Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 09/09/1985 • AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting September 9, 1985 at 7:30 P.M. ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ** Introduction of new employee Bob Maxwell, Maintenance Worker I, Streets, Public Works Department 01c/c 14-r5vx-key( A. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC 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. If discussion is required, that item will be removed from the Consent • Calendar and will be considered separately. Vote may be by roll call. 1. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of August 26 , 1985 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 2. Claim by Pacific Bell for Damages to Equipment Totaling $444. 60 (RECOMMEND DENIAL) 3. Proposed Resolution 101-85 - Adopting Position Classification of Administrative Services Director 4. Ordinance Number 112 - Establishment of Traffic Committee (SECOND READING) (Cont'd from 8/26/85) 5. Proposed Resolution 91-85 - Approving Application for State Grant Funds for the Atascadero Lake Pavilion 6. Tentative Parcel Map 20-85 - 9100 La Paz Lane (Lot 46, Block 66) , Cini/Kennaly Engineering - Division of 5 .44 Acs into 2 parcels of 2. 72 acs. each 7. Tentative Parcel Map 21-85 - 3555 El Camino Real (Lot 102, Block 19) - Pentecostal Church of God - Division of 5 . 24 acs. into 2 parcels of 2. 50 and 2. 74 acs. 8. Final Parcel Map 10-83 - 10725 Vista Road (Lot 39 , Block 40) - Cote/Twin Cities Engineering —Acceptance of Completion of Planning Commission Conditions and Recommended for Approval 1 • 9. Final Parcel Map 19-85 - Sevcik/Thomas/Twin Cities Engineering 3600 E1 Camino Real (Lot 5 , Block 18) - Acceptance of Completion of Planning Commission Conditions and Recommended for Approval 10 . Proposed Resolution 94-85 - Amending Resolution 21-85 - City Manager Terms and Conditions of Employment 11. Proposed Resolution 100-85 - Engaging Robert M. Jones as City Attorney 12. Proposed Resolution 99-85 - Engaging Dick Anthony, principal of Anthony- Associates, to perform Interim Personnel Ser�ryvice/s) j C� (d /7 Y�/ aZ //L O{w/ b -e-/L �7 l ✓ 7 0✓ ✓rl Q� � IJ Se t�r t PiC t ��T ✓dvl'.,-o�O rG9I . B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1. Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Appeal inwhich Staff Approved Precise Plan 36-85 - 3760-5820 Ardilla (Lots 29 & 30 , Block KB) - Allowing Construction of 36 Condominium Units in an RMF/16 Zone. AA Ul� � d 2. Proposed 1985-86 Revenue Sharing and Budget A. Revenue Sharing Public Hearing • B. Budget Public Hearing C. Proposed Resolution 92-85 - Adopting the City of Atascadero Fiscal Year 1985-86 Budget and Appropriating Funds Thereof C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Community Development Block Grant - Review of Grantee Performance Report, FY 1984/85 and Consideration of Time Extension and Agreement Amendment (Cont'd from 8/26) D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Status Report on Trash Removal at Atascadero Lake Park E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (Council will recess and convene as the Atascadero County Sanitation District Board of Directors) 1. Proposed Resolution No. 93-85 Approving the 1985-86 Fiscal Year Atascadero County Sanitation District Budget and Appropriating Funds Thereof 2 6 6 • 2. Proposed Initiation of Proceedings for Annexations into the Atascadero County Sanitation District: A. Proposed Resolution 102-85 - Establishing Assessment District Boundaries - Lots 66-72, Santa Rosa and-- pt-ih-� Public Hearing on September 23 , 1985 B. Continue Approved Resolution 86-85 (Establishing ' Assessment District Boundaries —Lots 73-87 , Marchant Way) to Public Hearing on September 23, 1985 3. Proposed Sewer Service Annexations (Connections) to the �- Following Locations: Proposed Resolution 95-85 - Lot 56 , Block 12, Mountain View B. Proposed Resolution 96-8� - Parcel A, Lot 1, Block JB, '� Ardilla Avenue (Public Hearing for 9/23 Requested) C. Proposed Resolution 97-85 - Lots 29 & 30 , Block KB, r! Ardilla Avenue (Public Hearing for 9/23 Requested) D. Proposed Resolution 98-85 - Parcels A, B, & D, 22-PM-97 Cayucos and Lobos Avenues F. COMMUNITY FORUM G. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 5. City Manager • 3 ,7 MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL 9/9/85 ;!c A-I Regular Meeting, August 26 , 1985 , 7 : 30 p.m. ---- Atascadero Administration Building the Regular Meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to order at 7 : 30 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. No invocation was given this evening. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Handshy, Mackey, Molina, Norris and Mayor Nelson. Absent: NONE STAFF Mike Shelton, City Manager; Grigger Jones , City Clerk/Int. City Attorney; Henry Engen, Planning Director; Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Cindy Wilkins , Deputy City Clerk. COUNCIL COMMENT Councilwoman Mackey stated she had received a call from a citizen concerned about the hazardous parking situation between Century Federal and Bank of America. Councilman Handshy related public concerns about debris around Atascadero Lake; Mayor Nelson directed Mike Shelton, City Manager, to ask Bob Best, Recreation Director, to look into the situation. 0. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 . Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of August 12 , 1985 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 2. Treasurer 's Report - July 1-31 , 1985 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 3. Finance Director ' s Report - July 1-31 , 1985 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 4. Authorization for Mayor to Enter into Agreement with California Mens ' Colony (CMC) for Unskilled Labor 5. Tentative Parcel Map 18-85 - 10655 San Marcos/10670 Realito , Miller/ Kennaly Engineering (Division of 5. 32 acs. into 2 lots of 2 . 66 acs . each) 6. Tentative Parcel Map 17-85 - 4650 Portola Rd. , Parsons/Kennaly Engineer- ing (Division of 6. 28 acs. into 4 lots of 1 . 57 acs . each) 7. Tentative Parcel Map 19-85 - 3600 El Camino Real , Sevcik & Thomas/Twin Cities Engineering (Property line revision to create 2 lots from 3 exist- ing ones) 8. Tentative Parcel Map AT 830311 : 1 - 3100/3150 Ardilla Rd. , Davis/Twin Cities Engineering (Time extension to complete conditions of the tenta- tive map) 9. Lot Line Adjustment 3-85 12650 San Cayetano (Lot 29 , Block 57) , Charn- ley/Twin Cities Engineering (Property line adjustment to allow for additional building site) �. Lot Line Adjustment 7-85 - 6505 Santa Cruz & 1335 Garcia (Lot 18 , Block 48) , DeWelt/Stewart (Property line adjustment to allow for better build- ing sites) COUNCIL MINUTES - 8/26/'85 PAGE THREE . 2. Community Development Block Grant - Review of Grantee Performance Report, FY 1984/85 , and Consideration of Time Extension and Agree- ment Amendment Henry Engen, Planning Director , gave staff report and referred to letter from Judy Young, received this afternoon, requesting amendment to agreement, copies of which he provided to Councilmembers prior to tonight' s meeting. Council requested. Planning Director Engen to seek more complete in- formation from the State for their review before making a decision on this item. No public comment. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to continue this item to the first meeting in September , seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1 . A. Ordinance 111 - Adoption of City Development Impact Mitigation Tax on New Construction (SECOND READING) B. Proposed Resolution 64-85 - Implementing Development Mitigation Tax Pursuant to Ordinance No. 111 Henry Engen briefly summarized this item, which will take affect on building permit applications submitted after October 1 , 1985 . Public Comment Robert Hewitt, 22-year resident at 3850 Ardilla Rd. and 23-year resi- dent of Atascadero , spoke in support of the mitigation tax; he also expressed general concern over what he sees as a trend away from the original General Plan. Mary Middlecamp, resident at 5705 Venado , requested clarification on the definition of the 16 units per acre wording in .the General Plan, to which Councilman Molina responded. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to read Ord. 111 by title only, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; Mayor Nelson read Ord. 111 by title only. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey that this constitutes second reading of Ord. 111 , seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed by 4: 1 roll-call vote, with Councilwoman Norris voting NO. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to adopt Res. 64-85 , seconded by Councilman Molina; passed 4 : 1 by roll-call vote , with Councilwoman Norris vot- ing NO. Councilwoman Norris requested Int. City Attorney Jones ' s opinion regard- ing an appellate court decision which she brought to his attention before tonight ' s meeting, to which Mr. Jones responded; he indicated that .Atasca- dero ' s version of mitigation tax is not , in fact , illegal and there is a difference between the case she referred to and Ord. 111 . COUNCIL MINUTES - 8/26/85 PAGE FOUR 2. Proposed Ordinance 112 - Establishment of Traffic Committee (FIRS* READING) Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director/City Engineer, briefly com- mented on this item. No public comment. MOTION: By Councilman Handshy that Ord. 112 be read by title only, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously. Mayor Nelson read Ord. 112 by title only. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey that this constitutes the first reading of Ord. 112 , seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously. Sec- ond reading will be the first meeting in September. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey that Council approve of the terms of the 3 members as listed on the staff report to serve on Traffic Committee, seconded by Councilman Molina; passed unanimously. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Traffic Committee Recommendations for "No Parking" Sign Installation: A. Proposed Resolution 84-85 - Prohibiting Parking on the east side of E1 Camino Real, from Solano to Casada B. Proposed Resolution 85-85 - Prohibiting Parking on the west si0 of E1 Camino Real, from the corner of Santa Rosa extending 1000 feet north Paul Sensibaugh commented on Res . 84-85 . No public comment. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to adopt Res . 84-85 , seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously by roll-call vote. Paul Sensibaugh commented on Res. 85-85. No public comment. Council and staff concurred to send this item back to- Traffic Commit- tee for further review of the issues involved. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to send this item back to Traffic Safety Com- mittee , seconded by Councilman Molina; passed unanimously. 2. City Attorney Response on Conflict of Interest (Verbal) Interim City Attorney, Robert Jones , responded to Council request at last Council Meeting that he report on the possible conflict of in � terest of Planning Commissioner Eric Michielssen at a Planning Commission Hearing regarding the 10 ,000 sq. ft. lot text change in the Housing Element. Mr. Jones indicated he does not believe , at this time , that there is a conflict of interest,; he also responded COUNCIL MINUTES - 8/26/85 PAGE FIVE 0 to further Council inquiry on the subject of conflict of interest. Public Comment Andrea Schulte, resident on San Gregorio Rd. , indicated her intent in initiating the conversation regarding conflict of interest was not to single out an individual but to bring the concept to the forefront - the ethics of public officials to the public. She thanked Council and Mr. Jones for addressing the issue. George Highland, 7275 Carmelita, indicated (referring to Mr. Jones 's comments in regard to a Supreme Court decision in May, Thompson vs . Call) he finds it difficult to reconcile Mr. Jones ' s comment with that court decision, to which Mr. Jones responded. 3. Council Discussion Regarding Development Standards (Requested by Mayor Nelson) Mayor Nelson indicated his purpose in bringing this item to Council was for the purpose of discussion and not decision on the two basic areas: (1) architectural review process - is the item, which was turned down by the Planning Commission, going to come to the Coun- cil' s agenda, and, if so , when; and (2) density on prezoned property (not site specific) - what are the Council' s options in making a decision on an -appeal, and what are the legal ramifications. Councilman Molina stated he has a conflict of interest in regard to density as he retains high density MF property, and he will stepdown from any discussion on that subject. Council and staff conferred on this item. The architectural review issue will come back for discussion in September. Public Comment Andrea Schulte spoke in favor of adhering to the General Plan, to recr,uire architectural review. Mary Middlecamp , spoke as a citizen preparing for an appeal , citing the difficulties incurred as a result of the various interpretations of planning terminology. , Norman Norton, 40-year resident , spoke of interpretation _of_the building industry terminology in relation to that of planning and zoning. From the builder ' s standpoint, he would just like to see good, sound planning judgement. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to recess as Council and convene as Atas- cadero County Sanitation District Board of Directors , seconded by Councilwoman Norris; passed unanimously. i • COUNCIL MINUTES - 8/26/85 PAGE SIX 1 . Proposed Annexation of Portions of Marchant Way into the Atascade County Sanitation District: A. Proposed Resolution 86-85 - Establishing Assessment District Boundaries (Lots 73-87) B. Appointment of Engineer for Sewer Design Paul Sensibaugh commented on this item: He responded to Councilwoman Mackey' s comment at last Council meeting regarding Santa Rosa Rd. in its vicinity of the cease and desist area. No public comment. MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to adopt Res. 86-85 , seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously by roll-call vote. Int. City Atty. , Robert Jones , commented on what appears to be a prob- lem with some of the Santa Rosa lots should the owners wish to tie in to the Marchant Way sewer areas; sewer easements would need to be ac- quired (reference his memorandum to Council dated 8/21/85) . Further staff comment came from Paul Sensibaugh. MOTION: By Councilman Molina recommending Kennaly Engineering be appointed by Council to prepare estimates and specifications , seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously. 0 MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to adjourn as Atas . County Sanitation Board of Directors and reconvene as City Council , seconded by Council- woman Norris; passed unanimously. F. COMMUNITY FORUM No public comment. G. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION City Council - Councilwoman Mackey desired clarification on Item E-4 on the Council agenda of 8/12/85 , having to do with adoption of Sanitation District charges to 1985-86 property tax bills , to which Paul Sensibaugh responded. Councilman Molina expressed his frustration in listening to the generally negative and emotional comments reaarding growth vs . no growth issues and the discredit to Council with the use of distorted perceptions; he would like to see Atascadero become unified. He appealed to the individuals who signed the petition to recall him to make an appointment with him, that he would set up an office in the Administration Bldg. and talk with them. Councilman Handshy agreed with Councilman Molina' s comments and expressed some of his related views . 0 City Attorney/City Clerk - NO COMMENT 0 • COUNCIL MINUTES - 8/26/85 PAGE SEVEN City Treasurer - NO COMMENT City Manager - Mike Shelton apologized for the obstruction by the VCR between the staff and Council which was intended to be used for viewing "Deep Pocket" , however , was not placed on tonight ' s agen- da. Council concurred to bring the film back as an agenda item so that people can be aware of its showing and plan for it. The film is valuable to cities in that it relates to liability insur- ance issues. COUNCIL ADJOURNED AT 9:35 P.M. TO SPECIAL MEETINGS ON SEPTEMBER 3 , 1985 , AT 7 : 30 P.M. AND SEPTEMBER 7 , 1985 , AT 8 : 00 A.M. FOR BUDGET HEARINGS , BOTH MEETINGS IN ROOM 304 OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. RECORDED BY: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk PREPARED BY: CINDY WILKINS, Deputy City Clerk L 9/9/85 , `J� `r' A-2 • MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable City Council September 9, 1985 FROM: Michael Shelton, City Manager SUBJECT: PACIFIC BELL CLAIM RECOMMENDATION: City Council reject claim submitted by J.W. Jones , Claims Manager for Pacific Bell , in the amount of $444. 60. BACKGROUND: Pacific Bell alledged City damaged underground telephone cable on May 11, 1985, in the amount of $444. 