- Commissioner Fonzi said she can't support project as it stands. No benefit would come to existing residents and project will not necessarily meet requirements of housing element. Commissioner Eddings understands drainage concerns of existing residents but they may be code enforcement issue. He totally supports infill projects, however would rather have seen a senior project. Believes City needs to get on housing element by providing more low income housing. Commissioner Clark understands feelings of neighborhood and understands needs for lower income housing as well. Asked for clarification of drainage issues. John Neil answered that he would ensure that flow from lots 6 thru 9 would be at or below current levels. Commissioner Clark appreciates public comments. Sees need for more affordable housing and at first was leaning in favor of project, however now is in a quandary. Planning Commission Meeting—July 20, 1999 Page 9 of 10 Commissioner Zimmerman was initially 50% receptive 50% concerned. His major concern is that these 19 families will have to become knowledgeable about street lights, sewers, and other systems. This is not doing potential buyers any favors, and not doing the city any good. Commissioner Jeanes has no problem with GPA or rezoning if there is a need but this project, good as it is , does not fulfill requirement for low income housing. Commissioner Bentz interjected that state law allows an amendment to be made to General Plan, as it is a living document. Thinks all questions have been adequately answered and is in support. Commissioner Eddings stated with regard to speaker who asked they "play by the rules," we are- -the rules allow these proposals. Agrees with Commissioner Jeanes, site would be more beneficial as senior or low income housing. Commissioner Jeanes asked for clarification--we are voting on how to recommend city council? Yes Commissioner Zimmerman asked if we do recommend that they adopt, it goes forward as a do pass. If we do not, it will have to be appealed at City Council. Doug Davidson clarified that since a zone change is considered, it goes to council regardless. Commissioner Clark has a problem with item 2, the GPA and zoning change. For the type of project being proposed, density is too much based on layouts. More open space should be provided unless the project were to provide senior housing. ACTION: Moved by Commissioner Clark and seconded by Commissioner Jeanes to adopt Resolution PC1999-019 recommending that the City Council certify the negative declaration AYES: Commissioners, Clark, Jeanes,Eddings, Fonzi,Bentz NOES: Commissioner Zimmerman ABSENT: Commissioner Carden MOTION PASSED: 5-1-1 ACTION: Moved by Commissioner Bentz to approve adoption of Resolution PC1999- 020 recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 97005, Zone Change 97005, changing the land use designation and zoning of the site from high density single family or SFX to high density multiple family or M16PD7. MOTION FAILED for lack of second. ACTION: Moved by Commissioner Fonzi and seconded by Commissioner Jeanes to recommend the denial of the project. Planning Commission Meeting—July 20, 1999 Page 10 of 10 AYES: Commissioners, Clark,Eddings,Fonzi,Jeanes, and Zimmerman NOES: Commissioner Bentz ABSENT: Commissioner Carden MOTION PASSED: 5-1-1 ACTION: Moved by Commissioner Clark and seconded by Commissioner Fonzi to recommend that the Commission does not adopt resolution PC1999-021. The Commission does not recommend that the City approve vesting tentative map 99008 based on the findings and conditions approved contained in attachment B. AYES: Clark, Fonzi,Jeanes, Zimmerman,Eddings, NOES: Bentz ABSENT: Commissioner Carden MOTION PASSED: 5-1-1 ANNOUNCEMENTS & REPORTS 4. Community Development Staff Comments & Reports • The redevelopment plan was adopted by the council on second reading. As soon as that document is recorded, a copy of the ordinance, plans, and final map will go to the commission. When finalized, the SLOCOG regional economic information report will be distributed to the commission to help deliberations. Study session scheduled for 5 t Tuesday in August. We will probably have the subdivision ordinance at that time. 5. Commissioner Comments & Reports Commissioner Zimmerman made the following comments: • Made a public comment at the last City Council meeting, asking that council agendize the concept of Atascadero adopting the policy of enacting an affirmative 3 vote minimum for all actions of the Council. He suggested that they suggest to the 2 commissions (Parks and Planning) that we adopt a 4 vote minimum for affirmative action. • Distributed an article from Tribune "Should we worry about growth?" to be included in minutes (Attachment B). Commissioner Fonzi informed that SLOCO has safety element in the library and urged that everyone look at it. Warren Frace stated that Atascadero is participating with SLOCO on draft Safety Element. It will work its way into City safety element. ADJOURNMENT— 10:50p.m. • Minutes Prepared By: Patricia Schulz,Recording Secretary 0001 Planning Commission Meeting—September 21, 1999 Page 3 of 16 TESTIMONY: No call for publi stimony as the applicant has requested a continuance to a date certain. ACTION: Mov by Commissioner Bentz and seconded by Commissioner Fonzi to continue is item to a date certain, October 5, 1999 at 7:00 p.m:, 6500 Palma Avenue, Four loor Rotunda Room. AYES: Commissioners Bentz, den, Clark, Fonzi, and Zimmerman (5) NOES: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioners Eddings and Jeane (2) ABSTAINED: None (0) MOTION PASSED: 5-0 4. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97005; ZONE CHANGE 97005; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 99008—8605 El Centro (Andrew Charnley) The proposed project consists of a general plan amendment change to High Density Multi- Family, a zone change to RMF-16(PD7), and tract map to allow subdivision of an approximately 2.50 acre (net) site into 16 parcels; 15 for single family residential use and one for a common part, detention basin. The project is located at 8605 El Centro Road with an existing General Plan Designation of High Density Single Family and a Zoning District of RSF-X (1/2 acre minimum lot). