Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 03/24/1987 0 CINDY WILKINS DEPUTY CITY CLERK A G F N DA ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM M-RCN 241 1987 7:30 P. M. City Council Members: (seating from left to right) Councilwoman Norris Michael Shelton, Mayor Pro Tem Molina City Manager Mayor Mackey Councilman Handshy Jeffrey G. Jorgensen Councilwoman Borgeson City Attorney RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION *. Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. * A person may speak for three (3) minutes. If a group has a spokesperson, the spokesperson may speak for five (5) minutes. * No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so. * No one may speak more than twice on any item. * Council members may question any speaker ; the speakers may respond; but after the alloted time has expired, may not initiate further discussion. * The floor will then be closed to public participation and open for Council discussion. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Invocation- Pastor Guy Godfrey Roll Call (Approximate Time - 30 Minutes) COMMUNITY FORUM The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and comments from you the citizen. The public comment period is provided to receive comments from the public on matters other than scheduled agenda items. To increase the effectiveness of Community Forum, the following rules of public participation will be enforced: * A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, . unless Council authorizes an extension. * All remarks shall be addressed to Council as a whole and not to any individual member thereof. * No questions shall be asked of a Council Member or City Staff 1 0 without permission of the Mayor. * No person shall be allowed to make slanderous, profane, impertinent, or personal remarks against any Council Member. * Any person desiring to submit written statements may do so by forwarding to Council, prior to the Council Meeting, nine (0) copies to the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceeding the Council Meeting (Approximate Time - 5 Minutes) A. CONSENT CALENDAR ,$ Iu All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar , are considered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items. A member of the Council or public may, by request, have any item removed from the Consent Agenda, which shall then be added to and taken up at the end of the "New Business" agenda. 1. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of March 10 , 1987 2. Approval of Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of March 2, 1987 3. Approval of the Finance Director ' s Monthly Report - February, 1987 4. Approval of the Treasurer ' s Monthly Report - February, 1987 5. Authorization to Solicit Bids for Playground Equipment for Paloma Creek Park 6. Recognition of February Employee of the Month - Peggy Green, Fire Department 7. Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 12-86 - 9280 & 9380 Barranco Rd - Anderson/Keil/Volbrecht Surveys 8. Denial of Claim by Anne Hammond for $45.00 - Personal Property Damage B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES & REPORTS (Approximate Time - 60 Minutes) 1. Zone Change 3-87 - Revisions to Residential Multiple Family Zoning - City Wide A. Public Hearing 40 B. Ordinance 149 Amending Zoning Text on Multiple Family Residential Zoning Standards (FIRST READING) J 2 i 0 (Approximate Time - 30 Minutes) 2. General Plan Conformity Determination - Request to Construct an Office Building 10-Feet into Paper Alley at 5903 East Mall C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Approximate Time - 10 Minutes) 1. Proposed Amendments to the Salary Schedule of the Senior I Building Inspector (new position) (Cont'd from 1/12 & 26/87) (Approximate Time - 10 Minutes) 2. Resolution 27-87 - Establishment of Admission Fees for Charles Paddock Zoo (Cont'd from March 10 , 1987) (Approximate Time - 5 Minutes) 3. Request to Solicit Request for Proposals - Engineering Services for Design of Atascadero Lake Improvement Project (Cont'd from March 10, 1987) D. NEW BUSINESS (Approximate Time - 30 Minutes) 1. General Plan Conformity Issue - Proposed Sale of City-Owned Properties on Lake View Drive and Proposed Acquisition of Property on Morro Road (Approximate Time - 10 Minutes) 2. Authorization to Purchase Right-of-Way Property on Monterey Road (Required for reconstruction of Graves Creek Bridge) E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (Council will recess and convene as the Atascadero County Sanitation District Board of Directors) (Approximate Time - 10 Minutes) 1. Resolution 28-87 - Extension of Sewer Service to Assessors Parcel Numbers 28-061-12, 32, 33 , 39 & 40 (Separado Avenue) (Approximate Time - 10 Minutes) 2. Acceptance of Grant of Easement Agreement with William Vetter for $850 for Easement on a Portion of Block M (southeast corner of Buena Avenue and Traffic Way) to Locate a Sanitary Sewer Pump Station (The Board of Directors will Adjourn and Reconvene as the City Council) 3 • 0 F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council a. Arbor Day Recognition b. Tree Ordinance Considerations 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5. City Manager a. Atascadero School District Development Fee Deadline of May 4, 1987 and Impacts to the City NOTE: THIS COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE ADJOURNED TO A SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING ON APRIL 9 ,1987 AT 7 :30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL (6500 PALMA) FOURTH FLOOR CLUB ROOM. 4 'OEETiNG AGENDA ATE • ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 10, 1987 Atascadero Administration Building The regular meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Mackey, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. An invocation was given by Pastor John F. Berry, Atas. First Baptist Church. Mayor Mackey announced that Councilwoman Norris is absent due to an illness in the family. ROLL-CALL Present; Councilmembers Borgeson, Handshy, Molina and Mayor Mackey Absent: Councilwoman Norris STAFF Mike Shelton, City Manager; David Jorgensen, Administrative Services Director; Bud McHale, Police Chief; Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Dir ector; Steve DeCamp, Senior Planner; Jeffrey Jorgensen, City Attorney; Bob Best, Recreation Director; Boyd Sharitz, City Clerk; Cindy Wil- kins, Deputy City Clerk Mayor Mackey proclaimed: - March as "National Nutrition Month" "Girl Scout Week", honoring the 75th Anniversary of Girl Scout- ing; there will be an event in the Sunken Gardens this Thurs. , 3/12/87, at 4:00 p.m. March 16-22 as "Camp Fire Birthday Week" , honoring its 77th birthday on March 17th; a local Camp Fire group was presented with a framed proclamation and, in return, the girls handed out packages of Camp Fire candy to Councilmembers and staff. March 18-20 as "Daffodil Days" for the American Cancer Society; LaDona Nolan accepted a framed proclamation on behalf of the ACS. Mrs. Nolan announced that order forms will be left (at the rear of the Rotunda Rm. ) for persons wishing to have daffodils delivered in exchange for a donation, noting daffodils will also be available in front of Williams Bros. Market. Recognition of organization of an Elks Lodge in Atascadero; a framed proclamation was received by Boyd Sharitz, Leroy Mazinski Lee Kravitz and Joel Wright on behalf of the Elks Club. COMMUNITY FORUM Elaine Oglesby, resident, noted the presentation of a draft tree • ordinance approx. 10 months ago to the Community Development Dept. , inquiring as to the status of said draft; Mr. DeCamp responded the document was reviewed and copies (marked with staff comments and rec- 1 • • ommendations, as a courtesy) were returned approx. 6 months ago to volunteer citizens committee who authored it. 0 Steve LaSalle, member of the informal citizens tree committee (see previous paragraph) , noted the restrictive nature of the tree ordi- nance, requesting Council designate an 'arbor day' in Atascadero and perhaps obtain land for the purpose of planting trees. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of February 23, 1987 2. Resolution 26-87 — Accepting Garcia, Paceo Pacifico and Santa Cruz Roads into the City Street System 3. Approval of Proposed Employment Agreement for Temporary Full Time Assistant Planner - John Ecklund Enforcement/Current Planning 4. Approval of Proposed Employment Agreement for Temporary Full. Time Assistant Planner - John Shoals - General Plan Update Work Program 5. Resolution 25-87 - Prohibiting Parking on Pueblo, West of E1 Camino to the Northeast Side of San Luis Avenue 6 Authorization for Mayor to Enter into Agreement with the San L�' ' Y 9 Obispo Chamber of Commerce Visitors and Conference Bureau MOTION: By Councilman Molina to approve Consent Calendar Items 1-6, seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed by 4:0 roll-call, with Councilwoman Norris absent. B. HEARINGS APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. Zone Change 2-87 - Revisions to Commercial Neighborhood Zoning: A. Public Hearing B. Ordinance 1148 — Amending the Zoning Ordinance by revising Square Footage for Allowed Eating and Drinking Places and Ad- ding Furniture, Home Furnishings and Equipment as Conditional Uses (FIRST READING) Mr. DeCamp, Sr. Planner, gave staff report, noting staff is recommend- ing against this change because of the intrusion of non-neighborhood commercial uses within the CN zone. Public Comment Robert Lilley, representing Williams House of Carpets, spoke in sup- port of this proposed zone change, noting that direction to staff b the Commission, to his recollection, was on the basis that the Comm sion appeared to concur that there was nothing inconsistent with proposed use encompassed in this amendment and presently allowed uses within the CN'zone. He urged that Council decide on a definitive 2 resolution in the near future so his client may plan accordingly for relocation of their business. Staff suggested that this item be continued, recommending it be in- cluded as part of GP over-all hearings; Mr. DeCamp noted that future recommendation regarding commercial uses is going to be based largely on the results of the proposed economic base analysis (see Item D-3) , making it difficult to postpone this matter to a date specific. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson to deny Ord. 148 without prejudice, seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed by 4:0 roll-call, with Councilwoman Norris absent. 2. Resolution 24-87 Amendment to the 1986/87 F.Y. Revenue Sharing Budget and Appropriation of Funds Thereof Mr. Jorgensen, Admin. Svcs. Dir. , gave staff report. Mr. Sensibaugh, Pub. Works Director, summarized drainage projects included in staff recommendation. There were no public comments. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to adopt Res. No. 24-87 , seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed by 4:0 roll-call, with Council- woman Norris absent. 3. Atascadero Lake Feasibility Report Presentation Mr. Best, Rec. Dir. , gave staff report. Mr. Jeff Alderman of Alderman Engin. , project consultants, and Bob Brown, Biologist and Alderman' s technical consultant, expounded on the technical aspects of the findings as well as suggested mitigation measures addressedinthe report (see agenda packet) Related discussion between Council, consultants and staff followed. There were no public comments. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to refer this report to the Parks & Rec- reation Commission for input, seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously, with Councilwoman Norris absent. 4. Resolution 21-87 - Revising and Establishing Fees for Recrea- tional - Facilities and Establishment of Written Procedures for Facility Rental Mr. Best, Rec. Dir. , gave staff report and responded to questions by Council. Mayor Mackey, regarding manual Item B-6 , asked Mr. Best to provide her with a copy of the U.S. Government and/or Attorney Gener- al' s list of subversives. Councilwoman Borgeson questioned inclusion of set-up and clean-up requirements within billable time. 3 Public Comment Barbara Reiter, 10150 San Marcos, requested more specific information be made available to the public regarding what is being proposed. Mr. Best responded a rate increase is not being suggested; groups to be mainly affected by this policy would be the youth recreation nonprofit groups, who would receive a slight reduction, whereas commercial -oper- ations using the facilities on a profit basis would be charged a commercial rate. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to adopt Res. No. 21-87 , seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed by 4:0 roll-call, with Council- woman Norris absent. COUNCIL RECESSED FOR A BREAK AT 9 :09 P.M. MAYOR MACKEY CALLED THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER AT 9:17 P.M. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Ordinance 147 - (Zone Change 27-86) Amending the Official Zoning Maps from Residential Single Family (RSF-Y) to Residential Single Family (RSF-X) on Property between El Centro, E1 Corte, La Linia and Arcade Roads (SECOND READING) (Cont'd from 2/23/87) MOTION: By Councilman Molina to read Ord. 147 by title only, second by Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously, with Councilwoman Norris absent. Mayor Mackey read Ord. 147 by title. MOTION: By Councilman Molina that this constitutes the second reading and adoption to Ord. 147 , seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed by 4:0 roll-call, with Councilwoman Norris absent. 2. Authorization for Public Works Department to Solicit Request for Proposals - Engineering Services - Design of San Andreas and Gar- cia Road Bridges (Presented at 2/10/87 Council Meeting) Mr. Sensibaugh, Pub. Works Dir. , gave staff report. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to approve staff recommendation, author- izing the Director of Public Works to request proposals for the engineering consulting services for the San Andreas and Garcia Road Bridges, seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed by 4:0 roll-call, with Councilwoman Norris absent. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Award of Tractor Bid: _ A. Front Loader Tractor with Scraper- Williams Equipment Compaq $10, 600 B. Rotary Mower - El Camino Farm Supply - $530 4 9 • . Mr. Best, Rec. Dir. , gave staff report. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to award bid in accordance with staff recommendation (Front Loader Tractor w/Scraper to Williams Equipment Co. for $10 ,600 , Rotary Mower from E1 Camino Farm Supply for $530) , seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson; passed by 4:0 roll-call, with Councilwoman Norris absent. 2. Approval to Appropriate $500 from Council Contingency Funds to Engage Consultants Stalder and Haynes for Council/Manager Manage- ment Workshop Mr. Shelton, City Mgr. , gave staff report. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to approve staff recommendation to en- gage consultants Timothy Stalder, M.A. and Robert Haynes, PhD. to conduct Council/Manager workshop at a cost not to exceed $500, seconded by Mayor Mackey; passed by 4:O roll call, with Councilwoman Norris absent. 3. Approval to Solicit Request for Proposals for an Economic Base Analysis Study Mr. Jorgensen, Adm. Svcs. Dir. , gave staff report and responded to questions from Council. Discussion ensued between Council and staff focusing on how this study relates to the possible formation of a downtown redevelopment agency. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to authorize staff to solicit proposals for an Economic Base Analysis, seconded by Councilman Hand- shy; passed unanimously, with Councilwoman Norris absent. 4. Fee Consideration for Charles Paddock Zoo Mr . Best, Rec. Dir. , gave staff report. Alan Metzler, Zoo Curator, spoke of the need to generate monies for improvements, animal care and to draw County-wide visitors; he noted the recreational and education- al benefits which can be derived from development of a quality zoo, referring to it as a valuable community resource. Public Comment Al Williams, Zoological Society member , seconded the comments of Mr. Best and Mr. Metzler. He expressed the Society' s feeling that any funds generated by an admission fee system should go directly to the zoo -- not into the Gen. Fund. He pointed out the overwhelming re- sponse to the surveys favoring establishment of a fee system, noting the proposed (nominal) fees would not disenfranchise low-income peo- ple. 5 • 0 Barbara Reiter , asked what the net income would be, considering cost of administrating the implementation of the fee schedule; M* Best responded an initial cost is anticipated, but estimated a yearly net revenue of approx. $60,000, assuming gate receipts match esti- mates. Mrs. Reiter requested Council consider the income from fees in addition to the amount that is budgeted annually for zoo upkeep for x-number of years, maintaining adequate budget support until such time that quality goals have been achieved and the zoo can become self- sufficient. John Harris, Parks & Rec. Commissioner and Zoo Advisory Committee member, spoke in favor of the fee system and establishment of an en- terprise fund, noting investment in the zoo is an investment for the City of Atascadero. He also noted that the zoo, in generating its own financing, takes into consideration the reality of need for a fiscal base in order to achieve desired quality. Lois Williams, Zoo Society member, spoke in support of the fee system, noting the recent zoo changes and those planned for in the immediate future which warrant the visitors' willingness to pay. George Beatty, Zoo Society member, noted it would help the Society in seeking grants if the City pledged a major portion of the gate re- ceipts for capital improvements at the zoo. Laura Johnson, zoo volunteer worker , spoke in support of zoo mon' going to zoo improvements. 0 Council and staff discussion ensued, primarily over budget issues re- lating to this proposal. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to direct Recreation Director to prepare a resolution adopting proposed zoo fees, deferring a decision on how revenues from said fees are to be budgeted until bud- get hearings in June, seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously, with Councilwoman Norris absent. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION City Council: a. Request for Council Support of Assembly Bill 128 - Prohibiting the Carrying of Dogs in Open Vehicles Without Proper Restraint (AFAR) Mr . Shelton, City Mgr. , summarized this request from AFAR for -the the City Council to direct staff to lobby on behalf of A.B. 128. MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to direct City Mgr. to prepare a Tetter to the author of A.B. 128, Assemblyman Ja O'Connell, expressing support for this bill, seconded Councilwoman Borgeson; passed unanimously, with Counci woman Norris absent. 6 0 • b. City/Chamber of Commerce/BusinessImprovement Assoc. Committee - Status Report (Mackey & Borgeson Verbal) Councilwoman Borgeson gave report, noting the committee's focus has been downtown revitalization, and the scope of study has been the BIA area boundaries. At the last meeting, a Mr. Gil, project coordinator of the Santa Margarita Redevelopment Agency, suggested the committee set goals, analyze goals set mid-year 1986, and en- gage a consultant to do an economic base analysis study, with which the committee concurred. Mr. Shelton, City Mgr. , noted the language in the Gen. Plan regarding a step plan to be followed regarding the downtown area. Mayor Mackey noted accomplishments by committee to date: (1) no parking Tues. nights, and (2) engag- ing consultants to do an economic base analysis study (adopted tonight - see item D-3) . c. Request for Joint Meeting with Parks and Recreation Commission (Mike Lara, Chairman) , April 9 at 7:30 p.m. in the 4th Floor Club Room (Verbal) Mr. Best, Rec. Dir. , summarized this request; Council concurred with the above proposed date for said meeting. City Manager: a. Request for Policy Direction Regarding Advance Placement of Agenda Items on Agenda Mr. Shelton gave staff report (see agenda packet) , and related discussion with Council ensued. Mr. Jorgensen, City Atty. , reviewed Brown Act revisions relating to Council meetings. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to continue meeting past 11:00 p.m. , seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson; passed 3:1, with Council- man Handshy opposed and Councilwoman Norris absent. Regarding comments by public at beginning of meeting, Mayor Mackey stated she would like to entertain the idea of an ' arbor day' , includ- ing it on the next regular agenda, as well as discussion of the tree ordinance. Councilman Handshy requested staff write the Sacramento Bee to get a free brochure on the Sacto. City trees and misc. tree information. Councilman Molina suggested committee reports be added to all regular agendas in order to keep with all Brown Act requirements. Related discussion ensued. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:07 P.M. TO A SPECIAL COUNCIL WORKSHOP ON MARCH 16, 1987 AT 10:00 A.M. , THE INN AT MORRO BAY. i 7 MINUTES RECORDED BY: • BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk MINUTES PREPARED BY: CINDY WILKINS, Deputy City Clerk • 8 _ c n-i: A • ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Special Meeting - March 2, 1987 Atascadero Administration Building The special meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Mackey, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Borgeson, Handshy, Molina, Norris and Mayor Mackey Absent: None STAFF Mike Shelton, City Manager ; Bud McHale, Police Chief; Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Direc- tor; Boyd Sharitz, City Clerk; Cindy Wilkins, Deputy City Clerk Councilwoman Borgeson noted that she will be voting this Thursday, . 3/5/87 (as Atascadero' s representative to the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council (SLOACC) ) , on funding priorities for State Trans- portation Improvement Project Funds for which Atascadero is competing with the other cities in the County. Due to the impact of Atasca- dero' s improvement pi-oject - the redesign of Hwy. . 41 and replacement bridge over the Salinas River - public testimony is requested as well. as Council advice. A. 1987 Programmed State Transportation Improvement Projects (STIP) Draft Preliminary STIP Emphasizing Project 0170G, Highway 41 Re- placement Bridge over Salinas River and Redesign of Highway 41 between Highway 101 to 0.6 Miles East of the Salinas River (pro- grammed for 1989-90 in Atascadero) (Page AB-11) B. 1987 Unprogrammed STIP Projects -. Emphasizing Project Priority #1 - Additional $2 Million Funding Toward Project 0170G (Listed above) (Page AB-8) Mr . Shelton, City Manager , introduced Ron DeCarli, SLOACC Program Mgr. , and Gary Arthurs, Hwy. 41 Project Mgr. for CalTrans, Dist. 5. Mr. Sensibaugh, Pub. Works Director, gave a brief overview of the Hwy. 41 issue. Mr. DeCarli, SLOACC, made a presentation regarding financial issues • involved in the project, reviewing its history as well as actions/ milestones yet to be attained. He noted there will be a document sub- sequent to CalTrans' s current draft 5-year CIP (called PSTIP) which will go before the California Transportation Commission (and which 1 7i will include SLOACC comments) in May for public hearings; the • Transp. Commission is anticipated to approve the 5-year CIP in June, Mr. Arthurs, CalTrans, discussed the alternative considerations and the environmental impact considerations involved in the project. He noted that any money allocated would, at this point in time, allow for the opportunity to look at an alternative other than replacing the bridge in its current location. No alternative has been selected, but the EIR has focused on Alt. A and bridge replacement since the feder- al monies allocated are for bridge replacement, which may be in its existing or adopted route location only. The Negative Declaration for the project is expected to come out in May; it will be circulated both locally and through various public agencies to assure compliance with environmental laws, and a public hearing will be held here in Atasca- dero. He emphasized no decision will be made by CalTrans as to which alternative has been selected until that time. Public Comment Sarah Gronstrand, resident, asked Mr . Arthurs, since E.G. Lewis had laid out the streets of Atascadero and the City qualifies for applica- tion as a historical City, does this mean the Federal govt. takes care of the streets? Mr. .Arthur responded that this enables the City to qualify for registration in the Federal register as a historical site. He also noted this requires additional work (by CalTrans) in the en- vironmental process to assure protection of any historical elements Barbara Reiter, 10150 San Marcos, requested consideration of rerouting Hwy. 41 (so as not to impact residential) , from the its intersection with Hwy. 101, north along Hwy. 101 to Paso Robles and out Hwy. 46 east; she also requested that the use of $7. 5 million be put into Hwy. 101 improvements through Atascadero, especially the northbound offramp to Hwy. 41. Pete Bunosar , resident on Magdalena Ave. , seconded the comments of the previous speaker. Ken Roberts, 5325 Mercedes, spoke in opposition to this project. Dave Baker, Exec. Director , N. Co. Contractors Assn. , expressed the association' s support of Alt. A. and staff recommendations, compli- menting City staff for their research on this project. Robert Nimmo, 7375 Bella Vista, representing the 460 members of the Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of Alt. A, noting Chamber sup- port was first expressed in 1969 and again, by letter , dated June 18, 1984, primarily for the reasons expressed in the Gen. Plan. Lon Allen, as a resident, spoke in support of endorsement of Alt. A as proposed by CalTrans. Gary Hoskins, 5140 Mercedes (corner Mercedes & Cemetery Rd. ) , spoke* opposition to Alt. A due to impact to neighborhood environment. J 2 Ray Jensen, 6655 Country Club Dr . , new resident in Atas. , proposed the logical bypass would be along. Curbaril Rd. , crossing the river at its narrowest point, including construction of the necessary bridge. Mark Jensen, resident, questioned the amount of through traffic from Morro Bay to east of Atas. , feeling the traffic doesn' t justify the need for this route realignment; Mr. Arthurs responded that traffic counts from 1986 indicated 2,600 cars per day crossed the existing bridge. (Mr. Sensibaugh added that the ADT for the entire project ranges from 26 ,000 at ECR to 2,600 at the bridge. ) Al Gustafson, 9305 Curbaril (14-yr. resident) , spoke in favor of Alt. A, noting observance of increase in traffic in subject area. Sharon Morin, 20-yr . resident, homeowner & businesswoman, spoke in favor of Alt. A in interest of reducing congestion in the Lewis Ave. School vicinity, to eliminate the narrow underpass on Capistrano and to eliminate the deficient Salinas River bridge at Curbaril Ave. Elizabeth Putnam, who resides on Capistrano at Cemetery Dr. , spoke in support of Alt. A, agreeing with the comments of Mr. Nimmo (above) . Carol Harter , representing Dr. Avina on behalf of the AUSD, expressed support of realignment of Hwy. 41, primarily for student safety con- cerns. Mike Hull (?) , resident on Mercedes Ave. , spoke in opposition to Alt. A, would like to see the project reevaluated but is in favor of devel- oping a bridge across the Salinas River. Doug Filipponi, 5995 River Rd. , spoke in support of Alt. A, thanking CalTrans for continuing to consider this project. Richard Shannon, 4820 Obispo, spoke in support of Alt. A. Kirk Pearson, representing the BIA, presented a petition bearing the signatures of members of the executive committee for the BIA expres- sing their support of Alt. A; he also presented a downtown plan for Atascadero, noting the BIA feels the realignment (as well as a Lewis Ave. bridge) is an integral part of downtown redevelopment. Jerry Clay, 7285 Sycamore Rd. , spoke in support of Alt. A, agreeing with the reported number of vehicles crossing the bridge daily. Brad Davis, 4470 Sycamore, spoke in support of Alt. A, noting the op- portunity at hand in CalTrans funding this development and expressing pedestrian safety concerns. Herb LaPrade, 6480 Santa Ynez, resident since 1948, spoke in support of Alt. A. Dave Hamilton, resident on So. River Rd. , spoke in support of Alt. A, noting the ongoing development on the east side of the river which is increasing the amount of traffic flow using the existing bridge. �-r 3 i 0 Chris Jesperson, So. River Rd. resident for 32 yrs. , spoke in supp� of Alt. A, noting his observance of traffic increase and noting availability of CalTrans funding for this project. Dave Davis, property owner on ECR residing in the E1 Pomar area (for approx. 17 yrs. ) , spoke in support of Alt. A due to pedestrian safety concerns, concurring with bridge traffic figures cited by CalTrans. He strongly urges development ,of the realignment before a pedestrian is killed. Irene Bishop, resident on Serena Rd. , asked APD Chief McHale what im- pact the proposed realignment would have on the new police facility; Chief McHale responded that it is seen as a benefit which would en- hance response to downtown as well as other areas of the City. On that note, Ms. Bishop spoke in support of Alt. A. Jay DeCou, 9200 Pino Solo, spoke in support of Alt. A, noting the num- ber of DeCou Lumber delivery trucks utilizing the existing bridge and noting the need for good east/west traffic access. Jerry Bond, 8725 Atascadero Ave. , spoke in favor of Alt. A. Eric Michielssen, 5300 Aguila, noted the repeated reaffirmations in the (1967 , 1977 and 1980) GP reviews of the need for a new Hwy. 41 route; he spoke in favor of Alt. A in the interest of the greatest benefit to the City as a whole. i Grigger Jones, resident, spoke in support of Alt. A, noting the costs proposed to be absorbed by CalTrans; he quoted from Pg. 122 of the GP to highlight some previous concerns addressed regarding the need for realignment. Arthur Reiter, 10150 San Marcos Rd. , spoke in support of researching an alternative to the proposed favored route, urging the Council to keep the future in perspective. Ned Thompson, resident, spoke in favor of Alt. A. John McNeil, resident, questioned the non-consideration of Alt. D; Mr . Sensibaugh discussed other alternative routes shown on the map, noting the main factors in favoring Alt. A over Alt. D are cost and area impact, noting that approx. 70-90% of the right of way has been ac- quired. Mike Arrambide, resident, spoke in favor of Alt. A, noting he has tal- lied that 4 :1 of those who have spoken tonight favor Alt. A. John Cole, 8710 Sierra Vista, spoke in support of Alt. A, noting the inevitability of growth in Atascadero. Mildred Copelan, 8610 Portola and 33-yr. resident, spoke in support o Alt. A, based on the historical background of the research that h been put into this issue. 4 • 0 Doug Lewis, resident, asked how long the proposed bridge would be; Mr. Arthurs responded (from memory) approx. 2,000 ft. (Mr . DeCarli later responded the bridge will be 1,200 ft. ) Don Messer , resident, spoke in favor of Alt. A noting the length of time this issue has been debated. William Collins, 4205 River Rd. , spoke in support of the proposed realignment (which will front his property for approx. 1/4 mi. after extending across the river) , noting the growth he has observed in the area east of Atascadero since 1959 which supports the bridge traffic flow figures cited by CalTrans. Mark Buscher, 5105 Magdalena (corner at Mercedes Ave.) , expressed op- position to Alt. A due to the impact it will have on his property. Glen Lewis, resident, spoke in support of Alt. A, due to pedestrian safety concerns - who are primarily students - and citing the costs to be absorbed by CalTrans. Dave Davis spoke again, asking CalTrans representatives if bike lanes are proposed along Alt. A; Mr. Arthurs responded no, but the road will have 8 ' shoulders. Mr. Davis asked if the bridge will have walkways; Mr. Arthurs responded that the demand is not seen at this time, and they are not planned for but could be added should pedestrian demand develop. Mr. DeCarli further responded by noting the total width of the proposed roadway (401 : two 12 ' travel lanes w/8 ' shoulders; Mr. Arthurs later noted the first approx. 1000 ft. (starting at ECR) will be four lanes, narrowing to two. ) Mr. DeCarli responded to concerns raised by some as to alternatives for funds, and he reviewed project priorities. He reiterated that the funds cannot be traded for other improvements and can only be used for bridge replacement. Discussion came back to Council, with eac4 member expressing favor for Alt. A and citing his/her reasons. Councilwoman Borgeson, at the re- quest of a member of the audience, stated that she will be voting yes on Alt. A and for bridge replacement at this Thursday' s SLOACC meet- ing, on the basis of public testimony heard tonight as well as the direction expressed by fellow Councilmembers. COUNCIL RECESSED FOR BREAK AT 9 :22 P.M. MAYOR MACKEY CALLED MEETING BACK TO ORDER AT 9: 38 P.M. C. Unmet Public Transit Need #5 - Transit Service Proposal between Templeton and Atascadero or Paso Robles for Senior Citizens (Page C-4 to C-7) Mr . Sensibaugh, Pub. Works Director, gave staff report. Mr. DeCarli reviewed SLOACC staff recommendations (report included in agenda packet) . !n 5 • 0 Council discussion ensued, and Council consensus was to concur w staff recommendations (The Senior Bus solution as it' s a no cost 0* tion) . Mr. DeCarli noted an increase in local transportation funds (LTF) to be received by the City of Atascadero, as well as additional State transit assistance funds (STF) , totaling $457 , 439. These combined monies fund the DAR system and the City' s contribution to the regional handicapped system, and the remaining funds are for street and road purposes. Mr . DeCarli urged the City to become a voting member on the governing board of the No. Coast Transit System, since the City is funding a portion of that program. Council concurred to bring this issue back as an agenda item. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10 :00 P.M. MINUTES RECORDED BY: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk MINUTES PREPARED BY: CINDY WILKINS, Deputy City Clerk 6 Wr "�"T?NO2 AGENDA 1 T z f3 ITEM March 24, 1987 To All Council Members: The breakdown detail on all accounts is available for your viewing in the Finance Department. Davi orensen Admin. Se vices Director • 3 • CITY OF ATASCADERO • FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT FEBRUARY 1, 1987 TO FEBRUARY 28, 1987 BALANCE AS OF JANUARY 31, 1987 (37, 599 .12) DEPOSITED BY TREASURER, SEE RECEIPTS, TREASURER'S REPORT, PAGE 1 971, 430.00 TOTAL 933,830. 88 HAND CHECK REGISTER DATED 02/28/87 411,138 .00 CHECK REGISTER DATED 02/06/87 159 , 360 .40 CHECK REGISTER DATED 02/13/87 32,899.98 CHECK REGISTER DATED 02/20/87 60 ,538. 83 CHECK REGISTER DATED 02/27/87 69,706.81 SERVICE CHARGE-MASTERCARD 2.50 EXPENSE LISTING 179,614. 56 TOTAL 913, 261.08 BALANCE AS OF FEBRUARY 28, 1987 20, 569.80 PETTY CASH 540 .00 TREASURY INVESTMENTS SEE TREASURER'S REPORT, PAGE 2 3,396 ,000 .00 TOTAL 3,417,109 .80 I, DAVID JORGENSEN, do hereby certify and declare that demands enumerated and referred to in the foregoing register are accurate and just claims against the City and that there are funds available for payment thereof in the City Treasury. DATED: March 24 , 1987 DAVI J NSEN Admin. el ices Director 4 • CITY OF ATASCADERO FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT FEBRUARY 1, 1987 TO FEBRUARY 28, 1987 EXPENSE LISTING PAYROLL DATED 02/04/87 CHECKS #38491-38601 90 ,777.75 PAYROLL DATED 02/18/87 CHECKS #38602-38714 89,451.81 VOID CK#32952 CK. REG. DATED 01/09/87 (615.00) TOTAL 179 ,614.56 5 10 MFEP'N,-r AGENDA CITY OF ATASCADERO • TREASURER'S REPORT FEBRUARY 1, 1987 TO FEBRUARY 28, 1987 TAXES Property Tax 67,975.63 Cigarette Tax 2,101.62 Motor Vehicle "In Lieu" 46,876.03 Sales Tax 116,000.00 Franchise Tax 2,966.11 Livestock-Head Day Tax 48.72 Occupancy Tax 6,029.10 Development Impact Tax 23,476. 50 Homeowners Relief 8,992.12 LICENSES/PERMITS/FEES 41,965.64 DEVELOPMENT FEES 15,000.84 PARKS & RECREATION FEES 16,206 .43 GAS TAX 24,061.90 LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND 515 ,000.00 REVENUE SHARING 3,009.00 TRANSPORTATION SB-325 2,838.15 STREET ASSESSMENT 4,280.50 TRAFFIC SAFETY 9,310 .59 MISCELLANEOUS . Assessment District #4 7,630.36 School Resource Officer 2, 488. 35 Zoo Reserve 135.00 Sale Maps/Publications/Reports 330.00 Special Police Services 123.00 Fines & Penalties 1,270. 58 Planning Permit Deposits (795.00) Life Support Equipment 150.00 Business Improvement Assn. Fee 668.75 Overages & Shortages ( . 20) P.O.S.T. Reimbursement 2,111.82 Reimburse to Expense 542. 31 Performance Bond 3,000 .00 Rents/Concessions 10 ,214 .00 Refunds 2,337 .70 Sanitation Reimbursement 34 ,150. 58 Weed Abatement 1,005.33 Miscellaneous (71.46) TOTAL 971,430 .00 1 • I` CITY OF ATASCADERO • TREASURER'S REPORT FEBRUARY 1, 1987 TO FEBRUARY 28, 1987 INVESTMENTS LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND $3,396,000.00 TOTAL INVESTMENT DEPOSITS $3,396,000 .00 Charles Bourbeau City Treasurer 2 • 1 1 J iFi1.:7..i'I DA MEMORANDUM March 18 , 1987 To : City Council Via: Mike Shelton, City Manager From: Bob Best , Parks and Recreation Director__9J &4_ Subject : Bid Authorization RECOMMENDATION . Authorize the Parks and Recreation Department to bid out the play system for the Paloma Creek Park as part of Phase II development . BACKGROUND The City of Atascadero was awarded $50 ,000 from the State of California for Phase II development of Paloma Creek Park. In addition, a total of $33 ,644 was authorized by Council on March 10 from Revenue Sharing funds . •The play system and installation costs will be paid from the Revenue Sharing Funds . Initial emphasis for Phase II will relate to the develop- ment of youth baseball/softball field and the playground area for children . The grant application indicated Phase II development , including youth field construction, picnic facilities , pedestrian bridge , volleyball courts , basketball court , and playground equipment . Estimates on Phase II , exclud ing the restrooms , are $153 ,000 . All of the above items are part of the master plan and architectural drawings are now available. FISCAL IMPACT Paloma Creek Phase II was approved in the 1986-87 Budget . The cost of the playsystem and installation was included in the budget. There will be no additional funds needed- • b1MEET:� � �$G �3D1� a M EMO RAND U M_ TO: City Council March 24, 1987 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 12-86 LOCATION: 9280 & 9380 Barranco Road APPLICANT: Dennis Anderson/William Keil (Volbrecht Surveys) On January 12, 1987, the City Council approved Lot Line Ad- justment 12-86, subject to certain findings and conditions and in concurrence with the recommendation of the Planning Commis- sion. The required findings and conditions have been complied with and the final lot line adjustment is recommended for ap- proval. HE:ph cc: Dennis Anderson William Keil Volbrecht Surveys - i s �J�J � C A !O � tic 0 it Y• h a } N c ^A r n . b•N a A �{C A q O n M e t I ` 0 .19 0 p0.961 N. Ch N' IN N^IIS\ U e^�:?;�'• •y N,, �G'NDA M E M O R A N D U M To: Mike Shelton From: David G. Jorgensen Date: March 17, 1987 Subject: Claim of Anne Hammond RECOMMENDATION City Council deny the above-mentioned claim in the amount of $45.00. BACKGROUND • Claimant alleges damage to her car, after she alledgedly drove into a pothole. • 1�� CARL WARREN& CO. Insurance Adjusters/Claim Administrators 141 Suburban Road,Suite A-1 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805)544.7963 March 4 , 1987 STATUS REPORT City of Atascadero P. 0. Box 747 Atascadero , CA 93423 Attention : Mr. David Jorgensen Re : Our Principal : City of Atascadero Date of Loss : January 12 , 1987 Claimant : Anne Hammond Our File No : A2538-D Dear Mr. Jorgensen : PREVIEW: Claimant alleges $45 .00 damage to her car , aft-e?n• Ill-e allegedly drove into a pothole . GOVERNMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS : A. Action by Public Entity : At this time we recommeaxtl tthisit m • Q`e � standard rejection lett-rr- 3 sternt to claimant Anne M. Hammond , at 211 16th Street , R?azsa, Robles , CA 93446 . Please send our office a copy (mJ.' 'hiss letter . C. Statute of Limitations : The statute will run si;;c .mvm. tLihs~, from the date the rejectiaarm .wntt-ttetr is mailed . LIABILITY: We have determined this to be a claim of nog liability. We received a February 19 , 1987/ ?l-ettl&jr from Mr . Donald Leib , of the Public Works Department . _ffie indicates that Madonna Construction Company was doing ai .vtLa'are& overlay program on contract for the City of Atascadero- WTe? �aw� sent a letter to Madonna Construction , requesting them tu) (nmMitacct the claimant directly concerning her claim. A copy of t1mt letter is enclosed for your file . REMARKS : At this time we will place our file on a 90 d8asy; �dAzax3r. If we do not hear from Madonna Construction wd�,114�-m t0h;a't • Glendale San Diego Santa Ana Santa Barbara Ventura meaft Los Angeles Area ( 9 ) (619)457-3500 (714)972-3146 (805) 963-0695 (805)658-0855 (213)245-0800 800 824-1249 (800)572-6900 800 322-5779 805 656-0811 f7,14 ,M-aM Bakersfield Canoga Park Covina Fresno San Luis Obispo %an SerrarW1no (805)831-1703 (818)999-4094 (818)915-5861 (209)233-9500 (805)544-7963 ((734):884i8Fifi9 X35=f660 t r s+� City of Atascadero Mr. David Jorgensen March 4 , 1987 Page Two time , we will assume they have contacted the claimant and are attempting to settle the claim. We will keep you advised . Very truly yours , CARL WARREN & COMPANY Joh obrinski JD k t Enclosure : Copy of letter to Madonna Construction Company `Ok II CARL WARREN& CO Insurance Adjusters/Claim Administrators 141 Suburban Road,Suite A-1 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 (805)544-7963 Conpany 2t`4 iiit C't pan L!iLs isr:s . X31%01 Re : Jur City of ytascadero Date or Accident : .ianuary 12 , 199 Claimant : :Inne Y immond Our Rile No : A2538—D Gentlemen : We are claims administrators for thy, «r �'itascdduru. we aru enclosing a Copy of .a claim and police report concerning Claimant Anne Hammond , who allegedly received damages to her vehicle 'Tori an incident at Traffic clay and :unitas Streets , on January 12 ,, 1987 at 7 : 21 p.m. Also enclosed is a report iron the '= Public Works silj=c:X'l.m)it'nC2f.'nt L:L�i2CUrE!1 � t7s fo<ii;r:'T • 0':4S0- ttJty the accidant ocCurred in an area wt:ere your company was under co atrzact to do n scr-ct overiav program for the City --)f Atascadero. Ver Lhe provisions or that contract: , tre iK t`.aL y 0 U please contact ;yuur IicI� :i.iity insuraiace carrier , wxio S 110-u i Ca the claizaant Lo kl Scuds ilk's cidaim for dan$,s`>es . r_i <l; ptJ a.5 t,i; it your cobipary 4n this 4 zstalce , F,.n : tr!P : ri> ' of Atascauero iaas no involvement in c�air ciai m. The cla navc can be roac jed b,--core 1(3 : 00 a.m. ilr J. and betbeer 1 : 00 and 1 : 3f1 p.r7. et her Wori: p-no e no',1vor 4bl-2348. 1i you have any CSuestiorts concernin1 tris do not hesitate to contact tete of Oer. siguad . Very truly yours , CARL WAKREi; 5 COMPANY ,Torn I'olprinsk4 J3/'kat Enclosures : 1 . Copy ot cla`i, and bill:; 2 . Copy of ;police report Gony 413: ij(-1.11.0 Lrii i ^,CL:.'.rY 119th letter CC : An.nf' Y,aritv.c3nd Glendale San Diego Santa Ana Santa Barbara Ventura Long Beach (Los Angeles Area) (619)457-3500 (714)972-3146 (805)963-0695 (805)658-0855 (213)596-5539 (213)245-0800 (800)572-6900 (B00)322-5779 (805)656-0811 (714)241-9171 Bakersfield Canoga Park Covina Fresno San Luis Obispo San Bernardino (805)831-1703 (818)999-4094 (818)915-5861 (209)233-9500 (805)544-7963 (714)884-8669 (714)824-1660 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council March 24 1987 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director -4q, SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Consider Comprehensive Rewrite of Multi-Family Residential Zoning Standards BACKGROUND: On August 25, 1986, the City Council transmitted to the Planning Com- mission a request for a study on a series of recommendations to modify the City' s zoning standards pertaining to multiple family development. This led to study session discussions on -Sept. 15, Oct. 6th, Nov. 3rd, Nov. 17th, Dec. 1st, 1986 , and January 5th and 19th, 1987 (see attach- ments) . On February 17th, 1987, the Planning Commission held a public . hearing on a refined draft ordinance, which is attached hereto, and recommended its adoption. ANALYSIS: The analysis of the attached draft ordinance is reflected in the attached staff report to the Commission on February. 17th. The recom- mendations responded to and considered all the items initially re- viewed by the City Council on August 25, 1986. The accompanying agenda materials detail the depth of study and analysis undertaken by the Commission in reaching its' recommendation. The overall impact of the changes would be to enhance the amenities required on sites by requiring outdoor recreation space; eliminating the option of parking tandem in new project areas; reducing density in hillside areas; re- quiring at least one covered space per dwelling unit; providing a screening wall where properties abut single family zones; requiring additional enclosed storage space per unit; and setting a maximum per- cent building coverage standard for the first time. "16 Versus 12" Dwelling Units per Acre Issue: As proposed, the draft ordinance would establish a minimum of ten two-bedroom units per acre in the RMF/10 zone on land less than 10% slope and 16 two-bedroom units per acre on similarily flat land in the RMF/16 district. In this regard, the Commission split on a 4 to 3 vote in favor of this standard. The staff recommendation was to re- duce density for two bedroom units from 16 to the acre to 12 to the acre, while retaining a density of 16 per acre for one bedroom units. Staff noted that most of the units being built in the City have been two bedroom units. Assuming this trend continues, there are some • i Staff Report - Multi-Family Residential Zoning Standards Page Two 0 1,550 additional multi-family units that could be built. By changing the density down to 12 per acre for two bedroom units, the City' s standards would have reduced density by 25% or 388 fewer units, which was one of the objectives in re-evaluating the standards. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Adopt for first reading attached Draft Ordinance No. 149. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt draft Ordinance No. 149, with revisions to Section 9-3.175 (a) , (b) , and (c) , as noted in attached Exhibit B. HE:ph Enclosures: Exhibit B - Alternative Density Standard Planning Commission Agenda Packet, February 17, 1987 Draft Ordinance No. 149 • EXHIBIT B ALTERNATIVE DENSITY STANDARD: "12 2 BEDROOM UNITS PER ACRE FORMULA" 9-3.175. Density: The maximum allowable density in the Resi- dential Multiple Family Zone shall be designated on the Official Zoning Maps as provided by Section 9-3.104 (c) and be established in accordance with the General Plan as follows: (a Areas Designated Low Density Multiple Family Residential: The maximum number of dwelling units per net acre is as follows: Number Of Dwelling Bedrooms Units/Acre 1 10 .0 2 7.5 3 5.0 4+ 3. 8 (b) Areas Designated High Density Multiple Family Residential: The maximum number of dwelling units per net acre is as follows: Number Of Dwelling Bedrooms Units/Acre 1 16 2 12 3 8 4+ 6 (c) Hillside Density Standards. The maximum densities per- mi.tte y subsections (a--and (b) above, shall be modified to the following maximums based on site topography, as follows: Average Low Density Multiple Family High Density Multiple Family Slope 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR+ 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR+ 0-10% 10 7. 50 5 .0 3. 80 16 12.0 8.0 6 .0 11-15% 7 5. 25 3. 5 2. 66 12 8.4 5.6 4. 2 16-20% 5 3.75 2. 5 1.90 8 5. 6 3.7 2.8 21-25% 3 2.75 1. 5 1.14 6 4.2 2.8 2.1 26-30% 2 1. 50 1.0 0. 75 4 2.8 1.8 1.4 31%+UP 1 0.75 0.5 0.38 2 1.4 0.9 0.7 1 City of Atascadero Item: STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: Feb. 17, 1987 BY: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Public hearing to consider comprehensive re-write of Multiple Family Residential Zoning Standards. BACKGROUND• On August 25th, 1986, the City Council transmitted for Planning Com- mission study a series of recommendations for consideration in re-writing the City' s Multi-Family housing standards. This was dis- cussed at the September 15th and October 6th, 1986 , meetings of the Planning Commission followed by review of draft staff proposals at meetings of November 3rd, November 17th, December 1st, 1986, and Jan- uary 5th, and 19th, 1987 (See attached enclosures) . ANALYSIS: 0 The ordinance draft which is attached reflects all the language in RMF-Residential Multi-Family Zones with CAPITALIZED letters indicating proposed new language and (-----) indicating deleted language. Skilled Nursing Facilities It is proposed that Skilled Nursing Facilities be relocated from being an allowable use to being one subject to Conditional Use Permit ap- proval. It is felt that discretionary review by the Planning Com- mission is appropriate for this use owing to the unpredictability of neighborhood impacts. Density Standards Modified density standards are proposed to provide a sliding density scale based on number of bedrooms. This standard is prop-osed to be further modified to reduce density in multi-family areas as the ground slope increases. As determined at the Planning Commissions' s last study session, one and two bedroom units would have the same den- sities, i.e. , 10 units per acre in the RMF-10 Districts and 16 units per acre in the RMF-16 Districts. For land of less than 10% average slope, the proposed standards would be unchanged for multi-family projects developed for one or two bedroom units. Staff Report - Multiple Family Residential Zoning Standards February 17, 1987 Page Two As may be noted in the section on hillside density standards, there is a dramatic lessening of number of units permitted per acre on steeply sloping lands. The following chart summarizes the impact of the pro- posed standards on three (3) actual projects that have received past approvals: Current # Units Proposals Zoning Actual Draft Staff Allowable Approval Ord. Recomm. Project Acreage Slope (2 BR) (2 BR) 5760 2. 26 26-30% 36 36 9.0 3.4 Ardilla 5550 Traffic Way 2.0 31% 32 32 4.0 1.5 Bordeaux 27.2 10% 435 400 435 326 House Issue Most of the units being built in the City have been two bedroom. Should this trend continue, the standards proposed would not reduce the number of units that could be built in the City in the future which was one of the original objectives for modifying the standards. There are some 1,550 additional multi-family units that can be built under current standards. As proposed by staff, a change from 16 units to 12 units per acre for 2 bedroom units would have yielded a 25%. density reduction (388 fewer units) . Group Quarters Persons per acre standards are proposed for group quarters which re- solves the problem of trying to convert dwelling units into population impacts on property. A density of 22 persons per net acre is proposed for low density projects and 36 persons per acre for high. With re- spect to impacts on previously approved projects, note in the December 11 1986 Memorandum, that California Manor would have been allowed to have a higher density. It has 4. 74 acres, which - on the basis of 16 units to the acre - would permit 76 units. The Planning Commission allowed 95 units through a 25% density bonus. Most of the units are occupied by individuals. The standard proposed is 36 persons per acre, which would have allowed up to 170 persons without going through the density bonus procedures. � Staff Report - Multiple Family Residential Zoning Standards February 17, 1987 Page Three The Gifford project at 6455 Santa Lucia is a .55 acre site zoned RMF-16 which would allow 9 conventional units. They received a 211% density bonus on appeal for 19 units based on a maximum of 1. 25 per- sons per room, or a total of 24 persons occupying the site. Were the proposed standards in effect, they would have been allowed a maximum of 20 persons. Sewer Service It is proposed that maximum densities not be allowed for areas lacking sewer service in multi-family zones. This is consistent with the stated purpose of the district and the public services chapter of the General Plan. Density Bonus This has been reduced to a simple 25% instead of being open-ended is the case now) and further simplified to simply reflect State law. Property Development Standards Proposed Section 9-3.176 provides property development standards for maximum percent coverage, enclosed storage, outdoor recreation areas, screen wall when abutting single family zoned property, and the re- quirement for at least one covered parking space per dwelling unit. In addition, tandem parking is proposed to be eliminated as an option in the multi-family areas. Findings: A general ordinance change is suggested to require that Precise Plans be subject to the same stringent findings as Conditional Use Permits, which are heard before the Planning Commission. Further, a standard finding requiring compliance with any other pertinent City policy or criteria adopted by ordinance or resolution of the City Council is proposed. This anticipates City Council' s favorable action on Appear- ance Review Guidelines. , n is 0 0 Staff Report - Multiple Family Residential Zoning Standards February February 17, 1987 Page Four RECOMMENDATION• Following public hearing, recommend to Council the comprehensive re- visions to standards in the RMF and related zones. Staff continues to recommend that the standard for two-bedroom units in the RMF-16 zone be set at 12 to the acre. HE•.p h Enclosures: Draft Ordinance January 19, 1987 Agenda Packet August 25, 1986 City Council Staff Report • it ORDINANCE NO. 149 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT RELATIVE TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY ZONE STANDARDS AND FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR PRECISE PLAN APPROVAL (CITY OF ATASCADERO: ZC 3-87) WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment proposes stand- ards consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is in conformance with Section 65800, et seq. , of the California Government Code concerning Zoning Regulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will not have a significant ad- verse effect upon the environment and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 17, 1987, and has recommended approval of Zoning Ordinance Text. Amendment NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Council Findings. 1. The proposed zoning text amendment would be in compliance with the City of Atascadero' s General Plan. 2. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the Negative Declaration granted the project by the Community Development Director is appropriate. Section 2. Zoning Text Change. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 3-87 is approved to change the text of the Zoning Ordinance as shown in the attached Exhibit A, which is hereby made a part of this Ordinance by reference. Section 3. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance, and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City. ;f Ordinance 149 Page Two Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and ef- fect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its en- tirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADEAO, CALIFORNI MARJORIE R. MACKEY, Mayor ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT; MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director DRALL CHANGES : 1/19/87 • CAPW- proposed language ADOPTED JUITE 27, 1983 ---- = deleted language EXHIBIT A RMF (Residential Multiple Family) Zone 9-3.171. Purpose: This zone is established to provide for apart- ment, condominium and townhouse development where higher density resi- dential development is desired within the Urban Services Line. 9-3. 172. Allowable Uses: The following uses shall be allowed in the Residential Multiple Family Zone. The establishment of allowable uses shall be as provided by Section 9-2.107 (Plot Plans) and Section 9-2.108 (Precise Plans) : (a) Single family dwelling (b) Residential accessory uses (See Section 9-6.106) (c) Accessory Storage (See Section 9-6.103) (d) Home occupations (See Section 9-6.105) (e) Collection station (See Section 9-6.130) (f) Multiple family dwellings (g) Temporary dwelling (See Section 9-6.176) (h) Utility transmission facilities 4}�--Sl���led-P3s�s�Ag-Fae���tp-{See-Section-9-6:13��-- (i) Residential care (See Section 9-6 .135) Q ) Temporary Events (See Section 9-6.177) 9-3.173. Conditional Uses: The following uses may be allowed in the Residential Multiple Family Zone. The establishment of condi- tional uses shall be as provided by Section 9-2.109 (Conditional Use Permits) : (a) Churches and related activities (See Section 9-6 .121) (b) Schools (See Section 9-6 .125) (c) Mobilehome developments (See Section 9-6 .143) (d) Organizational Houses (e) Pipelines (f) Farm Animal Raising (See Section 9-6 .112) (g) Retirement hotel `l 3-21 PAGE ONE ADOPTED JUNE 27, 198-0 (h) Bed and Breakfast (i) SKILLED NURSING FACILITY (see Section 9-6.134) (j ) The following uses where established in a residential structure of historical importance: (1) Broadcasting Studios (2) Business Support Services (3) Libraries and museums (4) Offices (5) Personal Services (6) School-business and vocational 9-3.174. Lot Size: The minimum lot size in the Residential Mul tiple Family Zone shall be one-half acre. Smaller lot sizes may be allowed for planned residential developments, including condominiums and mobilehome developments, provided that the overall density within the project conforms with Section 9-3.175 (Density) . 9-3.175. Density: The maximum allowable density in the Residen- tial Multiple Family Zone shall be designated on the Official Zoning Maps as provided by Section 9-3.104 (c) and be established in accord- ance with the General Plan as follows: (a) rets-p��-a-Grer-eXr-ept-that-a-lesser.-den=- -si- -tomeG� -wk*_xr-e.-war_r-ented-by-site-slyar-asteris-- -r.Gt--1-imi-ted-tor-adeguaey-of-sewage-dis- ��L� ty- o-f--u-ti44-tiee--ar3c -related-okranaeten isties. (a) AREAS DESIGNATED LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE IS AS FOLLOWS : NUMBER OF DWELLING BEDROOMS UNITS/ACRE 1 10. 0 2 10.0 3 7.5 4+ 5.0 (b) Ar-eas-9es1gnat-ed-Hh-BenSity-Ma It�»Ie-Faxtily-Res4deij+t3+a-1 Sixteen-{16}-dwell4ng-Qa3ta-pew-ae e�-e_c-E_�-tea-t-a- de ns i ty-mar-be-specifiad-.whexe_wzrrazi.ted-}b-,-.0-i.te- PAGE -1stles,-4RG1IRding,-bst-aot--1-im3ted--to-,-adeq+1ae-y-4>f-fie- TWO -Ell spesal.-site-tepeg-raphy7-adeq�uaey-o€--road-ae�_S_l -abiIity-of_utIIIties.,_aud-othea_sela ad_ cl�aza�-der-inti s,- n 3-22 �� • r ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 (b) AREAS DESIGNATED HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE IS AS FOLLOWS : NUMBER OF DWELLING BEDROOMS UNITS/ACRE 1 16 2 16 3 12 4+ 8 (c) HILLSIDE DENSITY STANDARDS. THE MAXIMUM DENSITIES rERMITTED f BY SUBSECTIONS a D (ET— ABOVE, SHALL BE MODIFIED TO THE FOLLOWING MAXIMUMS BASED ON SITE TOPOGRAPHY, AS FOLLOWS: AVERAGE LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY SLOPE 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR+ 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR+ 0-10% 10 10 7,50 5 .0 16 16 12.0 8.0 11-15% 7 7 5.25 3.5 12 12 8.4 5.6 16-20% 5 5 3. 75 2.5 8 8 5.6 3. 7 21-25% 3 3 2. 75 1.5 6 6 4.2 2.8 26-30% 2 2 1.50 1.0 4 4 2.8 1.8 317.+UP 1 1 0. 75 0.5 2 2 1.4 0.9 (d) GROUP QUARTERS : THE MAXIMUM POPULATION DENSITY FOR GROUP QUARTERS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS : MAXIMUM POPULATION DENSITY LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 22 PERSONS/NET ACRE HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE 36 PERSONS/NET ACRE FAMILY (e) SEWER SERVICE. SEWER SERVICE AND THE INCLUSION OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICES LINE (USL) SHALL BE A PREREQUI- SITE TO DEVELOPING MULTIPLE FAMILY PROJECTS TO THE DENSITY STANDARDS OF THE RMF ZONE. RMF-ZONED PROPERTIES OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN SERVICES AREAS SHALL DEVELOP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS OF THE RS RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN DISTRICT. (f) Density Bonus : A density bonus OF UP TO 25% may be granted through Conditional Use Permit approval IN EXCHANGE FOR PROVISION OF where-adequate-previsie,us-are-iRade-te-previde dwelling-,units-whieh-are affordable HOUSING to low and moderate income persons . Tke-granting-ef-a-density-ben,us shall-be-geverned-by-tke-fellewingt RACE THREE ; • i ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 -El}--Ameuat-s€-beaus-- Ei}--The -shall-be-25%-exeept- whem-a-greater-beans-is-allewed-by-subseetiea- Eiii}-et-this-Seetiea: f}i�---the-at}mber-a€-gaits-allowed-bp-these-bonus-pro�ri-- siens-s�iall-xie�-be-less-�haa,-diet-may-e�ceeed�-��e actual-xiumbe�-ef-dwell.l�g-us�fs-p�o��ded-�o�- �a�ge�ed-iasex�e-g�ex�a.- �iii}.__T�1e-ameuxi�-a€-the-dens}tg-beaus-stay-be-ad��s�ed-�- tbe-Planping-Ccmmissien-}a-a�de�-te-aEeo�►p��s�i-- geals-and-eH�eetiees-set-forth-in-the-Housing-£3e-- ment-af-the-6enera�-P}an.- f2}--Rego}ped-Piadia�s---the-€ellew3rig-aelditionai-findings- sl�all-be-made-€er-anp-greject-receiving-a-densitp- �eat3s�- -f}�--the-pre3eet;-prier-to-the-granting-of-the-densitp;- Her�t�s;-shall-eensist-of-a-minimum-of-f oar-dwelling-• halts: fii}--The-dwelling-an=ts-allowed-by-the-bonus-shat3-be avai}able-te-the-targeted-income-group-for-a-minis - €teen- -- �5 ears. f � y fiii}--Per€ormanee-and-management-guarantees-have-been g�o�idec�-whiel�-de�eastrate-eent3nt�eel-a�ailabil3tp- o€-dwelling-Baits-€er-the-targeted.-iaeeme-group-as- pr-gvided-by-Subseetien-fii}-e€-this-Section: f}�}---The-graxtiag-e€-a-density-beats-will-serve-to-sap-- Por-t--goals-and-ebjeetives-set-€girth-i.n-the-Housing Rlemeat-o€-the-General-Plan7- (3) Alte-raatives-te-Deasit -Eei3us . In lieu of granting a density bonus , the Planning Commission shall consider other bonus incentives allowable under Government Code Section 65915 . The-granting-ef-a-density-beads-dees- aet-preelude-eeasideratiea-ef-these,--er-ether, -beaus iaeeatives- PAGE FOUR •;,., :! 9-3. 176 . PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. IN ADDITION TO THE STAND- ARDS SPECIFIED IN CHAPTER 4, GENERAL SITE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SHALL APPLY TO MOBILE HOME AND MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: (a) PERCENT COVERAGE. THE MAXIMUM PERCENT OF A LOT THAT MAY BE COVERED BY STRUCTURES (EXCLUDING DECKS LESS THAN 30 INCHES FROM THE GROUND) SHALL BE 40% FOR LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY PROJECTS AND 50% FOR HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY PROJECTS. (b) ENCLOSED STORAGE. EACH DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE PROVIDED A MINIMUM OF 100 SQUARE FEET OF ENCLOSED STORAGE SPACE, -EX- CLUSIVE OF CLOSETS, WHICH 14AY BE LOCATED IN EITHER A PRIN- CIPAL OR ACCESSORY BUILDING. (c) OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS. FOR DEVELOPMENTS OF 4-7 DWELL- ING UNITS, OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED AT A RATIO OF 300 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT. THIS OPEN SPACE MAY BE PROVIDED EITHER AS (1) A PRIVATE AMENITY DESIGNED FOR EXCLUSIVE USE OF A DWELLING UNIT OR (2) AS COMMON OPEN SPACE PROVIDED THAT NO INDIVIDUAL OPEN SPACE IS LESS THAN 11000 SQUARE FEET. FOR DEVELOPMENTS OF 8 OR MORE DWELLING UNITS, OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED AT A RATIO OF 300 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT. THIS COMMON OPEN SPACE MAY BE PROVIDED IN MORE THAN ONE LOCATION PROVIDED THAT NO INDIVIDUAL OPEN SPACE AREA IS LESS THAN 1, 000 SQUARE FEET. (d) SCREENING WALL. A SOLID WALL OR FENCE NOT LESS THAN SIX FEET IN HEIGHT SHALL BE PLACED AND MAINTAINED ON INTERIOR LOT LINES ABUTTING PROPERTY ZONED FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESI- DENTIAL USE. (e) COVERED PARKING. ONE (1) _COVERED PARKING SPACE (CARPORT OR GARAGE SHALL BE REQUIRLD PER DWELLING UNIT OF THE TOTAL OFF-STREET SPACES REQUIRED BY SECTION 9-4. 118. 1 t` PAGE FIVE ZONING EXC T - TANDEM PARKING ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 . (4) o -Off Points Required: Parking areas for pu assem facilities shall include a design on-site location o opping off passengers an entrance to the facility in nce of parkjLrrT the vehicle. Drop-- off points are to be p for : hotels and motels; schools with 50 or Stu • churches with a capa- city of 100 or e; restaurants w a capacity of 50 or more omers; public transportation minals; pl of public assembly; public buildings; a offices arger than 5,000 square feet. (5) Tandem Parking: Each space in a parking lot, area or garage is to be individually accessible, except that automobiles may be parked in tandem in the following situations: (i) In a parking area serving a single family dwelling, OR individual mobilehome eE-multi-family-dwelliR97 where the tandem parking is not more than two cars in depth; provided that both spaces are for the same dwelling, and are not located in a required front setback. (ii) In a public garage or public parking area where all parking is performed by attendants at all times, or for public assembly facilities and temporary events where user arrivals and departures are simultaneous and where parking is attendant-directed. (iii) For all-day employee parking lots restricted to em- ployee use, provided that required aisle widths are maintained, and no more than 50% of the employee spaces are designed for tandem use. 9- 18. Required Number of Parking Spaces: All land uses re- quirin proval under this Title shall provide off-street rking spaces as cified in Subsection b and c of this Sect' (a) Use of ChaThe charts in Subsect' c of this Section determine the ber of parking s ces required for each use of land, as follow (1) Uses Not Listed: or es not specifically listed in this Subsect ' n that do no ave parking requirements set by C ter 9-6 (Special Us , the same parking and loa ' g space is required as for t most similar use of uivalent intensity; except where a u not listed re- quires Conditional Use Permit approval, in ich case the amount of parking and loading space requir shall be as determined by the Planning Commission. PAGE SIX r ` 4-14+ ZONING EXIERPT - PRECISE PLAN ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 FINDINGS Areas in excess of 30% slope may be designatedo. s such and contours omitted, unless propos for grading, construction or other alteration. (6) S lementar, Develo ment Statement: Sha include a phase schedule for project construct' if one is pro- posed an identification of any ar proposed to be reserved a maintained as comm o open space. Applica- tions for Spe ' 1 uses (Chapte -6) shall include ex- planation of h the ap cable provisions of Chapter 9-6 will be met. (b) Precise Plan Processin Preci Plan applications shall be submitted to t Planning artment and shall be pro- cessed as follows- (1) Enviro ntal Determination. A Preci Plan applica- tio accepted for processing as set th in Section 9 .102 (Determination of Completeness) sha receive an environmental determination as required by thealifor- nia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . The Planni De- partment shall process the application concurrently h the environmental determination. 9-2. 108 (b) (2) Staff Report. The Planning Department shall prepare a Staff Report which: (i) Describes the characteristics of the proposed land use or development project, as well as the project site and its surroundings; and (ii) References applicable policies and regulations; and (iii) Determines whether the proposed use or project com- plies with the provisions of this Title; and (iv) Sets forth any findings required to support the decision. APPROVAL OR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL RE- QUIRES FINDINGS AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 9-2 . 