60. Claim has been reviewed by City Adjustors, . Carl Warren & Co. , and recommends your. rejection. MS:kv • TO: City Council Members August 26 , 1985 FROM: Michael Shelton, City Manager SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION: Assistant to City Manager position to be replaced by Administrative Services Director position. BACKGROUND: With Georgene' s resignation, the opportunity presents itself to eval- uate the organization and reorganize, as may be beneficial to the City. Assuming replacement at_ the same level, I believe ineffec- tiveness would result. As your City Manager, I would also have • Department Head responsibilities for Finance (as Finance Director) and Personnel (as Personnel Officer) . Duties resulting would result in general supervision of Assistant level personnel in Finance and Personnel. Administrative supervision and direct involvement would be required in budget preparation, budget control, the audit, business license and payroll related issues, data processing, risk management (Workers Comp and Liability) every day employee relations issues, recruitments, etc. The bottom line would be reliance on Assistant level personnel with considerable time commitment to line detail. The resultant time commitment would take away from my City Manager function. My work will become reactionary rather than pro active. Reading, thinking, planning, getting out into the community, getting involved with State issues, conducting analytical studies in response to current issues and special studies will be seriously curtailed. 1 � I ORGANIZATIONAL ALTERNATIVES: • Current CITY MANAGER SECRETARY COMMUNITY PARKS/REC PUB. WORKS POLICE FIRE DEV. DIR. DIR. DIR. CHIEF CHIEF � I FINANCE PERSONNEL Proposed CITY MANAGER SECRETARY . COMM. DEV. PARKS/REC PUB. WORKS POLICE FIRE ADMIN. SERV. DIR. DIR. DIR. CHIEF CHIEF DIR. 2 _f Span of control under proposed organization is reduced from 8 to 7. However, direct supervision of Division Heads (Asst. Finance Director and Asst. to the City Manager) is considerably more demanding than Department Heads. Please note in either alternative, there is no staff for me to delegate to. Studies and other analysis will be performed by myself. COST IMPACT: It is proposed the Administrative Services Director be compensated at $2,867. This is a break even point, as shown below (all com- pensation based on F.Y. 1985-86) : Finance Director Salary $3 ,167 Replaced by Asst. Finance Director Salary $2, 680 Savings = $ 487 Asst. to City Manager $2, 380 Replaced by Admin. Serv. Director $2, 867 Additional Cost $ 487 Result is a wash based on last year ' s organization. The proposed salary relates to other Department Heads as follows (proposed F.Y. 1985-86) : Parks & Rec. Director $2, 650 Admin Services Dir. $2, 870 Community Development Dir. $3 ,340 Police Chief $3,380 Fire Chief $3, 440 Public Works Dir. $3,770 3 RESOLUTION NUMBER 101-85 RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING POSITION CLASSIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR i WHEREAS, the Assistant to the City Manager and Finance Director positions are currently vacant; and WHEREAS, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City would be more efficiently served by a new Department Head position responsible for personnel and finance functions; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that no additional costs will be incurred in the creation of the Administrative Services Director position. NOW, THEREFORE, the Atascadero City Council approves the creation of the Administrative Services Director classification and authorizes recruitment of same. On motion by Councilperson and seconded by Councilperson , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA ROLFE NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MICHAEL SHELTO , City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES, Interim City Attorney 9/9/85 ��� A-4 • MEMORANDUM TO: Council Members September 9 , 1985 FROM: Paul Sensibaugh Director of Public Works SUBJECT: SECOND READING AND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 112 - ESTABLISHING A TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Approve the second reading adopting Ordinance Number 112 - Establishment of a Traffic Advisory Committee BACKGROUND: Council reviewed the above ordinance on August 26, 1985 and Approved it as First Reading. • • ORDINANCE NO. 112 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF TITLE 4 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING AN ADVISORY TRAFFIC COMMITTEE The Council of the City of Atascadero ordains as follows : Section 1 . Chapter 3 of Title 4 of the Atascadero Municipal Code is amended to read as follows , commencing with Section 4 - 3 . 209: TITLE 4 4 - 3 . 209. Traffic Committee. The City Council may establish an advisory Traffic Committee to serve without compensation, consisting of the Director of Public Works , who shall be the chairman, the Chief' of Police, the Planning Director, one councilperson, and two (2) citizens that reside within the City limits . 4 - 3 . 210. Term. (a) The two (2) citizens shall be appointed by council to a term of two (2) years , except for the initial year in which there will be one two-year term appointment , and one one-year appointment . Each succeeding year one new member shall be appointed by Council to a two- year term to replace the member whose term has expired. No citizen shall serve two consecutive two-year terms . (b) The councilperson shall be designated by Council to a one-year term. A councilperson may serve as many consecutive terms as Council desires but shall be designated on an annual basis . (c) The terms of the Director of Public Works , the Police Chief, and the Planning Director shall be for the duration of, and concurrent with, their respective service in office. 4 - 3 . 211 . Duties and Rules . Y (a) It shall be the duty of the Traffic Committee to recommend to Council or to the City 11ana er a means for improving traffic or safety conditions through appropriate signing, pavement marking, parking changes or other related methods . The committee shall study related matters as requested by Council and suggest the most practicable means for coordinating the activities of all officers and agencies of this City having authority with respect to the administration and enforcement of traffic regulations . (b) The committee shall meet as necessary at a convenient time and place designated by the committee. -1- (c) The Chairman shall appoint one member to serve as secretary to record all official actions or recommendations . (d) Natters shall be decided by a majority vote of those members present. Four members shall constitute a quorum. (e) The committee shall not attempt to ursurp the powers of elected or appointed officials designated by ordinance to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public. Section 2 . Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published twice within thirty (30) days after its passage in the Atascadero News , a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in this City in accordance with Government Code Section 36933 ; shall certify the adoption of this ordinance; and shall cause this ordinance and certification to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of this City. Section 3 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in fuli force and e ect at 12 : 01 a.m. on , 1985 . The foregoing ordinance was introduced on August 26 , 1985 , and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on September 9 , 1985 . On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety on the o owing role call vote: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA: ROBERT M. JONES , City Clerk ROLFE NELSON, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ROBERT M. JONES , Interim City Attorney NICHAEL'-SHELTOONN,�City Manager � "* 9/9/85 M E M O R A N D U M • To: City Council September 3, 1985 Via: Mike Shelton, City Manager From: Bob Best, Park & Recreation Director ,P Subject: Grant Application for Pavilion INTRODUCTION \ The State of California, through the Department of Parks and Recreation, sponsors the Urban Open Space and Recreation Program. This is a competitive grant program designed to assist units of local governments in developing recreational lands and facilities. Currently, the formula is a 750-25% matching requirement (City is 25%) , but beginning July 1, 1986, this will go to 70%-30%. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 91-85 approving the application for fund- ing for improvement work at Atascadero Lake Pavilion. The grant application will be for $80, 000, including the match. BACKGROUND The grant will include improvements to restrooms by providing handicapped access, remodeling of the kitchen, and insulating the floor under the building. This will eliminate the present occupancy restriction of 50 people, and change it to 350. FISCAL IMPACT An agreement has already been made with the Pavilion Committee concerning the matching requirement. They have agreed to raise the needed funds to meet the matching requirement. The City of Atasca- dero will not need to provide funds to match the grant amount. • 9 • RESOLUTION NO. 91-85 0 RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE ROBERTI-Z 'BERG URBAN OPEN-SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM FOR ATASCADERO LAKE PAVILION PROJECT - PHASE I WHEREAS, the legislature of the State of California has enacted the Roberti-Z 'berg Urban Open-Space and Recreation Program, which pro- vides funds to certain political subdivisiorLsof the State of California for acquiring lands and for developing facilities to meet urban recrea- tion needs; and WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been dele- gated the responsibility for the administration of the program, setting up necessary procedures governing application by local agencies under the program; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and Recreation require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval of applications prior to submission of said applications to the state; and WHEREAS , said applications contain a certification that the appli- cant will comply with all federal, state, and local environmental, public health, relocation, affirmative action, and clearinghouse requirements and all other appropriate codes, laws and regulations prior to the ex- penditure of the grant funds; and WHEREAS, the project (s) applied for under this program must be of high priority and satisfy the most urgent park and recreation needs with emphasis on unmet needs in the most heavily populated areas; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby; 1. Approves the filing of an application for funding under the Roberti- Z ' Berg Urban Open-Space and Recreation Program; and 2. Certifies that said agency understands the general provisions of the agreement; and 3 . Certifies that said agency has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project (s) funded under this program; and 4 . Certifies that said agency has or will have available prior to commencement of any work on the project (s) included in this appli- cation matching money from a nonstate source; and 5. Certifies that the project (s) included in this application conform to the recreation element of any applicable city or county general plan; and C, Page 2 . Resolution No. 91-85 6. Appoints the City Manager as agent of the City of Atascadero to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents includ- ing but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, pay- ment requests, and so on which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned projects (s) , and 7 . Appoints City Attorney as legal counsel for said agency with authorization to sign the certification on page 1 of application. On motion by Councilperson and seconded by Councilperson , the foregoing resolution is here- by adopted in its entirety on the following; vote : AYES : NOES : ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ROLFE NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES , City C er APPROVED AS TO CONTENT : MICHA L SHELTON, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES , Interim City Attorney ' 9/9/85 _... A - 6 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council September 9, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 20-85 APPLICANT: John Cini (Kennaly Engineering) LOCATION: 9100 La Paz Lane REQUEST: To allow the division of a 5.44 acre parcel into two lots of 2.72 acres each. On August 19, 1985, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing concerning the land division request and recommended approval (with Commissioner Nolan dissenting) of the application subject to the find- ings and conditions contained in the Planning Commission Resolution No. 6-85 (Option 2) . iJohn Kennaly, representing the applicant, stated that this matter was similar to a couple of previously approved parcel map applications and explained the difference between the Zoning Ordinance lot size crite- ria factors and the SCS soils map surveys criteria. There was discussion concerning an amendment that has been initiated to eliminate the 20% minimum lot size reduction, as well as septic suitability for the proposed lot split. No one else spoke on the matter. HE:ps cc: John Cini , Kennaly Engineering • 2 A I • r Tentative Parcel Map 20-85 (John Cini/Kennaly Engineering) 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. SITE AND DEVELOPMENT DATA: 1. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . 44 acres 2. Required Minimum Lot Size. . . . Option No. 1. Lot Size Factor Distance (16, 0001-18,0001 ) . 60 Septic Suitability (severe) 1. 50 Average slope (0-10%) . 50 Condition of access (all-weather 15%) .75 General neighborhood character (4.0 acres) . 80 4.15 acres Minimum lot size reduced by possible 20% reduction: 3.32 acres Option No. 2. Substituting percolation test rates for the Soil Conservation Service Maps: Distance (16 ,000 ' -18,0001 ) .60 Septic suitability (moderate) . 75 Average slope (0-10%) .50 Condition of access (all-weather 15%) . 75 General neighborhood character (4 acres) .80 3. 40 acres Minimum lot size reduced by possible 20% reduction: 2. 72 acres 3. Proposed lot size. . . . . . . . . . . .Parcel A - 2.72 acres Parcel B - 2. 72 acres D. ANALYSIS: In the RS (Residential Suburban) zone, the minimum lot size is 2 1/2 to 10 acres, depending on the sum of the lot size -performance standards contained in the zoning ordinance. As the previous charts show, there are two options in evaluating this proposal. First Option: This option uses the zoning ordinance as it is currently written. Septic suitability is derived from the Soil Conservation Service Maps and, in this case, the soil suitability is severe. To be granted the posible 20% reduction, the applicant must provide pos- itive site specific information showing proposed building sites, proposed septic system location, plan/profile of driveways, and a preliminary grading plan. The applicant has supplied this infor- mation; however, applying the 20% reduction results in a minimum 2 • 0 Tentative Parcel Map 20-85 (John Cini/Kennaly Engineering) lot size of 3. 32 acres. This is substantially larger than the two proposed lots of 2. 72 acres each. Second Option: This option substitutes percolation rate tests for the Soil Con- servation Service maps. Percolation rates were submitted which resulted in a septic suitability factor of moderate ( .75) . Staff had incorporated this information in the past as a part of the re- quest for a 20% reduction. In effect, this proposal for a reduc- tion and modification to the soil suitability factor amounts to a greater than 20% reduction by reducing the lot size formula for septic suitability plus permitting a 20% reduction due to favor- able percolation tests. Past Action: At their meeting of July 15, 1985, the Planning Commission direc- ted staff to prepare findings and conditions of approval for Ten- tative Parcel Map 18-85 (Warren Miller - San Marcos Road) . This decision was influenced by two previous Planning Commission deci- sions (Peterson on San Gabriel Road and Dunham on La Paz) . This approval was similar to the current request in that it granted a 20% reduction and accepted the favorable percolation rate test results. At the same meeting, the Commission directed staff to prepare a zone text change to eliminate the 20% reduction and accept site specific information in its place. (This approach would preclude approving this application in that 3. 4 acre minimum lots would be required. ) Staff is in the process of preparing such a change; however , in the meantime, staff sees no alternative but to comply with the existing language of the zoning ordinance. E. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings contained in Exhibit A, staff recommends denial of Tentative Parcel Map 20-85. Should the Commission determine approval to be appropriate, Exhibit D is enclosed for consideration. DGD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings for Denial Exhibit B - Location Map Y Exhibit C - Parcel Map Exhibit D - Resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 20-85 3 9 • Tentative Parcel Map 20-85 (John Cini/Kennaly Engineering) EXHIBIT A - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 20-85 Finding for Denial August 19, 1985 FINDINGS: 1. The creation of these parcels does not conform to applicable zon- ing regulations and the general plan. 4 d= 19 r - � 7••✓r%f .any \ ` � .a*1 .. c a 7.r•~7z .'C a�.•.1. vd! to \rC wo �qC /16 c. r svlsro.4 o>.re ar ata o° a \ •T`` r ` , � S° i � 1• �j a \ '1 0o 12 hp °le o RM F/I 6 .,,pa•3 nar ' S/ 35 % �" m. \� by gi135 1253 PF. YrF� rw 17 „' •►• o° \�spr is w 31 4 rJ N rK! .♦\h//�\\ '\�tP a • \" \�'•. \ov'°a yt` - 33 RS(FH). '3031 r, '.�p ..^ °p.14�'1 `yt0'r r �•Hr' . S ) y \ ` FX 0 1,6 l l/ vM�+TS IY G /! \p♦N°Y +od_'.�4 30 z l t \ • po .�'\ ^gyp e•-ll.fix u r7 •o 3 \,3? J IS ' 5 e - 46 O. \ 24 �9 3 01 �ap0o \d" 3• o'•, o os, 4 y��7•, RR� iii o 9 .S 9 45 ' 40 16 f�21 42 . 43 A4d't YS 90 >! 