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. Doug Davidson, contract planner, provided the staff report and answered questions of the Planning Commission and the public. Considerable changes have been made to the proposal since the July 20, 1999 hearing. The applicant revised the project after listening to comments by the public rather than move ahead to the City Council with the original project. Staff Recommends approval of the project with conditions. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Zimmerman asked for explanation of the homeowner's association. Will the applicant create and manage the association, or will 15 people take on the burden of the street maintenance etc. Warren Frace, Planning Services Manager responded normally the applicant would create the association and, the homeowners would become the governing members. In this instance the applicant will create the homeowner's association and then turn it over to the property owners to run it. Commissioner Fonzi asked if Lt. Watton or someone from the Atascadero Police Department reviewed and commented on the new plan as there were concerns with traffic. ao0sAo Planning Commission Meeting—September 21, 1999 Page 4 of 16 Doug Davidson stated that the Police Department reviewed and commented on the initial project. This revised proposal is smaller and would have less impact than previously proposed project. As per Mr. Neil, those items were considered under the Circulation Element Update and not on a project specific basis. Warren Frace concurred stating that now that the project has fewer units, the traffic impact would even be lower. Commissioner Clark regarding the detention basin, it appears as though water is being taken from the opposite corner of the detention basin and bringing it into the detention basin. Doug Davidson responded that in the revision, additional catch basins have been proposed at the rear yards of the lower units that would bring the drainage forward. TESTIMONY: Tim Roberts, Civil Engineer representing Mr. Charnley, stated that after the last meeting on this project, there was a brainstorming session the next day. Mr. Charnley asked that Mr. Roberts and the project's architect, Frank Henderson, to review the project including the comments and concerns presented by the Commission and the public and try to revise the project addressing all those concerns. Typically an application, such as this, will move onto the Council hoping that the Council will overturn t Commission's ruling. That was not the case here. There were 4 main issues; density, maintenance the streets and utilities, traffic and drainage. With regard to density, fewer homes with larger lots are proposed. The homes are single story rather than 2-story. Mr. Henderson, the project architect, redesigned all of the homes. Streets and utilities are being built to City standards. Mr. Roberts stated that Mark Markwort said that never before has a citizen been asked to pay for sewer main problems. Other projects have had the same conditions, however no citizen has ever been asked to pay for repairs to the sewer. With regard to concerns with traffic, Mr. Charnley, John Neil, and Mr. Roberts went to the site on a workday, during peak time, and there was not traffic which substantiated the Traffic Engineers report. Regarding the drainage concerns, a storm drain system has been added to the rear of the lower lots, and added a drainage culvert which drains across the street intercepting that water (which is off site and not the applicant's problem) taking it into the detention basin also. Mr. Charnley is willing to take care of the problems with runoff from the Lucky property but first has to speak with the owners of that property. Mr. Roberts also read letter from Janet Fillmore, 8830 El Centro Road;in support of the revised project. (Letter included in the minutes.) Commissioner Fonzi expressed the following concerns: • Tree removal—how many? • On-site street parking • Is the park for the City or just the proposed community? What about a tot lot? • The fencing could have an exclusionary feel. 000111 Planning Commission Meeting—September 21, 1999 Page 5 of 16 Tim Roberts responded: • The revised proposal calls for one additional tree removed for a total of 9 trees. • With regard to parking, streets will be to City standards and each driveway will accommodate 2 vehicles. • The park is for passive recreation as the lot is too small for playground equipment and the liability too great. • There will be a side lot fence on lot 13. Commissioner Clark expressed concerns with drainage. Lots 1 through 4 appear to have to catch basins each to control the flow of drainage. Also could the house on lot 13 be moved closer to the property line away from the street as well as the home place on lot 3. Tim Roberts explained that one basin is for all of the roof drains and runoff that would run to the rear yard of the residences will be picked up in a secondary catch basin and piped down the detention basin. The revised plan has incorporated the concerns of the surrounding neighbors expressed at the July 20, 1999 hearing. Regarding resituating lot 13, Mr. Roberts stated that wherever possible they tried to stay out of drip line of large oaks, however there appears to be no problem placing the home closer to the lot line between lots 12 and 13 and the home on lot 3 moved closer to the lot line between lots 3 and 4. Commissioner Carden asked Tim Roberts if he is in agreement with all of staff's conditions. Mr. Roberts responded yes. Frank Henderson, project architect, responded to parking concerns stating that with the larger lots, there is more room on the street and with units 6 through 9, there is room for more than 2 cars in the driveway (anywhere from 4 to 8 each). The fencing is 6' redwood and does not extend beyond the garage fronts. On El Centro, there will be no fencing within 25' of the sidewalk. There will be a special elevation for side yard of house#13, since it is so dominate as you come into the site. Jerry Arnett, 8520 El Dorado Road, applauds the efforts in the change but is still opposed to the increase in density. The plan is not in tune with neighboring lots, as stated by Mr. Saldana,just a little less out of tune. Mark Barlow, 8500 El Dorado, feels that the revised proposal is still too much for the area. Mr. Barlow submitted a plan (attached) showing 9 lots rather than 16 and stating that perhaps there are other alternatives to this drastic General Plan Amendment. Mr. Barlow spoke with those compiling the traffic study, and