HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 021192 Approved as Submitted 3/24/92
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 11, 1992
Mayor Shiers called a special session to order at 6:11 p.m. for
purposes of interviewing five members of the public interested in
serving on the City's Building & Construction Board of Appeals.
Those interviewed to fill two vacancies were: Lyle Curry, John
Clarke, Frances George, Gary Cochran and Bob Fisher. A letter from
applicant Ed Nolan, who was unable to attend, was reviewed.
Following the interviews and voting, Lyle Curry was selected as the
citizen member-at-large and Bob Fisher as the professional design
member.
At 7:00 p.m. , the mayor called the regular meeting to order and the
roll was called as follows:
ROLL CALL:
Present: Councilmembers Nimmo, Lilley, Borgeson, Dexter
and Mayor Shiers
Absents None
Also Present: Muriel "Micki" Korba, City Treasurer and Lee
Raboin, City Clerk
Staff Present: Ray Windsor, City Manager; Henry Engen,
Community Development Director; Art Montandon,
City Attorney; Mark Joseph, Administrative
Services Director; Greg Luke, Public Works
Director; Andy Takata, Director of Community
Services Department; Bud McHale, Police Chief
and Mike McCain, Acting Fire Chief
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Councilwoman Borgeson noted that she had received a letter of
request to be issued a permit to carry a concealed weapon from
citizen David Duncan. She asked that a review of the application
process be taken up as a future agenda item.
CCO2/:11/92
Page 1
• Resolution No. 15-92 - Appointing (2) members to the City's
Building & Construction Board of Appeals
Mayor Shiers noted that Council had met in early session to
interview candidates and had made their selection. He asked
Council to make the appointments formal by adopting Resolution No.
15-92. The City Clerk pointed out a change in term dates.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Dexter
to approve Resolution No. 15-92 with the corrections;
motion carried unanimously.
• D.A.R.E. Presentation - Police Department
Bud McHale, Police Chief, reported that there had been 3,208
students graduated to date from the D.A.R.E. Program. He
introduced and congratulated School Resource Officer Bill Swift.
Officer Swift presented D.A.R.E. T-Shirts to the City Manager and
members of the City Council.
COMMUNITY FORUM:
Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, voiced whole-hearted support for the
D.A.R.E. Program and the efforts to keep youth sober. In addition,
he mentioned that the older generation should assess and combat
its' own addictions.
Sylvia Vickers, General Manager of Falcon Cable, presented a
franchise check in the amount of $104,017.00 to Mark Joseph.
A. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent ad hoc or standing
committees. Informative status reports were given, as
follows. ) :
1. S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council/North Coastal Transit -
Councilwoman Borgeson noted that she had attended the
meeting on February 4, 1992 and would provide a full
report at the next meeting.
2 Recycling Committee Mayor Shiers announced that there
would be a report from this committee under Item #D-1.
He added that the next meeting would be Thursday,
February 13, 1992 at 5:00 p.m. in Room 102 of City Hall.
3. Economic Opportunity Commission - Councilman Dexter
reported that the next meeting would be on February 27,
1992.
4. City/School Committee - Councilman Dexter announced that
the committee would meet on the 20th of February.
CCO 2/'11/92
Page 2
5. Traffic Committee - Councilman Dexter stated that the
committee had forwarded three action items to Council
(see Consent Calendar #B-1) .
6. County Water Advisory Board - Councilwoman Borgeson
reported that the board had met on February 4, 1992 and
were in the process of counting votes regarding "State
Water She indicated that she would report further at
the next meeting.
7. Economic Round Table - Councilman Lilley announced the
next meeting date to be February 19, 1992.
9. Colony Roads Committee - The City Manager indicated that
he was coordinating a meeting date of February 20, 1992
at 11:30 a.m.
Mayor Shiers reported that he had attended a joint meeting of the
San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors and members of six of
the seven city councils in the County. He explained that issues of
concern discussed included economic development, water, growth,
vision and fiscal policies.
B. CONSENT CALENDAR:
The mayor read the Consent Calendar, as follows:
1. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE ITEMS:
A. Resolution No. 11-92 - Designating a no-parking zone on
Viejo Camino, from El Camino Real southerly to the end of
the curb
B. Resolution No. 12-92 -Designating a stop intersection on
San Francisco St. @ Marchant Ave.
C. Resolution No. 13-92 - Designating a stop intersection on
Pino Solo @ La Linia Ave.