47 - '"t 24 S b 22 20 yru° o 23 46 ...,ti ° 21 kG- - 24 86 cr4 25 43 3 26 27 :D A J 44 �y4 � 1 C� ♦ 4 42 '.i.. - 2 1\\ 1 �0 29 40. _ 14 / le DO ziz 41 Go �yo �0Y \ _ DI R2 \ fAR.0 3 ♦ ..�YS e9� 31 40 r .\32 6 / � gob ♦♦♦\ g !v FAR.1 32 39 o nu♦ ♦ \ 38 9,? .11 10 .,tes b.r.►I nlilwJ,h.a ey r.•nla,.i_..i«.ely� 33 3f - Jr .z...u,a.ar«.z.0-r>..Z7w i-••u•.ta«.,..-n..w•�Y„ S V I 27l11J Z,,r...« .- — � 4 20 12 � � =.- fly_., / `ss nrra a % m.n. •... `Y� �0 21 \ a12. 1 r.,•.;.. 77 1 , • ` CITY OF ATASCADERO 1 Planning Department j4 jr.-�i�r .;►� r,, I 23 20 i+r, RS(FH) `�, .: 44 p•4 2 64AJE l off h ' a �f ` rti rt'F + 960 Vy H�}fin j - 3 940 —920 f. r � \I iZ Nth WI a ZAf ;r� i�a� a��� • f i • RESOLUTION NO. 6-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 20-85 (9100 LA PAZ LANE - CINI/KENNALY) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 19, 1985; and WHEREAS, at that meeting, it was decided that specific site infor- mation should be included; and WHEREAS, this site information, specifically septic suitability, is substituted in the lot size formula for the Soil Conservation Ser- vice Map category, the parcel map conforms to the City' s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero does hereby approve Tentative Parcel Map 20-85 as follows: Section 1. Commission Findings. 1. There are circumstances applicable to the property including shape, topography, location and surroundings which warrant use of specific site information rather than generalized area information in determining lot size. 2. The specific site information submitted clearly demonstrates that the adjustment in lot size is warranted. 3. The granting of the adjustment will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons, be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or be injurious to nearby property or improvements. 4. The granting of the adjustment will result in better utiliza- tion of the affected property. 5. The granting of the adjustment is consistent with -the General Plan. 6 . The creation of these parcels conform to all applicable zon- ing and the General Plan. 7. The creation of these parcels in conformance with the recom- mended conditions of approval will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment, and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 8. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 9. The site is physically suitable for the type of development that is proposed. 10. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substan- tially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 11. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision; or that substantially equivalent alternate ease- ments are provided. 12. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474. 6 of the State Subdivision Map Act, as to methods of handling and dis- charge of waste. Section 2. Conditions of Approval. 1. A preliminary soils report shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer . If tests indicate critically expansive soils or other soils problems, corrective measures shall be taken. 2. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Com- pany and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each par- cel or its public utility easement prior to recordation of the final map. 3. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines and other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are other building or other restructions related to the ease- ments, they shall be noted on the final map. 4. Drainage and erosion control plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer , shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits in conjunction with installation of driveways, access ease- ments or structures. This shall appear as a note on the final map. p 5. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways and driveway easements shall be submitted for approval by the Planning and Public Works Department in order to determine average grade and appropriate improvement requirements. This shall appear as a note on the final map. 6 . Road improvement plans shall be designed by a registered civil engineer for review and approval by the Public Works Department. These shall include: a. Construction of La Paz Lane along the property frontage. 2 Road shall be 20 feet of paved width with two foot base shoulders on either side. b. La Paz Lane right-of-way shall be dedicated if not al- ready offered for dedication. C. Driveway approach to both parcels shall be paved the same time as the road is paved. d. It is the applicant' s sole responsibility to have re- moved, relocated or brought to grade any public utility facilities that may conflict with the approved road im- provement plan. Relocate all utilities necessary to pro- vide clear access to Parcel B. 7. An encroachment permit shall be obtained prior to beginning work in the public right-of-way. An inspection agreement and a curb and gutter agreement shall be signed, guaranteeing that the work will be done and inspections paid for . 8. All conditions herein specified shall be complied with prior to filing of the final map. 9. A final map, drawn in substantial conformance with the ap- proved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein, shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners cre- ated and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate by certificate on the final map that corners have been set or will be set by a date spe- cific and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 10. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years from the date of City Council approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. WAYNE LAPRADE, Chairman ATTEST: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director 3 -)A • MEMORANDUM TO: City Council September 9, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director .V4f, SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 21-85 APPLICANT: Pentecostal Church of God LOCATION: 3555 El Camino Real REQUEST: To allow division of a 5.24 acre lot into two lots of 2. 50 and 2. 74 acres each. On August 19, 1985, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing concerning the above matter and, upon review, unanimously approved the application subject to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report with Condition #6-b modified. Clayton Cullen, representing the Pentecostal Church, spoke in support of the request and noted he had met with the City Engineer concerning Condition #6-b for concrete curb and gutter, and both parties agreed that asphalt berm could be substituted. Mr. Cullen also asked for clarification concerning the fire hydrant condition. Harry Russell, El Camino Real resident, asked for clarification on issues related to the project. No one else appeared on the matter. HE:ps cc: Pentecostal Church of God • Tentative Parcel Map 21-85 (Pentecostal Church of God) 8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RS, vacant South: RS, SFRs East: RS, vacant West: CR, commercial building 9 . General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Single Family 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Upward slopes range between 11- 20% up from E1 Camino Real 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 1. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.24 acres 2. Required Minimum Lot Size. . . . Lot Size Factor Distance from center (0-8,000 ' ) . 20 Septic suitability (sewer) .50 Average slope (11-20%) .75 Condition of access (City-maintained) .40 General neighborhood character .20 Minimum lot size required: 2.05 acres Minimum lot size allowed by zoning ordinance: 2. 50 acres 3. Proposed Lot Size. . . . . . . . . . . .Parcel A - 2. 50 acres Parcel B - 2.74 acres D. ANALYSIS: The minimum lot size in the RS (Residential Suburban) zone is 2 1/2 to 10 acres, depending on the sum of the performance standards contained in the zoning ordinance. In this case, the sum of these standards is 2. 05 acres; however , the zoning ordinance sets the minimum at 2. 5 acres which is the same as the applicant' s proposed lot size. Development of Site: The site slopes upward from El Camino Real at an average slope of 12%. The rear portion of the site extends past the crest of the hill and slightly beyond. No special grading problems are pre- sented due to topography. The site has been annexed into the City' s sewer district and, therefore, is well suited for appropri- ate future development. 2 Tentative Parcel Map 21-85 (Pentecostal Church of God) The proposed lots are currently served by a privately maintained road, Agape Lane. Road improvement plans have been submitted to the Public Works Department for review. The creation of the proposed parcels would not conflict with any City codes or ordinances. E. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 21-85 based on the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit A. MM:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C - Parcel Map 3 0 • EXHIBIT A - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21-85 Findings/Conditions of Approval (REVISED) August 19, 1985 FINDINGS: 1. The creation of these parcels conform to all applicable zoning and the General Plan. 2. The creation of these parcels in conformance with the recommended conditions of approval will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment, and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development that is proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development that is proposed. 5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for ac- cess through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision; or that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474. 6 of the State Subdivision Map Act, as to methods of handling and discharge of waste. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A preliminary soils report shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer. If tests indicate critically expansive soils- or other soils problems, corrective measures shall be taken. 2. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel or its public utility easement prior to recordation of the final map. 3. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines and other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are other building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 4 Tentative Parcel Map 21-85 (Pentecostal Church of God) 4. Drainage and erosion control plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Commu- nity Development Department prior to issuance of building permits in conjunction with installation of driveways, access easements or structures. This shall appear as a note on the final map. 5. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways and driveway easements shall be submitted for approval by the Commu- nity Development and Public Works Departments in order to deter- mine average grade and appropriate improvement requirements. This shall appear as a note on the final map. 6. Submit road improvement plans designed by a registered civil en- gineer for review and approval by the Public Works Department. The plans are to include the following: a. Install curb, gutter and 8 foot sidewalk and pave-out along the property frontage of E1 Camino Real. b. Install asphalt berm and pave-out along the property frontage on Agape lane. C. The pavement width of Agape Lane from curb face to centerline shall be 15 feet. d. The pavement width of E1 Camino Real from curb face to cen- terline shall be 41 feet. e. Offer 25 feet of dedication for widening along Agape Lane. 7 . The applicant shall remove, relocate, or bring to grade any public utility facilities that may conflict with the approved road im- provement plan. 8. Wastewater disposal shall be by connection to the public sewer. a. An in-lieu sewer connection fee of $850.00 per new parcel shall be due in addition to usual connection, tap-in, and in- stallation fees (or $23. 60 per fixture unit) . 9. Submit sewer main extension plans prepared by a registered civil engineer. Sewer shall be extended from El Camino Meal to the newly created back parcel. Manhole shall be installed at E1 Cam- ino Real and approximately 350 feet east with a clean-out at the terminus of the main. 10. All conditions herein specified shall be complied with prior to filing of the final map. 11. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. 5 ! • Tentative Parcel Map 21-85 (Pentecostal Church of God) a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate by certificate on the final map that corners have been set or will be set by a date specified and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit- ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 12. Additional fire hydrants shall be installed, if necessary. Loca- tion and standard to be determined by the Fire Department. All fire regulations shall be complied with prior to recordation of the final map. 13. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years from the date of Planning Commission approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expira- tion date. i 6 �(i� r---r.—�rr�:�•, A. L"."111J1 -L-,"'.V a.L U.L., 1U /I yam`/i ``\1ili• r r 1,r:1(�.l.l. � •j:c� [. t7 IOn 94 NN �: C': 1!'�� n� � 1!)i•�r.._/ L �•• is; =t• � t '� �' 2,. �! ���.>... ,y' •�- ..� _ ree••tee � ,� x,•;l Map No. 11 .T._NI. lar° N _ ^ � roa a;sit - 5a5ri N• ^ w Zea t•] M t• _:. t:a � 140 33 ..I,,..,,_� T G' we '•4 nvs ,_ •,rss2 , � 'tet` tOr J• r r 'ii'4F^- '+ .' '1 saes _2 arra 2 i t till R �i .�iM1.� J R _ c P•f "n• i A e e :�� 4 N s.xs a.. 2•iie r• ,rr :ui _ 5 u.� ;`. •a'•34].° ].]S 324• ^i1{ �1 ,r3D '•t 1°°a 3 ZOO 4u P 4 •[a 138 3LIe I{3 w.•.1 >.4• IN u• �Yaa t � 1>0 ^ ur• ,q ro •`\\ e(i'^ `rte t• 1 �' *177 Irj i. X+� x N• pr Iq S,d �I+s ^ \) rr° .]'� �'�w•n:_'-'� 11 It. '.. , .. ra• 5 a lot 3 \ ,° re[• is ^�°[ fbta6 n. J Z'��.�c� •� d• ��� ° C v K `n\ tiS O ^ ic. q• a , : 6l Ma• m 939 s, s,�, ate 1 L ° w• vo .\< 1Y °„•3 t� H; as c]a .1,a �� IcL r.{ I,r- :. „1! s'VD 6'� aS1 ` r.[s tae `Sf SLai caa° t3'D i' N ^] u° S a• \ J13 S ts{ +'1 o iJ '1. o g "• na•• Lai 'i o t2• t°a IN Il. .r ..Y tS tot 0, '�• •��� •b 98 77' ;:A1 - 14 '=^ 7 1 ��''° `'•' 0w .100 /, r,/s_ _ .or �° �'}' � 9f,/>>°M >: 1 �:� •0 •tom J 17•4 'o" 103 •/ 3 � ti H lTE LC>CTl a ]�Z 106 M �,•4 y � ' p 7 CN cf (3 /') - - 20-A ale ,. 7• yh 21 •.�•1•e 22 to ••i// i1 24 fA 3 1 / •� % 4 1 dt• REVI ntc, `•\ rt3/ •:+ T,,JBr'f' f=i/,f` oda �^ ft,tNd,,at6 !2 � h•qO •fir:. y•' • 13 f3 xier Ss;{• T. .• 1 o t i'/ 3 / �.� -dZ I� ,yAr bans a L(FH) � / 4`7 t 30 A 16 14 a7- A • • t /// 1 0 1 N �� •i 1 1e t 16• '• � �d•, 27 �,° •Ah 20 t , V � 3 � ,,A \. 9 , .opt , a'a• 5rr {O v21 r l6 is 43 - LO 6 AT 10 M N1 1 TP 2l S i j. J •' N V 'r N C • �.6 y 'a V u _ �\ �`♦�\ .1 � _�F� ale B$ le 06 \ N W - t Q 0/6 S N f o Ij `045, IE /6a N�r A WillIG D;iw 9/9/85 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council September 9, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Acceptance of Tentative Parcel Map 10-83 LOCATION: 10725 Vista Road (Lot 39, Block 40) APPLICANT: Larry Cote (Twin Cities Engineering) On October 10, 1983, the City Council approved Parcel Map 10-83, subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission. The required conditions have been complied with and the final map is recommended for approval. HE:ps M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council September 9, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director W1 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Tentative Parcel Map 19-85 LOCATION: 3600 E1 Camino Real (Lot 5, Block 18) APPLICANT: Sevcik and Thomas (Twin Cities Engineering) On August 5, 1985, the City Council approved Parcel Map 19-85, subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission. The required conditions have been complied with and the final map is recommended for approval. HE:ps • : i r. f7 J 9/9/85 , A 10 • RESOLTION 94-85 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING RESOLUTION 21-85 CITY MANAGER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEMENT WHEREAS, on March 18, 1985, Michael B. Shelton, City Manager, entered into an employment agreement with the City of Atascadero; and WHEREAS, said agreement states that employee will receive com- pensation increase equal to that awarded to management employees on July 1, 1985. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved effective July 6, 1985, Section 4 is amended, increasing the monthly salary to $4, 410. 