109 (c) (4) FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. (v) Specifies any conditions necessary to assure com- pliance with this Title or the mitigated adverse environmental effects . (3) Public Notice. After the staff report has been pre- pared, a notice shall be sent by first class mail with postage prepaid to all persons whose names and addresses appear on the last equalized assessment roll as owning property adjacent to the exterior boundaries of the pro- ject site. Additional notice may be provided when ap- propriate by the Planning Director. The notice shall 2-7 PAGE SEVEN J ZONING EXC - CONDITIONAL ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 USE PERMIT (2) Additional Conditions. In addition to the conditions of Section 9-2.109 (c) (1) , the Planning Commission ay adopt other conditions, including but not limited t : Requiring that security be provided to arantee performance and/or compliance with c dtions of pproval, as set forth in Section 9-2. 2 (Guaran- t s of Performance) ; (ii) Requi ing installation of specifi on-site or off- site i rovements; (iii) Requiring eriodic review or imiting the permit to a specified eriod of time (iv) Requiring that a per t be personal to the appli- cant or be applic 1 to the property; (v) Any other conditi s s are judged by the Planning Commission to b neces ry to achieve compatibility between the p posed use nd its site, its immedi- ate surroun ngs, and the mmunity. (3) Effect of Con itions. Whenever a nditional Use Per- mit approvay is granted or amended ubject to condi- tions, u or enjoyment of the Cond ional Use Permit approva in violation, or without obsery ce of any con- ditio shall constitute a violation of th ' s title. In the event of such a violation, the approva may be re- vo d or modified as provided in Section 9-8 . 5 (Revo- tion of Approval and Forfeiture of Bonds) . a dura- tion of conditions is established in Section -2.119 (Lapse of Entitlement) . Any change in the condi ions of approval of a Conditional Use Permit shall only be allowed after following all procedures undertaken f the original approval. 9-2. 109 (c) (4) Required Findings. If the Planning Commission ap- proves or conditionally approves a Conditional Use Per- mit, it shall first find that: (i) The proposed project or use is consistent with the General Plan; and (ii) The proposed project or use satisfies all applica- ble provisions of this Title; and ( iii) The establishment, and subsequent operation or con- duct of the use will not, because of the circum- stances and conditions applied in the particular 2-10 PAGE EIGHT j? ! 0 ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 case, be detrimental to the health, safety or wel- fare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be det- rimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use; and (iv) That the proposed project or use will not be incon- sistent with the .character of the immediate neigh- borhood or contrary to its orderly development; and (v) 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 ex- isting 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; and (VI) ; THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ANY PERTINENT CITY POLICY OR CRITERIA ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL; AND (vii) Any additional findings as deemed necessary. (d) Effective Date. The approval of a Conditional Use Permit shall become final and effective for the purposes of issuing a construction permit or establishing a non-structural use fourteen (14) days following Planning Commission approval unless prior to that time, an appeal to the decision is filed as set forth in Section 9-1.111 (b) (Appeal - Planning Commis- sion Decisions) . 9-2. 112. Approved Plans. A land use or development project au- thorized through a zoning approval shall be developed or established only as shown on the project plans approved as part of the applica- tion. Deviation of the project design or construction from the approved plans may occur only as follows: (a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, a fea- ture of the use or project which is subject to the standards of Chapters 9-4 and 9-6 may be modified provided that the change requested is in conformity with the standards of this Title. Such change shall be requested in writing with appropriate supporting materials and explanation of the rea sons for the request. The Planning Director may approve a requested change upon verification of its conformity with this Title, provided that such approval shall not modify the effective date of the approval (Section 9-2. 113) . (b) In the case of a project feature which is subject to condi- tions of approval of a Conditional Use Permit, or was a spe- cific consideration in the approval of a Conditional Use Per- mit, a new Conditional Use Permit approval shall be obtained. PAGE NINE 2-11 City of Atascadero Item: B. 1 STAFF REPORT FOR: PLANNING COMMISSIO14 Meeting Date: Jan. 19 , 1987 BY: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consideration of staff report and draft comprehensive rewrite of the Residential Multiple Family Zoning Standards. BACKGROUND: This matter is continued from Planning Commission meeting of January 5 , 1987. Enclosed are the staff reports prepared reviewing this subject to date, i.e. , November 3rd & 17th, December lst and January 5th. WHAT' S NEXT• A consensus of the Commission on refinements desired in the original staff draft re-write (primarily a decision amongst the alternative densities from the attached January 5 , 1987 Memorandum) . Staff would then schedule the revised draft for a future public hearing. HE:ph Enclosures : Staff Reports Nov. 31, 1986 Nov. 17, 1986 December 1, 1986 January 5 , 1987 . MEEO G DATE : 1/5/87 ITEM: B-1 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning Commission January 5 , 1987 FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director RE: Multi-Family Residential Zoning Standards Evaluation: Alternative Density Standards Chart BACKGROUND: At your December lst meeting, the Commission requested alternatives to the original staff recommendation relative to the number of units per acre that could be developed. Following are three alternatives derived from Commission discussion together with the effect of these standards on three "test" pro- jects which have already been approved. Standards shown are for two bedroom units. ALTERNATIVE MULTI-FAMILY DENSITY STANDARDS in two-bedroom units/acre ALT. I (Michielssen) ALT. 2 (Bond) ALT. 3 (Lopez-B. ) Slope RMF/10 RMF/16 RMF/10 RMF/16 RMF/10 RMF/16 Up to 10 10 16 10 16 8 12 11 - 15°0 6.66 10.66 6.25 10 5.33 8 16 - 20% 5 8 4.38 7 4 6 21 - 25% 3.33 5.3 2.49 4 2.66 4 26 - 30% 1 .66 2.66 1 .25 2 1 .33 2 31% and up 0.8 1 .3 .62 1 0.66 1 Current # Units # 2-B.R. Units Allowed: Various Zoning Actual Staff Project Acre Slope Allowance Project Recom. Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 5760 Ardilla 2.26 26-30% 36 36 3.39 6 4.5 4.5 5550 Traffic Way 2.00 31% 32 32 1 .5 2.6 2.0 2.0 Bordeaux House 27.2 10/0 435 400 326 435 435 326 i f.` M E M O R A N D U M TO: ((PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:Jq TEVEN L. DECAMP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE : DECEMBER 15, 1986 RE : MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING STANDARDS EVALUATION: EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND: AT YOUR DECEMBER 1, 1986 MEETING, THE COMMISSION REQUESTED INFOR- MATION REGARDING THE USE AND ESTABLISHMENT OF PLANNED DEVELOP- MENT (PD) OVERLAY ZONES . THE ATTACHED MATERIAL FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE SHOWS : 1) THE PURPOSE, STANDARDS, AND FINDINGS RELATIVE TO PD OVERLAYS (EXHIBIT A - SECTION 9-3 ET SEQ. ); AND 2) THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PD OVERLAY TO MINIMUM LOT SIZE DETERMINATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY ZONES (EXHIBIT B - SECTION 9-3 . 174) . SLD: PS cX41eI A ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 PD (Planned Development) Overlay Zone 9-3. 641. Purpose: The Planned Development Overlay Zone identi- fies areas where development standards or processing procedures dif- ferent from those established by the underlying zoning district, Chapter 9-4 or Chapter 9-6 , are deemed necessary to promote orderly and harmonious development and to enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area. 9-3. 642. Applicability of Planned Development Standards: The standards of Section 9-3 .645 et seq apply to all uses for which "a zoning approval is required that are located in a Planned Development Overlay Zone. 9-3. 643. Minimum Development Standards and Processing Require- ments: The development standards, special use standards and pro- cessing requirements of the underlying zoning district shall apply in a Planned Development Overlay Zone unless specifically modified, to a greater or lesser extent, by a Planned Development Overlay Zone. The Planned Development Overlay Zone may be used as follows: (a) to modify setbacks; heights; parking and loading; landscap- ing, screening and fencing; signs; streets and frontage im- provements; and, other development and special use standards set forth in Chapters 9-4 and 9-6 ; and (b) to modify processing procedures set forth by the underlying zoning district (Chapter 9-3) ; and (c) to establish other development standards or processing re- quirements; and (d) to modify minimum lot sizes or permitted density. 9-3.644. Required Findings: In approving the establishment of a Planning Development Overlay Zone, the following findings shall be made: (a) Modification of development standards or processing require- ments is warranted to promote orderly and harmonious development. (b) Modification of development standards or processing require- ments will enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area and will have a beneficial effect on the area. 3-59 0 • ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 (c) Benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be reasonably achieved through existing development standards or processing requirements. (d) Proposed plans, if any, offer certain redeeming features to compensate for requested modifications. X�i� �� ADOPTED JUNE 27, 19 (h) Be and Breakfast (i) The follo ' uses where established in a res ' ntial structure of ' torical importance: (1) Broadcasting Stu ' s (2) Business Support Serv' (3) Libraries and eums (4) Offices (5) rsonal Services (6) School-business and vocational 9-3.174. Lot Size: The minimum lot size in the Residential Mul- tiple Family Zone shall be one-half acre. Smaller lot sizes may allowed for planned residential developments, including condominiums and mobilehome developments, provided that the overall density within the project conforms with Section 9-3.175 (Density) . 9-3.175. XAreasdmes 'qnated The maximum allowable density in the Re iden- tial Muly Zone shall be designated on the Offi al Zoning Maps as Section 9-3. 104 (c) and be establishe in accord- ance wital Plan as follows: (a) Low Density Multiple Fami Residential: Ten (10) d lling units per acre, except hat a lesser den- sity may be ecified where warranted site characteris- tics, includin , but not limit/to, equacy of sewage dis- posal, site top raphy, adequad access, availability of utilities and her relatedristics. (b) Areas Desi nated Hi DensitFamily Residential: Sixteen (16) .dwelling s r acre, except that a lesser density may be specifie with re warranted by site character- istics, including, but no limited to, adequacy of sewage disposal, site topograp , equacy of road access, avail- ability of utilities, d oth r related characteristics. (c) Density Bonus: A nsity bonus ay be granted through Con- ditional Use Perm' approval where adequate provisions are made to provide welling units whic are affordable to low and moderate ' come persons. The gra ting of a density bonus shall be gov rned by the following: (1) Amou t of Bonus: The maximum density bonus shall be � except when a greater bonus is allowed by Subsect 'on ,(iii) of this Section. 3-22 9 0 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning Commission December 15 , 1986 FROM: Joel Moses , Associate Planner RE: Multi-Family Residential Zoning Standards Evaluation: Proposed Outdoor Recreation Area Standards BACKGROUND: At a previous meeting, the Commission requested additional infor- mation on the proposed development standards below. Attached are tables on the implementation of the recreational area standards along with several examples of the implementation. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUIRED LOT SIZE RECREATION NO. OF NO. OF UNITS 10/ACRE 16/ACRE AREA NEEDED AREAS 1 to 3 13, 068 8, 166 0 0 4 17,424 10, 888 1, 200 1 5 21, 780 13, 610 1, 500 1 6 26, 136 16, 332 1, 800 1 7 30 , 492 19 , 054 2 , 100 2 8 34, 848 21, 776 2 ,400 2 10 43 , 560 27, 220 3,000 3 13 56 , 628 35 , 386 4, 000 4 16 69 , 696 43, 552 4, 800 4 17 74, 052 46 , 274 5 , 100 5 20 87 , 120 54, 440 6 , 000 6 40 174, 240 108, 880 12 , 000 12 60 261, 360 163, 320 18, 000 18 STANDARD TYPE OF RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT Minimum Areas Minimum Areas Size Area Units 6 ' 0" slide 8 X 22 176 2 swings 17 X 24 408 tether ball 20 X 20 400 merry-go-round 22 X 22 484 horseshoes 10 X 50 500 shuffleboard 52 X 10 520 handball 50 X 40 2 , 000 7 volleyball 42 X 72 3, 024 10 basketball court 42 X 74 3 , 108 10 1/2 court 42 X 37 1, 554 5 tennis court 120 X 60 7 ,200 24 Note: Pool areas may vary widely Source : Architectural Standards �� -• ;Uii('ti11t(llflili(ll� iillltlillfiillltiri r AT flip SAND 1 I I'M, t1111l1 RI7l is !ZOD SQUft ZE FOOT TL AY A2E-P 12OO SQ UA-9C FODT- S��fUFFI �I30PrQD !-I 95MHOES T-ALE I IO'-O' 1A UM MYYI I LY 9G 1 UL11 M IrL DD11ELI)7M BI T ffFKY\MrN DS- YL4-7[-ATlftJW L. A tn TYD(GA'l- IIX SQUME FOOT MARS FD2 4 UM IT MMIDLIM CSL, CDMFLL-X r% t X - o N 1 a o� MUM FT MLO PSSI GWT�VYL a-vLu wtl S�FC`NDf�Q�S Eff -P 1fMJAL A-WA 1 M'FL,IIMMJTf1'flUIU •,{ UM1T- -700= t x \ e ,t 1 J • r \ / • � � MUTAI�'►rMIL`/• IZL�I��Y�IC)1'CL �D�IJ�A�iuCIUi .� SV JC11 1A�5 P,tZkL'L1LMII�L Y ^A IMPUWlM1TAnAJ • 9 UIUIT PWIEL-F Ll I a 16— OWN , ,. INN fit � i -- 1Q, 1 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning Commission December 1, 1986 FROM: Doug Davidson, Assistant Planner Henry Engen, Community Development Director RE: Multi-family Residental Zoning Standards Evaluation: Group Quarters Population Density Standards BACKGROUND: At your November 17th meeting, the Commission requested the following calculations reflecting application of the standards proposed for zoning section 9-3.175 (4) , Group Quarters (reference: Agenda Item C-1, Draft Comprehensive Re-Write of Multi-Family Residential Zoning Standards) : 1) California Manor (Young) - 10165 El Camino Real Site Area: 4.74 acres Zoning: RMF/16 16 X 4.-74 acres = 76 units allowed 25% density bonus approved for 95 units 190 persons maximum on-site, but most are single *Proposed Standard: 36 persons/acre 36 X 4.74 acres = 170 people 2) Gifford - 6455 Santa Lucia Site Area: . 55 acres Zoning: RMF/16 16 X . 55 acres = 9 units allowed 211% density bonus approved for 19 units Condition #7b (C.U.P. 16-85) reads as follows: "The maximum number of residents permitted shall be 1. 25 per unit or 24 persons (43 persons per acre) " . *Proposed Standard: 36 persons/acre 36 X .55 = 20 people i • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning Commission FROM: Steven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner Henry Engen, Community Development Director DATE: December 1, 1986 RE: Multi-Family Residential Zoning Standards Evaluation: Slope/Density Standards BACKGROUND: At your November 17th meeting, the Commission requested information regarding the determination of slopes on the well-documented multiple family housing projects. The attached graphics show site plans , profiles , and slope analysis for the following projects: 1. 5550 Traffic Way (32 units/30% + slopes) 2. 5820 Ardilla Avenue (36 units/36% + slopes) SLD:ps • - � I � �I J Y V `' moi b •I '' a �c�! l;x- c hYh<e��� � �,��� = ' ,!1-Z rit„ ,r�,ji2 " C ej�• Q L �`( ��z?ee$ �' 8 i n^ •a W s n� X32= �:i c V W)CL uj a - ---- - �R ,j L Qol / -T•.,._ - — .... m m -'_-/ "-- ��I •�\ ` \ y � ;` a .t �. � rix u � \ \ ♦ \ t �_- I ^I /m v � ' r:¢si ..ter_ �� t,l d\ 1 s' \\sl\ ���'S: lt: � ♦ - `mob _ - `�?~ �"��� �_ C. 7 r >3 �.."`y,7�;� 1 1 I\ \ * 1 a t `\ o\ \ st�b Q. c F•. I: I 17 •� t � i , .9 '1 Ici\ "T�' -alggOS. - f t ",SS - 27 4 m ..\ �, ;7.•S�+ \t,7. y.{ ,"6•y. Y=. \ \ ` \:. s kil I ' ; t 7�S i 7 � �„ f� , w\Ili' 1\ , d.. f SrzY-LTi Si7.f •4:4,..5' a \� \I. �!,( Il b� ', - I :V Cit. IT, - r a \ li IIz Y - - \ ..� ' �' ......' S.o,r+.s�ty� �� +�1... �\� \ \1� �7 � gar• \} Q\ 1 � s\ 1 �I I� tri•5 �� ,� :.- � l a .7 � `� � (;. ;h 1� 1 �li 1 F�{j� ♦ t. c ` \ \ .o"\\ ,p'�I ' � _� _ ........... ,'s II I I, 1, I r GL 1 Q o. C O z ��l i_w � p Z s > LL X W , O cr- M h � V MI my � t W 1 U W II 1 i I I 1 I 1 1 I._ F rym - _ I m 1 �0 1 O W U crl CO I 6� 1 I o� 1 1 1 I 1. ti 1 1 1 i " I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I f I 02 �I RJ j j F- a � J 8 o CO h fz v . e � r ' J h xati Z �k214R o�3F � ' � U r" k N fl �J Ln �n N / / / / W /v IM U r / / , , x ' 3 p3 r Al , t / 6\ 1 1 I / r 1 I 4 i 1 1 ( I 11 1 p� I 1 1 1 P CO h J • B 4"RETAIN/NG WALL-•. �Y��, 4L"RETA/N/NG T✓A!!——� 2 , `\ `o.o FILL 7 -72U 15. 2 STORY 0 .740. EL V •/93, \z \\ \ RRL .17 1 i X23 ♦- 99 4/ //J 49 .wICY t S S3 SS SG 57 bAVO T / N- f 10 x40' y EV-/B •ice / / �O / / / 1 coy / 91 UN/TS � �_ 7CINTT9 2-S1BRY r ,7itainyg - / . awt.H LINE,' �v (� _ �\ 37 - AsfA Of ,60 _�� Dar,F----------------- EN Wale,MainyTF/N7A crn l�' ARD LA AVENUE_ ' EX4161T A SSz,o A,RIDiLLA AVE ; 'Ts ` F "R I O 1�-' f.S :t t CQ •�� X11 _ _ � J f � _ 1 J -- y roz Sil p L : n- ll In { s glosigos .d l. i•; a � .r _. it f ,a_ s-_F v. {_ ay✓ On! v + YLiur� r. 7 00t Ve o 0 04 to ; L! - City of Atascadero Item: C-1 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 11/3/86 BY: Henry Engen, Community Development Director & 11/17/86 SUBJECT: Draft comprehensive re-write of Multiple Family Residential Zoning Standards BACKGROUND: On August 25, 1986, the City Council transmitted for Planning Commis- sion study a staff report recommending a wide variety of changes for consideration in the City' s standards for multi-family housing. This report was the subject of general discussion at the Commission' s meet- ings of September 15th and October 6th, 1986 . The attached draft has been prepared for study purposes prior to going to public hearing to consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to accom- plish the objectives contained in the August 25th staff report. ANALYSIS: The attached draft ordinance reflects all the language in the RMF - Residential Multiple Family zone with capitalized letters indicating proposed new language and dashes (---) indicating language proposed to be deleted. Density standards - Modified density standards are proposed to pro- vide a sliding scale of density per bedroom type further modified by a reduction in density allowed on steepslopes. Hence in Sectio P n 9-3.175, the range of density on a flat piece of ground (0-15% slope) in an RMF/16 zone would be 16 per acre for one bedroom units and 6 units per acre for four bedroom units. As the average slope in- creases, the number of units allowed is proposed to correspondingly decrease. Staff has examined the implication of project approvals of several recent projects in the City to determine the impact as follows: 5760 Ardilla project Prior approval: 2. 26 acres at 16 units per acre = 36 unit project approval. Under the proposed standards, only three units would be allowed (26-30% slope and two bedroom units = 1. 5 units per acre X 2. 26 acres = 3.39 two bedroom units) . Adjustments could be made in bedroom type to increase the number of units (5 one bedroom units could be built) . RE Draft Rewrite of*lti-Family Residential Z0ng Standards Mulholland project (5550 Traffic Way) Current approval: 2.0 acres at 16 units per acre = 32 unit project. Proposed standards would al- low 2 units (31% slope and 2 bedroom units = 0 . 75 units per acre X 2. 0 acres = 1. 5 two bedroom units, which rounds to 2 two bedroom units) . Bordeaux project (Viejo Camino) Current approval: 27 . 2 acres at 16 units per acre = 435 units allowable (400 approved) . Proposed stand- ards would allow 327 units (0-15% slope and two bedroom units = 12 units per acre X 27.2 acres = 326 two bedroom units) . Attached is a handout utilized by the City of San Luis Obispo which explains that City' s standards utilizing this type of sliding scale for density and hillside development standards. Group Quarters: Maximum population density of persons per acre for use in non-conven- tional residential housing is proposed to be incorporated back into the Zoning Ordinance. The figures of 22 to 36 persons per acre for the low and high density multi-family areas, respectively, were incor— porated in the old General Plan. Staff does need to report back to the Planning Commission on how these figures would compare for pro- jects approved to date. Sewer Service: It is proposed that maximum densities not be allowed for areas not provided sewer service in multi-family zones. This would be consis- tent with the stated purpose of the district and the public services chapter of the General Plan. Density Bonus: Has been reduced to a simple 25% instead of being open-ended as is the case now, and is simplified in terms of findings needed to reflect state law. Property Development Standards: Are new and are covered in Pages 5 and 6 of the attached staff report. Findings: Findings required for both precise plans and conditional use permits are proposed to be made the same as indicated in the attached pages 7, 8, and 9. Staff proposes adding a finding for compliance with any other pertinent City policy or criteria adopted by ordinance or reso- lution of the City Council. This could apply in the event that archi- tectural guidelines are adopted by Council. WHAT' S NEXT: This draft is offered for discussion and questions by the Commission with staff looking for direction for further research or alternatives desired to be studied. HE:ps 2 RE Draft Rewrite of Ati-Family Residential Zon*g Standards Enclosure: Draft RMF Zone Standards How Many Apartments Can You Build pamphlet - City of San Luis Obispo 3 �o� DRA CHANGES : 10/21/86 C - proposed language . ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 ---- = deleted language RMF (Residential Multiple Family) Zone 9-3.171. Purpose: This zone is established to provide for apart- ment, condominium and townhouse development where higher density resi- dential development is desired within the Urban Services Line. 9-3. 172. Allowable Uses: The following uses shall be allowed in the Residential Multiple Family Zone. The establishment of allowable uses shall be as provided by Section 9-2.107 (Plot Plans) and Section 9-2.108 (Precise Plans) : (a) Single family dwelling (b) Residential accessory uses (See Section 9-6 .106) (c) Accessory Storage (See Section 9-6 .103) (d) Home occupations (See Section 9-6.105) (e) Collection station (See Section 9-6.130) (f) Multiple family dwellings (g) Temporary dwelling (See Section 9-6.176) (h) Utility transmission facilities (i) Skilled Nursing Facility (See Section 9-6.134) (j) Residential care (See Section 9-6 .135) (k) Temporary Events (See Section 9-6. 177) 9-3.173. Conditional Uses: The following uses e may be allowed in the Residential Multiple Family Zone. The establishment of condi- tional uses shall be as provided by Section 9-2.109 (Conditional Use Permits) : (a) Churches and related activities (See Section 9-6 .121) (b) Schools (See Section 9-6 .125) (c) Mobilehome developments (See Section 9-6 .143) (d) Organizational Houses (e) Pipelines (f) Farm Animal Raising (See Section 9-6 .112) (g) Retirement hotel 3-21 D ADOPTED JUNE 27 , 1983 (h) Bed and Breakfast (i) The following uses where established in a residential structure of historical importance: (1) Broadcasting Studios (2) Business Support Services (3) Libraries and museums (4) Offices (5) Personal Services (6) School-business and vocational 9-3.174. Lot Size: The minimum lot size in the Residential Mul- tiple Family Zone shall be one-half acre. Smaller lot sizes may be allowed for planned residential developments, including condominiums and mobilehome developments, provided that the overall density within the project conforms with Section 9-3.175 (Density) . 9-3.175. Density: The maximum allowable density in the Residen- tial Multiple Family Zone shall be designated on the Official Zoning Maps as provided by Section 9-3.104 (c) and be established in accord- ance with the General Plan as follows: (a) Areas designated Low Density Multiple Family Residential: fir--E- )--d ���r�g- r�� s �-a��e�-e�;ecpt-that-a-lesser--den=- -si b-m&Y- � speGi i�d-wt r-e -caa��anted-lay-s}fie-el�a�aete is-- s- -s-i-t,&-tapogr-aphyr-adequag'y-e -r-oad-aeeessT-availability- -o-€-i��r�rtieg-ar�c�-o1=Y3e�-F-elated-��ra�a�te�is�ies. (a) AREAS DESIGNATED LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE IS AS FOLLOWS : NUMBER OF DWELLING BEDROOMS UNITS/ACRE 1 10. 0 2 7. 5 3 5 . 0 4+ 3. 8 (b) Areas Designated High Density Multiple Family Residential: Sixteen-416}-dweil-ing- pe-r-,ac-re-,-exCe>t-t41&t .a-3 r- _density-may_be_spacifiad_where_warraritj--d_.by_-s4.te_.c iara4c-t,&r— -isties,-ieelsding,-bet-not-414m-ited--to-,-adegea o€ -d4speaal,-site-*-opog-raphy,-adeq-Uae-Y-o-f-woad-aet�ese7- i3 ability-of_utilities,-and_othar_rala#e.d_�hax anter-i�ti�s.__ 3-22 y ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 (b) AREAS DESIGNATED HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE IS AS FOLLOWS: NUMBER OF DWELLING BEDROOMS UNITS/ACRE 1 16 2 12 3 8 4+ 6 (c) HILLSIDE DENSITY STANDARDS. THE MAXIMUM DENSITIESrERMITTED BY SUBSECTIONS a , AND (b ABOVE, SHALL BE MODIFIED TO THE FOLLOWING MAXIMUMS BASED ON SITE TOPOGRAPHY, AS FOLLOWS: AVERAGE LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY SLOPE 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR+ IBR 2BR 3BR 4BR+ 0-15% 10 7.50 5.0 3.80 16 12 8.0 6.00 16-20% 5 3.75 2.5 1.90 8 6 4.0 3.00 21-25% 3 2.25 1.5 1.10 5 3.75 2.5 1.88 26-30% 2 1.50 1.0 0.75 2 1.50 1.0 0.75 31%+UP 1 0.75 0.5 0.38 1 0.75 0.5 0.38 (d) GROUP QUARTERS : THE MAXIMUM POPULATION DENSITY FOR GROUP QUARTERS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS : MAXIMUM POPULATION DENSITY LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 22 PERSONS/NET ACRE HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE 36 PERSONS/NET ACRE FAMILY (e) SEWER SERVICE. SEWER SERVICE AND THE INCLUSION OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICES LINE (USL) SHALL BE A PREREQUI- SITE TO DEVELOPING MULTIPLE FAMILY PROJECTS TO THE DENSITY STANDARDS OF THE RMF ZONE. RMF-ZONED PROPERTIES OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN SERVICES AREAS SHALL DEVELOP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS OF THE RS RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN DISTRICT. (f) Density Bonus : A density bonus OF UP TO 25% may granted through Conditional Use Permit approval IN EXCHANGE FOR PROVISION OF where-adegxate-preyislens-aFe-Faade-te-provide dwelling-uRits-whieh-are affordable HOUSING to low and moderate income persons . £ke-ga �lxg-ef-a-der�sl�y-beets shall-be-geverRed-by-the-€ellewleg- r ,v ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 -El}--AFxexn�-a€-Eer�t's-- -�}}--Tke-ma�iffit'm-deasi�y-bent's-shall-be-25�l,-exeegt- wkea-a-g�eate�-bents.s-}s-alle�aed-by-S�bsee�}ea- f}}}---The-nt}mber-a€-xnits-allowed-bp-these-bonus-provi-- siens-shall-net_be_less-khan,-but-May-e'ceeed7-the actual-numlaes-a€-dwell}n -s _ g sibs-P�o�r�ded-€oma Elie- tareted-i - 9 aseme �e�iT- g P 4iii} __Tpe_ameunt_e€- - _ the dens}ter-�aee�is may-be-adjss*-ed-by- , tae-Planning-Ccmmissien-}a-e�de�-�e-aeeomp�.�s�i-- geals-and-ebjeetives-set-€Orth-in-the-Hensing-E3e— ment-ef-the-General-Plan:- Ea}--Regei�ed-Flndine�ss--The-€eilewing-additional-findings- shall-be-made-€er-any-project-receiving-a-density- benus r- fiY--The-prejeet;-prier-to-the-granting-of-the-density; bent3s;-shall-eensist-of-a-minimum-of-four-dwe33ing- t3nits- fii�--The-dwelling-an=ts-allowed-by-the-bonus-sha3i-be avai}able-te-the-targeted-income-group-for-a-mini— mtsm-O€-€ifteen-f15� -years.- FiiiY--Per€ermanee-and-management-guarantees-have-been PEevided-whieh-demenstrate-eentinued-evailabi3ity- e€-dwelling-units-€er-the-targeted-ineeme-group-as- P�o�ided-by-�sbseetien-{}}}-e€-this-Seetion: 4}�}--Tl�e-giant}ng-o€-a-density-benr�s-will-serve-to-sap-- Por-t-goals-and-ebjeetives-set-€erth-3n-the-Housing Element-a€-the-General-Plan7- (3) Alternatives-te-DeAsit -Bent's . In lieu of granting a density bonus , the Planning Commission shall consider other bonus incentives allowable under Government Code Section 65915 . The-graating-ef-a-density-beat's-d.ees- aet-preelude-eeasideratiea-e€-these;-ey-ether,--bent's iaeeatives: 9-3. 176 . PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. IN ADDITION TO THE STAND- ARDS SPECIFIED IN CHAPTER 4, GENERAL SITE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SHALL APPLY TO MOBILE HOME AND MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: (a) PERCENT COVERAGE. THE MAXIMUM PERCENT OF A LOT THAT MAY BE COVERED BY STRUCTURES (EXCLUDING DECKS LESS THAN 30 INCHES FROM THE GROUND) SHALL BE 40% FOR LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY PROJECTS AND 50% FOR HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY PROJECTS . (b) ENCLOSED STORAGE. EACH DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE PROVIDED A MINIMUM OF 107SQUARE FEET OF ENCLOSED STORAGE SPACE, EX- CLUSIVE OF CLOSETS, WHICH 14AY BE LOCATED IN EITHER A PRIN- CIPAL OR ACCESSORY BUILDING. (c) OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS. FOR DEVELOPMENTS OF 20 OR MORE DWELLING UNITS, OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED AT A RATIO OF 300 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT. THIS COM- MON OPEN SPACE MAY BE PROVIDED IN MORE THAN ONE LOCATION PROVIDED THAT NO INDIVIDUAL OPEN SPACE AREA IS LESS THAN 1, 000 SQUARE FEET. (d) SCREENING WALL A SOLID WALL OR FENCE NOT LESS THAN SIX FEET IN HEIGHT SHALL BE PLACED AND MAINTAINED ON INTERIOR LOT LINES ABUTTING PROPERTY ZONED FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESI- DENTIAL USE. (e) COVERED PARKING. ONE (1) ENCLOSED PARKING SPACE (COMPACT OR GARAGE) SHALL BE REQUIRED PER DWELLING UNIT OF THE TOTAL OFF-STREET SPACES REQUIRED BY SECTION 9-4. 118. n ZONING EXC"T - TANDEM PARKING ADOPTED JUNE 27,1983 (4) o -Off Points Required: Parking areas for pu assem facilities shall include a design on-site location fo opping off passengers an entrance to the facility in nce of park ' the vehicle. Drop-- off points are to be p for : hotels and motels; schools with 50 or Stu churches with a capa- city of 100 or e; restaurants w a capacity of 50 or more omers; public transportation minals; pl of public assembly; public buildings; a offices arger than 5,000 square feet. (5) Tandem Parking: Each space in a parking lot, area or garage is to be individually accessible, except that automobiles may be parked in tandem in the following situations: (i) In a parking area serving a single family dwelling, OR individual mobilehome er-fxlti-family-dwell}x97 where the tandem parking is not more than two cars in depth; provided that both spaces are for the same dwelling, and are not located in a required front setback. (ii) In a public garage or public parking area where all parking is performed by attendants at all times, or for public assembly facilities and temporary events where user arrivals and departures are simultaneous and where parking is attendant-directed. (iii) For all-day employee parking lots restricted to em- ployee use, provided that required aisle widths are maintained, and no more than 50% of the employee spaces are designed for tandem use. �in Required Number of Parkinq Spaces: All land uses proval under this Title shall provide off-street rking spaces as cified in Subsection b and c of this Sect' (a) Use of ChaThe charts in Subsect' c of this Section determine the• ber of parking s ces required for each use of land, as follow (1) Uses Not Listed: or es not specifically listed in this Subsect ' n that do no ave parking requirements set by C _ ter 9-6 (Special Us , the same parking and loa g space is required as for t most similar use of uivalent intensity; except where a u not listed re- quires Conditional Use Permit approval, in ich case the amount of parking and loading space requir shall be as determined by the Planning Commission. 4-14+ 0 ZONING EXPRPT - PRECISE PLAN ADOPTED JUNE 27 , 1983 FINDINGS (iii) Areas in excess of 30% slope may be designated s such and contours omitted, unless propos for grading, construction or other alteration. (6) S lementar Devel ment Statement: Sha include a phase. schedule for project construct ' if one is pro- posed an identification of any ar proposed to be reserved a maintained as commo open space. Applica- tions for Spe 1 uses (Ch apte -6) shall include ex- planation of ho the ap cable provisions of Chapter 9-6 will be met. (b) Precise Plan Processing Preci Plan applications shall be submitted to t Planning artment and shall be pro- cessed as follows- (1) Enviro ntal Determination. A Preci Plan applica- tio accepted for processing as set th in Section 9 . 102 (Determination of Completeness) sha receive an environmental determination as required by the alifor- nia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . The Planni De- partment shall process the application concurrently h the environmental determination. 9-2. 10E(b) (2) Staff Reoort. The Planning Department shall prepare a Staff Report which: (i) Describes the characteristics of the proposed land use or development project, as well as the project site and its surroundings; and (ii) References applicable policies and regulations; and (iii) Determines whether the proposed use or project com- plies with the provisions of this Title; and (iv) Sets forth any findings required to support the decision. APPROVAL OR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL RE- QUIRES FINDINGS AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 9-2 . 109 (c) (4) FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. (v) Specifies any conditions necessary to assure com- pliance with this Title or the mitigated adverse environmental effects . (3) Public Notice. After the staff report has been pre- pared, a notice shall be sent by first class mail with postage prepaid to all persons whose names and addresses appear on the last equalized assessment roll as owning property adjacent to the exterior boundaries of the pro- ject site. Additional notice may be provided when ap- propriate by the Planning Director. The notice shall 2-7 ZONING EXCE*T - CONDITIONAL ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 USE PERMIT (2) Additional Conditions. In addition to the conditions of Section 9-2. 