2. CONFIRM MID-YEAR BUDGET UPDATE: 6:00 P.M. , TUESDAY, 2/25/92
3. RESOLUTION NO. 19-92 - ENCOURAGING AND ENDORSING RESPONSIBLE
PET OWNERSHIP
Councilman Nimmo pulled Item #3.
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Mayor Shiers to approve
the Consent Calendar Items #1 & 2; motion carried
unanimously.
CCO2/11;/92
Page
Re: Item #3. RESOLUTION NO. 19-92 - ENCOURAGING AND ENDORSING
RESPONSIBLE PET OWNERSHIP
Councilman Nimmo explained that although he had no quarrel with
endorsing the proposed resolution, he did object to Section 2
regarding humanely euthenizing animals. Other members of Council
expressed support for deleting that portion and endorsing the
balance of the resolution.
MOTION: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilman Nimmo to
adopt Resolution No. 19-92 removing Section #2; motion
passed unanimously.
C. HEARINGS:
1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 91-009, 9300 CORRIENTE - APPEAL OF PLAN-
NING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF PROPOSED DIVISION OF AN 8.21 ACRE
PARCEL INTO TWO 4.1 ACRE LOTS (Young/Cuesta Engineering)
Henry Engen provided an overview of the concerns highlighted in the
appeal and responded to questions from Council regarding driveway
easement, the septic system, percolation testing and lot size.
Public Comments:
Appellant Robert Cardillo, 9400 Corriente Road submitted a prepared
statement and additional support for the appeal (see Exhibit A) .
Deborah Hollowell, Cuesta Engineering, spoke on behalf of the
applicants, Traci and Andrew Young, and urged the Council to
approve the project. She addressed five points made by the
appellant in his letter of January 21, 1992 (see Agenda Packet) and
additional remarks made during his testimony. In addition, Ms.
Hollowell submitted a photograph of the area to illustrate the
distances between existing homes (see Exhibit B) .
Andrew Young, 8730 Sierra Vista Road, provided a history of the
property and why they desire a lot split. He asserted that the
subdivision is legally acceptable and the appellant had full
knowledge of the lot split application before purchase of his
property.
Stu Matson, 9605 Corriente Road, voiced opposition to the lot split
because he believed it to be inconsistent with the neighborhood.
Karen Oakes, 6705 Llano Road, stated that she had not been notified
of the proposed lot split and had trouble finding it as it was not
well posted. She stated that the intent of numerical guidelines is
CCO,2111/92
Page 4
to provide quality development and asked the Council, unless they
were absolutely sure there would be no detriment, to not allow the
split.
Frank Henderson, 9205 Balboa, indicated that he was the owner of
property adjacent to the subject site and spoke in opposition to
the application. He asked the Council to consider it as a flag lot
and stated that if it were approved, the Council may be setting a
precedent for small lot subdivision.
Beryl Davis, 13505 Santa Ana Road, spoke in opposition to the lot
split and asked Council to support a quality of life for all.
Brian Miracle, 8570 Corriente Road, also spoke out against the
proposed subdivision.
Nora Rum, 8405 Corriente Road, proclaimed that there were C.C.&R. 's
to protect the area and asked the Community Development Director
when neighbors are notified of lot split applications. Mr. Engen
explained posting and notification procedures. Deborah Hollowell
confirmed that, as part of the process, she had mailed notices to
those who own property within three hundred feet. Mr. Engen noted
that sometimes notices are not received by the right owner.
Mike Olsten, 9600 Sausalito, opposed the project and expressed
concern for septic effluent draining into the lower lot.
Jim Murray, 9500 Corriente Road, reported that he had not received
any notice of the lot split and indicated that he also thought the
project was inconsistent with the area.
Andrew Young presented final comments urging Council to approve his
request. He emphasized that he was not proposing to construct an
additional driveway; only the one original road which would be
needed to serve the present lot.
---End of Public Testimony---
Council discussion followed regarding percolation testing. Deborah
Hollowell explained that the testing had been done before any
topographical survey work was begun.- She pointed out that if the
perc tests had indicated that a standard septic system would not be
acceptable, her firm would not have proceeded with the topo map.
She explained that five holes had been drilled in the field of each
lot, one of which was deep-boring. Mr. Cardillo debated that the
map on file with the City showed something different.