00; Section 8 is amended in which City will pay all medical and dental benefit premiums for employee and his eligible dependents at the rate and coverage prevailing under the City' s Medical and Dental Program as it now exists through the City' s agreement with the New England Mutual Life Insurance Company, and Section 10 is amended providing employee with a monthly vehicle allowance of $225 per month. iBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, effective October 1, 1985, the City shall maintain a term life insurance policy for employee for an amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50 ,000) , and shall pay the full premium amount for such coverage. The City shall also maintain a term life insurance policy for each eligible dependent of employee in a total amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1, 000) per dependent, and shall pay all premiums for each dependents during fiscal year 1985-86. On motion by Councilperson and seconded by the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA • ROLFE NELSON, Mayor 1 �, tT 9 `."" SAA - 11 /9/$5 �, r TO: Honorable Council Members September 9, 1985 FROM: Michael Shelton, City Manager �4_ . SUBJECT: CITY ATTORNEY RECRUITMENT RECOMMENDATION: City Council appoint Robert M. Jones of Morlan, Jones, and Hanley as City Attorney. BACKGROUND: Due to the recent passing of City Attorney Allen Grimes, the City conducted an extensive recruitment for a replacement Contract Attorney. Proposals were sent direct to all attorneys in the immed- iate , area serving in the capacity as a local government attorney. Additionally, staff obtained a listing of the TriCounty Municipal Attorney Association, sending proposals to all attorneys on the list- ing. Advertisements were placed in the Telegram Tribune, the Atascadero News, and in a Los Angeles legal publication. As a result of this effort, two proposals and a third "interest" letter was received. City Council Members received the proposals and directed • myself and Mayor Nelson to enter into negotiations with Robert M. Jones of Morlan, Jones, and Hanley to serve as City Attorney. AGREEMENT FOR CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES The attached agreement is recommended for your approval. The agreement is the same as former Attorney Grimes with the follow- ing exceptions: A. All benefit provisions were eliminated. B. Litigation compensation outside of the retainer which ranged from $70 - $95 per hour was consolidated to $85.00 per hour. Former handling of improvement, assessment, or maintenance district proceedings at a cost of $85.00 per hour outside of the retainer were eliminated. The attached agreement includes this in the retainer. ' C. Compensation at a rate of $85.00 per hour for retainer hours in excess of 60 hours per month was added. D. Terms of the agreement is for a one (1) year period. There are no other changes. • RESOLUTION NUMBER 100-85 RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL ENGAGING ROBERT M. JONES AS CITY ATTORNEY WHEREAS, due to the recent death of City Attorney Allen Grimes, the City is in need of legal counsel; and WHEREAS, the City conducted an extensive search and recruit- ment for Contract City Attorney services; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed respondent attorney proposals. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero here- by appoints Robert M. Jones as City Attorney, and authorizes the Mayor to enter into the attached Compensation Agreement. On motion by Councilperson and seconded by the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA ROLFE NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: LI MhCHAE SHELTON, Cit Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES, Interim City Attorney ADMINISTRATION BUILDING • CITY ATTORNEY POST OFFICE BOX 747 749 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 POST OFFICE BOX ATASCADERO, PHONE: (805) 466-8000 PHONE: (05) - 6 93423 CITY COUNCIL ���� ���� '--" . CITY CLERK POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY TREASURER 747 CITY MANAGER INCORPORATED JULY 2, 1979 POST OFFICE BOX ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIAA 93423 FINANCE DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805) 466-8600 PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT � PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT RECREATION DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 PHONE: (805) 466-2141 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES OF CITY ATTORNEY THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into between the CITY OF ATASCADERO, a Municipal Corporation, Post Office Box 747, Atascadero, California 93423 , hereinafter called "City" and the law firm of MORLAN AND JONES, AND HANLEY, 8655 Morro Road, Suite C, Post Office Box 606 , Atascadero, California 93423, hereinafter called "Attorney" . NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Services of Attornev: City hereby employees Attorney to render legal services as City Attorney in accordance with the provisions of Sections 2-5 . 01 through 2-5 .02 of the Atascadero :Municipal Code. 2. Compensation: For rendering legal services, Attornev shall be compensated in the amount of TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($2, 500) per month, except that: (a) Attorney shall be reinbursed for all out-of-pocket expenses incurred directly as a result of rendering the legal services pro- vided for in this Agreement. Such expenses shall include such costs as Court filing fees, mileage to and from Court, long distance telephone calls, and similar out-of-pocket items incurred in the performance of duties as City Attorney. (b) Attorney shall be compensated for handling all phases of prosecution of violations of the Municipal Code, disciplinary appeals relating to personnel matters which involve hearings, `and all other litigation, and all appeals of the respective appellate Court liti- gation on behalf of or in defense of the City at the rate of EIGHTY FIVE DOLLARS ($35 . 00) per hour . (c) Said compensation shall :Hake available to the City a maximum of SIXTY (60) '_hours of legal services per month. It is the intent of the City that City Attorney services should not exceed 40 hours per month on the average. Cite agrees to reconsider maximum monthly retainer =lours at the end of ONE (1) year . City shall compensate Attornev at the rate of EIGHTY FIVE COLLARS ($85 . 00) per hour for all services provided the City in excess of SIXTY (60) :lours per month. T • 0 (d) Attorney shall not be required to attend meetings of th* Planning Commission nor any other permanent board, commission o committee of the City in addition to the City Council Meetings without provision for additional compensation. 3. Relationship of the Parties: It is understood that the relationship of Attorney to City is that of an independent contractor, and not an employee, and that Attorney both individually and collectively within the meaning of that term, is not entitled to any benefits otherwise entitled to an employee of the City. 4. Term: The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of ONE (1) year commencing September 9, 1985, and ending on September 8, 1986. Either party shall have the right, upon SIXTY (60) days written notice, to terminate the other. IN WHITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on this day of , 1985. CITY: City of Atascadero, a ATTORNEY: Morland & Jones, and Hanley Municipal Corporation BY: Bv: ROLFE NELSON, :Mayor � ROBERT M. JONES, Attorney at Law BY: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk • TO: Honorable Council September 9 , 1985 FROM: Michael Shelton, City Manager ��, SUBJECT: Agreement to engage Dick Anthony to perform Interim Personnel Services. RECOMMENDATIONS : Council adopt Resolution No. 99-85 authorizing Mayor to enter into agreement with Dick Anthony of Anthony Associates to perform Interim Personnel Service. BACKGROUND: With the recent resignation of the Assistant to the City Manager, a number of outstanding personnel recruitments and other items need attention. Mr. Anthony is retired career Municipal employee with extensive personnel experience. • He currently serves as a Consultant Labor Negotiator and performs executive recruitment assistance. Dick is available for immediate hire and will work three days per week until his successor is hired and on board. FISCAL IMPACT: Attached agreement calls for compensation at the rate of $17 . 00/ hour and $125. 00/ week for living expenses, as Mr. Anthony does not live in the area. No budget appropriation is requested as compensation will be paid from salary savings due to the Assitant to the City Manager vacancy. • J 9/9/.85_ >= A-12 0 RESOLUTION NUMBER 99-85 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ENGAGING DICK ANTHONY, PRINCIPAL OF ANTHONY ASSOCIATES TO PERFORM INTERIM PERSONNEL SERVICES RESOLVED, the Mayor is authorized to sign the attached contract engaging Dick Anthony, Principal of Anthony Associates, as Contract Employee to perform personnel related services in behalf of the City. On motion by Councilperson and seconded by Councilperson r the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA ROLFE NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MICHAEL SHELTON, ity Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES, Interim City Attorney 1 CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT INTERIM ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER THIS CONTRACT is entered into, retroactive to September 4 , 1985 , by and between the CITY OF ATASCADERO, State of California, (herein- after) referred to as "City" , and Anthony and Associates, Dick Anthony, Principal, as a Contract Person (hereinafter) referred to as "Contractor" . WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero desires to hire a person to fill, on an interim basis, the job classification of Assistant to the City Manager , and provide personnel consultation, as requested by the City Manager ; and WHEREAS, Contractor is qualified to perform such services for the City. VOW, THEREFORE, the parties do mutually agree as follows: 1. Employment. City hereby engages Contractor and Contractor hereby agrees to perform for City the services herein- after set forth for the compensation hereinafter set forth, all pursuant to the terms and conditions herein. 2. Scope of Service. Pursuant to this Contract, Contractor shall provide to the City services ordinarily performed by the Assistant to the City Manager position. Contractor shall accomplish a variety of technical and professional tasks related to personnel including conducting recruitments, overseeing risk management (Workers Compensation and Liability) , maintaining files, preparing reports and recommendations for current personnel activities, and performance of City obligations, as detailed in the Personnel Ordinance 'and Rules and Regulations. Contractor shall perform said services and such other tasks as may be assigned by the City Manager under the supervision and control of the City Manager or his representative. 3 . Contractor Status. Contractor understands and agrees that he is not, and will not be eligible for membership in or any bene- fits from any City group plan for hospital, surgical or medical insurance, or Afor membership in any City retirement program, or for paid holdays, vacation, sick leave, or other leave, with or with- out pay, or any other job benefits accruable to an employee in the service of the City. 0 0 Contractor understands and agrees that his term of service i governed by this Contract, that no right of tenure is created hereby, and he does not hold a position in any department or office of the City, and that his service to the City under this Contract is governed solely and in all respects by the term of this Contract. 4. Warrantv of Contractor . Contractor warrants that he is qualified to provide the services herein agree to. 5 . Compensation. City shall pay to contractor as compensation in full for all services performed by Contractor pursuant to this Con- tract, the sum of $17 . 00 per hour . Additionally, the City shall pay a lump sum of $125.00 per week for expenses incurred in relation to work and services performed for the City. Claims for all compensation and expenses shall be submitted by Contractor weekly. Payments by the City shall be made in accordance with established City procedures on a weekly basis to coincide with the City' s accounts payable billing cycle. o. Termination of Contract for Convenience. Either party may terminate this Contract at any time by giving to the other party fourteen (14) calendar days ' written notice of such termination, specifying the effective date of such termination. Termination shall have no effect upon the rights and obligations of the parties arising out of any termination occurring prior to the effective date of such termination. Contractor shall be paid for all work satis factorily completed prior to the effective date of such termination. je 7 . Termination of Contract for Cause. If Contractor fails to fulfill in a timely and professional manner his obligations under this Contract, or if Contractor shall violate any of the terms or provisions of this Contract, City shall have the right to terminate his Contract effective immediately upon the City' s giving ten (10 calendar days ' written notice thereof to Contractor . Termination shall have no effect upon the rights and obligations of the parties arising out of any transaction occurring prior to the effective date of such termination. Contractor shall be paid for all work satis- factorily completed, as determined by City, prior to the effective date of such termination. 8 . Modification. This Contract constitutes the entire under- standing of the parties hereto and no changes, amendments, or alter- tions shall be effective unless in writing and signed by both parties. 9 . Non-Assignment of Contract. The Contract is intended to secure the individual services of the Contractor . Any attempt by Contractor to assign, transfer, delegate or sublet this Contract or any interest therein without the Citv' s orior written consent shall cause this Contract to be null and void. 10 . Covenant. The validity, enforceability and interpretation of any of the clauses of this Contract shall be determined and gov erned by the laws of the State of California. 11. Enforceabilitv. The invalidity and unenforceability of 2 any terms or provisions hereof shall in no way affect the validity or enforceability of any other terms or provisions. 12. Actions. In the event of any action or suit upon this Contract, both parties shall be entitled to receive reasonable attorney' s fees and costs. It is agreed that any breach of this Contract by the Contractor shall entitle the City to apply to any ourt of competent jurisdiction to enjoin any violation, threatened or actual, of the Contract. 13. Nondiscrimination. There shall be no discrimination against any person employed pursuant to this Contract in any manner forbidden by law. 14. Conflicts of Interest. No office, employee, director or agent of the City shall participate in any decision relating to this Contract which affects his personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he is directly or indirectly interested, nor shall any such person have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Contract or the pro- visions thereof. 15 . Term. City agrees to provide a minimum of 24 hours contract employment per week for a minimum two month period. IN WHITNESS WHEREOF, City and Contractor have executed this Contract of the day and year first hereinabove set forth. CITY OF ATASCADERO BY: ROLFE NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT Li. JONES , City Clerk CONTRACTOR: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: �. DICK ANTHONY, Principal I_ Anthony Associates MICHAEL SH LTON`�—City Manager • 3 �/q/�� 5/ �#-%3 a • — M E M O R A N D U M September 9 , 1985 To: City Council From: Mike Shelton, City Manager Subject: Letter of Support for Senior Citizens United INTRODUCTION Senior Citizens United is planning to apply for a grant under the Senior Bond Act Program. This grant will seek funding to purchase adjacent property to their building for a parking lot. RECOMMENDATION Approve a Resolution supporting the application for funding by Senior Citizens United under the Senior Bond Act. FISCAL IMPACT None, as Senior Citizens United request for support does not involve a committment of funding from the City of Atascadero. 4 M E M O R A N D U M September 9, 1985 To: City Council From: Mike Shelton, City Manager Subject: Letter of Support for Senior Citizens United INTRODUCTION Senior Citizens United is planning to apply for a grant under the Senior Bond Act Program. This grant will seek funding to purchase adjacent property to their building for a parking lot. RECOMMENDATION Approve a Resolution supporting the application for funding by Senior Citizens United under the Senior Bond Act. FISCAL IMPACT None, as Senior Citizens United request for support does not involve a committment of funding from the City of Atascadero. 0 • RESOLUTION NO. 103-85 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE SENIOR BOND ACT PROGRAM BY SENIOR CITIZENS UNITED FOR PROPERTY ACQUISITION. WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the Senior Bond Act Program of 1984 , which provides funds to the State of California and its political subdivisions for developing facilities; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval of applications be- fore submission of said applications to the state; and WHEREAS, said applications contain assurances that the appli- cant must comply with; and WHEREAS, the applicant agency will enter into an agreement with the State of California for development, rehabilitation, or restora- tion of the project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Atascadero hereby: 1. Supports the filing of an application for 1984 state grant assistance for the above project; and 2. Certifies that said agency understands the assurances and certification in the application; and 3. Certifies that said agency has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project, and if the project is selected for state grant funding. On motion by Councilman and seconded by Council- man , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ROLFE NELSON, mayor ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk 9/9/85 F 1 DATE iTEM r� • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council September 9 , 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director RE: Public hearing to consider appeal of Planning Commission approval of Precise Plan 36-85 (5760 to 5820 Ardilla Road) RECOMMENDATION• Denial of the appeal and approval of the precise plan finding that the project is in compliance with Title 9 of the Municipal Code, with a Negative Declaration on environmental impact, and subject to the Plan- ning Commission' s 22 conditions of approval, except that architectural elevations are to be supplemented by a more detailed architectural rendering. • ALTERNATIVES: The City Council could also consider the following alternatives: 1) Environmental Determination. If the City Council does not ac- cept a negative environmental determination, an environmental impact report could be required. 