Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 06/24/2003 a CITY OF A TASCADERO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 7:00 P.M. City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue, 41" Floor Atascadero, California REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: 6:30 P.M. COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION: (Immediately following Redevelopment Agency Meeting) 1. PUBLIC COMMENT - CLOSED SESSION 2. Call to Order a. Conference with legal counsel -Anticipated litigation (G.C. Sec. 54956.9(b)) Significant exposure to litigation (one case): Shetler Construction v. City of Atascadero b. Conference with negotiator over real property. (Govt. Code 54956.8) Negotiator: City Manager Wade McKinney Property: The Printery, 6361 Olmeda Ave. Negotiations will include price and/or terms of payment. 3. Adjourn 4. CLOSED SESSION REPORT REGULAR SESSION: 7:00 P.M. 1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member O'Malley ROLL CALL: Mayor Clay Mayor Pro Tem Luna Council Member Scalise Council Member O'Malley Council Member Pacas INTRODUCTIONS: 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. A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, unless changed by the Council.) APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Roll Call PRESENTATIONS: 1. 2002 Advertising Conversion Study - presented by Jonni Biaggini, Executive Director, San Luis Obispo Visitors and Conference Bureau (SLOVCB) COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS: (on their own initiative, Council Members may make a brief announcement or a brief report on their own activities. Council Members may ask a question for clarification, make a referral to staff or take action to have staff place a matter of business on a future agenda.The Council may take action on items listed on the Agenda.) A. CONSENT CALENDAR: (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. SpecialJoint Meeting Minutes-June 4, 2003 ■ City Clerk recommendation: City Council approve the City Council/Planning Commission minutes of June 4, 2003. [City Clerk] 2 2. City Treasurer's Report— March 2003 ■ Fiscal impact: None ■ City Treasurer recommendation: City Council approve the City Treasurer's report for March 2003. [City Treasurer] 3. City Treasurer's Report—April 2003 ■ Fiscal impact: None ■ City Treasurer recommendation: City Council approve the City Treasurer's report for April 2003. [City Treasurer] 4. Final Parcel Map 2003-0049 (Tract 2454 Phase 1) rTTM 2002-00141 Ferrocarril Road (Gearhart/Wilson) ■ Fiscal impact: None. ■ Staff recommendation: Council: 1. Accept Final Parcel Map 2003-0049 (Tract 2454 Phase 1) 2. Reject offer of dedication for Public Open Space and Public Utility and Access Easement without prejudice to future acceptance. [Public Works] 5. Final Parcel Map 2002-0047 (Tract 2489) fTTM 2002-001911625/1685 EI Camino Real (Gearhart/Wilson) ■ Fiscal impact: None. • Staff recommendation: Council: 1. Accept Final Parcel Map 2002-0047 (Tract 2489) 2. Reject offer of dedication for Streets, Open Space Recreation Easement, Public Utility, and Public Drainage Easements without prejudice to future acceptance. 3. Authorize City Manager to execute Subdivision Agreement with owner. [Public Works] 6. Zone Change 2002-0023 Downtown Commercial Zoning Text Amendment (City of Atascadero/Atascadero Main Street, Inc.) ■ Fiscal impact: The project would likely have a slight negative impact on City revenues. As a general rule, office use requires services that exceed the revenue generated by the proposed uses. ■ Staff recommendation: City Council adopt, on second reading, by title only, the attached draft Ordinance, enacting Zone Change 2002-0023 based on findings. [Community Development] B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Parking & Business Improvement Area Assessment ■ Fiscal impact: The City receives approximately$10,500 annually from the Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area assessments. Administration of these funds would be transferred to Atascadero Main Street Inc for downtown revitalization activities. ■ Staff recommendation: City Council adopt the draft Resolution of Intention, declaring intent to levy annual Downtown Parking & Business Improvement Area assessment, and set a public hearing for July 8, 2003. [City Manager] 3 2. Zone Change 2002-0030; Conditional Use Permit 2002-0078; Tentative Tract Map 2002-0024 6205 San Gabriel Road (Rancho De Paraiso, LLC. /Wilson Land Surveys-Russ Thompson Consulting) ■ Fiscal impact: The project would likely have a slight negative impact on City revenues. As a general rule, single-family dwellings require services that exceed the revenue generated by the dwelling. ■ Planning Commission recommendation: Council: 1. The City Council adopt Draft Resolution A, certifying proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 2003-0015 prepared for Zone Change 2002-0031, Tentative Tract Map 2002-0015; and Conditional Use Permit 2002-0078; and, 2. The City Council introduce for first reading by title only Draft Ordinance A, to approve Zone Change 2002-0034; and amend the City's Zoning Map to add a PD 16 overlay district to the project area; and, 3. The City Council adopt Draft Resolution B, approving Conditional Use Permit 2002-0078, a Master Plan of Development for the project site consistent with PD- 16; and, 4. The City Council adopt Draft Resolution C, approving Tentative Tract Map 2002- 0024, a request to subdivide an 8.12-acre parcel into two parcels; one at 1.09 acres, and one at 7.09 acres, all acreages gross, based on findings and subject to conditions. [Community Development] C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS. 1. Interim Inclusionary Housing Policy ■ Fiscal impact: Adoption of the interim policy will result in the collection of in-lieu fees that could be used to build affordable housing projects. Management of in-lieu fees and the likelihood these fees will need to be combine with other City funds will obligate the City to devote staff time and resources to future affordable housing projects. Staff time and resources to administer affordable housing programs over the coming decades has not been calculated but should not be assumed to be insignificant. ■ Staff recommendation: Council adopt an interim inclusionary housing percentage requirement and a set of policy determinations to apply to legislative permits prior to adoption of an inclusionary ordinance. [Community Development] 2. Eagle Ranch Sphere of Influence Amendment; Sphere of Influence Amendment Request Memorandum of Agreement with San Luis Obispo County • Fiscal impact: None. ■ Staff recommendation: Council approve the Resolution of Application to amend the City's Sphere of Influence to include the portions of the Eagle Ranch, and authorize the signature of Memorandum of Agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo. [Community Development] 3. Participation in California Joint Powers Insurance Authority Liability Program ■ Fiscal impact: Estimated 2003-2004 premium of$243,718. These funds have been included in the 2003-2004 budget. ■ Staff recommendation: Council adopt draft Resolution approving execution of the joint powers agreement creating California Joint Powers Insurance Authority(CJPIA), and further approving participation in its Joint Protection Program providing liability coverage through self insurance, loss pooling and excess insurance. [Administrative Services] 4 4. Information Bulletin a. Atascadero Chamber of Commerce Services D. ATTORNEY REPORT: 1. Consideration and Adoption of Resolution Establishing a System for Credits Towards Development Impact Fees ■ Fiscal impact: There are no new fiscal impacts that have not already been identified. ■ City Attorney recommendation: City Council adopt the draft Resolution, establishing a schedule of credits towards development impact fees. [City Attorney] E. COMMITTEE & LIAISON REPORTS: (The following represent standing committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary.): Mayor Clay 1. Water Committees 2. County Mayor's Round Table Mayor Pro Tem Luna 1. Finance Committee 2. Integrated Waste Management Authority(IWMA) Council Member Scalise • 1. Atascadero State Hospital Advisory Board 2. Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) 3. S.L.O. Council of Governments(SLOCOG)/S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority(SLORTA) Council Member O'Malley 1. Finance Committee 2. City/Schools Committee 3. Air Pollution Control District_(APCD) 4. League of California Cities-Grassroots Network 5. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors (EVC) Council Member Pacas 1. City/Schools Committee 2. Atascadero Youth Task Force F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1. City Council 2. City Clerk 3. City Treasurer 4. City Attorney 5. City Manager 5 G. ADJOURNMENT: 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. Correspondence submitted at this public hearing,will be distributed to the Council and available for review in the City Clerk's office. 1, Cheryl DeJong, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing agenda for the June 24, 2003 Regular Session of the Atascadero City Council was posted on June 18, 2003 at Atascadero City Hall, 6500 Palma Ave., Atascadero, CA 93422 and was available for public review in the Customer Service Center at that location: Signed this 18th day of June 2003 at Atascadero,California. Cheryl DeJo g, Deput y Clerk City of Atascadero • r 6 City of Atascadero WELCOME TO THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING 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 311) and are available for public inspection during City Hall business hours at the Central Receptionist counter and on our website, www.atascadero.org. An agenda packet is also available for public review at the Atascadero Library, 6850 Morro Road. Contracts, Resolutions and Ordinances will be allocated a number once they are approved by the City Council. The minutes of this meeting will reflect these numbers. All documents submitted by the public during Council meetings that are either read into the record or referred to in their statement will be noted in the minutes and available for review in the City Clerk's office. 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 (not required) • 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 (not required) • 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 14 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. 7 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 06/24/2003 5 :.... SPECIAL JOINT MEETING 1918 A"79 r� CITY COUNCIL / PLANNING COMMISSION s DRAFT MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JUNE 049 2003 6:30 p.m. AFFORDABLE HOUSING ISSUES & INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE STUDY SESSION - CONTINUED STUDY SESSION: 6:30 P.M. Mayor Clay called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. and led the meeting in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Planning Commissioners O'Keefe, Jones, Porter, Beraud, Bentz, Kelley and Chairperson Fonzi Council Members Pacas, O'Malley, Scalise, Luna and Mayor Clay Absent: None Others Present: City Clerk Marcia McClure Torgerson Staff Present: City Manager Wade McKinney, Community . Development Director Warren Frace, Information Technology Director Andrew Fruin, and City Attorney Roy Hanley. The City Council and Planning Commission discussed how the meeting would proceed. CC/PC Joint Session 06/04/03 Page 1 1 STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORTS 1. Discussion of Affordable Housing Issues and an Inclusionary Ordinance Community Development Director Warren Frace gave the staff report. PUBLIC COMMENT—None Council and Commission discussed possible project requirements. PUBLIC COMMENT: John Campenella, Bermant Development, expressed his thoughts that other ways and sources should be looked at other than just the inclusionary policy to provide units at the low and very low-income levels. He also discussed in-lieu fees and their uses. Fred Shot, civil and structural engineer, San Luis Obispo, explained his view that inclusionary housing hurts more people than it helps. Jerry Bunin encouraged the Council and Commission to create an incentive that will be favorable to the City and the developer. Mike Jackson, Ensenada Avenue, felt that collecting and monitoring a trust account could be a burden to the city. Also, he felt requiring one of the units to be affordable would hurt modest developments with very few units. Mayor Clay closed the Public Comment period The City Council and Planning Commission gave staff potential options to be included in an inclusionary housing ordinance: 1. Introduction: 2. Project Requirements: Define size of residential projects required to provide affordable housing: ■ 1-4—no inclusionary. ■ 1-4 —possible in-lieu fees ■ 3-4 —possible in-lieu fees Commercial projects: ■ Hold over discussion of in-lieu fees on commercial until the March meeting when commercial development impact fees will be studied. ■ Mixed use: use similar rules as residential, create incentive for providing workforce housing on site. ■ Staff to look at possible property tax credits ■ Staff to look at possibility of transfer fees CC/PC Joint Session 06/04/03 Page 2 2 Single family vs. multi-family rental: ■ Multi-family projects—density bonus ■ Tiered options for multi vs. single family PUBLIC COMMENT Fred Shot stated that many developers do not want to build rental units or condos due to excessive litigation. Mayor Clay closed the Public Comment period Colony lots ■ Look at fee reduction for Colony lots. ■ Incentives for providing senior housing. 3. Percent/Type Affordable ■ Define% of units with a project that must be affordable—further study necessary. ■ Define required distribution of categories of affordable units for very low income, low income, and moderate-income households. PUBLIC COMMENT John Campenella volunteered to help staff with the analysis of the percentages. He reiterated • that multi-family housing could better support the lower income families, however this could increase costs for developers. Mike Jackson explained that when the number of units a developer builds is increased, the liability per unit increases. Keith Jones asked if his understanding that inclusionary and density bonuses should be tied to each other directly was correct. Mayor Clay explained that if a density bonus were granted, the inclusionary requirement would be eliminated. Rae Belle Gambs asked what is a Colony lot. Mayor Clay explained that Colony lots were the original lots in Atascadero. Jerry Bunin, Home Builders Association, asked for clarity on the density bonus program in the General Plan. Mayor Clay closed the Public Comment period ■ Single-family: Difficult to reach very low income - low income or moderate-income best. ■ Multi-family: Very low, low and moderate income. ■ Staff to look at percentage figures and a range to get close to regional housing needs. Define the timeframe for how long the units must remain affordable ■ Equity sharing—look at affordability in perpetuity. CC/PC Joint Session 06/04/03 Page 3 3 ■ Program could be ongoing—transfer equity based on improvements made to house. • PUBLIC COMMENT John Campenella stated that some of the equity share programs are based on actual help or participation for the buyer to qualify, i.e. silent second or some other down payment assistance. Mayor Clay closed the Public Comment period ■ Timeframe for how long the units must remain affordable: study comparison of 50- year option, 30-year option, 15-year option and equity sharing. Mayor Clay recessed the hearing at 8.50 p.m. Mayor Clay called the meeting back to order at 9:00 p.m. 4. Exceptions ■ Suggested: farm worker housing, mobile home park developments and other specific development situations in addition to case-by-case exemptions for unusual or unforeseen circumstances which would cause a request for exemption. ■ Projects that meet state density bonus requirements would be exempt. 5. Standards • ■ Exterior of units should look similar in appearance to the others in the development. ■ Size and interiors can vary. ■ Lower cost units should not be clustered. ■ Timing and phasing: inclusionary units within the same project must be developed either prior to or concurrent with the development of the market rate units. ■ Off site units: look into options for timing. 6. In-Lieu Fees ■ Look at when fees should be paid. ■ Staff to look at various ways to calculate in-lieu fees (three options to be considered) ■ Planning Commission will look at who would decide if in-lieu fees are appropriate, the developer or the city. Staff will provide pro's and con's on this subject. PUBLIC COMMENT John Campenella suggested that for single-family homes, the very low-income in-lieu fee should be based upon a rental differential. Jerry Bunin encouraged the creation of a situation that would give both the City and the builder the maximum flexibility. Mayor Clay closed the Public Comment period CC/PC Joint Session 06/04/03 Page 4 4 • 7. Alternatives ■ Off-site construction—to require Council approval? ■ Land dedication ■ Combinations of construction, fees and land dedications. 8. Incentives ■ Density bonuses ■ Fee reductions ■ Expedited processing ■ Financial assistance ■ Parking requirements 9. Compliance Requirements ■ Privatization ■ Use of non-profit groups 10. Eligibility Requirement ■ Contracting out credit checks, etc. ■ Improved financial situation should not require person to vacate home. 11. Owner Occupied Units ■ City to ensure that if unit is rented the city is informed and unit is rented to someone • who satisfies the criteria. 12. Rental Units ■ An agreement already in use in city could be used. 13. Waivers ■ Types of situations to provide waivers for. 14. Housing Trust Fund ■ Money from this fund should stay in Atascadero for city's projects. ■ City could set up it's own Housing Trust Fund— staff to report back on options. ■ Use in-lieu fees to administer program. ■ Criteria—lottery system. 15. Enforcement ■ Privatizing of enforcement of criteria— staff to report back on options. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Clay adjourned the joint session at 9:52 p.m. MEETING RECORDED AND MINUTES PREPARED BY: Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk CC/PC Joint Session 06/04/03 Page 5 5 ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 06/24/2003 n 1918 19 B City Treasurer's Report March 2003 Joseph Modica, Jr. RECOMMENDATION: City Council approve the City Treasurer's report for March 2003 REPORT IN BRIEF: Cash and Investments Checking $ 433,025 Money Market Accounts 95,388 Certificates of Deposit 5,446,090 Government Securities 1,444,844 Corporate Paper - • LAIF 14,064,699 Cash with Fiscal Agents 143,230 Cash in Banks at March 31, 2003 $ 21,627,276 Deposits in Transit - Outstanding Checks (221,578) Cash and Investments at March 31,2003 $ 21,405,698 Investment Activity Securities Purchased: Purchase Date Description Type Cost Maturity Date 03/03/03 Federal Home Loan Bank Gov't Security $ 345,000 09/26/07 Securities Matured: Maturity Date Description Type Original Cost Amount Matured 03/03/03 Mill Creek(Conseco)Bank CD $ 95,000 $ 95,000 03/12/03 Federal National Mort Assoc. Gov't Security 249,500 250,000 Securities Sold/Called Prior to Maturity: None • Other Reportable Activities: None Page 1 of 11 7 CITY OFATASCADERO TREASURER'S REPORT CASH&INVESTMENTS A CTIVITY SUMMAR Y FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2003 CHECKING FISCAL ACCOUNT INVESTMENTS AGENT TOTALS Balance per Banks at March 1,2003 $ 309,572 $ 21,430,197 $ 190,901 $ 21,930,670 Receipts 951,359 324 102 951,785 Disbursements (1,207,406) - (47,773) (1,255,179) Transfers In 924,500 545,000 - 1,469,500 Transfers Out (545,000) (924,500) - (1,469,500) Balance per Banks at March 31, 2003 $ 433,025 $ 21,051,021 $ 143,230 21,627,276 Deposits in Transit - Outstanding Checks (221,578) Adjusted Treasurer's Balance $ 21,405,698 Page 2 of 11 8 q Cry t- N col oo m 7 O M ^ O\ 7 c m �o w 00 0 0 • 7 00 O O O O N r 00 0 0 o a 0 0 a 0 0 o m o0 W m m o 0 0 00 00 0 0 a v o 0 o c rn rn a h vi vi vi l� t� vi a\ vi o C, °: r rn rn rn O rn rn rn rn o, a o C, (21 o rn rn ss rn oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 C, v o 0 0 0 o w rn o0 o r o o o o o v o o O WO W v vM' N [� C!, o, o, C, a rn a C, rn rn a rn C, o o, C\ C7\ U � O V � e Q\ 00 O O O O O O O C O O O O O O 01 00 O O O O C O O O d' O O O O O o O O O OO O V1 O O O O O O Ch h N V7 Vl r r Vl ON Yl r O\ O\ Ql O\ r r V a C O\ O1 O\ D\ U ON 01 O\ 7 a\ T D\ O\ C7, °, r� 69 O O O O O O O O O D O O O O O N o o o o w C� Vl O N Yl Yl Vt 7 M O O O vl d' V? � M r 7 d• 7 7 V �"� 7 C V �o M m Q ~ O O ti W h Gi F vt O O Vl Vl �n 7 � O O O Vl 7 N V ti ti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F a a a n a aCalla o. a u �' �i'' u o u ao U U U u U U U U U U U U U U C, N U v r v r m r iz) D r r o0 0o rn m c` a a CD M O O O O O O O O O O O O C MO pq 0.1 pW W o `� •'� ° v •_ '�. °' `"' eCa g A e a z o v o vpq U u o o FC v U a a w ca 3 z a ca a w w H w x v U J a w w c7 v w c7 as w w O N N O N ti A b 7 vlVl r r 00 00 T T O� C\ C% O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 9 Q j h O .M-i .M-i - O vl O •-� 00 N M 00 N rJ t400 . N N N vp O O O O N O O O W a Vl l� O 00 00 00 00 �D 00 00 1f?7rC� N U U O ON O� T 69 O O O O O 0o O O O O O O O M U O ' ^ p O O O N O o O O O Op Cl O O O h O O O O O v v; O, r� C, � v; v; r" v o' 10W O� (71 O� Q\ D\ Ch T 4\ D\ 0\ N Ch h � h H U � ae O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O Up rn rn rn rn o, a rn rn rn rn o, rn N rn o rn w p va o 00 0 0 o 0 0 0 o e o o o e O vi Vi vi vi vi o Vl O o O O O .Mi �' N o 06 N W O 7 M M M M M M 7 d 0 0 o e o 0 0 4qy h o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e o o e o o e �i M [y h vi vl vl O vi O O O O O p N a O � o a .o Wc Aa' AaA A A A A A A A A A Ai A" a' 51 V' 0A 0W o0 C, A ti U U U U U U U U U U U U C7 U U U .y N N N N •--� .r •--� N N O N (� O O O O p o O O o O O O O O p O m •M+ O N N O o N N h R C N o O O !!O 04 pq O O O O O O O O O O O O a a L O 2 44a n b a v bn z Atd U z & o. A A a o lu w E-4 W o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ON Q l� N N Vl V1 Vl O� 10 O O O O O O O O O O 10 m h O r N vi O O, M 10 D\ O\ N M cl N M O �--i r h 00 .fin N N N N d' N INNNy N �-+ N N N • O l� 10 01 Vt vl (� M Vt O l� 00 �O o, 000 O O\ N r- l� O O\ 00 b 1O O� Vi Vi Cl C, O aC O, ol C, O O� O� O O a N O O O O� O N O� N 69 O O O O O O O O O 7 O O O O O O O h O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O O O O O O W h r Oi O\ Vi U O\ 01 ON O� O� O� O\ o\ O\ O\ ON O\ N Qi O� of 01 O\ 'n h H N U � � e O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 C O O O O O O O Vp rn C, rn a rn a rn a a N ON a rn rn rn N o w � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q o a o o e a o e o o 0 0 o _ O v' o w 0 � m m m m m 7 m 7 m 7 m 7 fV q � o � o N h o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o vi o N m 0o Ol� o DD o O 0 7 M m m m m 7 m 7 M 7 Cl) �' N M a' O I :t4 44y44 m v v ai U W A A A A A A A A A V) wA Q A 4. Q Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ti •U C G T.` C' o ani U U U U U U U U U C7 U U U U U c7 U N - N N N M N o o O O O O O 0 o O O O O O O 0 0 h O O r O r-� N N N o N o V N M O O � o 0 � I ° ID GI y G N L 29 w 10 C W U sy A m ° f-0 q o L Vj o o c c u n ' ° o P� C' p,•°� c m >; G b Z ea �1 ai fr v c .c.. X a° • F ty h �' U zZ aaa as A � � A � � C7 av wU W a Oa � a vx va wU z � v v v n v v vi v o o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L7 E4 N � �•, M O O � � � � � �t oo �o M � 11 Wrn a o000 :° r r o ^. �° N^ .�N. �Ny O 0 o 0 o C e N N N v N 00 N" o m • ol O O O Ori � O O � .`O-� '�" "�'� o �O 00 ON vl 01 O\ 00 O l� ON rn O a O rn rn rn rn rn CN m M N b9 O O O O O O O Cl O O Cl O O O Cti O O O _O O O O O O O O O O O N O\ r T l- ch r- O O ti 01 D\ ON 01 01 O\ 0\ 7 O\ Cti h m U � � R R R R R R R R R R R R R R O M ae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 o 0 0 0 0 m CD o 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 a C- t-:, r o Ua C, rn rn rn rn 0r rn C, a o rn ° C, m o M N 69 O O V W O O O O O O O� n r O 09 00 � I�/ O U N b ti !C m h o In o 0 0 0 0 0 o vi v o 0 0 Cr x 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° v v r o °? °° IZ s� F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° °� °a c & el u u W A A A A Q A wA Aw rn w w w w � o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 4 o 0 0 0 y U u u U U �GyV U CJ W N N N N N N N N m N N N O o N N M Oq a rn rn o o m o o N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a ° ° h U Z d I _ LA � � � � � 0 5 m � 8 x • �.. u 'n Z x � d c � 3 � � PLO o a u s R C R u ^ s E u 0 • t U $ :a, •. •q R u L o sR. R .°. .�4 m .'� °•' ° C r�i W U O ti 'Z. U W .0 W h 0.1 U W U 1Q F U U rr r r r r r r r r r r r r r o0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oy o c o N N N M o O N N M fJ w w YJ Q, O y n O Cl O O O O O O O IG N N � N �1 69 f9 • h N N C 69 Yi h o M kn N V � V3 69 N ti O N ti A f U � e o b N N Ob0 p O W Wm N U w N U o h 6A Ge O O 'b b O otoO � Er oo as co IV Q' A O w 3 ti W `o r� � y e Q •a � .'� �¢W1i P. v 2 W w N .1 h y ti N � ti Oy N � N ti � y b oImd U F an114 -a N 3 i U •� b c O N y r Q N � O T C O C d Ca d•o w x � T � w 3 c 13 City of Atascadero Investments by Type March 2003 • Gov't Cash with Securities Fiscal Agent 7% 1% Other Certificates 0% of Deposit 26% 4 is oma?. LAIF • 66% Investment March 2003 LAIF $ 14,064,699 Certificates of Deposit 5,446,090 Government Securities 1,444,844 Corporate Paper - Cash with Fiscal Agent 143,230 Other 95,388 $ 21,194,251 Page 8 of 11 14 City of Atascadero Investments by Maturity • March 2003 One Month One to Five Years to One Year 24% Within 9% One Month 0% • On Demand 67% Investment March 2003 On Demand $ 14,160,087 Within One Month 92,112 One Month to One Year 1,792,379 One to Five Years 5,006,444 $ 21,051,021 • Page 9 of 11 15 City of Atascadero Investments by Custodial Agent March 2003 • Bank of RBC Dain Rauscher New York 24% 1% City of Atascadero 0% Penson Financial Corp 9% t State of California 66% Custodial Agent March 2003 State of California $ 14,064,699 Penson Financial Corp. 1,898,617 RBC Dain Rauscher 5,040,161 Riverway Trust - Bank of New York 143,230 City of Atascadero 47,544 $ 21,194,251 Page 10 of 11 16 City of Atascadero Investment Yield vs. 2-Year Treasury Yield For the Year Ended March 31,2003 s 4.00% I 3.50% 3.00% 2.50% I 2.00% 1.50% ' i 1.00% I i 0.50% i 0.00% o`L oti oti oti o`� oti oti oti o`ti oti o'� o'� o`� °c City Yield 2-Yr Treasury Yield 2-Yr Treasury City Yield Yield March 2002 April 2002 3.33% 3.42% May 2002 3.23% 3.26% June 2002 3.18% 2.99% July 2002 3.13% 2.56% August 2002 3.08% 2.13% September 2002 3.13% 2.00% October 2002 3.09% 1.91% November 2002 2.99% 1.92% December 2002 2.89% 1.84% January 2003 2.81% 1.74% February 2003 2.64% 1.63% March 2003 2.57% 1.57% Page 11 of 11 17 ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 06/24/2003 n 1918 77-9 C City Treasurer's Report April 2003 Joseph Modica, Jr. RECOMMENDATION: City Council approve the City Treasurer's report for April 2003 REPORT IN BRIEF: Cash and Investments Checking $ 203,895 Money Market Accounts 337 Certificates of Deposit 5,354,038 Government Securities 1,444,844 Corporate Paper - • LAIF 16,605,593 Cash with Fiscal Agents 143,332 Cash in Banks at April 30, 2003 $ 23,752,039 Deposits in Transit - Outstanding Checks (79,258) Cash and Investments at April 30, 2003 $ 23,672,781 Investment Activity Securities Purchased: None Securities Matured: Maturity Date Description Type Original Cost Amount Matured 04/14/03 MBNA America Bank CD $ 92,112 $ 95,000 Securities Sold/Called Prior to Maturity: None Other Reportable Activities: None 0 Page 1 of 12 19 CITY OF ATASCADERO TREASURER'S REPORT CASH&INVESTMENTS ACTIVITY SUMMARY • FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 2003 CHECKING FISCAL ACCOUNT INVESTMENTS AGENT TOTALS Balance per Banks at April 1,2003 $ 433,025 $ 21,051,021 $ 143,230 $ 21,627,276 Receipts 3,274,800 70,903 102 3,345,805 Disbursements (1,221,042) - - (1,221,042) Transfers In 187,112 2,470,000 - 2,657,112 Transfers Out (2,470,000) (187,112) - (2,657,112) Balance per Banks at April 30,2003 $ 203,895 $ 23,404,812 $ 143,332 23,752,039 Deposits in Transit - Outstanding Checks (79,258) Adjusted Treasurer's Balance $ 23,672,781 Page 2 of 12 20 2 0O r-M 0O OO O O D1 OO O 0M � O � � Ch Cl O � V 02 o � Z c c � ❑ � � o � � ❑ o c o � e OO O O O O V O O O O D\ M O O O O O O O O O O n m o C 0 C 0 0 0 kr) r- r- kf) rn krl a Uwe o rn rn ON O, rn rn rn rt rn O A o o 0 o e o C 0 0 o e o W � q q 0 r4Clo ct"y v^i v'ni v m o 0 GTa 14 kn Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 e kf) kr) p O O v1 vi 7 Oi M O O O 0 ACa1M wG � cC cd N cC chi �C c� c� cd cC c7 �C r+ M M d 'm o O O'm m O O o O o O o O a c c a o a Y Q) 4) Q� D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > j, � v v U v v v � o C u rn U U U U U U U U U U U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t` kn N N mm kn O . p A n o o rn m ON rn rn C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0-4 m 2 Uczo W ? x m ca ca 0,1 oZ A �� �+ m vUi u Pa O ai w °? ti •� a GA 3 . cc • -o �" to Z 04 (Yl a W f7, U U V. U U W d ESI M M M M M MM M M O i'`Lj S aY c� OO �O CD RO p� O N N in A vl t` 00 00 O� OD CD C) O� O1 � O O O O O O O O O O O �I 2y 1 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 o o Ln o 0 0 0 o N o 0 0 0 0 0 0, vi• 0 0 0 0• o, � o• 0 0 0, o, O W rn kn In rn t` t- vi ON CN rn rn rn Ol rn rn rn rn rn rn D\ ti O Fal cd cC c0 cd c� c� c� N cd cd cC cd c� U ti � e OO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 kn w � A o 0 o e o o e e o 0 0 W o v, o k C kr) �n �n �n �n �n o o 0 0 0 n `I: t- ll� v, v, v, rl� v v o �O M M V ':T M M M M M M 7 W ti o 0 o e o 0 0 0 o e o 0 o e kn vl Ln v1 vl O v1 O O O O �7 kn d; N rl� �q V ' d; kn M M M M V TtCd A M W Ueq 0 Y Y t4 t4 Y ~ n o 0 a a n a a n a 0 o n a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •o �o a�U 0 v U l Y F i+ Y W w Y Y U U U V U U U U � � � U .V. U w w w~ w~ w~ w w w w w L) v v v U v v v v rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F~i N •�. M .�-� l� M O� N CN 00 fn D D O O O O O O •--� O O 2 � yy D14 FA q o d es w `~ Z � q0 Z � r3 FqF � a A c ca p o c? w CQ o °x"' O v U r~ c � W C 5 -v d r•+ wbq ° cc�dd Py e0 y O r3 = m 0cc 0 o w A _d Chi cavi i� w OW A � v� c7 P0 �¢ UAa PQ M M V �I' �!' V V d• d' 'd' TT rl' O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M. N N N •�� ON O q N O M M kn kn kn k Cl O O O O O O 22 C:)kr) kn 0 o 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O rn N rn rn rn ON rn rn rn ON rn ON H H O • � 2 2 mZ Z Z c M 41 L7 D\ r. 00 .. N � e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r o 0 �4 Lr�� N o C\ CN w � A o o o 0 0 0 o kf) kr)kr) 00 In o w N W M M M M m M W ti o 0 0 0 0 0 0 � Q W In t p o � or N N r N N N m o0 q �LM ON cd •-� ti a U C7 U U U U U U U U U U U \n kf) O C\ iO 0 0 0 0 4 C, W v cc .� cc �f A ca z as FA .� oa as a C 73 d rn 5 u ea ca A c ago U o x z m tc co r U) wU � w tiw U ZZ A: 0 wP, AC7 3Q � C9 C7 kr) In Into In 'n VI V1 `n p 0 0 k 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N O N A r. 23 o v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 Zo rr o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, o Cy n rn rn CIN rn r ON o vi to vi rn r a` rn rn rn rn o rn rn rn rn ON rn rn 69 • U ti � A O o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C:) O o 0 o O o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) O o 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 vi o rn rn rn r ONo kn kn rn CW.1 ON N U\ U1 N ON a1 Q\ G A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wo r o v, o o n o 00 0 0 0 0 o A e o 0 Cl vl O kn O O In O vl O In O O O O r O 00 O O �q CJ O O Q V M 7 M � N M vi •C � � 7 V � A � M o" �V i� ti G4 0 O O O O n a a a a a a a 0. Gj Q CIO, rF, o 0 0 0 0 0 " 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y ❑❑ Y Y Y c� Y V -Ali Y Y Y u 0 cd c� al U U U U U U .' U U U U U ~ ani 15 o o U C7 U U U U U C7 U U U U U U w O � � O kn �p O N N N O N !n N N M O O A � r r N k 1 0000 0000 0000 0000 Q\ D\ O O O O O O �--� O O O O O O O tS u y cu es o � w a U � pw H oz au za C o a m m o ` C) d M s a3 o DC o g 0 U c� x U A ° k� � m •.^ � x � m z 0 '� F" z M � a ^� ca -= v °p � O o ti w o � d Q � o Pq -v � � � � r. � � � o Z a� •�'� .. p a� e �� 0. U W U CQ fS O �l D a U f� U 1 W U Z U7 H xi P0. ra U O - Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 - O n kp C:) - N 00 0 00 00 rn o0 Q 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 O O O O pW o rn C MCN o C) CN o C) C7 Vj N 02 • 0 0 � A O O O O Cl O O O O M U rn rn rn M rn rn rn rn o v � N 69 A o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 l � O 00 W kn U d W e o 0 0 0 Le) 0 o e o o o z A M kri eq o 0 0 0 0 0 0 � 0v a> v a> 0 � � � U U U Q U U U U ti U 0 O O U U U C7 U U U U C7 n o .b O O cc a, W cz a CGczo a ca a CA a a �U cn d m 7 o DO d W o W o m U o m d aau 1104 dH U - x w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FW cv rn n o o n o0 -- -- N N M M O O N ON 25 W ƒ m § \ � } @ # . \ el / \ _ § $ \ en q @ § � c , § \ 3 / • 77 R G § ® � k x �\ q } \0k 0 / \ � / 2 \ f f 4 ku M / \ S \ \ � 2 u � G . � \ \ 0 \ \ \ � / 2 7 \ ® 2a » \ \ 3 \ \ / _ / � @ . \ / \ \ \ ® G g 26 City of Ataseadero Investments by Type April 2003 Gov't Cash with Securities Fiscal 6% Agent Certificates of Deposit 1% Other 23% s 0% ftsEf R zwm F a • LAIF 70% Investment April 2003 LAIF $ 16,605,593 Certificates of Deposit 5,354,038 Government Securities 1,444,844 Corporate Paper - Cash with Fiscal Agent 143,332 Other 337 $ 23,548,144 Page 9 of 12 27 City of Atascadero Investments by Maturity April 2003 One Month to One Year One to Five Years Within 7% 21% One Month l% On Demand 71% Investment April 2003 On Demand $ 16,605,930 Within One Month 189,370 One Month to One Year 1,603,068 One to Five Years 5,006,444 $ 23,404,812 Page 10 of 12 28 City of Atascadero Investments by Custodial Agent • April 2003 RBC Dain Rauscher 21% Bank of New York City of Penson 1% Atascadero Financial Corp. 0% 8% �rr State of California 70% Custodial Agent April 2003 State of California $ 16,605,593 Penson Financial Corp. 1,806,516 RBC Dain Rauscher 4,945,099 Riverway Trust - Bank of New York 143,332 City of Atascadero 47,604 $ 23,548,144 Page 11 of 12 29 City of Atascadero Investment Yield vs. 2-Year Treasury Yield For the Year Ended April 30,2003 4.00% i 3.50% i 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% i 1.50% 1.00% i 0.50% 0.00% Doti Doti Doti Doti Doti Doti Doti 00`� Doti 000 000 003 003 " pz�� ��ti ` , Q�\� PQ �o Poo, aeQ�o� oho �o eF oe`g� )aco Q�10 City Yield 2-Yr Treasury Yield j' 2-Yr Treasury City Yield Yield April 2002 May 2002 3.23% 3.26% June 2002 3.18% 2.99% July 2002 3.13% 2.56% August 2002 3.08% 2.13% September 2002 3.13% 2.00% October 2002 3.09% 1.91% November 2002 2.99% 1.92% December 2002 2.89% 1.84% January 2003 2.81% 1.74% February 2003 2.64% 1.63% March 2003 2.57% 1.57% April 2003 2.46% 1.62% 30 Page 12 of 12 ITEM NUMBER: A-4 DATE: 06/24/2003 {lslt8�� , .-. ,y 1919•,-j ` SCADS; Atascadero City Council Staff Report - Public Works Department Final Parcel Map 2003-0049 (Tract 2454 Phase 1) [TTM 2002-0014] Ferrocarril Road (Gearhart/Wilson) RECOMMENDATIONS: Council: 1. Accept Final Parcel Map 2003-0049 (Tract 2454 Phase 1) 2. Reject offer of dedication for Public Open Space and Public Utility and Access Easement without prejudice to future acceptance. DISCUSSION: The City Council adopted a resolution approving the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2002- 0014 on October 8, 2002. Phase I of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map includes five single family residential lots, and one 5.86 acre open space lot with an equestrian/pedestrian trail and parking area. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66440, the approving legislative body (City Council) cannot deny a final map that is consistent with an approved tentative map. The legislative body is also required to accept, accept subject to improvement or reject, on behalf of the public, any real property offered for dedication for public use in conformity with the terms of the offer of dedication. Staff recommends rejecting the offer of dedication for Public Open Space and Public Utility and Access Easement without prejudice to future acceptance. Staff has determined that the Final Parcel Map is consistent with approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Final Parcel Map 2003-0049 (Tract 2454 Phase 1) Final Map 2002-0047(Tract 2489) Page 1 of 2 31 Exhibit A Final Map 2002-0047(Tract 2489) 1625/1685 EI Camino Real o� e Ell : T 6z A x $ fig dl a a � 1w 9 . .V a It as.isssSE ■b } x4 E Sol g n jj! 1 - 41 i;[Sol IIR 11a � 8 ifill fit vE $ :.,3 ` R. aaac! t � N dfY n }, }p(�yls h nl••a �� J I. �. J R�ZUI Np IN RK XIA -7 7. P`Y'61• C 6 Mil,Lftii[ \ / i �}^'g M � � � e tip� �_. ;• s/i €fin - pp 6 AW wMtitC 3 N �Yt:. �.�.. ! g S. j;� �; kill k Y iNl AL'FL]t4lilCN rl a# i Final Map 2002-0047(Tract 2489) Page 2 of 2 32 ITEM NUMBER: A-5 DATE: 06/24/2003 P `P 9 � Atascadero City Council Staff Report - Public Works Department Final Parcel Map 2002-0047 (Tract 2489) [TTM 2002-0019] 1625/1685 EI Camino Real (Gearhart / Wilson) RECOMMENDATIONS: Council: 1. Accept Final Parcel Map 2002-0047 (Tract 2489) 2. Reject offer of dedication for Streets, Open Space Recreation Easement, Public Utility, and Public Drainage Easements without prejudice to future acceptance. 3. Authorize City Manager to execute Subdivision Agreement with owner. DISCUSSION: The City Council adopted a Resolution approving the Tentative Tract Map 2002-0019 -on October 22, 2002. The Tentative Tract Map approved the subdivision of 2 lots into 40 lots, two of which will be used for an open space feature / stormwater detention basin. The Tentative Tract Map allows a 38-unit single-family residential subdivision with a maximum density of 4 units/acre. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66440, the approving legislative body (City Council) cannot deny a final map that is consistent with an approved tentative map. The legislative body is also required to accept, accept subject to improvement or reject, on behalf of the public, any real property offered for dedication for public use in conformity with the terms of the offer of dedication. Staff recommends rejecting the offer of dedication for Streets, Open Space Recreation Easement, public utility, and Public Drainage Easements without prejudice to future acceptance. Staff has determined that the Final Parcel Map is consistent with approved Tentative Tract Map. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Final Map 2002-0047(Tract 2489) Page 1 of 12 33 ITEM NUMBER: A-5 DATE: 06/24/2003 ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Final Parcel Map 2002-0047 (Tract 2489) Exhibit B: Subdivision Agreement 34 Final Map 2002-0047(Tract 2489) Page 2 of 12 Exhibit A Final Map 2002-0047(Tract 2489) 1625/1685 EI Camino Real • x f L h / M R lit es x .ry G it A 2E* i{ yW 77 .w uro]cs 4� 3 �: . S _j .......... «�i aP-P 8 Real x t Pill Ile Fr ..... --- _...:. :. � _..W____ ..u,aSaa�:eoidl3'_-h"''4".asxS]�wnmw i..•A' 'i may^^' '� —' f .. GYM oapaxa Final Map 2002-0047(Tract 2489) Page 3 of 12 35 ITEM NUMBER: A-5 Exhibit A Final Map 2002-0047(Tract 2489) 1625/1685 El Camino Real . cads. •-.r1 � y. Y •' Rik, 1M• V' f; A!4 a x �A �« _ # « goo r `` Id11tA .a tw WAYFZin > x.a Y:N6.rT•x ypyy a'O:•}'M R_RtG ��.rt �7S''igg fi s .• $ s £ I i. L Q fc 7 14. ��N SRN . Ip Rte! a a_m a�nr grsnYat^a mm., ?lsac?ra!•c, � Y•: . 1. „ � �s fi+ggl .i K aara�v ?IY swvst•r 4 aF;RYIi•t :1,p aRwai•o- 5t Web �t L ._..__....... a r .p• r .p r g t 9l64a `o. 00 a �.., ?...y ... .L.•..eq" ,,.,;'ate,. �„� � .RNii • Sy « f Y»ww r t 7K:d/H•d x �' r xRva±•r. 4 1 a avisc^q 1 R .. c NAtY .•'Y .R. ���� � tif 9J1'1"1` r tY R:{•,°y,.. r I , 3i 'Q°x 1j 8y; I g� } �N I t g 511 —,-- YiNYM!'r ?�:ktsrrr saw•x R: ?l aaart+•'s' ,-- s $i � •� '�bt N ;g ! K rs'fw R All Jnrw°• 5 Rsrora`x 3f a antK+•c °- all t=i f:=n& O!Ilk r KI •; Ir � sz R ' t 1 • x s salt r -. a EL CAMINO REAL _..._...__._..... ________________ � Final Map 2002-0047(Tract 2489) Page 4 of 12 36 Exhibit B Final Parcel Map 2002-0047(Tract 2489) 1625/1685 El Camino Real • FOR RECORDER USE ONLY RECORDING REQUESTED BY: City of Atascadero WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City Clerk City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA. 93422 CITY OF ATASCADERO SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT • DATE OF AGREEMENT: NAME OF SUBDIVIDER: KELLY GEARHART SUBDIVISION: Tract 2489 (1625/1685 EI Camino Real) ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF IMPROVEMENTS: $398,680.88 This Agreement made and entered into by and between the City of Atascadero, a municipal corporation of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "City") and KELLY GEARHART (hereinafter referred to as "Subdivider'). RECITALS A. Subdivider has presented to the City Council of the City of Atascadero Tract Map 2489 for approval but not all of the improvements required or conditions imposed by Title 11, Chapter 8 Articles 3 and 4 and Chapter 10 of the Atascadero Municipal Code have been completed or performed. B. Subdivider desires to record Tract Map 2489 after the same has been approved by the City Council of the City of Atascadero. C. The Subdivision Laws establish as a condition precedent to the approval of a parcel map that Subdivider must have either completed, in compliance with City Standards, all of the • improvements and land development work required by Tract Map 2489 or have entered into a secured agreement with City to complete the improvements and land development within a period of time specified by City. Final Map 2002-0047(Tract 2489) Page 5 of 12 37 ITEM NUMBER: A-5 DATE: 06/24/2003 • D. In consideration of approval of Tract Map 2489 by the City Council, Subdivider desires to enter into this Agreement, whereby Subdivider promises to install and complete, at the Subdivider's own expense, all of the public improvement work required by City in connection with Subdivision. E. Improvement Plans for the construction, installation and completion of the improvements have been prepared by Subdivider and approved by the City Engineer. The Improvement Plans for Tract Map 2489 are on file in the Office of the City Engineer and are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. All references in this Agreement to the Improvement Plans shall include reference to any specifications for the improvements as approved by the City Engineer. F. An estimate of the cost for construction of the public improvements according to the Improvement Plans has been made and has been approved by the City Engineer. The Estimated Total Cost of Improvements is stated on Page 1 of this Agreement. The basis for the estimate is attached as Exhibit "A" to this Agreement. G. Subdivider recognizes that by approval of Tract Map 2489, City has conferred substantial rights upon Subdivider, including the right to sell, lease, or finance lots within the subdivision, and has taken the final act necessary to construct the public improvements within the subdivision. As a result, City will be damaged to the extent of • the cost of installation of the improvements by Subdivider's failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, Subdivider's obligation to commence construction of the improvements by the time established in this Agreement. City shall be entitled to all remedies available to it pursuant to this Agreement and law in event of a default by Subdivider. It is specifically recognized that the determination of whether a reversion to acreage or rescission of Tract Map 2489 constitutes an adequate remedy for default by the Subdivider shall be within the sole discretion of City. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the provisions contained in the Atascadero Municipal Code, Title 11, Chapter 10, sections 11-10.010 through 11-10.022, and in consideration of the approval by the City Council and the filing of Tract Map 2489, the parties hereto do promise and agree one with the other as follows: 1. Subdivider is to make and complete all of the improvements for Tract Map 2489 as shown on the Improvement Plans thereof and as required and set forth in Title 11, Chapter 8, Articles 3 and 4, and Chapter 10, of the Atascadero Municipal Code, or as amended. 2. It is further understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the improvements as required by the conditions of approval for Tract Map 2489 shall be completed within one year from the Date of Agreement. These improvements include, but are not limited to the following: those shown on the plans accepted by the City Engineer and on attached Exhibit A. 3. The Subdivider promises and agrees to complete all improvement work referred to • hereinabove to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Final Map 2002-0047(Tract 2489) Page 6 of 12 38 ITEM NUMBER: A-5 • DATE: 06/24/2003 4. If said improvement work is not completed within one year of the Date of Agreement, the Subdivider agrees that the City may elect to complete the same. 5. In the event the City elects to complete said work or improvement, the Subdivider agrees that the City may exercise it's option to declare the bond or deposit, as hereinafter described, forfeited and utilize the proceeds, including any interest, to complete said improvements or that the City may complete said improvements and recover full cost and expense thereof including reasonable attorney fees from the Subdivider and his/her surety. 6. The Subdivider shall, prior to submitting the map for filing, file an improvement security with the City, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, in the amount of the Estimated Total Cost of Improvements, which is the amount deemed sufficient by the City Engineer. In no case shall the improvement security be less than 100% of the Estimated Total Cost of Improvements. Further, the Subdivider shall file a security for labor and materials in the amount of the Estimated Total Cost of Improvements. The security for labor and materials shall be no less than 50% of the Estimated Total Cost of Improvements. Periodic progress payments may be authorized to the Subdivider as the improvements are completed if adequate security remains as determined by the City Engineer, however, no such progress payments shall be made for more than 90% of the value of any work. Progress payments shall only be paid on work that is completed to • the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 7. The Subdivider hereby agrees that after the completion and acceptance of the improvements as specified in paragraphs 2 and 3, 10% of the improvement security shall be retained for the guarantee and warranty of the work for a period of one year. 8. It is understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that this Agreement shall bind the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the respective parties to this agreement. 9. In the event legal action is taken to enforce the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover costs to enforce the Agreement, including reasonable attorney fees. 10. The Subdivider shall, defend, indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, or liability occasioned by the performance and attempted performance of the provisions hereof, or in any way arising out of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, inverse condemnation, equitable relief, or any wrongful act or any negligent act or omission to act on the part of the Property Owner or of agents, employees, or independent contractors directly responsible to the Property Owner, providing further that the foregoing shall apply to any wrongful acts, or any actively or passively negligent acts or omissions to act, committed jointly or concurrently by the Applicant, the Property Owner's agents, employees, or independent contractors. Nothing contained in the • foregoing indemnity provisions shall be construed to require the Property Owner to Final Map 2002-0047(Tract 2489) Page 7 of 12 39 ITEM NUMBER: A-5 DATE: 06/24/2003 • indemnify the City against any responsibility or liability in contravention of Section 2782 of the Civil Code. 11. Upon acceptance of the work on behalf of City and recordation of the Notice of Completion, ownership of the improvements constructed pursuant to this Agreement shall vest in City. 12. Sale or other disposition of this property will not relieve Subdivider form the obligations set forth herein. Subdivider agrees to notify City in writing at least 30 days in advance of any actual or pending sale or other disposition of the property. If Subdivider sells the property or any portion of the property within the Subdivision to any other person, Subdivider may request a novation of this Agreement and a substitution of security. Upon approval of the novation and substitution of securities, Subdivider may request a release or reduction of the securities required by this Agreement. Nothing in the novation shall relieve the Subdivider of the obligations under Paragraph 2 for the work or improvement done by Subdivider. 13. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by mail, postage prepaid and addressed as provided in this section. Notice shall be effective on the date it is delivered in person, or, if mailed, on the date of deposit in the United States Mail. Notices shall be addressed as follows unless a written change of address is filed with City: City: City of Atascadero • 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Subdivider: Kelly Gearhart 6205 Alcantera Atascadero, CA 93422 Surety: Hurst Financial Corporation 7340 Morro Road Atascadero, CA 93422 14. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the mutual consent of the parties. 15. The Recitals to this Agreement are hereby incorporated into the terms of this Agreement. 16. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter. All modifications, amendments, or waivers of the terms of this • Final Map 2002-0047(Tract 2489) Page 8 of 12 40 ITEM NUMBER: A-5 • DATE: 06/24/2003 Agreement must be in writing and signed by the appropriate representatives of the parties. In the case of City, the appropriate party shall be the City Manager. • I • ISI Final Map 2002-0047(Tract 2489) Page 9 of 12 41 ITEM NUMBER: A-6 DATE: 06/24/2003 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Property Owner has hereunto set his/her hand and the City has caused these presents to be signed by its duly sworn and authorized officers the day and year first hereinabove written. CITY OF ATASCADERO SUBDIVIDER: By: (notarize signature) Wade G. McKinney City Manager Attest: Marcia M. Torgerson City Clerk Approved as to content: Steven B. Kahn, P.E. • City Engineer Approved as to form: Roy A. Hanley City Attorney Final Map 2002-0047(Tract 2489) Page 10 of 12 42 ITEM NUMBER: A-5 DATE: 06/24/2003 • Exhibit A Ammumm �QrlIA�li� :�::- ; •: a; ". Ci�ahlri LN�>f�dpAtslst;++�, Oiataw 7tari}�f1lYAlrrada ,e r �"�✓ 4.,�.. b .,..i.•1.,. Fx ..!'Y. NR. :QtiF AKY Unit Unit Cao! ftm TOW Total*, `� .„, aL,.�'#'", �•�,.... ,. ,�y,.f 2 v?',+A\�' '?, 4M�. "'4 t+Y s.I C z 3 satr f•P.,.�,r�; ...... . .._._. _... •.f. „..�..,�•. :afc�}(._''..3�.T,?"�#4.. .s ,�- ..�xh.-.. ..rl.:..'a.: ..... . .. .L'. ..k •..�.:�:il 1��11 1 L� 35,000.00 35,000.00 MWWholRlati Taal S5.fA0.Ot} 2 7 LS 52,900.00 52.500:00 S epaoB 3: sawaidinp 440 LF 3200 5890.00 tateiputarybfl� ityy. 400 LF $3.00 $1X0000 DOWWROW,Tad 52 4e0.00 4� *A 900 CY $2.00 31s 000.66 f1 9900 CY $4.00 $38,400.00 awwaxamflon'and mmmo tx aubgrads 2300 CY $4.00 39,24o.b0 1 hgrmdi% 1 LS visc0.00 $7:500.00 atosiar calttd 25000 SF 30.0s. $2,000160 Bwdr#atlt Togs! Si'6,140:00 SElm Ault"im"ma • 6 adll0 aarspd 1 LS $110m.00 S1,000A handkap ramp 630 SF 58.00 $if.U4(m ddvw*qy opmn .4894 SF Ss.40 Sz6;762.00 aa,tcxs�slOardk 11220 SF $300 533;690.00 out and g~ 49810 LF 51 i.o0 351,980.00 curb" ISO LF 36,00 51.200:00 cel WWW P*ve a r F&W/$rd ft also SF $4.00 slz ewbo 3*"YP*w iroA0 4.875 SF $0;75 53.659.25 2.V AG 65:120 SF $0.65 $35:829.00 Ctrsa 2 sogragaim case 1510 CY 547:00 '5701870.00 Oval paring rrpar'at u0ty mwwcows 500 SF 54.00 32,000:00 Vmw&guiae*M 676 SF $10.00 58;750.00 tb V4*4 A odw 380 LF $20.00: 97,800,00 sbnwar+p smw mW&Wnat 4 FA Vftoo 51,600.00 7 EJ1 .11T+x.0p Si,2Z5:00 R 5++-hvwlra d 5261.561.25 8gnaw and Fmalm CQ0kw ooftno ft bw*n wW mainwnaga i LS $1.000.00 511000:00 saran Ou+tat sWum u I E0. 33.000.00 •4.3.000.00 So OLqb VAN 4 LA 37,e00.40 $11.200.00 $0 Proomg Dn in Wat 7 EA $2.QQQ,00 314,000.00 244mch HW Skm Main 415 LF $40.00 318,800.00 154neh HOPE SW=Oram 955 LF $38:00 528.9c oo 124nch HOPE Swm Chain so LF $30.00 51:500:00 Rack RIrrap 10 CY 9ff00.0o $5,000.00 An MOV and CC Tad 382;225.00 T fi4r4h PVC wotw tb+e 2040 LF $20.00 140:$00:00 "4"10 axis"ACP w W 2: EA 5800.00 x1.000.00 s4melt:gm xaWi 7 EA $650.00 $4.550.00 • $*amY 4 EA 32,140.00 $9.400.00 Final Map 2002-0047(Tract 2489) Page 11 of 12 43 ITEM NUMBER: A-5 DATE: 06/24/2003 No. Item Description QuaEtsty Unit+ Unit Cost Ilam Total. Tows . 7. miocate**hydr4m IFA 39ooA0. SAo0.00 ah nieaan varus t FA 00 $m.00 itrunit>fuucks 10 FA $125A $1250:00 1.5anchfJa�aaiviarM" 39 SA S mba =400.00 tiVaiM+7oW $60,90004 S &4-4h PVC low LF Moo $40=00 ifain to sbaung.rwwr 2 EA S6fl0.o0: 51:40000 sawarmanM�le 6 SA $2:000.00 WAWA* 44nM WW ii!A aA 30 FA $475A0: $16,054A0 9w 4 T440film 37i,9T0.04 g Obaft JL"u�enrh 8 axiduits 2540 LF 3800 7 t.eB0.06 fMlaeaaand►dt 2540 Lit 3300 52:82400 Cm 2060 LF SB Oo 312354.00 Cabllr TIG aaixMxlk. 2640 LF 33Ao S7,6=00 89s tlillgiibFTrwpfi SuW- t0 l�ii�kilrtlCllJ6� - Landswi %Oasfn i P*k arae: 21000 SF ii.00 321,000.0!$ of 9aai►f G xtiric.wsa 21000 SF ;1.00 $21,000,00 S+u�wying 7 Corot:La yacd 9 L$ mom= 36,000,1*�tTa>" 1 LS �ODO.flO: 3432x963 • 1096 Cen>ingency ft"WWWOO7aW >n v GRAWMAL x,rs.i.�v..u._wt1,.•. r:,:i.:�:.. .r..:a.. .i...'w ...• :. .f .::; ,...: ., ;.-,... .. sy.&moo& Rip'tgWW Chd3�Er�g�WPEW 043.069 ev.341.44 "10 C43059 EXP "104 Final Map 2002-0047(Tract 2489) Page 12 of 12 44 ITEM NUMBER: A-6 DATE: 06/24/2003 a' Atascadero City Council Staff Report - Community Development Department Zone Change 2002-0023 Downtown Commercial Zoning Text Amendment (City of Atascadero/Atascadero Main Street, Inc.) RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt on second reading, by title only, the attached draft Ordinance, enacting Zone Change 2002-0023 based on findings. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The proposed project consists of a zoning text amendment of the City's Downtown Zoning District ordinance, based upon the request of the Atascadero Main Street organization. The proposed zoning text amendment would permit office, business & vocational school, research & development, health care, and broadcasting service uses on the first floor within the Downtown Commercial (DC) zoning district, with appearance review by the Main Street organization. Also, handicapped-accessible residential units would be allowed on the first floor in non-storefront locations. The proposed amendment is identified in Attachment 2. On June 10, 2003, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the proposed zoning text amendment. FISCAL IMPACT: The project would likely have a slight negative impact on City revenues. As a general rule, office use requires services that exceed the revenue generated by the proposed uses. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment 1: Location Map, Zoning and General Plan Attachment 2: Draft Ordinance - Zone Text Change 45 j.r QZ+1 y Rai v `L 1 Zoning �v Downtown Commercial Zoning District IN 9 \ v v\1 v`�vv ITEM NUMBER: A-6 DATE: 6-24-03 ATTACHMENT 2: Draft Ordinance DRAFT ORDINANCE A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ZONING CODE TEXT ZCH 2002-0023 TO PERMIT OFFICE, BUSINESS AND VOCATIONAL SCHOOL, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH CARE,AND BROADCASTING SERVICE USES ON THE FIRST FLOOR WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL(DC)ZONING DISTRICT, WITH APPEARANCE REVIEW BY THE MAIN STREET ORGANIZATION. ALSO,HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WOULD BE ALLOWED ON THE FIRST FLOOR IN NON-STOREFRONT LOCATIONS (6500 Palma Avenue/City of Atascadero/Main Street Organization) WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero (6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422) has proposed to consider a project consisting of a zoning text amendment of the City's • Downtown Zoning District ordinance to permit office, business&vocational school, research& development, health care, and broadcasting service uses on the first floor within the Downtown Commercial (DC) zoning district,with appearance review by the Main Street Organization. Also, handicapped accessible residential units would be allowed on the first floor in non-storefront locations; and, WHEREAS, the site's General Plan Designation is D (Downtown); and, WHEREAS, the site's current zoning district is DC (Downtown Commercial),- and, ommercial);and, WHEREAS, General Plan Downtown land use designation allows a mix of retail, office, restaurant, personal service, commercial and residential uses as identified in the Downtown Revitalization Plan; and, WHEREAS, the project is exempt from CEQA by Statute Section 15061; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to enact this amendment to the zoning text to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens by applying orderly development and expanding economic opportunities within the City; and, WHEREAS, a timely and properly noticed Public Hearing upon the subject zoning • text amendment application was held by the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero at which hearing evidence, oral and documentary, was admitted on behalf of said zoning amendments; and, 47 ITEM NUMBER: A-6 DATE: 6-24-03 WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council, at a Public Hearing held on June 10, 2003, studied and considered Zone Change 2002-0023, and, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council takes the following actions: SECTION 1. FINDINGS FOR STATUTORY EXEMPTION 1. The project will have no significant effect on the environment. SECTION 2. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF ZONE TEXT CHANGE. 1. The zone change is consistent with General Plan policies and all other applicable ordinances and policies of the City. 2. Amendment of the zoning ordinance will provide for the orderly development of the community and protect the public welfare. 3. The zone change will not, in itself result in significant environmental impacts in accordance with California environmental laws. SECTION 3. ZONE TEXT CHANGE APPROVAL. 1. Section 15 of Title 9 of the Municipal Code 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. 2. The Atascadero City Council, in a regular session assembled on June 10, 2003 resolved to introduce for first reading an ordinance that would amend the City Zoning ordinance with the following: • 48 ITEM NUMBER: A-6 DATE: 6-24-03 ................................. .................................. DIVISION 9-3 - DOWNTOWN ZONING DISTRICTS Sections: 9-3.261 -Purpose of Downtown Districts 9-3.262-Downtown District Allowable Land Uses and Permit Requirements 9-3.263-Downtown District General Development Standards 9-3.261 -Purpose of Downtown Districts The downtown zoning districts are intended to develop an attractive,pedestrian-oriented,and economically successful downtown area by providing for a mixture of commercial, office,and residential land uses in two- and three-story buildings of traditional architectural styles. The purposes of the individual downtown districts are as follows. A. Downtown Commercial (DC) zoning district. The Downtown Commercial (DC) zoning district is intended to enhance the economic viability and pedestrian-oriented • character of the downtown by encouraging: 1. A wide range of retail shops,including artisan craft sales and production; 2. Restaurants, entertainment facilities, lodging, and non-automotive services (banks, health care, etc.); ::.: .............;:.:;.:.:;...:.......:<.;;:.:::.;;;;::. :. i:.i;:.::. :. i:;.i:.::.;:.;:. i:.i:.; ;:.;:.;:: ::::.:::::::.:.................................................................... :; stir #i~ # < ftx tk :.:.....ii.......ii:i iiiiiiii::'+:+4iii:•Y.:v:•ii}:Xv�iiii�':i•iiyi!ii:::::....::::_::,{:':::::w:::::::..:::::::::.•i�iii(i�:.i("}i�ifii�:y3i�� p:.:� i�ii�i(i .JY!!'JY :Ari .u'SSfYC A3i�Y•iiS}i •S�Jii�YJS' iIFi •iLl' 'fiTJ Ti�:Mh}iS�SA .?... '�}iy�y_.i S '�l' j� .Y.d'i:iii':•i'i O ..............�y �• " YT:;by7l.3i: • :x wve eri�va ted# lae v v _ otrr Iea _.rideitx ae�«5_ ailbi ?ins 4. Residential uses on upper floors. I B. Downtown Office (DO) zoning district. The Downtown Office (DO) zoning district is intended to apply to properties that border the DC district, where a wide variety of professional and other office uses will encourage a weekday pedestrian flow that can take advantage of the restaurant and shopping opportunities in the overall downtown area. 49 ITEM NUMBER: A-6 DATE: 6-24-03 9-3.262- Downtown District Allowable Land Uses and Permit Requirements The following table identifies the land uses allowed by this Zoning Ordinance in the downtown zoning districts, and the land use permit required to establish each use. In addition to the land use permit required by this Section, special provisions related to certain land uses may apply, Precise Plan approval may also be required for certain uses in compliance with Section 9-1.108. A Building Permit is required prior to any construction. Design Review approval shall be required for all permits, consistent with Appendix A of the Downtown Revitalization Plan. Note: Where the last column in the tables ("Specific Use Regulations") includes a section number, the regulations in the referenced section apply to the use. Provisions in other sections of this Zoning Ordinance may also apply. • 50 ITEM NUMBER: A-6 DATE: 6-24-03 ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE-TITLE 9, ZONING ORDINANCE • Downtown Zoning Districts 9-3.262 e Al� rrwec eeaPts.- Re ulreme�ts for 0VMM wxt axuxt` DastradS .; CUP Conditt4iial Ust Permit requtreti Llse.nrt all4waer3 ;..i.. PIIITI2EQUII:EI� ; Strecifeitse LAIV___... (1� « DC DCi; I egulaErans . ;;:: MANUFACTURING&PROCESSING USES Light repair services P — Printing and publishing P P R&D(t)(Research and development including technology) P R&D-Biotechnology,chemical,pharmaceutical MCom' RECREATION,EDUCATION&ASSEMBLY USES Membership Organizations CUP — Amusement services P — Indoor recreation services P — Libraries,museums,galleries P — • Public parks and playgrounds P P Schools-Public CUP Schools-Business and Vocational " CUP Studios-Art,dance,martial arts,music,etc. P CUP Public Amusement and Entertainment CUP — RESIDENTIAL USES Home occupations P P 9-6.105 Live/work projects ' — Multi-family and single-family dwellings P Senior citizen housing W — KEY TO ZONING DISTRICT SYMBOLS ................ Downtown Commercial D? Downtown Office ................ ............... Notes: (Only the notes that apply to this page are shown below.) (1) See Section 9-3.701 for land use descriptions. See Section 9-1.109(d)regarding uses not listed. (2) Plot Plan approval required(9-2.107). Precise Plan approval(9-2.108)may also be required. Conditional Use Permit approval required for all projects over 10,000 sf in floor area and multiple family residential developments consisting of twelve or more units. 0 .:��zc�:�su�k:z�min.�::lii�:iia�xxkix�:�lm��an�:I�! 1x�.lad:� :��;�:�a�cU�,I?�'�da�;�s�;_��:� t �_k?�_Wit•_.-_�;�.:�zs. �`��::><:'�: e :Ear3� �3�zivca?�-�t1�?etnand�rk�Z��Jr �pt:�az�s���••rtor�l�taf��t��d�;�s��► ;> �.�I....> ; . ...... ... ... ... : .:: :::.... .........: ... .. .. ..... ::.::... .....: .:.:.:.:..;.....:......:I....a:..c:....a... ...: an Maexae3: ar 3d::fl�a ox 6:::>:<:: iiiiil tfai al:: ir:I' r ik:::': ii ti:fFtlti : 3 ii 3a1:;: i rE r ::are:In Ked: ..c . :#:;.... ..{:: (O .:::::::.: ::::::.::::::::::::.:::::::::::::.�.::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::........5....................................... 51 ITEM NUMBER: A-6 DATE: 6-24-03 • Perc�xtted Use < :::: ii7�+ 1t� ....:.:.... CUP. Condi iaitalUsel' mutregiured isedEaw Pi�1vI1TiQtlT1BD 8elfieUee Ile iatl�ns LANA tfi .....:..... . .:. :;.: '' ....................................................................................................................... RETAIL TRADE Artisan shops P — Auto and vehicle dealerships-Indoor display/sales only CUP — Building materials and hardware-All activities indoors P — Eating and drinking places-Without drive-thru P — Food and beverage retail sales P — Furniture,home furnishings and equipment P — General Merchandise P — Temporary or seasonal sales P — 9-6.174 SERVICES Automated teller machines(ATMs) P P Banks and financial services-Without drive- CUP P through • Bed and Breakfast CUP — Business services P P Child/adult day care centers — CUP Government offices and facilities P P Hotels and motels CUP — Health care services P Offices I NA P Personal services P — KEY TO ZONING DISTRICT SYMBOLS ............... IAC» Downtown Commercial ................ ............... ................ ............... ............... Downtown Office ................ ............... .............. Notes: (Only the notes that apply to this page are shown below.) (1) See Section 9-3.701 for land use descriptions. See Section 9-1.109(d)regarding uses not listed. (2) Plot Plan approval required(9-2.107). Precise Plan approval(9-2.108)may also be required. Conditional Use Permit approval required for all projects over 10,000 sf in floor area. .. :..............:........................ ........................ 04 1.: rr:::...:.::.. : a ::.::.>:.;:.::::::> p1e : ktn�Yisslc :1 # knt :: + tsi; 33t ....:....... ..:. :: ctix :;:::::.::::;::::.:. F?! e ::::::::;-' g.- �7�E•�•i':•••iii:::::':.::..,i..�:'.'p:.y;;.•.};:5:•:h'•:'::{:::'':.••:4}ii:: L.0001 a .................. ..................... ................. .........:.................. 52 ITEM NUMBER: A-6 DATE: 6-24-03 • All ed:. ses:and.T�� €i�.....:: 1� p t�Ea:����a>.::: e u reme ts:.....: ....... L)Pgxzdztzvzsal Use Pemut xe �izxed DvviltQvi : 1?ist .::::. �; .:..: T7sJxxxe int allowed PllylTTIdIREi7::. 3 �fi Use US�. ) ....::::. �C : DC) lFegulafz©ns ........: .... .. ........ TRANSPORTATION,COMMUNICATIONS,&INFRASTRUCTURE USES Broadcasting studios CUPS P Transit stations and terminals CUP CUP Utility facilities CUP CUP KEY TO ZONING DISTRICT SYMBOLS lC;>' Downtown Commercial ............... ............... ................ :....D0`.:.*. Downtown Office ................ ............... ................ ............... Notes: (Only the notes that apply to this page are shown below.) (1) See Section 9-3.701 for land use descriptions. See Section 9-1.109(d)regarding uses not listed. (2) Plot Plan approval required(9-2.107). Precise Plan approval(9-2.108)may also be required. Conditional Use Permit approval required for all projects over 10,000 sf in floor area. • 53 9-3.263- Downtown District General Development Standards Subdivisions,new land uses and structures,and alterations to existing land uses and structures, • shall be designed, constructed, and/or established in compliance with the requirements in the following table, in addition to the other applicable development standards of this Zoning Ordinance. R , uaarxYraxt b �oYun. Tistrt IC T�eyelap�niexit�a#ur� � ;:; 1 ow. .ntowri Commercial lowntvn flfce Minimum lot size No minimum Setbacks Minimum and maximum setbacks required. See Section 9-4.103 for setback measurement,allowed projections into setbacks,and exceptions to setbacks. Front None allowed,except for building As required by Section 9-4.106 insets designed to accommodate when adjacent to a residential outdoor eating and seating areas, zone,none required otherwise. and except for East and West Mall between El Camino Real and Palma Avenue,where a minimum of 20 ft is required. Sides(each) None required • Rear None required Creek To be determined throu h Design Review Height limit 45-feet not to exceed 3 stories;18 35 ft feet on the west side of El Camino Real between Atascadero Creek and the lot line common to Lots 19 and 20,Block H-B,Atascadero Colony Map. Landscaping As required by Sections 9-4.124 et seq. (Landscaping,Screening and Fencing) Off-street parking None required,except as required As required by Sections 9-4.114 et by 9-4.114 for hotels,motels,and seq. residential uses,and for all development east of Atascadero Creek. Signs See Section 9-15.0005(b) Density Residential et not SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 54 This ordinance shall be effective at 12:01 a.m. on the 31"day after its final passage. On motion by Council Member , and seconded by Council Member the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ADOPTED: By: Jerry L. Clay, Sr.,Mayor Attest: • Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk Approved as to form: Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney 55 ITEM NUMBER: B -1 DATE: 06/24/2003 Atascadero City Council Staff Report - City Manager's Office Parking & Business Improvement Area Assessment RECOMMENDATION: City Council adopt the draft Resolution of Intention, declaring intent to levy annual Downtown Parking & Business Improvement Area assessment, and set a public hearing for July 8, 2003. DISCUSSION: • Background: The City of Atascadero established a Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area in 1986 (Chapter 11 of the Atascadero Municipal Code) for the purpose of acquisition, construction or maintenance of parking facilities, decoration of public places, promotion of public events, and general promotion of business activities in the downtown area. The formation and operation of a Business Improvement Area is governed by the California Streets & Highways Code (Section 36500 et. Seq.) Historically, the budget for the Business Improvement Area is submitted in conjunction with the City's annual budget. An annual draft Resolution of Intention (Attachment 1) declaration of intent to levy annual Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area assessment and holding a public hearing is required by the California Streets & Highways Code for the City to continue to levy and collect the assessment. Analysis- The Streets & Highways Code requires that the "advisory board" provide a report (Attachment 2) to the City Council annually for the expenditure of funds derived from the assessment paid by businesses in the downtown area. The Business Improvement Association Board of Directors was dissolved in 2001 and Main Street's Board of Directors has taken its place. The report identifies the proposed improvements and activities for the area, based upon the National Main Street Program's four-point approach. The report does not propose any changes to the area or of the assessment. The Atascadero Main Street Board of Directors are proposing expenditures (Attachment 3) for 2003-04 with the Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area funds as follows: 57 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 06/24/2003 BIA Funds requested for 2003-2004 $10,500 Carry over from 2002-2003 $ 1,500 Total Proposed Funding Available $12,000 2003-2004 Proposed Expenditures: 4th of July in Sunken Garden $1,500 Hot EI Camino Nights $ 800 Fall Promotion (Colony Days & Halloween) $1,200 Winter Wonderland Street Fair $3,000 Sweetheart Stroll (Valentine's Day) $1,200 Pet Parade $1,000 Eggstravaganza (Easter Egg Hunt) $2,000 Spring Sale $ 250 Clean-Up Days (Spring and Fall) $1,000 Total Proposed Expenditures for 2003704 $11,950 Fund Residual $ 50. Consistent with State law, the City Council is required to adopt a draft Resolution of Intention and set a public hearing to receive public comment prior to the assessment being collected. Staff is proposing that the hearing be conducted at the next regular meeting scheduled for July 8, 2003. FISCAL IMPACT: • The City receives approximately $10,500 annually from the Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area assessments. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The City Council may set an alternative date for the public hearing. 2. The City Council may choose not to adopt the Resolution of Intention to levy assessment, thereby discontinuing the collection of Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area assessments. Alternative 2 is not recommended because the Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area assessment revenue provides funding to Atascadero Main Street to effectuate downtown revitalization activities and programs. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution of Intention 2. Report on Business Improvement Area 3. Budget for Proposed Expenditures for 2003-2004 58 Attachment 1 .DRAFT RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DECLARING THE CITY'S INTENT TO LEVY AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO STREETS & HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION 36500 WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has formed a Parking and Business Improvement Area, pursuant to Section 36500 of the Streets&Highways Code of the State of California, and WHEREAS, The City Council has received a report pursuant to Section 36533 of said code, and WHEREAS, the City Council has approved such report and is required to adopt a resolution of intention pursuant to Section 36534, and WHEREAS, the report proposes no changes to the boundaries or assessment amounts that are currently applied in said area, and WHEREAS, the report identifies the proposed improvements and activities for the area • based upon the National Main Street Program four point approach. Such report is on file and available for inspection at the office of the City Clerk. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby declares its intent to levy and collect assessments within the parking and business improvement area for fiscal year 2003-04. SECTION 2. The City Ordinance, consistent with Section 36527 of the Streets and Highways Code proposes the following uses of area revenue: (1) The acquisition, construction, or maintenance of parking facilities for the benefit of the area. (2) Decoration of public place in the area. (3) Promotion of public events that are to take place on or in public places in the area. (4) The general promotion of business activities in the area. SECTION 3. The area is known as the Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area. The area is generally located in the downtown core including the area between Highway 41 on the south Rosario on the north Highway101 on the west and an irregular boundary generally along Santa Ysabel on the east. SECTION 4. A report is on file in the City Clerks Office, which includes a full and detailed description of the improvements and activities to be provided in the fiscal year 2003-04, the boundaries of the area, and the proposed assessmentsessments to be levied upon businesses within the area for fiscal year 2003-04. 59 City of Atascadero Resolution ° Page 2 SECTION 5. The City Council will hold a public hearing on the levy of the proposed assessment for fiscal year 2003-04 on ail t t 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. SECTION 5. Written or oral protests may be made at the hearing. The form of the protests shall comply with Sections 36524 and 36525 of the Streets and Highways Code. SECTION 6. The City Clerk is hereby directed to give notice of the public hearing by causing this resolution to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city not less than seven days before said hearing. On motion by Council Member and seconded by Council Member the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ADOPTED: July 8, 2003 CITY OF ATASCADERO Jerry Clay Sr., Mayor ATTEST: Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney • 60 Attachment 2 • Ci of Atascadero Downtown Parkin and Business Improvement Area City g P Annual Report Fiscal Year 2003-04 The California Streets and Highways Code Section 36533 requires the preparation of a report for each fiscal year for which assessments are to be levied and collected to pay the costs of the improvements and activities of the Improvement Area. The report may propose changes, including, but not limited to, the boundaries of the parking and business improvement area or any benefit zones within the area, the basis and method of levying the assessments, and any changes in the classification of businesses. There are no boundary changes proposed. The boundaries are more specifically described as follows: From the South corner of Morro Road at the Highway 101 over-crossing then in the generally northwest direction immediately adjacent to Highway 101,to a point, at the intersection of El Camino Real and Rosario Ave., then easterly along Rosario Ave., to a point at the intersection of Rosario and Palma Ave., then easterly along Palma Ave. to the rear lot line of parcels on the west side of Traffic Way, then north along said rear lot lines to the rear lot line of parcels on the south side of Olmeda Ave., then easterly to the rear lot line of parcels on the west side of Traffic Way, then north along said rear lot lines to include Lot 24 of Block LA, of Atascadero, then northerly along the center line of Traffic Way, to a point, then easterly to include the presently existing National Guard • Armory Property, then to a point easterly to the intersection of West Mall and Santa Ysabel Ave. at the West Mall bridge,then southerly along Santa Ysabel Ave. to a point at the intersection of the southerly leg of Hospital Drive and Santa Ysabel Ave., then easterly from that point to the extension of proposed Highway 41, then southwesterly to the Morro Road/Highway 101 over-crossing, point of beginning. The Atascadero Main Street organization is the advisory body and sub-contractor to the City regarding the Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area. Since 2000, the City, the Redevelopment Agency, Main Street and the community have worked to strengthen the downtown business community, increase the capacity of the Main Street organization and implement the downtown revitalization strategy. Each licensed business in the Improvement Area shall contribute to the assessment. Activities and improvements in the Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area are funded by the assessment. The Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area account has a surplus of$1,500 to be carried forward from the prior year. Proposed workplan and budget for fiscal year 2003-04 is as follows: p BIA Funds requested for 2003-2004 $10,500 Carry over from 2002-2003 $ 1.500 Total Proposed Funding Available $12,000 • 2003-2004 Proposed Expenditures: 4th of July in Sunken Garden $1,500 61 Hot El Camino Nights $ 800 Fall Promotion(Colony Days&Halloween) $1,200 • Winter Wonderland Street Fair $3,000 Sweetheart Stroll (Valentine's Day) $1,200 Pet Parade $1,000 Eggstravaganza (Easter Egg Hunt) $2,000 Spring Sale $ 250 Clean-Up Days (Spring and Fall) $1,000 Total Proposed Expenditures for 2003-04 $11,950 Fund Residual $ 50. This report shall be filed with the City Clerk on behalf of the Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area for fiscal year 2002-2003. • • 62 Attachment 3 RAFT The City of Atascadero DRAFT and Atascadero Main Street, Inc. Agreement for Disbursement of P.B.I.A. Funds July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 ACTUAL 2002-2003 Actual Funds Available from P.B.I.A. Assessment for period July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003 = $ 10,500.00 $10,500.00 Carry over from Budget Year 2002- 2003 $ 1,500.00 $ 3,742.62 Total Revenue Available= $ 12,000.00 $14,242.62 Expected Disbursement of Funds by Main Street during period of July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 Fourth of July in the Sunken Gardens $1,500.00 Hot EI Camino Nights (Food Concessions & Band) 800.00 $ 383.42 Fall Promotion (Colony Das & Halloween) 1,200.00 Winter Wonderland Street Fair 1 3,000.00 7,550.00 Sweetheart Stroll (Valentine Chocolate&Wine) 1,200.00 1,084.70 Pet Parade 1,000.00 Eggstravaganza (Easter Egg Hunt) 2,000.00 1,500.00 Spring Sale (Cash Prize) 250.00 250.00 Clean-up Days (Spring & Fall) 1,000.00 611.26 Streetscape Improvements - 1,344.52 Total Disbursement = $ 11,950.00 $12,723.90 Fund Balance = $ 50.00 $ 1,518.72 END Main Street Budqet Draft Rev. May 1, 2003 63 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 CADF�j :. Atascadero City Council Staff Report- Community Development Department Zone Change 2002-0030 Conditional Use Permit 2002-0078 Tentative Tract Map 2002-0024 6205 San Gabriel Road (Rancho De Paraiso, LLC. / Wilson Land Surveys- Russ Thompson Consulting) RECOMMENDATIONS: Planning Commission Recommends: 1. The City Council adopt Draft Resolution A, certifying proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 2003-0015 prepared for Zone Change 2002-0031, Tentative Tract Map 2002-0015; and Conditional Use Permit 2002-0078; and, 2. The City Council introduce for first reading by title only Draft Ordinance A, to approve Zone Change 2002-0034; and amend the City's Zoning Map to add a PD 16 overlay district to the project area; and, 3. The City Council adopt Draft Resolution B, approving Conditional Use Permit 2002- 0078, a Master Plan of Development for the project site consistent with PDA 6; and, 4. The City Council adopt Draft Resolution C, approving Tentative Tract Map 2002- 0024, a request to subdivide an 8.12-acre parcel into two parcels; one at 1.09 acres, and one at 7.09 acres, all acreages gross, based on findings and subject to conditions. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The proposed project consists of a Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, and Conditional ment subdivision. The two-lot would allow a two-lot Planned Development Use Permit that P isubdivision would normally be allowed with just a parcel map to create two four-acre 65 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 lots. However, one of the lots would be bisected by San Gabriel Road, which is contrary to the City's goal of orderly subdivision patterns. The Planned Development , 16 process does not create an entitlement for any additional lots, but allows one of the lots to be smaller than the 2.5-acre minimum and avoid the issue of a lot bisected by the street. Planning Commission Hearing: The Planning Commission heard the item on May 20, 2003 and recommended approval on a 7-0 vote. During the public hearing, a group of neighbors spoke in opposition to the project. The concerns related to allowing a 1-acre lot the vicinity of larger lots and the desire to keep the flat area east of San Gabriel Road as open space. The Planning Commission added a condition to the project requiring a tree protection easement around the large oak tree on Lot 1. (Refer to Attachment 3). Situation and Facts: 1. Applicant: Rancho De Paraiso LLC, 6205 San Gabriel Road Atascadero, CA 93422 805-466-0932 2. Representative: Wilson Land Surveys/Russ Thompson Consulting, 7600 Morro Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 3. Project Address: 6205 San Gabriel Road Atascadero, CA; APN's 054- 192-054-11-051, and a portion of 054-181-006 4. General Plan Designation: Residential Estates (RE) 5. Zoning District: Residential Suburban (RS) with a minimum lot size of 4.06 acres (gross) based on, the performance standards calculation 6. Site Area: 8.12 Acres (gross) 7. Existing Use: Single Family Residences on large lots; rural open 8. Environmental Status: Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 2003-0015 posted April 25, 2003. 66 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 BACKGROUND: Planned Development Background: Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed several subdivision applications in the last few years that have resulted in irregular parcel configurations. The subdivision applications have met the lot size requirements of the underlying General Plan and zoning districts. However, in order to meet the minimum parcel size requirements, projects have been forced into lot designs with steep building sites, difficult access, driveway designs with excessive grading and tree removals, and irregular shaped lot configurations. In order to address this problem and provide for development that would protect the natural features of a site, the City Council adopted the Planned Development #16 Overlay District that allows clustering of residential development within the single-family zoning districts with no additional density, but with flexible minimum lot sizes to allow for environmentally superior projects and more orderly development. Planned Development-96 Purpose: The Atascadero Municipal Code states that the purpose of the Planned Development Overlay Zone is to identify areas where development standards may differ from those established by the underlying zoning district. The deviations from the zoning . standards are deemed necessary to promote orderly and harmonious development and to enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area. The Planned Development 16 is reusable, similar to the Planned Development Overlay 7 that is used for multi-family residential developments. The Planned Development consists of a Zone Change, to create a change in the zoning map in the form of an overlay, a Conditional Use Permit, which is a master plan of development that locks in the site design including building envelopes and open space, and either a Tentative Parcel Map or Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the parcels based on the minimum lot size. The planned development can be used on all subdivision applications within the Residential Suburban, Residential Single Family and Limited Single Family zoning districts. The planned development allows lot sizes that are smaller than what is allowed in the underlying zoning district, however the overall density of the site will be required to be consistent with the parcels' General Plan designation. The PD-16 provides a more flexible way to approach subdivision design. This will allow the location of building sites in appropriate areas and will not "force" building sites and driveways onto steep hillsides just to meet the minimum lot size requirements. Additionally, the proposed planned development would provide an open space or tree preservation easement. This will ensure that the rural character of the sites will be maintained. 67 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 Planned Development Text: Chapter 9-3.660 Atascadero Municipal Code PD-16. The planned development is applicable in the RS, RSF, LSF Zoning Districts: (a) Purpose. The purpose of the district is to allow the creative clustering of residential parcels to preserve sensitive environmental features and provide open space by allowing lot sizes smaller than the underlying zone's minimum lot size requirements in the RS, RSF, LSF Zoning Districts. (b) Development Standards: (9) The maximum density shall not exceed that allowed by the underlying zoning district and General Plan designation. Individual lot sizes may be smaller provided the overall project density conforms to the specified maximum density. (i) Minimum individual lot sizes shall be at least one acre (gross) for parcels served by on-site septic systems and 0.5 acre (net) for lots served by the City's sewer system. (2) Lots shall utilize common access when feasible. (3) Open space easements shall be provided for each project. All open space easements shall be designated as non-build, non-storage areas on the Final Parcel / Tract Maps. (Septic systems are allowed to be located within the open space easements. (4) All building sites within the Planned Development shall be located on slopes under 20 percent. (5) Development on each parcel shall be designed to avoid native tree impacts, preserve the contours of the hills, protect prominent view sheds, maintain wildlife • corridors and minimize impacts to significant drainage areas and blue-line creeks. (6) A Master Plan of Development shall be approved in conjunction with any Tentative Tract / Parcel Map application. All subdivision improvements and subsequent development shall be consistent with the Master Plan of Development. The Master Plan of Development shall contain the following: (i) A site plan indicating land use, common open space, circulation, lot sizes, slopes, native trees, building sites and common landscape features; (ii) A statistical summary of the project's land uses and densities; (iii) A statement of project features that will provide a public benefit; (iv) Any special development standards that will be required of future development, (v) Individual building plans and elevations are not required. DISCUSSION: Site Description: The project is located on San Gabriel Road approximately 500-feet west of the intersection with Santa Lucia Road. The project site is in a rural setting surrounded by single-family residences on large lots. The site is not currently developed, however an existing private driveway with a recorded ingress/egress easement for the benefit of interior parcels is located on parcel 2, which occurs on the west side of San Gabriel 68 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 Road. The western portion of the project site contains portions of moderately sloped areas suitable for building sites and portions of moderate-to-steeply sloped hillsides unsuitable for development. The eastern half of the project site is flat and contains one 48-inch native oak tree. The overall site setting contains clusters of native oak woodlands, and mixed native/non-native grasses. The subject parcel is adjacent to "Rancho De Paraiso" project, which was a series of Lot Line Adjustments and a Tract Map. The original project created the access road, "Alta Pradera", that is located on proposed parcel 2. Division of the parcel by San Gabriel Road resulted from the connection to SantaLuciaRoad. The current physical location of San Gabriel Road is a result of realignment from where the original un-built road alignment was located. 69 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 7� 1. Y' i < . ......... w, 4 .......... roject Site U� ........... -7 .. .. .. Rancho de Paraiso Tract K, ............... Map A: ii V Project Context Map + Rancho De Paralso Tract Map WA- eawzzmz -- W.L WA- v%w NESNOTAIL SCAU WA-6 Mir 19z- DETAL ma MV M IW w aw a sm1000110 —IWnme . C1.8.1 ------- ...... 70 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06124/2003 .......... iY ..... .... .. 2 Lots with .......... parcel line at street A ....... 7-_ x --V % �i:N :V:�: "N A. v N Z 5 X: ,. .... N...... x x N Project id ...... .. Xi ji 2 Lots with 47X S:* street bisecting the lot :X, ii V.1:A. N,:: A: A. 'Parcel Map Project 71 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 Proposed Zoning Map Amendment. The project would allow a 2-lot subdivision resulting in a 7.03-acre parcel and a 1.09- acre parcel through the Planned Development 16 zoning map overlay, which is required to allow one lot to exist smaller than the minimum lot size requirements. Planned Development 16 would correct the physical lot division by San Gabriel Road while not exceeding the maximum density allowed by the underlying Residential Estates General Plan Land Use Designation and Residential Suburban Zoning District. Og Proposed Open Space/Tree Preservation Easement y, 3 J -i. ----- t Existing Access �� �P ,��-�M •, a>J• �iii'''!`� ' y� Road 0, Proposed Open j!t Space/Tree Y f� Y��. � P �'•. Proposed . „ .�y � Y' ; "� .; - „ Preservation iiz i .. �„ ; • j `Eat x :• FacPmont Building Site 2 1, 1 . Proposed 1 Tir , Building ,'`- a , •. �� f�P. 1 Site 1 Existing Oen Space/Tree `reservation Easement � / j;';t3' ',`rP I 1 1/0�. 16 PD- r J t•� I } J Y , r ��s• 7 , �. � `• 1 •.�J l 72 ITEM NUMBER: B-2 DATE: 06/24/2003 Master Plan of Development 3 J,':{{7, ./ :: i::.•2;;4• � J ; !';N 4,;;li 4.!:�,/:':}',{{,+�:':{•r'{±.•�•r't�{:?'7}'.•y>vr.r:2•r/nS,••>{:�:r'i 5:.,J r{.Jr.lu.::'ti::rr:'{fi�.f'O{r:,/1JlJ,`4vi:•.,�;:j•!J:'•?i7J,:'Y••:5:<r�}/<,.i;••;" 10,';••}:'..'i::;}.tG:7:..ra,r•/::,,fY 4^}r4$.+:•::i;.^�G•'.}.'u.`•J?J..r:i!JJ•''��'73`JCi'5,•4.''•:;,1•:�:r�S;}:!�j;}#`�:�7.•.>:;.'t''+•�{:,^^7.���:�.',}:.•2��•.:>:��#^'f:,,.,J.;!4i'/il/�..J.•:'•i•:.i:'?y•:•Y::J',s:,:•`':�!,�•••'h$.}'>}r!•2::�••,.>••:•,}::,::{.!{;:::}•:};Jt::.'.•:v}:#.l}:ir:4:,;,.:n•`,G;�r.::::•',.v::%J<::r.d•v+/:::,:•,'Y.::/•,:.r{.::.•:..w:{;;l.:'•i.}}:•.:.::r::5!:.:.r:}•?•7;:.:::J.:••7:,+:Ii;.:;:;t:::<v:�::•••`i4?.:l:::•,.r:':'i:/•:i:•.:5:•::+u,,i�:ii.{+r:'rt:':::};:::.r}.::::i#}.::.,.•:::.i.::•:5w.,}C:,,i�y}::.,2}�r:::°,•::.;:::•.,:}.,..S::i}?:.r::•:r.•::::...:•{,,i:}•/,::i.:•?:/••i::::+<:i•'::v.•'.+..'S.ro'.::?:...:{.%.:.?'G^'t•.;:};J.:;....rv}f';".vx,::.+:^:••.'.}f•v'.'r4,te:•'7;••:}:`$.::s2::e•.';•�.:':••.',:.::u>:�+.:..?r\i..?:`ir.'::•;.':••?'t::.y.\:`.:,:.4.:•/.•...'.:ik•:'�•Y::yyJVR.,J`r�}•J.::.i:,:�::yy'•i`{::.J..r:.;..Jr:•r•,{S•{,:....:ry;1;•Js:�•.:,}';�..i:75,}.•,., �i{,;5/::'.''•:{;::jg>,:i•'•X,:SS7:;{y'j•,;,:rJwi'!•rr,••.r,{{5.rJr.#::.:••%/{.....,+.i•.:,'.+K.x�;L.:2..r:;:.,f•;i:}:2•::.•i:±l.:: �i+:':;'J}Rx:.::'u:i'..4;•v:.: '�,:::.%y,5.:f}.:,•;v+:.";}3.:::t`,oJ:%.�: ;••..: .{'$:v•:: �':,•;a,3 :iJ. . r .., .�"�''` 2.,m,P,:''+:.rrJJ,??>:1 ir;.i.''`f:`:?•}f: .;?".,. r:J.'fi r•rt:•;y;::. !{i:,'••';t+%i,M,:;t+,;.;.. ,:i•� 'tl::�:.4':J•{,?;;' . •.++.';! , .y /;.,r•''�';^iq.+,i�{ r ;:J„.+.t}, ;?'::#�J/ �}�.,"4.r,. �J/,.•'...G,,i;{.:k.•••:r�+4'.•.<;7',> Y ; .i. ; !' i ;• }y ::k5 :.;J/y{''• „^!'�:>:'r.'��r ;':�.;`:: v{..4• •if;F:;{. ,i#•},� .J r.1''rfI •:J2$ •/ .i.J. r/. •7 JJ !'J tr' L.J. •. +� ., .+•. .........:':}::}}}:;tt:iiii::::::';}:•}:•?:•}}:•}:•>:•}::::.:::::::::::.?:•?:•>: ^ff'' S{,r,,},iS'•.• i'!iiJJ i•: •J' .f..:.:?:•isi2:i$}ilii:{2:iii{ii:i::i::iii$rr:}>iii:::i:;::iiiii:2::j`}::;iii'::;i:;:;::iiiii'rIS 4 � }•?::.vii?:::•:�%4:4:SS4}}:•}}}:S^isSS4:4:SS:.SL}:^:•}:4:`:•:•.'•}7::.x:•.54:4?7::}vow}????r,.'•}iiiiiii:i• •J.5 ;i :2:.. .r J.>:.. v•. Y:..',.,`.:::nv•.v:.v:n:v......:v. .�. •..X :?.fq�.•4•.•'.,x:x::::.:i,.....;::;•>;;•:}:•:::::::.x:;:fi ii iiiii<.}: : .Y•..S •4+ ./ .4+5 ::::::..::��::::::::::::::::. ..?M} r .. �.......::.x::::::::::.:x.x::,:::xnx:::r.x:•.}•.:x:n:x:::•}:::::::::::::::SSS::SjS4;•}}:SS4?:SS•7:4:•}:is?:S•}7:4:•}:4:}}:SS4:4:•: o:•}}:•:•>:•:•::}}::::::::::.�:::::}:}}:•?:::.x::::##�5?,d,'G,tR�r{�E>:'ri•• }.4J !r :...... •,lcl..ln fi.Y•::a:.x::.::::..x:::::;•:::::::.:.::..x:::::::::•::.:.x. View From San Gabriel Road Looking At Proposed Parcel 9 . ...... .. ....................... :.... .....:... ) ::•:2::::•; ••••i'4:4}'v:i•}i}ii:ii:ivi:9iii'•ii:•i???i?}}iY•xiii?iii:?:•ii?ii?iii}}:i:!•i: 'I ii�:54}?i?:4:?+:7:4?i:v?iii}:Oiiiiiiii:viniii?:•i:!:vv:vii}iii7:•}i?}?} ...�., .Y;?::'S}iii:;}:<ii:;::>_.'r`'•�..... j '7,Z:::Oiii$i::':::ii�:ii�:::::::�i:�iS<i.:::: �i:i':�:;:=:..t::::: ''F•}: ...�.........:::::::::.....:::::::.....:::::::....::::':.::::.::::ni':: 's'� •,r.•. :.:::. <:�i?:;•7:•77:•:ii:i:;::•;:i:•i:•7::.::::i•i;i}::.:::::::•}:•;;:iii:::•::::.}:ii::i: t f. e 1' R, 4 k ;, ;:::. ::.::::. •.. ... sr,:7;;:<;z<::<:»:: :><::::i::i:�i i:;z::>.<:i::iii:;::.;:is is ii::•i:;•i:::i:i: ' . ., ....... ;:;;;>;;:;;::.;.,. .....::.. • ,;;;:;;i:;:r7:4}:•s;i>s>:>s>:o:?i}:ia<;:•s?i:•is>:::::>}:�:;r:i:<n77:4i::ii}i?: A" i .r. ................ y2 72i? 6; 'y':ii•'7i'•'r,:i'i� ::l,'`,z¢wt� :S;i: View From San Gabriel Road Looking At Proposed Parcel 2- Easement area and Existing Driveway. Density. The minimum lot size has been calculated to be 4.06 gross acres based on performance criteria outlined in the Atascadero Municipal Code. The total gross acreage is 8.12. The minimum net acreage allowed by the Planned Development#16 is 1.0 acre. 73 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 Minimum Lot Size Calculation Form Mtiiiirium LotSize Criteria.For the Residential:SuburbariZone .`i dress<>':......€... ....... a `el>k c a` > >z `• > ?. ..............................i.. ....................................................... iFklf€aft:»::>::>::>::>::>::: Lot Size Factors 0-8,000=.20, 8-10,000=.25 10-12,000=.30,12-14,000=.40, Distance from 14-16,000=.50,16-18,000=.60, Center of 18-20,000=.75, Community >20,000=.90 14-16 0.25 >20 min/inch=.50 Septic20-39 minAnch=.75 Suitability 40-59 minlnch=1.00 erk rate <60 min/inch=1.50 <60 1.5 0-10%=.5, 11-20%_.75, 21-25%=1.0, 26-30%=1.25, Average Sloe 31-35%=1.75, 36-40%=2.00 (assumed) 1.25 City accepted road=.40 Paved road less than 15%=.40 Paved road more than 15%=.50 All weather less than 15%_.75 All weather more than 15%=1.00 Access Unimproved less than 15%=1.25 Condition jUnimproved more than 15%=1.5 0.4 Average Lot Size Within 1500 Feet acres 3.29 X0.2 0.66 Minimum Lot Size= 4.058 The proposed Planned Development would allow no additional density beyond the two parcels allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Planned Development Statistical Summary. The Tentative Tract Map requires the following statistical summary. i 74 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 Statistical Summary Table .. X. 1 .....................:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.: :::::.:::.:::: ::.::.::.::.::.::.::.:::.::.::.::.::.:::........:;:.:;;::.;:.;;:.;:.;:.;::.>:.;:.;;:.;:.;;:.;:.;;:.;;:::::::;::::::::_...:::.::::::::::::::::::::::: : ::::::::::::::.:::............... ... . . Parcel Size (net)(1.0 min.) 3.93 acres 1.09 acres % Slope: Building Site (under 20%) 20% 0-10% Open Space Area (acres)-Existing 0.52 acres 0 Open Space Area (acres)-Proposed 1.85 acres 0 Minimum Lot Size 4.06 gross acres 4.06 gross acres Total Site Area: 8.12 acres The proposed design would comply with the city's subdivision ordinance and the Subdivision Map Act, resulting in fewer environmental impacts to the site, correction of a physical division by a public roadway, and dedication of a 1.85-acre open space and tree preservation easement. Open Space: In order to qualify for a Planned Development Overlay # 16 the project is required to meet all of the requirements outlined in the Atascadero Municipal Code. This includes a dedication of open space, "Open space easements shall be provided for each project. All open space easements shall be designated as non-build, non- storage areas on the Final Parcel/ Tract Maps. (Septic systems are allowed within the open space easements)". The applicant is offering a 1.82-acre dedication of open space and tree preservation that is part of proposed parcel 2. The dedication area is near where the project fronts San Gabriel Road. The proposed easement would preserve an area visible from the public roadway keeping the open wooded character of the land from the public roadway. The open spaceltree preservation was strategically chosen to connect an environmentally sensitive area (moderate-to-steeply sloped native oak woodland) creating a contiguous preservation area or wildlife corridor area with an existing open space easement. The original Planned Development-16 Ordinance allows septic systems within the open space easement area, however septic systems are not allowed to occur within native tree drip lines. Subsequently, staff has included a condition to this effect as part of the open space/tree preservation conditions. Planning Commission is also recommending a non-build, non-storage open space/tree preservation easement for the drip line area around the 48-inch oak on parcel 1 to insure future preservation of this native tree during development. i 75 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 .HSTAL:::..::: M R* ... ...... ... ..... .... .............. ............. ..........................-............. .. ......................................................I.....-........ ....... ............... ......... ....................... ........-.......................... .... ......................I......... P GP.X3E P A ? SE 1 l� Ar a Er1!ll~'3 '0-3 Vii: , �w qtr� hiG t. sit R C':'\0�'" ww..0: _1 C7G�'': Cw'K SVIRA�f'� FOtq +S{;a yy iF: N EIRE:ARE APF?F��� IMATF L 5 r(� :yt� LI4' €< 1`fE� a.0 e4 T.t 4'.}X ,� Jri;�,t,'.+;`;{<L;'i:n�,,.};9�'�:v,f. .;;'SSt: }; .r; •.� , ,S+ 't ..k,. yrS �,,,�:.Y.�• '�:&acy:::.'•jirs .. tit:;4.f-••,.,`:c .g'_{..;#:�•:.� '.rY{ .:r +.t;.� i'v�;�:;;wyC�.�,�'.�'�•,:t::'+lv+,: Ci?{:�' �S, g�+'`. .••tii: +�''•'•.I+vO,, i/$':tyt4:�•'' +t5,, n�' + �,"Sf �'!+,'y+.4r �'r ; F} ,+�-„.qty 't'• x ;, r •:r.4 f ' �r iii::;%:vS:}}:';}'' ., {.•'•%•�J F::i; �.': :4f .+f:{ir$fi>:>.%ii/.•..}:J•:+ ..•:{�%`;5.'vf�:;''v'<�•%:{::�•�i: ;iji:;i:;•. N.}}•:4::iw,;:i:i.+4.iriii Ji.:err l'%?:5::':i:Vii;:%:>•:. �/ .,ri+ :k:.sr.4•.: .•:�:-'•:-:-o;::.>:;.;::::•r• `4�,”t•,'+{`7v.:r,/•4.•„/.;r,.,;:,•,.;.; {.>;.L/.'4.•.•r": '.R•/ }- i'..} :•r.:+:::.:::•:�{.F.4: ni?:: .'J.%S;�%n,.'�•ry.:'• .}.{ ' {?F}i{;$:;::ir:�{}:;%:•i:<::ci;4:�: ..i i•.i ' J'%i:•:%i:�:•:%jr ::i:•::ii is%i is ........:..::::..:::.::. :ti%::Jif+ •/ � `.4 ....i.................. r ' / •r arrr ill,?{r+ 8•F b+Y.. r'Y+�y;:'+.;:;}4:$Y,-.'<::eF !.%!';•'.f 4:0r+Y+w3::%..�•r.,•a! „'.:� "•::..... x.c:. .�C%x.,��%:::::>..:i:�rz:': Hillside arealoak woodland would be protected with an open-space easement Subdivision Desiqn: The subdivision is a classified as a Tentative Tract Map due to the property being associated with a prior large lot line adjustment. The Subdivision Map Act indicates if the subject parcel has been part of a previous lot line adjustment or map that involved more than four parcels then any subsequent adjustments or maps must be classified as a Tentative Tract Map. • 76 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 The subdivision will allow the creation of one new parcel. The project does not constitute the subdivision of a deep lot. Subsequently, a flag lot is not required. All lots have building envelopes with slopes under 20 percent occurring outside of native tree drip lines. Percolation tests have been provided for the lots that indicate that the soil is suitable on each lot for on-site septic systems (average <60 minutes/inch). Atascadero Mutual Water Company will provide water to the new residences, and future utilities to the new lot will be required to be placed underground. The area designated for the offer of open space is part of lot 2 on the tentative tract map. Future uses of the area in the open space easement area will be limited. Future grading, construction, and/or native tree removal within the easement area will be prohibited. View From Existing Access Road Looking At The Building Site For Proposed Parcel 2 . :.:::::::.:::::::.......::::........... .......::::.:.::.. The subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The General Plan and zoning maps designate the property for Residential Suburban uses. The subdivision is consistent with the proposed planned development-16 standards. The minimum lot size calculations require at least 4.06 acres per residence. The density is consistent with the Residential Suburban General Plan land use designation. The tract map is conditioned that the zone changes must be approved prior to final map recordation. Emergency Access: All lots will have access to San Gabriel Road; Parcel 1 via a 12- foot wide driveway, and Parcel 2 via Alta Pradera which exists at city standard 20-feet wide. The Fire Chief has reviewed the project and determined that no additional fire turnarounds or turnouts are required for the location of the single-family residence on proposed parcel 2. Adequate fire hydrants exist every 500-feet as required by City Fire Department Standards for residential areas. 77 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 Environmental Review: The Initial Study concluded that there would be no significant harm to the environment as a result of this subdivision, when mitigation measures are 0 implemented. A proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project and will be certified with the adoption of the draft resolution of approval. FISCAL IMPACT: The project would likely have a slight negative impact on City revenues. As a general rule, single-family dwellings require services that exceed the revenue generated by the dwelling. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed planned development provides a flexible option for subdivision design that will minimize development impacts and correct a situation where a lot is divided by a public roadway. The subdivision will be consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance with the planned development overlay. No additional density beyond the current General Plan would be created. The project would add to the City's open space and tree preservation acreage. The parcel configurations are consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance requirements, and the size and shape of the proposed lots are consistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood. 0 ALTERNATIVES: 1. The City Council may approve the project subject to additional or revised project conditions. The Council's motion to approve needs to include any new or revised project conditions. 2. The Council may deny the project. The parcel would retain its designation of Residential Suburban and would be entitled to process a parcel map splitting the site into two 4.06-acre parcels with San Gabriel Road bisecting one of the parcels. 3. The Council may continue the hearing and refer the item back to staff for additional information or analysis. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant on required information. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 -- Location Map (General Plan & Zoning) Attachment 2 Minimum Lot Size Calculation 0 78 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 Attachment 3 -- Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 4 -- Draft PC Resolution 2003-0055 Attachment 5 -- Draft PC Resolution 2003-0052 Attachment 6 -- Draft PC Resolution 2003-0053 Attachment 7 -- Draft PC Resolution 2003-0054 • 79 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 ATTACHMENT 1: Location Map(General Plan/Zoning) ZCH 2002-0034/TTM 2002-0024/CUP 2002-0078 6205 San Gabriel Road Project Site: 6205 San Gabriel Road GP: Residential Estates(RE) Zoning: Residential Suburban (RS) LOCATION MAP ,r N. .ham""�;".{ir: '``.�:'�;<"'�: :::Si::::::?;::;,•';; - 'i:;;:;;::::�::: :: !.: ass as ss .. s `x a 4 of '." n-:i+'"'y I� •:::i:: y ' y ✓: �,.%'ail^'.;yy4"•i� ,Y � +�� :r :..M�:-. � �1 ff ..�;: f Yr'••��........yy�-'i""1 "'�'tl: 4:;;'' }{(( iY.. 'ir•w,� � :.� '::: /�`S+.w �.. L�,�` ' Y fit'* � -`-' J'/.✓ya. ""�^Y{�1-iM+—t .''•k�S`}.� 4 5 Cl. \t' "F 'i � `S'�''1��1 �w�.'1.,4 ! :.+i" w • .'. .g � v '1't.. �'�Lam,}•. qty f �.,. � ) ' '::?+.^.�� ,5 �" :q:1 f .'� � '4°^.�"w.�'S �"v�4 115,�� {: .:...';.�+';: r^,,,'ti`."vv LS.•S "a,"^� :.�''ws.�. /� �:/�F •:,:.'ti ti.�.'.���v .�� � F .. ��� :.r 't�F �.rt,-.• ��i4 _ �L�s.'� �'v. .I. > �•`� Project SUe. One , l �. Parcel Divided By San t ' Gabriel Road 4, - �������,r i ai f� .�k^ay�;�i`y,�.,--^ w�`'\i+"����'�^.`"'.s..v. � � -4�•��''� _:'�x4,:.: � ���. � !���....�.� :. .. i'"��'�r.�.if'l` /; /. L 4 'w\" �':�. _ „v w! 11 '.{;.t.r. '�.,�<.:.: : "�`',4 '•`,,,1v'" '^'i„ -'�„*., .,� x .[ ,�• ,� +mss., 1�, �ii tet,.� 'S i l •., :5..,4.,,,�w �y�fy��'"i"f--� '�.? _ �t F<J i�;j..q ��,.,'�,�'�l\.�� '!\rte" s'.+-�.'y�.+y�•w� )� I A fu *ii `� �. � '^.,.L�.��� �'�7 �� „4 '�� /' •'MV1h n'r���'i '^.'. �'w -..�,.. v^w .,y �y +� t1f••-•_-.. '—v,. .7/ L 4 •\S�`.�\ ;w \ 4 ms's• +�., � � ',w "„"wti"L ';<��\." ."`":,--:..__:.•+'��^.`'. .".;,. L: � ��;st.�,yv..:'s�� '.'.. '� � '1 � 'i•�sw.� �:ti.....- 'L:;.M. ...••-•.. +y+-yy`..:�'`.+ti''. 4.4f,. �.?r� ..�,'!�,L•;�-�,L�"-s��y1��15;''. ..':::::;; S��^�4��. ."L�'; Y :.,. ; ."4•�'w .+,�.y 'a/' fir'. "_^%o',,�yi. ,.�.�.>.�.�'`�+�?k.'"�.",�'.,s'':��`y"�y,4... k ^'�:: ,�'`y-.•\wy�1 .y�: m 4. .p ..� i•-`{.4w.'�K",:.4 M� :../�• � 4..::�•�.y "K \�, '.�...,�,,,;�',M� •,�;-,,. ,tiL y111gt:ti.�� L�4,,f��ti w�"f' - +�'\ t,;�`f•,.t.�� �� ;'': �i 1�+�f'� - � :'c .�L....:..' ..: .�'.7: .�:�..}i.`5 k �' sC�+'v`'.,'* ��::t�. .:'u y.,•� '. .'``'�',,.',�w,„wvs:.. .. :':y,;1:.':i". •w.::,. ` � "'� • 80 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 ATTACHMENT 2: Minimum Lot Size Calculation Form ZCH 2002-0031/CUP 2002-0089/TTM 2002-0015 9105&9127 San Diego Road 01 ._ � K7 A4d111 . ::::::::::::: ii iiiiiiiiiiii?i: :�:is>:i::i::i::i::i::i: :>::i:?ii::i:'ii::i;:;'.$};{:ii:?i...'• . :.: ... . .. {.i::'r::iii:::i:: .a::: .c` .. .:.:::::::.: :: w•n '•i4i: :::•::•::•::•:iii:':::iii:iii::iii}iii'.iii: :;:;:,L::....?:..i+iiiiiiiiiiiiiii'riii::4iY:i::iiiiiY+•iY.:..:....: :.............................:....... ...:.:.:......:.......::......:::::..... '. i ::::?}}::X::::•i:•'.:::::}':•::::i .: `i::? ::::•,::::::y'?:iP'{ii'.::i?::i?'i:ii"i}iii'?'Yirv::::::•i:::::•:::::::':•:::::::::'::::i:::::: i'':i::::i':: '• ii: $ .' iii:::::•::•:::•i:•i}::•i:•i:•i:8ii:•:i:4ii•:�•::•i:•i is:•i• titi•i}iii:i :•i:•:::i' L: ''�':: iii}::::iiii'ii:::<:'i$i?i::::+}::::i::i: i::::j:::: is . :...... '4F.•is i'is i:E?:i..... is....I'Si`ii ii>ii; •ni:di.. ... ...d.. .:::::.