Councilwoman Borgeson stated that noticing was inadequate and
shared concern for the process. She indicated that she had
questions regarding the drainage impacts and steepness of drive,
CCO 2/11 /92
Page 5
and added that the lot split was out of character with the
neighborhood. She then questioned the Community Development
Director about staff interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance with
regard to percent slope.
Councilman Nimmo asserted that while he did not like the specific
lot split, the issue was whether or not it meets the criteria
established by the City. He acknowledged that the criteria may be
faulty, but added that unless and until it is changed, the Council
must live by the ordinance, deny the appeal and approve the lot
split.
Councilman Lilley declared that he did not like the lot split for
a combination of reasons: slope, size of the lot, location of the
building envelope, proximity to the Cardillo' s home and incompati-
bility with the neighborhood. In addition, he revealed that he had
problems with the septic system and could not approve it without a
special precise plan and additional data to assure him that the
septic system would not be a part of any drainage run-off burdening
the Cardillos.
Councilman Dexter disagreed that the split was inconsistent with
the neighborhood, pointing out that there were lots of similar size
in the area but added that he was not particularly in favor of the
application.
Mayor Shiers voiced opposition to the lot split because he believed
it did not meet all the map findings.
Mike McCain, Acting Fire Chief, responded to inquiry from
Councilman Lilley about the proposed driveway. He reported that
the Fire Marshall had reviewed the plans and determined that the
driveway does not exceed the maximum acceptable slope standards.
Mr. Engen pointed out that the driveway would be the same whether
it serves one or two lots.
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo to deny the appeal and approve
Tentative Parcel Map 91-009 subject to submittal of a
precise plan. Motion died for lack of second.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson to uphold the appeal of the
Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Parcel Map
91-009 at 9300 Corriente Road.
Discussion, motion amended and seconded: Henry Engen asked if
the motion was to include directing staff to bring back formal
findings for denial. Councilwoman Borgeson indicated that she
would amend her motion to reflect said direction. Councilman
Lilley seconded the motion.
CCO �/ 11/92
Page 6
Vote on the motion: Motion to uphold the appeal carried
4: 1 with Councilman Nimmo voting in opposition.
D. REGULAR BUSINESS:
1. RECYCLING4 COMMITTEE - STATUS REPORT
Greg Luke, Public Works Director, introduced Dennis Loftus,'
Chairman of the Recycling Committee. Mr. Loftus highlighted the
efforts and accomplishments of the past year and provided an
overview of the goals for the coming year.
Members of Council commended the committee for their fine work.
2. CREERWAY MANAGEMENT POLICY- STAFF PRESENTATION
Greg Luke reported that, given the complexity and cost implications
of the issue, staff was recommending that Council take no action at
this time, but to set a meeting for a future date to provide _
specific direction to staff leading to the development of a
Creekway Management Plan.
The City Manager pointed out that funding and staff resources are
limited and noted that certain levels of expertise are not
available in-house. Mr. Windsor explained that staff will need
clear direction from Council about what level of detail is being
sought.
Councilwoman Borgeson voiced disapproval for staff recommendation
to take no action at this time and mentioned that the materials
provided in the packet should be relevant. She stated that the
plans provided as examples are wetland or coastal and would not be
appropriate for Atascadero' s creeks. The City Manager clarified
that the attachments were merely examples of management tools from
other communities and reiterated the need for specialized expertise
for developing a plan for Atascadero.
Councilman Lilley asserted that a professional, proactive plan is
required with specific recommendations for creeks and trails. He
stated that it must be a -pragmatic, common-sense plan with the
support from the community and noted that he was not supportive of
using outside consultant services.
Mayor Shiers, noting budget restraints, favored utilizing the staff
wherever possible. He encouraged continuing study of other
creekway plans in an effort to develop certain areas along the
creek and proposed that the City hire outside services only as
needed for specialized areas.
Councilman Nimmo emphasized the need to move slowly without
CW2/ 11/92
Page 7
incurring any outside consultant costs and spoke in support of
continuing the creekway mapping and riparian area definition
processes.
Councilwoman Borgeson asserted that the City has made some progress
with the creekway intrusion ordinance and now it is time to begin
protecting the creeks and addressing erosion. She remarked that
staff in the Community Services Department could be involved in the
process.
Councilman Lilley spoke in favor of community participation and
proposed that a committee be formed to develop a plan the public
would support.
Public Comments:
Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road, proclaimed that the Council had
ignored the testimony presented by a majority of people who spoke
at the special City Council meeting on December 19, 1991 who favor
creek setbacks. She criticized the staff report and recommendation
to take no action.