shared that they used tables not actual traffic counts at the site, and that they were not aware of Lt. Watton's comments. Mr. Barlow stated that there is a lawsuit pending between Mr. Lindsay landowner and Mr. Charnley regarding the sale of the property. Joan OKeefe, 8520 El Dorado, express the following concerns: • There was no vicinity map in the staff report. • There is no copy of the tree report in the report. Ms. OKeefe urged staff to include the 12-page tree report in staff reports. Planning Commission Meeting—September 21, 1999 Page 6 of 16 • Commends staff on encouraging arborists to evaluate the impact to trees. • As a member of the Atascadero Native Tree Association, and is willing to share information from that association with anyone interested. Doug Davidson responded that a vicinity map was included in the initial report and not in the present report to help keep the report to a manageable level. Richard Randise 8850 El Centro, express the following concerns: • What if one of the catch basins gets plugged and cannot move the water along? • What is the capacity of the detention pond? Will it handle the volume during a heavy storm? Connie Barlow, 8500 El Dorado, Century 21, a multimillion dollar agent, has never met a developer yet who cares more about the neighborhood than the profit. The proposed homes in the revised plan calculate to sell at about $1,5000 to $1,600 per month before homeowner's association fees, and this is not low or moderate-income housing. Commissioner Zimmerman stated that Mr. Charnley contacted him after the July 20th meeting and discussed the homeowner's association to some degree. Commissioner Zimmerman inferred that the persons purchasing these home probably have no experience with a homeowner's association and it should be extremely clear as to what they will be dealing with. Andrew Charnley, applicant, distributed a set of plans to the Commission indicating that they we drawn up by Mark Barlow. Mr. Charnley stated that he has done everything he can and invites anyon to call him at 434-4250 regarding questions and concerns. Commissioner Zimmerman asked exactly how the homeowner's association is going to work? Mr. Charnley stated that the homeowner's association is dictated by the DRE and that the developer creates the CC&R's. Warren Frace stated that the homeowner's association would collect monies to maintain the basics, and if there were an emergency with the sewer line, the City would more than likely take care of it. The homeowner's association could be a mechanism by which the City could recoup the cost involved in repairing that facility. Chairman Carden stated that with homes selling for $170,00.00, individuals affording them will be educated enough to understand the homeowner's association. Commissioner Clark asked what the selling cost is proposed to be. Mr. Charnley responded home will be sold for $170,0000 to $190,000 upward for the back lots. Prices are market driven. Commissioner Fonzi asked about the issue of litigation between Mr. Lindsay and Mr. Charnley. M 0001,1 Planning Commission Meeting—September 21, 1999 Page 7 of 16 Mr. Charnley stated that he has no comment other than it will not affect the project. He also stated that Mr. Barlow was the first project manager for this project and Mr. Charnley feels that Mr. Barlow's actions are vindictive. Rush Kolemaine, P O Box 1990, stated that he takes extreme offense at the remarks made by Commissioners relative to the competence of citizens to look out for their own affairs. Chairman Carden reminded Mr. Kolemaine to.address the Commission as whole,not individually. Mark Barlow, 8500 El Dorado, stated that he researched the lawsuit listing the developer and Mr. Sherman as defendants and specifically asks for reversal of the sale because of claimed irregularities and problems with the sale of the property. With regard to the plans distributed tonight by Mr. Charnley, Mr. Barlow stated that those plans were about 1 of 9 versions the company did. Mr. Barlow was under the direct supervision of the Civil Engineer, as Mr. Barlow is not a licensed architect. He drew up plans at the direction of the Civil Engineer and could not support those plans. Mr. Barlow stated that at that time he drew up the 9 lot project and wrote numerous letters stating his reasons for not being able to support the larger plans. At that time Mr. Barlow stated that he was relieved of his duties because he would not support the other options. Chairman Carden asked staff to read the quote from the Housing Element regarding the Lindsey project in 1992. Doug Davidson responded that Housing Element Program 2.1 reads, "Process and hold public hearings on the Lindsey project, a 25-unit small lot subdivision for home ownership." Chairman Carden asked that Mr. Davidson reiterate the statements regarding the objective of higher density housing as one moves away from commercial development and into lesser densities. Doug Davidson stated that the definition goes back to the 1980 General Plan, still a fundamental policy, where when you move from central core outward, the density becomes less. One looks at the multi- family residential projects as the transition between the commercial corridor and the single-family residential areas. Chairman Carden reminded that Mr. Davidson was previously a Planner with the City of Atascadero for approximately 12 years, so he is very familiar with the General Plan. Commissioner Fonzi referred to Richard Randise comments regarding the capacity of the catch basins going into the detention basin, and asked if that is a gravity feed. Tim Roberts responded that it is gravity system with a pipe designed to carry the "100 year storm" and operate in a semi-clogged manner. Each individual lot will have its own drop inlet. The system will be designed by Mr. Roberts and checked by the City Engineer before implementation. Commissioner Bentz commented that the homeowner's association will be fully disclosed with the selling price of the home. The criteria for selling the homes will be based on price, not whether a person is professional or not, or whether a.person has an adequate education. 