�:.�::::::::::::::::::i:::::::.�::::::::::: ` i.--..... .___._.. ............... XXX .:..:.: 10-12,000 x.30, 1 « 1.4x000-- MAW .90 ..;: : � .O Z,39' ir6ickv,75 x. S"tk ;tAu' 40-59 wiWkwP 1,00 (park -g 60 niidinek- 1,50 <60 med City weespbk-waA=40 Paved row: a*th 15%,-. Nr4 vow:mam.Own15%,p,50 All.umabar U-ss than I V, .75 A11= at1x mon than 1S%> < s'flum 15% 1,2S Ui6apwv*4 mt* <.Maxsm Lat Sime 14 1501 t > U 81 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 ATTACHMENT 3: Planning Commission Minutes 1. ZONE CHANGE 2002-0034, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-0078, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2002-0024. Applicant: Rancho De Paraiso LLC, 6250 San Gabriel Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 Project Title: Zone Change 2002-0034 / Tentative Tract Map 2002-0024 / Conditional Use Permit 2002-0078: A Two-Lot Planned Development Subdivision Project Location: 6205 San Gabriel Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 (San Luis Obispo County) APN 054-192-001 & 054-111-051, portion of 054-181-006. Project The project is a proposed Planned Development subdivision of an existing vacant Description: 8.12-acre legal lot of record into two parcels of 1.09 and 7.03 acres each. The Planned Development overlay zone would allow one parcel to exist below the minimum lot size in order to correct a physical lot division by a public roadway and provide an environmentally superior building site. General Plan Designation: Residential Estates (RE) Zoning District: Residential Suburban (RS) 2.5-10 acre minimum lot size based on performance standards. Proposed Based on the initial study prepared for the project, a Mitigated Negative Environmental Declaration is proposed. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is Determination available for public review from 4/23/03 through 5/20/03 at 6500 Palma Avenue, Community Development Department, Room 104, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 .m., Monday through Friday. staff The Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PC 2003-0052-55, Recommendation certifying the proposed environmental determination, and approving Zone Change 2002-0034, Tentative Tract Map 2002-0024, and Conditional Use Permit 2003-0078, a request to subdivide one 8.12-acre parcel into two parcels of 1.09 and 7.03 acres each with a Planned Development Overlay and within the Residential Suburban zone, based on findings and subject to conditions. Associate Planner Glenn Rider provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT Ken Wilson, surveyor for the applicant, answered questions of the Commission. Richard DiBenedetto spoke on behalf of four homeowners on San Gabriel expressing their concerns with the proposed subdivision in a prepared statement. (Exhibit B) Sue Baca, neighbor, stated her concern that this development was represented a certain way by the real estate agents representing the properties, however, now that 82 ITEM NUMBER: B-2 DATE: 06/24/2003 they are in their homes, those representations are being changed and she questions where the next change will come from. Jim Baca presented his concern that in looking at the CC&R's-for the neighborhood, it is his understanding the oak preservation goes all the way across, and that lots 1 and 2 are in one piece and are already part of the preservation. He questioned why this was not part of the original project and why lots 1 and 2 are now separate lots. Chairperson Fonzi closed the Public Comment period. Chairperson Fonzi asked staff to address concerns raised during the Public Comment period. Community Development Director Warren Frace explained why this lot could be subdivided, why it was not combined with the other lot, minimum lot sizes, and the issue of two APN numbers. Commissioner O'Keefe stated she understands the neighbors concerns, however she feels staff has come up with the best possible solution for these lots. Chairperson Fonzi expressed concern about setbacks on proposed parcel 1 and reopened the Public Comment period to allow a representative of the homeowners to address this issue. PUBLIC COMMENT Richard DiBenedetto spoke for the homeowners and explained that on the northwest corner of proposed lot 1 there is a home on five acres where the owner intends to build a swimming pool. He understands that the proposed home on parcel 1 will be constructed very close to that area and this would overlook the pool. He stated that siting of the house would depend on the size of the proposed house and the location of the oak tree. Mr. DiBenedetto asked why proposed parcel 1 is not being designated as the open space land. Chairperson Fonzi closed the Public Comment period. Commissioner Jones stated that he understands the concerns expressed by the neighbors and feels staff has explained to his satisfaction how this situation came about. MOTION: By Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Porter to adopt Resolution No. PC 2003-0055 recommending the City Council certify the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 2003-0015 prepared for Zone Change 2002-0031, Tentative Tract Map 2002-0015; and Conditional Use Permit 2002-0078, and adopt Resolution No. PC 2003-0052, recommending that the City Council introduce an ordinance for first reading to approve Zone Change 2002-0034; and amend the City's 83 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 Zoning Map to add a PD 16 overlay district to the project area, and adopt • Resolution No. PC 2003-0053 and approve the Conditional Use Permit 2002-0078, a Master Plan of development for the project site consistent with PD-16 and would include the easement for the tree as it exists on Parcel No. 1 and defining the easement as encompassing just the drip line, and adopt Resolution No. PC 2003-0054 recommending the City Council approve Tentative Tract map 2002-0024, a request to subdivide an 8.12-acre parcel into two parcels; one at 1.09 acres, and one at 7.09 acres, all acreages gross, based on findings and subject to conditions. AYES: Commissioners Jones, Porter, O'Keefe, Beraud, Bentz, Kelley and Chairperson Fonzi NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 7:0 by a roll-call vote. 84 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 ATTACHMENT 4: Draft Resolution A Negative Declaration DRAFT RESOLUTION A A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2003-0015 PREPARED FOR ZONE CHANGE 2002-00349 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2002-0024, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-0078 (6205 San Gabriel Road /APN 054-192-001, 054-111-051, and a portion of 054-181-006 / Rancho De Paraiso, LLC.) WHEREAS, an application has been received from Wilson Land Surveys (7600 Road, Atascadero, CA 93422) Applicant, and Rancho De Paraiso LLC ( 6250 San Gabriel Road, Atascadero, CA 93422), Property Owner, to allow a zone change from RS (Residential Suburban— minimum lot size 2 '/2 to 10 acres) to RS / PD-16 (Residential Suburban — minimum lot size 2 '/z to 10 acres with Planned Development Overlay 16), the adoption of a Master Plan of Development, and a five-lot residential Tentative Tract Map on APN 054-192-001, 054-111-051, and a portion of 054-181-006; and, WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 2003-0015 were 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 a public hearing following the close of the review period for the Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration to consider its adequacy and recommended certification to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council held a public hearing following the close of the review period for the Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration to consider its adequacy; and, NOW, THEREFORE, the Atascadero City Council, at a public hearing held on Tuesday, June 24, 2003, hereby resolves to certify Mitigated Negative Declaration 2003-0015 based on the following findings as shown on Exhibit A: (a) The Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and, 85 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 (b) The Proposed 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 project does not have the potential to create a significant environmental impact; and, (d) The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals; and, (e) The project does not have impacts, which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. (f) The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. (g) The Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be forwarded to the City Council, and the information therein contained will be considered by the City Council, prior to taking final action on the project. 86 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 On motion by Council Member , and seconded by Council Member the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ADOPTED: By: Jerry L. Clay, Sr., Mayor Attest: Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk Approved as to form: Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney 87 - ° • �, CITY OF ATASCADERO , „ �, Y8,9 RECEIVED A' CAD1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REAPR 2 5 ED 003 JULIE L.RODEWALD CITY OF ATASCADERO C.. Clerk NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATI � Depury DECLARATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Atascadero Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing to consider the following project and environmental determination. The public is encouraged to attend. Applicant: Rancho De Paraiso Partners,6250 San Gabriel Avenue,Atascadero,CA 93422 Project Title: Zone Change 2002-0034/Conditional Use Permit 2002-0078/Tentative Tract Map 2002-0024 Project 6205 San Gabriel Road,Atascadero,CA 93422: Location: (San Luis Obispo County)APN 054-192-001 &054-111-051,portion of 054-181-006. Project The project is a proposed Planned Development subdivision of an existing vacant 8.12-acre legal lot of Desfription: record into two parcels of 1.09 and 7.03 acres each.The Planned Development overlay zone would allow one parcel to exist below the minimum lot size in order to correct a physical lot division by a public roadway. The project would preserve 1.87 acres of open space and native tree habitat. The Planned Development requires a Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Tract Map. Building sites and access driveways are proposed for each new parcel. Parcel 1 would take access from San Gabriel Road and Parcel 2 would utilize the existing on-site 1200-foot access road. The proposed project site contains native and non-native grasslands, and several native oak woodland stands that occur on a moderate-to-steep terrain.No native tree removals would be required for the development of the two new single-family residences, access roads, and utilities. Each parcel will utilize an on-site septic system.All other utility services are available. General Plan Designation: Residential Estates (RE),Zoning District: Residential Suburban S 2.5-10 acre minimum lot size based on performance standards. Environmental Begins: April 23,2003 Review Dates: Ends: May 13,2003 Hearing Date: May 20,2003 Hearing Location: Atascadero City Hall,7:00 p.m. 6500 Palma Avenue,4`h Floor,Atascadero,CA 93422 Proposed Based on the initial study prepared for the project,a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. The Environmental proposed.Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for public review from 4/23/03 through 5/13/03 at Determination: 6500 Palma Avenue, Community Development Department,Room 104, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. -Any interested person may review the proposed Negative Declaration and project files. Questions should be directed to Glenn Rider, ssociate Plan ' at 461-5033. v W en M.Frace,Co unity Development Director Date se:ZCH2O02-0034 6205 San Gabriel Rmd.ba.srAw Print Daro:0V23/072:19 PM 6500 PALMA AVENUE ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93422 • (805)461-5035 FAX 461-5036 88 City of Ataseadero CEQA Referral Request for Comments Community Development Department 6500 Palma Avenue,Atascadero,CA 93422 (805)461-5035 Date: April 23,2003 To: Atascadero Mutual Water Company Atascadero Unified School District California Regional Water Quality Control Board Pacific Bell Pacific Gas and Electric San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District Southern California Gas Company Upper Salinas-Las Tablas RCD From: Warren Frace, Community Development Director Q The attached Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is referred for your Agency's review and comment. The public review period for this project runs from April 23,2003 through May 13,2003. Mitigated Negative Declaration 2003-0015 and Initial Study 89 "1 511 1 lei Isis Y 9 CITY OF ATASCADERO PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION #2003-0015 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero,CA 93422 805/461-5035 Applicant: Rancho De Paraiso Partners,6250 San Gabriel Avenue,Atascadero,CA 93422 Project Title: Zone Change 2002-0034/Conditional Use Permit 2002-0078/Tentative Tract Map 2002-0024 Project 6205 San Gabriel Road,Atascadero,CA 93422: Location: (San Luis Obispo County)APN 054-192-001 &054-111-051,portion of 054-181-006. Project The project is a proposed Planned Development subdivision of an existing vacant 8.12-acre legal lot of Description: record into two parcels of 1.09 and 7.03 acres each.The Planned Development overlay zone would allow one parcel to exist below the minimum lot size in order to correct a physical lot division by a public roadway. The project would preserve 1.87 acres of open space and native tree habitat. The Planned Development requires a Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Tract Map. Building sites and access driveways are proposed for each new parcel. Parcel 1 would take access from San Gabriel Road and Parcel 2 would utilize the existing on-site 1200-foot access road. The proposed project site contains native and non-native grasslands, and several native oak woodland stands that occur on a moderate-to-steep terrain.No native tree removals would be required for the development of the two new single-family residences, access roads, and utilities. Each parcel will utilize an on-site septic system.All other utility services are available. General Plan Designation:Residential Estates(RE), Zoning District: Residential Suburban S 2.5-10 acre minimum lot size based on performance standards. Findings: 1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment. 2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 3. The project does not have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable. 4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. Determination: Based on the above findings,and the information contained in the initial study 2003-0015 (made a part hereof by reference and on file in the Community Development Department),it has been determined that the above project will not have an adverse impact on the environment when the following proposed mitigation measures are incorporated into the project(see attachment). Prepared By: Glenn Rider,Associate Planner DaWPosted: April 22,2003 Public Review Ends: May 12,2003 Attachments: - Location Map - Preliminary Site Plan - Tentative Tract Map - Initial Study 2003-0015 ik:ZCH2002.0034 6205 Sao Gabrid Road.ba.gr.dm Print Due:04231032:19 PM 6500 PALMA AVENUE ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93422 (805)461-5035 FAX 461-5036 90 n it I 1918 n 19-78 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Environmental Review 2003-0015 Applicant: Rancho De Paraiso Partners,6250 San Gabriel Avenue,Atascadero,CA 93422 Project Title: Zone Change 2002-0034/Conditional Use Permit 2002-0078/Tentative Tract Map 2002-0024 Project 6205 San Gabriel Road,Atascadero,CA 93422: Location: (San Luis Obispo County)APN 054-192-001 &054-111-051,portion of 054-181-006. Project The project is a proposed Planned Development subdivision of an existing vacant 8.12-acre legal lot of Description: record into two parcels of 1.09 and 7.03 acres each.The Planned Development overlay zone would allow one parcel to exist below the minimum lot size in order to correct a physical lot division by a public roadway. The project would preserve 1.87 acres of open space and native tree habitat. The Planned Development requires a Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Tract Map. Building sites and access driveways are proposed for each new parcel. Parcel 1 would take access from San Gabriel Road and Parcel 2 would utilize the existing on-site 1200-foot access road. The proposed project site contains native and non-native grasslands, and several native oak woodland stands that occur on a moderate-to-steep terrain.No native tree removals would be required for the development of the two new single-family residences, access roads, and utilities. Each parcel will utilize an on-site septic system. All other utility services are available. General Plan Designation: Residential Estates (RE),Zoning District: Residential Suburban S 2.5-10 acre minimum lot size based on performance standards. iLead Agency Name and Address: City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Contact Person and Phone Glenn Rider,Associate Planner Number: City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue,Room 104 Atascadero, CA 93422 Gd Neral Plan Designation: Residential Estates(RE) Zoning: Residential Suburban(RS) Surrounding Land Uses and North: Residential Estates Setting: South: Residential Estates West: Residential Estates East: Residential Estates Other public agencies whose None approval is required(e.g.,permits, financing approval,or participation agreement) 04/23/03 ZCH2O02-0034 6205 San Gabriel Road.ba.gr.doc 91 CITY OFATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Attachment 1 Location Map 6205 San Gabriel Road Atascadero, CA • •• k €ai X i t t - i ; 3 J.i 3 a, "# # t;', IF iitU •9t •------------ V1 — — •• • i•��.• i `�i ��•• ' 3 � ,� 9 f R.: ••• 3 •• f ] x j 0••••• #•••• 13 a( M d,a ea• �� <, � i s a E ; k f ¢ • 3a 4 s?" • •• } a 3 � N. jT, { 3 •• • I � '* t1 - s i � i3 # F t 1€#° � " �� ! �} 4/. 147. ?i it� t s€ori f � is # a E € ;'♦ #� � k , } ��: i�q$ / € . � i4l „ t + �s #sS at a • � f#k � 1 � �4f gg S- f!# 3�.�,1 €( i ➢ 1 {$. ;.�{ { E4 5€j -•i qd_ I i Project Site: Currently ' r 4' €� # s a � z t ] d i.7 ii 3 k sti� iia € aas} e4�1Baia ! "1 1�a 4 l � iF !� 1 , One Parcel-Divided By San Gabriel Road � t `y #dp# _.3 € Sa#f .# ae I4, -k s € -SSi € 19#i• �` €43t.' { 3.5.€ �`�,,, .i a i k t t sJ €T€ 9 t E 3 € # 7 . s s 04/23/03 ZCH2002-0034 6205 San Gabriel Road.ba.gr.doc 92 i A 26 kk `6k CITY OFATASCADERO IIVITTAL STUDY Attachment 2 Planned Development Site Plan -V- i I -- �I - J��%�` ♦�i /�—ti� \� ,1 +j 1t111�\� 1\+�'\ I�el^j���l I �, � ���'�� ♦/ 7 y.�:x t I \\ j t 11+ � \ ijil t e l l l i \. \111 i�i%� A, i' 'iii'%Y•�w� /_"��li' r III I �i 1 I I f 1 1 1 1 1 1 11+ �, \\1 �+t ll1 ly I \'0 t�ii /\ h �\� \ \ I .� r l rr�It( !.r I j ! l l l i Imo,• + , �,�� \ ;•♦ .\ \ \a� I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1.I 1� r I 1 l litI 11.1 1 11 t i 11 f ) ( f( (r. 5 —t♦ \ I1 � I i� tl II fllll ( 111 II111�y( t, r ( k,A �1L�► ,,� ,( � 1 l i r (I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1� I l i J-r�fyC} �t �% /* ,.�t - � ,• ,1�1 '�, /;f; r lig r )r�llrr>,� — \\\,�• 41. IF 3 �/��!� 1 `� /r \�`�♦�♦\�\;\\\+III t4 s 1.5 �►� SII �`'$(li(s ``11i� ,i' aiil �� i443 tB 1, _ ..Al A/i(` � ••t � i 04/23/03 ZCH2002-0034 6205 San Gabriel Road.ba.gr.doc 93 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Attachment 3 Tentative Tract Map E� Jill 1 � � 1 /iii• —� \\\\\� II bj €pp I If I g ad i k ' I o yx 1 t t��� 11� • . �7 Ii.laii q.� � I N pi���j �' 0423/03 ZCH2002-0034 6205 San Gabriel Road.ba.®r.doc 94 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Attachment 4 Open Space and Tree Preservation Easement DKAMAMWT \ Proposed Open Space Proposed Open Space Easement/Tree Easement/Tree _ 2W OR Preservation Easement Preservation Easement T 9PROP MATE E A x L17M N AND UT{J1Y fA9EYENT � l �, as Ac, j jrr PRDPOSM DPEN SPALL'71Af NV?[ CASSIXTWTY —_ PROPOSCD W50 PARAMM OF 7.03 AC ETAMON e LOT 9 t t •��� �� ''' ,�' EMVMCPL ATN.99-042 t t 3100M Le L ''S"UMMARYVinclwXX Plat.1 A.:AL M �'lu, ca tlir[ it WD(TAY lt`� �~ `� • `�,!�% I // AM I PW-WM PA V IM AD 13 FSOPM OVEN SPAM %M AD 17 PRflPA10"a>OMOWTAX CA AD 'a PROWMb 11L.USE &02 AC MM, 7th AM Af'P'lEl?OAMMY 2 m 30 WM tAAft OW 10 175E CA=RMMM MW 10*TO Vit"01 11QCM C>otW N 1tt! • 04/23103 ZCH2O02-0034 6205 San Gabriel Road.ba.gr.doc 95 Qkk_6kim°ep° CITY OF ATASCADEIZO IMTIAL STUDY Exhibit A: Mitigation Measures Exhibit A Timing Responsibility Mitigation Mitigation Monitoring Program /Monitoring Measure ZCH 2002-0034, CUP 2002-0078, TTM 2002-0024 . GR PS:PianingSe`"`es Grating 8S:Building Services Pew FD:Fre Depatrient BP.Bolding PD:Police Department 6205 San Gabriel Road Permit CE City Engineer Ta WW:Wastewater Temporary COkCRY Ah)meY Occupancy AMWC:Water Comp. FI:Final Inspection F0:Final Occupancy Mitigation Measure 3.b: The project shall be conditioned to comply with all BP Bs 3.b applicable District regulations pertaining to the control of fugitive dust (PM- 10)as contained in section 6.4 of the Air Quality Handbook. All site grading and demolition plans notes shall list the following regulations: 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 rvegetation 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. 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. L. Wheel washers may be required when significant offsite import or export of fill is involved. M. Large canopy shade trees shall be provided along street frontages and V'Ithin parking areas to shade paved areas and minimize urban heat build-up. Mitigation Measure 4.e.1: A Tree Protection Plan prepared by a Certified Arborist according to the City Of Atascadero guidelines shall be submitted during the building permit process and approved for the development of • each new parcel or redevelopment of existing parcels. All tree removals 04/23/03 ZCH2O02-0034 6205 san Gabriel Road.ba.gr.doc 96 CITY OFATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY • Exhibit A Timing Responsibility Mitigation Mitigation Monitoring Program /Monitoring Measure ZCH 2002-0034, CUP 2002-0078, TTM 2002-0024 GP. PS:Planning sevs Grating BS:Building Servicess Perms FD:Fire Department BP Building PD:Police Departnent 620 San Gabriel Road Pen„it CE City Engineer T0: WW:Wastewater Ter porary CA CRY Aft ey Occupancy AMWC:Water Comp. R:Final irmpedon F0:Final Occupancy shall be mitigated according to the Atascadero Tree Ordinance, by payment into the Tree Mitigation Fund,and on Mitigation Measure 5.b: Should any cultural resources be unearthed during GP PS 5.b site development work, the provisions of CEQA -Section 15064.5, will be followed to reduce impacts to a non-significant level. Mitigation Measure 6.b.1: An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall GP PS,BS,CE 6.b.2 be required for single family residential building permits on the site. All measures required by the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Board to prevent soil, dirt, and debris from entering the storm drain system during and after construction shall be implemented. The plan shall implement Regional Water Quality Control Board Best Management Practices (BMP's) and shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and Planning Staff at the time of Building Permit application. Mitigation Measure 6.b.2: All cut and fill slopes shall be hydroseeded with GP PS,BS,CE 6.b.4 an appropriate erosion control method (Straw wattles, erosion control • blanket, hydro-mulch, or straw mulch appropriately anchored) immediately after completion of earthwork between the months of October 15 through April 15. All disturbed slopes shall have appropriate erosion control methods in place. For the duration of the project the contractor will be responsible for proper erosion control implementation and the clean-up of any mud or debris that is tracked onto public streets by construction vehicles. Mitigation Measure 6.c.d: A soils report shall be required to be submitted GP BS 6.c.d with a future building permit by the building department. The building plans will be required to follow the recommendations of the soils report to assure safety for occupants and buildings. Mitigation Measure 8.e.f.1: A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan GP PS,BS,CE 6.b.1 (SWPPP)/Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the building permit. The plan shall include storm water measures for the operation and maintenance of the project for the review and approval of the City Engineer. The Building Permit appli(A'ation plans shall identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the uses conducted on site that effectively prohibit the entry of pollutants into storm water runoff. Mitigation Measure 8.e.f.2:The developer is responsible for ensuring that all GP PS,BS,CE 6.b.3 contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and that such measures are implemented. Failure to comply with the approved construction Best Management Practices will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations,or stop orders. Mitigation Measure 11.d: All construction activities shall comply with the BP, BS 11.d City of Atascadero Noise Ordinance for hours of operation. GP 04/23/03 ZCH2O02-0034 6205 San Gabriel Road.ba.gr.doc 97 CITY OFATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: • The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics F-1 Agriculture Resources F-1 Air Quality F-1 Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources F-1 Geology/Soils 1-1 Hazards&Hazardous F-1 Hydrology/Water Quality F-1 Land Use/Planning Materials F-1 Mineral Resources ❑ Noise F-1 Population/Housing • ❑ Public Services F-1 Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic F-1 Utilities/Service Systems F-1 Mandatory Findings of Significance On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. . ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I4nd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant effect"or"potentially significant unless mitigated"impact on the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Glenn Rider Associate Planner 04/23/03 ZCH2O02.0034 6205 San Gabriel Road.ba.gr.doc 98 .. CITY OF ATASCADERO MTIAL STUDY s EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a Lead Agency cites following each question. A"No Impact"answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the die involved(e.g.the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g.the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level,indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses,"may be cross-referenced). 5). Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses ate discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. • 6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references information sources for potential. impacts(e.g.general plans,zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached. Other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. • 0423/03 ZCH2O02-0034 6205 San Gabriel Road.ba.gr.doc 99 CITY OFATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Initial Study 2003-0015 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact ZCH 2002-0034, CUP 2002-0078,TTM 2002-0024 Impact Mitigation Impact 6205 San Gabriel Road Incorporation 11.AESTHETICS--Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not ❑ ❑ limited to,trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? SOURCES: Project Description-Photos; 10/02 Tentative Tract Map-Wilson Land Surveys;2/20/03 Preliminary Site Plan-RTC Consulting, INC.4/17/03 Planning Staff Site Visit; 3/30/01 Percolation Tests-Buena Geotechnical Services, LLC.; DISCUSSION:The project site is not located within a scenic vista or naturally scenic corridor. The moderately sloped parcel is within the City's RS(Residential Suburban)zoning district bounded on all sides by developed and vacant rural residential land uses and two public roadways,Santa Lucia and San Gabriel. Residential lighting at the site shall be designed to eliminate off site glare. Residential lighting impacts for the density allowed by the zone district have been determined to be a less than significant impact based on the minimum lot size and light shed distances of • typical residential lighting schemes analyzed under the City Of Atascadero General Plan. Site topography and vegetation will prevent some light spillage onto the existing residences and public roadway. 2.AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)prepared by the California Dept.of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.Would the project: a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non- agricultural use? b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? c)Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of VN Farmland,to non-agricultural use? SOURCES: Land Use Element EIR. DISCUSSION a.)The property is not shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency as prime farmland. 04/23/03 Page 10 ZCH2O02-0034 6205 San Gabriel Road.ba.gr.doc 100 CITY OFATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Initial Study 2003-0015 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact ZCH 2002-0034, CUP 2002-0078,TTM 2002-0024 Impact Mitigation Impact 6205 San Gabriel Road Incorporation b.)The property is not under a Williamson Act contract. c.)The project will not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. 3.AIR QUALITY--The significance criteria established by the Air Quality Control District in its CEQA Guidelines may be relied upon to make the following determinations.Would the project: a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable ❑ ❑ air quality plan? b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially ® F] FI an existing or projected air quality violation? c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e)Create objectionable odors affecting_a substantial number of people? SOURCES: Project Description-Photos;10/02 Tentative Tract Map-Wilson Land Surveys;2/20/03 Preliminary Site Plan-RTC Consulting, INC.4/17/03 Planning Staff Site Visit;3/30/01 Percolation Tests-Buena Geotechnical Services, LLC.; DISCUSSION: 3.a.c.)Since the City has not reached it's buildout figure,the residential density proposed constitutes development that is less than anticipated in the City's General Plan and EIR. Additional vehicle trips generated by the proposed residential project will not exceed the trips anticipated in the General Plan or EIR for the project site. This impact is considered less than significant. This project will not affect or produce any significant air pollutants after completion of construction. Construction activities, including site grading may produce small quantities of air pollution, including dust and equipment exhaust. Any air quality impacts will be temporary and short term. 3.b.)Construction activities, including site grading may produce small quantities of air pollution, including dust and equipment exhaust. Any air quality impacts will be temporary and short term. Mitigation measures included here are recommended by the Air Quality Control Board to lessen potential impacts to air quality. 3.d.)The construction of residential single-family dwellings and the associated public improvements will not concentrate pollutants. 3.e.)The construction of residential single-family dwellings and the associated public improvements will not create permanent objectionable odors. With incorporation of the below—stated mitigation measure,the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation Measure 3.b: At the time of grading and building permits for new residences,the project shall be conditioned to comply with all applicable District regulations pertaining to the control of fugitive dust(PM-10)as contained in section 6.4 of the Air Quality Handbook. All site grading and demolition plans notes shall list the following regulations: 04/23103 Page 11 ZCH2O02-0034 6205 San Gabriel Road.ba.gr.doc 101 iilkwl CITY OFATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Initial Study 2003-0015 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact ZCH 2002-0034, CUP 2002-0078,TTM 2002-0024 Impact Mitigation Impact 6205 San Gabriel Road Incorporation 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 re-vegetation 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 re-vegetation 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. dpi-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. 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. L. Wheel washers may be required when significant offsite import or export of fill is involved. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES--Would.the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly orF1through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans, policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat 1:1or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act F1 F1 El (including, but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool, coastal, etc.)through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ® F-1 F-1biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, 04123/6, Page 12 ZCH2O02-0034 6205 San Gabriel Road.ba.gr.doc 102 CITY OFATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Initial Study 2003-0015 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact ZCH 2002-0034, CUP 2002-0078,TTM 2002-0024 Impact Mitigation Impact 6205 San Gabriel Road Incorporation or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? SOURCES: Project Description-Photos; 10/02 Tentative Tract Map-Wilson Land Surveys;2/20/03 Preliminary Site Plan- RTC Consulting, INC.4/17/03 Planning Staff Site Visit;3/30/01 Percolation Tests-Buena Geotechnical Services, LLC.; DISCUSSION: 4.a.) No sensitive species have been found near the site. 4.b.) The project will not involve construction in a riparian habitat. 4.c.) There are no wetlands on the project site. 4.d.) The Land Use Element EIR concludes that development within the city limits will not have a significant impact on wildlife or wildlife corridors. 4e.f.)The proposed project will not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources nor will it conflict with any conservation plans. However,the existence of native trees shall require the following mitigation measure to reduce any potential impacts to a level of insignificance: No native tree removals are proposed,however the city will require a Tree Protection Plan for any impacts to native trees will protect oak woodlands on the site.A mitigation measure to this effect is included below. Mitigation Measure 4.e.1: A Tree Protection Plan prepared by a Certified Arborist according to the City Of Atascadero guidelines shall be submitted during the building permit process and approved for the development of each new parcel or redevelopment of existing parcels. All tree removals shall be mitigated according to the Atascadero Tree Ordinance, by payment into the Tree Mitigation Fund,and on-site native tree planting. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES --Would the project: a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of El El a historical resource as defined in'15064.5? b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to'15064.5? c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale ontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? SOURCES: Project Description-Photos; 10/02 Tentative Tract Map-Wilson Land Surveys;2/20/03 Preliminary Site Plan-RTC Consulting, INC.4/17/03 Planning Staff Site Visit;3/30/01 Percolation Tests-Buena Geotechnical Services, LLC.; DISCUSSION: 5.a.b.c.d) No known historical,archeological or cultural sites have been found or documented in the vicinity of the project. However, a mitigation measure has been included in the event archaeological resources are unearthed during construction. Mitigation Measure 5.b.1: Should any cultural resources be unearthed during site development work,the provisions of CEQA-Section 15064.5,will be followed to reduce impacts to a non-significant level. 