Russ Kolemaine, 4580 Potrero Road, commented that the creekway
mapping should be completed and if the City cannot afford a
consultant to do it, it must direct staff to finish the mapping of
all waterways. He spoke in support of a citizens' committee
approach as suggested by Councilman Lilley,
Sarah Gronstrand, 7620 Del Rio Road, asked that while the mapping
is being completed, the City consider re-vegetation to restore the
creek where clear cutting has resulted. She shared concern for
vandalism occurring in the Salinas River and cautioned the Council
to not leave this waterway out of the plan.
Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, agreed that re-vegetation is needed and
necessary and shared concern for the affect a proposed recreational
vehicle park may have on the Salinas River.
---End of Public Testimony---
Councilwoman Borgeson emphasized that she was opposed to a blanket
setback but clarified that it did not mean she did not want creek
preservation. She indicated that she could support an advisory
committee to help write the plan.
Mayor Shiers remarked that he believed it was important to measure
the riparian corridor and continue to develop a plan that will
offer protection for the creek. He added that there should be
varying setbacks depending on what the sensitive resources are in
the areas.
CCO,2/`1 /92
Page 8
Councilman Dexter commented that any setback must be applicable to
the area and agreed that mapping should be continued. In addition,
he concurred that re-vegetation should begin and encouraged the use
of community volunteers.
The City Manager advised that the recommendation from staff was his
after consultation with the Public Works Director and without
conference with Council. He reiterated that the City's resources
are limited and underscored that to really pursue this matter, it
will take a long time. He mentioned that he would endeavor to
obtain a copy of the Boulder, Colorado plan developed by Randy
Rossi for Council to review. In addition, he suggested that a task
force could be put together and a blueprint developed to help
implore community interest and expertise.
Greg Luke referred to the nine steps outlined in the packet and
pointed out that it appeared, based on the discussion, that the
Council was ready to move forward with the first four steps.
Councilman Dexter suggested that it may be appropriate to set a
study session in which Council could fine tune the issues and
objectives.
3. ANIMAL REGULATION
A. Resolution No. 17-92 - Authorizing the execution of a
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement with the City of Paso
Robles to provide animal regulation services
B. Resolution No. 18-92 - Creating two new position classi-
fications and allocating two additional positions to the
Police Department
Mark Joseph provided an overview of the staff report and recom-
mendations.
Councilman Nimmo shared concern for adding two additional regular
employees and remarked that he would be more supportive if they
were contractual. Other members of Council agreed. Mr. Joseph
indicated that Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) would allow for this
stipulation.
Chief McHale suggested that the position classifications of Animal
Control Supervisor and Animal Control Officer be changed to Animal
Services Supervisor and Animal Services Officer.
Public Comments:
Daphne Fahsing, co-founder of Action for Animal Rights, asked the
Council to delay a decision and hold one or more public hearings on
the matter before the plan is an established fact. She asserted
CCO.2/11"/92
Page 9
that in order for the program to be successful, it must have public
support. She asked what position the City of Paso Robles held.
Mark Joseph reported that the city supports the concept and was
intending to approve the matter on February 18, 1992 if Atascadero
does so.
---End of Pubic Testimony---
Councilmembers Nimmo and Lilley indicated that they were prepared
to move ahead. Councilman Dexter concurred, adding that there be
a contingency if the City of Paso Robles rejects.
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Lilley to
adopt Resolution No. 17-92; motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilman Dexter to
adopt Resolution 18-92 as amended; motion carried
unanimously.
Chief McHale asked the Council to give consideration to addressing
a possible urgency ordinance relating to the location of a animal
shelter.
MOTION: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilman Nimmo to
direct staff to bring back an urgency ordinance
pertaining to the zoning of an animal services center at
the soonest possible meeting; motion unanimously passed.
4. AMBULANCE CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS - PARTICIPATION WITH SAN LUIS
OBISPO
The City Manager reported that emergency medical services are
integrated within the incorporated cities of the County and
explained further that the City provides service to unincorporated
areas of the County without any reimbursement. He indicated that
staff was recommending that the Council agree to participate with
other cities in a study of emergency medical services in an effort
to provide the best possible life support service and, at the same
time, recover some of the costs involved in doing so. Mr. Windsor
noted that the staff report reflected a recommended expenditure of
not more than $1,500, but proposed that the figure be lowered to
$1,200.