109 (c) (1) , the Planning Commission ay adopt other conditions, including but not limited t : Requiring that security be provided to arantee performance and/or compliance with c dtions of pproval, as set forth in Section 9-2. 2 (Guaran- t s of Performance) ; (ii) erformance) - (ii) Requi ing installation of specifi on-site or off- site i rovements; (iii) Requiring eriodic review or imiting the permit to a specified eriod of time (iv) Requiring that a per t be personal to the appli- cant or be applic 1 to the property; (v) Any other conditi s s are judged by the Planning Commission to b neces ry to achieve compatibility between the p posed use nd its site, its immedi- ate surroun 'ngs, and the mmunity. (3) Effect of Con itions. Whenever a nditional Use Per- mit approva is granted or amended ubject to condi- tions, u or enjoyment of the Cond ional Use Permit approva in violation, or without obsery ce of any con- ditio shall constitute a violation of t title. In the event of such a violation, the approva may be re- vo d or modified as provided in Section 9-8 5 (Revo- tion of Approval and Forfeiture of Bonds) .. a dura- tion of conditions is established in Section -2.119 (Lapse of Entitlement) . Any change in the condi ions of approval of a Conditional Use Permit shall only be allowed after following all procedures undertaken f the original approval. 9-2. 109 (c) (4) Required Findings. If the Planning Commission ap- proves or conditionally approves a Conditional Use Per- mit, it shall first find that: (i) The proposed project or use is consistent with the General Plan; and (ii) The proposed project or use satisfies all applica- ble provisions of this Title; and ( iii) The establishment, and subsequent operation or con- duct of the use will not, because of the circum- stances and conditions applied in the particular 2-10 h , ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 case, be detrimental to the health, safety or wel- fare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be det- rimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use; and (iv) That the proposed project or use will not be incon- sistent with the character of the immediate neigh- borhood or contrary to its orderly development; and (v) 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 ex- isting 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; and (VI) THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ANY PERTINENT CITY POLICY OR CRITERIA ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL; AND (vii) Any additional findings as deemed necessary. (d) Effective Date. The approval of a Conditional Use Permit shall become final and effective for the purposes of issuing a construction permit or establishing a non-structural use fourteen (14) days following Planning Commission approval unless prior to that time, an appeal to the decision is filed as set forth in Section 9-1. 111 (b) (Appeal - Planning Commis- sion Decisions) . 9-2.112. Approved Plans. A land use or development project au- thorized through a zoning approval shall be developed or established only as shown on the project plans approved as part of the applica- tion. Deviation of the project design or construction from the approved plans may occur only as follows: (a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, a fea- ture of the use or project which is subject to the standards of Chapters 9-4 and 9-6 may be modified provided that the change requested is in conformity with the standards of this Title. Such change shall be requested in writing with appropriate supporting materials and explanation of the rea- sons for the request. The Planning Director may approve a requested change upon verification of its conformity with this Title, provided that such approval shall not modify the effective date of the approval (Section 9-2. 113) . (b) In the case of a project feature which is subject to condi- tions of approval of a Conditional Use Permit, or was a spe- cific consideration in the approval of a Conditional Use Per- mit, a new Conditional Use Permit approval shall be obtained. 2-11 / r M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council August 25, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Multi-Family Housing Analysis BACKGROUND: At the Council' s August 11th meeting, staff was directed to report on the status of multi-family development within the City at your next meeting. As part of the Council authorization for the General Plan intern work program, priority was given to evaluating the present holding capacity of multi-family zoning, and this report is attached hereto. In evaluating the Council discussion and consideration for a moratori- um at the August 11th meeting, it became obvious that Council concerns are not solely limited to the numbers of units being developed, but also the quality and character of some projects. CURRENT HOUSING COMPOSITION: The following figures have been summarized from the State of Calif- ornia' s Department of Finance Report for January 1, 1986 and allow comparison of the housing mix within the City of Atascadero with other cities within the county. At the present time, the City has the low- est percentage of its housing mix in multi-family and/or mobile home development, i.e. , 27.2% . The City with the highest concentration is San Luis Obispo with 50. 6%. As may be noted, the overall County aver- age is 34. 9%. r. i r Multi-Family Housing Analysis HOUSING UNIT COMPOSITION - JANUARY 1, 1986 San Luis Obispo County Cities Single Multi Percent City Family Family* Total Multi-Fam. Arroyo Grande 3,932 1, 478 5,410 27.30 ATASCADERO 5,307 1,986 - ?_ 7,293 27.2% Paso Robles 3,899 1,700 `tl 5,599 30. 4% Grover City 2, 849 1, 576 4,425 35. 6% Morro Bay 3, 630 1,872 5,502 34. 0% Pismo Beach 2,172 1,716 3,888 44.1% San Luis Obispo 8,021 8,232 16,253 50.6% Incorporated 29,810 18,560 48,370 38.3% Unincorporated 21,234 8,758 29,992 29.2% County 51,044 27,318 78 ,362 34. 9% Source: Department of Finance, State of California *Includes duplexes and larger units plus mobile homes. With respect to trends since incorporation, the following figures illustrate the fact that multi-family units have been increasing as a percentage of annual housing starts. HOUSING COMPOSITION TRENDS : 1980 - 1985 City of Atascadero Permits Issued* Single Multi Percent Year Family Family Total Multi-Family 1980 82 34 116 29% 1981 123 36 159 23% 1982 102 41 143 29% 1983 157 107 264 41% 1984 187 168 355 47% 1985 173 328 501 66% Total 824 714 1, 538 46% *Note: Not all issued permits were constructed. Source: Building Division 2 Muti-Family Housing Analysis GENERAL PLAN: POPULATION CAPACITY: The 1980 General Plan of Atascadero, as amended, states as follows with respect to population: Page 57 - "The optimum population of 33 , 388 people was established by the Atascadero Advisory Committee for the urban reserve area. " Page 61 - "The ideal development pattern which shall be promoted is similar to that conceived by E.G. Lewis, i.e. , a population of 20,000 to 30 , 000 people living in some 7, 000 homes scattered over about 23, 000 acres of the Colony. Residential densities are pro- posed which create a developmental potential that will reach an an ultimate populationofabout 34,000 . " The Plan goes on to contain the following residential policy goals with respect to high density residential land use: Item #3 - "The residential densities proposed in this plan auto- matically insure considerable open space. " Item #4 - "High density residential land uses shall serve as a buffer between commercial and single family residential areas where appropriate. " Item #5 - "Residential density shall decrease as one moves outward from the core, in order to maintain the rural atmosphere of the community. This can be accomplished by a graded increase in lot size and araded g decrease in the permitted density of population. Item 11?16 - "Multi-family residential use areas shall have a minimum building site of one-half acre. Smaller lot sizes may be allowed in conjunction with planned residential developments, including planned mobile home developments, and subdivisions, provided that the overall density within the project is consistent with other density standards contained herein. Item #7 - Multi-residential density areas shall be considered in light of such specific factors as topography, traffic circulation, drainage, fire protection and general level of use intensity at that location. " Item #16 - "New condominium projects , planned mobile home develop- ments and stock cooperatives shall be reviewed on an individual basis as community housing needs, neighborhood character , and site improvements will dictate. " Water Supply Section - "Projected water use at total population of 34, 150 people will approximate 8200 acre feet per year . " Educational Facilities Section - "The maximum residential build out for Atascadero was projected at 34 ,150 people, based on the number of units allowed per zoning category and household size. " (Housing Element, 1985) 3 Multi-Family Hous Analysis According to the 1980 U.S. Census, there were 6 ,333 housing units in the City in 1980 of which 1, 391 were multi-family or mobile homes le (22% of the total) . As noted earlier , the Department of Finance esti- mates that 27% of the City' s housing stock is now in multi-family and mobile homes. According to data contained in the August, 1984 where of Influence Study, prepared by the Local Agency Formation Commission for the City of Atascadero, the following is the maximum residential build-out by type of housing: Type of Unit Number Percent Single-family 5,962 48% Multi-family 6,549 52% Total 12, 511 1000 The resultant population holding capacity assumed 2.74 persons per. unit X 12,511 or 34,280 persons. Hence, the theoretical holding capacity of the City under the 1980 General Plan calls for 52% of the housing units to be some form of multi-family development which is slightly more than the percentage today in the City of San Luis Obispo. MULTI-FAMILY ZONING STUDY: One of the purposes of the multi-family study is to develop an up-to- date analysis of the holding capacity of the City' s present zoning regulations. Zoning regulations are required by state law to be con- sistent with, and implement, the City' s General Plan. Attached here- with are staff reports outlining the findings of the multi-family housing density study, its methodology, existing development, poten- tial development, and probable development. Also included are maps reflecting the usage of land within the 522 acres zoned for multi-fam- ily housing within the City. This acreage represents 0. 8 of a square mile of the City' s total area of +26 square miles. The theoretical holding capacity of this amount of multi-family zoning is 7 ,374 units. However , evaluation of the probable holding capacity of this zoning is significantly less: Existing units 1,790 Permitted/under construction 761 Subtotal 2, 551 Existing single family in RMF zones 430 Potential on vacant land 1, 099 Additions to developed lots 451 Probable maximum number of units 4, 531 The foregoing probable maximum level of development of 4 , 531 multi- family units assumes that major existing non-multi-family uses will remain, including : churches, medical care facilities, schools, of- fices, motels etc. (see attached report) . 4 Multi-Family Housing Analysis The theoretical/holding capacity figure of 7,374 multi-family units under zoning exceeds .the constraints contained in the General Plan. However , the capacity impacts of the probable development scenario would be to reduce the number of housing units in the City to about 10,500 and the population down to 28,750 , as follows: REVISED POPULATION CAPACITY Housing Unit Type Number Percent Comments Single Family 5,962 57% Assumed LAFCO correct Multi-Family 4,531 43% See above Total housing units: 10 ,493 100% X2.74 LAFCO figure Total population 28 ,750 The above figures assume no change in the single family capacity from the figures in the LAFCO study. This will, however , be subject to updating as part of the General Plan inventory program. MULTI-FAMILY STANDARDS - POTENTIAL CHANGES: The majority of the Council at the August 11th meeting favored a mora- torium on new multi-family construction to provide time to address some of the concerns expressed by Council on multi-family development. The purpose of this section is to offer alternatives that can be con- sidered in changing the City' s development standards with respect to multi-family areas. All of the following are standards which may be changed by simply initiating changes to the Zoning Ordinance. These changes would first have to be heard by the Planning Commission who would evaluate detailed staff reports and consider public testimony before making recommendations to the Council for zoning text amendments. 1) Density Standards - Most of the multi-family zoned land is al- lowed to develop at a flat 16 units or 10 units per acre regard- less of bedroom type. The ordinance could be amended to provide for a sliding scale based on number of bedrooms within the project to where 16 units to the acre would only be allowed, for example, for one bedroom units. Two bedroom units might be permitted at 12 units to the acre. Three bedroom units at 8 units per acre, etc. Revision to the standard could bring the theoretical population holding capacity under present zoning in harmony with the popula- tion ceiling spelled out in the General Plan. It would also have the practical effect of reducing the percentage of the population that ultimately could be accommodated within the multi-family zones. 5 Multi-Family Housing Analysis ' 2) Slope Standards - This concept has already been endorsed in general to provide a sliding scale whereby the steeper the slope on property, the fewer the number of units allowed. 3) Architectural Review - The ad-hoc committee evaluating architec- tural standards is almost finished with its draft manual for pre- sentation to the City Council in the near future. They will be requesting that the Council approve guidelines for the appearance of projects and requesting amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to require findings of conformity to those guidelines for most non- single family projects in the City. This, then, will be the sub- ject for a future Council meeting. 4) Development Standards - The following standards bear on site planning on any given project: a) Minimum lot size - Currently a one-half acre minimum lot size is required in multi-family districts unless planned development rezoning is initiated. The ordinance 'could be amended to allow for 10 ,000 square foot single family devel- opment within any RMF zone. (This revision would require a General Plan text change. ) b) Percent coverage - There are no maximum percentage coverage limits in the multi-family zones standards. Establishing a maximum percentage of the lot that could be covered by build- ings could serve to reduce massing of projects. c) Storage - A standard could be established to require a mini- mum of, say, 100 square feet for indoor storage per unit. This would serve to discourage use of covered garages for storage which leads to off-site parking problems. It also would lessen the pressure for development of mini-storage facilities which have the negative effect of pre-empting lands that could be used for more beneficial commercial and industrial development. d) Recreation areas - There could be an amendment to require minimum land areas for outdoor recreation use for larger scale projects. e) Tandem parking - Tandem parking could be prohibited which would have the effect of reducing density and site congestion. f) Screening walls - The Planning Commission has already initi- ated for consideration a zoning amendment to require obscur- ing walls where high density uses such as multi-family hous- ing abuts single family zoning. g) Covered parking - The Zoning Ordinance could be amended to require at least one ( if not both) parking spaces to be en- closed or covered. 6 Multi-Family Housing Analysis h) Sewer service - The high density RMF/16 area located on El Camino Real north of Del Rio is outside the Urban Services Line and outside the Sewer District. This zoning was prema- ture in that it can not properly be developed at the density allowed by that zoning. This could be resolved by either changing the General Plan and down-zoning the property, or by amending zoning text language to make sewer service mandatory before full development can occur. i) Precise Plan Findings - Require the same findings for precise plans as are required for conditional use permits. RECOMMENDATION: Following discussion of the foregoing, it is recommended that the City Council consider initiating amendments to the zoning ordinance with a view to both enhancing the quality of future development and reducing the volume that such development could reach. STAFF COMMENT: In terms of procedure, Council-initiated multi-family zoning text amendments could take the form of either (1) direction to staff to set public hearings before the Planning Commission, with recommendations to come back to the Council for decision, or (2) the Council may wish to review in greater detail text changes that would be proposed for consideration by the Planning Commission before scheduling public hearings. HE:ps Enclosures: Multi-family Housing Density Study Memo Multiple Family Density Study Maps cc: Planning Commission 7 r1 t 22 All ow to apar J --_ - n you bus Id 1 i11 �, s v T. r � _ Fircity density secrets revealed ULFI $ �� I fll � i�l� � • cit! of Sall luis OB1Sp0 Department of Community Development ,. - --- - 990 Palm Street!Post Office Box 321 , Sai Lui sbi 0 sPo. CA 93406 - - 805:541 1000 h i Q 0 O D p o p a o a II � v a n rl Q Q e Q � ❑ N h �C�'a0 O W N O ??C 7 7 N�•N 7 N 7 S N�t rtt O N d � b W •aNydmn<woumii+�a-.`J�G_d•) Ma 3�•a�3S.dJN� AJ•mdrt0'HdtiaNrtwJ•NrtoN 7Jw <d m:Mr 1-m3 Y3]3 GxJas7ed Iy v•dN1 0r0Or.wNrN•aJ r.•v3 tM"' rtJrtrt0.�rC0•']dw�a d • �NO.. T adm SHO„G rtC: v o m 0 0 0� 0 0 AJ00 d . O . w . O ] nS<< . S ani y m rtm 9 tf�<rn r m .r• m ti awa 0.W• (p W y a.Ji 7 3 7 d d 3 d E•w�G''O O `.L° n•d0 d S rt' w - C - ONm JO O • J M wOJ m Nrt dr AMd ha0 r 3 0 C 0 SO CJE nwHd •dw1» ]WC NNS O 9d SS 25 C IO R0 J O ] .O mm N 3rt NH C nyu JH E 0 0 »£ G 3 a rt n] a rt`C w J 0•Om0.'+m<C-rtnbC'•OC3� Nr•O6' N O 0 aN OS N O C M Na s' mm arJ OyrnY 10 0 G y w o• a 0 3 f C) d O 3 S 3 a rt OmO . S NO Cd -1• J Sw CdCY 0 O b 7 zi M 0JO• cr ■ V O v H rt a M w E J N n O rt 0. am M rt•C]Wm AS n3. 63 0. ]-�]S7C E'N= b']O SN3E N N O O O w O d O • a . < O 0 C O]d rtS dL bO O 3 N 060Ym6< a J a 0 O ] G rt O R J A O 3ONa rtSnSRO`7 0 Sd 0 N h O YO O7 OA a CS]PNK.39 d H JO .Ad YO OL J -R W G 3 C r+ d O d E C C i• �, S < F O N „.o tivN.• n°c ° ort•`°im 9 w2 •• � '_Q m°' c d� o z e ]- S N MSr; O• O R O S 00 z O o '•3 S O� NO O ' 'N ✓O a 0 C 3 ] d O S x 3 O O 'f n O b' O 3 ••G 3 O d O O -CS3 J O ?d 'O Z•] ar•3 N L (D O'O L a 0 H C 3 7 + J O c E X O u A G r o 0.rt O O U 7 C ] A 0.r• O ~3 � M]2 a 0 A A•S d °n . = 0 0 �•] r ry 7 O rt rt r w'O C w' < a rt O O N 9 A O N w S O w C •3 H m d H A O w rt rt a M p 7. ort .. v wJCrtS`OrnG'3'Nrt •a G A Ox SJb G3 O° N 673 NJ A. 0 H 00 O O M 3 I G 0 C - 0 a 3 O0 O O L 3 [n •j d 3 9 Y 6 ri y O ] 0 d'< X a E m E m 0 ,-•O O -f .D O a O O M m c O G 3 a� Y _ O •• 3 w C 9 0 rn O N i➢ J J d ° s SLOPE' V/ N N . 57 T :. E tz C7 c a 'o o w o b' ii o 03 � � N O 9 O J H O O •< C G n I v H 00 ~ y a a t4 %i � N• 3 a n CD NO an d r• n = �� z v z a U) a c •`, C7 m fA m a 7 a m 0 7 fill (D n a n x N C ;Ux X70 w a x x• 33 o X M HA a x n C O C o > N, rtrrn Na o m I I 1 1 I I H x C VMi M o .a.c °� :° C 'y .a `•' C r �•a n i �' 'caos0000 ° a 0 3 r a s - n •� m m m n m v m r x d M M vt7 N.• cv (OA a C� q - oc„vvv o z0 0• � 09 Cl) 1:11 F MT • y c�aaaa n W 3 a' y HCnH M o.-3 opcca 3 m 3 3 3 T z m m a d M o „C Com] m o c m I--' Ma a x mm % mom r(n aH °o as o m o rn m Q. � z n a rt '7 D o c o w ++i + z IN O rt� rt O - 0 7 E 7 o C "7 N (D x1 y C r o r of° m m ;v ono Nmmw �. N CI-IOH r0 o N o o Y O H c M N S C X C] CO a 3� w E C N X O O N N N I A a•� I.� rt C o G I r o. N y o M o n o o O tv . I. u u I.a o .,n• x a. w M `•� 17 m c 3 _■ c rt H o 0 O % rt � n9 rt O � n - O M a H p y ,•I� C. n C II T M ' CL c O o II m 9 =?� ' ■ ■ nl n ry i u 1y� I. ` e F, no `!1 • � �I�'+ �! I lilt ._ 1 .NJ�If cosi J ^: A = _ Ln -P-. CD < (n I �1�■ (D Q , MEMORANDUM DATE: August 19, 1986 TO: Henry Engen, Community Development Director FROM: Catherine L. Clucas, Planning Intern RE: Multiple Family Housing Density Study BACKGROUND: This study was requested by the City Council out of concern for the future population density of Atascadero. Its purpose is to determine the pouulation holding capacity of current multi-family zones to provide the basis for evaluation of consistency with the General Plan. The study areas were all current Residential Multiple Family zoned parcels within the Atascadero city boundaries. 1) North El Camino Real between Carrizo and Traffic Way. 2) South El Camino Real near the State Hospital 3) East Atascadero between Traffic Way, El Camino Real and the Atascadero Administration Building. 4) Infill areas throughout Atascadero. ANALYSIS : The study generated the following information: Total RMF zoned acres in Atascadero; RMF 4 , 10 and 16 : 522 . 67 acres Total units possible if 100% built out: 7374 Total population possible in RMF if 100% built out @ 2 . 25 people per acre: 16 ,592 Current RMF Housing Situation: See attached sheet Other uses in RMF zones : Several churches Lodge Residential care facilities Pacific Bell Office Head Start Motel Danish Convalescent Hospital Escuela del Rio Dental offices Several small businesses City of Atascadero Staff Report Page 2 Currently Occupied Multiple Family Housing Breakdown : Smaller Units Buildings Units Single Apts. 9 9 Duplexes 87 174 Triplexes 40 120 Fourplexes 34 136 Five Units 9 45 Six Units 9 54 Larger Units Seven Units 2 14 Eight to 8 64 Nine if 2 18 Ten 3 30 Eleven 3 33 Twelve 3 36 Thirteen" 2 26 Sixteen 11 2 32 Very Large Complexes 1 Each - 17 Unit Building 32 Unit Building 18if 40 to 20 44 if 22 45 of 24 ° " 554 „ of 29 65 „ 30 " Mobile Homes - Park Size -25 Homes 70 Homes 25 77 it 62 " 128 If 66 It Breakdown of units under construction : Smaller units Duplexes 8 Bldgs. = 16 units Fourplexes 4 If16 units Seven units 1 7 units / Eleven units 1 11 units l� I I City of Atascadero Staff Report Page 3 Larger Units 1 Each - 18 Unit Project 100 Unit Project 32 IV 400 36 " 95 " Single Family Residences with other units built on the property: 8 with Duplexes 3 with Triplexes 4 with Fourplexes 1 with Five units 7 with only One additional unit Several lots have two single family homes. Studv Method: All RMF acreage calculations were done by taking measurements from up-to-date Assessors Parcel Maps and finding square footage which was converted into acres . This was done for all RMF 4 , 10 and 16 zones. All information regarding existing units was gathered by field surveys on foot and by car. Units currently permitted or under construction were determined by reviewing all building permits issued since January 1985 and comparing the findings to the field survey to determine which units were completed and which were under construction. RECO1',1MENDATION: Receive and file. i Q yJ N 0 r� H r 1 E N a .i, M r-I O 44 II m� -I r E Ln cr '� r-i ro O ro A A N OLn U N O F N II r♦ r{ 01-1 En ro S24 -14 r i x U CL am O N O OU 3 � 104 E Ga (Y r-I N N •rl Ul ).J 4.3 4-J 4,•i N Q4 rO a) + U O U rl � —4 � �4 O 0 p W 2 �r .� -)� .. � r-i a a) 4-3 Z1 U ca U) O U) Ln EO+ � . 4-3 + a) O If U r-i L1 NN v QJ Ln � 4-) U) O O N (1) 44 A U) rl Qa 4 41 yi ,..i -H N0) -) A aJ ,� O N 9C 04 E U) 44 l- N r I U) H O H itro O `r Q' ro >, + O a U O it O � � w 4-) En a :D o s~ 41r+ Ur C N U) r1 U z N H M Lr) 4-) �4 '0 o H 124 �4 O [- am .� E 4-3 -1 U E '-{ oN 41 U ) O CL, � II aO � >4 (n r- r-4 rn r i N H a) 4-) r- O II U) O Z3 4a A r- `� cd + P4 U) r-+ r~ �40 44 Ln En NII H U 45 a) rt) O m Ln v 4 C) 41 o A > W N •rirr.4 41 r-i -r-i M a v 4-) U) a~ H N 0 S4 a) Q �-I •ri Ul r-i En 0 En Z O U -, m N �r Q) r� + (J] a) �O N pq NN NIS H Q :N. i~ En r-i CD M O Q) r ia) a s >~ ro M ro' 0 oo ua Ea) x rl O 0 -}-i U C° � �4 O N A •H 34 !` A rl a) M rl E C M U) U) d-) r-i Ln N U) .Li `CC: 4J Q) r-i(N CO N Q) O a � + O -i) re)C) co 3 U o r� �' ro r I ro O r- O r-I + E o Lf1 + r-q .1-i m 3o 41 U � G4 > 4J 4-J U r-I :E: m O r-{ U) .J Q) f-Y � r-i E-4roU) r i ,� 1:, r-i $ �:l t.0 O, 4-J o 0 LO o rtf z O Ln O S~ rn �) N ri �4 N a a) I� E �r O l0 4-4 U Q x CN E�1 U _ � ri r� H Q }4 44 CL. �4 ri i~ U U E) x m o U � r 00 i \ MULTIPLE FAMILY DENSITY STUDY Community Development Department City of Atascadero California LEGEND Residential Multiple Family Housing - ❑ Single Family Residential Housing - O Mobile homes - A Health Care Facility - Q Residential Multiple Family Zone Boundary Vacant Land - Left blank Other Uses in RMF Zone - Indicated in writing Under Construction - Date : August 12 , 1986 Prepared By: Catherine L. Clucas Planning Intern 1 HEAD o CRUZ o © w Ito o� o o � . o o o 0 O O C' �l cr m C W L 5.^ C 2-1 Zpy RFN D P o. bp/ 7 O z p °O d � O O o 4 ° O o ATO O � O l0 O O J n C 1 00 O ° r. DEpTA 0 F v pC 12 0 CL CHT ti n VEC; NV E IV4 V/q - qV� cF S LIUJ m o a Q.. 0 n 4 to NT r C4 ti � A � Q � F ��4 Q / PPA . � \ SE NA-� AVNA4 4 GPO QRPA J�o O 400� Gam✓ `- O �, s 0 �Q � PJF tfoJ >6 C , C to � O O Q �� c c o' o �4'�✓ 0 e -� _ `�P1w f Z O O O n CG C ACO Lij , V .,, `� P / / SSpN�IA INb p LZ J C 1 Tbap1 - - SI�yD LE O J — dCl�p�3� i\i I�Ipp 'll�i�llppp�p� p�pl Ilii I CARMELITA � AVE I P�Ep RAS' go \ ca ! SA RRo o O � u5 q O ono Rey z 3AV— c n 0 AVE �o ys v �dy 1d o� Z-b� P� Rmfc 4. n y �c II II ui IPJ < l i '11 w I I I i 1 L-E I do �l i Q� m LPRINCIP ROSA AVE 44S\,//, L A 40 Co osq Ra � MO NT C I TO M N © S Tlp a`e / \ Z o � t7 Ro 2z AD � m cn _ TInl-'RON I i AS 951 RMr to MAPLE u O LMAN1 I —ROAD m D r rn D I II I II II �I;l • cu Z 2`= m D II I - II O O II 10 i I EX15FIM V oErZ (PER.MITTED G c,V ST2uc T onl - o R , � I RMF:' ry s R,-1,� O h � oAusti GACA �I IMF llo GC,V.'.'�r2UC_'rfQll m r t n D t Z O n D � r _ rn 0 OPO Q� Ar • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council March 24, 1987 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director ;� SUBJECT: General Plan Conformity Report: Request from Dr. John Anderson to Construct Office Extending Ten (10) Feet into Paper Alley to Rear of Property at 5903 East Mall BACKGROUND: This request for a General Plan Conformity determination by the City Council began as an overall consideration for an alley abandonment on the part of abutting property owners at 5905 East Mall (Drs. Whitehead and Greenleaf) , and Dr. Anderson to abandon the alley to the rear of their properties. This was considered at Planning Commission hearings on October 6th and 11th, 1986 , to abandon the full alley to the rear of this East Mall frontage • (see attached staff reports and Planning Commission minutes. ) In the course of those hearing, the issue was raised as to whether a fee title ownership on the part of the applicant, pre- empted abandonment proceedings. The action of the Planning Com mission was to: (1) Grant parking variances to the applicants to allow construction outside the alley right-of-way in the ' event abandonment was not authorized, and (2) recommend abandonment of the subject alleyway, "provided the City has the right to do this, with five (5) feet reserved for public utility easement Subsequently, the matter was referred to the City Attorney for review. In the interim, Drs. Whitehead and Greenleaf have with- drawn their request, so the focus of the issue is on the proposed project by Dr. Anderson on Lots 10 and 11, fronting East Mall. The City Attorney, in meetings with staff and Dr. Anderson, has advised that it would be most expeditious to deal solely with the matter of Dr. Anderson's two lots and its' conformity with the General Plan. There is on-going broader legal research being undertaken on the status of paper roads throughout the Colony and waiting to resolve that issue would not be in the interest of any of the parties. The City Attorney further advises that the City' s rights could be protected in any favorable action relative to Dr. Anderson' s request by having Dr . Anderson sign a "Hold Harmless" Agreement relative to any legal challenges which may ensue with regard to easement rights. ISSUE:. • The issue before the City Council is no longer full abandonment of the easement/alleyway paralleling East Mall along the creekway plan area, but rather whether penetration of that 15 foot wide alleyway by the proposed medical office would be in conformance with the City's General Plan. PROPOSED PROJECT: The attached exhibits reflect the proposal by Dr. Anderson to build an office containing six parking spaces, with the office building extending 10 feet into the 15 foot paper alley to the rear. Dr. Anderson owns the fee title to the 15 foot alleyway. His request, if approved, would necessitate a lot merger to erase the lot line to allow a placement of a building across it. Also included (see Exhibit H) is an indiciation of the same office building located on the site with three parking spaces, which has been authorized by the Planning Commission who granted a variance in the event that the City Council did not authorize encroachment into the alleyway area. GENERAL PLAN ISSUES: The October 6th, 1986 , staff report to the Planning Commission detailed the General Plan issues relating to the overall requests and recommended denial of the request as being inconsistent with the Open Space/Creekway plan of the General Plan. The staff re- port also noted the presence of existing public utilities along the easement (back five feet) . Most pertinent is the adoption as part of the General Plan of the Atascadero Creek Plan (see at- tached) which shows the paper alley as being part of the linear park along Atascadero Creek in this area. The arguments pre- sented before the Commission, both pro and con, are reflected in the attached minutes excerpts. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: As noted, the Planning Commission recommended a positive con- formity finding to allow Dr . Anderson to construct his dwelling with six parking spaces penetrating 10 foot into the 15 foot pa- per alley. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendation, as indicated in the attached staff reports was for denial of the request to maintain the literal integrity of the Atascadero Creekway Plan. 0 ALTERNATIVE: The issue before the Council has been reduced in scope to two 25 foot lots or a 50 foot by 15 foot piece of property. Should the Council choose to find in favor of Dr . Anderson' s request, staff would recommend the following concurrent actions: (1) request as a condition of a favorable General Plan conformity determination that Dr . Anderson offer a Hold Harmless Agreement to the satis- faction of the City Attorney prior to being granted a building permit, and that (2) lot merger agreement be filed and recorded with the County Recorder ' s office prior to issuance of a building permit. RELATED ACTION REQUESTED: Whichever action is taken by Council, it is recommended that staff be directed to Wells Fargo Bank to convey all of the alleys and right-of-ways held by them in the downtown (BIA) area to the City. HE:ph i cc: Dr. Anderson Kirk Pearson, BIA Enclosures: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Creekway Plan - Offices Shown Exhibits G-I -Alternate Site Plans/Elevations Exhibit C - Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt, dated October 6, 1986 Exhibit D - Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt, dated November 3, 1986 Exhibit E - Planning Commission Staff Report, dated October 6 , 1986 Exhibit F - Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 3, 1986 i A~ TRAFFIC •� it91• 11. 20 A X78 s so so se n- wo Isar - I11I1 a 3025 D = nz" hiss Y 30 23 z53 •s w so so 0 I1Da v 3 Y a �"� �� D o AUR"CN J u 3 . D J. 117.9• ( ' - ; �. • -z P , - m • •C -i 11.10 L P M10 rs " a o .` -0 w s o 1oG _ � 3 D ENTRADA a� � � . AVE -: w D _ D 'D r, 35 so z7. = 21 ' Or a0 so >a . IGo -.. +. cm 23 O m ti _ $ 00 fn 1 4 In _ so so ~ D S O � ; Z C s • �' Z iR O �_ 9M 3•• 1z3 7.0 z7. JE c 7.0 1c >s Iao -f+ r z v EST - MALL trn r- o 7P 1� C H �X,r up -_ n�/ p m 0 qq o. AMENDMENT b "p" >D 2m ADMINISTRATION-. n< 'PAR rrn --a z a N O »13 ur Uri �^ ._ ✓sem n carr - _ EAST .. "'— MALL Q rrr:jr rrr ..,z _ 7.•o ;o ,o Z! oe -. 9V W >V.Z- ,n�� ro w a Lu q v o Iv - Ll w �,•di .I M:(S; r I $ ` u 56197 s za 17 r s t, s .4��. ��•��• a 3 S"G•M •Y GCT♦IL ON YIP • M ATA S0,40ERO 7..•,o CREEK A _ RESERVATIOIV Np• 3 9 ^ Fj Ll - <• `may%� 1' �] �a'` � � �1 r `'1° ','!�� r ���-. Ilk 1<O19 ONNIII, .: 7 MoAki aw All C,4vhv N. lit .77 fir lit 1 1 -� I� %'� � •ems i !:°=-� •"''•►�`.'1'' ' , X11 =` ..=�:�•�.�• _1►i• 7 ✓ :,h? � � +e Tip �.. -ir t♦� a,.see �'�' 14'• �•ct ,-` � �..- •� •J! fit• -tom" �: • rti � • ��. +� ,-fit •�� Ii '�7 � t� • ar• �« 9 .le. .� • �'1 c y. - • ilii:ac rte`r � r .I - � t Now I u aaza wLol s oe fir• ! �� _ Al,e � " 1 1 LIA\� WITH our /,LLe*f' WAY EXH19IT C7 ;_ � t" HU cc J j:>~ 17 - y •iw.r�rot , j -.,.,�o..ru v..,. � .•1 I. .'�, �4....,,�. •fir_ ` - ... to -- - ST MALL - .laNN �.rtG��.•,z-50H oFF«E - . U M+ EXHIEIT y C; _M RTHLALEVATION WEST ELEVATION. _ -- N _SOUTH ELEVATION `JOH N ANDERSON - �. OFFICE -BUILDING' ATASCADERO CA. N.JOE ELKINS•ARCw7ECT Ali ARCHITECTURE•DESIGN ....M• � - _-_ PLANNING•PRODUCTION M pm p/ICE Wa fY• it—to I'm CA amN♦ EAST ELEVATION EXHIGiT AN D E R SO NC`,, FLf-!:-. VA7- 1DNS `'` „ • � EXHIBIT C Minutes - Planning Commission - October 6 , 1986 "With regard to condition #3, Mr . Bethel asked that the word "con- domi_nium” be added between the words "additional" and "units. " Mr. `DeCamp noted this was more of an informational note. There w no public testimony given on the matter . Commissione Kidwell expressed her concern with the n er of con- dominium unit being established since she has been n the Plan- ning Commission. Commissioner Hatche 1 stated he was impressed th the state requirements on noti 'cation to tenants and ted it appeared there did not seem to $ any concerned ten is present to voice any concerns on this con rsion. Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin sked fo clarification that if an individual owns multiple fa ily ned property, what would be the difference with this owner ying for condominium construc- tion or apartment construction, which Mr . DeCamp responded how the procedure works. Chairman Bond asked for crification o the construction differ- ences between an apartmerr unit and a con ominium unit. Mr . De- Camp explained. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Nolan and second by Commissioner CopelanAo approve Tentative Tract Map -86 subject to the fisfdings and conditions contained ine staff report with/modification to condition #3 to add "c dominium" between "additional" and "units. " The motion carried th a roll call vote as follows: AYES: Commissioners Nolan, Copelan, Hatchell, and hair- man Bond NOES : Commissioners Kidwell and Lopez-Balbontin 4. Road Abandonment 2-86 : Request submitted by Dr . Greenleaf and Dr . Whitehead to aban- don an alleyway along the rear of properties fronting on East Mall to allow the encroachment of an office building. Sub- ject property is located at 5905 East Mall, also known as Lot 12, 13 , and 14 of Block OL, "Amendment N" . In prese :=ing the staff report, Mr . DeCamp explained the findings that must be made in order to determine the General Plan conformi- ty with this matter , and spoke about the General Plan with regard to creek development policies. He noted staff ' s recommendation to deny the requested alleyway abandonment. In answer to question from Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin, Mr . De- Camp noted that the senior citizen center encroaches between 8-10 feet into the alleyway. 5 C Minutes - Planning Commission - October 6, 1986 Joe Elkins, representing Dr. Anderson, stated his concern with they character of the City. He d-idn' t feel the alleyway is a signifi- cant part of the creekway development because when the creekway park is fully developed, there will be between 200 and 300 feet of access compared with the 15 feet the alleyway encompasses. He explained he works routinely with the various utility companies (as well as other engineers) to re-route utilities, to underground the utilities, to change locations for some specific service. He further noted that the phone lines may be currently under the senior citizen center. Mr. Elkins talked about site characteris- tics with regard to other uses adjacent to the subject site. Michelle Whitehead, applicant, ', stated she has been in the senior citizens center and clarified that the addition to the center that encroaches into the alleyway is not being used for storage, but is actively used for kitchen and utility space which is actively used. With regard to the public accessway for Santa Barbara Sav- ings, she noted this is a parking lot which is used . for parking, drive-through and not used as a trailway or walkway. She further noted their request is to utilize 10 feet of the 15 feet for their use. She has been in contact with the utilities and no problems have been indicated by the utilities. She spoke on the parking constraints with this site. Dr. Greenleaf, applicant, explained the intent of the location of the building in relation to the need for parking. Dr. Andersen, applicant, stated he did not want the Commission to feel that they are trying to add more property to the original lots that were purchased, and proceeded to give some background on the property which was purchased from Crocker Bank (the 15 feet) and noted there seems to be question as to exactly who owns this property. He noted his purpose of this additional property would be to provide additional on-site parking. In response to question from Commissioner Kidwell, Dr. Anderson replied that the lots were sold separately from the alleyway property. Dr . Whitehead explained how the property and easement rights came to be. In response to question from Commissioner Hatchell, Dr . Whitehead explained their efforts in designing the present site plan. Dis- cussion ensued concerning the design to allow for adequate parking with regard to possible alternatives. In respc-. -e to question from Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin, Mr . De- Camp exp-wined that staff had worked with both applicants in an effort to combine the parking requirements for both sites. Mr . Engen added there were a number of alternative plans drawn up by Mr .. Elkins, and it was expressed that it would be good to have one architect working on the two projects adjoining each other and the creek. Discussion ensued concerning the future development of the creekway area. 6 \` 0 Minutes - Planning Commission - October 6 , 1986 Mr. Elkins clarified that there are two distinct projects for this area and the site planning was done by two different people. He noted that much of the discussion concerning the parking situation had been discussed by Mr . Elkins with staff prior to this hearing. He added that because of the small size of the lots , they will probably be developed individually, and there is likely to be dif- ficulty in trying to reach the amount of required parking spaces. Commissioner Nolan asked that if the alleyway were to be aban- doned, how would access to the creek from El Camino Real be reached, to which Mr. DeCamp responded. Commissioner Hatchell stated he has always admired the creekway plan and wishes it were in place at this time. He felt that a five foot encroachment in relation to 300 feet being utilized for the accessway would not present a major problem to sacrifice 15 feet of the alleyway, even if it were along the entire strip. He felt there is a lot of area there that can be utilized. Commissioner Copelan stated she did not have a problem with aban- doning the 15 feet as it is a very small percentage of the creek- way, and felt this would be a fair exchange because the proposed development will enhance the downtown area and consideration of the additional parking would help the area, . Commissioner Lopez- Balbontin concurred adding that he felt this development would be very compatible. It may be a long time before the creekway plan is developed. Mr. DeCamp, in response to question from Commissioner Lopez-Bal- bontin, stated he did not know exactly when the creekway would be developed, and added that the creekway plan, as adopted in the General Plan, could not be completed in its entirety if the alley- way is abandoned. He further added that the entire alleyway from E1 Camino Real to the creek would be abandoned if approval were to be granted. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin, seconded by Com- missioner Copelan to continue the hearing on Road Aban- donment 2-86 in order for staff and the applicants to work together in an effort to seek a solution to their proposed development. At this point, Chairman Bond called a recess from 9 :35 p.m. to 9 : 45 p.m. 5. eneral Plan Amendment 2G-86/Zone Change 27-86 • Request " ni.ti�ated by City of Atascadero (Bra-zfz'i to revise the General Plan--1ai0use map design anon of Suburban Single Family to Retail Comm er -a - an`rd"the existing zoning from Residential Suburban.-to-Commerctnl. etail or other commercial ` designation,,Subject property is located-._b,e_tween El Camino Real._.,and "Highway 101 north of Del Rio Road (1ZOa-•1800 E1 ".__Camino Real) . CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 15 , 1986 . �_ EXHIBIT D Minutes - Planning foommission - November 3, 1986 Engen explained that one of the issues involved was whet the road indicated as Chorro Road right-of-way to be aban ne would be appropriate to relocate to the place where the ro ha gone i . He further explained that Chorro is presentl an ease ment and t a public fee road. Commissioner Lope -Balbonti expressed ncern with regard to the possibility o a future lois line adjustmen to Parcel A because of where the proposed roa will eventually In response to a req st by Commissioner Mj- ielssen, Mr. Enge presented a brief sriopsis on the staffl"report for this matter. After further discussion, ' t was the commission' s general con- sensus to continue this m ter to He next meeting so that ques tions could be directed to St e D amp, Senior Planner, who pre- pared the report. MOTION: Made by Commission Lopez- lbontin, seconded by Com- missioner Kidwe and car r1 with Commissioner Nola dissenting to ontinue Lot Line justment 8-86 to th meeting of vember 17, 1986. Item #A-3 (Lot 'tie Adjustment 9-86 - Brian Lin er) : CommissionerLopez-Balbontin questioned the lot co iguration fox this applic tion to which Mr. Engen explained. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin, seconded b Com- missioner Hatchell and carried unanimously to rov Lot Line Adjustment 9-86 subject to the findings nc conditions contained in the staff report. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS. 1. Road Abandonment 2-86 : Continued public hearing on request submitted by Dr. Green- leaf and Dr. Whitehead to abandon an alleyway along the rear of properties fronting on East Mall to allow the encroachment of an office building. Subject property is located at 5905 East Mall, also known as Lots 12, 13, and 14 of Block OL, Amendment "N". Mr. Engen presented the staff report on this matter giving a brief background on the discussion and actions taken at the previous meeting concerning whether the subject easement should be recom- mended for abandonment to the City Council. He noted that staff' s concern involved a conflict with the General Plan' s creekway plan. Michelle Whitehead, one of the applicants, clarified that she and Dr . Greenleaf are the formal applicants; however , Dr. Anderson has a large stake in what action is taken at this hearing. She pro- ceeded to provide *a background on efforts in trying to obtain this property. She was told by Ticor title Company that a letter would be needed from the City indicating that the 15 ' X 17' parcel would not violate the Map Act. In reading the title search, it was 2 ,jt: Minutes - Planning C Pmission - November em er 3, 198 11 noted that the only parties that have interest in this property are Crocker Bank and the Atascadero Unified School District (which dates back to 1925) . In addition, there are rights-of-easement in favor of the Atascadero Mutual Company as well as interest to an Oscar and Georgette Willett (from 1928) . According to Ticor, there is no indication that the City has any easement rights or interest in the subject property, and that this piece of property is not a legal parcel. Dr. Whitehead further stated that if the abandonment - was not to take place, it would greatly impact their ability to construct the building and maximize the use of all of the property that they would own. With regard to parking requirements, she noted the different site plans which would provide for a parking modifica- tion. She stated that between the two parties, only 125 feet of abandonment is being asked for (and pointed out that 2/3 of the 500 total feet has already been built on) . It was also pointed out that it has been over 11 years since the Creekway Plan was created, and concern was expressed that in developing the General Plan, appropriate title searches were not conducted, and it ap- pears that a drafting error may have occurred. Questions Dr. Whitehead raised includes: whether a partial aban- donment is in order, who is going to be liable (re: back sidewalk, i.e. school children getting injured on the property will the City pay. ) , and what bridge fees will be required? Chairman Bond asked Dr. Whitehead where the proposed utilities will go and how much room do the various utilities need, to which Dr. Whitehead stated that the utility companies have indicated to them that five feet was adequate space and that the utilities are proposed to be placed underground. Commissioner Kidwell asked if the applicant' s proposed site goes back farther than the Senior Citizens ' property, to which Dr . Whitehead explained that their property is about even with the Seniors ' property (which encroaches 8 to 10 feet into the 15 foot alleyway) and that they are requesting a 10 foot encroachment. In response to question from Commissioner Michielssen, Dr. White- head stated that they are currently in escrow for the 15 foot portion of the property, and noted that the present owner of this Property has a quit-claim deed from Crocker Bank. It was pointed out that there is nothing indicated in the title search report that shows that the City has any interest at all in this property. Commissioner Michielssen stated that if this is the case then the City doesn ' t need to be going into an abandonment issue at this time. Mr. Engen noted that the report will need to be forwarded to the City Attorney for further research as to the City' s rights in this matter , if any, and whether this supercedes the Subdivi- sion Map Act. 3 {, Minutes - Planning(ommission - November 3 , 19$6 In reading the title report, Dr. Whitehead pointed out that it states that this property is not a road or an alleyway, and they are not sure exactly what it Commissioner Hatchell asked Dr. Whitehead what their feelings were in negotiations on alternatives to the site plan, to which she stated that they can live with the eight parking spaces, but noted her concern that they would not be able to maximize the full use of the property. Commissioner Nolan asked for the lot depths and if they include the 15 foot portion. Dr. Whitehead responded. Discussion contin- ued concerning who exactly owns the 15 foot alleyway property. Dr. Anderson, adjacent property owner , stated he has a quit-claim deed from Crocker Bank which he purchased in 1985 wherein Crocker released all their rights for this 15 feet to him for his 50 foot wide property, and stated he has 100 feet which he originally purchased, plus he has a quit-claim deed that he purchased for the additional 15 feet, the width of his lot (therefore, he now owns a lot 115 feet deep by 50 feet wide) . Dr . Whitehead added that Ticor is now involved with Crocker Bank to clarify all of this and to find out if their rights supercede Atascadero Elementary School. In discussions with the School District, it has been in- dicated to the applicants that they are not interested in this but will have to go to the school board to discuss the issue. Dr. Anderson suggested that a decision could be made on the aban- donment pending the outcome of the title search. Joe Elkins, representing Dr. Anderson, addressed the creekway sta- ting that the width of that property varies from 70 feet at E1 Camino Real to 270 feet at its widest point in line with the street in front of City Hall. He felt that the 15 foot piece was a very small portion of the creekway and noted that Dr. Anderson needs at least 4 spaces for employees, and referenced the present downtown parking problem. He referenced the General Plan state- ment pertaining to the creekway and stated that five feet for the utilities would be adequate. The applicant' s argument, therefore, is that moving the alleway or removing the alleyway will not harm the General Plan and the alleyway is suitable for use, but is not necessary as there is adequate space to do everything for the creekway plan without confiscating the alleyway. He stated the utilities will be affected but they are always affected during the construction phase. In summary, he stated that the 15 feet is significant in the development of the creekway, but is very signi- ficant in the parking for the two office projects. Maggie Rice, representing the Chamber of Commerce, supported Mr . Elkins ' testimony and felt that this 15 foot alleyway is an insignificant amount and would not jeporardize any future creek- side development. 4 E Minutes - Planning Commission - November 3 198 Sarah Gronstrand, area resident, referenced the library's search for askedaifsite several years ago in looking at these parcels, and e City was giving the public' s money away. Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin stated that if the City does not have any claim to this land, then nothing is being taken away. He felt that there may have been negligence in that the City did not try to acquire this property years ago for the creekway plan. Commissioner Hatchell felt there is the opportunity to improve the downtown property which would be a good development, and ref- erenced the downtown parking problems. He asked for clarification on comments raised by Dr. Whitehead in reference to liability for the backsidewalk, and asked for clarification on Mrs. Gronstand' s statement. There was continued discussion among the Commission. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin to approve the request to abandon to abandon the alleyway providing the City has the right to do this, with five feet reserved for public utility easements, seconded by Commissioner Copelan. Commissioner Hatchell asked if this motion would be contingent upon verification of ownership of that particular easement, to . which Chairman Bond stated that is correct. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Engen suggested that action be taken granting the parking modification as a contingency action in the event the abandonment does not occur. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Kidwell, seconded by Commissioner Copelan to accept the findings for approval for a parking modification in the event that findings cannot be made for abandonment by the City Council. Commissioner Hatchell asked for clarification on this motion. The motion carried with Commissioner Michielssen abstaining. 2. &-tablishment of Road Names: Reque ubmitted by VandenBerghe Construction t �Owthe creation o ivate road names to serve ordeaux apart- ment development. Mr. Engen presented the sta eport his indicating the three street names proposed,-Eor approval. Commissions L� opez-Balbontin pointed out that the name Gina" +�rttra"lly indicates "automobile" horn. 5 • � EXHIBIT E City of Atascadero Item: B-1 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 11/3/86 BY: Doug Davidson, Assistant Planner File No: RA 2-86 Project Address: 5905 East Mall SUBJECT: To abandon an undeveloped alleyway along the rear of properties front- ing on East Mall. Two medical office buildings are proposed that would partially obstruct this 15 foot wide access way. BACKGROUND: During the last week of June, 1986 , the Building Division received two applications for small medical office buildings. Both of them require a road abandonment, in that the proposed offices extend into the al- leyway to the rear of the properties. The item was heard at the Planning Commission meeting of October 6 , 1986. After hearing public testimony, the Commission decided to con- tinue the matter to give the two parties time to go over various alternatives. ANALYSIS: Staff continues to believe that the alleyway should not be abandoned because the three necessary findings cannot be made (Exhibit A) . On the other hand, staff does not wish to preclude the development of these office buildings. Since the last meeting, several discussions have occurred with the applicants and their designers over site design alternatives (Exhibits E-H) . These show site design alternatives for each office building with and without the alleyway abandonment. Both office designs that stay clear of the alleyway (Exhibits E and G) require Planning Commission modification to parking standards. Planning Commission Modification - Parking: Health care services require two parking spaces per office space and examination room. The Greenleaf building requires twelve spaces, while the Anderson requirement is six spaces. Section 9-4.115 (1) of the Zoning Ordinance allows the Planning Commis- sion to modify the parking standards if the following findings are made: 1) The characteristics of the use or its immediate vicinity do not necessitate the number of required parking spaces. 1� Road Abandonment 2-86 (Greenleaf/Whitehead) 2) The reduced parking will be adequate to accommodate the parking needs generated by the use. Exhibit I is a letter from the applicant requesting the parking reduc- tion. Staff will agree that the available street parking, the City parking lot, and the doctor ' s past experiences are valid arguments in favor of a reduction. Exhibits E and G show the Greenleaf site with eight spaces and the Anderson project with three spaces. In summary, staff cannot make any of the necessary findings for aban- donment, foremost among them the finding of consistency with the Gen- eral Plan. The Creekway Plan of the General Plan refers to this alleyway as a major pedestrian link within the creekway area. If the Planning Commission wishes to recommend to the City Council (abandon- ments are accomplished by City Council resolution) that the road aban- donment be approved, it is suggested that the recommendation include the need for a General Plan change to modify the Creekway Plan accord- ingly. Staff believes that a better alternative is to deny the road abandonment with a determination that the reduced parking will be able to accommodate the users of the area. A parking modification will allow this area to develop as foreseen in the General Plan - two small professional office buildings, neither of which interfere with the pedestrian access goals of the Creekway plan. 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of Road Abandonment 2-86 based on the findings contained in Exhibit A. Recommendation also includes the findings for approval of a parking modification (Exhibit B) . DGD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings for Denial (Road Abandonment) Exhibit B - Findings for Approval (Parking Modification Exhibit C - Location Map Exhibit D - Creekway Plan Exhibit E - Creekway plan with proposed offices shown Exhibit F - Greenleaf office--without alleyway abandoned Exhibit G - Greenleaf office--with alleyway abandoned Exhibit H - Anderson office--without alleyway abandoned Exhibit I - Anderson office--with alleyway abandoned Exhibit J - Anderson office--elevations Exhibit K - Letter from applicant Exhibit L - Letter from Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee 2 �� Road Abandonment 2-86 (Greenleaf/Whitehead) EXHIBIT B - Road Abandonment 2-86 Findings for Approval - Parking Modification November 3, 1986 FINDINGS: 1. The characteristics of the use do not necessitate the number of required parking spaces. 2. The reduced parking will be adequate to accommodate the parking needs generated by the use. C. 3 00 Road Abandonment 2-86 (Dr . Greenleaf/Dr . Whitehead) EXHIBIT A - Road Abandonment 2-86 Findinqs for Denial November 3-, -1'386 FINDINGS: 1. The proposal is not consistent with the Open Space Element or Creekway Plan of the General Plan. 2. The alleyway is suitable for use as a non-motorized transportation facility and, thus, not consistent with Streets and Highways Code Section 2381. 3. The vacation of the alleyway will affect in-place, in-use public Utility facilities. 5 ��n c_x41131 i G I AAar TRAFFIC .� p ]D 30 » 100 _ 129M 30 rs Z2 37 V1 0 132 0 Fps c F- g.n = iJ19'7 Y, -V 25 n zwl !a 30 0 '� D W AM1E�Ip1EM J _ b - A 0 4 P - 3Ilk m • -N1 Z 131 D0 Pao no n D c •o s3 �'� IOC 1 tb m o ENTRADA AVE. D R' Ln .}' 33 30 25 23 3 ; 30 30 35 :_ 100 w v � V 0 O m ec.le P a A 4 T q =� $ a v e 7 » M -{ v n n 0137 30 30M 'Ono L r- m -< O = v oesr°1 ;o 0 � o -m � a su 3es n is 0 � so so ss loo 2m .. - -a m r Z EST MALL M * r N N s z.-»:✓ Z z m n N Xr eo oit 3a.-e m o AMENDMENT d ND. 3 _ h w �2 0 e < 'n< `PAR z D r y m : AOM INISTRATtON^° O ,� rn m z z I O 1�t 1% �• Q NO r ._ ✓rte vrr En .� m EAST °'�' "� m MALL o 2 ° In (n m k 44.1= _ SO O !O C o >. _ r _ m � •"�� s ro u a a g v o Igo �• DZ \ m \/ u _ m sel 17 s 2e 37 w 1. O0 5.10NN .'4 DETaII ON MIP 29-36 ATASCADERO CREEK D 1,00, _ x RESZaVATION IV0. 3 Jill ,r€ .. all ,•� c r , � I I ' ,�.w• ..�. •.r '� r �.���•.�' � ``1 ;��`•� •fir: Ls ILI `�� . "t•�_,y,�.� �_� � ♦ �'`etc 1` prr 16 A4 �— ter•.•o. �.'•`rr•3�.i `� <, lsdr2d RIC I low �, L `. . _ I ./ -.; - • r: lid ,..7���}+ h. 1 s.•V Lit s;. - ilk •. ,y c . •i'•r wear.�rc�� .14 • ice{' 7 „y j� i EXH113VF F iS�/9LCE)" E.vsEne�j I rz- i i ---- - ------ i I I \ ?sra.F r iYevicAc .p[DG. / � TdrAL ,a77.?'b •�— -- ------ � I yev�9nF.4P , r✓AL.rY�AY � rh1HDi_AL .'et c'A: JeC -/o. "i bilin _ c USJ 2r /A-0 77e- L To P.L r: ��I -- -- --S PEC-EV OCT 201986 CO "1CLNiTY DE`dEtOPPJIEN OA.0 T4B6 � i i a II I T F PI A A/ _ A f_ I- F Y WA Y NO-F A 9A N De-)N E '- _6 7 _ , C 2 nTOI+t Y1COiGAL P�v(" 1• 6y4YdiN ky0..72 w'. 4- I ,.T•� 7rov..w - O I N+RIi/�Y;9a'eib IUYM L ..�i.�e)s.•ee.w---J. -� s•1 T t �� p I 1 6e1�d•11�i'kstiVf��►�La • 1• NfN M r4� , Mill � 1c, 'r.- •�!^- `u." h� a .;.•. y 4 e to F Y'r I a V ah •— , rN op 1V.1 l ,:- ->�IO�tYi 9lltCM- � � �. - I - •'/ ! ._9_ ,• • �!C cei.* - .w sw..w► *vw. 'e asww�c«�awn'I�ItI r I W .' M A wPN1iw ••,{ 10 wu Rw 2.t fyY F - 0 I ,I 1 + 1 rL,t-7115: •. ` ,� 1' t.. !(� _ iJ[ CVG'INT[O 1.MJ� e '�,.• .4'"t 6or,CA I: mow•beow o... I i.o' 1ti.. •-�'z- :r �,- ' :w•, � q -r-Cw4a 1-InE grwMw LOT d 'G.,..r►�•co ea—r i I t 1 •I I i I. � 1a �t l I • ,y r. `t"c:.r' -. wra�'t�•+Teo'w '1`_.0O_-46 • -: _ -__ - _- --- 1 - "t-_ -- - ..: :- .--tom- -�- � _ r sti.Gullb.bU*TCM1 � i NCM�l'GG wKJ•:CITY yTA,C+no 0►.IvtW Y ►TIAGM:,LT! t-. �ov.M,ru ti•.. _-1gW++wwo O�+.awr+0. p�-4 �.•►.O.M. - " PLOT P:. AALLEYWAY A6AN,DD)VE,1J �o�_ _,_....... . E X H 16 I T , GRA••=�- k-i�Y � ' TL i owzo� �tJ t+i� O C:, ..` �J-t po tz ol em �. S � ��,r ate_. .,�.r.� •,t• � 1 n .cl.�nvJ •�r� �'r .!% -----•-- ,mar--. -cram\ FAhT MALL u O H H AH t7 ER-,SC7H Or-?:C'S Y Iii 17H OUT' ALLeY A-tMOOHeO EXHISITT H n r - 0201 u11 NIS b . TO ' •(TI1, ul yySS Q�- • � Vm � rm ern. MAI i 1� Y•i.. fir- ,T.W'aaw�(I.W 45+..�� ' Tx. { o ba.1-�urA�t v ".r- r J, . .IoNN �.rtDE.I��oH oFPt�E J TE I �-/`\1 I 111�2o i.d l i WITH f,,,ILE.Y /,,5A. OO H E,J EXHIBIT 11OR.TH:FLEV.ATION YKES T'.E.LE V A TLO N. . ..SOUTH.ELEVATION JOHN ANDERSON OFFICE BUILDING' ATASCADERO CA. ••.n N.JOE EIKINS•ARCHITECT ARCHITECTURE•DESIGN PLANNING•PRODUCTION -- . PMT OF/K9 WX w• T[YVIIMK CA NIM EAST ELEVATION EXH ! 13i7- AN IJ r RSO N � G 1- V,� 7- IONS i October 24, 1986 TO: Doug Davidson, Planning RE: Request for reduction - reasons Dr. Greenleaf is a solo practitioner with a high turn-over rate (approximately 4 to 5 patients an hour). He has been practicing in Atascadero for 4 years with 4 parking spaces. Street parking on West Mall has been utilized without any adverse effects to other businesses. The office has had no complaints from patients regarding parking problems. Dr. Whitehad is a solo practitioner who sees one client an hour. She practices Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, often many evening hours after the medical practice of Dr. Greenleaf is closed. Late afternoon appointments are usually seen by adolesents, many of who walk from the local junior high and high school. Although the downtown retail merchants have a parking shortage, West Mall and East Mall contain professional businesses therefore there is significantly less congestion on both streets. Now that the city has a large parking lot (one lot away from the project), this has signifcantly lessened the impact of street parking. Michelle Whitehead, Ph.D Delmar Greenleaf, M.D. 5960 West Mall Atascadero CA 93422 EXHIBIT K M E M O R A N D U M October 27 , 1986 To : Jerry Bond, Chairman Atascadero Planning Commission Via: Mike Lara, Chairman Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission From: John Harris , Member Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Subject : Possible Adverse Planning Impacts to Atascadero Creek It has been brought to the attention of the Parks and Recreation Commission that you may be acting on a planning decision that could adversely affect the Atascadero Creekway Plan of 1976. We would urge you totake no action at this time for the following reasons: 1 . Atascadero Creek, for a number of years , has been proposed as a linear park that would connect the downtown with the Salinas River. Any decision that precludes the comprehensive planning for Atascadero seems to be counter to thorough planning. 2 . The Parks and Recreation Commission is in the initial stages of planning the Recreation Element for the General Plan of Atascadero. Any action by your body that forecloses on future park and recreation actions for the city seems to be premature and counterproductive. 3. In 1985 , President Reagan appointed a Commission for America' s Out- door. Among the Commission ' s recommendations are the following that are pertinent to actions regarding Atascadero Creek: a. The establishment of linear green belts/linear parks is to be a central planning consideration of all local park and recreation departments (Atascadero Creek possesses this potential) . b. Local parks and recreation agencies , with the assistance of the local schools , should take the lead in environmental education toward the goal of the development of a land ethic in each indi- vidual . Without land it is difficult to educate in a relevant manner. As Atascadero Creek, has some semblance to a natural system, it is one of the best learning laboratories in the City. EXHIBIT I ,, tl page 2 c . Unique , local ecological systems should be acquired by cities as the opportunity for unique passive recreation experiences may be forever lost . Riparian systems are unique to Atascadero and Atascadero Creek is the only continguous system that tran- sects the downtown. Unique areas should be kept in a complete state where possible . 4. Expertise lies in the Parks and Recreation Commission, recreation and park staff that would facilitate a more thorough decision when impacts to Atascadero Creek are being considered. It seems appro- priate that you might want to consult with the Parks and Recrea- tion Commission and recreation staff on a regular basis concerning such matters . Thus , we feel that there are several logical planning reasons to differ decisions that might impact the Atascadero Creek. A regular consultative process between the two Commission' s concerning the Atascadero Creek and other recreationally related decisions only seems appropriate in order that sounder planning decisions might be made for the City of Atascadero . cc : Henry Engen Park and Recreation Commissioners EXHIBIT F City of Atascadero Item: B-4 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/6/86 BY: Doug Davidson, Assistant Planner File No: RA 2-86 Project Address: 5905 East Mall SUBJECT: To abandon an undeveloped alleyway along the rear of properties front- ing on East Mall. The applicant is proposing an office building that would partially obstruct this 15 foot wide access way. BACKGROUND: During the last week of June, 1986 , the Building Division received two applications for small office buildings on East Mall. Both of them require a road abandonment, in that that the proposed office struc- tures extend into the alleyway to the rear of the properties. The abandonment was applied for by Dr . Greenleaf and Dr . Whitehead on June 30, 1986. Responses from the affected utility companies have been received since that time. Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Fri- day, September 26, 1986 . All property owners of record located within 300 feet of the subject site were also notified on that date. A. LOCATION: 5905 East Mall (Lots 12,13,14 of Block OL, "Amendment N") B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To abandon an alleyway along the rear of properties fronting on East Mall to allow the encroach- ment of an office building. 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dr. Greenleaf and Dr . Whitehead 3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Proposed project area: 7500 s.f. Proposed abandonment: 15 feet wide by 570 feet long 4. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .East Mall is a City-maintained street with a 60 foot wide right of-way 5. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR (Commercial Retail) v Road Abandonment 2-86 (Dr . Greenleaf/Dr . Whitehead) 6. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 7. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: P, City Hall South: L (FH) , Atascadero Creek West: P, Sunken Gardens East: L(FH) , Atascadero Creek 8. General Plan Designation. . . . .Retail Commercial 9. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Alleyway is level with Atasca- dero Creek to the east and the Daily Press, Senior Center, Santa Barbara Savings, and vacant land to the west. 10. Environmental Status. ... . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. ANALYSIS: Abandonments of roads or easements are governed under the Streets and Highways Code. In road abandonment procedures, the Planning Commission must determine that the property proposed to be vacated will not cause an inconsistency with the General Plan. Addition- ally, the Commission must find that the road to be abandoned is not useful as a "non-motorized transportation facility" intended for the use of pedestrians, bicyclists, or equestrians. The third mandatory finding is that the proposed abandonment will not affect any in-place, in-use public utility facility. As the following analysis will attempt to show, this request conflicts with these three findings. General Plan Conformity: The attached Exhibits D and E contain General Plan policies re- garding Atascadero Creek. Exhibit D contains creek policy propos- als from the Open Space Element. Policy #1 relates to possible purchase of privately owned portions or negotiation of easement rights in order to develop the Atascadero Creek area as recrea- tional land. Policy #2 sets minimum setback requirements to en- sure access to and recreational use of the creeks. Policy #6 encourages multiple-use trails for hiking and riding along the creek. Policy #9 states that the portion of the creek from the El Camino Bridge to the proposed Lewis Avenue Bridge shall be devel- oped into a park. Abandoning an alleyway in this area seems to defeat the purpose of these above policies by hindering the future development of the creekway as an active use area. Policy #8 states that the Atascadero Creek Plan (Exhibit E) is an integral part of the General Plan and represents a potential hori- zon plan for the creekway. The pedestrian policies associated with it (page 181) cite the alleyway as a major pedestrian link within the creekway to be used to integrate the developments and activity areas in the vicinity. n� 2 Road Abandonment 2-86 (Dr. Greenleaf/Dr . Whitehead) The primary pedestrian route extends from the downtown area across the creek and through the Century Plaza shopping center . Condi- tion #18 of the use permit approval for Century Plaza requires participation in the construction of the Lewis Avenue Bridge and this pedestrian bridge across the creek aligned with Palma Avenue. Although the creekway plan has been slow in implementation, this participation by Century Plaza in the creekway plan is one indica- tion that the plan remains a viable goal. The construction of the Lewis Avenue bridge is certainly a key to development of the area. The Lewis Avenue Bridge Development Im- pact Fee Area established by Ordinance No. 118 on March 23, 1986 is further evidence that the City is continuing to pursue the linkage of the Civic Center with the shopping center. Utilities: The third finding that the Commission must make is that the road abandonment will not interfere with existing utilities. As the letters from Pacific Gas and Electric and Pacific Bell indicate (Exhibits G and H respectively) , the abandonment may jeopardize existing facilities and/or require expensive and difficult reloca- tions. Pacific Bell is requesting that a permanent easement be maintained for access to their facilities. Although the letter from Pacific Gas and Electric is not as specific, it is clear that abandoning this alleyway could cause serious problems to the pro- vision of electricity in the area. Existing Development: Two existing developments are partially within the 15 foot wide alleyway. The driveway and some landscaping of Santa Barbara Sav- ings intrude upon the alleyway; however , the bank building is not located within it. On the other hand, the Senior Center was issued a permit on July 14 , 1984 to construct an addition which projects into the alleyway. The question that is sure to be raised and rightly so is: How can City staff approve a building addition within the alleyway and then recommend denial of an office building to be located in the same manner? Staff regrets that the building permit for the Sen- ior Center was issued in error . The approval was strictly based on structural concerns and did not take the alleyway restrictions into account. The Santa Barbara Savings site was designed to in- sure that no buildings would obstruct clear access to the alley. The driveway will not adversely impact development of the Creek Plan and alley access. Staff believes that the site plan for the office building can be redesigned to stay clear of the alleyway. Summary: Staff has reviewed the three necessary findings that the Planning Commission must make before recommending to the City Council that a road be abandoned. The fundamental interpretation for the Com- mission to make is consistency with the General Plan. Related to this is whether or not the alleyway can serve as a pedestrian walkway or bike path. 3 f✓ • i Road Abandonment 2-86 (Dr . Greenleaf/Dr . Whitehead) The Creekway Plan of the General Plan states that this alleyway will play an integral part in future development of the area, both as a link with Century Plaza and as a recreation area. Abandoning this easement will frustrate the General Plan by interfering with the access and recreational potential it can provide. Further- more, the construction of office buildings in this 15 foot wide strip will conflict with existing utilities. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of Road Abandonment 2-86 based on the findings contained in Exhibit A. DD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings for Denial Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C - Creek Policy - Open Space Element Exhibit D - Atascadero Creekway Plan - General Plan Exhibit E - Creekway Schematic Exhibit F - Response from Pacific, Gas, and Electric Exhibit G - Response from Pacific Bell r_ 4 � , 1 Road Abandonment 2-86 (Dr . Greenleaf/Dr . Whitehead) EXHIBIT A - Road Abandonment 2-86 Findings for Denial October 6, 1986 FINDINGS: 1. The proposal is not consistent with the Open Space Element or Creekway Plan of the General Plan. 2. The alleyway is suitable for use as a non-motorized transportation facility and, thus, not consistent with Streets and Highways Code Section 2381. 3. The vacation of the alleyway will affect in-place, in-use public utility facilities. 5 �n�G c=x�r r3r� ti3 AAu TRAFFIC ti •�1 12411 " tt " 132!0 pQpp qq u{� = V.aV1 I Awwu Qaaa 0 o•�:� -Zrf' so 1301 {t d all 4 17113 25 ♦ a4 •. 1 13147 2 3730 !o _ xSO ! O - .� ISSd V � • q O W (8 O � N� D �0 v ti D 17211 Q , sis 'A m O • N .♦ , u wb o ,1 • .. 13110 °'2O 70 25 23 70 ?r 75 m o ENTRADA AVE. co D 3 D m N r95 35 30 25 23 2U3 30 30 35 w 100 .a Y V ZZN �ttta 0 "S _ S _ » O 09 P a O �1 00 m eels M ri �' �' Ra' �' s + i` • c 8 I 25 `sfi x 30 30 s5 _ m S ,ia IO7SOol , b > 0 _ a 1OW63re Ufts a a s —1 m 0 D s o v ,5 ± i6 Q t► '"`b 80 1Q�� �= u a t1 D _ u -� • A ati r _e a O -� O O ea 51 b 725 7e5 n 2S Q 70 3C !s loo m ,vr-i Z v EST MALL O 1� r N ? p 6.r1'J>3✓ Z ? m G uNi of �e G._. �a.. /l l l/t� N b AMENDMENT b "D" n .� r,mX c z � H D a y m ADMINISTRATION ro 'n< 'PAR y z O m m -Zc z �. 0 NO O r i .rC1'J 1✓Jr c m o EAST °'f'" Rt MALL m _ _ 0 e e /� a0 `° (A m 11.12 a _ JO :o JO zm q � ��, �. o o I. 0 .g �'i " E o _ r � ® �F m D Z "�� ro �.4. v o to U) ()F m 58117 5 28 37 M 1. 5 US b� O p lMOM/I .'M t)f Tdll O" Moi 24•!6 /. ATASCADERO C o0l r REEK � RESERVATION �0' " l, 3 lhf _ eas of open space available for recreation that shall e pre rued are listed below: -� The anks and bed of Atascadero Creek The in dation area of the Salinas River Atascade Lake and its surrounding pa The Sunken I rdens Chalk Mountain egional Park The three Little ague basebal fields The banks and bed o Craves eek Pine Mountain (in part The Wranglerette Arena Areas of open space tha hall be c sidered for acquisition by a public agency an or preserved fo recreation are listed below: Chandler rkland Pine '•�o tain Amphitheater Coun -owned lots fronting on Lakeview adjacen to ascadero Lake Bo categories are shown in Table VI-4 . The Creek Reserve tual and potential, are shown on Map VI-4 . Atascadero Creek bisects the Colony on a west to east line, running along the southern portion of the Central Business District and the administrative-civic center complex. Portions of the Creek Reserve already are in public owner- ship. Natural vegetation and scenic quality are abundant along both creeks. Creek Policy Proposals 1. Possible purchase of privately owned portions , or negotiation of easement rights , shall be considered in order to develop the whole area as recreational land. These actions can be financed through public subscrip- tion, general obligation bonds , revenue-sharing funds or operating surplus. 2. Building set-back requirements shall be established along the banks of both creeks to insure the uninter- upted natural flow of the streams . Access to and recreational use of the creeks shall be assured by establishing building setbacks of not less than 50 feet from the bank of the creek. 3. The bacteriological content of the water in both creeks shall be monitored at appropriate intervals, to insure against contamination by inflow of effluent from nearby septic tank leach-lines . This possibility may exist along Atascadero Creek from the Capistrano Avenue Bridge to the railroad overpass . 83 , 4. Land disturbance shall be minimized within at least 50 feet of water courses, except for that maintenance such as brush clearing which shall protect adjacent properties from flood hazards. Other minor exceptions could be made for harvesting sand and gravel and for low-intensity recreational uses, such as trails and pic- nic areas. Channelization of creeks with concrete shall be prohibited. 5. Some areas of the creeks shall be left in their natural state for public enjoyment and to provide a continuing home for the beaver population, as well as the foxes, weasels, coyotes, wildcats and raccoons. 6. Facilities for picnics, playgrounds and riding, biking and hiking trails are appropriate to these watercourse areas. Multiple-use trails for hiking and riding shall be developed the length of the creeks. 7. A series of check dams on the upper portions of Atas- cadero Creek could provide year-round water (see Chapter VII, SERVICES) for fishing and swimming acti- vities. However, the alteration of natural drainage patterns shall be minimized, and the existing minor drainage channels shall be left in open space, in most cases, to provide for runoff. 8. The Atascadero Creek Plan, as prepared by SEDES and approved as amended by the Board of Supervisors (1975) , is an integral part of this General Plan and represents a potential horizon plan for the subject area. The Creek L Plan is shown on Map VI-2. 9. That portion of the Atascadero Creek Reserve from El Camino Real Bridge to the proposed Lewis Avenue Bridge shall be developed into a park. e Salinas River and its watershed recharge at least s e of e riverbed wellfields of the Atascadero Mutual ter Compan The unimpeded flow of the river and it ributaries must be a ured. The Salinas River offers sn tacular possi- bilities for ertain types of recreationa ses, as well as playing an imp_ o ant role in the Count iding and Hiking Trail System. Cerin sections are ndowed with abundant natural vegetation. ver bott areas above normal flow levels are particularly it to camping and picnicking development. A specific for this type of use shall be made of the more f rable ver areas . 1. Agricultu and recreational 1 d uses shall be main- tained e full length of the rive ' flood plain as it sses through the Colony. Buildi permits shall denied in the potential inundation ar 84 , 1., &X441 E51-i D C rc�d.��,,�ay FJ a h APPENDIX A ATASCADERO CREEKWAY SCHEME ONE - SEDES Civic Center The location of a future Civic Center along East Mall, near the Veterans ' Memorial Building should allow for a compact civic area with easy auto and pedestrian access to develop. Property along East Mall, near E1 Camino Real, will probably develop commercially before a civic complex could be planned and implemented. Parking Additional off-street parking is provided in the Creekway area. This parking is distributed in less than one-acre units to provide for varying access points and permit a dominance of "soft" landscape character in the area. The amount of parking provided in the vicinity would approximate some 250- 260 off-street spaces. In the specific Creekway area (between Lewis Avenue, East Mall, El Camino Real, and the Plaza del Camino Shopping Center) , some 75 off-street parking spaces would be provided. Pedestrians A number of pedestrian routes are shown on the plan. The primary route extends from the downtown area, across the Creek and through the Plaza del Camino Shopping Center. Where this pedestrian link passes through the Creekway area, it would be relatively informal in plan and materials . An information panel or kiosk shall be provided at the intersection of this walkway--Palma Avenue and East Mall. Another major pedestrian link within the Creekway area follows approximately the line of an existing undeveloped alleyway along the back of properties fronting on East Mall. These two pedestrian linkages shall integrate all of the developments and activity areas in the vicinity. Additional minor pedestrian access is planned at the northern end of the Santa Barbara Savings property to connect the Creekwav area with the lower end of the Sunken Gardens. Palma Avenue between East and West Malls shall be closed to automobiles and become a pedestrian forum--or total *tedestrian space. This concept should be extended westward along Palma Avenue, devel- oping the northern one-half of the street as a pedestrian way, with the remainder developed as a one-way street. 181 . Creek-Crossings The central pedestrian walkway shall require a crossing of Atascadero Creek. It is proposed that this structure be limited to a dry-season crossing, perhaps a part of a check- dam, or with removable platforms that could be withdrawn during the wet season. At the steep, eastern embankment of the Creekway, a combination ramp and stairway shall be con- structed to connect the pathway with the shopping center and a lateral pathway moving northward along the top of the embankment. A small plaza shall be developed at this inter- section point which shall include an information panel and some seating. A wet season crossing can be developed as a part of the proposed Lewis Avenue bridge. This bridge shall include a separated bike and pedestrian path, shall not be designed to permit heavy truck use and shall be rustic in character. The pedestrian creek crossing shall be designed so that no bicycle access shall be possible. Adequate bicycle access is provided in other areas. Bicyclists A bikeway is proposed to extend through the Creekway area. This bikeway is clearly separated from pedestrian and auto traffic throughout most of its course. It is located on the intermediate Creekway terrace between Lewis Avenue and El Camino Real. It shall rise to the upper level near El Camino Real and merge with a bikeway here connecting with Atascadero Mall. With the improvement of Atascadero Mall and the exist- ing freeway pedestrian underpass, this bikeway shall then extend southward to again return to the Atascadero Creekway. North of Lewis Avenue, the most suitable location for a bike- way is along the top of the west creek embankment, on the Junior High School grounds. At Lewis Avenue, the bikeway crosses at street level during the wet season, and continues under the new bridge during the dry season. Here, it shall also connect with a bikeway along Lewis Avenue. At E1 Camino Real, the bikeway shall continue under the bridge and along the creek only during the dry season. Continuing under the freeway bridge, the bikeway would require structural design to prevent damage to the path during the wet season. Beyond the freeway southward, the difficulties of constructing a bikeway along Atascadero Creek diminish. 182 . /l A bike and pedestrian path shall also be developed along the drainage channel which runs through the shopping center, to connect with the Lewis Avenue Bridge and Santa Ysabel Avenue. Equestrians In an urbanizing area, horse riders create potentially hazard- ous conflicts in the circulation system. In the Creekway area, because of these potential conflicts and space restric- tions, equestrian use shall be confined to the use of the streambed during the dry season. Sunken Gardens The northeastern half of the Sunken Gardens shall be redeveloped as proposed in SEDES Creekway Scheme One, Modified. The southwestern half shall be retained in lawn with additional plantings along the periphery. School Lands This General Plan envisions the relocation of Atascadero Junior High and Lewis Avenue Elementary Schools. As property becomes more in demand for commercial and civic uses than for school use, the segment of the Sunken Gardens northeast of the Veterans ' Memorial Building shall be restored as above. New buildings and services shall be developed along a northward pedestrian extension of East Mall, and additional parking shall be easily arranged. Plaza del Camino Shopping Center The Plan envisions a reorientation of Phase Two of the shopping center to gain a more harmonious relationship of buildings and parking to the Creekway system, to strengthen the central pedestrian linkage and to utilize and restore the existing drainage channel through the shopping center property. This scheme shall relieve the monotony of very tightly bounding the east bank of the Creekway with paving, creating a potential pedestrian/auto conflict. To do this, some 50 or 60 parking spaces would be lost to the shopping center. However, it is believed that the parking provided shall still be ample for shopping center needs. The Plan also envisions a possible grade-separated pedestrian/ bicycle crossing over Santa Ysabel Avenu6, connecting future development to the east on the existing golf course property. 183 . APPENDIX B ATASCADERO CREEKWAY SCHEME ONE, MODIFIED TO: Atascadero Advisory Committee FROM: Joint Committee on Creekway Plan Study: Architectural Review Committee: Gordon Davis, Chairperson Shirley Summers Will Lewis Parks and Recreation Committee: Annette Stevens, Chairperson Richard Pechon Judy Hood We are recommending the adoption of ' the SEDES Atascadero Creekwav Plan - Scheme One, with the following modifications: 1. An amphitheater shall be located on the original Lewis site--Stadium Park. Parking for Stadium Park to be adjacent to the north side of the creek. Access to the amphitheater to be provided by a rustic bridge. 2. Stadium Park shall be acquired and restored. 3. Pedestrian and bike crossing, midway between E1 Camino Real and Lewis Avenue, to be a rustic wood bridge pro- viding crossing in all weather. 4. Hitching posts shall be constructed at the northeast side of E1 Camino Real to accommodate riders arriving from the south. No provision for rider access from the northeast part of town, due to the confined nature of the creek. 5. Primary priority shall be given to the extension of Lewis Avenue/Santa Ysabel. The road and bridge shall accom- modate heavy traffic, as this is seen to be the natural route for deliveries to the Central Business District and would lessen the already congested traffic along El Camino Real. The bridge shall be of rustic design and incorporate separate bike and pedestrian lanes. 6. Palma Avenue from West Mall to Traffic Way shall be left unchanged. 7. Maintenance of the Creekway and stadium areas shall be the responsibility of the governing body. 184 . 8. Parking: Each lot shall hold not more than 30 to 40 vehicles. Lots shall utilize "barrier" landscaping between them and any surrounding area. 9. Any development along East Mall shall conform to an integrated master plan for that area. 10. Development of Creekway paths from San Gabriel Road to east of El Camino Real. Paths shall accommodate walkers, horses, and bicycles, with two all-weather rustic bridges, so there may be off-highway crossings as recommended in our Pathways Study. Area shall be cleaned up and replanted as necessary, with attention to the water collection points and accumulations of debris that have posed flooding and insect problems in the past. 11. Primary priority shall be given to providing a vehicle undercrossing at the freeway for East and West Mall. 12. The formal gardens northeast of the Junior High School shall be restored. 13. The Junior High and Lewis Avenue Elementary School buildings shall be removed. 14. Consideration shall be given to interim use of Junior High buildings for civic purposes . If this is done, the parking area now located in front of the school shall be relocated and the area landscaped. Recommended Implementation Schedule Phase One: 1. Creek clean up. 2. Open Lewis -Avenue/Santa Ysabel as described. 3. Rustic wood bridge as creek crossi_ .ng for all-weather access. _ 4. Construction of hitching posts. 5. Auto undercrossing of freeway for East and West Mall. 6. Provide described parking on areas already publicly owned. Phase Two: 1. Acquisition and restoration of Stadium Park. 2. Wood bridge access from parking to Stadium Park. 3. Relocation of School District Administration and Scout buildings. •' 4 . Landscape and provide parking in above areas. 5. Relocate Junior High students, re-orient front parking and landscape front, utilize buildings for interim civic purposes. 185 . 6. Re-establish formal gardens northeast of Junior High buildings. 7. Creekway development from San Gabriel to E1 Camino Real as described. Phase Three: 1. Remoyal of Junior High buildings, completion of formal landscaping following Lewis ' design. 2. Construction of Civic buildings between formal gardens and creek parking. 186 . t �y� Q ,VISIV: yKno 7q. _stn t rte..` ` � i 44 _}tF. � u � i ti� •i y,'y.t ,j ; . • r, � CXa) ( F:, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 1PD(27 IE -+- 406 HIGUERA BOX 592 • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93406 (805) 544-3334 DON KENNADY DIVISION MANAGER t r�•'r � 'ti Ary aro;Ei, l.,.[ 91985 654 x L-69134 ,., .i LN3 September 8, 1986 City of Atascadero Planning Department P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 Attention: Mr. Doug Davidson Gentlemen: This is regarding the proposed abandonment of the alley way near East Mall (Road Abandonment 2-86) . The Company has several concerns regarding this proposal: 1. It' s possible that the abandonment will place our existing facilities in jeopardy. If the proposed building is placed within the alley it could conflict with our lines and working access to them. 2. The abandonment would interfere with our ability to provide service to our existing customers especially if we were re- quired to extend underground facilities around the proposed building. 3• If we were required to relocate our overhead line we would have to consider new rights of way and also the cost of the work. Without plans for future development it is impossible to tell if relocation would be feasible. 4. The time frame for getting utilities to the site from when the request was submitted would be 6 months, barring any unforseen problems. 5. PGandE cannot give a cost estimate to extend utilities to the site without plans of what is needed and where. �n PGandE cannot give more accurate estimates without specific plans for future development. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Claire Mastin at 544-3334, extension 435. Sincerely, � A CLIFFORD J. SMITH District Land Supervisor CJM:ilc Attachment City of Atascadero/ Page 2 PACIFIC&ABELL•- 19`i`1a�'661i b&'' pMad P.O. Box 8111 San Luis Obispo, CA I�t L E J V E V JUL j j 06 93403-8111 July 7, 1986 City of Atascadero Planning Department P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 Attention: Steve Decamp Street Vacation/Abandonment: 2-86 Letter dated: 7-1-86 Street: Alley-way behind East Mall along Creekway City: Atascadero County: San Luis Obispo This is in reference to your letter regarding the proposed vacation of the above referenced street. Pacific Bell has underground facilities within that portion of the street which is being considered for abandonment. These facilities provide telephone service to the immediate area and beyond and must be retained. Pacific Bell, therefore, requests the following language be incorporated in any resolution or ordinance of vacation of said street. "EXCEPTING AND RESERVING THEREFROM PURSUANT TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 8340 of the Street and highways Code and for the benefit of Pacific Bell, the permanent easement and the right at any time or from time to time to construct, maintain, operate, replace, remove, renew and enlarge lines of pipe, conduits, cable, wires, poles and other convenient structures, equipment and fixtures for the operation of telegraphic and telephone lines and other communication facilities, including access and the right to keep the property free from inflammable materials and wood growth, and otherwise protect the same from all hazards, in, upon, over and across that portion of the alley-way abandoned." Please forward a certified copy of the vacating ordinance or resolution to me at the above address. Upon receipt of said copy with the inclusion of the above suggested language, Pacific Bell shall have no objection to the proposed vacation. _ Sincerely, , Lee Public Works Coordinator 07JLLET.1 EX4IE3)T 4 ` J • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council March 24, 1987 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director F, RE: Request to Amend Salary Schedule: Senior Building 4 Inspector (cont. 1/26/87) - Proposed Resolution 29-87 BACKGROUND: On January 26 , 1987 , the City Council directed a second recruitment for a Senior Building Inspector with "salary open depending on quali- fications" (see attached staff report) . At the same time, we were to re-evaluate the existing salary for Senior Building Inspector ($1969 - $2406 per month) . SALARY SURVEY: Information submitted by Bill Avery reflected salary ranges in rela- tionship to planning positions in a number of Bay Area communities (see attached) . As it may be noted, many of the salaries exceed that of the Department Heads of the City of Atascadero and cannot be trans- posed to the local scene. Staff has also generated the following po- sition and salary information from the Central Coast Area. Community Job Title Range SLO County Senior Bldg. Inspector $2,038 - $2,478 Paso Robles Building Inspector 1,778 2,259 Morro Bay Chief Building Inspector 2,145 2,681 SLO City Building Inspector 1,926 2,366 Santa Maria Bldg. Inspector-Supervisor 2,454 2,996 • i ! Staff Report - Salary Schedules Page Two RECRUITMENT STATUS: Again, our first recruitment for Senior Building Inspector was at the $1,969 to $2,406 range and we had an unsuccessful recruitment. Our second recruitment - with salary open - drew twenty-seven (27) appli- cants, five (5) of whom have been scheduled for an Oral Board on March 27th. Of the 5 candidates, there are two public sector candidates who are currently earning $27,600 and $28,000 per year ($2,300 and $2,333 per month) , plus, all of the 5 candidates with the exception of one are working as part-time consultants and earning substantially more. The reality is, therefore, that not only will the range need to be increased, but it will most likely be necessary to appoint above Step A. It was also noted in the January 26th, 1987 staff report that the Chief Building Inspector is currently earning less than the Plan Check Engineer. The general salary range of the Chief Building Inspector appears to be the requisite range necessary to make a competitive offer to the successful Senior Building Inspector candidate. In order to accomplish this objective, and to also deal with the salary compac- tion problem of the Chief Building Inspector position, the Chief Building Inspector salary range ($2,188 - $2,675) should be increase to that of the Senior Planner ($2,324 - $2,840 per month) . Thilb would, until reconciled as part of the budget process for FY 87-88, set the Senior Building Inspector salary at the same level as the Chief Building Inspector. RECAP: Range Senior Planner $ 2,324 - $ 2,840 Chief Building Inspector 2,188 - 2,675 Plan Check Engineer 2,271 - 2,776 Senior Building Inspector 2,188 2,670 (Recommended) Building Inspector 1,790 - 2,187 RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Resolution No. 29-87 amending salary schedule for Senior Building Inspector and refer the proposed salary increase for Chief Building Inspector to the FY 87-88 budget. HE:ph Enclosures: Draft Resolution 29-87 • January 26 , 1987 , Staff Report to City Council February 5, 1987, Communication from Bill Avery RESOLUTION NO. 29 -87 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING THE SALARY SCHEDULE OF SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR WHEREAS, on January 26 , 1987, the Council of the City of Atas- cadero directed a re-evaluation of salaries for Senior Building In- spector to assure that the City is competitive in recruiting for qual- ified personnel. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero resolves as follows: Section 1. To amend the salary schedule for the following position, as fol- lows: Classification - Senior Building Inspector: STEP A B C D E $2,188.76 $2,310 . 366 $2,431.96 $2, 553. 56 $2,675 .16 On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing resolution is adopted in its entirety by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: By: MARJORIE MACKEY, Mayor City of Atascadero, California Resolution No. 29-87 Page Two ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, City Attorney PREPARED BY: -4T--4-ft4 9;��- HENRY ENGN Community Developm " t Director 0 • TO: City Council January 26, 1987 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director t" SUBJECT: Budget/Personnel Request: Building Division, Com- munity Development Department (continued from 1/12/87) BACKGROUND: At the January 12th meeting, the City Council continued for further study consideration of creation of the position of "Permit Services Coordinator" (refer to attached staff report) . This position was recommended as an alternative to further recruiting to fill the position of Senior Building Inspector . Council directed staff to research possible causes for lack of qualified applications, including utilizing a recruitment firm. ANALYSIS: The position of Senior Building Inspector (see attached) , was for an individual who would act as Chief Building Inspector in the absence of the Division Head and be capable of doing plan checks, handling the public information counter, and dealing with special field inspection needs. The alternative position offered at the January 12, 1987, meeting, focused on providing counter informa- tion, interdepartmental coordination, and field inspection. Plan checking ability was not a requirement of the Permit Services Coordinator position. The following summarizes the salary ranges for the existing and proposed position within the Building Division: CLASSIFICATION SALARY RANGE Chief Building Inspector $2,188 - $2, 675 Plan Check Engineer $2,271 - $2,776 Senior Building Inspector $1,969 - $2,406 Permit Services Coordinator $1879 - $2, 272 (proposed) Building Inspector $1,790 - $2,187 Building Aide $1,479 - $1,808 Contact with other communities and a review of recent job opening descriptions, indicates that the skills we are looking for in the Senior Building Inspector bring higher salaries. The City of San Luis Obispo is currently recruiting for a field Building In- spector at a salary range of $1,926 to $2, 366 per month, about the same as our Senior Building Inspector . The City of Santa Maria recently recruited for a Building Engineer Inspector-Supervisor at $2, 454 to $2,996 a month. The City of Santa Barbara recently recruited for Assistant Building Official at $2,610 to $3,263 per month. San Luis Obispo County Senior STAFF REPORT - Buget/Personnel Request Page Two Building Inspectors positions - which do not require plan check abilities - pay $2, 038 to $2,478 per month. An outside recruitment firm was contacted for insights into the cost of undertaking recruitment services for this position. They noted that normally they do not get involved in technical po- sition recruitment; however , they acknowledged that many com- munities are finding it difficult to find/replace key mid-level positions. The firm contacted would charge $4 ,000 plus inci- dental expenses for generating candidates for the position, with the City undertaking interviews. The City could perform this function more efficiently, provided we could compete in terms of salary which would require a re-evaluation of salaries in the Building Division. Such a salary re-evaluation should be for a community with the physical complexity and volume of work being experienced here over the last several years (see at- tached chart) It should be recognized that there is already a salary compaction problem within the Building Division and - should salary adjust- ments be approved - salary compaction could become an issue in other departments. RECOMMENDATIONS: Direct staff to re-open recruitment for the Senior Building Inspector with the advertisement to list "salary open depending on qualification" ; ,2. Have Bill Avery conduct a concurrent salary survey for all positions in the Building Inspection Division using cities with comparable staff size, volume of con- struction activity, and physical complexity. 3. Hold in abey- ance action on Permit Services Coordinator until results of the salary survey and second recruitment effort are evaluated. ALTERNATIVE: Drop a second effort to fill the Senior Building Inspector position in favor of the Permit Services Coordinator position as outlined in the January 12th staff report. HE:ph cc: Dave Jorgensen enclosures: Permit Valuation vs. Staffing Budget: 1980-1986 Building Summary: 1980 - 1986 Senior Building Inspector Job Description January 12th Staff Report a s .n —740 J c . \moo. O r L1 0000 ISM .j to w i =s 40a 1300 g I loo 1979 t9ao l98) 1982 t98g t984 1985 198& 1987 PERMIT VALUATION • DEPT BUDGET ctTY 0W A'TASCAucrRO 1980 a %96G o�� o° vo o ,n 0 N Ln O -W O 00 I b co M rn r ri N nkoG1 M of V• O 1 N O rn N o v o `� CO O E I .14 '"'I r•i N M Lnr-i i "i — 1 b t b y 1 Io /d z 1 C U 1 � x 4J 1 a1 N O �• I � O .0 O N r 0% r•I N O 0% N O 41 O CL 1` In N N N N 0\ co ri ri ri ri ri .••I rn 1 O � I C 1 N •ri � - j Z: J.>-11 - rj M M O O n r•I Ln a% b fL ri O V• O M n CO V' 1 L b d ri O Id b t•1 m > v r-1 c N a; n a In W1 1 N GL r4 w %D O In O M ID 1 k4 z V Q co M to %o 1` M N %0 1 U to O N > N Q N y , N to Z Ix N U I A > 7 E ri fU CO co N n 00 ri M co1 H .-1•n O CO co co CO N N .••I 1 N C O • E LOi ri r, '"I ri ri N v Ln , N to Z a m CL 1 LI .0 O V as m N = m" to W 4+ U m W :F-"C% 'cf M %0 M t- 1` %0 V' 1 N O 41 A O M H %D N %0 %D N N Q N M M M . , •rl N W co r O r 01 r 0% N 1 W to >♦ •E Q H M > co In co l� 01 O N V' 1 O PN fl a vi d 4J 4-J N 1 m O N m 1 d 11.C. IT 41 O W -14 1 $4 N >I �U E E 1E-1 �^ 0 E H In 1- co n M O V' N 1 .aG N b W O Ill N N N, r•1 ri- 1 U 01 3 ri m m C rl O r•1 n an ri N H In N 1 ri to to U H N co V. Ln 01 to Ln O 1 A •r1 A •rt a 'n rn c M o 14J N co41 In CO 0\ n 1 Id N N U a o co O co n 01 �p l� 1 4 •14 Lt r•1 H V1 O r-i 01 �D M N 1 N d Qa. ri H N M r•1 1 0 N 1.1 Q N r•i 1 b C 10 m cry 1 C O U td N %D a% M V' N ri co %D , d d N m H _ 4J••i r•i to V' %D N O a\ M 1 b b d ro to 0+ c H ri H N M N N I 7 7 M 0 H E N I U U LI U H - I C C ro C C] H H b1 H N t Z N 41 E 1 a C N 1 4 E H 0 1 N N to 10 D. 1 C) 41 Y a c ri tD N r-i ri 1` O Co. .1. tD O I 1 U U N- cn 11 Mlri Vr 14 C>(n DIM N V' NI a,T: 1 0 0 » .•i H MI v`� C,-IN I .•i •n •n y C . a O ri� 1 •�l H $4 •r04 .. Q E 1 U a a V aE$4Ei ri N E N I E to .0 O a. 1 O E ++ 4+ M•rt N rn N n t` M N '10 1 U O O C f+. C 0o N O Ln O r r- C% 1 H f!] O ri •••1 .•-1 .