6.GEOLOGY AND SOILS--Would the project: a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial El adverse effects,including the risk of loss, injury,or death 04r23103 Page 13 ZCH2O02-0034 6205 San Gabriel Road.ba.gr.doc 103 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Initial Study 2003-0015 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact ZCH 2002-0034, CUP 2002-0078,TTM 2002-0024 Impact Mitigation Impact 6205 San Gabriel Road Incorporation invol,v`ing: I)Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ Z iii)Seismic-related ground failure,including F1 ❑ liquefaction? F1 Z iv)Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or ❑ that Auld become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d)Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of 171 septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? SOURCES: Project Description-Photos; 10/02 Tentative Tract Map-Wilson Land Surveys;2/20/03 Preliminary Site Plan-RTC Consulting, INC.4/17/03 Planning Staff Site Visit;3/30/01 Percolation Tests-Buena Geotechnical Services, LLC.; DISCUSSION: 6.a.) The project is not located on any known earthquake faults. 6.b.) Construction activities on each site proposed for development will be required to comply with sedimentation and erosioiin control measures prescribed by the city engineer and required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 6.c.)The property contains no unusual geological formations. 6.c,d,e.) A Geotechnical Engineering Report is required in the City Of Atascadero for a building permit for a single- family residence.The report indicates if there is any significant soils or geotechnical conditions that would impact construction of the proposed project. The project will be served by on site engineered septic systems. Mitigation Measure 6.b.1:An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be required for single family residential building permits on the site.The plan shall implement Regional Water Quality Control Board Best Management Practices (BMP's)and shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and Planning Staff at the time of Building Permit application. Mitigation Measure 6.b.2: All cut and fill slopes shall be hydro seeded with an appropriate erosion control method (Straw wattles, erosion control blanket,hydro-mulch,or straw mulch appropriately anchored)immediately after completion of earthwork between the months of October 15 through April 15. All disturbed slopes shall have appropriate erosion control methods in place. For the duration of the project the contractor will be responsible for 04123/03 Page 14 ZCH2O02-0034 6205 San Gabriel Road.ba.gr.doc 104 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY . Initial Study 2003-0015 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significantwith Significant Impact ZCH 2002-0034, CUP 2002-0078,TTM 2002-0024 Impact Mitigation Impact 6205 San Gabriel Road Incorporation proper erosion control implementation and the clean up of any mud or debris that is tracked onto public streets by construction vehicles. Mitigation Measure 6.c.d: A soils report shall be required to be submitted with a future building permit by the building department.The building plans will be required to follow the recommendations of the soils report to assure safety for occupants and buildings. 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS--Would the project: a)Crate a significant hazard to the public or the 0 environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely —1 F71 hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of F1 F-1 0 • hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?- e)For a project located within an airport land use plan area El F1 F1 or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people living or working in the project area? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people living or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, F1 7 ❑ injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? SOURCES: Project Description-Photos; 10/02 Tentative Tract Map-Wilson Land Surveys;2/20/03 Preliminary Site Plan-RTC Consulting, INC.4/17/03 Planning Staff Site Visit; 3/30/01 Percolation Tests-Buena Geotechnical Services, LLC.; DISCUSSION 7a.b.c-. Homes and offices do not generate or involve use of significant amounts of hazardous materials.There are no kniwn hazardous materials on the site or nearby. 7.d. The property is not a listed hazardous material site. 04/23/03 Page 15 ZCH2O02-0034 6205 San Gabriel Road.ba.gr.doc 105 - -.7 CITY OFATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Initial Study 2003-0015 Potentially Less Than Less Than No • Significant Significant with Significant Impact ZCH 2002-0034, CUP 2002-0078,TTM 2002-0024 Impact Mitigation Impact 6205 San Gabriel Road Incorporation 7e.f. The property is not near an airport. 7g.h.The site is within the Fire Department's seven-minute response area and a fire department turn around will be proVOed within 150 feet of the residence.The Fire Marshall will determine if the buildings will have fire sprinklers durinb review of the building permit. Fire hydrants are required every 700 feet along the length of the access driveway. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY--Would the project: a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere F] ❑ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there El would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g.,the production rate of previously-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner that would result in substantial eroslcn or siltation on-or off-site? . d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on-or off-site? e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? I)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j)Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ 0 SOURCES: Project Description-Photos; 10/02 Tentative Tract Map-Wilson Land Surveys;2/20/03 Preliminary Site Plan-RTC Consulting, INC.4/17/03 Planning Staff Site Visit;3/30/01 Percolation Tests-Buena Geotechnical Services, LLC.; 0423/03 Page 16 ZCH2O02-0034 6205 San Gabriel Road.ba.gr.doc 106 CITY OFATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Initial Study 2003-0015 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact ZCH 2002-0034, CUP 2002-0078,TTM 2002-0024 Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation 6205 San Gabriel Road DISCUSSION: 8a. Construction will be required to comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations of the discharge of construction materials,pollutant-laden waters(washings),or soil from the site into drainages.An erosion and sedimentation control plan is required for the construction of single-family residences. 8b. The project will not deplete ground water supplies. Water will be provided by Atascadero Mutual Water Company. 8c.d.e.f. The project will not alter any drainage course. Construction activities are subject to review for compliance with City drainage and grading regulations. Drainage will not be permitted to create or intensify any hazards for persons or property in the vicinity. Refer to Mitigation Measure 6.b. 1 8.g.h.i. Future residential parcels will be outside of the 100-year flood hazard area. 8.i.j. The project area is not subject to inundation by a tsunami. Miti lion Measure 8.e.f.:The developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and that such measures are implemented. Failure to comply with the approved construction Best Management Practices will result in the issuance of correction notices,citations,or stop orders. 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING-Would the project: a)Physically divide an established community? 0 b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ natural community conservation plan? VN SOURCES: Project Description-Photos; 10/02 Tentative Tract Map-Wilson Land Surveys;2/20/03 Preliminary Site Plan-RTC Consulting, INC.4/17/03 Planning Staff Site Visit;3/30/01 Percolation Tests-Buena Geotechnical Services, LLC.; DISCUSSION: 9.a. The project will not physically divide an established community. A residential use in the proposed location is consistent and compatible with the surrounding office commercial complex. As proposed,the single family residential use is consistent with the General Plan and surrounding existing and future land uses. 9.b. The General Plan identifies this site as single family residential. The project proposes two new single-family units 8.12 acres (0.24 units/acre),which is consistent with the General Plan Residential Estates land use designation. The project would create a 1.87 acre non-buildable tree preservation open space and preserve an existing paved access road that occurs across moderate slopes and through sensitive oak woodlands. Significant environmental impacts will be avoided by utilizing the existing paved road and preserving native tree habitat on-site. The proposal can be justified, as the total overall density cannot be lowered.The proposed density is allowed by zoning.The project site is a vacant rural site, which is proposed for large lot residential development consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.The proposed Tentative Tract Map will require a Zone Change Planned Development overlay that will allow lot configuration outside the minimum lot size but within the allowed density, in order to correct a zoning abnormity, and obtain an open space tree protection easement native oak woodland. In addition, environmental impacts would be further avoided by the Planned Development overlay zone, which would make it impossible to divide in the future. The proposed project has been analyzed as required by CEQA. Project-related impacts have been identified and mitigation measures have been included within the proposal to reduce the effect of the proposed project as described herein. 0423/03 Page 17 ZCH2O02-0034 6205 San Gabriel Road.ba.gr.doc 107 ' �^r CITY OFATASCADERO IMHAL STUDY Initial Study 2003-0015 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact ZCH 2002-0034, CUP 2002-0078,TTM 2002-0024 Impact Mitigation Impact 6205 San Gabriel Road Incorporation 9.c.The project is consistent with the open space and conservation policies identified in the General Plan. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES--Would the project: a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally important F] ❑ ❑ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? SOURCES: Project Description-Photos; 10/02 Tentative Tract Map-Wilson Land Surveys;2/20/03 Preliminary Site Plan-RTC Consulting, INC.4/17/03 Planning Staff Site Visit;3/30/01 Percolation Tests-Buena Geotechnical Services, LLC.; DISCUSSION: 10.a.b.No mining is proposed as a part of this project. No known mineral resources have been identified in the area. 11. NOISE--Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in i excel";of standards established in the local general plan or 0VN noise'ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-bome vibration or ground-borne noise levels? c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels ❑ ® F1in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ® F-1noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project areato excessive noise levels? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would 'the pr+ject expose people living or working in the project area tl�excessive noise levels? SOURCES: Project Description-Photos; 10/02 Tentative Tract Map-Wilson Land Surveys;2/20/03 Preliminary Site Plan-RTC Consulting, INC.4/17/03 Planning Staff Site Visit;3/30/01 Percolation Tests-Buena Geotechnical Services, LLC.; DISCUSSION: . 11 a.b.c.d. Construction is expected to involve some heavy machinery and use of impact tools that make noise. Noise 04/23/03 Page 18 ZCH2O02-0034 6205 San Gabriel Road.ba.gr.doc 108 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY . Initial Study 2003-0015 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact ZCH 2002-0034, CUP 2002-0078,TTM 2002-0024 Impact Mitigation Impact 6205 San Gabriel Road Incorporation levels on the site are thus expected to be raised temporarily. The future residential uses are not anticipated to generate unacceptable levels of noise to future adjacent residential uses. 11.e.f. The project is not located within an airport land use plan or private airstrip. Mitigation Measure 11.d: All construction activities shall comply with the City of Atascadero Noise Ordinance for hours of operation. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING--Would the project: a)Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necek.sitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c)Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? SOURCES: Project Description-Photos; 10/24/02 Mehring Tentative Tract Map 2460,Twin Cities Surveying Inc.; • 11/20/02 Planning Staff Site Visit;9/27/02 Percolation Tests-Buena Geotechnical Services, LLC.;.. DISCUSSION: 12.a. The General Plan identifies this site as single family residential with 2.5-10 acre minimum lot sizes based on environmental performance criteria.The underlying zoning qualifies the parcel two split into two lots.The minimum lot size is 4.06 acres and therefore 8.12 gross acres would be needed to divide into two lots.The project proposes two single-family residential units on 8.12 acres(0.24 units/acre),which is consistent with the General plan land use designation.The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use and housing elements. 12.b.c. No housing or persons will be displaced. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impac,s associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios., response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? 0 Police protection? ❑ Schools? D Parks? F-1 0 • 0423/1'3 Page 19 ZCH2O02.0034 6205 San Gabriel Road.ba.gr.doc 109 t CITY OFATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Initial Study 2003-0015 Potentially Less Than Less Than No • ZCH 2002-0034, CUP 2002-0078,TTM 2002-0024 S'Impactnt SisMitigationith S'Impact nt Impact 6205 San Gabriel Road Incorporation Other public facilities? ❑ � ❑ SOURCES: Project Description-Photos; 10/02 Tentative Tract Map-Wilson Land Surveys;2/20/03 Preliminary Site Plan-RTC Consulting, INC.4/17/03 Planning Staff Site Visit;3/30/01 Percolation Tests-Buena Geotechnical Services, LLC.; DISCUSSION: Development Impact Fees:Development Impact Fees will be required of any new project for which a building permit is issued. The concept of the impact fee program is to fund and sustain improvements that are needed as a result of new development as stated in the General Plan and other policy documents within the fee program. Development Impact Fees fall into the following categories: Drainage Fees(including the Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Area Fee); Streets, Road, Bridge Fees;Sewer Fees; Public Safety Fees;and Park Fees, Miscellaneous Fees. In addition, school fees are collected by the Atascadero Unified School District. The amount of impact fees to be paid will be determined at the time of issuance of building permit. Fire and Police: Impact fees are charged for new development,to help pay the cost of providing new facilities to serve the expanding city.The Fire Department of the City of Atascadero has indicated that it will be able to adequately service the proposed project. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Fire Department. The City of Atascadero Police Department has also indicated that the proposed project poses no problems to the police to adequately service it. Schools: At buildout,the city's population will overburden the existing school system unless additional classroom space is added.The Atascadero Unified School District charges impact fees to fund additional schools as needed. State law restricts mitigation of school impacts to the levying of these fees and other measures adopted by the . school district. Provision of adequate facilities for the population is the responsibility of the school district. Fees will be required through construction permits for the residence. P_ arks; New residences will increase demand on parks and recreation facilities.The city's Parks&Recreation Comrf'?ission is committed to finding ways to continue to provide parks and other recreational opportunities to city residents as the city expands,thereby addressing cumulative impacts. Other Dublic facilities:The construction of the project is not expected to have significant impacts on any other public facilities. 14. RECREATION-- a)Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ El F-1neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would.occur or be accelerated? b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require ❑ ❑ the construction or expansion of recreational facilities thatVN might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? -SOURCES: Project Description-Photos; 10/02 Tentative Tract Map-Wilson Land Surveys;2/20/03 Preliminary Site Plan-RTC Consulting, INC.4/17/03 Planning Staff Site Visit;3/30/01 Percolation Tests-Buena Geotechnical Services, LLC.; DISCUSSION: 15.a. Residents are expected to use existing parks and recreational facilities, but the numbers are not expected to result in substantial physical deterioration of any facilities. 15.b. The project does not involve construction of significant recreational facilities. • 04/23/03 Page 20 ZCH2O02-0034 6205 San Gabriel Road.ba.gr.doc 110 CITY OFATASCADERO IIVITL4L STUDY • Initial Study 2003-0015 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact ZCH 2002-0034, CUP 2002-0078,TTM 2002-0024 Impact Mitigation Impact 6205 San Gabriel Road Incorporation 15.TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC--Would the project: a)Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system 0 El 11 (i.e.,result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? b)Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? e)Reult in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ VN❑ f)Result in inadequate parking capacity? F-1 ❑ g)Conflict with adopted policies, plans,or programs E F1 F] supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? SOURCES: Project Description-Photos; 10/02 Tentative Tract Map-Wilson Land Surveys;2/20/03 Preliminary Site Plan-RTC Consulting, INC.4/17/03 Planning Staff Site Visit;3/30/01 Percolation Tests-Buena Geotechnical Services, LLC.; DISCUSSION: 15a.b.The Circulation Element(CE)anticipates an increase in development in this area. The project will take primary access from San Gabriel Road. This impacts are considered less than significant. 15.c. No changes will occur to the air traffic patterns. 15.d. Each new residential parcel's driveway has adequate site distance onto the main access way and onto San Gabriel Road. 15.e. The project will have adequate emergency access from San Gabriel Road. 151 Adequate parking will be provided on-site for the future commercial and residential use. 15.g The project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans,or programs supporting alternative transportation. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS--Would the project: a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ F-1 ® El wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant • environmental effects? c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water 04/23/03 Page 21 ZCH2O02.0034 6205 San Gabriel Roadba.gr.doc 111 CITY OF ATASCADERO MTL4L STUDY Initial Study 2003-0015 Potentially Less Than Less Than No ZCH 2002-0034, CUP 2002-0078,TTM 2002-0024 S'Impactnt Signlflcant Mitigationith SiImp cant Impact • 6205 San Gabriel Road Incorporation drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the El F-1construction of which could cause significant environmental171 effects? d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ F1project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatmentE] ❑ El that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in ad!Jition to the provider's existing commitments? f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ F]accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g)Comply with federal,state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ 1-1regulations related to solid waste? SOURCES: Project Description-Photos; 10/02 Tentative Tract Map-Wilson Land Surveys;2/20/03 Preliminary Site Plan-RTC Consulting, INC.4/17/03 Planning Staff Site Visit;3/30/01 Percolation Tests-Buena Geotechnical Services, LLC.; DISCUSSION: Water., The Atascadero Mutual Water Company(AMWC)will provide water. All property within the city limits is • entitled to water from the AMWC. The project is not expected to require significant quantities of water for the proposed uses. Water is pumped from two portions of the largest underground basin in the county,the Paso Robles Formation,using a series of shallow and deep wells.The water company anticipates that it will be able to meet the city's needs through buildout and beyond: Water demand at buildout under the LUE is estimated at about 8,500 acre-feet per year(AFY).The total available groundwater supply greatly exceeds demand,according to the findings of the Long-Term Viability of Water study. However,the water company does not currently have the deep wells needed to tap into the total amount needed at buildout. The water company is currently developing plans for installing wells where they will be most effective and will not conflict with water rights of others. According to the Water Company,development of additional wells is expected to keep pace with construction in the city,so that water supply will not be interrupted. Sewer. The project is not required to utilize the City's Sewer system.On-site septic systems are required for each new residential parcel. Storm Water. Storm water discharge will be handled by an on City storm water connection. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE-- a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality F1 El ❑ of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rpre or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? • 04/23/03 Page 22 ZCH2O02-0034 6205 San Gabriel Road.ba.gr.doc 112 CITY OFATASCADER0 IM714L STUDY • Initial Study 2003-0015 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact ZCH 2002-0034, CUP 2002-0078,TTM 2002-0024 impact Mitigation Impact 6205 San Gabriel Road Incorporation b)Does the project have impacts that are individually El F-1 Ellimited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively Con'3iderable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects that will El El 1:1cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION: The project site is a vacant rural site,which is proposed for large lot residential development consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.The proposed project will require a Zone Change Planned Development overlay that will allow lot configuration outside the minimum lot size but within the allowed density,in order to correct a physical lot division by a public roadway.The project would also offer a non-buildable open space/tree preservation easement,which would preserve between 30-40 native oaks. In addition,environmental impacts would be further lessened,which would restrict additional subdivision and limit development potential to the proposed access route and building envelopes.The proposed project has been analyzed as required by CEQA. Project-related impacts have been identified and mitigation measures have been included within the proposal to reduce the effect of the proposed project as described herein. SOURCES: • General Plan Land Use Element,City of Atascadero,2002 Zoning Ordinance,part of Municipal Code,City of Atascadero,as amended through 1999. CEQA Handbook,Air Quality Control District,August 1995 General Plan Safety Element,City of Atascadero,2002 General Plan Circulation Element,2002 General Plan Noise Element,adopted 2002 Acoustical Design Manual, Brown-Buntin Associates, 1991 Noise Ordinance, City of Atascadero, 1992 Guide for Developers,Atascadero Fire Department, 1998 draft Flood Insurance Rate Map,community-panel number 060700 0006 B, Federal Emergency Management Agency, January 20, 1982 ITE Trip Generation Manual,6th Edition, Institute of Traffic Engineers PROJECT-SPECIFIC SOURCES: Project description includes: Project Description-Photos; 10/02 Tentative Tract Map-Wilson Land Surveys; 2/20/03 Preliminary Site Plan-RTC Consulting, INC. 4/17/03 Planning Staff Site Visit; 3/30/61 Percolation Tests-Buena Geotechnical Services, LLC 04/23/03 Page 23 ZCH2O02.0034 6205 San Gabriel Road.ba.gr.doc 113 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 Attachment 5: Draft Ordinance A • Zoning Map Change DRAFT ORDINANCE A A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 2002-0034 THEREBY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP DISTRICT OF APN 054-192-0019 054-111-0519 AND A PORTION OF 054- 181-0069 FROM RS (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN) TO RS /PD-16 (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN WITH A PD-16 OVERLAY DISTRICT) SUBJECT TO A MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT (6205 San Gabriel Road /APN 054-192-001, 054-111-051, and a portion of 054-181-006 / Rancho De Paraiso, LLC.) WHEREAS, an application has been received from Wilson Land Surveys (7600 Road, Atascadero, CA 93422) Applicant, and Rancho De Paraiso LLC (6250 San Gabriel Road, Atascadero, CA 93422) Property Owner, to allow a zone change from RS (Residential Suburban— • minimum lot size 2 1/z to 10 acres) to RS /PD-16 (Residential Suburban—minimum lot size: 2 1/2 to 10 acres with Planned Development Overlay 16), the adoption of a Master Plan of Development, and a two-lot residential Tentative Tract Map on APN 054-192-001, 054-111-051, and a portion of 054-181-006; and, WHEREAS, the site's General Plan Designation is Residential Estates (RE); and, WHEREAS, the site's current zoning district is Residential Suburban (RS); with a minimum lot size of 2 1/2 to 10 acres); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to enact this amendment to the Zoning Map to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens by applying orderly development of the City; 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 subject Zone Change application was held by the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero at which hearing evidence, oral and documentary, was admitted on behalf of said zoning amendments; and, 114 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 • WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero, at a public hearing held on May 20, 2003, studied and considered Zone Change 2002-0034 after first studying and considering the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project, and, WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council, at a public hearing held on June 24, 2003, studied and considered Zone Change 2002-0034 after first studying and considering the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Planning Commission recommendation prepared for the project, and, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council takes the following actions: SECTION 1. Findings for Approval of a Zone Change Creating a PD-16 Planned Development Overlay District. The City Council finds as follows: a) Modification of development standards or processing requirements is warranted to promote orderly and harmonious development. 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. c) Benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be reasonably achieved through existing development standards or processing requirements. • d) Proposed plans offer certain redeeming features to compensate for the requested modification. SECTION 2. Approval. The Atascadero City Council, in a regular session assembled on June 24, 2003 resolved to introduce for first reading an ordinance that would rezone the subject site consistent with the following: a) Exhibit A: Zone Change Map • 115 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 • On motion by Council Member , and seconded by Council Member the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ADOPTED: By: Jerry L. Clay, Sr., Mayor Attest: • Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk Approved as to form: Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney 116 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 • Exhibit A: Proposed Zoning Map ZCH 2002-0034 Project Site: 6205 San Gabriel Road GP: Residential Estates(RE) Current Zoning: Residential Suburban (RS) Prf%ne%carl Maw 7f%no nicfrirf- P.cvpniA ............ r N ............. V: ........... Ix ........... New 7, Zoning: Yr ,I H ipn IF; r7l N Project Site: One -N Parcel Divided By San x 17Z Surrounded By Gabriel Road Residential Suburban (RS) Zoning 77� • N 117 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 Attachment 6: Draft Resolution B Master Plan of Development DRAFT RESOLUTION B A RESOLUTION OF ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-0078, A MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PD-16 OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT ON APN 054-192-0019 054-111-0519 AND A PORTION OF 054-181-006 (6205 San Gabriel Road/Rancho De Paraiso, LLC.) WHEREAS, an application has been received from Wilson Land Surveys (7600 Road, Atascadero, CA 93423) Applicant, and Rancho De Paraiso LLC (6250 San Gabriel Road, Atascadero, CA 93422), Property Owner, to allow a zone change from RS (Residential Suburban— minimum lot size 2 '/2 to 10 acres) to RS /PD-16 (Residential Suburban—minimum lot size 2 '/2 to 10 acres with Planned Development Overlay 16), the adoption of a Master Plan of • Development, and a five-lot residential Tentative Tract Map on APN 054-192-001, 054-111-051, and a portion of 054-181-006; and, WHEREAS, the site's General Plan Land Use Designation is Residential Estates (RE); and, WHEREAS, the site's zoning district is Residential Suburban(RS); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that a site be rezoned to a PD- 16 overlay district which requires the adoption of a Master Plan of Development; 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 subject Zone Change application was held by the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero at which hearing evidence, oral and documentary, was admitted on behalf of said Master Plan of Development; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero, at a Public Hearing held on May 20, 2003, studied and considered the Master Plan of Development for Zone Change • 118 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 2002-0034, after first studying and considering the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration • prepared for the project, and, WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council, at a Public Hearing held on June 24, 2003, studied and considered the Master Plan of Development for Zone Change 2002-0034, after first studying and considering the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Planning Commission recommendation prepared for the project, and, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council takes the following actions: SECTION 1. Findings for Recommendation of Approval of Master Plan of Development. The City Council finds as follows: 1. The proposed project or use is consistent with the General Plan and the City's Appearance Review Manual; and, 2. The proposed project or use satisfies all applicable provisions of the Title (Zoning Ordinance) including the PD-16 Ordinance; and, 3. The establishment, and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in • the vicinity of the use; and, 4. That the proposed project or use will not be inconsistent with the character or the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its orderly development; and, 5. That the proposed use or project will not generate a volume of traffic beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing access to the project, either existing or to be improved in conjunction with the project, or beyond the normal traffic volume of the surrounding neighborhood that would result from full development in accordance with the Land Use Element. SECTION 2. Approval. The Atascadero City Council, in a regular session assembled on June 24, 2003, resolved to approve Conditional use Permit 2002-0078, a Master Plan of Development for Zone Change 2002-0034 subject to the following: 1. EXHIBIT A: Master Plan of Development Site Plan 2. EXHIBIT B: Conditions of Approval 3. EXHIBIT C: Statistical Summary Table On motion by Council Member , and seconded by Council Member the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted following roll call vote: • 119 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ADOPTED: By: Jerry L. Clay, Sr., Mayor Attest: Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk • Approved as to form: Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney i 120 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 • Exhibit A: Master Plan of Development CUP 2002-0078 "9 JLg I a i q J s' :+9. 'l ,.�!'�e.t•-eR s as� C _y ';y�<• i:Jtf7F : ` /! r.r (( 'fl £ r°9 ::.�t 3 i t S�• 3 t� a\ +f .......... .? �! �Z 6 K �-- ^a'^•.� �+�� i j i J f c+. w1;� i.. l`e t 4.': ♦ l (.7!/ tai�� .';t: 3 -A` ♦ rt_,• ,� ,; z ( 7,t ��,\ �4`•CS 9 � l�rt a i:� �'e�a r 4�•t.' v\'`. \\�.'9c ..,,-t som 1 9� +� a gg iq E # I a a: # qq r g Q k _:w� . r a7 i 121 ITEM NUMBER: B 2 DATE: 06/24/2003 Exhibit A: Master Plan of Development • CUP 2002-0078 ` ....-/ ���^ ...-,.•---r-': - o'•/ �i....;;,, �,J+��.rr:, •�'rr�Ali�jlj" `�^''�.•• � i � Sin Proposed Open Space/Tree .`t'~^ Preservation Easement \\�, Existing Access rl Road � � X� - •r ,; (r�t�' `� k4�t)f� r Proposed Open Space/Tree Preservation Proposed ` �`�` t 1 '� r .K� a Building �.''=`sw.�`''��°3�y •�� }"� �4"•:.. '����t. �' :: Facamant Site 2 ;,;Ifr';f 41 i Proposed Building ` jE rr�i7 Site 1 Existing Open Space/Tree ^' r Bservation Easement Jk E � �'•`.`1 fl �`I f�t���' '�..� � EK.4,., ��`t •��', is '+ iV ! f r Tree Protection FaSPmPnt 122 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 . Exhibit B: Conditions of Approval CUP 2002-0078(Master Plan of Development) .................................. ................................... Mitigation Measures-CEQA Mitigation Measure 3.b: The project shall be conditioned to BP BS 3b: comply with all applicable District regulations pertaining to the control of fugitive dust (PM-10) as contained in section 6.4 of the Air Quality Handbook. All site grading and demolition plans notes shall list the following regulations: 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. 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. L. Wheel washers may be required when significant offsite import or export of fill is involved. M. Large canopy shade trees shall be provided along street frontages and within parking areas to shade paved areas and minimize urban heat build-up. Mitigation Measure 4.e.1: A Tree Protection Plan prepared by GP PS 4 e 1 a Certified Arborist according to the City Of Atascadero guidelines shall be submitted during the building permit • process and approved for the development of each new parcel or redevelopment of existing parcels. All tree removals 123 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 ................................... shall be mitigated according to the Atascadero Tree Ordinance, b payment into the Tree Mitigation Fund, and on • Mitigation Measure 5.b: Should any cultural resources be GP PS 6 b unearthed during site development work, the provisions of CEQA-Section 15064.5 will be followed to reduce impacts to a non-significant level. Mitigation Measure 6.b.1: An erosion and sedimentation GP PS,BS,CE ' b ` control plan shall be required for single family residential building permits on the site. All measures required by the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Board to prevent soil, dirt, and debris from entering the storm drain system during and after construction shall be implemented. The plan shall implement Regional Water Quality Control Board Best Management Practices (BMP's) and shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and Planning Staff at the time of Building Permit application. Mitigation Measure 6.b.2: All cut and fill slopes shall be GP PS,BS,CE ,b.4 hydroseeded with an appropriate erosion control method (Straw wattles, erosion control blanket, hydro-mulch, or straw mulch appropriately anchored) immediately after completion of earthwork between the months of October 15 through April 15. All disturbed slopes shall have appropriate erosion control methods in place. For the duration of the project the contractor will be responsible for proper erosion control implementation and the clean-up of any mud or debris that is tracked onto public streets by construction vehicles. Mitigation Measure 6.c.d: A soils report shall be required to GP BS Sed • be submitted with a future building permit by the building department. The building plans will be required to follow the recommendations of the soils report to assure safety for occupants and buildings. Mitigation Measure 8.e.f.1: A Storm Water Pollution GP BS ,> .