There was no public testimony.
MOTION: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson
to approve spending an amount not to exceed $1,200 for
the city' s share of a review of the existing emergency
medical services program; motion carried 5:0.
Cco2/11/9a
Page 10
5. P.E.R.S. MILITARY SERVICE CREDIT FOR EMPLOYEES
A. Resolution No. 16-92 - Giving Notice of Intention to
approve an amendment to contract between the Board of
Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System
and the City of Atascadero
B. Ordinance No. 238 - Authorizing an amendment to the con-
tract between the City of Atascadero and the Board of
Administration of the California Public Employees' Re-
tirement System
(Recommend motion to waive reading in full and approve on
first reading by title only)
Mark Joseph reported that the recommended action was a formality to
implement a contract amendment agreed to as part of the current
Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Fire
Captains/Firefighters Bargaining Units and request from department
heads. He added that there would be no cost to the City.
MOTION: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilman Dexter to
adopt Resolution No. 16-92; motion carried 5:0.
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Dexter to
waive the reading in full and adopt Ordinance No. 238 on
first reading; motion passed 5:0.
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
I. City Council
Mayor Shiers suggested that the City present a plague to the
anonymous donors of the police dog.
2. City Clerk
The City Clerk mentioned that the nomination period was open and
the following five members of the public had taken out candidate
papers for City Council: Tom Bench, Gary Kirkland, George Luna,
Dale Cradduck and Dennis Bryant.
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 10:38 P.M. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL MEET
IN SPECIAL SESSION AT 6:00 P.M. ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1992 FOR
THE PURPOSE OF MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW AND AUDIT REPORT. THE
REGULAR MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 7:00 P.M.
CC0 2/11 /92
Page 11
MINUTES RECORDED AND PREPARED BY:
L•.EE ft-AB--b-T& City C er
Attachments: Exhibit A (Cardillo)
Exhibit B (Cuesta Engineering)
CCO 2/11/92
Page 12
CC2/11/92 Exhibit A ,�.I V I
Robert L. Cardillo
9400 Corriente Road t
.ltascadero, CA r7
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
embers of the Atascadero . City Council
I felt it important to attach Page 1 of The Subdivision Ordinance
and Chapter 1 of The Zoning Ordinance expressing the purpose of
the Zoning Regulations. I will summarize the main points for the
benefit of the audience here tonight.
The Regulations are to protect and provide for the health, safety
and welfare of the residents.
To minimize adverse effects on the public resulting from inap-
propriate use of building sites, structures, or other land uses
by providing appropriate standards for development. '
To provide for the development of land use in a manner that
encourages and supports the goals and policies of the General Plan.
To ensure that real property which is to be divided can be used
without damage to inhabitants or property.
To protect. and enhance the value of land and minimize conflicts
egn.ong the uses of land and buildings.
And to ensure development that will best reflect the capability
of the land to support a desirable living environment.
Iiad the City Planners and Engineers followed these regulations$
this lot split application would never have reached this point,
as the goals and regulations have been violated. I have also
attached some of the ordinances that have not been followed so
that City Council can review this matter and reach a fait con-
elusion. I also ask the City Council to take note of the fact
that prior to the Planning Commission votes the only two commissioners
to view the property voted against the split.
Bill Barnes, who split many of these lots years ago, suggested Z
ask you, "Don' t you think he would have split this lot if it were
possible?" It already was part of a lot Bill had split. Frank
Henderson, who recently developed most of the immediate properties,
is on record as stating this split is completely out of character
for the area. A neighbor had an option to purchase and split the
Youngs lot and decided against it as his studies indicated it
mould depress the value of neighboring homes and the split would
decrease the value of the split lot.. Also, it would destroy the
character of the area.
I feel the lot split violates City Ordinances in the following areas.
Ordinance 11-3 206 States lots with ratio of Depth to Width
greater than 3 shall not be permitted if subsequent development
is detrimental to adjacent properties. This is nearly 4 to 1 .
Ordinance 11-8 209 States Flag lots may be approved providing
the subdivison is consistent with the character of the immediate
neighborhood. It is not! As* some members of the Planning Com-
mission stated, "this is a flag lot without the name."
Ordinance 11-8 209 States the access way serving the flag lot
shall not be included in the determination of required lot area
for any lot. This lot would not meet minimum lot size criteria
if calculated properly.
,joning Ordinance 1-5 States, when rounding quantities .5 goes
to the next highest whole number.