0001111 Planning Commission Meeting—September 21, 1999 Page 8 of 16 Commissioner Clark stated that the neighborhood had legitimate concerns; the developer made a honest attempt to consider those concerns with this redesign. The drainage concerns have been adequately addressed with the revised project. There is a need for this type of housing in the community even though it isn't moderate housing. ACTION: Moved by. Commissioner Clark and seconded by Commissioner Bentz to adopt Resolution PC 1999-043, recommending that the City Council certify the Negative Declaration. AYES: Commissioners Bentz, Carden, Clark,Eddings, Fonzi, and Zimmerman (5) NOES: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioners Eddings and Jeanes (2) ABSTAINED: None (0) MOTION PASSED: 5-0 Commissioner Fonzi asked for "no parking" on El Centro before going any further with motions approving the project. Warren Frace stated that the street will be improved to residential standards and it would be appropria to allow residents to park in front of their houses. With regard to traffic, sometimes with no cars on t street makes the street appear wider and encourages faster levels of traffic movement. Commissioner Fonzi views it as a potential problem for traffic entering onto El Camino Real. Warren Frace stated that the Commission may want to consider restricting parking on the side of lot 13. Commissioner Clark stated opposition to the parking condition. Commissioners Bentz stated that he would not support a motion with restricted parking. ACTION: Moved by Commissioner Clark and seconded by Commissioner Bentz to adopt Resolution PC 1999-044, recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 97005, Zone Change 97005, changing the land use designation and zoning of the site from High Density Single Family (RSF-X to High Density Multiple Family(RMF-16) (PD7). AYES: Commissioners Bentz, Carden, and Clark (3) NOES: Commissioners Fonzi and Zimmerman (2) ABSENT: Commissioners Eddings and Jeanes (2 ABSTAINED: None _ (0 0 MOTION PASSED: 3-2 WOE", Planning Commission Meeting—September 21, 1999 Page 9 of 16 ACTION: Moved by Commissioner Carden and seconded by Commissioner Bentz to adopt Resolution PC 1999-045, recommending that the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 99008 based on the Findings and Conditions of Approval contained in Attachment B, , with the addition of condition 40 as follows: 40. The applicant shall create a homeowners association, or similar entity and submit agreements for the maintenance of all private roads, sewer facilities, drainage facilities, the park feature, and other common-use facilities. The maintenance entity and maintenance agreements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the City Attorney. Recorded copies of formation of the maintenance entity and maintenance agreements shall be submitted to the City prior to recordation of the final map. AYES:. Commissioners Bentz, Carden, Clark, (3) NOES: Commissioners Fonzi, and Zimmerman (2) ABSENT: Commissioners Eddings and Jeanes (2) ABSTAINED: None (0) MOTION PASSED: 3-2 Chairman Carden called for recess. Chairman Carden reopened the meeting at 9:00 p.m. addressing Agenda Item 94, specifically Resolution PC1999-044. Chairman Carden asked Paul Saldana to present information provided to staff during the recess. Paul Saldana stated that Kathy Stewart, Engineering Technician with North Coast Engineering, pointed out that in response to Commissioner Fonzi's comment about the red zone (no parking), approximately the first 30 feet of that lot would be painted red because it is at the intersection. Once the project is built, the City Engineer and Street Superintendent will look and see if it needs to be extended. This may address Commissioner Fonzi's concern with parking and blocking site distance. Chairman Carden asked Commissioner Fonzi if this information changes her vote. Commissioner Fonzi stated that she was not sure if 30 feet is the vast majority of the lot, but if that is so, she would be willing to change he vote in support of the motion. Due to the change, roll call was called again. ACTION: Moved by Commissioner Clark and seconded by Commissioner Bentz to adopt Resolution PC 1999-044, recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 97005, Zone Change 97005, changing the land use designation and zoning of the site from High Density Single Family(RSF-X to High Density Multiple Family (RMF-16) (PD7). 0001IG Planning Commission Meeting—September 21, 1999 Page 10 of 16 AYES: Commissioners Bentz, Carden, Clark and Fonzi (4) NOES: Commissioner Zimmerman (1) ABSENT: Commissioners Eddings and Jeanes (2) ABSTAINED: None (0) MOTION PASSED: 4-1 ACTION: Moved by Commissioner Carden and seconded by Commissioner Bentz to adopt Resolution PC 1999-045, recommending that the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 99008 based on the Findings and Conditions of Approval contained in Attachment B, with the addition of condition 40 as follows: 40. The applicant shall create a homeowners association, or similar entity and submit agreements' for the maintenance of all private roads, sewer facilities, drainage facilities, the park feature, and other common-use facilities. The maintenance entity and maintenance agreements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the City Attorney. Recorded copies of formation of the maintenance entity and maintenance agreements shall be submitted to the City prior to recordation of the final map. 0 AYES: Commissioners Bentz, Carden, Clark and Fonzi (4) NOES: Commissioner Zimmerman (1) ABSENT: Commissioners Eddings and Jeanes (2) ABSTAINED: None (0) MOTION PASSED: 4-1 5. PRE-ZONING MAP CHANGE 99009 AND INITIATION OF ANNEXATION 99001 — AATASCADERO STATE HOSPITAL AND CHALK MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE ANNEXATION The proposed project consists of the reorganization (annexation) of 884 ± acres of unincorporated territory lying within the general boundaries south of Palomar Avenue, 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 island that is bound by the City Limits on the south, north and west. The subject territory consists of the Atascadero State Hospital Facility including Paloma Creek Park (City) and San Luis Obispo County parlkland containing the Chalk Mountain Golf Course and Heilmann Park, and a segment of the Union Pacific Railway (formerly S.P.R.R.). No privately owned land is included in the territory. The project includes the pre-zoning of approximately 2/3 of the area to the P District (Public) and the remaining 1/3 of the area to the L District (Recreation) on the City Zoning Map. 0 00011 ATTACHMENT