<; Prevention Plan (SWPPP)/Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the building permit. The plan shall include storm water measures for the operation and maintenance of the project for the review and approval of the City Engineer. The Building Permit application plans shall identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the uses conducted on site that effectively prohibit the entry of pollutants into storm water runoff. Mitigation Measure 8.e.f.2: The developer is responsible for GP PS,BS,CE S b 1 ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and that such measures are implemented. Failure to comply with the approved construction Best Management Practices will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stoporders. ;....... .i' . Mitigation Measure 11.d: All construction activities shall GP PS,BS,CE ,# 3...........::::i.::..; comply with the City of Atascadero Noise Ordinance for hours of operation. 124 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 • Conditions of Approval Timing Responsibility Mitigation CUP 20024)078(Master Plan of Development)6205 San /Monitoring Measure Gabriel Road Ps:pbmm services BL Buri m Lim= BS:Bul ft Swkw GP:Graig Petmt FD:Fie Depatrnattt BP:Buidng Pant PD:Poke DepaMat FI:FrW Intim CE:Cty Engiteer TO:T-Wayo-VarLy WW Wastewater F0:Ftd OcapaM CA,CtyAftmv Planning Services 1. The approval of this use permit shall become final and PS effective following the end of the referendum period for Zone Change 2002-0034. 2. Approval of this Master Plan of Development shall be BP PS valid concurrently with the life of Tentative Tract Map 2002-0024 and then indefinitely following final map. The Master Plan of Development (CUP 2002-0078) approval shall expire and become null and void unless a final map is recorded consistent with the Master Plan of Development. 3. The Community Development Department shall have BP/FM PS the authority to approve minor changes to the project that(1) increase the intensity of the project by less than 10%, (2) result in a superior site design or appearance, and/or (3) address a construction design issue that is • not substantive to the Master Plan of Development. The Planning Commission shall have the final authority to approve any other changes to the Master Plan of Development and any associated Tentative Maps. 4. All subsequent Subdivision Maps and construction BP/FM PS permits shall be consistent with the Master Plan of Development contained herein. 5. Future construction on the lots shall be consistent with BP/FM PS the Master Plan of Development (CUP 2002-0078) approved for the site. 6. The Open Space/Tree Preservation Easement shall be FM PS designated as a non-build, non-storage area, and shall be titled"Open Space/Tree Preservation Easement Area"and recorded as such on the Final Parcel Map. "Septic systems are allowed within the open space/tree preservation easement, but not within native tree drip lines"shall be added to the Final Map., A tree protection easement shall be added at the drip line of the oak tree shown on Parcel 1. 125 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 Exhibit B:Statistical Summary • CUP 2002-0078(Master Plan of Development) ::>::»>: ::::>:::<::> ::>:<:>::;:>::::>::>::::>:>::»::>::>:<:>:<:::>::>:<:»::>::>:::<:>::»::>::>::>::>:::::»::»::»::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::»::>::>::>::>::»:::::>::>:«:»::>::>: ::>::::»:::::::>::::>::::>::::>:<::::::>::>::>::>;:>::::::::........:::::::>:::<:>::::>::>::>:<:>:::::>::>::::::>::::>::::>::::::>::::>::::::::::>::>:<:>::>::::>:: >::>::::>::............ Parcel Size (gross acres) 7.03 acres 2.73 acres Parcel Size (net)(1 .0 min.) 3.93 acres 1 .09 acres % Slope: Building Site (under 20%) 20% 20% Open Space Area (acres)-Existing 0.52 acres 0 Open Space Area (acres)-Proposed 1 .85 acres 0 Minimum Lot Size 4.06 acres 1 .0 ac.net Total Site Area: 8.12 acres 126 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 • Attachment 7: Draft Resolution C Tract Map DRAFT RESOLUTION C A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2002-0024, THEREBY ALLOWING A TWO LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AT 6205 SAN GABRIEL ROAD, APN 054-192-0019 054-111-0515 AND A PORTION OF 054-181-006, CONSISTENT WITH THE PD16 MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT (CUP 2002-0078); (Rancho De Paraiso, LLC.) WHEREAS, an application has been received from Wilson Land Surveys (7600 Road, Atascadero, CA 93422) Applicant, and Rancho De Paraiso, LLC (6250 San Gabriel Road, Atascadero, CA 93422), Property Owner, to allow a zone change from RS (Residential Suburban—minimum lot size 2 '/z to 10 acres) to RS/PD-16 (Residential Suburban — minimum lot size 2 '/2 to 10 acres with Planned Development Overlay 16), the adoption of a Master Plan of • Development, and a two-lot residential Tentative Tract Map on APN 054-192-001, 054-111-051, and a portion of 054-181-006; and, WHEREAS, the site's General Plan Designation is RE (Residential Estates); and, WHEREAS, the site's current zoning district is RS (Residential Suburban with a minimum lot size of 2 '/2 to 10 acres); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that the site be rezoned to include a PD-16 overlay with a Master Plan of Development allowing a two-lot subdivision of the site; 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 subject Tentative Tract Map application was held by the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero at which hearing evidence, oral and documentary, was admitted on behalf of said application; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero, at a public hearing held on May 20, 2003, studied and considered Tentative Tract Map 2002-0024, after first studying and • considering the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project; and, 127 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council, at a public hearing held on June 24, 2003, • studied and considered Tentative Tract Map 2002-0024, after first studying and considering the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Planning Commission recommendation prepared for the project; and, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council takes the following actions: Section 1. Findings of Approval for Tentative Tract Map, the Atascadero City Council finds as follows: a) The proposed subdivision, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan and applicable zoning requirements. b) The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and applicable zoning requirements. c) The proposed subdivision, as conditioned, is consistent with the Planned Development Overlay District#16 Master Plan of Development (CUP 2002-0078). d) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. e) The site is physically suitable for the density of development proposed. • f) 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. g) 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. h) The proposed subdivision design and type of improvements proposed will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public. Section 2. Approval. The City Council, in a regular session assembled on June 24, 2003 resolved to approve the Tentative Tract Map (TTM 2002-0024) subject to the following: a) Exhibit A: Tentative Tract Map 2002-0024 b) Exhibit B: Conditions of Approval On motion by Council Member , and seconded by Council Member the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted following roll call vote: 128 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 • AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ADOPTED: By: Jerry L. Clay, Sr., Mayor Attest: Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk • Approved as to form: Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney i 129 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 Exhibit A:Tentative Tract Map • TTM 2002-0024 qZ� og � .,�TU.�r✓�'j4y�<o.t `>;f i,;:���yrr1 '•�'! J i '? ^. f �+ \ t t .e F�i�i--,,33$,ll \�jt�i 'gad�ti^•S.�{�+F '. / .. ... •' -xit 1t 4IQ1 lit ' s r ro ! Y it i9/! e.;�j C<`�rQ t f �" �. is a` I.�• � f JV C i i.1: 1 � ! J JJ li:: t � "t•< '�: �:t: ,.y1.: Additional Tree I, t Protection Easement °< s :FAH 41 + xx 7tPP S .A.{>SA iyi5$ f ji JS :'``£ ,J1°. i it 17 t z A'. °3 �F Y •s , z= yL off t 130 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 • EXHIBIT B: Conditions of Approval TTM 2002-0015 .:................................. Conditions of Approval Timing Responsibility gati < /Monitoring Measure 6205 San Gabriel Road ��� PS:Pkat/SW&W BP Wft Permt �:Buidrg Services T0:Temporary Ocapawy FD:Fre DepaMrert Tentative Tract Map 200240024 FO:FhA Oc 4xM PD:Poke Depa bmt PI:Priic krpvanerts CE:Cly Erowzr 1AW.VJwWder CA C1yAlt-w ANW:Atascadem Mhd Water Compar/ Planning Services 1. The approval of this application shall become final, subject to PM PS the completion of the conditions of approval, fourteen (14) days following the Planning Commission approval unless prior to the time, an appeal to the decision is filed as set forth in Section 9-1.111(b)of the Zoning Ordinance. • 2. The Tentative Tract Map application shall not be deemed approved until the end of the ordinance referendum period and enactment of Zone Change 2002-0034. 3. Approval of this Tentative Tract Map shall be valid for two PM PS years after its effective date. At the end of the period, the approval shall expire and become null and void unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request received prior to the expiration date. 4. The Community Development Department shall have the PM PS authority to approve minor changes to the project that (1) result in a superior site design or appearance, and/or (2) address a construction design issue that is not substantive to the Tentative Tract Map. 5. The Final Map shall be subject to additional fees for park or PM PS recreation purposes (QUIMBY Act) as required by City Ordinance. 6. The granting of this entitlement shall apply to the property On going PS located at 6205 San Gabriel Road (APN 054-192-001, 054- 111-051,and a portion of 054-181-006)regardless of owner. 7. The Open SpacefTree Protection Easement shall be FM PS designated as an"Open Space/Tree Protection Easement' and recorded on the Final Map as such."Septic systems are allowed within the open space/tree preservation easement, but not within native tree drip lines"shall be added to the • Final Map. 131 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 Conditions of Approval Timing Responsibility »:AAiiga#R j /Monitoring ...assure • 6205 San Gabriel Road 'Paced Ps:Plarrig sakes GP:Gra6g Permt BP:D"V Pant Bs:BLd frg Swkm M,Td,yCcapm, FD:Fire Dnert Tentative Tract Map 200240024 FO:RdCMLFM PD:Poke Deparhnat PI:Pulk I p runts CE Ciy E.ggireer WJU Wastewater CACty/Wamey ......................... .... .................--.............. AMMO:Atascedao Mltual Wafer Company A tree protection easement shall be added at the drip line of the oak tree shown on Parcel 1. 8. Future construction on the lots shall be consistent with the BP PS _..... .. ;..i ..........:..................... ................................... .................................. Master Plan of Development(CUP 2002-0078)approved for the site. ............. :: 9. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the PM PS approved tentative map, and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein, shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 10. The applicant shall access provide easements for all parcels FM CE to share access on the existing driveway. Engineering Standard Conditions: 12. All public improvements shall be constructed in • conformance with the City of Atascadero Engineering Department S-Otandard Specifications and Drawings and/or as directed by the City Engineer. 13. In the event that the applicant is allowed to bond for the public improvements required as a condition of the final map, the applicant shall enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the City Council. 14. An engineer's estimate of probable cost shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer to determine the amount of the bond. 15. The Subdivision Improvement Agreement shall record concurrently with the Final Map. 16. An encroachment permit shall be obtained prior to the issuance of building permit. 17. The applicant shall enter into a Plan Check/inspection agreement with the City. 18. A six (6) foot Public Utility Easement (PUE) shall be provided contiguous to the San Diego Road property frontage. 19. The applicant shall be responsible for the relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities. - 20. 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 132 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 • Conditions of Approval Timing Responsibility Met�gatu►n /MonitoringMeasure. 6205 San Gabriel Road Pre.Pecs ent PPm PS -%vcm GP:Graig BS:Bui3g Services BP.&OV Pemt ITarpaayoccuPWq FD:Fie Deparlrnert Tentative Tract Map 200240024 FO.Fnal Ocapmy PD:Paice DepeMet PI:Pubic Irt mmnffb CE:Cty Ergine MI.WadeAder Ckl CiyAtteney AWE:Atascadero . Mtud Water Comm public utility easement. 21. The applicant shall monument all property corners for construction control and shall promptly replace them if disturbed. 22. The applicant shall acquire title interest in any off-site land that may be required to allow for the construction of the improvements. The applicant shall bear all costs associated with the necessary acquisitions. The applicant shall also gain concurrence from all adjacent property owners whose ingress and egress is affected by these improvements. 23. Slope easements shall be provided as needed to accommodate cut of fill slopes. 24. Drainage easements shall be provided as needed to accommodate both public and private drainage facilities. • 25. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the map. 26. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easements are to be shown on the parcel map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the parcel map. The applicant shall show all access restrictions on the parcel map. 27. The final map shall be signed by the City Engineer prior to the map being placed on the agenda for City Council acceptance. 28. 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. 29. Prior to recording the parcel map, the applicant shall set monuments at all new property corners. A registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate by certificate on the parcel 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. 30. Prior to recording the parcel map, the applicant shall pay all outstanding plan check/inspection fees. 31. Prior to recording the map, the applicant shall complete all improvements required by these conditions of approval. 133 ITEM NUMBER: B -2 DATE: 06/24/2003 _ .................. . Conditions of Approval Timing Responsibility ':>: NLitigafEigr€ /Monitoring Measure.. • 6205 San Gabriel Road PM. PSPlemigSermea GP Graft Peal BSBtffing SWAM BP&i6 g Parti FD:Fre Depa 6r art i TG:Tenpaary0capancy Tentative Tract Map 200240024 FG:Fid Gw,my PD:Poke Depart wt PI:Pubic ioprouemerts CE Cky F WW Wastewater C[t CiyAflomey AMM:Atascadero Mutual Water Cartparry 32. Prior to recording the parcel map,the applicant shall have the map reviewed by all applicable public and private utility companies (cable, telephone, gas, electric, Atascadero Mutual Water Company). The applicant shall obtain a letter from each utility company indicating their review of the map. The letter shall identify any new easements that 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 parcel map. 33. 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. 34. Prior to the final inspection of any public improvements, the applicant shall submit a written statement from a registered civil engineer that all work has been completed and is in full compliance with the approved plans. 35. 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. 36. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit a grading and drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer for review and approval by the City Engineer. 134 ITEM NUMBER: c -1 DATE: 06/24/2003 • ,sus' � � CM)lD Atascadero City Council Staff Report - Community Development Department Interim Inclusionary Housing Policy RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt an interim inclusionary housing percentage requirement and a set of policy determinations to apply to legislative permits prior to adoption of an inclusionary ordinance. DISCUSSION: Background: The City Council and Planning Commission held their second study session on affordable housing issues on June 4, 2003. During that meeting, the Council and Commission reviewed a draft outline of a model inclusionary housing ordinance. That process generated a substantial list of questions that will require additional time for staff to research and analyze. Staff estimates that it will take a number of months for an inclusionary housing ordinance to be adopted and in effect. Currently, a number of planned development type permits with over 700 dwelling units are on hold until the inclusionary ordinance is adopted. Planned developments, specific plans are re-zonings they are considered legislative acts that require Council approval. Consequently, the Council has the ability to condition these types of projects with an inclusionary requirement without an ordinance in place. Staff is recommending that the Council adopt an interim inclusionary housing policy that will be used to condition planned development and specific plan projects. This would allow a number of projects to move through the approval process prior to adoption of the inclusionary ordinance. Quasi judiciary types of approvals, such as tentative maps and conditional use permits would not be subject to the interim policy. 135 ITEM NUMBER: C -1 DATE: 06/24/2003 Interim Inclusionary Percentage: One of the primary issues that was dealt with at the June 4 meeting was the percent of affordable units that should be required in a development project. One of the questions to staff was a request to analyze the relationship of various percentages of affordable housing to the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Staff has produced two different charts to show how the relationship could be calculated (refer to Attachment 2). The analysis begins with the RHNA that was established by the State of California and SLOCOG for Atascadero. These allocations are shown in Table 1 below. The RHNA allocates a total of 1359 dwelling units (du's) to Atascadero over a 7.5 year period. Of those units, 903 or 66% of the units are affordable units (Very Low Income, Low Income, or Moderate). This further translates into 120 affordable units per year. Table 1: Atascadero Regional Housing Needs Allocation (7.5 years) Affordable Units . l(�ark� Rate ::. .:....:::::.:........,.:::.......;;....:.................. .::::•:.:•:..�,.:::•:>;::.::....:::::::::.:..:.,::::::•.:::..;..: Total 'n< < >.'' e.ate ..Above Mod, Total Affordable r ;":` :::<::<.;:.::.<,::> ? ........... Mod r .., h 00 . ..x.'4` 2�d ; 304 du's 456 du' s 1359 du's 903 du's 3 ✓si 100/0 66/0 Annual RHNA re m't ?1 f <<'`s d � 1 dU's 61 �iu's 181 du's 120 du's q build unit %of affordable units • 136 ITEM NUMBER: C -1 DATE: 06/24/2003 • The second step of the analysis is to estimate the number of units that are expected to be built. Based on pervious growth trends and expected new projects, staff is estimating 250 dwelling units to be constructed annually. Table 2 breaks the 250 units down by General Plan land use categories and product type (i.e. single family residential, second unit, apartment). The table also makes assumptions regarding the income category each type of unit would serve in an unrestricted market. The first table makes the assumption that all 250 units built in the market would be in the above moderate category. While this assumptions is likely true for the majority of low density single family residential products, it may not be as accurate for higher density developments and apartments. Table 2: All Units Above Moderate Category Table 2: Land Use Affordablity Assumptions Income Land Use Product Type Density Occupant Category Potential Units RIr1S SFR 0 4 du/ac Owner AM 5Q du 's • SFR Z SFR Q 7 du/ac owner: ANI 25 du's SFR»Y SFR du/ac Owner; AM 25 du'si 2nd:Unit 2.t)dulae ` Owner AM 3 du's SFX # 2.t3du/ae'< Owner AM 2ttdu`s PD [7U/ae Qwne; AM du's 4 d 20 M[3R Pl}7 -:.x;:6.0::dulac Ownef; AM d: U: #ownhouse 8 O du/ac ; owner/Renfer AIN tQ du's aprtmet�t [Q.0 dUlac Rentet AM 1Q du's © PC?7 5:17 dU/ae> Owner AIN:; t5du`s. #ownhouse 8.0 du/ac: Owner!Renter AM t0 du`s!. apartment2p 0 dU/ac fencer AV 2Q du's D.. apartmen# 16.Q du/ac Rented; AM mixed Use. : .. 20 dufa Renter AM: . GC/Mixed Use fiowrihouss ....... 8:0 dU/ac; Owner/Renfisr ANI 11 - apartment. 16 dulac Renter AM 5 dU`s Total 248 du's • 137 ITEM NUMBER: C -1 DATE: 06/24/2003 Based on discussions with the City's HCD analyst the City is allowed to make • assumptions that certain free market housing products will fall with some of the affordable categories. HCD staff agrees not all of the 903 "affordable unit" need to be deed restricted inclusionary units. A second version of Table 2 was produced that identified certain higher density housing products as meeting the low income or moderate income criteria. In this version of Table 2, 55 moderate income and 23 low income units are assumed to be built annually. Table 2: Market Generated Affordable Units Table 2: Land Use Affordablity Assumptions Income Land Use Product Type Density Occupant Category Potential Units _ R / ,: FR dulac owner AM du`s: SFR SFR a 7 iufac Owner AM 2 du:YS SFR Y SFR I Q dufac Qwine€ AN} 25 du's. SFR SFR Q Litt/ G ©wrle€ A111} 2Q du's F'D7_ 4 Q duac WneF AM .. du`s MjpR PD 7 6 dupe 4wtaerM 15du's townhouse .......... dulac Ownerl Renter: MOD 1Q du's apartrnerif 10 du#ac Renter MOD € du:`s HDR:: RD 7 6 Q du/ac Qwner i M 15du`sl townhouse - 8..0...:A. bwnerl Renter MQD 1Q du's ><: = 1 :_. .........:.:.........:::::::::::::::::::::::.:.::...................:::.::............:... .:..:.:.::•.:::.;::::.:::::.:::.:::..::::.::.:. ..:. :::::::::::::.::.:. .. ::::;::::.::�::.meter::::>:>::<:: ::<:::: :::::; ;GAJ Mixed,Use townhouse 8 Q dulac Owner./Rentet MOD 1O du's apartrnertt 1fi Au ac Renter . MOD 15 du's Total 248 du's 138 ITEM NUMBER: C -1 DATE: 06/24/2003 • The two versions of Table 2 were used to analyze the range of inclusionary units that the City should consider. One of the request of Council was to determine the percentage of inclusionary units that would be needed to realize 100% of the RHNA. Based on which version of Table 2 is used the inclusionary percentage varies significantly. The following version of Table 3 is based on the assumptions that all free market products would be classified as above moderate (see 0% market only line). In order to meet the City RHNA allocation under these assumptions an inclusionary requirement of 50% would be need. That would translate into 50 affordable units in a 100 unit project. Furthermore the 50 affordable units would segmented as 38% very low income (19 units), 28 % low income (14 units), and 34% moderate income (17 units). Table 3: All Units Above Moderate Category Ar- Table 3: Inclusionary Affordable Unit Generation Assumptions Inclusionary 0%(market only) i ; ;'s':':€>€s> ? . 0 tlu s; 24;8 du s: 248 du s •:x: :::>::::c::»::>::>ss: . 5% ' �I�"s. •:»::; i��`� 4 du s I 12 du's 10% `:`' { fl ' >> <` ' . S du's : 25 du's 15% »>' ' 1'3 du's 37 du's • 20% 50 du's 25% :<; > t < 'lz( ...; ♦ F 4-1 I 'iT 21 du's 62 du's 30% sIti#'*: > ' .`" 4�3k` 25 du's 74 du's :..... 50% is •`. ? `i < ` `•3�7.(l# 42 du s;' 124 du's Nild The second version of Table 3 includes 23 low income and 55 moderate income units that would be generated in the market place annually. Based on these assumptions a 15% inclusionary requirment would meet the RHNA for low and moderate units but not for very low income units. The Council could consider shifting some of the allocation from moderate to very low income units. Likely, very low income unit will require government subsidy and likely will not be built within most projects. Table 3: Market Generated Affordable Units Ale Table 3: Inclusionary Affordable Unit Generation Assumptions 0 Incl ry usiona /o "' S5 dt's 1'70 du's 248 du's 0%(market only) i`" 1r: . us. 5% rr't 's` <a( tt' . 59 du`s 90 du's 10% i `d du's ...._ 103 du's 15% • .:`( : > e►' 68 tlu`s 115 du's 20% i? 10' Et' 72 du,'s 128 du's 25% US: 76 du`s 140 du's 30% ' :<> ? 1 80 du.%. 152 du's 50% >#s>l 1 `:'': �.? GEE'S :97Au`s 202 du's 139 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 06/24/2003 • Interim Inclusionary Policy: Staff is recommending that the Council provide direction on an interim inclusionary housing policy. Based on the RHNA analysis and the discussions of the June 4 study session staff has prepared the following interim policy outline in Table 4. The Council may amend this policy or chose not to adopt an interim policy. Staff has provided the building industry with copies of the inclusionary calculations last week, but no formal response on the economic effects of different percentage ranges would have on the industry locally has been received. Table 4: Interim Inclusionary Housing Policy Inclusionary Section Interim Policy A. Project Requirements 1. All residential projects are subject to the inclusionary requirement as follows: o Project of 1-4 units: pay in-lieu fee. o Projects of 5-10 units: pay in-lieu fee or build units. o Projects of 11 or more units must build units or receive a Council approval to pay in-lieu fees. B. Percent Affordable 1. Define the percentage of units within a project that must • be affordable. The Council should select a percentage based on one of the versions of Table 3. 2. The distribution of affordable units shall be as follows: o 38%Very Low Income o 28%Low Income o 34%Moderate 3. In-lieu fees shall be collected for all fractional units up to 0.499 units, fractional units of 0.50 an greater shall be counted as 1.0 units. 4. All inclusionary units shall be deed restricted for a period of 30 years. C. Exceptions 1. Projects that do not require a legislative approval from the City shall not be subject in the interim policy. 2. Projects that qualify for the State density bonus are exempt form additional inclusionary housing requirements. D. Affordable Housing 1. The exterior design and quality standards for affordable Standards units shall be comparable to those of market rate units. Affordable units may be of a smaller size and utilize less expensive interior finishes. 2. Inclusionary units shall be built concurrently with market rate units. A construction timeline shall be approved by • 140 ITEM NUMBER: C -1 DATE: 06/24/2003 • the City Council prior to construction. E. In-Lieu Fees 1. In-lieu fees for units and fractions of units shall be based on 2.50% of the valuation of the market rate unit. F. Alternatives 1. The City Council may approve any of the following alternatives to on-site construction or payment of in-lieu fees for inclusionary units: o Off-site construction o Land dedication o Combinations of construction, fees and land dedications. G. Incentives 1. As an incentive to provide affordable units, all inclusionary units shall be treated as bonus units that are not counted as part of the maximum density entitlement of a site. FISCAL IMPACT: Adoption of the interim policy will result in the collection of in-lieu fees that could be used to build affordable housing projects. Management of in-lieu fees and the likelihood these fees will need to be combine with other City funds will obligate the City to devote staff time and resources to future affordable housing projects. Staff time and resources to administer affordable housing programs over the coming decades has not been calculated but should not be assumed to be insignificant. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Council may choose to amend the interim inclusionary policy contained in Table 4. 2. The Council may choose not to adopt an interim inclusionary policy. In this case Council should provide staff with direction on how to process pending planned developments and specific plans. 3. The Council may choose to refer the item back to staff for additional analysis. Clear direction to staff should be provided on additional information or policies that are desired. CONCLUSION: The adoption of an interim inclusionary policy will allow a number of planned • development projects to continue to move forward while the City studies a formal 141 ITEM NUMBER: C -1 DATE: 06/24/2003 inclusionary ordinance. The majority of large pending projects include planned • developments or specific plans which are legislative acts that would be subject to the interim policy. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Joint Session Minutes 5-7-03 Attachment 2: Inclusionary / RHNA Calculations Attachment 3: San Luis Obispo County Affordable Standards (April 2003) • • 142 • Attachment 3 San Luis Obispo County Affordable Standards(April 2003) The County provides the following table of median incomes and associated affordable sale prices and rents. These numbers are periodically adjusted as median incomes changes. Affordable Housing Standards Flit SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING COP] o n ytiovernment Center 1 6an Luis U51SP0,Calnorna ep on This bulletin summarizes the county's affordable housing standards,including maximum family.incomes, home purchase prices,rents,and long-term affordability. Income limits: The state defines family income groups as follows: "Very Low Income"is defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50105 as 50%of county median income;"Lower Income"is defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5 as 80%of county median income;"Moderate Income" is defined by Health and Safety Code section 30093 as 120%of county median income. Effective March,2003,the income limits for San Luis Obispo County are shown below: • $20 200 8 500 1 $32,300 $40 400 $4 2 $23 100 $36 950 $46150 $55,400 3 $25,950 $41,550 $51950 $62350 4 $28,850 $46 150 $57 700 $69250 .5 $31,150 $49,850 $62,300 $74800 6 $33,450 $53550 $66,950 $80 350 7 $35,750 $57250 $71550 $85,850 g $38,100 $60950 $76,150 $91,400 Rents and sales prices: v Studio $505 $606 $619 $75 952 $115 948 $180588 1 $577 $692 $699 $86,762 $132 451 $206291 2 $649 $779 $886 $97 666 $149,097 $232217 3 $779 $935 $1232 $117,124 $178,801 $278,481 4 $837 $1,004 $1,454 $125,866 $192,I47 $299,267 Note 1: Maximum rents shown above include costs of utilities based on utility allowances determined by the • Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo. Note 2: Maximum sales prices shown above are based on assumption that special financing is not committed to project,and therefore,reflect 11th District Cost of Funds Index of 2.257%,which is effective through April,2003,according to the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco(interest rate hotline: 415-616- 2600). Updated:04/04/03 145 Approved May 27,2003 g 0W on • r. 1918 I N p I�I 1979 I SPECIAL JOINT MEETING CITY COUNCIL / PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 079 2003 7:00 p.m. MINUTES AFFORDABLE HOUSING ISSUES & INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE STUDY SESSION STUDY SESSION: 7:00 P.M. Mayor Clay called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. and Council Member O'Malley led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Council Members O'Malley, Pacas, Scalise, Luna and Mayor Clay Planning Commissioners Beraud, Jones, O'Keefe, Porter, Kelley and Chairperson Fonzi Absent: Planning Commissioner Bentz Staff Present: City Manager Wade McKinney, Community Development Director Warren Frace, Information Technology Director Andrew Fruin, City Attorney Roy Hanley and Recording Secretary Grace Pucci. CC/PC Special Meeting 05/07/03 Page 1 146 Approved May 27,2003 Mayor Clay welcomed the audience to this special meeting and explained the format for the evening. Mayor Clay commended Community Development Director Warren Frace for the workbook produced for this meeting. STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORTS 1. Discussion of Affordable Housing Issues and an Inclusionary Ordinance Staff Overview Community Development Director Warren Frace gave the staff report and explained staff is seeking direction on how the Council-and Commission would like them to move forward on the issue of affordable housing and for some general consensus on how to proceed with an inclusionary ordinance. Expert Speakers Dave Mullinax, League of California Cities, stated that an arm of the League, the Institute of Local Government, has recently produced a primer that will be provided as a tool for local governments to use when drafting inclusionary ordinances. There are over 120 counties and cities in California that have adopted local ordinances for inclusionary housing. The benefits of • an ordinance include: 1) it is a tool for the community with which to tailor a program to fii its needs, 2) gives local government a legal cover against litigation, 3) makes it easier to get benefits from Sacramento. Mr. Mullinax reviewed pending legislation for affordable housing and incentives available from the State, and answered questions of the Council and Commission. George Moylan, Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo, indicated that he is not a strong proponent of an inclusionary ordinance, as there have been abuses and bureaucratic issues connected with it. He suggested the following: 1) create an ordinance with input from all factions of the community, utilizing a subcommittee appointed by the Council and given authority to bring back an inclusionary ordinance for consideration, and 2) adopt a commercial component. He reviewed the methods used in San Luis Obispo and their success in raising several hundred thousand dollars for affordable housing. Inclusionary housing ordinances are usually done in larger cities with staff enough to follow up on issues such as resale, etc., this is sometimes difficult in cities such as Atascadero with smaller planning and finance departments. Ordinances create another layer of bureaucracy that can be frustrating for developers and recipients of the assistance. Mr. Moylan answered questions of the Council and Commission. Jerry Bunin, Home Builders Industry Association, gave a PowerPoint presentation covering the following points regarding inclusionary housing: 1) the Home Builders Industry Association generally discourages inclusionary housing, as it is felt it doesn't address the basic problem of supply and demand, 2) it targets only a market segment and doesn't help with work force housing, and 3) poorly structured programs can add to the cost of housing. The Association does • feel i; is a good goal to providing low-income housing, but would like to see a density bonus equal to the State's voluntary statute (25% density bonus if you provide 10% very low income, CC/PC Special Meeting 05/07/03 Page 2 147 Approved May 27,2003 20% low income or 50% senior). A density bonus helps the builder to not have to raise costs on the other units. The Association's suggestions for an inclusionary ordinance include: 1) involve everyone, 2) simplify the planning process, 3) maximize land use, 4) promote mixed use, 5) `-` review restrictive regulations, 6) do more area-wide EIR's and traffic studies, 7) increase density, and 8) improve affordability by design (allow smaller units and more of them). Mr. Bunin answered questions of the Council and Commission. (Exhibit A) Anita Robinson, San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund, stated