2) Grading - Should the Council find that the findings required under the zoning ordinance to enable the grading proposed are in- appropriate, the appeal could be granted and the applicant direc- ted to bring back a modified plan involving less grading. 3) Tree Removal — Should the Council find that the findings re- quired under the zoning ordinance for tree removal cannot be made, the appeal could be granted and the applicant directed to submit modified plans which could meet these findings. 4) Urgency Ordinance - The Council could adopt an interim urgency ordinance "prohibiting any uses which may be in conflict with a contemplated zoning proposal which the legislative body. . . . . intends to study. . . " This type of ordinance requires a 4/5 vote of the City Council and staff would have to be directed to bring back a specific ordinance for consideration. i ! • Re: Appeal of Precise Plan 36-85 to City Council . In implementing the General Plan through consistent zoning, the Plan- ning Commission considered staff' s recommendation to designate all areas outside the existing sewer service area for single family use until sewer service was available. Given the language cited above in the General Plan and Section 9-3.175 (b) of the Zoning Ordinance, which states in part "sixteen (16) dwelling units per acre, except that a lesser density may be specified where warranted by site characteris- tics. ." A lesser density per acre could have been established on the site. However , the recommendation accepted by the City Council was to have the General Plan designation directly mirrored in zoning, i.e. , to show the maximum density allowed by the General Plan on the zoning map. The City had the option of designating from 11 to 16 units per acre on the subject property, but designated all such areas in the City at the maximum density of 16 units per acre. Precise plans require departmental approval for projects that are not categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. The Zoning Ordinance provides the following language in Section 9-2. 108 (b) (4) and (5) relative to precise plan approvals and appeals (emphasis added) : " (4) Review and Approval. The Planning_Director shall approve a precise plan application at the end of the_2ublic notice per- iod whenythe proposed project or use satisfies all applicable • provisions of this Title. The approval shall become effec- tive tor the - purpose of issuance of a building or grading permit, or establishment of a use not involving construction, fourteen (14) days after the notice has been sent, unless an appeal is filed with the Planning Department as set forth in Subsection (b) (5) . " " (5) Appeal of Precise Plan Decision. Any aggrieved person may appeal a decision on a precise plan application as set forth in Section 9-1.111 (Appeal) ; provided that the only basis for an appeal, or action on an appeal by the Planning Commission or City Council shall be whether the proposed use satisfies all applicable provisions of this Title. " In Section 9-1.111, the general appeals section of the Ordinance, the following guidance on appeals is provided (emphasis added) : "The hearing body may affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the action, decision or determination which is the subject of the appeal, based upon findings of fact regarding the particular case. Such findings shall identify the reasons for the action on the appeal, and verify the compliance or non-compliance of the subject of the appeal with the provisions of this Title.. . " The 22 conditions of approval attached to Precise Plan 36-85 satisfy the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 3 Re: Appeal of Precise Plan 36-85 to City Council Grading The project proposes maximum cuts of up to 13 feet with average cuts of 6 feet. This was a major concern in the project review and condi- tions of approval include modifying the grading plan (see Condition 6) to eliminate the fill that is proposed along the driveway to Ardilla in favor of retaining walls and to eliminate retaining walls along the back of the site to make the site compatible with the grade on adjoin- ing properties. With respect to the General Plan, the following language is con- tained on Page 169 : 1. "The contours of the hills shall be preserved. Residences built on hillsides shall conform to the topography, using the slope of the land as the basis for the design of the struc- ture. Any land use or activity which would result in major alteration of the land shall require a grading permit. The permit should require restoration of the land (e.g. replant- ing of the vegetation) . " The City' s Zoning Ordinance provides for the following criteria for approval of grading permits in Section 9-4.142 (d) : (d) "Criteria for Approval. A grading permit may be issued only where the Planning Director first finds, where appli- cable, that: 0 (1) The extent and nature of proposed grading is appropri- ate to the use proposed and will not create site dis- turbance to an extent greater than that required for the use. (2) Proposed grading will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation or other adverse off-site effects to life or property. (3) The proposed grading will not create substantial adverse long-term visual effects visible from off-site. (4) The proposed grading conforms with the Uniform Building Code and, when required, with Special Grading Standards (Section 9-4. 143) . " > As was noted, Condition #6 requires modifications to the grading plan submitted and the applicant is also required to submit a drainage plan (Condition #14) , and a stormwater detention design (Condition #15) . Further, a landscape and irrigation plan is required to provide for site restoration (condition #2) . The key language under criteria for approval for grading permits is that the grading "will not create site disturbance to an extent great- . er than that required for the use" . This brings us back to the 16 unit to the acre entitlement provided under the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. Even at the lowest density in this category (i.e. 11 units to the acre) , the applicant would be entitled to 24 units. This 4 Re: Appeal of Precise Plan 36-85 to City Council was an option that was not exercised in designating zoning on the property, but it is clear that even 24 units on this site could re- quire as much grading and tree removal as the 36 unit project proposed. Tree Removal: The City' s General Plan includes the following policy guidance on tree removals (page 169) : 112. Permits for both residential and commercial developments shall take into consideration the trees existing on the property. Buildings shall be designed to utilize existing trees in the landscaping patterns. Any trees removed shall be replaced. " The Zoning Ordinance (Section 9-4.157) implements the General Plan by establishing tree removal standards with the following removal criteria: " (b) Removal criteria: A tree may be removed only when the tree is any of the following: (1) Dead, diseased beyond reclamation, or hazardous; (2) Crowded, with good horticultural practices dictating thinning; (3) Interferring with existing utility 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 either for active or passive solar heating or cooling, and the building or solar collectors cannot be oriented to collect sufficient sun- light without total removal of the tree. " The conditions of approval for the precise plan include a detailed landscape and irrigation plan (Condition #2) together with- submission, prior to issuance of any permits, of a tree protection plan (Condition #7) . The purpose of this latter condition, among others, is to pro- tect existing trees during construction period so that trees designa- ted to be saved will be protected. Architectural elevations: Another issue that arose during the course of the Planning Commission hearing (see attached minutes excerpt) were the architectural eleva- tions approved as part of the precise plan approval. Opponents of the project contended that the elevations give a barracks-type character to the project and the applicant testified that they did not intend to 5 0 0 Re: Appeal of Precise Plan 36-85 to City Council build the structures as depicted on those elevations; that they would be of a superior design. The Zoning Ordinance provides the following language with respect to precise plan content in Section 9-2.108 (a) (2) 11 (2) Architectural elevations: For all structural uses except single family residences and agricultural accessory build- ings. Elevations, renderings, or perspectives of each pro- posed structure shall be provided, identifying all exterior finish and roofing materials; . . . . . . . . " Staff is concerned that the project is incomplete as submitted given the applicant' s testimony before the Planning Commission. This con- cern has been conveyed to the applicant who will submit supplemental renderings to meet the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Those eleva- tions remain accurate with respect to two-story buildings, but not with respect to the visual character of the buildings. California Environmental Quality Act: There are three types of determinations that may be made under the California Environmental Quality Act: 1. Categorically exempt - This means the project is not subject to determination of an environmental finding under C.E.Q.A. (e.g. signs, lot line adjustments, etc. ) . 2. Negative Declaration - This means the project' s environmental effects have been reviewed and a determination reached that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. Environmental Impact Report - Is required when the determination on the project is that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and an E.I.R. has to be prepared prior to mak- ing a determination on the project. The definition of a "significant effect" is as follows: "Significant effect on the environment" means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water , minerals, flora, fawna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not considered a significant effect on the envi- ronment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant. " The attached appendix from the State C.E.Q.A. Guidelines provides 26 instances where a project will be considered to have a significant effect. Should the Council determine that the project would have sig- nificant effects, an environmental impact report could be required before considering the project further . 6 Re: Appeal of Precise Plan 36-85 to City Council SZONING ORDINANCE STANDARDS: This appeal raises a number of questions with regard to consistency of the Zoning Ordinance with the more general goals of the General Plan. The Council has the perogative of initiating amendments to the stand- ards in the Zoning Ordinance to link them more clearly to the intent of the General Plan. Staff would suggest that consideration be given to re-evaluation of the following in the Zoning Ordinance: 1. Precise Plan findings - The present language of the Zoning Ordi- nance is relatively weak with respect to findings of fact for a precise plan. For example, the Zoning Ordinance provides a mini- mum of five findings that have to be made by the Planning Commis- sion before a conditional use permit may be approved. It would be appropriate to incorporate these finding requirements for pre- cise plan approvals. This would also have the beneficial effect of providing both the Planning Commission and Council a basis for approving, modifying, or disapproving an appeal of staff level approvals. 2. Hillside standards - The site in question is not the only steep site that is zoned for high density use within the City. It is suggested that the Council initiate consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance to provide for limitations on development on RMF properties on slopes of greater than 15%. This might en- tail modifying the maximum allowed densities for multi-family zones to provide a sliding scale whereby the steeper the land is the less units per acre may be constructed. This approach could also disallow unbuildable land from being counted towards maximum allowed density. HE:ps Enclosures: August 27, 1985 appeal August 19, 1985 Planning Commission minutes excerpt August 19, 1985 Planning Commission staff report Initial study environmental description C.E.Q.A. Guidelines - Definitions of Significant Effects cc: Mary Middlecamp Richard Shannon 7 August 27, 1985 City Council City of Atascadero A 6500 Palma Avenue sir 2 W Atascadero, Ca. 93422 RCE�v�Q �1U TO: CITY COUNCIL OF ATASCADERO , SUBJECT: PRECISE PLAN 36-85 APPEAL We, the residents, in the area neighboring the land involved in the Precise Plan 36-85, recognize the right of an individual to develop property with regard to housing, landscaping, etc. . However, we also recognize that this right must be exercised within the standards outlined in the City of Atascadero' s Gereral Plan which is considered to be the City Constitution and is described on the first page of the General Plan as THE PEOPLE'S PLAN. It is also our belief that the City of Atascadero' s ordinances should be tools used to insure that the General Plan' s standards are exercised in decision making situations regarding the growth and development of Our City. It is our belief that discrepancies exist between the standards outlined in the Gneral Plan and the interpretations represented as ordinances and used in the process of decision making. It is with these thoughts in mind that we present to you, The City Council of Atascadero, the following concerns and action requests: CONCERNS: 1 . DENSITY A. The property in question has been zoned high density multiple-family. B. The General Plan states on page 61 . . . .High Density- Shall be permitted along arterials and may be permitted along collectors and local streets and may include apartments of five or more dwelling units. The maximum allowable density shall not exceed 16 dwelling units per acre although lesser densities may be specified by zoning based on site character- istics; except, a density bonus may be allowed under certain circumstances, where adequate provisions are made to provide housing units affordable to low and moderate income persons. on page 61 . Residential Policy Proposals- 1 . It is not in accordance with Atascadero ' s development policy to fill up the core before the lands to the west and south are built upon. 3. pg. 62 The residential densities proposed in in this Plan automatically ensure considerable open space. 4. High density residential land uses shall serve as a buffer between commerial and single-family residential areas where appropriate. Page 2 PRECISE PLAN 36-85 APPEAL continued CONCERNS 1 . DENSITY B. General Plan states on page 62 . . . . 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 a graded decrease in the per- mitted density of ,population. 7. pg. 62 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..' C. The ordinances read (page 3-22 ) . . . . . 9-3. 175. Density: The maximum allowable density in the Residential Multiple Family Zone shall be designated on the Official Zoning Maps as provided by Section 9-3. 1,04 (c) and be established in accordance with the General Plan as follows: (b) Areas Designated High Density Multiple Family Residential: Sixteen ( 16) dwelling units per acre, except that a lesser density may be specified where warranted by site character- istics, includina, but not limited to, adequacy of sewage disposal, site topography, adequacy of road access, availability of utilities and other related characteristics. D. Evaluation: With the following considerations from the General Plan: -High Density . .may be permitted along local streets -Maximum allowable density shall not exceed 16 dwelling units per acre -Residential densities. . .automatically ensure considerable open space -High density residential land. . .as a buffer. . . where appropriate -Multi-residential density areas shall be considered ****** in light of topography, traffic circulation, fire protection and general level of use intensity at the location With the following considerations from the Ordinances: -Density: The maximum allowable density shall be established in accordance with the General Plan. . . From our research on the topic of density related to the General Plan and Ordinances we conclude that the Planning • Department and the Planning Commission in making decisions with regard to Precise Plan 36-85 didnot consider any factor other than the property was 2 acres and that 16 dwellings are allowable per acre. This decision obviously over looked the Page 3 PRECISE PLAN 36-85 APPEAL continued CONCERNS 1 . DENSITY D. Evaluation concepts of open space, appropriateness, maximum as.