City states average slope is 30.50
Zoning Ordinance 3-9 states 26-301 uses a 1-.25 factor.
31-35% uses a 1 .75 factor. The City used the 1 .25 factor
which is incorrect. Had they used 1 .75factor, the minimum lot
size would not be met and the lot split would not be allowed.
Septic System violates the ordinance.
Perc tests provided by Mid Coast shows two perc tests are Less
than 50 feet from water drainage. The City states the septic
cannot go in this area, which drains unto our property. Cuesta
Engineering states this is the only feasible location. No
further perc tests have been done. How can this lot split be
approved when the City and Cuesta Engineering cannot agree?
This is a danger to our health and welfare which the City is
supposed to protect.
I have made all my points known to the Planning Department and
naturally they have had sufficient time to offer rebuttal and
try to circumvent the regulations to back the lot split in
every case. Why is this happening? No one seems to know.
Should we lose, we will appeal the Negative Declaration and
file suit for Violation of the California Environmental Quality
Act along with other necessary legal action.
11-8.203 Solar ori ntation.
The longest dimension of each lot should be oriented within thirty degrees of south,
unless the subdivider demonstrates that for certain lots.-
A.
ots:A. The lots are large enough to.,allow proper building orientation and maximum
feasible control of solar exposure by the lot owner, regardless 01.140t
orientation:
B. Buildings will beconstructed as part of the subdivision project (as is
condominium or planned development), .and the buildings themselves-will be
properly oriented, with adequate solar_.exposuret
C. Topography makes variations from the prescribed orientation desirable to
reduce grading or tree removal or to take advantage of a setting which favors
early morning or late afternoon exposure, 'or- where topographical coalitions
make solar energy infeasible:
D. The size"of the subdivision .in relation to surrounding streets and. lots
precludes desirable tot orientation.-,..
11-8.204 Reserved.
11-8.205 multiple frontages.
Single family residential i ots with frontage on more than one street are
discouraged, except for corner lots or where topography makes a single frontage
impractical. The City may require the release of_access rights ,on one.frontage
which shall be noted on the subdivision map. -
1-8.206
ap.1-8.206 De h §tai-reZ li..nshi _
Lots w th a rat a o ,dep ta•tri greater than*threew attail not be::pew des
there-is adequate-"suranc a that deepE lot subdi loe,Aril-`not occur at that•-deep
lot subdivision:and subsequent development-vill'�bv"accompliaheck rritbout detriment
to adjacent properties:
11-8.207 Lot lines. ..,� ,:- -
A. Lot lines shoultrb 8t't)ie'top� of slopes-banks �
B. Side lot lines should be perpendicular to the street on straight streets, or
radial to the street on curved streets, unless another angle would provide
better building orientation for solar exposure or more lot area to the south
of the likely building site, or unless another lot configuration would better
suit the site topography or planned design of the development.
C. On corner. lots, 'the` intersection" lot lines 'adjacent to streets shall be
rounded with a twenty-foot radius
11-8.208 Taxing district boundary. .-..._ _ ..
No lot shall be divided by a taxing district boundary-
11-8.209
oundary.11-8 209 Flaa lots fideey Iot subdivisionst:'
Flag lots.maY app
findings," they subdivision .is - eat�w t2t tha�characl character--6r-the;isu�diata
neigbbarhood. �{ ) the~iaatailatiom Qf a s aL�oas o f died
ti(m with.neighboriag:"properties . feaa3ble� �
by topogri�phi,cil4n' stditiona �=3u !Wbdivisioscs: g
..�:�.: �.. --. ..� ,.... - .♦_ ....:� �. -d-. "'Chs°`
A. t t:
not= MMCD
B. The original lot, shall have frontsg eon a dedicated street of,at least the
minimum length required by, these regulations for the .zone ia..'which it is
located,,,plus the accessway required to potentiai' rear lots.
C. The accessway to the rear'shall be at least twenty feet eine. tdeveloped to
City standards) -for residential__zones,", except where the accessway is more
{
ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 2.o,vtx;� # �� t>r ✓a�� -�'
Percolation tests may be substituted for the Soil Conserva-
tion Service Reports. These shall be prepared by a registered
civil engineer or licensed sanitarian. The following conver-
sion chart shall be used to determined the appropriate lot
size actor:
PERCOLATION RATING MINUTES PER INCH
well-suited less than 20
Moderate or slow 20 to 39
Slow 40 to 59
Severe greater than 60
(3) Average Slope: Using the Basic, Sectional or Contour
Measurement Method, the lot size factor based on this
performance standard shall be:
SLOPE t LOT SIZE FACTOR
0 - 10% 0.50
11. - 20% 0.15
21 25%
r_ 1.00 : :.