that their goal is to put together dedicated revenue sources from all jurisdictions within the county to be used to facilitate the financing of affordable housing in the county. They want to work with cities that have inclusionary ordinances and have established trust funds or housing in-lieu fees. She spoke about affordable housing trust funds established nationwide, and stated that 28% of those look to inclusionary fees and linkage impact fees as a source of dedicated revenues for those trust funds to facilitate the development of affordable housing. She urged Council and Commission members to realize that the housing trust fund was only one tool and not the only answer to the issue of providing affordable housing; it should work together with multiple tools for it to be truly successful. It takes subsidies to facilitate affordable housing, i.e. levels of incentives that create a form of subsidy to a builder or owner. This starts the process, and with it in place together with inclusionary fees, impact fees, etc., and a tool such as the housing trust fund, the traditional mechanisms can come into play because there has been enough subsidy into a project to get the numbers to where they pencil for that developer. She spoke about leverage factors, supply and demand, workforce and entry level housing and answered questions of the Council and Commission. • David Taussig, Taussig and Associates, discussed in-lieu fee calculations with a PowerPoint presentation. He stated that in-lieu fees are very necessary, as developers cannot always build affordable housing in a project with $300,000 homes. The idea of paying an in-lieu fee and building the affordable housing off site, i.e. apartments, etc., is more cost effective. Mr. Taussig discussed the following in-lieu fee pro forma issues: 1) type of affordable housing (rental t;nits are a better way to go), 2) land acquisition costs, 3) wage scale (prevailing wage, etc.), 4) density (25% bonus), 5) development standards, 6) reduced costs, 7) subsidies, and 8) affordable goals (income limits, etc.). Mr. Taussig answered questions of the Council and Commission. (Exhibit B) John Campanella, Bermant Development, spoke about the projects his company is working on, including the Dove Creek project, and how they have incorporated affordable units by working in partnership with a non-profit corporation. He contends that density bonuses on large projects make affordable housing work. His suggestions include: 1) look at what works between in-lieu fees and bonus density, 2) look at a voluntary program such as the one in place at the State level before creating an ordinance, and 3) partner with both profit and non profit developers, non profits have a Federal ID number and are a good source for government funds. Mr. Campanella answered questions of the Council and Commission. Mayor Clay recessed the hearing at 9:40 p.m. Mayor Clay called the meeting back to order at 9:50 p.m. • CC/PC Special Meeting 05/07/03 148 Page 3 Approved May 27,2003 Sara Horne, League of Women Voters, gave a brief background on the League and its interest in affordable housing. She discussed inclusionary housing and the use of "air rights." Ms. Horne spoke of the need for affordable housing in the county and invited all in attendance come to a Celebration of Community Housing on May 31". This celebration includes a trip around the county with the League to see affordable housing projects. Ms. Horne answered questions of the Council and Commission. Eric Russell, Accept + Mortgage, spoke about financing issues relating to affordable housing. He indicated that some uses are "un-lendable" by traditional lenders, i.e. mixed uses with multifamily residential in a retail district. Regarding the numbers of cities with inclusionary ordinances, Mr. Russell stated that many of those ordinances were done in the last two years when there was ample money available for first time homebuyers. However, at this point, much of this money is no longer available due to budget cuts. He indicated that it is impossible to predict how many affordable homes will qualify for loans, as there are lots of restrictions. Other issues involved in funding include the decrease in interest rates and timelines that are out of lenders control. Mr. Russell discussed loans for rental unit construction and answered questions of the Council and Commission. Public Comment Eric Greening, 7365 Valle Avenue, discussed how one of the biggest obstacles to housing • affordability is the intrinsic cost of maintaining an auto-dependent infrastructure. He suggested that one of the ways to promote housing affordability would be to make these costs consequences of auto ownership and driving, rather than of living under a roof. He suggested affirmative ways to overcome dependence on automobiles such as waiving parking requirements to create lower priced units for people who don't need to park. Mr. Greening felt every way available to over come auto addiction must be explored so that density can be increased in ways that will promote affordability but not result in traffic congestion, noise, pollution and blight. David Leipsiger, Los Osos, Member of the Board of Trustees of Habitat for Humanity for San Luis Obispo County, stated that Habitat is a genuine non-profit developer committed to providing very low-income housing all over the county. He indicated that people in the very low-income category want to own, not rent. In order to provide home ownership to these individuals Habitat is building smaller houses on smaller lots, and he stressed the importance of increasing density. Mr. Leipsiger discussed how Habitat for Humanity functions wit lout government subsidies. What they need more than anything is available land, which would require an increase in density factors. He felt low income houses should blend into the neighborhoods where they are constructed. Ray Belgams, Atascadero, encouraged the Council and Commission to utilize the Housing Trust fund and consider very low-income housing. George Moylan clarified that he though he likes the city of San Luis Obispo's inclusionary housing ordinance, he does not particularly like the way it has been implemented. He indicated CC/PC Special Meeting 05/07/03 Page 4 149 Approved May 27,2003 that inclusionary money could be used for any fee or cost in development of affordable housing as approved by the City Council. -- Mike Zappas, Atascadero, asked the Council and Commission to consider if an inclusionary fee would stimulate production of affordable housing in Atascadero. If that is the goal, it is important to look at what the funds that have been collected in other towns are being used for and whether they are actually stimulating affordable housing. Anita Robinson suggested the Council and Commission not get hung up on how projects get financed. She would like to see creativity and likes the mixed-use concept and indicated that the banking industry would figure out how to finance them. Mayor Clay closed the Public Comment period. Mayor Clay suggested that staff come back with a summary of issues raised this evening and schedule another joint meeting in two to three weeks on a Wednesday, but at 6:30 p.m., and have a public comment period as well as Council/Commission discussion. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Clay adjourned the City Council meeting at 10:35 p.m. Chairperson Fonzi adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:35 p.m. • MEETING RECORDED AND MINUTES PREPARED BY: Grace Pucci, Recording Secretary The following exhibits are available for review in the City Clerk's office. Exhibit A - Jerry Bunin, Home Builders Industry Association, PowerPoint presentation Exhibit B —David Taussig, Taussig and Associates, PowerPoint presentation CC/PC Special Meeting 05/07/03 150 Page 5 CM 2 : _ . . o � . E 2 & � ■ � CL . 2 R . k \ m ^ © ^ �& \ § JA 2 2 � � VE § R \ § § a § R \ G / § \ E § \ � & . cm .o 2 0 § . V kcc ■ a ■ ® c q § ■ e § k . V. = 2 \ _ . _ Ulm!- 151 c\j ) E ak � \ M § Ma CL k � ; � 0 § � a 2 � (D k & � ) ) « ke ) _%) � k § \ § § / / ) 3 §_ § & .2 2E ) / ) \ ) § . . � ) § R R - c N E , § 2 § z � ` § l k c = I ■ 0 z $ k G ■ 2 � « ■ � . � r , ' > 7 \} � C %CM f � to k � / R 30§ . ■ � « 152 ITEM NUMBER: C -2 �d DATE: 06/24/2003 �s:3p:F.'• 45 Atascadero City Council Staff Report - Community Development Department Eagle Ranch Sphere of Influence Amendment Sphere of Influence Amendment Request Memorandum of Agreement with San Luis Obispo County RECOMMENDATION: Council approve the Resolution of Application to amend the City's Sphere of Influence to include the portions of the Eagle Ranch, and authorize the signature of Memorandum of Agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo. • DISCUSSION: Background: During the update of the General Plan, the Eagle Ranch portion of the unincorporated Colony was identified as a future annexation area. Eagle Ranch consists of approximately 400 Colony lots with Water Company shares and covers nearly 3000 acres on the south side of the City. General Plan policy LOC 1.2.8. calls for the City to cooperate with LAFCO and the County on amending the City's sphere-of- influence to include Eagle Ranch. (Refer to Attachment 1). Currently Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) staff is beginning work on amending the City's sphere consistent with recent changes to State Law. At the May 27, 2003, Council meeting LAFCO Executive Officer, Paul Hood provided the Council with an update regarding the Sphere of Influence update being prepared by LAFCO for the City. The Local Agency Formation Commission is updating City's Sphere of Influence consistent with the Urban Reserve line of the recently adopted General Plan. A Resolution of Application, approved by the,City, is needed in order to proceed in the Sphere Update process. The Resolution of Application indicates the City's intent with regard to the Sphere Update and formally requests LAFCO to complete this process. The Sphere of Influence being considered includes only the Eagle Ranch area and is consistent with approved General Plan. A Municipal Service Review is completed as part of the Sphere Update process. (Refer to Attachment 3). 153 The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the County and the City provides for the agreement regarding the area to be included in the Sphere of Influence, outlines the Development Standards, and indicates the process for zoning the area. Discussions regarding the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the City and County have been ongoing and the attached agreement is a reflection of those negotiations. The property owner of the Eagle Ranch area has been involved in the discussions and is in concurrence with this Agreement. The MOA clarifies the intent of the City and the County with regard to the development of the Eagle Ranch area and provides a structure for continued discussion and dialogue. The MOA does not take away the City's authority and will not inhibit the City's capabilities to perform their legislative functions. It should enhance and improve the communication between the City and the County. (Refer to Attachment 4). FISCAL IMPACT: None. The Sphere of Influence Amendment would not have any fiscal impact on the City, and does not obligate the City to annex the area. Fiscal costs of annexation would be analyzed as part of a future project and could be mitigated. During the General Plan update, the City Council found that orderly development of Eagle Ranch within the City, as opposed to development within the County, would give the City the most control over future service costs and tax revenues related to the site. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Council may decide not to request the Sphere of Influence Amendment at this time. 2. The Council may refer the items back to staff for additional information or analysis. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant on required information. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: General Plan Urban Reserve Policies Attachment 2: General Plan Urban Reserve Diagram Attachment 3: Draft Resolution of Application Attachment 4: Memorandum of Agreement Attachment 5: LAFCO information 154 Attachment 1: General Plan Urban Reserve Policies 4:Cl�ft`i4lx;2ii:f:<:e f>FOni. P*lky 112: C-n- 3amthe r3rra3:#zbarmwr of A swasdfsw#:x#a3'.sEw3aar*d by sog3*.djnq tho hlistp is �:c�Calw-yy bo nd2804, , s ra3 s3C}i f333se with: Cala:n ly on Mgiooael Via miioq Y,o.5,f os immmadivo ft Colony. ?tom::31or #>x Gcri>:<# #F--#aq zihs 3 r, bous3d,sy�nhix bo-*t v kkbarf Rpm v L.; : -Sho n in Figwv 11-5, TW #axs 33 sztr>;rla#z ( 1S1n: WAIV 1SGe#bls,OY io *N uxu'IVQ§oi as IN$w#irmt<b•,fk'w�e##•Y€o!•i#i4.Cite w# ihir.bw33gwy i$jmw"Oen'Mh##.Q%wewW J Ik'us e��,.:. 4:#£'�t 33: fL•`Cf$3L>3YF1i-With¢1Y-r fs.>#.6#fiL*S;dEw!$33'31..6,a3Lu4Eitlf-#31:-wtd a& za#ayza!�riwss aVOZsf#xu=;313:woo. .: ft-*woh lh:.e CVmly•`.Cf:^,3333331htah 3a aaa>rrsbr# ar•.d rwa#4 nkl Awt 1.oft-ar;soat&.tux Vd'w- ft�k:a:r>rr>.Unix Mrf# #s33akaa1#6)t. • 4: 1a3 riC'u'r'er;A 3f-Afl 110 C was ly,f<rm;d'v,. rr ss3vr Nwp*r 1 blf:11>ar#i3t fw•fa M1 w&d-.gas ipiau 1 irsf s�l3xi. h, 3p"33Mf 1=4 ow rhang".owl.c#tbo Saw*Nv1Flw#:Wafl d rc w".1!A3 mm �. "�'s�,`if;K x�f#'7'1�frss$ti#��t,•#3�l8.�L�'a�$#t�vift3!!'`a'ri�`�f#!f�fs�4t:f��:�3';'�iEi�:£i�#¢U!�#ss�'x i!¥##t:F V,.•Y7#:l,lfs}t##; +Dti mf.-:1 f'gmwt in S F?3{l;;o 3F#£F<,,#;.�cA.`.'>,�.Op h3'Ah lx'ff n3 d:d yd`Fd'f4a:.?"w.1 Dgive.if6W'C.k''+ ''W3&.:> 11L#A�twS1f�3C:fl S'Er rw3 30$#6sld asnwa.ki'mr arr:3:Z.vm M1:0 waf'r3 '--O""fild d1h33 Cc'a di °a #lar€Maa1;3:N-mt s 3a:•#:o -gwreOus31 ct%:lizl,>.%4ua::. D. k..3331.;*-u4'*ipm;ko'OxAt b { 3'sk p*'I iM# O".Ift<Oity>3:W>'3r!} *wC'EO#'o-mr*1 Visem tao haw*ar�3ax a#i ar"W1133:qpp au!-.4. P1411 n£0xxf: Cil WO.,1'srWtit a.=npl.-larlmV3?c#rs=r#s r!!a 33k P# ! f £11ar papwrty"-*011 wftm ;5�31�.*.YG 3f3?�`:3t'�$If,�,i.#33o�fSE3��S��,r�<#;�`# ,�YIo.R�4 #33Cd#ii33.>'S;.G:'I��f.3#33+30!!'#333'•;#8i�2."a'.. ,42E"s�S, 3pcx.>.:Vast"r�sr:iry:�f�s_r##�t az3tlrs3� :..:fr�i1�a€la �1#3rfs#yk#a.saf Bei is.:r_>3 t`�f,. 1:l. updw o taxi raotlf81:3i vise Zonis g.Oadi#fesno4 lits ctanih s;slfs 1h a:?yi :# 331c3#.fpj*—t>im3 SS a k6a'0 i$p£'e d gaff 331va£0 b33 St!#!jvrr-tt KM3f v e�Mar'rraolta<we3d SAV S.K.'sc#w. i:f. .4K tk$G.y#'13r f,##f .rff>Sb51 s3 a pft34oa-j- G'�:'k1a33rf!>k�331 and.!F' Cf j33r yr CICw3is33:E'!'f-wif. Wa Im aap33C£ng a wail ufr-o.� i3 l;w 33XiCff F'G:£i1 3'a1 Of fh*. Sar31�;;3riii:�:3131rrd'af�;�z yrs ows3;;1�d E1 z 9£a1 Eagle Ranch General Plan Policies 155 Attachment 2: General Plan Urban Reserve Diagram CfEX Banntarics City urwts C!&y Beua4u�Sea' �_ • Wsnh�Rsro.�n�• �Slrhaie'Aessroa lies k . sV J a ,J \ �S i w.5'SN\�.V.�'� t :,1: f• � ���... t. v;� t'A�..� ♦(' r r . ` ,j J `•,\ L.rJ., l`Y�I. t ! �' .� S� � r�- ^,.t T ,�fl;,<'ni .'"• '♦1� '<'"��ic� ��� \ .M }f •:Y .t,. .. J 'fix"+ \ .� *)' .. -jam : % J -,3�...•y!J t-`y. Yi'C t ,; c .'�•-5 ... t ' �L' )'♦t�j� �� to f: _ Area of Sphere of Influence Update 5 .rrr Y ♦:j' '��� l.�� . 4 • 156 Resolution of Application • Attachment 3 Resolution of Application DRAFT RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ATASCADERO REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS OF ITS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND SERVICE UPDATE RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Atascadero, that, WHEREAS,the Local Agency Formation Commission will complete its determination of the updated Sphere of Influence pursuant to Government Code Section 56425 as part of its periodic review of Sphere of Influence for every City and Special District in the County of San Luis Obispo. WHEREAS, the Atascadero General Plan includes Land Use Policy 1.2 and Programs LOC 1.2.8, 9, 10, and 11 that direct the City to cooperate with LAFCO and the County of San Luis Obispo on the eventual annexation of the Eagle Ranch area that is included in the City's Urban Reserve Line as shown on Figure II-5 of the General Plan; and, WHEREAS, the proposed project has been analyzed adequately in the 2002 General Plan EIR pursuant to applicable standards and impacts have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to the that EIR. NOW, THEREFORE,this Resolution of Application is hereby adopted and approved by the City Council of Atascadero and the Local Agency Formation Commission • of San Luis Obispo County is hereby requested to initiate proceedings for the Sphere of Influence Update as authorized and in the manner provided by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg 157 Resolution of Application Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 consistent with the City's Urban Reserve . Line shown in Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of June, 2003, by the City Council of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California by the following vote: On motion by Council Member , and seconded by Council Member the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ADOPTED: By: Jerry L. Clay, Sr., Mayor Attest: Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk Approved as to form: Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney • 158 Resolution of Application • Exhibit A: Sphere of Influence Amendment Request Boundary.Map SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BOUNDARY MAP 6:7tY R:coSximf»>.. .. .. <-CSSy ZSraiiy' .ikoxw 5lxo:nrxo.laox� ,�y,��t�, [ y 5 i 4 L 1 ,YS '•k '�•�;' w. Aw {•� !�.e\ j. i r". •i�^frt". ?v eS�. r•• y jh• `iw.�•`. '�ti i�L}j,' j� J 'Z,w�.�4• 1 �oIh` .�'�^ lr. r.A v�,� { r I !✓1' � \j..,-y^ . y f rl {j Y�c ry �� 'c �, �'^c.,'>rr 1?'�-• �`�.'� v �• . r �a. ��f•�> ��"�!J t S �t•.ric>\ t+ { •tt � y���vy r 3�� . 1 „l A y ^s � {,a.c,�• > �� y>a r d. cY'� f,'' �'K.•.� L ��1,,^•� �r%� -` r`•- r i. of ���:.. � < �. \. - '�3,0�.•)' >?Y<`} :^'•,/ " XJ,c, r tr! YS. d o kt°� ^:' !�` < -C; y.er mow./ rj `•y,!L .� G.r -rf^y41 �w� t v'2. r.0 Y.J, > �'Yy� .• f2ry vy� {,, t��r`C �Jr!xrI ^�� i tv 1, rr{�'''\•/' a Y 4? r:.\\„r5 y Y�r ��.y>it�r{�,,✓-^'tc�jvo,rC{{S�! v. •yxCf .b.". vt'\;.y��.`�`. .) \i MJrr {a!;\{• fir? �t�'� t, ,v �f'�� vAt v�K''<r� jLi v<r� ;T f<`-'• 3�� v �'/ {\ H'a"'y"-� �� .� _>{r i ft,.fy r .YS`�>,',r�,�14',�. 'r {x/•\�`''r+�. { '.�oYy 7 Cyt. 6. � /yr t. r,':S t �•!" r,.{ � .� vv v \'. v ,��,�j`"V r :,J. ��„3+ r�'.'•'�".,.Y « ,,rS., J^+ ��'i'"; .'r , Sn�!" >, {i L3{ i�!, •,fit�`.++ti 3cr, u� � hr r����N. � r{{. / ✓�! . _jvfj` �'.r{ e rev•>. r ���irc�(+c� � �K:_ ���\":k{r rr K��r.•�}: .. ) :v� r�^r•:t./r {!�, r rYYv.. Sphere of Influence Eagle Ranch Area5<rJa y ! i 159 Eagle Ranch Sphere of Influence Update Memorandum of Agreement Attachment 4 Memorandum of Agreement • MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO REGARDING THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE This Agreement is entered into on this day of , 2003, by and between the City of Atascadero (hereafter"City") and the County San Luis Obispo County (hereafter"County"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS,the Cortese/Knox/Hertzberg Act ("the Act") requires the Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCO)to update the Spheres of Influence for all applicable jurisdictions in the County every five years; and • WHEREAS, a Sphere of Influence is defined by Government Code 56076 as a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, and pursuant to Government Code 56425 has been identified by the County of San Luis Obispo and the City of Atascadero as contained in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Act further requires that a Municipal Service Review be conducted prior to or, in conjunction with, the update of a Sphere of Influence and such a Municipal Service Review has been prepared by LAFCO staff in accordance with Section 56430 of the California Government Code as a means of identifying and evaluating public services provided by the City of Atascadero and changes to the City's Spheres of Influence and Service; and WHEREAS,the Act encourages the City and County to reach agreement regarding the boundaries (Exhibit A), development standards, and zoning requirements (Exhibit B)to ensure that development within the sphere occurs in an orderly and logical manner; and WHEREAS,the City's General Plan provides a clear policy base for growth and • development in the Sphere of Influence areas and defines programs that the City will 160 Eagle Ranch Sphere of Influence Update Memorandum of Agreement • implement to ensure the preservation of the agricultural land, open space and the rural character of Atascadero; and WHEREAS, the County's General Plan goals in Framework for Planning and the Salinas River Area Plan calls for Community Separators to provide for a community's distinctive identity and preserve the rural character of the areas between and on the fringes of communities and cities; and WHEREAS,the City and County have reached an agreement regarding the Sphere of Influence boundaries (Exhibit A), and the development standards and zoning requirements (Exhibit B); and WHEREAS,the Eagle Ranch Area includes approximately 400 colony lots, many of which have been certified as legal by the County, and the Atascadero Mutual Water Company is able to provide water service to these lots,therefore much of the Eagle Ranch Area can be developed in the County using the existing lot configuration; and • WHEREAS,LAFCO is required by Government Code 56425 (b)to give great weight to this agreement in making its final determination of the city's Sphere of Influence. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. The Sphere of Influence boundary contained in Exhibit A provides for the orderly and logical growth for the City of Atascadero and represents an appropriate 20-year growth boundary based on existing information. 2. The development standards and zoning requirements contained in Exhibit B provide a framework for completing updates to the General Plans of both the City and the County for the areas in the Sphere of Influence. 3. The development standards and zoning requirements contained in Exhibit B are intended to provide the City and the County with the basis for developing specific land use policies and standards for the areas in the City of Atascadero's Sphere of Influence and do not supersede or limit the planning or environmental review process • of either jurisdiction. 161 Eagle Ranch Sphere of Influence Update Memorandum of Agreement • Jerry L. Clay, Sr., Mayor, Chairman, Board of Supervisors City of Atascadero County of San Luis Obispo APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT: City Counsel County Counsel Dated: Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk County Clerk Recorder • Dated: Dated: • 162 Eagle Ranch Sphere of Influence Update Memorandum of Agreement • EXHIBIT A SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BOUNDARY MAP &ii9�!residatirt i:iip-`f.u"dsul8sixi' liii>feo fxexro t;inx. 3 NNN*�fi� 'c'•Esc �`1 fi `<p < , .., `r.�`")Sky w.>^'�--•�x`k S r `•. `�"'f 6 +r�J-.tf �_ i�,� --Y J��� 1C1� •t � J �t ,� s� s i�F�) l`yi 1�n`t�4 J F �y3.t 4/,fn�t t• t w' ,�� �y � ti�.•t t +. /.i/���� +�.� t✓''Jill>> � .`\>ini "% .N < .� +� �3 y4 J `w,,:•t . Ly 'r , t J +7 y }\hr E S: j, "S :�.y -. f -.A yaJ'• 'jy.4 �; �� y� �4f� /< � t •'M {�'J7if.>"r of W,�y. � AsJY � ., o �� V tirf f 9 t>✓ u„f• { r�, tJ-]yb x�,. � > t y y r>,yscro � �♦ �23 �.�/ +:'SM `.:..a,•t �s ✓M Vit• ),,� xJ3.i"y„„ ,��1C�.� ^^''`Y�< y i fir~ i, '. e �7 1 ; \y�rrLi,� ya y i `-t`t �r f i--t���� >i".(,rti'' x '`"'. qq,3' f,i ` `% �? r JL4N $+ .y J .. J'iy l:. Lt t t • �t r� � ttJJ i{ . �,w.> { .Sy.� +.; ♦..'�F' F> fYE" t� s�y�� y � 'by 'Sr4' re• N+, r ,fiY��'fr :! ,y �vF`\ y .t 1i {+•) ,"y a ),f '�i'r � ,2i�1�4*'t; � r n�,.• f+.; nii-`J,J�> '��JC� / Sphere of Influence Eagle Ranch Area 163 Eagle Ranch Sphere of Influence Update Memorandum of Agreement EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND ZONING REQUIREMENTS The following development standards and zoning requirements are agreed to and shall be used by the City of Atascadero and the County to guide development within the proposed Sphere of Influence as described in Exhibit A and to update their General Plans. 1. Intent. It is the intent of the County and the City to work cooperatively towards the goal of developing the agreed upon Sphere of Influence (as shown in Exhibit A) in an orderly and logical manner consistent with the Cortese/Knox/Hertzberg Act, the City and County General Plans, the California Environmental Quality Act and any other applicable laws and regulations. 2. Interagency Cooperation. The City and the County shall work cooperatively on planning for land use, circulation connections, agricultural land and open space preservation by referring discretionary development projects and General Plan Amendments within each agency's jurisdiction to the other for review and comment prior to action on a development proposal. The County shall seek the City's comment regarding projects in the area between Vineyard Drive and Cuesta Grade, between the ridges east of the Salinas River and Cerro Alto Campground. The City shall seek the County's comment regarding projects that affect unincorporated areas surrounding the fringe area of the city. When a discretionary project application is accepted for processing, it shall be referred immediately to the following contact person(s) for early review and comment: Principal Planner, Long Range Planning Community Development Director Department of Planning and Building Community Development County Government Center 6500 Palma Ave. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Atascadero,CA 93422 This provision shall not supersede or terminate other methods of commenting or providing feedback regarding a proposal or project. 3. Interim Development. The County shall limit the development in the Sphere of Influence area to that which is allowed by the current land use designations. The County and City acknowledge that the proposed SOI area includes several parcels i not under Williamson Act Contracts that could be developed with single-family 164 Eagle Ranch Sphere of Influence Update Memorandum of Agreement • homes. Residences and other currently allowable uses may be permitted pursuant to the land-use policies and standards of the County. Recognizing that the existing Colony lots have entitlements to water supply from Atascadero Mutual Water Company, it is the intent of the City to provide other services to these areas when they are eventually annexed to the City. The County shall give great weight to this fact when reviewing projects in this SOI area. The property within the SOI and a significant number of acres outside the SOI, are presently under contract for Williamson Act. However, the property owner of the land in the proposed SOI has filed for non-renewal and the contracts will be terminated on January 1, 2009. Any project proposed in the County and within the proposed SOI area that is subject to an Initial Study under CEQA, shall cause the City and County representatives to call for a conference to discuss the proposed project, prior to completion of the Initial Study. The purpose of the conference would be to . discuss the City's and County's General Plan policies with regard to the project and to identify any key issues that may need special attention. 4. City/County Cooperation. For any project proposed prior to annexation, the County and City will cooperate to evaluate the creation and implementation of various assessment and financing mechanisms for the construction and maintenance of public improvements, such as roads, utilities, recreation and trail improvements, parks and open space, and similar improvements that could serve visitors and residents of the City and the County. 5. Constraints Analysis. A constraints analysis that studies resources and issues such as, but not limited to biology, oak woodland habitat, 100 year flood plain areas, agricultural lands and soils, open space resources, cultural resources, topography and steep slopes, circulation, visual and fiscal implications shall be prepared for the SOI area. The Constraints Analysis shall be used to prepare the Specific Plan, and shall be completed prior to the preparation of the formal CEQA documentation. • 165 Eagle Ranch Sphere of Influence Update Memorandum of Agreement 6. Agriculture and Open Space. Prior to annexation by the City, the City and the County shall work together to preserve the agricultural and open space resources in the SOI area. Special attention shall be given to addressing the criteria contained in Agricultural Policy 24 (or as updated by the County) of the County's Agriculture and Open Space Element (Exhibit Q. This shall be evident in the preparation of the Constraints Analysis, Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report. The remainder of agricultural area outside the SOI shall not be included in the Constraints Analysis or the City's Specific Plan. However, should any development occur in the area outside the SOI which differs from its current configuration, this remaining area may be separately analyzed by the County to identify possible conservation and development options for the agricultural lands. Options to be considered for the area outside the SOI may include transferring density to the SOI area, agricultural preserves, agriculture clustering of development, or other preservation measures. 7. Land Uses. The proposed areas being added to the SOI as described in Exhibit A may include residential, mixed-use, public facilities, visitor-serving, agriculture uses, open space, and/or recreational uses in a manner integrated into the city's • plans for annexation and development for this area. The Smart Growth Principals adopted in the City's General Plan shall be used as a basis of preparing plans for the area. 8. General Plan Amendment. The City intends to complete pre-zoning, pre- annexation, and any necessary pre-general plan amendment activities prior to or concurrent with an annexation proposal being processed by LAFCO. The County intends to complete any necessary amendments to its General Plan in the Salinas River Area Plan to reflect the annexation of territory to the City of Atascadero. 9. Zoning Requirements/Specific Plan. A Specific Plan, which identifies land uses within the Sphere of Influence areas, shall be prepared and adopted by the City prior to or concurrent with the annexation of the property into the City and in accordance with it's General Plan CEQA review of the Specific Plan shall include analysis of issues related to completing the annexation, such as a reliable and adequate water supply, sewer capacity, and other services for the proposed project. The Specific Plan for the Sphere of Influence area shall be prepared 166 Eagle Ranch Sphere of Influence Update Memorandum of Agreement • consistent with Policy 1.2 (Exhibit D) of the City's General Plan. Programs related to the Sphere of Influence area in the City's General Plan that shall be implemented under policy 1.2 include eight, nine, ten, and eleven. 10. Process and Timing of Actions. Several actions are scheduled to be completed prior to the City annexing properties located in the Sphere of Influence as shown in Exhibit A. Please note the target dates are intended to be advisory in nature: Action Agency Target Date 1. Sphere of Influence Update/MSR LAFCO 2003 2. Project Referrals County and City On-going 3. Non-renewal of Agriculture Preserve County of San Luis Obispo 2009 4. Specific Plan Consideration City of Atascadero 2004-2008 5.Annexation Request&Pre-zoning City of Atascadero 2005-2009 6.Annexation Consideration LAFCO 2007-2009 167 Eagle Ranch Sphere of Influence Update Memorandum of Agreement ENMIT C • County's Agricultural-Open Space Element Policy#24 GP24.x COMDR Of A94cWtur0l LMd, a., ��' u tic ��c ��' arirnl�larail t�da to nf�n�rialtaara��l aaa t 'Vagh.the r4owing actions: ark, in amraaition �*dtb the incorporated citi ,. mice dlatricta." school dhWicM, the (QunO ftevent: Or " lure, the A rkUltnn Uai$0" _Board, Farua l;UMU.,, aat:d aff-00cd ctlmmii '. Awry grgups.to f%tAbfi sh urban serviim and urban reserve rwom and valla r "ve,j1u tlauit will.protea agriculfttral 1=4 and will%,ft ffize agriculture at die urban fie. rFitaMiSh clftr criteria in this plan and: the ted Vse Eknue lt. fOr changing the d+ ignation of land trim Agdoulture to non-8081410 it Avoid Wnd redt5i tatwi n I ftzOni* that. 'wO ld sreatc nt!w rVral r identiaal development outside the urban and Village r"C"e liru . 4� Avoid loesding new t"k, fACAI outside urban and village reserve . liter atarlm the y gerve. ani mrO huxtion or there is 'no f i la alternative:;:tion Within the urbiM.MA vitlAg aftWwo 110ft. Tla pua lm of els pall cy is till:to prowt zri; turad land at lig aar fringe.by lint Via:e aanitten of urban do,otsapmmt;and to d�s��aa"��e urID <�azi�urlaaaa. sprawl by pr a siug I pros*&V610 ent itato tits do itra lar ofd c�utaty. ASric ltural WA is often wnveMd.to od*r tt fora variety Of r ,acus.,it udtaa >urbat S mwth pre&gtm, rising Ind valuci andsp*culaticso, omnpefifian between Urban and agtit4ltunl Wqa ft,desirabifit.V of.Lirge-lax coral bmiesites., s bdiviai0n of Wtw'uitural prqmda irato rAreek too MWI to mstaivaglicultural wft-*S,pkem :11-M ani-estdmeuti to non-agriculluml land iu aA.806CS, Md a lea of- ail ie:&that owely define ur.&r what c rmmiame agricult al .U,n& should Ian DanY to otlacr W8015 aDd 104 u9t dewsigmions in.ft gavra Plan,. This wnverswn of aglicultaral land.has tlse pr tial to V�erau�ly�e t loam-terata:p�t � t$r��a�ricaalttaral artn �s�.,�. Evm,w i€13.ft s ing Will aw*son Ad paa ran in alae€qty, there has been parmstwc to r# crt airultl Mit:tt rttr raa-arlautturral ei adrou of tltuiTE in l i.ovur as ccs of land eve lin fmined.fmm:the gri;LUAorr;03f4ory tri non- agricultunt land ust.-,awg ei in the,uniwotiXtrated arms of ft QWWY.. Stgtigicf ftrn tiae state Depar(Mt kif C,omwratkm t of d Mappinf rNmm alae that in Oe 1wriod betwttm 1,q84 m IM tt�tam; yen Icer w1 ch sta&dcs are avallablO. *crou-4=ovoaralil dearaso in.ag cuftizal laxed of at**A 1.4,8W Acarel. There ss a net 168 Eagle Ranch Sphere of Influence Update Memorandum of Agreement • I (:V"' IMP ulXWIYards�� the net aamp tit Famihmd of atr-M&I portamr alp by 783=--res, T1*LUE cmtam a mmber of ggoncral goals that f its On the eriv lrt'mn=t, dist �s t �n of latal4 uses, pal€c st ry cef- d. facillti=s. Cm-dma with ase *Ai, spedfic crhedasu€ndd d alopc-d for whon it nmy be proprlatt to conVert a rkultural land.,; offier uses 110 anteria. shml.d iur lude,W nal,nr— -rilV 1`inited to, tht fbllov°*" Do not.=V�and existing urban or villagour a Until such areas an.tamely bwlt ux or until such tit as addadWW land'.hz noedod.r*=Mnlodate POCm :rY USCS Or wrvims tbgt canmtt4hemaisv be: Acamunodafted wftlrin tb,- oxisf ng urban or villagee,arm Urban or vilhge eXpamsim should c"ur only whem coat€guoms to IU existia1 urbxVvjjj,age restrvc Iirt ,. s. a irr t.t a° Ia rte. rm here in entirely :rte urban or -611290 arta ill� mom:-ed ib orda to ditoct develfTnient a ny frc sttrrombng a.gdcultard or upon spur rosources, *Atte attn mxpatrsim is to occur,it shall be momc l to an InwrPmtodcity or atr trs sti :t to trkts ley is s d t �tfc=ay si tu�i� .;sty, .e annrixot shall ocwr only wbare tho clustered developmou fam mral proptay is to brt ImatW Adjacent to the urban moa,or when:highcr deraity de-Velopmat U to=V' r and why such deve-lopment is co istmt with soarc- aud style CVs Ittk� WA Where a rictrllt#od fid is pw fined for conversion to urba anbnrben asps, give e sitmtion to ft prOWR trf 99AMIOX91 it 01'0lUMA8 PdOriq Order; rov.,crkop terrain:a sw ls.,.sp ialty Crops md Baran lames.,.&.V farm.lam, aind ranplands for graAng. 169 Eagle Ranch Sphere of Influence Update Memorandum of Agreement EXHIBIT D City of Atascadero General Plan Policies Wo mml ubsnKtor*F AUst-Aftr*js pr"-0004 b-,4?""-4009 the WOO eon*#:y 6t3a allarimand 4w*vM;tv with?.he C*Unty<M mgbaal Planning Wsuvs; rwww*3diftg 1htWonv� trvv �n& L 1�'wwn M Hoge 11-5, IN--Olt=RouRe W.0 IS12 Awozsdel tsO�)� svmklwaut-d-&S'V`w'ukim*w WwAdwy bf.Ow Qv of Almm4om- bvywIdIt"is t7mo59.Nivy j4kxzvwe'*Owtw A?6&1�.t G-evw-W pfws with 010.Cs"wN bann 1dil"Owin 4, the �wm ft wwtfttnq: "' Oof iowmvo NOW deMly i3' Ovpi�U-any iatsd was 1"halvoc.-S by ft cklsum'-f Va*m *1 Mt a0l4wvy Vvtvw.'A13 g-vmAl kIms.-It W$."n w- <.,�O Mot?le T'. Eiewle D' al:W& wwebv bo Cow.'