-not only density determination, topography, traffic circulation, fire protection and general level of use intensity at the location. The reality of this can be experienced by looking at the proposed development on site not on paper and at the same time evaluating the term density and saying to ones-self does this proposal, Precise Plan 36-85, represent the General Plan of our City? Another question to ask in regard to density and this project is does Atascadero need and will it every need such high density projects built on the topography of this land's or with such traffic congestion? or as such a fire hazard? and such an increase in drainage problems? This is a tremendous amount of thinking and deciding. 2. ZONING A. The property in question has been zoned high density multiple-family. B. The General Plan in relationship to the zoning regulations states in Title 9. Zoning regulations Chapter 1 . TITLE AND PURPOSE - -- - - ---- - -- - - 9-1 . 101 . -This title is known as the zoning regulations of the city of Atascadero, Title 9 of the Atascadero Municipal Code. These regulations are established and adopted to protect and promote the public health, safety, and welfare and provide a regulatory structure which: (a) Provides for the development of land uses in a manner that encourages and supports the goals and policies of the general plan: and, (b) Minimizes adverse effects on the public resulting from the inappropriate creation, use or design of building sites, structures, or other land uses by providingappropriate standards for development: and (c) Protects and enhances the unique and significant natural, historic, cultural, and scenic resources within the city: and (d) Assist the public in identifying and under- standing regulations affecting the developmnet - and use of land. C. "General Plan Consistency" . Government code section 65860 requires that zoning ordinances must be consistent with the General Plan and that it is the Planning Commission-' s_,. . _ duty to enforce this requirement. The reference for this is A Practical Primer for Planning Commissions. J Page 4 PRECISE PLAN 36-85 continued CONCERNS APPEAL 2. ZONING D. Evaluation We believe that the Planning Department and the Planning Commission lost sight of their responsibilities as designated in section C above. Sections B (a-c)supports the issue that the structure approved by the Planning Commission is definately inappropriate for the site and that the site preparation definitely destroys the significant natural scenic resources within the city. Twelve feet of land removal from the top of the site and the removal of 24 oak trees from the site contribute to this factor. However, when Mr. Dunn stated that the structure proposed was not the structure to be built ;only a drawing to qualify for Architectural Elevations defined by the Planning Department as only height and width of structure ;it becomes clear that the Planning Department' s interpretation of the General Plan' s standards of appropriate structures design is only height and width and any design can be built as long as the height and width standard is met. So much for the General Plan. Also Mr. Dunn stated that 50% plus of land would remain in a natural state. When visiting the site observe that this area is the area at the front of the project. This area doesnot contribute to the natural beauty of the site, it is an area that is posted for weed abatement yearly and never cleaned and consists of weeds, brush, poison oak, dead and dying oaks. What this area contributes to is an increased fire hazard and fire usually goes up hill. So Mr. Dunn' s greenbelt is in reality a weedbelt and the land approved for grading is the scenic natural land on the site. It is obvious that to develop the front of the property would involve a great deal of money and increase the cost of the affordable housing of 800-900 sq. ft. for $60,000. Title 9. the zoning regulations for Atascadero must be incorporated in every Planing Department decision! s Page 5 PRECISE PLAN 36-85 APPEAL CONTINUED CONCERNS 3. TOPOGRAPHY AND SITE DEVELOPMENT A. In the General Plan' s section XIII COMMUNITY APPEARANCE AND STANDARDS under Goals the following is written: The following goals and principles shall govern the deveopment of Atascadero, as outlined in the policy Statement of 1973. 1. The contours of the hills shall be preserved. Residences built on hillsides shall conform to the topography, using the slope of the land as the basis for the design of the structure. Any land use or activity which would result in major alteration of the land shall require a grading permit. The permit should require restoration of the land. . . . 2. Permits for both residential and commercial development shall take into considerationsthe trees existing on the property. Buildings shall be designed to utilize existing trees in the landscaping pattern. Any trees removed shall be replaced. 3. The architectural style of residential and commercial buildings shall harmonize with the environment. If fencing is used, it shall be consistent in style with the building.___ 5. The winding street pattern shall be retained. B. The following are statements from the General Plan from the pages indicated: 1 . P.75 . . .the long-term protection of the environment shall be the guiding criterion in Atascadero Public Policy decisions 2. P.75 . . .scenic and sensitive lands shall be protected- from destruction, overuse and misuse. 3. P.201 a sensitive site is defined as a potential project site may be considered "sensitive" when it involves natural formations- such as hillsides, lakesides, flood plains, or waterways. " 4. P. 76 "Tree covered hills shall be preserved to retain the scenic quality of the community. " 5. P.201 "attention shall be given to retaining natural grades and groundcover and ex- cessive cuts and fills shall be avoided. " 6. P. 199 Effect on the Community General Plan- The merit of a design shall be judged on its suitability for a particular site. The design may not be acceptable just because it is the only design the applicant has or uses. c Page 6 PRECISE PLAN 36-85 APPEAL continued Page 6 CONCERNS 3. TOPOGRAPHY AND SITE DEVELOPMENT C. Many ordinances relate to site development and topography, however, the ordinances are found throughout the entire package of ordinances and basically donot conform completely to the General Plan. A definite drawback in Atascadero is that Atascadero is the only incorporated city in the county of San Luis Obispo that doesnot have a. Hillside Ordinance, so in order to develop a listing of the ordinances pretaining to this topic pages of ordinances need review and to list each one would be beyond the scope of this appeal. Basically a hillside ordinance would place all the scattered ordinances under one cover set of ordinances. How the Planning Department and Planning Commission determine and issue standards for permits on hillside building is left to the individual involved and their personal inter- pretation of the various ordinances. The Appealed project presents a perfect example of the need for a hillside ordinance that reflects the General Plan instead of leaving the decision to individual declaration of' ordinances. It is apalling to us as a neighborhood to realize that hillside building receives so little consideration in ordinances but receives a tremendous impact in the General Plan. It is time to evaluate the ordinaces in regard to the development of hillsides and the General Plan philosophy. This project needs to be delayed until an acceptable ordinance is .developed to evaluate hillside developments. D. One area never determined by the Planning Department was in relationship to the earthquake safety of property. The property directly south of the project shows visual effects of ground unstability in the form of cracked foundations. Please consider a soil sample with regard to earthquake stability and not just adequate foundation base! E. Another vital concern is that the frontage of the property is primarily weeds, dry brush, poison oak, and this combined with the wood structure materials offers a hazardous area with regard to fire potential. The concerns described under topography and site development would all be satisfied by a hillside ordinance written in accordance with the General Plan. AND FUTURE CITIZENS WOULD NOT HAVE TO APPEAL DECISIONS MADE BY INCOMPLETE ORDINANCES. Page 7 PRECISE PLAN 36-85 APPEAL continued CONCERNS: 4. GRADING A. City Ordinances governing grading and related to this Appeal include the following: 4-47 Criteria for approval: A grading permit may be issued only where the planning director first finds, where applicable that: 1 . The extent and nature of proposed grading is appropriate to the use proposed and will not create site disturbance to an extent greater than that required for the use. 3. The proposed grading will not create substantial adverse long-term visual effects visible from off-site. 4-48 Special grading standards: All excavations and fills except for minor grading shall be conducted in accordance with the following special standards: a. Area of cuts and fills: Cuts and Fills shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary to provide stable embankments for required parking areas or street rights-of way, structural foundations, and adequate yard areas. Consideration shall be given to revising the building design to minimize unnecessary grading. b. Creation of building sites-slope limitation: grading for the purpose of creating a site for building or structure shall be prohibited on slopes of 30% or greater except where authorized through conditional use permit approval. C. Final contours: Contours, elevations and shapes of finished surfaces shall be blended with adjacent natural terrain to ACHIEVE A CONSISTENT GRADE AND NATURAL APPEARANCE. ' WHERE WAS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING DIRECTOR WHEN THE GRADING WAS DETERMINED FOR THIS PROJECT! ! ! There is no way that this project would ever meet ordinances 4-47 and 4-48 as read. The determination of approval is of grave concern because a beautiful hillside is being converted into an unrecognizable,' -.denaturg!d.,. .m4ximum grading, long term visual effects from off-site disaster area. Please take the proposed site devdf)pment with you when visiting the site and consider each grading ordinance in relationship to this development and ask the questions; Does this project meet the ordinances for grading? and then ask yourself how could and did this happen? and what can I do to insure that it doesnot happen again? Page 8 PRECISE PLAN 36-85 APPEAL continued CONCERNS: 5. THE GENERAL PLAN AND THIS PROJECT It has already become apparent that the General Plan and the Ordinances are not currently in alinement with each other. The following sections of the General Plan emphasis this even more because they were never considered in the decisions made by the Planning Department and the Planning Commission: 1 . Under Residental Policy Proposals page 63 number 13 "New condominium projects, planned movile home developments and stock cooperatives shall be reviewed on an individual basis as community housing needs, neighborhood character, and site improvements will dictate. 2. Page 138 "Development of a Housing Authority shall be considered. " Analysis of Obstacles Obstacles for provision of adequate housing for all fall into several categories. 1 . Neighbor-hood Opposition --Neighborhood opposition, e.g. , to low-income housing or to high density multiple family units is usually based on fears of"deterioration of the neighborhood" and of decreased property values. Such developments must be carefully reviewed to insure that plans are attractive, that traffic circulation is not impeded, that unattractive service areas are screened from neighbors and streets and that adequate initial landscaping is required and maintained. It is recommended that other similar projects built by an applicant be inspected in each case for all of the prededing factors. 3. Page 75 Open Space Principles 5. Recreation facilities shall be encouraged in new developments as well as on public and quasi-public- properties. uasi-publicproperties. Note: The developer stated that rro recreational area was need because no children would be living in the project. . .this indeed raises alot of questions. . . .discrimination ect. 4. Read the introduction on page 75 of the section VI Open Space and Conservation 5. Public Safety Page 81 The free play of economic forces shall be allowed to discourage building on steep slopes of high seismic or landslide risk by enforcing a Building Code that is re- sponsive to the recommendation to the Governor by the Joint Legislative Committee on Seismic Safety in 1974: c Page 9 PRECISE PLAN 36-85 APPEAL continued CONCERNS: 5. THE GENERAL PLAN AND THIS PROJECT 5. continued "Thoughtful land use decisions are fundamental to seismic safety. We should not erect a structure or carry out a major grading on ground that is subject to high levels high levels of seismic or other geologic hazard until the consequencs have been evaluated and the work approved by competent professionals. To hsi end, no structure should be built unless the geologist, architect, soils engineer and builder, as well as the community, are satisfied that it meets adequate standards designed to prevent life-threatening collapse or damage in future earthquakes. " (Joint Committee, 1975) 6. Page 147 Before a building permit is granted for any site sloping 30 percent or more, the recommendation of of the Joint Committee should be carried out. See #5. 6. LAND USE Page 133-E.G. Lewis ' dream was a population of 20,000 to 30,000 people living in some 7,000 homes scattered over about 20,000 acres of the Colony, leaving about 3,000 acres for Open Space. We share that dream. As long as people are attracted to Atascadero because it is still possible, thanks to Lewis ' foresight, to realize the American Dream, it is our policy to make that dream the GOAL OF OUR LAND USE ELEMENT. Historically the intrepretation of the General. Plan with regards to the Land Use Element can be seen in the 1975 land use map included in the General Plan of 1975. This map is found on the following pages. This map indicates without a doubt that the recommended land use for the area including Ardilla Avenue was for single family low density. Historically this intrepretation was ignored when the re-zoning was done by the City in 1980. Many years ago, prior to the freeway dividing the Central Business District, the property in question was zoned high density multiple family. We all realize that the old zoning became antiquated with regard to the town of Atascadero. However, instead of conforming the zoning to the General Plan in 1980 the zoning remained antiquated. If the zoning in 1980 was reviewed completely and accurately with the General Plan land use the property in question should have been rezoned single-family low density. • age 10 F] F7. LAND USE RECOMMENDATION BY THE L;aL ;o:N A m;D-D : GENERAL PLAN C•r -C-C�C D. 'm:DaD r'3 nC_ mDm nDr_r ox AmOD D _N _D` cz ZNp m o � cN i N r < <I m o m m mm 13 Y 13 -, N �3 z mD .. nr ac'"C 'nDm �a< E] G) "0 1 n20 2 D -3 m r r D r m l , O r r r ■■ Ni � • D o Iin2i7: m C m m I m z O < m n i r 1 � o TmT C D i JJ m I ' O N c o ,nj 0 0 ! z o D D m ► N r 0 D m D m � n N 0 13 . . : Z m D m m C 0 7/ ND 1m� � -I N n D . D mD m 2 r o D �zLjz Lm th n "� y N n u _ Z T' 2 0 Un 0 n m Y r . . . o nn C D M I m i Z � .• i r31 z 0 13 a 7 , .. . . . a :13 O . � � :: n nr ` T O 7 D Y n n u Z T z n n D D 0 a r f y a o 0 n s 7 • D a r r m • J N 0 0 0 \ J _ 1 S'Oilot � D 4 •:� �' ."Follf►' � ,� * �ti-�� •ice ��� r••� `l .70 • `l ��� .moi _ �.1 •! m:y:-�%•y` �.- _1p -SAN s M ,ur r r.• EL r V 1 t� .nR �" JZ J •7� r� 'Y _ / � r l r ■ a:. .411 • .01 C• S.. ■ . .V •4 " r�- �- 9 � '•• •'y ■■■■ ■ ■ ■■ '•� tom• _ � ,� {,(� .''• •N )��:�*�:�: � •, `alt�<. �N irk r -��•' •�.;... r ! i Page 12 PRECISE PLAN 36-85 APPEAL continued CONCERNS: 6. LAND USE If one looks at the area as it developed after the Highway 101 division, one would see that the 5 lots zoned high density multiple family have developed as follows: 1 on Venado and l on Ardilla have become single family dwellings. A second on Venado has been purchased by the Catholic church and is currently being used for parking. And two are presently involved in Presice Plan 36-85 Appeal. None of the properties have been developed as high density multiple family dwellings in accordance with the antiquated zoning. However, they have to this point in time developed according to the General Plan, low density single family dwellings. As councilpersons asked yourselves-How could this happen? Was it just an oversight? Was it decisions made for financial gains? Why didnot it follow the land use of the General Plan? LOOK INTO THIS AND PLEASE CONSIDER ALL THE ALTERNATIVES ! ! ! 7. TERMINOLOGY In the researching done to present this appeal as well as terms used during the decision making process of the Planning Department and the Planning Commission it became apparent that many terms in the ordinances are left undefined and remain defined by individuals. Some of the most of concern terms are as follows: In the Precise Plan Procedure the terms: Architectural Elevations Proposed Structure are used. The first term was defined by the 'Planning Department as height and width of structure only. The second term was defined by the Planning Department as you got me there, I donot know. However, the Precise Plan was passed and the structure to be developed remains unknown. In ordinances the term affordable housing is used for description of housing, needs for housing etc. However, the Planning Department has no defiriition • for the term affordable housing and the department doesnot know the current need for the term . However, this term was utilized time after time during the Planning Commissions decision making process with regard to the Precise Plan 36-85. Page 13 PRECISE PLAN 36-85 APPEAL CONCERNS: 7. TERMINOLOGY These are only a few terms but what about Standards or Ordinances for Architectural Review and for building on hillsides or for density per acre ( 16 per acre or 16 distributed over an acre not clustered) . . . . on and on and on. ACTION REQUESTS: 1 . PLEASE READ THE GENERAL PLAN AND RELATE IT TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCES AND TO THIS PROPOSED PROJECT. and then evaluate the current need for upgrading ordinances, the need for architectural review, the need for hillside ordinances, the need for. . . . Atascadero is five years older than 1980, we need review of ordinances to meet the General Plan and to meet the needs of the City's people, the needs of our City for tommorrow and the list goes on. . . . YOU, THE CITY COUNCIL, HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO THIS ! 