2� - 30 x : .2
..36 - 40$ r,:
2.00
40% + 2.25
(4) ' Condition of Access: Using the road right-of-way with
the shortest accessible distance between a lot and an
improved collector road, the lot size factor based on
this performance standard shall be:
CONDITION LOT SIZE FACTOR
City accepted road0.40
paved road, t 13% slope 0.40
paved road, > 15W slope 0.50
all-weather road 0.75
< 15% slope
all-weather road 1.00
>- 15% slope
unimproved road 1.25
< 15%- slope
unimproved road 1.50`
> 15% slope
}
3-9
s
s
1-5
ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983
(b) Language:
(1) Construction: When used in this Title, the words
shall", "will", and "is to" are always mandatory
and not discretionary. The words "should" or
"may" are permissive. The present
a tense includes the past and future tenses; and the
future tense includes the present. The singular
number includes the plural, and the plural the
singular.
(2) Time of Day: Whenever a certain hour or time of
day is"specified in this Title, or any permit,
condition of approval or notice issued or given as
set forth in this Title, such hour shall be
standard time or daylight savings time, whichever
is in current use.
(3) Number of Days: Whenever a number of days is
specifiedn this Title, or in any permit,
condition of approval or notice issued or given as
set forth in this Title, such number of days shall
be deemed to be consecutive calendar days, unless
the number of days is specifically identified as
working days.
(4) Rounding of ties, , t s_aWTSX- at tts
es consideration. f - tstances, -numb
eers.' ofd
``dwellincX-units- parking-rspa skor other.-.aspeaft' o f
development expressed in numerical quantities that"
arft ft ons og; whgle,, Aumbers and this T tle`hses
suctr-.ities. in*-!the form.aof'whole numbers only,.--,
such numbers are to be rounded to the next highest
whole number when the fraction is5 or more:,. and=
to the-next lowest whole nuxbe=�,w t iction
is-less than .5;1 provided,., :
$M:� er,"�'tfiat
quagtities -express expressing` ase<as`o land arw'td4 roundecF
on3.y`'�1:a:the_case of &Lreige.
(c) Map Boundaries and S my_,bols: if questions arise about
' the location of any zoning district boundary, or the
location of'a proposed public facility, road alignment
or other symbol or line on the official maps, the
following procedures shall be used to resolve such
questions:
(1) where a boundary is shown as approximately
following a lot line, the lot line shall be
4
Chapter 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
11-1.003 Title.
11-1.002 Purpose.
11-1.003 Adoption authority - Conformance with other regulations.
11-1.004 Interpretation and application.
11-1.005 Conflict with public provisions.
11-1.005 Conflict with private provisions.
11-1,007 Actions by persons with interest.
11-1.008 Severability.
11-1.009 Procedure Summary.
11-1.001 Title.
This chapter shall be known and cited as the "Atascadero Subdivision Ordinance."
11-1.002 Purpose.
The regulations codified in this Title are adopted for the following purposes:
A. To protect. and: provide for the public health, safety and genersesl�i4lfare,, -:
B. To guide the development of the City in accordance with the general plan and
specific plans;
C. To ensure that real -propertg-which is tar b+ee,,4 divided canv-bez;utsed.without
danger to inhabitants or property due to-fire, ,flood,.soil"i si tabTTSty, noise
or other hazard;
D. To ensure that proper provision will be made for traffic circulation, public
utilities, facilities, and other improvements within the subdivided land and
within the City as a whole;
E. To protect and enhance_ the value of land and improvements`•�-anc1„t+�' minimize
conflicts among °-the"uses of"land'"ancf buildings, >.
F. To protect potential buyers and inhabitants by establishing standards of
design, and by establishing procedures which ensure proper legal description
and monumenting of subdivided land;
G. To protect the natural resources of the community, including topographic and
geologic features, solar exposure, water courses, wildlife habitats and
scenic vistas, and to increase reasonable public access to such resources;
H. To enabler,innovations; insubdivisioa procedures-�whictr-facilitates development
that'`wr,1LL, best'.-;reflect I the, capability-o tb!a— " eo support","' w #sable
livinq env±ronment
11-1.003 Adoption authority Conformance with other regulations.