.'j ftkCity�C*.mm'vfl :K41: ps*pwwm n tht"sir 3 h au3er#MCI vyw:d Wv* Cw-4r0';3:-Zr'4&' twtwm 1 vuvO'-0 tzoms my-of w.ld 0n:X$AWO CAwfsf*'e$'wW' t. Otmpwaft 8MV-s LAFW iwd thR.C*Zxtry tw.h1w5m4aw sbo eap-Awtln k"I*�-Jo tbj'ia $J#wvt*t WWw=3'w--wmr4swa)km P".ir;viv,-oKy�gs4w"V.w'#- I. as 4*4"n, w Oppositw, to of E4*.'Pw'.0 as spod§�O%m tbO be aEKxtwej- tq iN'-City witr*k4s rwMwknVvO prm tot Ift pv'v�wK2lv MiAwIdgm. *f 0�."s3wv lob., +1 t f, im .' 'k, to tmwbj*r1 iwL"Iw*Vw"ofmank-o'l W-d t33 wvwxalilm, sk Ozor'UM J�sgiw San Rwaw wuw*mao On ft vomlmw- :o sula 1:01 170 Attachment 5 LAFCO information SAN LUIS OBISPO - LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION SERVICE REVIEW INFORMATION NEEDS As you may know, the Cortese/Knox/HertzbergAct mandated that all Local Agency Formation Commissions in the State update the Sphere of Influences of jurisdictions within five years. The Office of Planning and Research has developed guidelines,which identify the type of information needed to prepare a Service Review. Information related to the following topics is needed to prepare the Review: 1. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies: This refers to public services and facilities such as sewage disposal systems, water supply systems, roads and other utility systems. Information is needed about the status of the existing infrastructure serving existing development and planned infrastructure to accommodate future development. 2. Growth and Population: This refers to growth and development patterns as well as projected population and population density. These are key factors to consider when updating the Sphere of Influence. 3. Financing Constraints and Opportunities: This refers to the cost and implementation of financing mechanisms used to fund needed improvements and enhance revenue streams. Information needed includes; agency investment policies, plans for financing future infrastructure needs,and bond rating of the agency. • 4. Cost Avoidance Opportunities: This refers to opportunities to eliminate unnecessary costs derived from duplication of services and facilities, reliance on outdated or deterioting infrastructure and equipment, underutilized equipment or buildings, and overlapping or inefficient service boundaries. 5. Rate Restructuring: This refers to stabilize and minimizing service rates as much as possible. Please identify best practices used by your agency that could be useful to other agencies. 6. Opportunities for Shared Facilities: This refers to cost saving that may be gained if service providers develop strategies for sharing facilities and resource. Many services providers share communication centers, wastewater treatment facilities and distribution lines. Sharing facilities and utilizing excess capacity in another agency's service system can reduce. 7. Government Structure Options: As part of the Service Review LAFCO may recommend the creation, update or amendment of the SOIs of cities and special districts. LAFCO may also recommend the formation/dissolution of Special Districts, consolidation of cities or special districts, annexations or detachment to cities or city incorporations or disincorporation. 8. Management Efficiencies and Budget Information: This refers to the highest-level quality public services with the lowest necessary expenditure of public funds. The Service Review guideline identifies several key factors in determining management efficiency; continuous improvement plans, strategies for budgeting, managing costs and training personnel, and maintain adequate contingency reserves. 9. Local Accountability/Governance: This refers to public accessibility of staff, elected officials, the noticing and public participation procedures, the availability of documents, and how an the agency measures and discloses results of programs and services to the public. Any information you can provide about the above topics would be appreciated. Please send copies to: David Church,SLOLAFCO,1042 Pacific St.,Suite A,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 - 805-788-2096 Email Address: Dchurch(a)slolafco.com 171 Sphere Update Process 0 Step I : Information Gathering Step II : Preparing Documents Step III : Public Review 45-60 Day Period Step IV: Public Hearings • 172 ITEM NUMBER: C-3 DATE: 06/24/2003 --R:: san..«�.g}. Atascadero City Council Staff Report -Administrative Services Department Participation in California Joint Powers Insurance Authority Liability Program RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt draft Resolution approving execution of the joint powers agreement creating California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA), and further approving participation in its Joint Protection Program providing liability coverage through self insurance, loss pooling and excess insurance. DISCUSSION: The City has historically obtained liability coverage from CCCSIF; however, on May 28, 2003, the Board of Directors for CCCSIF voted to, in effect, dissolve its liability program and have each member City (with the exception of Lompoc) join CJPIA. CCCSIF will continue to administer existing claims and future claims relating to the coverage years, but it will no longer offer liability coverage after June 30, 2003. Due to a combination of low interest rates and September 11th losses, the CCCSIF board was given a very bleak forecast for both the cost and availability of public entity liability insurance. The board directed the CCCSIF administrators to return with liability program alternatives. Three program options were available to Board. 1. Each member City could join CJPIA, a risk-sharing joint powers authority made up of 92 small cities. (The estimated 2003-2004 cost for Atascadero is $243,700.) 2. Each member City could join CPEIA, a risk—sharing joint powers authority, which includes 53 counties along with a small number of cities. (The estimated 2003- 2004 cost for Atascadero would be $267,500.) 3. Continue the CCCSIF Liability Program and raise self-insured retentions from $100,000 to $250,000. (The estimated 2003-2004 cost for Atascadero would be $319,000) 173 ITEM NUMBER: C -3 DATE: 06/24/2003 Due .to the lower cost and the reduction of dependency on the commercial insurance �. market, the CCCSIF Board voted in a 7-1 vote to join CJPIA. The attached resolution is required by CJPIA in order to participate in their Liability Program. FISCAL IMPACT: Estimated 2003-2004 premium of $243,718. These funds have been included in the 2003-2004 budget. ALTERNATIVES: The City could join CPEIA. (CPEIA has not clearly indicated that they would accept the City at this point in time.) ATTACHMENT: Draft Resolution 174 DRAFT RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA APPROVING EXECUTION OF THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CREATING CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY, AND FURTHER APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN ITS JOINT PROTECTION PROGRAM PROVIDING LIABILITY COVERAGE THROUGH SELF-INSURANCE,LOSS POOLING AND EXCESS INSURANCE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 990, 990.4, 990.8 and 6500 of the Government Code, CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY ("CALIFORNIA JPIA") has been created by a Joint Powers Agreement; and WHEREAS, a Joint Protection Program has been developed by said CALIFORNIA JPIA pursuant to the provisions of said Agreement; and . WHEREAS, Article 21 of said Agreement provides for additional members to become parties to the Joint Powers Agreement creating the CALIFORNIA JPIA, after the first year of its operation, and thereupon enter the Joint Protection Program providing General and Automobile Liability Coverage through self-insurance and loss pooling; and WHEREAS, the self-insurance and loss pooling programs of the CALIFORNIA JPIA, as well as its group insurance coverage programs, offer significant advantages to the City in terms of cost, protection, risk management and loss control advice and assistance, and entering such programs would be and is in the best interest of this City. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, ORDER AND DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING: Section 1. That the Mayor of the City of Atascadero is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Joint Powers Agreement on behalf of the City of Atascadero binding the Member to the terms and conditions of said Agreement. Section 2. That the City of Atascadero hereby joins the Joint Protection Program of CALIFORNIA JPIA, providing self-insurance and loss pooling for General and Automobile Liability for a period of not less than three (3)years. is 175 PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Atascadero this 24th day of June 2003 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CITY OF ATASCADERO JERRY L. CLAY, SR., Mayor ATTEST: MARCIA M. TORGERSON, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROY A. HANLEY, City Attorney 176 ITEM NUMBER: C -4 DATE: 06/24/03 Atascadero City Council City Manager's Office Information Bulletin A. Atascadero Chamber of Commerce Services The City Council, at their June 10, 2003 meeting, requested staff bring back information detailing the Chamber's services. Please find attached to this bulletin a copy of the following: ■ City Report for Chamber 's activities and Programs January through May 2003 ■ Agreement for Community Promotion Services, entered into by and between the City of Atascadero and the Chamber of Commerce in 1992. • 177 taseadero C haimbeiof commerce 6550 EI(amino Real•Atascadero,CA 93422•(805) 466-2044•Fax (805) 466-9218•www.otoscaderochomber. June 12, 2003 City Report for Chamber's Activities and Programs January through May 2003 Programs and Events In January the Chamber celebrated the eighty-second year of a business organization in existence in Atascadero with its Annual Dinner. Awards were given to deserving businesses that make Atascadero a better community. George Molina received the highest honor, Citizen of the Year, Santa Lucia Bank received the Business of the Year award, and Lee Swam received Business Person of the Year award. Atascadero Kiwanis were singled out as top community organization of the Year and Police Chief Dennis Hegwood, and Joe DiDomenico received Community Service Awards. We are a lucky community to have such top notch talent contributing to the welfare of all of Atascadero The Chamber's co-op advertising program,Discover Atascadero was so successful in 2002 that all media suppliers, Charter Media and KXDZ radio, signed on again for 2003. However., a new name is being applied, "Experience Atascadero". The tag line is now that you have discovered Atascadero"Experience Atascadero. Atascadero business is reaping the rewards for these advertising efforts. The reduced fee structure has shown many businesses that they can afford effective advertising. Our community as a whole is in front of many more households with the shared promotional spots. Our campaign has since been adopted by other communities such as Morro Bay,Paso Robles Main Street and Pismo Beach to name a few. This successful ad campaign will be kept fresh through this entire year and draw attention to the many shopping,dining and recreational uses such as our Lake Park and Zoo Atascadero has to offer. Our Media and Marketing committee along with the Board of Directors created the "Magic" in Atascadero with a half day workshop March 4h. The Atascadero Chamber, City of Atascadero and Pacific Gas&Electric Company were the presenting sponsors of "the Disney Way"that took place at the Pavilion. Bill Capodagli and Lynn Jackson, authors of the book, The Disney Way captivated 240 business people with the principles that made Walt Disney so successful. The group was lead through a series of exercises for management success. Creating a story board to find the key principals to customer service in any type of business had all guests out of their seats working through hands on experience. This event was a huge success in bringing good management values to help in the success of every business that attended. Comments I received after the workshop were, "I incorporated that I learned in our staff retreat and the results were truly amazing."Plans are being looked at to bringing them back for a sequel with new information for next year. 178 • The Media group also assisted in the creation of our second annual publication of the Action Plan 2003.A copy has been included so you can see in a concise format the goals and objectives of the Chamber for 2203. Three months of planning went into the Third Annual Mid Year Economic Forecast the City is co-sponsored with the Chamber. Bill Watkins from the UCSB Economic Forecast Project has been hired to create information exclusively on Atascadero. The Chamber has also scheduled four key individuals to remark on major issues facing their industries. Dennis Moresco gave the group insight on the building industry trends and pitfalls, Sheilla Griffie from the Paso Robles Vintners&Growers Association spurred us on to develop ways to harness tourist dollars that come to the region, Julian Crocker, Superintendent of County School lead us through the budget and personnel issues facing Atascadero Schools with a shrinking population and Barrie Hafler from the State Hospital updated the group on the State Hospital and their workforce. In January the Chamber awarded$2,000 in grants to Educators that brought business into their classroom curriculum in creative ways. Businesses and teachers were also recognized for their ongoing efforts to bring real life activities into their classrooms. San Gabriel Elementary teachers,Atascadero Junior High,North County Christian School and Atascadero High School all received money towards worthy projects. Grants were made possible by the Chamber,Mid State Bank&Trust, and Atascadero Rotary. Plans • are underway for next years grant awards since the success in the classroom has been so great in fostering our youth in creating connections between school and business. The Chamber members have also once again supported our High School students by providing for$3,000 in scholarships to graduating seniors that are going to further their education in business. Three very deserving seniors each received$1,000;Bonnie Douglas,Eric Payton and Adrienne Rouse. The Legislative Committee worked on reviewing the new Administrative and Impact Fees and made recommendations to the Chamber Board and Council. Other issues being studied are Workers Compensation,Health Insurance the Sign Ordinance and State budget issues. Joanne also visited Sacramento to lobby legislatures on key issues affecting small business including the VLF fees and cuts to cities. The Retail Committee successfully hosted the Spring into Atascadero City Wide Sale. Forty businesses participated in the event which was advertised in the Atascadero News, and Charter Media. Over 6,000 entries were tallied to have a chance to win one of the three shopping sprees awarded to use in our participating stores. Sponsors of the Event were the Atascadero News, Charter Media,Atascadero Main Street and the Chamber of Commerce. Plans are underway for the Summer-Sell-A-Bration sale in July. The Chamber is involved in the Partners in Public Health,Health Collaborative for . Atascadero and heads up the economic health portion of the grant. Funds are available to provide free consultation to businesses whether they are members of the Chamber or not 179 in four key areas. The following professionals have agreed to a reduced fee schedule for their services that the grant pays for their consultation. Pierre Rademaker of Rademaker Design assists businesses in evaluating their storefronts as well as display and entrance areas.Casey Paterson from CJP Production assists businesses in their Architectural Landscaping for their businesses. Joe Modica of Modica Financial assists in developing business plans, financial statements, employment matters and a host of other services to ensure the health of a business. Janice Silva of Smart Ideas assists businesses in creative marketing ideas to promote their businesses. So far the following businesses have received this great benefit;McNamara Electric, Strictly Gourmet,Paul McGill for a traffic Way&9ade,Idler's, Glen Oaks Plaza,Best Western Colony Inn, Carlyne's Cafe, North County Hearing,Tammy Anderson and Rise Macare. An additional project funded by the Partners in Public Health is the Office of Economic Development brochure. This pamphlet was a collaboration of the Chamber and John Janson with Redevelopment agency. This brochure provides key information for anyone interested in locating or expanding a business here. Important phone numbers for City departments and local organizations are at their fingertips. These brochures are distributed at the Chamber office, City Receptionist and Atascadero Main Street. The premier publication for Atascadero,the Business Directory and Visitor Guide was published June 4 after four months of preparation. A new local Graphic Artist,JEM Design, created the graphics to coincide with the new Atascadero Colony Logo that was created last year and ColorCraft Printing printed the guide. We strive to print local when • it is affordable and meets our needs. The guide is full of information for the Visitor as well as the new comer to Atascadero. The business directory is a handy tool to remind residents to look up local businesses easily to trade with. The 16,000 Atascadero Information Rack cards have been reprinted and are being distributed to 181 locations by certified rack displays. Marketing to existing visitors in the County is key to pointing people to enjoy our Zoo, Parks, Shops, Restaurants and Hotels in Atascadero. Tuesday Evening in the Park BBQ dates are all set for the local clubs and organizations to reap the benefits of an easy summer fundraiser. This is the eighth year the Chamber has organized this community event. The Atascadero Elk's are again supplying the BBQ talent to ensure quality and consistency throughout the summer. Non-profit groups gathered in March to pick their date to sell tickets and serve. The average dinners served are between 400 -500, with groups such as ECCHO reaching 600. We have added two dates to the line up to accommodate the growing number of groups wanting to participate. The following is a list of items we have handled in the first 5 months of 2003. Monthly Newsletters were published and sent to our now 538 members. 180 • Held monthly Membership Mixers at community businesses with 125 guests averaging each month. As of this time our Ambassadors have personally visited 146 existing business members. Currently there are 15 Chamber Ambassadors that volunteer their time to visit businesses each month to see how their business is doing and if there is anything the Chamber can do to help in their business. All 50 new Chamber members received calls from our Ambassadors inviting and informing them of the programs we have going in the month. The response has been good. The Ambassadors have been key to helping at all the Chamber functions. We are noted by many that our Chamber is full of very friendly people that make them feel welcome. The Chamber sold numerous tickets for local organization fund raising, concerts,and theatre groups. SLO Passport AHS Drama Booster- Wine Tasting&Auction A Touch of Magic—Assistance League of SLO County North County Symphony Guild—Classical Music Atascadero Native Tree Association—Bo Native Art Show at the Pavilion AHS—Triple Threat Dance Show AHS—High School Europe Club Evening in Europe • Atascadero Wine Festival—Coordinate tickets for dinner and the festival Atascadero Rotary—Barnyard Blues&Jazz Atascadero Historical.Society—Colony Home Tour Mid Coast Productions—Atascadero Land Preservation Society Pine Mountain Festival AHS Project Theatre, Celebrate Life AHS Band Booster—Jazz&Tea at Garden Farms The Chamber has been involved in the following local programs Main Street Economic Development,Partners in Public Health, Colony Days and the Atascadero Wine Festival. Joanne is a member of SLOCHEX, SLO County Chamber Executives,organization and the Zoological Society Board. Joanne also is remaining for a third term as Vocation Chair for Rotary 2003-2004. The main project as chair was a Leadership and Ethics Conference that was held with Atascadero High School Juniors and seniors in March 2003. This half- day program highlighted the qualities for a good leader and posed some ethical questions that sparked thought. The program was lively and thought to be very successful. Plans will be underway for a third event next year. Rotary received an award of appreciation from the Atascadero Youth Task Force for their work in the Community Leadership& Ethics Conference. • 181 2003 Visitor Information Services provided,January through May • Phone calls logged 4,246 Visitors 2,737 Relocation Packets Mailed 67 Email response 82 We received the following Website visits. These figures are truly encouraging and seem to be growing every quarter. With our new expanded Website we will continue to see these numbers increase. General Info 6,555 Visitor Info 4,093 Lodging 2,793 Restaurants 1,769 Events 2,402 Surrounding Area 1,720 Chamber Program 2,663 Business Guide 14,275 Contact Us for Info 861 51 new businesses were welcomed into the Chamber since January 1 of thist year. Our • total membership now is 538. Economic Development The Chamber is trying to track people that have requested business location or expansion information from the Chamber. Not all people are willing to share their information until they have completed their research. Big Bubbas Bad BBQ Will Wooley from El Pollo Loco The Parable, purchase and possible relocation Requested traffic count to locate a business Promo's and PSA run on Charter Media Channels Experience Atascadero Campaign $94,935 Spring into Atascadero $500 The Disney Way $7,440 Total Charter Promotinal Spots $102,875 Paid ads with Charter for Spring into Atascadero Sale $500 • 182 Contract No.,-92022 AGREEMENT FOR COMMUNITY PROMOTION SERVICES . THIS AGREEMENT, effective August 11 , 1992, is entered into by and between the City of Atascadero, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City" ) , and the Atascadero Chamber of Commerce, a non-profit corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Chamber" ) . WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City desires to promote its advantages as a business, retail, commercial, recreational, and residential center, disseminating information relative; thereto, and propex<ly follow up and give consideration to inquiries made from time to time relative to the various activities of City and its possibilities; and WHEREAS, City desires Chamber to perform certain promotional and other services for City, which City believes will be of great advantage and benefit to City, and to the citizens, residents, property owners, and taxpayers thereof, and will promote the general welfare: and WHEREAS, Chamber is organized for such promotional activities on behalf of City, and is in a position to accomplish • such aims and purposes of City in an efficient and economical manner; and WHEREAS, Section 37110 of the Government Code of the State of California authorizes the expenditure of public funds by a municipal corporation for advertising or publicity as therein 9,nd herein provided; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and covenants and promises hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 1. That the foregoing recitals are true and correct and constitute statements of fact herein. 2. Chamber shall carry on promotional activities as follows: a. Maintain a public office to be identified by suitable sign that will be readily identifiable by members of the public, and provide information to visitors, tourists, businesses, commercial interests, professional people, and residents. A staff member or members of Chamber will be available daily during regular office hours, Monday through Friday. If additional office hours are required, City agrees to • 1 184 f pay separately for those hours, and for the reasonable cost for • such hours. b. Employ competent personnel to carry on promotional activities herein enumerated. C. Answer promptly all correspondence relative to the business, industrial, residential, educational, cultural, and recreational advantages and opportunities in City, and disseminate information by correspondence, newspaper publicity, and personal contacts, favorably advertising such advantages and opportunities. d. Prepare articles and news stories, compile data, gather and assemble news items, photographs, literature, and demographic and historical articles descriptive of City' s resources, and develop proper surveys whereby outside interests and individuals may be induced to locate in City, pursuant to City' s General Plan or specific Council direction. e. Supply maps and promotional literature about City and maintain files on economic conditions, commercial and industrial sites, tourist information, and general business information about the community. Chamber will be responsible for updating published information included in Chamber literature, although City agrees to cooperate with Chamber in sharing • information. These materials will be available to visitors, tourists, and potential commercial interest who are seeking information. f. Aid in promoting the development and use of unoccupied and vacant commercial and/or industrial properties. g. Interview business and industrial executives with the view of urging the establishment of their business activities in City, pursuant to City' s General Plan or specific Council direction. h. Promote and invite trade and business meetings, celebrations, and conferences whereby outside interests and individuals may become acquainted with the advantages and opportunities in City. i. Carry on such other duties as may be requested by City to promote the business, industrial, and residential development of City. 3. Chamber shall furnish semi-annual reports of its promotional activities to City, which shall consist of the activities scheduled for the next six succeeding months and a review of the activities accomplished during the preceding six • months. Said reports shall include a detailed breakdown of all 2 a 185 4. Chamber will submit to City a budget request and program for each fiscal year (July 1 to June 30) in the manner, • at the time, and in the form requested by the City Manager. The amount of the budget request shall be based upon a formula approved by the City Council, attached to this agreement as Exhibit A, and as may be amended by Resolution of the Council from time to time. The amount shall be allocated as follows: one-half shall be paid in advance in July (or immediately after the City' s annual budget is adopted, whichever is later) and the balance due in January of the same fiscal year. 5. This Agreement shall become effective on the date of execution hereof by both parties, and shall continue in effect until June 30, 1993; provided, however, that this Agreement shall be automatically renewed each year hereafter, for periods of one year, commencing July 1 through June 30 of the succeeding year, by action of the City Council budgeting funds as provided in Paragraph 4 hereof, and Chamber' s acceptance thereof of said budget allocation. 6. City reserves the right to award separate bids for more specific advertising and promotional projects approved by the City Council during the term of this Agreement. 7. In the event, in the opinion of the majority of the City Council, Chamber is not functioning effectively, then City may give Chamber notice of this fact, specifying in detail the • alleged default or defaults, and Chamber must forthwith correct said default or defaults, or the provisions in this Agreement for financial sponsorship of Chamber may be terminated by action of,, the majority of the City Council. 8. This agreement may be amended or modified only by written agreement signed by both parties, with the exception of the procedure outlined in Paragraph 4. Failure on the part of either party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall be construed as a waiver of the right to compel enforcement of such provision or provisions. 9. It is understood that the contractual relationship of Chamber to City is that of independent contractor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed in duplicate on the date indicated below. Dated: , 1992 • 3 186 i AT DEROC OF COMMERCE P ee dent W Secretary 0 (0 CITY OF ATASCADERO ROBERT P. NIMMO, Mayor iATTESTZ _ f LEE 01Ij' Cit Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ART MONTAND , City Attorney • 4 187 CITY OF ATASCADERO 1979 OFFICE of the CITY CLERK Bill Mazzacane Executive Director Atascadero Chamber of Commerce CERTIFICATION I, LEE RABOIN, City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution . No. 75-92 adopted by the Atascadero City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on August 11, 1992. DATED: August 21, 1992 OF LEE RABOIN City Clerk City of Atascadero, California c: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director 6500 PALMA AVENUE • ATASCADERO, CA 93422 • (805) 461.-5074 188 RESOLUTION NO. 75-92 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO,. CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ATASCADERO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO PROVIDE COMMUNITY PROMOTION SERVICES The City Council of the City of Atascadero, California, hereby resolves as follows: 1.. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute an agreement with: the Atascadero Chamber of Commerce to provide Community Promotion Services, and all other agreements. or documents required to effectuate the terms of agreement. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to make minor corrections or modifications of a mathematical or clerical nature. 3. The Finance Director is hereby authorized to: appropriate funds, if necessary•, release and expend funds; and issue warrants to comply with the terms of this agreement. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Atascadero held on the 11th day of August, 1992. CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA. By: Xt Cc (- i ROBERT P. NIMMO, Mayor ATTEST: 11 N LEE RABOIN, City Clerk Post-ir Fax Note 7671 Date/ .G,) pages� , CffY MANAGER'S OFFICE Co./Dept. Co. Phone# Phone# / Fax#'7. '`41-7 Fax# *7-2C1 i'1 189 Resolution No.: 75-92-- ': Exhibit-' A i PERFORMANCE BASED FORMULA FOR CALCULATING ANNUAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FEE: ' 1. A weighted average shall be used to calculate the' annua.l-. ;_ fee. The fee will be calculated as follows:- a. Ten Percent ( 10..0%) of the prior year's Business - License fee receipts; plus c b.. Six' and one-half percent ( 6.5%) of the prior year' s' . Transient Occupancy Tax (Bed Tax) receipts;. plus .> C. One-quarter percent (0.25%) of the prior year' s Sales. Tax Receipts-. - . 2. The first semi-annual installment due in' July will be based upon the City' s latest estimates for the above three revenues; the second installment due in' January will reflect the audited figures and may be more or less than the first installment, due to any variance between estimated and •_ • actual figures i 3.. The annual fee will be rounded to the nearest hundred. -7.- 4 . The above formula may be amended by Resolution of the - Atascadero City Council. . 190 ITEM NUMBER: D-1 DATE: 06/24/2003 iaft Atascadero City Council City Attorney Report Consideration and Adoption of Resolution Establishing A System For Credits Towards Development Impact Fees RECOMMENDATION: City Council adopt the draft Resolution, establishing a schedule of credits towards development impact fees. DISCUSSION: Background: These issues were first addressed by the City Council at its strategic planning sessions more than a year ago. Staff was directed to contract for a study of service and development impact fees in the City of Atascadero. All required public hearings were held. At the council meeting of April 22, 2003, after hearing public testimony as well, the council made amendments to and then introduced for first reading by title only the attached ordinance regarding development impact fees. At the City Council meeting of May 27, 2003 the matter was adopted on second reading. The ordinance contemplates that the actual fees will be set by resolution. Development impact fees may legally be set by resolution. AB 1600 does provide that the fees, though set by resolution, do not become effective for 60 days. If adopted tonight, the credit system for credits towards development impact fees will go into effect on the effective date of the resolution establishing the fees themselves. Unlike ordinances, resolutions do not have to have two readings. Therefore, the resolution may be changed tonight if the City Council desires and it will still go into effect by the desired time. This credit system is designed to be handled administratively. The City Engineer will examine the capital improvement list, and apply the principles enunciated in the Resolution to determine whether and what amount a credit should apply in a specific project. 191 ITEM NUMBER: D-1 DATE: 06/24/2003 FISCAL IMPACT: There are no new fiscal impacts that have not already been identified. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council has all of the alternatives discussed above. The resolution establishing the development impact fees credit system may be changed. ATTACHMENT: Draft Resolution 192 DRAFT RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM FOR CREDITS TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION ONE: Development Impact Fee Credits (a) Any applicant subject to a development impact fee, imposed pursuant to this chapter, who dedicates real property or interests therein, to the City, for the construction of capital improvements or who constructs, deposits money with the City for the construction of, participates in an improvement district for the construction of, or who otherwise contributes funds for capital improvements, may be eligible for a credit for such dedication, construction or contribution against the development impact fee otherwise due. (b)Eligibility for, and the amount of, the credit shall be determined by the City Engineer, based on adopted City standards and procedures including, but not limited to, whether the • dedication, construction or contribution meets capital improvement needs for which the particular development impact fee has been imposed, as provided in this chapter and the Capital Improvement Plan, applicable master plan, whether the dedication, construction or contribution will substitute for or otherwise reduce the need for, or cost of, capital improvements anticipated to be provided with growth mitigation fee funds;the value of the dedication, construction or contribution. The maximum credit shall be based upon the value of the improvement as established in the development impact capital improvement list. The amount of the credit shall be based on the actual construction cost of the improvement. In no event, however, shall the credit exceed the amount of the otherwise applicable growth mitigation fee. (c) The City Council may consider granting credits or fee reductions for traffic fees only for industrial or commercial uses, which cause little or no impact on traffic congestion. The City Council may also consider granting credits or fee reductions for residential uses, which reduce vehicle trips by their design. (d)Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to authorize credits for the cost of improvements that benefit the development on a single parcel. SECTION TWO: Severability 193 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Resolution is for any reason deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Atascadero hereby declares that it would have adopted this resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or other portions might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional. The foregoing resolution was approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council held on, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ADOPTED: • CITY OF ATASCADERO ATTEST: Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk Jerry L. Clay Sr., Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney 194