F RESOLUTION NO. 1999-057 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO CERTIFYING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR THE EL CENTRO OAKS PROJECT (Andrew Charnley 8605 El Centro Road) WHEREAS, a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project and made available for public review in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero held public hearings on July 20, 1999 and September 21, 1999 recommending both times that the City Council certify the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration as adequate under CEQA; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero, at a public hearing held on Tuesday, October 12, 1999, hereby resolves to certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the following Findings: (a) The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and (b) The Mitigated Negative Declaration was presented to the Planning Commission, and the information contained therein was considered by the Planning Commission, prior to recommending action on the project for which it was prepared; and (c) The Final Mitigated Negative Declaration was presented to the City Council, and the information therein contained was considered by the City Council, prior to taking final action on the project for it was prepared. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be delivered forthwith by the City Clerk. 1000118 `p1�y[�y, A, V V Resolution No. 1999-057 Page 2 of 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 12th DAY OF OCTOBER 1999. On motion by , and seconded by the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA Ray Johnson, Mayor Attest: Marcia M. Torgerson, City Clerk Approved as to form: Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney 0001,119 ATTACHMENT G RESOLUTION NO. 1999-058 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #97005, THEREBY CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM "HIGH DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" FOR PROPERTY AT 8605 EL CENTRO ROAD (El Centro Oaks: Andrew Charnley) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a Public Hearing held on July 20, 1999, studied and considered General Plan Amendment#97005, after first studying and considering the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project, and WHEREAS, on July 20, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended denial of a general plan amendment associated with the proposed 20 lot subdivision; 19 lots for single family residential use and one lot for a park/detention basin; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 21, 1999 on a revised 16-lot project; 15 lots for single family residential use and one lot for a park/detention basin; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the general plan map amendment request; 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 General Plan Amendment applications was held by the City Council at which hearing evidence, oral and documentary,was admitted on behalf of said General Plan amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council, in a regular session assembled on October 12, 1999, approves General Plan Amendment#97005 amending the Land Use Map as shown on Exhibit A. Resolution 1999-058 Page 2 of 2 On motion by , and seconded by the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA Ray Johnson,Mayor Attest: Marcia M. Torgerson, City Clerk Approved as to form: Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney • 000141-1. ATTACHMENT H ORDINANCE NO. 366 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING ZONE CHANGE #97005 THEREBY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM HIGH DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF-X) TO HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(RMF-16) AND ADOPTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE NO. 7 FOR PROPERTY AT 8605 EL CENTRO ROAD (El Centro Oaks: Andrew Charnley)) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a Public Hearing held on July 20, 1999, studied and considered Zone Change#97005, after first studying and considering the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project, and WHEREAS, on July 20, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended denial of a zone change associated with a 20-lot project; 19 lots for single family residential use and one lot for a park/detention basin; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a revised project on September 21, 1999 and recommended approval of the 16-lot project; 15 lots for single family use and one lot for a park/detention basin; WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended approval 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 Zone Change application was held by the City Council, at which hearing evidence, oral and documentary, was admitted on behalf of said Zoning amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does ordain as follows: Section 1. Findings for approval of zoning map change. 1. The zone change is consistent with General Plan policies and all other applicable ordinances and policies of the City. 2. The zone change will not, in itself,result in significant environmental impacts. The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the zone change and for the project has been certified as adequate, in accordance with California environmental laws. 000122: Ordinance no. 366 Page 2 of 3 Section 2. 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. Section 3. Findings for Planned Development approval. 1. Modification of development standards or processing requirements is warranted to promote orderly and harmonious development. 2. Modification of development standards or processing requirements will enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area and will have a beneficial effect on the area. 3. Benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be reasonably achieved through existing development standards. 4. Proposed plans offer certain redeeming features to compensate for requested modifications. Section 4. Zoning text change. The Zoning Ordinance, Title 9 of the Municipal Code, is hereby amended by the addition of Planned Development overlay zone no. 7, as shown on Exhibit B,made a part of this ordinance by reference. Section 5. Publication. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the ayes and noes, shall be published at least five days prior to its final passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper published and circulated in said City, and the same shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its said final passage. A copy of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file in the City Clerk's Office on and after the date following introduction and passage to print and shall be available to any interested member of the public. Section 6. 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 resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: • Ordinance no. 366 Page 3 of 3 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: By. Ray Johnson, Mayor Attest: Marcia M. Torgerson, City Clerk Approved as to form: Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney 0001 "In ATTACHMENT I RESOLUTION NO. 1999-059 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #99008 (Tract 2329) SUBDIVIDING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT 8605 EL CENTRO ROAD (TTM#99008;E1 Centro Oaks/Charnley) WHEREAS, Andrew Charnley has requested approval of a Tentative Tract map to subdivide a 3.2 acre site located at 8605 El Centro Road into 16 lots; 15 single family residential lots and one(1) lot for a park and detention basin; and WHEREAS, the site is to be rezoned to High Density Residential Multiple Family (RMF- 16)(PD7)wherein the zoning of the site allows for the uses and densities proposed; WHEREAS, the proposed project is in conformance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and all other applicable General Plan policies;and WHEREAS, the proposed project, as conditioned, and subject to said rezoning is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and all other applicable codes, ordinances and standards; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the tentative tract map application on July 20, 1999 and recommended denial of the proposed 20-lot subdivision; 19 lots for single family residential use and one lot for a park/detention basin; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 21, 1999, and recommended approval of the revised 16-lot subdivision; 15 lots for single family residential use and one lot for a park/detention basin; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the tentative tract map on October 12, 1999 and accepted testimony, both written and oral, on the merits of the subdivision proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, SECTION I.-Findings. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: 1. The proposed subdivision, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan and applicable zoning requirements. 2. The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Resolution 1999-059 Page 2 of 3 3. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed. 4. The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 5. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through, or the use of property within, the proposed subdivision; or substantially equivalent alternative easements are provided. 6. The proposed subdivision design and type of improvements proposed will not cause serious public health problems. SECTION 2. Approval. The City Council does hereby approve Tentative Tract Map #99008 for the division of a 3.2 acre site located at 8605 El Centro Road into 16 lots; 15 single family residential lots and one (1) lot for a park and detention basin as shown on Exhibit A subject to the Conditions of Approval shown in Exhibit B. On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA Ray Johnson, Mayor 000126 Resolution No. 1999-059 Exhibit B Exhibit B Resolution No. 1999-059 Tentative Tract Map #99008 8605 El Centro Road (Tract 2329) Conditions of Approval Engineering Conditions 1. All public improvements shall be constructed in conformance with the City of Atascadero Engineering Department Standard Specifications and Drawings or as directed by the City Engineer. 2. The applicant shall enter into a Plan Check/Inspection agreement with the City. 3. A six (6) foot Public Utility Easement (PUE) shall be provided contiguous to all street frontages. 4. Slope easements shall be provided on each side of the right-of-way as needed to accommodate cut or fill slopes. 5. The applicant shall be responsible for the relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities. 6. The applicant shall install all new utilities (water, gas, electric, cable TV and telephone) underground. Utilities shall be extended to the property line frontage of each lot or its public utility easement. 7. The applicant shall monument all property corners for construction control and shall promptly replace them if disturbed. 8. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 9. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 10. The applicant shall acquire title or interest in any off-site land that may be required to allow for the construction of the improvements required by these conditions of approval. The applicant shall bear all costs associated with the necessary acquisitions. The applicant shall also gain concurrence from all adjacent property owners whose ingress or egress is affected by these improvements. TTM 99008 Conditions Page 2 of 6 11. Prior to recording the final map, the applicant shall submit the drainage calculations necessary to demonstrate that existing downstream drainage facilities have adequate capacity to handle the total flow from the fully developed watershed without adverse affect on other properties. If downstream facilities do not have adequate capacity, the applicant shall design and construct improvements to the downstream facilities or the applicant shall detain storm water on-site in conformance with City Standards. 12. Prior to recording the final map, the applicant shall submit a map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein. The map shall be submitted for review and approval by the City in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 13. Prior to recording the final map, the applicant shall set monuments at all new property corners and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners have been set or shall be set by a date specific and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. 