-I r•I ri 0\ 1 W 0 ril d1 1 t1 Id l U N O e-1 N M v' V1 %D Y. rU 1J1 # # 7 '0 O O O co •r co W co l N 01 U rn m rn m rn rn ON U) EI # # # 0 �. rl r•i H H ri ri H i A` EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF ATASCADERO MARCH, 1986 CLASS TITLE: SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR GENERAL STATEMENT OF DUTIES: Under general supervision, in a lead capacity, reviews and approves highly technical construction plans and specifications; assists in reviewing codes and ordinances and recommend changes; performs diffi- cult and complex field building inspections; may supervisor subordin- ate personnel, and do related work as required. EXAMPLES OF DUTIES PERFORMED: (Any one position may not include all duties listed, nor do the exam- ples listed cover all the duties that may be performed. ) Reviews building and grading plans to determine compliance with local, state and federal codes and laws, including the various uniform codes, city ordinances, state energy conservation and handicapped regulations and applicable federal laws; interprets and explains construction codes and regulations to contractors, public officials and others; and makes field inspections where difficult problems are involved. EMPLOYMENT GUIDELINES: Knowledge of: Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbin Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electric Code and related uniform codes; applicable federal regulations governing building construction and practice; state build- ing code and other applicable state regulations; proper methods of construction work and inspection; the legal procedures in the enforce- ment of building codes and ordinances; principles and practices of supervision and training. Ability to: Deal tactfully, diplomatically and persuasively with the public; in- terpret codes and ordinances; read and interpret plan specifications; analyze situations accurately and to adopt an effective course of action; maintain accurate work records and prepare comprehensive reports. Desirable Education and Experience: Equivalent to completion of the twelfth grade. Possession of a Certi- ficate of Registration as a Plans Examiner issued by the International r Conference of Building Officials or the State of California. At least three years of field work and plans examining or directly related work experience, or any combination of training and/or experience that could likely provide the desired knowledge and abilities. Special Requirements: Possession of an appropriate California operator ' s license issued by the State Department of Motor Vehicles. Other Conditions of Employment: Must be a permanent United States citizen or hold status of an immi- grant "permanent resident. " Must be able to periodically pass a medical examination administered by the City medical consultant. la� C;7-�IOA l M D M_EMO_RANDUM_ TO: City Council January 12, 1987 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director _- SUBJECT: Budget/Personnel Request : Building Division, Community Development Department - "Permit Services Coordinator" BACKGROUND: On April 14th, 1986, the City Council approved Resolution No. 28-86 incorporating a Senior Building Inspector job description into the City salary plan and authorizing recruitment for said position. To date, we have not been able to recruit acceptable candidates for this position, which was intended to provide for a combination plan checker, counter information person, and special field inspector. As an alternative to this approach, we are rec- ommending that a new position, Permit Services Coordinator, be created which will allow career growth within our own ranks , while responding to demands for more assistance by Building Inspectors at the counter and in facilitating interdepartmental responses . ANALYSIS : The attached job description for Permit Services Coordinator borrows heavly from that of the Senior Building Inspector with the exception of plan checking responsibilities . The proposed salary range is midway between that of Building Inspector($1988.54/ month - Step C) and the advertised position of Senior Building In- spector ($2187.40/month - Step C) . This person, under the supervision of the Chief Building Inspector, would accept permit applications and evaluate materials for com- pleteness and expedite permit processing by acting as a single input source for all documentation required. He would assist con- tractors , architects , engineers , owner-builders and the public with information on construction requirements , fees , etc. , and co- ordinate the routing of plans for interdepartmental response, together with outside plan checkers . One of the key suggestions made in the recent Building Division User' s Survey was to have a Building Inspector available more frequently during day time hours at the public counter. Absent our ability to successfully recruit for a Senior Building Inspector, we feel that we can respond to this legitimate need through establishment of this position. Creation of this position would also free up planning staff time from review of single family projects for zoning compliance, to- gether with allowing the Chief Building Inspector more time to monitor field inspection practices and standards . �a 0 0 MEMORANDUM - Budget/Personnel Request Page Two FISCAL IMPACTS : Fiscal impact over the next six (6) months would be a theoretical savings in salary of approximately $600.00. However, given the fact we are proposing internal recruitment and advancement of our current Building Inspector at Step E to the osition it would actually incur added costs of approximately M0.00 to fill a po- sition at Step E. Filling the Senior Building Inspector' s authori- zation in effect with a Permit Services Coordinator would generate a need to also fill the vacated position of full time Building Inspector, which would result in a small savings . The attached organizational chart reflects the proposed staffing change. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Resolution 1-87 incorporating a Permit Services Co- ordinator Job Description into the City Salary Plan and establish- ing salary scale. HE:ph Enclosures : Resolution No. 1-87 Organizational Chart cc : Dave Jorgensen `Y J RESOLUTION NO. 1-87 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AUTHORIZING A NEW POSITION OF "PERMIT SERVICES COORDINATOR", AND APPROVING JOB DESCRIPTION AND SALARY SCHEDULE WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero wishes to expedite efforts to strengthen the City' s ability to provide a timely service for building and planning services . NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero resolves as follows : Section 1. Instruct the Administrative Services Director to incorporate the attached job description for Permit Services Coordinator (Exhibit A) into the job descriptions of the City of Atascadero. Section 2. Authorize the Administrative Services Director to fund the posi- tion from monies authorized for the unfilled position of Senior Building Inspector at the following salary schedule: �4 STEP Classification A B C D E Permit Services Coordinator $1879.17 $1985.57 $2087.97 $2192.37 $2296.76 On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing resolution is adopted in its entirety by - the following vote : AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: By: MARJORIE MACKEY, Mayor City of Atascadero, California \C 0 0 (RESOLUTION NO. 1-87 , Pg. 2) ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: LICA II-tITON, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: FY JO -E:d N, City Attorney P PARE BYRENRY : L ' G .opment Director EXHIBIT "A" JANUARY, 1987 CLASS TITLE: PERMIT SERVICES COORDINATOR GENERAL STATEMENT OF DUTIES : Under general supervision, accepts building permit applications and evaluates submittals for completeness . Serves as a single input source for all documentation required to expedite permit processing. Assists contractors , architects , engineers , owner-builders and the public with information, construction requirements , fees , etc ; co- ordinates the efforts of all City departments and outside plan checkers , who review building permit applications for compliance with ordinance requirements , to assure accurate and expeditious permit processing; performs site checks , reviews single family projects for zoning com- pliance; may make field inspections when supplementary staff is needed and do related work as required. EXAMPLES OF DUTIES PERFORMED: (Any one position may not include all duties listed, nor do the exam- ples listed cover all the duties that may be performed.) Reviews building and grading plan applications for completeness ; routes completed plans to City departments and outside plan checkers , and facilitates timely response to enable complete plan checks; interprets and explains construction codes and regulations to contractors , public officials and others ; makes site inspections to identify construction issues that need to be resolved in the plan check process . EMPLOYMENT GUIDELINES : Knowledge of: Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electric Code and related uniform codes ; applicable federal regulations governing building construction and practice ; state build- ing code and other applicable state regulations ; City development regulations ; proper methods of construction work and inspection. Ability to : Deal tactfully, diplomatically and persuasively with the public; in- terpret codes and ordinances ; read and interpret plan specifications ; analyze situations accurately and to adopt an effective course of action; maintain accurate records on the status of permit applications and plan check conditions- Desirable Education and Experience: Equivalent to completion of the twelfth grade. At least three years experience as a building inspector and plans examining or directly re- lated work experience, or any combination of training and/or experience that could likely provide the desired knowledge and abilities . 17 � 'i E 0 0 JOB DESCRIPTION - PERMIT SERVICES COORDINATOR Page Two Special Requirements : Possession of an appropriate California operator' s license issued by the State Department of Motor Vehicles . Other Conditions of Employment : Must be a permanent United States citizen or hold status of an immi- grant "permanent resident." Must be able to periodically pass a medical examination administered by the City medical consultant. Must be able to be trained in use of computer systems . �a r`l of #4 Ti4 S'�r')C-Jeo � oMt�► utJtTY DEVELOPMENT DEPT, EVIL DtttiG- lPL,q !11Lj-I�C� C.k f _ 04.06, - s,�,tto�2 I�fls f�LANNf�i f�te __ -76 1 . 0 PECMANEINT r T' (3U IL�lfJ�, KEIL & AVERY LABOR RELATIONS CONSULTANTS 19925 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD,SUITE 145 CUPERTINO,CALIFORNIA 95014 February 5, 1987 (408)973-7845 Mr. Dave Jorgensen Administrative Services Director City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Atascadero, CA 93423 Dear Dave: I've compiled some survey data for your use in setting the salary for the new Senior Building Inspector position. As I indicated, I don't believe the salary numbers themselves are particularly relevant as you must set salaries based on your local labor market. However, the numbers are useful in that they show internal relationships in a number of cities and also give you an idea of the internal structure used in other building departments. The information is in the form of a benchmark salary survey (attached) . The scope of classification listed is trainee through the first full supervisory level. Plan Checking only classifications and Housing Inspector are excluded. The key class in the benchmark survey (the one in CAPS) is the experienced working level classification generally requiring Journeyman experience in one of the building trades. Incumbents could be either general inspectors or specialize in one area depending on the in which they serve. Once again, I believe the internal relationships are more relevant than the salary numbers themselves. The Community Development Director also raised the issue of the relationship between the Building Division salaries and those in other departments. I have compared the benchmark level Building Inspector classification with a benchmark Planning salary for purposes of comparison. The Planning classification utilized is the full working level without regular supervisory responsibilities. The percentage factor given will be the percent the Building Inspectors salary is above or below the Planning salary. Campbell + 8. 6% Saratoga equal Mountain View -11. 6% Milpitas - 9. 0% San Mateo - 5.8% Give me a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, William H. Avery a aAv. o c� ti � va A 0 o N A q p Ga Icp p Y1 + N . CNn Vj � a ? eM � In o �'� M c h opo ccnn 00 c�1 C? c�1 N M M N N cin N 00 l� Of Q N M ¢ N en M n ce i 00 � N O W ' w O � M N7 i9 49 v! fN9 iNR� 4 �,Nq N fIi b9 vi f 9.i �Ni4 Q% V3 O Y1 .r aM q _ e ° 3 8A � 2,511 V Lr 0 3 O O S O s ~ H w 9 4J4. oo a 0 En PQ r `• 4$ tN� AGENDA /� AT Z�J7EM C M E M O R A N D U M March 17 , 1987 To : City Council Via: Mike Shelton , City Manager K,)- From: Bob Best , Parks and REcreation Director Subject : Fees for Charles Paddock Zoo INTRODUCTION At the March 10 Council meeting Staff was directed to bring back a Resolution for the establishment of fees for Charles Paddock Zoo . In addition, Council requested the department to provide a priority plan of expenditures for the first year of the fee system. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 27-87 establishing fees for Charles Paddock Zoo, effective May 21 , 1987 . Attached resolution lists the fee structure . FISCAL IMPACT Established revenues for fees in FY 1987-88 is $74 ,500 . Details regard- ing how fees will be used will be determined during the budget process for the next fiscal year. 7� RESOLUTION N0. 27-87 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING ADMISSION FEES FOR CHARLES PADDOCK ZOO. WHEREAS , the City of Atascadero manages Charles Paddock Zoo ; and, WHEREAS , the Government Code provides that fees may be collected for Park and Recreation activities and facilities; and, WHEREAS , it is appropriate to establish user fees which defray the cost of facility operation. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does hereby adopt Resolution No. 27-87 establishing admission fees for Charles Paddock Zoo. The fees are as follows : DAILY THURSDAY - MONDAY Adults $1 . 00 Children ( 6-17 years ) - 50¢ Five and under - Free TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY Admission by Donation The fee system is effective May 21 , 1987 . On motion by Councilperson and seconded by Councilperson ' the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote : AYES : NOES : ABSENT: ADOPTED: March 24 , 1987 C� -2- 10 CITY OF ATASCADERO Marjorie Mackey, Mayor ATTEST: Boyd Sharitz , City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jeffrey Jorgensen , City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: r\ Michael Shelton, City Manager MEETING AGLMDA DAT,_ , ?,�2—�!7EFA MEMORANDUM • March 16 , 1987 To : City Council Via: Mike Shelton, City Manager , From: Bob Best , Parks and Recreation Director—b Subject : Engineering Services for Atascadero Lake Improvement Project BACKGROUND With the completion of the Lake Feasibility Study and resulting recom mendations , the next step for the City is to select an engineer to pro- vide services for the Lake Improvement Project . This would include providing construction drawings for the project as well as supervising the project from a technical aspect . RECOMMENDATION Authorize Staff to seek proposals for Engineering Services for the Atascadero Lake Improvement Project . PROJECT EXPENDITURE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Costs reflected below are estimates provided by the consultant and staff estimates for engineering services . PROJECT BUDGET - $200 ,000 RECOMMENDED EXPENDITURES Engineering Services - $20 ,000 Installation of Aeration System - $50 ,000 Extension of Water Supply Line Discharge - $25 ,000 Mechanical Biofiltration of Lake Wate (Swimming Area) - $40 ,000 -Construction of Water Well - $40 ,000 ,�, 1 eaa�a�Feq ,�� Creation of Isolated March area ( South End) - $15 ,000 -Planting of Submergent and Emergent Aquatic Plants - $3 ,500 Soils Report - $3 , 500 Monitoring of Water Oxygen Levels Before Planting of Fish - $2 ,000 Removal of Fowl - $1 ,000 TOTAL: $200 ,000 • RECOMMENDED BUT FUNONG NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE Removal of Concrete slab and Lake Debris - $5 ,000 ( Staff does not recommend removal of wading pool) Stocking of additional warm-water fishes - cost unknown at this time .• Scraping and removal of lake bottom sediments - $85 ,000-$400 ,000. FISCAL IMPACT Expenses for Engineering services will be paid from grant revenues received from State Parks and Recreation. No General Fund expenditures are requested. • MFETW', AGENDA • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council March 24 , 1987 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager . FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Department �lA_ SUBJECT: General Plan Conformity Report: Proposed Sale of City owned Lots on Lake View Drive and Proposed Acquisition of Property Along Morro Road For Recreational Purposes (Atascadero Lake Park) . BACKGROUND: On March 17th, 1987, the Planning Commission considered the attached staff report for determining the conformity of the sale of ten (10) lots on Lake View Drive for residential purposes and acquisition of property on Morro Road to round out Atascadero Lake Park. ISSUES: As indicated in the attached report, the General Plan has specific language urging the acquisition and preservation of lots in proximity to Atascadero Lake, including "County owned lots fronting on Lake View adjacent to Atascadero Lake" . There was testimony from the Chamber of Commerce in support of acquiring properties on Morro Road with a view to future construction of a community center, provided that the Pavil- ion has progressed through Phase I. There was also testimony by four different citizens urging that the properties along Lake View not be sold but retained for future community needs. The Planning Commission commented generally on the need to enhance the walking trails on the Lake View side of the lake, with the consensus being that the lots on the hillsides did not appear necessary for the proper development of the lake. However, the center lot - which has a road constructed through it (and not in the right-of-way) - did look desirable to re- tain. The Commission also had concerns that if the lots were sold as surplus, there should be assurances that these monies be available to acquire Morro Road properties. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends to the Council that sale of proper- ties on Lake View is not consistent with the present General Plan, and would require initiation of a General Plan Amendment, while the pro- posed acquisition of properties on Morro Road would be in conformance with the General Plan. ADDITIONAL COMMENT: • Commission' s motion noted that they felt that the proposed acquisition should be funded by the sale of property on Lake View. CAPITAL PROGRAM REVIEW: It was reported to the Commission that as part of this year ' s capital improvement program review, that the Commission will have an oppor- tunity to comment on the draft CIP prior to final action by the City Council pursuant to State Law. This would serve to provide better insights into financing arrangements and plans for expenditures in proximity to the lake. HE:ph Enclosure: March 17th, 1987 staff report • • City of Atascadero Item: B. 3 STAFF REPORT FOR: PlanningCommission Meeting Date: March 17, 1987 g BY: Steven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner Project Address: Various sites on Lake View Drive and Morro Road SUBJECT: General Plan Conformity Report: Sale of surplus City Property along Lake View Drive and acquisition of property along Morro Road for rec- reational purposes. BACKGROUND: Once a City has adopted a General Plan, no real property can be acquired or disposed of until the proposal has been submitted to the Planning Commission for a General Plan Conformity Report. Government Code Section 65402 (a) states as follows: "If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted, no real prop- erty shall be acquired by dedication or otherwise for street, square, park, or other public purposes, and no real property shall be disposed of, no street shall be vacated or abandoned, and no public building or structure shall be constructed or authorized, if the adopted general plan or part thereof applies thereto, until the location, purpose, and extent of such acquisition or disposi- tion, such street vacation or abandonment, or such public building or structure have been submitted to and reported upon by the plan- ning agency as to conformity with said adopted general plan or Part thereof. " Although not strictly required by law, this consideration was noticed as a public hearing. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on March 6, 1987. ANALYSIS: 1. Sale of surplus property along Lake View Drive The Parks and Recreation Department proposes to declare as surplus, and dispose of, ten (10) parcels located along Lake View Drive (see Exhibit A) . These lots were acquired from the County by the City in 1981. The lots were intended to be used for recreational purposes through expansion of Atascadero Lake Park. Staff Report - General Plan Conformity Report March 17 , 1987 Page Two Prior to acquisition of the subject parcels, the Planning Commission considered a general plan conformity report as required by State Law. That report found the acquisition of the parcels to be in conformance with the General Plan (see Exhibit E) . Those portions of the adopted General Plan that were relied upon to find the property acquisition in conformance with the Plan (Exhibit 'D) have not been amended since 1981. Although the General Plan Map does not appear to designate the af- fected property as "Recreation" , the text clearly calls for the acqui- sition and retention of the "County owned property on Lake View Drive" for recreational purposes. Because of this, the sale of these prop- erties cannot be found to be in conformance with the City' s adopted General Plan. If specific plans for the ultimate development of Atascadero Lake Park have changed, the General Plan can and should be amended to reflect those new plans. In addition, the zone designation on four (4) of the lots should be amended to reflect development potential if the lots are to be sold. 2. Acquisition of property along Morro Road In February 1986 , this Commission reviewed a proposal to acquire a* parcel of land located along Morro Road adjacent to the Atascadero Lake Park parking lot. This acquisition was found to be in confor- mance with the City' s General Plan. This finding was based on an in- terpretation that acquisition of the subject lot would further recre- ational and/or other public pursuits at Atascadero Lake Park. The Parks and Recreation Department now proposes to purchase ten (10) additional lots located between Morro Road and Alvord Field, (see Exhibit B) . These lots are immediately east of the lake spillway and the previous acquisition noted above. A long range goal for these lots is the development of a community center building. As noted in the February 1986 general plan conformity report, the sub- ject lots are not specifically listed in the General Plan text (Ex- hibit D) as parcels to be acquired for recreation purposes. However , these lots would further recreational pursuits at Atascadero Lake which is the intent of the open space and conservation element of the plan. In addition, the open space element notes that Atascadero Lake Park is so heavily used that additional areas will need to be acquired. The subject parcels would definitely help satisfy this identified need. Finally, it should be noted that the General Plan map designates the parels proposed for acquisition as "recreation" . Staff Report - GP Conformity Report March 17, 1987 Page Three RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Recommend to the City Council that the sale of the City owned par- cels located along Lake View Drive be found to not be in confor- mance with the City' s adopted General Plan. The Parks and Recre- ation Department should initiate a General Plan Amendment to mod- ify the text of the General Plan to accurately reflect current plans for property acquisition and development at Atascadero Lake Park. 2. Recommend to the City Council that the acquisition of those par- cels located between Morro Road and Alvord Field be found to be in conformance with the City' s adopted General Plan. SLD:ph Attachments: Exhibit A - Parcels to be Sold Exhibit B - Parcels to be Purchased Exhibit C - General Plan Map Exhibit D - General Plan Excerpts n. r "�l i w— Z— 4a'Ad,r'x1 PI a� Co►,-�o►-mi is 7 L F� < >•O a • NT � o s � V C04 f cq sT i C T y / t�CR H q t � \ w s \, _46 PJ TgSC4 ER J f T cc fAKGEL3 o t3E SOLD ,O J PO OL \` i iVF. VIEW a R S X �. RS i oo R ST, — iGABRI l I \ " _ n a ' �� IJ o q0 ►a� I 6 1 11 o RAFAEL��C 1 _ VALLE '9lET., RMF-1'61 MF'16 ! /S !X 1 � Ci�vt�►-�+•( Pl ah Lr�w-�Ov►M�- i / LC4 —( n - hTa RMF -- 1 �sA"le � � = 6� — •!7 AV -:Cr 1CDRTE Fc'- � Q RS i E O / ION P co 9 / \ s a �'19 � CT AERO O v AVE r W � O \per. y6 �y Oa SPO • � M ✓J �F< �- ip / J � 1 !��l �ql'F y�l VIEW\ � pp OL { ' VIEW V, PAKCEL:� TD 13E- AGqur ZE D � ��� PIs ' �VE-) Pas A � GABRI L Rpq / !� / R �N FH `y .ip■►sAo V ■p■■ po��r. ■ opp pOO . pp■■■n pn . .p■p■�C�Se-_ ` ♦ I - -__.■ fir■ WIpp1 iii■■. `-^,..,,...� 1 •�r-S I � l � 1 ` ! + • e j?e�rte•`«'w�1 �%�i � t, a A A h e A ® A e t $ h m 4 A A A ®�• ti ( � AAAAa �� AAAAAa ® ® g @A A A 6 B ® A A h A ® ® d h A o t�►R��� / hl � A I h l h h A o 3 A ® A A A h NMI A A A A A 6 ® A ® A A A s h ♦ h A A 6 ♦ A I A OMENS h A A h A I, ® � ► A A h h ! h 6 A m 6 1 • r �� • GENERAL P LAN MAP LAND USE AND CIRCULATION • COMMERCIAL • • RETAIL COMMERCIALRECREATION DENS.HIGH V/j�� �' rSPECIAL RECREATION OD DENS. DIVIDED ® - UNDIVIDED • • -• • INDUSTRIALSUBURBAN SNGL. FAM. INDUSTRIAL URBAN :.- x X41151 4 a VN4-V P-I P!ah Cok�a►-W t4y R4.po►-�- 0 GC"NEKAL �LArN C X GER PZ"�: Open space for outdoor recreation includes areas of out- I standing scenic, historic or cultural value., areas parti- cularly outstanding for park and recreation purposes, f5 SZ. including access to lak.eshores, beaches, rivers and streams, and areas which serve as links between major recreation and open space reservations, including utility easements , banks of rivers and streams,. trails, and scenic highway corridors . ,- Areas of open space available for recreation that shall be preserved are listed below: The banks and bed of Atascadero Creek The inundation area of the Salinas River Atascadero Lake and its surrounding park The Sunken Gardens Chalk Mountain Regional Park The three Little League baseball fields The banks and bed of Graves Creek P� 83• Pine Mountain (in part) The Wranglerette Arena Areas of open space that shall be considered for acquisition by a public agency and/or preserved for recreation are listed below: Chandler Parkland Pine _Mountain Amphitheater ,., County-owned lots- fronting on Lakeview adjacent to Atascadero Lake Atascadero Lake The 25-acre Atascadero Lake and its surrounding 10-acre park not only provide a home for aquatic and bird life but also serve as the prir.ary recreational area for the Colony and, indeed, for surrounding portions of the entire County. I y $,� The park is so heavily used that additional areas will have to be acquired to keep- pace with the patronage. A park development Alan approved by the Board of Supervisors foresees acquisition and construction of a greater variety and number of recreational facilities . A long-term Capital Outlay Program is necessary to properly allocate construction- funds for these projects. \ �n EX 41 F317' C _M_E M O R A N D U M : TO: CITY MANAGER March 17 , 1981 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: General Plan Conformity LOCATION: Lake View Drive APPLICANT: Initiated by City - REQUEST: To determine compliance with Government Code Section 65402 relative to transfer of County-owned lots adjacent to Atascadero Lake On March 16 , 1981, the Planning Commission considered the subject matter unanimously adopting Findings 1-6 determining that recrea- tional and public use of the subject lots conformed with the 1980 Atascadero General Plan, as outlined in the attached Staff report. There was brief discussion among the Commission concerning any effects on the privately owned lots on Lake View. No one appeared on the matter. LAWRENCEEVENS MUR Y ARDEN Planning rector City Manager /p s �`V General Plan Conformity March 12 , 1981 Page 2 Lots 28 and 29 could be perceived as being the most isolated but there is a large land area across Lake View adjacent to these lots and reasonable lake or recreational development is possible. Further- more some consideration of these sites is appropriate for a future fire station. In reviewing the General Plan land use designations for the area it is apparent that the Lake View properties are in an area of transition between Moderate Density Single Family use and Recreation use. Since a general plan is not by nature lot-specific, careful review of transitional areas is important in implementing the intent of a general plan and its policies. Available implementation techniques applicable to this situation include acquisition to assure public control or rezoning to either residential or public/recreational use, as deemed appropriate. FINDINGS 1. The Atascadero Lake and Park, including the zoo, are a recreational resource of ;.regional significance and future improvement and ex- pansion will enchance its regional impacts. 2. Development of the lots for residential purposes could create adverse effects to the Lake itself since the majority of the lots are not within the County Sanitation District and must utilize private sewage disposal systems. In fact, Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations and private system des.Ign standards may prohibit development until sewers become available. 3. An additional fire station site to serve southerly and south- easterly portions of the City seems necessary. 4. Open space principals contained within the General Plan discourage overuse, misuse and destruction of scenic and sensitive lands such as the Lake and dictate retention of the lake and park in public ownership. 5. The General Plan points out that the Park is so heavily used that additional areas will have to be acquired to keep pace with the patronage. 6. The Atascadero Lake and Park, including the zoo, are designated for Recreation in the Land Use Element and the contiguity of the Lake View parcels indicates that a similar designation is not inappropriate for them, provided that the land use designations are not perceived as being specifically delineated on the map. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the findings the Planning Department recommends that the transfer of Lots 28, 29 , 33, 34 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41,, 43, 44 , and 45 of Block 12 of Atascadero Colony for recreational and other public use be deemed in conformance with the 1980 Atascadero General Plan. 1 General Plan Conformity March 12 , 1981 Page Three ACTION Direct Staff by motion as deemed appropriate. TO APPROVE: Adopt findings and Staff recommendation. TO DENY: Adopt findings. REPORT PREPARED BY: LAWRENCE STEVE , Planning Director 'ET iNG , ' AGINDA ATE ITEM !� --____ MEMORANDUM TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul M. Sensibaugh, 'Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Grant of Easements - Graves Creek Bridge DATE: March 17, 1987 ecommendation: Staff requests authorization from Council to pay fair market value for right-of-way required for the construction of the Graves Creek Bridge. Background: The Department of Public Works has determined that additional right of way and temporary construction easements are necessary for the construction of the Graves Creek Bridge on Monterey Road. A certified appraisal has been completed by Dennis Greene, Inc. in accordance with Federal Highway Administration guidelines. Fiscal Impact: The cost of the easements, at fair market value, total $2520.00 which is grant fundable. ' l OT lQT ID_ . 77 - �oNSf4JcTraJ (0� 21W V(3A D— �, /roo; i-rrr lot �E,yPO/�/J�Y G,JSEMENT -- _ r0 ACGU� c Aprp)eGX. �,C. WUOC:i D CJ%.kES•�4: 700 _ . 02 ac. L l- 11 500 = .0 1 Ce mss. 3 : 11&64 0 .04 ac, LOT 43 C24 = •0'2 ac. ro 1 h 1—,4 s 5 LOT 10 _ LOT r � to LOT 4: T ec m ( ! _ — _{r:� ACVJ1 5 ' ! 1OiJ ;-� � OF r►AY , . K �3 I~ .l . FJ irJ r 1_ r • _ reenv ��- `Dennis �. G & Real Estate Appraisals/Jfarket Studies COMMERCIAL + INDUSTRIAL + APPRAISAL RESIDENTIAL fNG AGENDA tTEM#1� MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Directors THROUGH: Mike She City Manager FROM: Paul Sensibau h �,�c g , Dire - SUBJECT: of Public Works SUBJECT: Sewef Annexation - Se P ado Avenue DATE: March 17 1987 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Board approve annexing Lots 31, 32, 33 Resolution No. trict No. 4 (Seperado-Cayucos) 35' and 36 into Im 2Dis Improvement Dis- Background: Staff has received first six lots on Seperado request from the owners of No. 4. off San Jacintthe , to annex into I.D. Discussion: o It is known that Seperado Avenue has septic tank Small lots combined with unsuitable soil conditions septic tank leach Problems. connect to a Problems. To abandon these on-siteSystemsato nd the entire public sewer system would be a tremendous benefit to area. The applicants have contacted John Wallace and do the engineering on the sewer main extension on ce the tion is Associates to granted. It is their desire to have Beaver Construction the contractor for Improvement District No. annexa- sewer main while in the vicinity, n' 4, construct their Fiscal Impact: There is no cost related to this annexation All costs incurred in the line extension to the District. applicants, are to be paid b Y the • • RESOLUTION NO. 28-87 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT APPROVING EXTENDING PUBLIC SEWER SERVICE TO APN 28-061-12, 33, 32, 40 and 39 AND INCORPORATING THIS AREA INTO THE BOUNDARIES OF IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 4 WHEREAS, the Atascadero County Sanitation District is empowered by Section 4834 of the Health and Safety Code to annex territory already a part of the County Sanitation District to the improvement district of that County Sanitation District; and WHEREAS, the owners of the property described above and in Exhibits A and B attached to this resolution; have followed the procedures for application into Improvement District No. 4; and WHEREAS, said property, located on Seperado Avenue is contiguous with the 'existing improvement district; and WHEREAS, said property is within the Urban Services Line on the City' s Land Use and Circulation General Plan Map and is con- sistent with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, it is in the interest of Atascadero County Sanitation District to provide sewer service when consistent with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed project has received a Negative Declaration pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; WHEREAS, the applicants will be required to design and construct a sewer main extension at their expense prior to connection and it appears feasible to do so; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Directors of the Atascadero County Sanitation District as follows: Section 1. The Board finds that the territory described in this resolution will be benefitted by such sewer service (Health and Safety Code section 4830) ; Section 2. The Board approves the extension of public sewer service to the following parcels, subject to the payment of appropriate fees as listed in the Atascadero County Sanitation • Code: APN 28-061-12 • APN 28-061-32 APN 28-061-33 APN 28-061-39 APN 28-061-40 Subject to the following conditions: a. Obtain all necessary plumbing and street encroachment permits iand execute a sewer main extension agreement. b. Payment of all connection and annexation fees as provided in the Atascadero County Sanitation District Code in effect at the time of connection. Section 3. The area described above is hereby incorporated into the boundaries of Improvement District No. 4. On motion by Board Member and seconded by Board Member , the foregoing resolution is adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE: ATTEST: Mike Shelton MARJORIE R. MACKEY Secretary Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH Director of Public Works/City Engineer 2 �i� 0 CL CL /•sO,�f b O v O V O v l S3e•4fi». a O 1 O a *O . �•y s�dt Jyw N � w �, � ob y '� s + A 36• ` D+ �s s"�er'w X s�.