A. These regulations are adopted pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, as a
"local ordinance" as that term is used in that :act, and to supplement the
provisions of that act. All provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and future
amendments thereto not incorporated in these regulations shall apply to all
subdivisions, subdivision maps and proceedings under these regulations.
B. Nothing in this section shall be read to limit the rights of the City to
enact additional provisions concerning the division of land as are deemed
necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare.
C Approval or conditionalapproval of a subdivision map shall not excuse
compliance with other applicable provisions of this code or other applicable
ordinances, rules, regulations and policies adopted by the City,
L _
TITLE 9. ZONING REGULATIONS
Chapter 1. Enactment, Administration, and Amendment
9-1. 101. Title and Purposes This Title is known as the Zoning
Regulations of The City of Atascadero, Title 9 of the Atascadero
Municipal Code. These regulations are established and adopted to
protect and promote'the`'public` health,�`safety._and welfareand
provide, a regulatory,..structure -ewhidh'-. 5
(a) Provides for the development of land use in manner
that encourages and supports__the goals and policies
of the _General Pian; and, T.. . ...
(b) Minimizes adverse "effects` on- the. public:zesuliing"'from
the inappropriate creation; location, =use or: design of
building si.test structures er other land uses.`by _.- --
prov dingo=appropri.ate':standards.."for developments-and,
(c) Protects and -enhances the unique -and significant
natural,, historic, cultural-.--and scenic resouices 'within
the City; and,
(d) Assists, the Public irr-identifying,and. understanding
regulations affecting the development and�use .o ,,the
land" _
9-1. 102. Official Zoning Maps: Those certain maps specifically
identified, and duly note thereon, as the Official Zoning Maps of
the City of Atascadero as adopted by Ordinance No. 68 on June 27,
1993, including all amendments thereto adopted pursuant to
procedures set forth in this Title.
9-1. 103. Open Space Zoning: The purpose of each of the
following provisions, together with all other applicable
provisions of this Title, are consistent with the intent of the
Open Space and Conservation Element of the Atascadero General
Plan, and shall constitute the Open Space Zoning pursuant to
Section 65910 et. seq. of the Government Code:
(a) The Agriculture, Residential Suburban, Recreation,
Special Recreation and Public Zoning Districts.
(b) ' The Overlay Zoning Districts where applied for flood,
11-1.004 rnte r t ti n and a li a on.' `
In their interpretation and appllcatlong these regulations shall be held to be the
minimum requirements: for the promotion of the public health, safety and general
welfare.
11-1.005 Conflict with Public provisions.
These regulations are not intended to annul any other law or regulation.. Where any
provision of these regulations imposes restrictions different from those imposed by
any other provision of these regulations or any other regulation or law, whichever
provisions are more restrictive or impose higher standards shall control.
11-1.006 Conflict with private orovisions.
These regulations are not intended to abrogate any easement, covenant or any other
private agreement or restriction; provided, that where the provisions of these
regulations are more restrictive or impose higher standards or regulations than such
easements, covenants, the requirements of these regulations shall govern. When the
provisions of the easement, covenant or private agreement or restriction impose
duties and obligations more restrictive, or higher standards than the requirements
of these regulations or the determinations of the advisory agency or council in
approving a subdivision or in enforcing these regulations, and such private
provisions are not inconsistent with these regulations or determinations thereunder,
then such private provisions shall be operative and supplemental to these
regulations and determinations made thereunder.
11-1.007 Actions by eirsons with interest.
When any provisions of the Subdivision Map Act or of these regulations require the
execution of any certificate or affidavit or the performance of any act of a person
in his official capacity who is also a subdivider or an agent or employee thereof,
such certificate or affidavit shall be executed or such act shall be performed by
some other person duly qualified therefore and designated so to act by the Council.
11.108 Severability.
If any part or provisions of these regulations or application thereof to any person
or circumstances are adjudged invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
judgment shall be confined in its operation to the part, provision or application
directly involved in the controversy in which the judgment shall have been rendered
and shall not affect or impair the validity of the remainder of these regulations
or the application thereof to other persons or circumstances. The council declares
that it would have enacted the remainder of these regulations even without any such
part, provision or application.
2
;
W
,
a
v ,—
'
ai 4
to �r��1Y. '-��^'�, --FY. � 'y'• �
1 c.
Ak