14. Prior to recording the final map, the applicant shall pay all outstanding plan check/inspection fees. 15. Prior to recording the final map, the applicant shall submit a grading and drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer for review and approval by the City Engineer. • Drainage shall cross lot lines only where drainage easements have been provided. Drainage from off-site areas boundary shall be conveyed across the subdivision in private drainage easements. 16. Prior to recording the final map, the applicant shall design and construct the following street improvements. Plans for the street improvements shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. Plans shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer. R-value testing shall be done, and the pavement section designed by a registered civil engineer to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A. The northerly half of El Centro Road shall be improved in conformance with City Standard 405 (Local) along the entire property frontage, or as directed by the City Engineer. A 5-foot wide offer-of-dedication shall be provided along the El Centro Road property frontage. B. The private on-site streets shall be constructed in conformance with City Standard Drawing No. 403 (Rural Collector) or as directed by the City Engineer. Fifty-foot wide private road easements shall be provided for all on site streets. C. The private on-site cul-de-sacs shall be constructed in conformance with City Standard Drawing No. 415 (Typical cul-de-sac, Urban) or as directed by the City Engineer. Private road easements conforming to City Standard Drawing No. 415 shall be provided for-all cul-de-sacs. TTM 99008 Conditions Page 3 of 6 D. Street name, traffic signs, traffic striping and pavement marking shall be installed as directed by the City Engineer. E. A street light shall be installed at the intersection of the on-site street with El Centro Road. F. The existing streets adjacent to the property frontage shall be overlayed to remedy an inadequate structural section or to remedy deteriorated paving surface as directed by the City Engineer. Transitions shall be constructed between the proposed improvements and the existing improvements as directed by the City Engineer. 17. Prior to recording the final map, the applicant shall have the map reviewed by all applicable public and private utility companies (cable, telephone, gas, electric, and Atascadero Mutual Water Company). The applicant shall obtain a letter from each utility company which indicates their review of the map. The letter shall identify any new easements which may be required by the utility company. A copy of the letter shall be submitted to the City. New easements shall be shown on the final map. 18. Prior to recording the final map,the applicant shall pay all sewer annexation fees. 19. Prior to the final map being placed on the agenda for City Council acceptance, the map shall be signed by the City Engineer. 20. Upon recording the final map, the applicant shall provide the City with a black line clear Mylar(0.4 mil) copy and a blue line print of the recorded map. 21. Prior to the final inspection, all outstanding plan check and inspection fees shall be paid. 22. Prior to the final inspection, the applicant shall submit a written statement from a registered civil engineer that all improvements required by these conditions of approval have been completed and are in full compliance with the approved plans and the Uniform Building Code (UBC). 23. Prior to the final inspection, the applicant shall submit a written certification from a registered civil engineer or land surveyor that all survey monuments have been set as shown on the final map. 24. Prior to the final inspection, the applicant shall submit a Mylar copy and a blue line print of as-built improvement plans, signed by the registered engineer who prepared the plans shall be provided to the City Engineer. 00017 TTM 99008 Conditions Page 4 of 6 Community Development Department Conditions 25. The final map shall be in conformance with the standards of Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 7. 26. Construction activities shall be in conformance with the following air quality mitigation measures: A. All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is finished for the day. B. All clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e. greater than 20 mph averaged over one hour) so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. C. All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. D. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. E. Permanent dust control measured identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. F. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation becomes established. G. All disturbed areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders,jute netting, or other methods in advance by the APCD. H. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, structural foundations shall be completed as soon as possible following building pad construction. I. On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph for any unpaved surface. J. All unpaved areas with vehicle traffic shall be watered at least twice per day, using non-potable water. TTM 99008 Conditions Page 5 of 6 K. Streets adjacent to the project site shall be swept daily to remove silt which may have accumulated from construction activities so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust from leaving the site. 27. A reflectorized house number master sign system shall be installed at all street intersections and an individualized reflectorized address sign shall be placed on the right hand side of each residence. 28. Water supply mains and fire hydrants shall be designed, installed and tested and approved by the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and the Fire Department. 29. Roadways and fire hydrants shall be designed per City standards. One new fire hydrant shall be placed near the project entrance as determined by the Fire Chief. The Fire Department turnaround area shall be identified on either a public r.o.w. or on a private street. 30. A 10-foot wide public utility easement shall be granted to PG&E along all lot boundaries located adjacent to any streets. Any existing overhead facilities which are evident in the field should be plotted on the final map. A 10-foot wide public utility easement shall be granted to PG&E to cover these overhead facilities. 