•r�• --.. ,3�.ss S.J.0 N 4 � /L1 79 ,J!-re- -n G- p tNi� p w k w O o C) OV 07 7L3 /J9C fo /JETS < to t .� ..�./i /�J.JJ rn C7 a fe.Jl B7.ri �", /Jt ac 0.0 rn N w N N = u _ gO tl ` i V s4� N iJe.je w u OS.It /V ��q r W N W �4 � r .1 a N „ n D O O. O r p / r n cr O N v co rn al • :-�" a • Q 1 5 M"ET'T n ,r AGFMbA ` DA 17E �_ MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Directors THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul Sensib � SUBJECT: Acceptance of Grant of Easement-Traffic [Jay - Vetter DATE: March 17, 1987 Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board take formal action to accept a Grant of Easement from Mr. William Vetter for a portion of property owned by him on Traffic Way. Background: This easement has been obtained by the City from Mr. Vetter for the purpose of installing, maintaining, repairing, replacing, enlarging or removing a sanitary sewer pump station. A legal description and diagram have been attached for your reference. Fiscal Impact: For the easement the Sanitation District has paid Mr. Vetter the sum of $850 which has been determined to be a fair amount. This expenditure is budgeted in Improvement District No. 4. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING +- POST OFFICE BOX 747 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 POLICE DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805) 466-8000 POST OFFICE BOX 747 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 CITY COUNCIL �ase cce PHONE: (805) 466-8600 • CITY CLERK CITY TREASURER INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 CITY MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT PHONE:.(805) 466-2141 February 19, 1987 Mr. William Vetter P.O. Box 481 Atascadero, CA 93423 Dear Mr. Vetter : I have been holding onto this check for about two months now with the good intention of hand delivering it to your residence at your request. However, in all fairness to you I am sending it along with an easement agreement for your signature. Please look it over, or have your attorney do the same, and sign it if you are comfortable with the terms. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I still look forward to visiting you "on the hill" to discuss historical changes or whatever. Very truly yours; �,V J PAL U M. SENSIBAUGH 61 Director of Public Works • 2 BLOCK M (Traffic Way & Buena Ave. ) An easement to install, maintain, repair, replace, enlarge and remove a Sanitary Sewer Pump Station and appurtenances over a portion of Block M of the Hap of Atascadero in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, as shown on the Map recorded in Book 4 of Maps at page 9 in the Office of The County Recorder of said County, described as follows: Beginning at southeasterly corner of the intersection of Buena Avenue and Traffic Way as shown on said map; thence, along the easterly right of way of Traffic Way, South 260 20' East 20.00 feet; thence, leaving said right of way, North 630 40' East 20.00 feet thence North 260 20' West 20.00 feet to a point on the southerly right of way of said Buena Avenue; thence, along said right of way, South 630 40' West 20.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said easement is shown on Exhibit "A", Attached. A Sonitory Sewer Eosement over o portion of Block M of A�oscodero, in the City of AtOSCOdero, County of Son Luis- Obispo, State of Colifornio 4101 fV S L O CK N26- 20 'w 20. 00 ' Q � ..•••SFWER EASEMENT b p G N630 40'E 20.00 -- 120.0 S 26' 20, E -- G - h TRA FF/ C ISA Y Q 06 K 0 ; m RECORDING REQUESTED BY: City of Atascadero WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO : PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT City of Atascadero P. 0. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER' S USE GRANT OF EASEMENT This Agreement made on the following date: , by and between William Vetter hereinafter referred to as "Grantor", and the CITY OF ATASCADERO, hereinafter referred to as "City WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of that real property commonly known as A portion of Block 1, at the southeasterly corner of Buena Av-enue and Traffic City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, hereinafter referred to as the "Servient Tenement" , and described as follows : [legal description of property] : A portion of Block M of the Map of Atascadero in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, as shown on the Map recorded in Book 4 of Maps at page 9 in the Office of the County Recorder. Refer to Exhibit A-Attached. WHEREAS , City desires to acquire certain rights in the servient tenement for public purposes ,, for the benefit of the City of Atascadero and for the public; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1 . GRANT OF EASEMENT: For valuable consideration, Grantor hereby grants to City an easement in gross as hereinafter described. 2. DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENT AND LOCATION: The easement gran herein is for the following public purpose or purposes : To install, maintain, repair, replace, enlarge and remove a Sanitary Sewer Pump Station and appurtenances n!r _1_ iL 0 0 The easement granted is located as follows : The southeasterly corner of the intersection of Beuna Avenue and Traffic Way as shown on Exhibit A, attached. 3. AGREEMENT RUNS WITH THE LAND: This agreement shall run with the subject property described above and shall be binding upon the Grantor and all his or her assigns and successors in interest. 4 . INDEMNIFICATION: City, shall defend, indemnify and save harmless the Grantor, his assigns and successors in interest, respective heirs and personal representatives , from any and all claims , demands , damages , costs , expenses , or liability occasioned by this Grant of Easement, including, but not limited to , inverse condemnation, equitable relief, or any wrongful act or any negligent act or omission to act on the parts of City, its agents , employees or independant contractors directly responsible to the City. Nothing contained in the foregoing indemnity provisions shall be construed to require the City to indemnify Grantor against any responsibility or liability in contravention of §2782 of the Civil Code. S. EFFECT OF WAIVER: Either parties breach of any one term, covenant, or other provision of this agreement, is not a waiver of breach of any other term, nor subsequent breach of the term or provision waived. 6 . NOTICES : Unless otherwise provided, all notices herein required .sha-11 be in writing, and delivered in person or sent by U. S . Mail, first class , postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows : Public Works Director, City of Atascadero P. 0. Box 747 Atascadero , California 93423 Notices required to be given to Grantor shall be addressed as follows : -2- Provided that any party may change such address by notice in writing to the other party and thereafter notices shall be address* and transmitted to the new address . 7. VALIDITY OF OTHER AGREEMENTS : This agreement is in addition to, and does not supercede, any other agreement or agreements entered into by and between the parties hereto. 8. INVALIDITY: If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this agreement is held by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected,. impaired or invalidated thereby. 9 . ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This instrument contains the entire agreement between the parties relating to the rights herein granted and the obligations herein assumed. Any oral representations or modifications concerning this instrument shall be of no force and effect except as subsequent modification in writing signed by the party to be charged. 10 . AGREEMENT TO BE RECORDED: Grantor and City intend and consent to the recordation of this agreement , in the office of the County Recorder of San Luis Obispo County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the day and year first above written. z GRANTOR BY: -3- �r . CITY OF ATASCADERO BY: PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ATTEST : BY: ATASCADERO CITY CLERK On this day of before me, a Notary Public for the State oT—California, personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) , to be the person whose name is subscribed to this instrument and acknowledged that he (or she or they) executed it. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA -4- EXHIB/ T A A Sanitary Sewer Easement over o portion of S/o ck Al of i A�oscadero, in the City of Atascadero, County of Son Luis Obispo, State of California BL0CK M --N2611 20 'W 20. 00 O Q I .- SEWER EA SEMEN T b N G N 63 ' 40,E 20.00 " 20.0 S 26' 20" E -- G TRA FF/ C WA Y Q L 0 �' ZZ, � � 0 i QQ ,nl ADMINISTRATION BUILDING CITY ATTORNEY POST OFFICE BOX 747 POST OFFICE BOX 606 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93423 PHONE: (805) 466-8000- - PHONE: (803)466-4422 CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERKaseadet'o POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY TREASURER POST INCORPORATED JULY 2, 1979 ATASCADEROF FICE BOX 747 CITY MANAGER CALIFORNIA 93423 PHONE: (805) 466-8600 - ADM INf9TRATfVR"3ERV7E2S'D2PA'R•flNENt�T�.:.•�,--.,.*�--_.�,..r..•=--- ...-._ �.. ..., ..,. -.. _ ,_..._. •.__.,_ .z-,..-..�,...,... COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 __ "�• - -'PHONC: (805) 466-2141 October 13, 1986 Mr. William Vetter P.O. Box 481 Atascadero, CA 93423 Subject: Sewer Easement for APN 28-102-01 - Block Mr. Dear Mr. Vetter: The design for Sewer Assessment District No. 4 proposes a sewer easement through your property as shown on the attached sketch. After _ reviewing several alternatives your ,lot proved the most desirable lo- cation for the easement. 0 The intent of the 20 foot easement is to provide adequate space for a proposed lift station and to allow easy ingress and egress for future servicing of that facility. The City is. prepared to make an offer as shown below for this easement. The offer As not based on a specific appraisal. An ap- praiser was contacted but it would cost the City $300 to $600 for each appraisal, and an easement approximately 150 feet long was said to be valued between $500 and $1000 . Therefore, instead of paying for the appraisal initially we have decided to make a fair offer using $5 per linear foot for the 10 ft wide easement and $10 per linear foot for a 20 foot wide easement, plus the average cost of an appraisal. If that figure is not satisfactory then you have the right to obtain an appraisal from a Certified MIA, at your expense. If such appraisal is unacceptable to the City then the City will have an in- dependent appraisal completed by a Certified MIA for comparison. If at that t tine we cannot come to terms, the City would either make an offer for a less desirable route, which may or may not involve your property, or would use its Eminent Domain powers to aquire the ease- ment. If the latter is necessary, there would be a court injunction to tresspass while the court decided the fair amount due to you th- rough arbitration. The other extreme of negotiations would be that the property owner would donate the needed easement to further reduce the overall assessments for the project. Certainly it is not the City' s desire to force the easeme� It is not only a costly procedure and time consuming, but is unpopular as well. Our best offer to you is shown below. Block M 20 feet X $10 = 200 Cost to City if Appraisal was sought 450 Plus consideration for loss of Zero set-back in non-residential zone 20 X $10 = 200 Total Offer 850 ok Please let us know if you accept the offer shown and we will provide an easement for your signature. If you choose otherwise please so indicate in writing so that we can start the formal - ap- praisal process. Please include your appraisal in your response. Any authorization by you regarding the easement does not prohibit you from using your legal right to protest the project. Likewise, without such permission the City can still proceed with #U - If project if all legal requirements are met. No one will trespass u your property without your permission unless allowed by a court ring. you have any questions or if I can be of further help, please . do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH Director of Public Works/ City Engineer V 2 �� i A.'.3.�3 7A /-s • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council March 24, 1987 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director .t SUBJECT: Tree Ordinance Considerations As additional background for this discussion item, enclosed herewith is the Community Development Department' s special studies general pri- orities list. Note, Item No. 14 under Zoning Ordinance Amendments, that tree criteria is listed as an item for consideration in ordinance revisions. Staff has also informally reviewed a draft tree ordinance prepared by a citizen' s Tree Committee and commented on the problems that could be identified in the draft. However, it should be noted that adoption of a comprehensive tree ordinance within the City is not scheduled by staff. ® Discussions have been held with the City Attorney with respect to the desirability of establishing greater penalties for illegal tree re- moval. The City-Contractors ' Review Group and the Architectural Stan- dards Review Committee both have concurred with the desirability of setting mitigation standards for any trees that need to be removed. The Council may want to direct the City Attorney to work with staff in developing stronger replacement criteria within the context of the present Zoning Ordinance. This might include either greater penalties and/or stringent replacement criteria where trees are removed in vio- lation of the ordinance. As it stands now, an illegal tree removal is a misdemeanor punishable by a $50 .00 fine. The tree that is so re- moved may bring many hundreds of dollars as cord wood. We are covered in terms of conditions of approval on Plot Plans, Use Permits and Pre- cise Plans, but where these are violated, we' re looking at a pretty weak response under the current language in the ordinance, HE:ph Enclosure: March 27th, 1986 , Special Studies General Priorities List Zoning Ordinance Excerpt : Tree Removal • �1 l MEMORANDUM TO: City Council/Planning Commission VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director DATE: March 27, 1986 SUBJECT: Special Studies General Priorities List BACKGROUND: The following list outlines a general time line as seen by staff for bringing special studies to the Planning Commission and/or City Coun- cil. Priorities for special studies can be fairly fluid and frequent- ly depend on the timeliness of reports from ad hoc committees, re- ponses from other City departments and/or other agencies outside the City's control. More importantly, special studies generally are sec- ond in priority to applications for building permits, subdivisions, rezonings, general plan amendments and other forms of applications for which turn-around time goals have been established. STUDIES COMPLETED: The following special studies have been completed since being reviewed at a joint Planning Commission/City Council study session on January 28, 1985. 1) Housing Element 2) Development Fees 3) Lewis Avenue Bridge (cost estimate and time fee ordinance) 4) Zoning Ordinance Amendments (elimination of 20% lot size adjust- ments; delegating to staff approval for grading on slopes over 20%; creation of a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size standard (including general plan amendment) 5) Drainage Master Plan (study has commenced) 6) Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Area (ordinance and fee resolution to provide solutions to drainage problems has been adopted) 7) Environmental Review Guidelines REMAINDER OF FISCAL YEAR 1985/86 : 8) Traffic Way Sidewalk Study (Mulholland Appeal) Special Studies General Priorities List 9) Community Development Block Grant (close-out) 10) Business License Ordinance 11) Subdivision Ordinance (draft has been prepared) 12) Zoning Ordinance Amendments (selected permit streamlining measures) FISCAL YEAR 1986/87 AND BEYOND: 13) Multifamily Density Study 14) Zoning Ordinance amendments (hillside standards, precise plan findings, architectural standards, parking standards, sign stand- ards, tree criteria, density bonus elimination) 15) Downtown Parking Implementation 16) Appeals Board Ordinance Review 17) Annual Planning Report 18) Comprehensive General Plan Amendment 19) Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Re-write ,HE:ps 2 �! ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 *�a-4.152: Drainage Plan Review and Approval: ' All drainage plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and are subjec to the approval of the City Engineer. 9-4.153. `\,Plan Check, Inspection and Completion: Where req red by the City,__Engineer, a plan check and inspection agreeme shall be - entered into\and the drainage facilities inspected and a. roved before a Certificate\W Occupancy is issued. 9-4.154. Drainage 'Standards: (a) Design and Construction: Drainage sy ems and facilities subject to dratage p�� lan review and pproval that shall be located in existlnfuture g or publ 'c right-of-way shall be designed and const�ucted as set rth in the City Engineer- ing Department Standard Improveartent Specifications and Draw- ings. Other systems d faci sties subject to drainage plan review and approval shall b designed in accordance with good engineering practices (b) Natural Channels and R , offer Proposed projects may include design provisions to etain o�-f-site natural drainage pat- terns and limit pea runoff to '�redevelopment levels when required by the C' y Engineer. (c) Flood Hazard Ar as: Buildingsare not permitted in an area determined bVthe City Engineer to be `'°subject to flood hazard by reason ory inundation, overflow or erosion, except where Provisions/ are made to eliminate such hazards to the satis- faction cif the -City Engineer. Such provisi`gps may include provide=dig adequate drainage facilities, protective walls, suita-Kile fill, raising the floor level of theNbuilding or by otter means. The placement of the building and''gther struc- tures (including walls and fences) on the buildin5\site shall /e such that water or mudflow will not be a hazard to the building or adjacent property. The City Engineer in he ap- plication of this standard shall enforce as a minimum te current federal flood plain management, regulations as defined in Title 24 , Chapter X, Subchapter B, National Flo d Insurance Program, Part 1910. A 9-4.155. 'TreIe-Rem oval s The purpose of these standards is to pro- tect existing trees from indiscriminate or unnecessary removal. Tree removal means the destruction or displacement of a tree by cutting, bulldozing, or other mechanical or chemical methods, which results in physical transportation of the tree from its site and/or death of the tree. 9-4. 156 Tree Removal Permit Required 9-4.157 Tree Removal Standards 4-53 l i ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 9-4.156. Tree Removal Permit Required: No person shall allow or cause the removal of any tree located within the City limits subject !r to these standards, without first obtaining a tree removal permit, as follows: (a) When Required: Plot Plan approval (Section 9-2.107) is required before the removal or replacement of any existing trees except trees that are: (1) Identified .and approved for removal in an approved Plot Plan, Precise Plan and Conditional Use Permit, provided that such removal is subject to the standards of Section 9-4.157 (Tree Removal Standards) ; or (2) In a hazardous condition which presents an immediate danger to health or property; or (3) With trunks measuring less than eight inches in diameter at four feet above grade; or c l G(o -( 4) Tse--b be F-emeveai.R-prepa-ra f i nin-f-e E agE l e u l to r-a l eu ltiva-- �u46Gwr q.21. 85, tion and production; or ef e E e i a l ag-F-leu l ter L ' (b) Application Content: Applications that propose tree remov- al shall include all information specified by Section 9-2.107b (Plot Plan Content) , and the following: (1) The size, species and condition (e.g. diseased, healthy, etc. ) of each tree proposed for removal. (2) The purpose of removal. (3) The size and species of any trees proposed to replace those intended for removal. 9-4.157. Tree Removal Standards: Applications for tree removal in accordance with Section 9-4. 156 shall be approved only when the following conditions are satisfied. (a) Tagging Required: Trees proposed for removal shall be identified for field inspection by means of flagging, staking, or other means readily visible but not detrimental to a healthy tree. (b) Removal Criteria: A tree may be removed only when the tree is any of the following: (1) Dead, diseased beyond reclamation, or hazardous; 4-54 n� ti . • • ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 (2) Crowded, with good horticultural practices dictating thinning; (3) Interfering with existing utilities, structures or right-of way improvements. (4) Obstructing existing or proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal; (5) Inhibiting sunlight needed for either active or passive solar heating or cooling, and the building or solar col- lectors cannot be oriented to collect sufficient sun- light without total removal of the tree. (c) Trees removed shall be replaced by a tree that will provide equal or better shade, screening, solar efficiency or visual amenity within a 10-year period, as verified in writing by a registered landscape architect, licensed landscaping con- tractor, or certified nurseryman, unless the removal- is with- in an area where there still exists sufficient tree cover to accommodate site needs. 9 .158. Street and Frontage Improvements: Section 9-4. 159 and 9-4. 60 establishes standards for street frontage improvements r quire ith development projects authorized by an entitlement. 9-4.159. Cu s, Gutters and Sidewalks: The installatio of curb, gutter and side%1Lksdha.11 be as set forth in this Se ion.(a) When R : Curb, gutter and sidewal , is required to be installed" s set forth inZb n when: (1) The value of"-any structed during a period of 12 months (as ' dicatedlding permits issued for the site durknq theeriod) exceed 25% of the total value oC`al improvements existing on the sit as determined by th Ssessment roll at the time the first of the bui ing pbrmits is applied for. (2) A new structu a is moved ont't a site (rather than con- structed i� place) where street frontage improvements woulde,� equired by Subsection of this Section. (b) Where Reghired: Within the Urban Services ine, concrete - - - curb, gutter , and sidewalk is required with y project in the Allowing areas: 1) In all commercial zones, except in commercial reas oriented to highway travel unless pedestrian, ve cular and use characteristics of the project and surroun ng area indicate a need for the improvements. 4-55 �je� • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council March 24 , 1987 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: School Fee Workload Impacts BACKGROUND: The Atascadero Unified School District has adopted a new developer fee ordinance which levies a $1. 50 per square foot fee on . residences and $.25 a square foot on commercial development in the City, effective May 4, 1987, (see attached Atascadero News article) . WORKLOAD IMPACTS: The purpose of this Memorandum is to advise that at this point we have • some sixty (60) residential single family permits that have been sub- mitted for processing, together with a fifty-four (54) unit apartment complex hoping to beat those fees. We are transmitting the attached School Fee Impact Statement to all new permit applicants to forewarn them that the fee is payable to the school district upon issuance of permits by the City. Any permits issued after May lst will have to pay the fee. The glut of applications predicted in the Atascadero News piece has begun, and Council is bound to hear complaints that permits were sub- mitted in a timely way but weren' t issued by the City and therefore financial hardships are incurred. Some members of the public may not be aware that there is more to issuing a building permit than review- ing structural plans. In all cases, permits require field inspections to review site conditions pertinent to plan checking, zoning conform- ance, etc. , and frequently require correction conditions by the Public Works Department, Fire Department and the Planning Division of the Community Development Department, in addition to structural plan cor- rections. The attached form attempts to alert people to the fact that simply applying before the May lst deadline is not enough. We will work hard for timely issuance but the workload surge will create difficulties HE:ph • Enclosures: School Fee Impact Statement Atascadero Unified School District fee form Atascadero News article, March 4th, 1987 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING C1117N :4T;f2'1RN E V POST OFFICE BOX 747 r,:ZSa�T.DFFt'CiE iSOX 606 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 ;?4x+PnTR-OR ROFWMEPHOXN.IA 93423 PHONE: (805) 466-8000 PhiEJN&.: (8033 4fif4422 t CITY COUNCIL taseade CITY CLERK F'.WJ'_G+'$'.^mss 10ffi't4T CITY TREASURERRC_�5T'DFFIrE IM 7-47 CITY MANAGER INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 AyyE q,�}}7 p-X*LWO I.,A 93423 .`f OE)SES-`BS:00 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT t37+'+®:CNE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT P1fRF 0aTWA'vWT %'NT PARKS AND RECREATION.DEPARTMENT SO.Cd5 UEEW IS AkXI-£RUDE ATAIrhThMERIO,TAU JFMIRLA 93422 46T,-21,41 SCHOOL FEE IMPACT STATEMEt Building permit applications for comm JaJ2 by the Atascadero Community Development Degau'tzn tlfer`, iyauz i l3t3�, 1987 and applications for single family reid: nytial? a_ a ( R-3 ) received after April lst , 1987 MAY NUD' of a permit prior to May lst. Non-issuance of a permit prior to May •tt„ 1.949 11ie of when permit application was received, w1l_U ze tt i_''n t-sett. • project being subjected to the school fees a?f magwesd b _ Government Code Section 53080. "I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE INFORM ollZJ• zD) C TSS DOCUMENT, AND HAVE RECEIVED A COPY FOR 14M- DATE SATU ; • RF/dc 1� 3-6-87 P'�, 0 0 RECEIVIE. Dt�,Ap ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 6800 Lewis Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 466-0393 This form is to be utilized by the City of Atascadero and the Atascadero Unified School District to facilitate the collection ' of school facility fees. Ordinance No. - 107 Resolution 62-85 & 62-86 adopted 7122185 Tract No. , APN # and/or Address: x Applicant Tyne of Dwelling Fee per No. of Total Dwelling Fee Units ,y 0-1 Bedroom Dwell Unit 849 s ; g q. ft. or less $200 0-1 Bedroom,Dwelling 850 g Uni ft. t t� sq, or greater $500 2 Bedroom Duelling Unit, 1349 sq. ft. or less $500 2 Bedroom Dwelling Unit, 1;350 sq. ft. or greater $600 t =: 3 Bedroom Dwelling Unit, 1,949 sq. ft. or less $600 3 Bedroom Dwelling Unit, 1,950 sq. ft. or, greater-_.__ $700 4 or Wore Bedroom Dwelling Unit, regardless of Sq. footage $700 Total School Facility Fees $ Proposed plans reviewed by district : No Yes -Sq. footage verified by district: No Yes s Number of bedrooms verified by district : No Yes I agree to pay the above-mentioned fees as a condition of mitigating the effect of my development on the schools of the Atascadero Unified School District . Signed: * Date: * NOTICE TO APPLICANT The fees paid under this app l i ca t i onThe above named Applicant has satisfied do not meet the requirements of the School Facility Fee Ordinance Govt. Code Sec. 53080. If the requirements: building permit is not obtained by 5:00 p.m. on May 1 , 1987, no Signed: building permit may be issued until AVSD Designee additional fees have been paid- to the School District under this Date: Code Section. Receipt No. EWT:cip' Effective 7123185 V cl a v �qu U) Clu 3I v = R I y a�, •n y ca 3� y ca c 3 = y ` ° CV o IM ��w $�ti:f�'.,�.�,.j-;_iC3�.�n.ON•c:_y.w.C.y�,.L�aGu.cNvL_y�'�QL3+a_ac•'=U•�.O 6.V".o_Q�c��.Ll vi+'�yvy7�-.U°Ob'to.y o'v 9.�aN�L>-v.=Lvcv"•°1.—'vu1.0••c3Lyv��=p�aJ=cD,Q.'c_-.NG_yac.pa4`i�1f>'a.R�v,ULmoloS 3s.(„cn^.a..,iuLOU°a.la*°�.�.:.4 a y L..;�';C�L tvv.3v wl 03 kb cu CIS o CL 0 0 aQcu =mc •5 ° twy ° � SZ CD L. 1:z 00 co ayam > u, v �r tj E0 p c . . o o pv0IQo coCIS a = ua 0 fimmm� v U N— cc 0 0cV � Q v." � ' Yr -3- E E U y OU TO ppw ca � O " °G� c0! L C. CIS O 04 40- -0 IS cn 0 c ca 41 aj O 4D Q fl u c In $ v x 0. cc y to a ` 5 " v ps c °Uca o Eca cd o ° _ ..Y.CIS G U > Q «s E 3 fa y CU -t.i3>■�-t>g�O��at�4��c. y^rt;')Tt''1'`'`S'>r.u'Q.r"�'G¢�._.c�'y«u".yv-• t1� cNo o Q-•:'�''0cb�Ua'oNo/V.�o�1/+�����n�Et��a «0 — 0 co ccl to 52 Cd _!yeD p O L y�N c p bo-a- O.0 cOO .5:, aQcpnE ca u.>, , ' � O.Oa0p Ll MpCa-.. CIS CIS LV 10 �.rstaU o NN o cyc00 CIS o tv O Q. «f tv — au O ca =NJ =U Uzu ^ vooLCLGtia�Di -0,v7�{,e,`*4.�4,Y=�4.;'���. �� `% �Lvo=C.eQ=q+,D^uc'QOO�oa s�vO`a=Ov°tpoQ`aUp-.0 _c�h�� . S�OO. O .aO- ab•-vcoyLLO 0 a° 'L ,a�,a'�-4•t.n7 ._•D-�3..+'=au=�yaHULu 'v.TuCya=pp O o _ /� _ v pCIS U 0 .U o 0 s �— E� o « po 0 . uO > � p= OE + C- ' - =cO . 43 `' CIS cd c(jc0 — U O w N 06'. f .0 C13 as U o " cv > c to., Zscts >, r =]V «S V a cd u C = '« O� y aCisoo E p =o E pcc N ro0 ' ° p p o _0 5 r- -- EOw v u =.V O B E -a0 c • uy . TCIS C O a [c In O v «t G cn CIS tz It' / o o ' 075 i5 .o —3 lEU ,, . O o � = ? . ._. cr d0 w .O _ R A �• O 0 cD O ••t ¢ _ i CR ) O CAD a OQ O O � .••�'w.._O� �• .00 V '� : � 3� �• � � c° CA�, A) 52. �I O Sp O mow., p� �-.Now y �� tea - pp � y d ~ � w ?; � � n o•� aA ws + fp rq aC "'h _ ''�''9' .r.- q .a t � r','s^^� Q1 OQ � ,�C" ~ .•, Woo tv CD w� ;a< :_ .•< --, ,,,, a..-:: � -' A�<� ^ � :.�,..� y `--. �,. ,': w s o s _. � w sa y c- o c ^ 3' -3� °- Co Oww. ° GCc cv ^o � - 'r �° oy � �, =r w ° r. e'D ^ w N S w a:� o w y a.�I a� .w r.OQ .'•..Ai. t0.D 0. ° 0.p- -. N COD Scol C -0 .r '•.-A :...^ a• .:..0„ ID:. O O � p C `1 � O O 1 CD O y n . O w 0. 00 c wr w ^ w c y n n w. _C w w sy C y r. S„y A c .' p O .Z CD '. .. O y �` O OQ S7 << C ^. 0.y u' 3 O y C O pi ? ►+ • ^ Q H ^ CD w:^ CD.W V)rb " w ^ w O 0. O ^ (DAA O y `< C C n '`< d A 1 p w w p A �q w -wi r^. A QC. C �' O '� S.» W a. 7C- :' z ..O• A ^ (D (D w C) N O �• 0. O w S w C eD do w C CD Q. 0.r. A �•, p p O v,' r� AL- AL � C N `< "� .i. .C. C A. 0. r.O C w S w C w C ...Co w b7 PT,^ � � �'C3 CD CD N ('�Q•° T. ^ - ? ¢C p , ja n,.y 'w.-.�6Q A _xT0 ",•C• D ►_.(D., .'n A .:: ,- CO ^ O A C O A'A O S Oo • w ,, o w � c A S w a w co 0.• OCy ►t G•w w ¢ n .-• ° y 0. OQ rP C ,», w C.O OQ 0. y O O OQ O 0. y w ^ °° oa H y °° y OQ c CD C 3 -- .» A C C _,fD ^ A G A _ ti - s�.i..t ` -n .`� �•:'3 ~_0 y 0. OQ y p c O O A .+ ¢ ',.�A O n �' r•'O�QQ O y w Q < G twyi p ^' G O OQ co O. O C 'C7 w D y ^»� a (D 0 1' �1' a p p ^ rn '(D S '�y O a< ^ .� r+.� y ., -t S y=0 ,caw � l< � .� � CD s� fO aA f° � ? trf° u° o °tea. = , : 3:r 0 Q;CD y" -3 � . ~`D w cn r}C, a :_ 'w y C � � °•F. ^ ., w CD S w A w Sp (9 < -4 N .0 CD O A S C CO 0. `< '�.C.`< ^ O ^ N cD '< A� cn .0 CD C pT.^ -'CD w'v' A r ^ c � cr 0.p in t7 `t ?� CCD • ' tAo 0^ y w O ,, w =^ o y' 0.^ v, C^D •�' CD N' O S w Q 0. v^',r At n. O �- cND Q O .A cD S 0. C CD y 'r' 0. �' �� c ?, A ^CD T•. . .. .' =xo nf �fD � .� ° � �oCDOoo c � CD �' acCDOy x ^ a. CD C .. a CD a -, b7 (//♦/^) ^+ CCD 3 a� s c .:SAO c7 ° ?'. ¢ ^ C^p O•' 7- `C° ° � .�.•,p °• •- O 0. C•CSD O Cl)� f D w VIM- G N . w C C -' ip _ �p aq' ^ -i C C v EL 3 w CL oQoSoc vy � � � Oo a •» � � oCD ^( CADC G = C ^ 'da � � C. o � fDa •..i�CsD1. �CD swi�. c s �< � w a' „�,: � o o w `ra 0 _cn o CDo o a � � < D� OQ y ••t .. /A\` CSD UQ - C O H .TA) 0 CDi.+ _SCQ/1 w y. S �.� C• p < CD CD ^ C A w C O• Cl.�' CCL �� 0 w C 0. < `< �' y+ ^ C y O :y ^ ^1 0. 0 ° "3 CD 0. w C C PV - G].O OQ A 0. y Q "�•�CD `< LL .OQ ^cr o O y w. S �< r9 r• yN Cwj a Dsd ° Cb rL C '+ C �OC w wCD O O O w o DQ ti o S CD OQ Ca Co.o. � a ox,GOC O OO 0 �/V w O s°co is w °a O p' OOQ O CO , 0. CC CD �• CD StD ^S CD l. 10 Ccr _ o Q CD O C C ° " <�•�_C<G•voC' - !¢F•_ _< b 'rn p � 9 -1 w - Ll -O oS � C C Co O 0 Coo O ° f ; O (D y`OH OQ c?0.DC wp 0. ° °�p C CD 7 ' 0. V Y CA "1 `• , S ^ T r C C eF_p ^ /��Z ^ S T w^ CS. S S C•„A,_, S (= ^ w ^.T� '+f r) r N'O O C G _�n C V rn 0-FL `p . x O C�7 C y A°� Cs w t1 ° �D d' C w ° R C 0o O ^ 7 A d O �v OQ C ` w A` CD C]. d i y d 7 n CD C ° r•. "� '•.'C3 .-. S�• CD C'� rn � �,t f3'� ^••w G•� �• C �'O � ,C� _ _ � 't7 n X N .:..C - �-�• O 'A .. .xjy ve CD Q`�w fl•� CM w �_ A `< A S• S S � � _ � Q- � fD� t ., � µr...� _ c �-, -� o � ybwwcw CO Cy " � � .., � �cD A '^+ +' H ✓CDi A °^° m `�' CD n w w S �• p• Q /A C C ° woo n < ` O p, .::�D O A C' ^ o � '< siD �',^ yc: ^+ n» c0 - C-°D < w ' ;�. m _� o Q• � �+•+ . �-AcG~ fD- ,. a• "'� � �5 ^n• - �e�7€�°�f1 .i CD `r�.•_ aA w �_ C,.� �� O 0'X G. CD a ••t N CD CII t --'`: 7CC•'G ' x na. nN.yems+ [A.D.y C w?'u^'."C' ry C CL= w"� w CD p �OaAs'L rp do 0mrO Oa i O.SCa37 bCCXs ECNl V W OQ v J C ^ C ^x cl. S O C fY 'n S .C. C Cbp ti d C S w OQ CD CD es E r. fD 0. 0. 0. ~ ;' (b CD w