31. Exterior fencing shall be consistent throughout the project. Design and appearance of fences or walls shall be compatible with the design of the dwellings. Fencing of the individual parcels shall not extend into the front setback beyond the front of the individual residence. Fencing along El Centro Road.(Lots 13, 14, and 15) shall be set back 5 feet from the property line to allow for landscaping. 32. Tree protection/mitigation plans shall be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of permits. Tree protection and preservation shall follow the recommendations of the report prepared by Jack Brazeal dated December 21, 1998. Tree replacement shall comply with the City's Tree Ordinance. 33. A landscaping and irrigation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Department for landscaping of El Centro Road street frontage including Lots 13, 14, 15, the park/detention basin (Lot 16), front/side yard landscaping, and street trees. The landscape plan shall be a part of the subdivision improvement plan and required landscaping shall be installed(or bonded for)prior to recording the final map. 34. The detention basin and El Centro fence buffer shall be maintained by a Homeowner's Association. CC&Rs, including the required maintenance provisions, shall be reviewed and approved the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to recording the final map. 000i- ;� TTM 99008 Conditions Page 6 of 6 • 35. Specifications, such as the basin slopes and depth, shall be provided for the detention basin as part of the improvement plans. Maximum slopes shall not exceed 5:1 and depth shall not exceed 5 feet. The detention basin shall include a rock-lined collection area for summer nuisance water. 36. In order to provide accent materials on the proposed stucco building surfaces, all street elevations shall include an additional accent material such as brick, stone or decorative wood siding with corner returns of at least 2 feet. A raised window surround treatment shall also be required on all street-facing windows. 37. General Plan Amendment 97005 and Zone Change 97005 shall be approved and effective prior to the recordation of the map. 38. This tentative map approval shall expire two (2) years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request received prior to the expiration date. 39. All construction activity shall be in conformance with the building standards and regulations (Uniform Building Code) in effect at the time plans are reviewed and approved. 40. The applicant shall create a homeowners association, or similar entity and submit agreements for the maintenance of all private roads, sewer facilities, drainage facilities, the park feature, street lights, and other common use facilities. The maintenance entity and maintenance agreements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the City Attorney. Recorded copies of formation of the maintenance entity and maintenance agreements shall be submitted to the City prior to recordation of the of the final map. 99-0227/Cp-Condition.doc ATTACHMENT J RESOLUTION NO. 1999-060 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DENYING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE,AND A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP THAT WOULD HAVE CREATED 15 HOME SITES AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS AT EL CENTRO ROAD AND CASCADA ROAD (GPA/ZC 97005,TTM 99008; Andrew Charnley 8605 El Centro Road) WHEREAS, Andrew Charnley requested a general plan amendment, a zoning change, and a tentative tract map to divide an approximately 3.2 acre site into 16 lots; 15 for single family home sites and one lot for a park/detention basin; and WHEREAS, the site is located in the High Density Single Family Residential (RSF-X) zoning district which would be changed to the High Density Multiple Family Residential (RMF- 16)(PD7) zone, which would allow the type and density of development proposed; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 20, 1999, and recommended denial of the general plan/zoning amendments and tentative tract map associated with the proposed 20-lot subdivision; 19 lots for single family residential use and one lot for a park/detention basin; and WHEREAS; the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 21, 1999, and recommended approval of the revised 16-lot subdivision; 15 lots for single family residential use and one lot for a park/detention; and WHEREAS; the City Council conducted a public hearing on the proposed map amendments and revised tentative map on October 12, 1999. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council takes the following actions: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council makes the following finding: 1. The applications are not consistent with the General Plan, specifically (CITY COUNCIL FILL IN) Resolution 1999-060 Page 2 of 2 SECTION 2. Denial. The City Council hereby denies the general plan and zoning map amendments and the tentative map. On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA Ray Johnson, Mayor ATTEST: Marcia M. Torgerson, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney ITEM NUMBER: C- 1 DATE: 10/12/99 leis ® 1979 Atascadero City Council City Manager's Office` Information Bulletin A. General Plan Update On September 14, 1999, the City Council directed staff to implement a comprehensive update of the General Plan. The Council also directed staff to prepare a strategy that would describe how the update would be completed and the associated costs with the update. Staff has requested and received Requests for Qualifications from a number of. firms in California experienced in general plan updates. Staff has also contacted a number of cities to determine the more recent trends cities are using in updating general plans. There are a variety of approaches the city can undertake in the update process, based on the proposals and information received. Therefore, staff is working with a local firm, Crawford, Multari, Clark & Mohr to establish a work plan that is customized to Atascadero. The firm is involved in updating the Countyand City Safety element and has knowledge of Atascadero to assist staff in the development of the work program and budget. It is expected that the work plan and budget will be included on the next council agenda. B. Employee Update Amy Carney Scorekeeper Resigned 9/16/99 Cheryl Hosier' Temp. Clerical Asst. Hired 9/20/99 Dave Freeman Zoo Cashier Separated 9/21/99 I i OU0136 i s •