2. PLEASE VISIT THE SITE AND CONSIDER THIS APPEAL'S STATEMENTS, THE GENERAL PLAN, THE PRECISE PLAN PROCEDURES, TALK TO THE RESIDENCES OF THE AREA, ENJOY THE DEER FAMILY. . . . . 3. CONTACT SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES AND DETERMINE THE NEED IN ATASCADERO FOR 36-144 PEOPLE BEING CLUSTERED ON LAND EQUALING LESS THAN AN ACRE WITH NO RECREATIONAL AREA, ONE LEVEL TO EXIT AND ENTER FROM,AND on and on. . . TO INCLUDE DO WE AS A CITY NEED 800-900 sq.ft. UNITS SELLING FOR$60,000 plus. 4. PLEASE,PLEASE CONSIDER THIS APPEAL SERIOUSLY, CON- SCIENTIOUSLY, AND WITH JUSTICE. The only summary we can offer is the entire appeai. We all, each and everyone, came to Atascadero to live in a rural, quiet setting that the City offered; we care deeply about this City and the future of this City. We reach out to you the leaders of this town and pray for an honest, caring decision with regard to our Appeal. • Page 14 Illustration used by Planning Department to determine proposed structure-but according the developer i-he nn(- shown iz_.not the G ru ure -to. be,. built-,. environmental impact, meeting the General Plan. . . . .. . .Ire :_ • 40� �� � } � IIC_, ;� ..,_����.�� �Baa G_ ' pr's YZ � t `�a as t�•^�' z nY Y?it� .ke! •_ c.f I:: �:i. l (� CK " Y i, 8 2I�`si : �N;�I n t as •I ;� 101 -IT y S C `^ 1 E�fIli• i� k t'Z K i � q 1D r/ i Y£� ' al-` 1, �' C� =wY; �•..; •11,i,1,11�, ,. � T I E� �'Y� ,d Rif- 61 ti S 1 We the undersigned support the Precise Plan 36-85 Appeal to the City Council of the city of Atascadero. Name Address Phone Number t ell, 77 4,, r7 -57/2- S-:3-yo sr/2S-s yo 1.2y S C -173 1 ssYo �'2o yL � - 4 •Lel. � ���-e-�.._-. ,,,' 1-57 no 40 G�o L-L. DATE NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # , i S.C. ,' i,'✓ �-, __,_ 1 Minutes - Planning Coission - August 19 1985 • 1 Sensibaugh, Public Works Director , stated that >asphalt_coul substituted for curb and gutter with respectition #6-b. Harry Russell, E1 no Real resident, in ed where the asphalt berm was proposed to be'-placed. In the st, he understood the City would accept this as a p ic�s-L`reet built to City standards. MOTION: Made by Commissi r Hatcheli seconded by Commissioner Bond and ca ed unanimously to approve Tentative Parcel Map 2 subject to the findings and-conditions con- t ' ed in the staff report, except that Co' h-clition #6- is to be modified to read "asphalt berm" instead o "cur and gutter" . 3. Appeal of Precise Plan 36-85 (LWD, Inc./Shannon) : Appeal submitted by neighborhood petition for project approv- al to allow the construction of 36 condominium units in the RMIF/16 zone. Subject property is located at 5760 to 5820 Ardilla Road, also known as Lots 29, 30 , Block KB. Chairman LaPrade stepped down from the Commission due to a possi- ble conflict of interest and Commissioner Bond took the chair . Mr . Davidson presented the staff report concerning the appeal of the precise plan approval and provided background on the matter . He explained what the precise plan process is and pointed out that the property across the street from the subject site was recently approved for a general plan amendment. Commissioner Sanders inquired as to how many oak trees are pro- posed for removal on the site. Wally Dunn, representative for the project, replied that 24 trees would be removed. Commissioner Sanders then asked what the cuts would be on the property. Joel Moses stated that the cut would be between 13 to 15 feet and ex- plained that the top of the site is proposed to be level for the project and then a road would be cut in along the side and an area proposed to be filled along the property line which would make the dirt equal out on the site. Commissioner Michielssen asked how the cuts on the Empire Motel Property compare with the cuts for the subject site. Mr . Moses noted the applicant is proposing a retaining wall adjacent to the Empire Motel and explained where these walls are proposed to be. Commissioner -Michielssen then asked if the finish elevation of the project would be the same as the Empire Motel and felt there has been substantial grading in the area. Mr . Engen explained the intent of Condition 6-b is to eliminate the retaining walls and make the slope feather into the existing grade. Commissioner Kennedy noted the difference between the present one story level of the Empire Motel with the proposed two story level of the project and felt this would have an impact on the neighborhood. 3 Minutes - P - 0 Planning Commission August 19, 1985 Mary Middlecamp, 5705 Venado, stated she was representing the majority of the neighborhood concerning the appeal and referenced the issues raised in the written appeal letter. She then proceeded to address concerns in addition to the appeal. She referred to the General Plan' s "Community Appearance and Standards" section and pointed out the various issues contained in the section per- taining to trees and tree planting, architectural style, street pattern, impact on adjacent properties, noise, traffic congestion, and the overall effect on the community. Mrs. Middlecamp further stated she realized that a particular pro- ject will be built on the property but asked the Commission to consider the total impact of the project and suggested an alterna- tive for a less dense project. Robert Berg, 5764 Venado, expressed concern that there are no pro- visions for recreational activities for the children and noted that because his property is a direct short cut to the high school, he feared that the students would cut across his property to get to school. He also expressed concern over the impact that additional drainage from the site would have on his property and felt that there should be a fence required on the rear portion of the property. Donna Klimek, 5300 Ardilla, inquired how long the peak times for traffic were reviewed and for what hours as well. Mr . Sensibaugh stated that there could be a problem if the current rate of growth in this area continues and stated that the peak hours were in the morning and evening when people are going to and from work , etc. Mrs. Klimek further commented on the difficulties in trying to travel through the Traffic Way/Ardilla intersection and felt that people would go down Ardilla Road as a short cut to reach San An- selmo and the highway ramps. Mr . Sensibaugh responded to Mrs. Klimek ' s concerns. David Graves, 5580 Ardilla, emphasized the impact the increased traffic will have in the area and felt that people' s lives are at stake with regard to the traffic hazards. Dale Ziegler, 5700 Ardilla, noted he has the same zoning as the proposed project and concurred with the prior testimony given. He stated that he is aware that units will be built on the site as the property has been zoned multi-family for many years, but felt that something which will be aesthetically pleasing should be constructed, and commented on the buffer that will be taken away with the removal of the trees. Wally Dunn, representing the applicants, stated that at least since 1962, the property has been zoned multi-family, and that people who have purchased property in that area were aware of the zoning. He noted that the housing will be affordable, but did clarify that this housing would not be low-income. He then pro- ceeded to explain the intent of the project. It was pointed out that 52% of the property would remain undisturbed and that 24 trees will be removed but 100 trees will still remain with ade- 4 9 0 Minutes - Planning Commission - August 19, 1985 quate provision to protect the remaining trees. Mr. Dunn ex- plained that there would be replacement trees planted on the back of the property to screen the project, and stated that at this point, there is no architectural design. Mr . Dunn did not antici- pate the units being family oriented with a total square footage of 800 square feet but re-emphasized that they would be afford- able, and stated that he would be happy to meet with anyone inter- ested at a later date when the architectural design has been drawn to review the building plans with him. Commissioner Sanders asked Mr. Dunn about the architectural ele- vations of the project. Mr. Dunn responded that elevations were submitted but stated that elevations do not always reflect an architectural plan. Discussion ensued with regard to clarification on the elevations submitted with respect to a specific architectural design. Mrs. Middlecamp disputed Mr. Dunn' s comment with respect to ade- quate screening and felt that this would not be the case because of the way the homes are situated on the hill. Arloda Berg, 5760 Venado, asked what would happen to the greenbelt area with respect to recreation purposes. Jayne Sacks, 5170 Ardilla, asked if an environmental impact report would be required of this project. Mr . Dunn responded to several questions raised by people in the audience. Commissioner Sanders expressed concern that she would find it very difficult to make a decision on the project without having any clear architectural design by which to go by. Commissioner Michielssen asked Mr. Dunn when he would expect to have the architectural drawings completed. Mr. Dunn responded that the next progression of the project would be the grading work and then the architectural design, but he did point out that he did not know what the time frames will be at this time. Norman Norton, builder for the project, stated that the project is in compliance with the provisions of the zoning ordinances. Commissioner Nolan asked Mr. Dunn that with respect to the pro- posed driveway, has any consideration been given to the intersec- tion of Vega. Mr . Dunn replied that consideration has been given to this area especially concerning the drainage that runs down Vega. Commissioner Nolan also inquired if there has been any at- tempt to contact the Empire Motel or St. Williams Church concern- ing some type of joint improvements of the street, such as widen- ing the street to its full width. Mr . Dunn replied no contact of this type has been made. 5 `\ • Minutes - Planning Commission - Au August 19 , 1985 Commissioner Hatchell questioned which perimeters of the project would have the trees and shrubs planted. Commissioner Bond stated he had reviewed the site and felt that one of the biggest problems with the project concerns the traffic situation at the Traffic Way/Ardilla/Santa Lucia intersections, especially with school attendance, but felt this issue should be addressed separately at a future time. He commented on the grad- ing that is proposed to be done and asked Mr. Dunn how the drain- age would be handled. Mr . Dunn stated that conditions are incorporated within a project approval by the Planning Department to assure that any water com- ing off a new project never exceeds the flow of water that pre- ceded it. He also commented that he will tip the road on the inner side of the property so as it curves, the berm will be on the inside of the property and the water will be flowing down the inside toward the retention basin. Allen Campbell, with Twin Cities Engineering, further explained how the drainage would be directed for the project. Commissioner Bond asked if it would be feasible to increase the culvert size and the entry to the culvert to carry the water through without building a retention basin and disturbing the greenbelt area. Mr. Campbell stated this is an alternative which could be considered. Mr . Dunn further stated that over $30, 000 in fees is being put in a fund as a result of the new City fees that could be used for signalization, etc. Commissioner Sanders expressed concern that she would be making a decision based on the elevations of the proposed building. Mr . Engen suggested that revised architectural plans be submitted for Commission review and approval before proceeding any further. A second alternative would be to condition any action to approve on submittal of more precise architectural plans. Commissioner Kennedy stated that in view of the topography and buildable area of the site, there should be a lesser density, and asked if anything could be done to assure this. Mr . Engen ex- plained that it has been City policy - as long as all provisions of the ordinance are complied with for a particular site - that 16 units to the acre could be built in a zone which allows 16 units to the acre zoning. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Hatchell and seconded by Commis- sioner Nolan to deny the appeal and approve Precise Plan 36-85. Commissioner Sanders noted she had viewed the site and had spoken to some of the neighbors and expressed her main concerns which involved the appropriateness of the proposed design for the site and the proposed density. She felt that the General Plan is very specific in its criteria for development and proceeded to cite various references from the document that should be considered. She further emphasized that contours of the hills shall be pre- 6 0 Minutes - Planning Cotission - August 19 1985 served and that building shall conform to the topography using the slope of the land as the basis for the design. Commissioner Hatchell stated that stopping the project from pro- ceeding will not stop the traffic situation. Commissioner Michielssen stated that the traffic problems would be addressed by the fees assessed for developments such as this, and felt the drainage and streets will be improved in the neighborhood and pointed out that through good planning and engineering, all of the concerns and issues that have been raised will be adequately taken care of and stated the project is in conformance with the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Kennedy noted her concurrence with Commissioner Sanders' statements. The motion carried with a roll call vote as follows: AYES: Commissioners Hatchell, Nolan, Bond, and Michielssen NOES: Commissioners Kennedy and Sanders Chairman LaPrade took his seat back on the Commission. He then called a recess from 10 : 00 to 10 :10 p.m. Appeal of Precise Plan 41-84 (bows/Harcourt) : ppeal submitted by neighborhood petition for project an ov- a to allow for the construction of 11 apartment units- in the RMF 6 (FH) zone. Subject property is located at ,=8435 San Andres, also known as Lot 36 of Block UA. In presenting theme„staff report, Mr. Davidson br=iefly summarized the chain of events which have taken place -since the project' s beginning and briefly-ddressed the neighbors concerns- as refer- enced in the appeal letter . Gary Harcourt, project architect, noted that the applicant cur- rently has four building perni.ts'which were issued around seven months ago for the construction nd�noted the delays which have ensued because of the find o Indian- artifacts, the house removal and the creek. Mr. Harcou also pointed out that he is still waiting for the Atasqzrdero Mutual Wate'r'--,Company and t'he City to resolve the artifact tuation. Nick Fortune, 84 San Andres, pointed out the main concerns of the neighbor od involve the density and scale of the project for that surrou ing area. He stated that the site has a flood plain which c ers 25% of the lot and pointed out constraints with re- spect the topography. Mr . Fortune also addressed the retaining wal and 20% slopes of the property, and felt a lesser den ty s uld be considered. City of Atascadero Item: B-3 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 8/19/85 BY: Doug Davidson, Assistant Planner File No: PP 36-85 Project Address: 5760 to 5820 Ardilla Road SUBJECT• An appeal by neighborhood petition of Precise Plan 36-85, which ap- proved a precise plan and environmental determination for a 36 unit single phase condominium development. BACKGROUND: On July 9 , 1985, staff approved Precise Plan 36-85 . Final approval was to become effective on July 23, 1985; however, an appeal of the ap- proval was received by staff on July 22, 1985 . Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Aug- ust 9, 1985 and all owners of record property located within 300 feet were notified on that date. A. LOCATION: 5760 to 5820 Ardilla Road (Lots 29, 30 , Block KB) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .An appeal of the conditions of approval of Precise Plan 36-85 which allowed approval of a 36 unit condominium development. 2. Appellant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Neighborhood residents 3. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .L.W.D. , Inc. 4. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Richard Shannon 5. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 2 acres 6 . Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ardilla Road is City-maintained with a 50 foot right-of-way. 7 . Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF/16 (Residential Multiple Family, 16 dwelling units per acre) 8. Existing use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant Re: Appeal of Precise Plan 36-85 (LWD/Shannon,/trade) 9. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RSF-Z, SFR South: RSF-Z, SFR of East: RMF/16 , motel West: RMF/16, SFR 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Steeply sloped (20-30%) and heavily covered with trees and shrubs. 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .A Negative Declaration has been prepared for Precise Plan 36-85 C. ANALYSIS: Precise plan approval is required when a land use is listed in a particular zoning district as an allowable use but is not eligible for categorical exemption from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. In essence, it is an environmental determination to examine the effects and, if necessary, soften the impacts of the proposed project. As stated in Exhibit C (Zoning Ordinance Section 9-1. 111) , deci- sions of the Planning Department may be appealed by the applicant or any aggrieved person. Section 9-2.108 (5) states that the only basis for the appeal shall be whether the proposed use satisfies all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance (see attachment) Precise Plan 36-85: This precise plan approval was preceeded by review by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. Their responses are in- corporated into the conditions of approval. Fire Department re- quirements include the installation of a new fire hydrant and up- grading the existing fire hydrant. Public Works requirements are included in Conditions #10-21. A sewer annexation is currently being reviewed and must be approved by the Sanitation District Board. Conditions #16-20 make sewer connection a condition of this approval. The Planning Department had several concerns. Staff agreed that the proposed grading was too extensive for the site and recommen- ded reducing the grading by eliminating a fill area and the use of retaining walls. Due to the great number of large trees on the site, tree protection during excavation, as well as after comple- tion of the project, was a condition of approval (Condition #7) . Appeal: One of the major concerns of the appellants is the traffic flow and control in the vicinity. Staff agrees that the intersection of Traffic Way and Ardilla is a substandard intersection due to its design. Staff reviewed the traffic situation by analyzing the trip end generation rates by the type of land use. The con- clusion of this study was that the increased traffic due to the 2 • Re: Appeal of Precise Plan 36-85 (LWD/Shannon/LaPrade) project would not exceed the capacity of the streets in the area. Historically, the City has not required off-site street improve- ments as a condition of project approval. Another concern was the increased drainage that would result from the project. Staff has addressed drainage and erosion control in Conditions #6 , #14 , and #15. Tree removal and protection policies are contained in Condition V. Neighborhood Character : General Plan Amendment 2F-85 (Rehbock) was approved by the City Council on August 12, 1985. This changed the land use designation across the street from the subject site (5655 Ardilla) from Low Density Single Family Residential to Low Density Multiple Family. East of the subject area is the Empire Inn Motel. To the east of that is St. Williams Church. To the northwest of the proposed project is the Assembly of God Church. Single family residences are the dominant land use to the west. Residential Policy #7 of the General Plan states: "Multi-residen- tial density areas shall be considered in light of such specific factors as topography, traffic circulation, drainage, fire protec- tion, and general level of use intensity at that location. The 1980 General Plan changed the land use designation of this area from Low Density Single Family Residential to High Density Multi- ple Family Residential, notwithstanding the steepness of the site and its proximity to the Ardilla-Traffic Way intersection. Al- though the wisdom of this action can be questioned, the land was re-zoned to RMF/16, permitting 16 units per acre if done pursuant to City standards. Staff has reviewed the application in light of concerns and developed 22 conditions of approval to mitigage en- vironmental impacts and bring the project into conformance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the appeal of Precise Plan 36-85 based on the conditions of approval contained in Exhibit B. Alterna- tively, the Commission could modify conditions of approval or ap- prove the appeal if the necessary findings of fact under the Zon- ing Ordinance were made. DGD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Letter of appeal dated July 22, 1985 Exhibit B - Precise Plan 36-85 Exhibit C - Zoning Excerpt: Appeals Process Exhibit D - Zoning Excerpt: Precise Plans Exhibit E - Letter from neighborhood to Paul Sensibaugh Exhibit F - Letter from Paul Sensibaugh 3 July 20, 1985 Henry Engen Planning Director, RECEIVED JUt 2 Z 1985 . Planning Department City of Atascadero PLANNING DEPARTMERT 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA. 93422 Dear Mr. Engen, SUBJECT: PRECISE PLAN 36-85 APPEAL We, the residents, in the area neighboring the land related to the Precise Plan 36-85, recognize the right of an individual to develop his property as he sees fit. However, we also recognize that this right must be exercised within the law with concern for the safety and well being of all the residents of the adjoining area. We also feel that the right for one man or group to make a financial profit at the expense of an entire neighborhood should be evaluated for the moral and ethical "laws" . . .the laws of conscience. It is with these thoughts in mind that we present to you, the Planning Director of Atascadero, the following concerns and action requests: CONCERNS: 1 . TRAFFIC FLOW a. The streets in the vicinity of the proposed 36 unit single phase condominium development are not adequate to carry the quantity and types of • traffic generated. 1 . The total impact of adding 36-72 autos to current traffic patterns of the following areas requires careful evaluation and documentation: a. The Traffic Way on and off ramps to Highway 101 . This area has been evaluated by the Cal-Trans and declared a hazardous area which puts this area into a very unsafe useage area for autos and pedestrians. b. Entry onto Ardilla from Santa Lucia in relationship to the high school traffic, school bus traffic for transportation and storage, general commuter traffic to the freeway on ramp, and commuter traffic re- lated to the share a ride program using the St. Williams parking lot area. C. Entry onto Ardilla from Atascadero Avenue related to traffic generated by the high school, Christian Bible SChool, and access to Highway 41 . d. Entry onto Ardilla from Traffic Way for traffic going to the on ramp, coming off Precise Plan 36-85 Appeal Page 2 CONCERNS: 1. TRAFFIC FLOW d. (continued) the highway off ramp, going to St. Williams, the high school, the preschool and church on Ardilla as well as previously mentioned areas. e. Traffic exiting 101 onto Traffic Way flowing east and west. This traffic doesnot enter Ardilla but adds to the traffic congestion. f. Traffic north of St. Williams on Ardilla includes the traffic generated by the Empire Inn Motel. g. Added to these described traffic patterns is local resident's daily usage including areas within Atascadero Avenue, Santa Lucia, Venado and west to Portola. b. Traffic control in the vicinity of the proposed 36 units is also inadequate at the present time and would only become more critical with the added traffic input. 1. No stop sign or light is on the section of Ardilla . extending from Atascadero Ave. , to Traffic Way. This allows north moving traffic on Ardilla south of Traffic Way to proceed across Traffic Way without having to stop for traffic coming from Traffic, Ardilla (south bound) , and the off ramp stop. Traffic can also flow against the traffic exiting the St. Williams parking lot area. C. Numbers 10 and 12 of the Conditions of Approval relate to the improvements needed with regard to the road width, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks along the property frontage. If this were completed it would contribute to the traffic flow problems. 1 . At the end of the property lines ' south end the present roadway turns east, thus creating an immediate curve at the end of the required road improvements. The improved road would allow traffic ease but the curve and narrowing of the road would lead to further congestion in a presently congested area. i ` Precise Plan 36-85 Appeal Page 3 CONCERNS: 1 . TRAFFIC FLOW c. 2. (continued) If the planning department required that Ardilla be improved south of the property requiring the straightening of the curve in Ardilla, it would cause the loss of a well established business in Atascadero, the Empire Inn Motel. Removal of the curve would cause the loss of the access road to the Motel. This would leave the Motel without entrance on the Ardilla side and the only alternative entrance would be on Venado Avenue which is not able to accept commercial traffic and certainly is not near to the Highway 101 exit as is Ardilla. Please refer to attached diagrams of the described traffic flow problems related to the Precise Plan 36-85. 2. DRAINAGE a. The Conditions of Approval states that a drainage plan prepared by a Civil Enginneer for review and approval by the Public Works Department. It is our concern that the report stresses that no water from the project is to drain into any adjoining properties. We who have lived here for years real- ize that the soil samples will only confirm that the highest percentage of type of soil in the area is shale. An example of drainage and shale is that if heavy plant watering is done at 5705 Venado it travels to 5764 Venado causing pooling of water on the lower set lot. This lower set lot is directly behind the property involved in the project. One families drainage is one thing, but the drainage from sprinker systems involved in the irrigation of the 36 family project with the addition of normal drainage of rain will without a doubt in our minds cause water to run into the properties adjoining the project properties on the downhill sides. b. The frontage improvement for drainage on Ardilla is also mentioned in the Conditions of Approval. It is our concern that the report includes an evaluation of the entire run-off of water that occurs from downhill roads joining Ardilla north of the site as well as the normal runoff just from Ardilla. Every year this runoff causes large deposites of mud and water to the area that fronts the site. This is an addition to the site drainage. Precise Plan 36-85 Page 4 CONCERNS: 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT a. As stated by the Conditions of Approval, the oak trees with more than an eight inch diameter cannot be removed without special premission. It is obvious to all of us who love the rural environment of the area that very few of the oak trees on the site are less than eight inches in diameter. Also it is very obvious that the plan didnot conserve the existing oaks on the site. All the areas of the proposed plan require destruction of the natural beauty of the site. b. The privacy to adjoining properties will be destroyed. The six foot high fencing required around parking areas doesnot correct this problem. Due to the two story construction of the units and no required retaining walls or fencing at the rear or sides of the site a minimum of ten families will loose their privacy. C. There are no other structures on the street which resemble the proposed structure. When integrated into the present dwellings the proposed structures will "stick out like a sore thumb" . d. The potential for the increase in crime rate with high density dwellings is of concern to all of us. This concern is linked with privacy by the fact that high school age persons living in the structures will undoubtedly cross private property going to and from school due to the poor access to Atascadero Ave. from Ardilla and the ease of access from Venado across Santa Lucia. Not one person living in the structure has the right to cross private properties without permission that is very unlikely to be given. e. Our largest financial investment is our home and its property. The proposed high density dwellings will decrease the market value of our single family dwellings and thus our life time investment, We realize that the developers of this project would never consider the purchase of property for their own homes next to a high density development. f. Our neighborhood is one the City of Atascadero can be proud of. To leave our neighborhood as it is would be a credit to the future planning of neighbor- hoods in the city. 7` Precise Plan 36-85 Appeal Page 5 CONCERNS: 4. SAFETY OF PERSONS LIVING IN HIGH DENSITY DWELLINGS a. The impact of the traffic hazards created by this project will immediately affect each resident of the project. There are no alternatives to this situation without extensive reconstruction of the traffic flow in the area. b. There are not city ordinances guiding the amount of free space or recreational area needed in high density dwellings. However, when one observes the proposed design it becomes apparent that little if any thought was given to a greenbelt recreational area. We are concerned that no apparent attention has been given to recreational areas for children or adults. No statement has been addressed to the naturally occuring plant life as well as to abundance of poison oak at the site. The slope of the access drive is certainly not in the best interest to any recreational activity and safety. C. The families will need outside storage and work areas for non-household goods such as mechanical projects, bikes, recreational vehicles, motorcyles etc. No storage area is included in the proposed plan. 0 d. We are concerned with the quality of life offered to the renter or owners of the proposed condominums. To begin with the appearance of the structures is certainly more like a typical apartment complex than a condonmium housing. This indicates the developers are interested in density not quality of life. From a realistic point of view the persons will be living in 800 square feet, without adequate storage areas, recreational areas, traffic flow or individual privacy. e. 36 single units indicates at least 36 to 144+persons will be living on 2 acres with approximately 400-200 square feet each in which to live. This indicates a transient population in an area with long-time permanent residences. Precise Plan 36-85 Appeal Page 6 ACTION REQUESTS: I . SITE VISITATION To evaluate the extensive impact of this proposed project we feel that a site visitation by the members of the Planning Department is essential. The visitation will also give visibility - to this Appeal' s concerns.- a. During the visit we recommend that the Planning Department considers the following: 1 . The effect of the structures on the current traffic flow situation. 2. The high potential for drainage problems in the lower land areas adjoining the site. 3. The impact of the high density project on the current neighborhood environment regarding the rural atmosphere, tranquility, safety in movement, and privacy. 4. Evaluate the ability of potential dwellers to have adequate recreation space, storage space, and safe traffic flow. 5. The cost involved in the off-site improvements needed to provide adequate traffic flow and drainage. 6. The potential loss of an established business in the City of Atascadero. 7. Review the results of the traffic committee' s review of our concerns submitted to them for evaluation. We realize that to expect the building of a one family dwelling of quality is unrealistic, however, we request that the area of the building site be developed to maintain the neighborhood environment, assure traffic safety, encourage long-time occupancy and prevent high density dwellings and the side affects of such dwellings. The design for this site development cannot be viewed in an isolated manner. It must be viewed as an integrated part of an established, existing neighborhood. The impact of building such a high density development on the life of our present neighborhood would be adverse and we would prefer to see the human consequ nces taken into account when dealing with the total envirommnetal impact. • By planning today for the future tomorrows, you the Planning Department, have the ability to assure the dignity, respectability and positive atmosphere of our neighborhood. Present Road Scale on Ardilla at Empire Motel Entrance Development Empire Inn Ardilla Proposed Road Change Under Conditions of Approval Empire Inn Development Widen area ending at the property line of Empire Inn Ardilla Road narrows Traffic Flow Increase with 36-72 Autos Possible Changes to Prevent Wide to Narrow Roadbed Ardilla Widen e i e area infrouFr of Empire Inn and Development causing loss of access to Empire Inn ATTACHMENT NUMBER 3 TRAFFIC FLOW ILLUSTRATION FOR CONCERN l .c. n Q4 � E .' v o w `I Ix " =� � � ° 3 Q a+ v o o v o 'C� � O�o OO rl U W H 0.;4-) O:a rd —1 r-+ r I U] 4-r U rd r. >-1 >-, '0 -i-) �4 Ucn: �,# M33 F:4E~ � i� rrjy x tZ < aj0 P { 4-4 : rd 4 I ON •4-4.# �4 rl I� O W 0 M O r r ro U) ±l O ism (.� U 5PzoqS sng rd �OOuOg z LIb-CH o le-1 12- UP 4K E- a a n a ro a H x4 3 l a o o w U ) s -+ 0 H ZO H oO N Ems, U x �Ile :E: anuanV.o_ peO� � w z cn Xr-t O •�..� � U m u1 E-4 ri (,t-I a� �.. lc� 4J 4-3 \ o z 0 bi u) Q4 0 o a w U a -j 4a m Z w 4a o O O O 4j r� �:s K� O ,-i O -H O 4-4 4a o ,C: x x x -r-+ 4J H o 10 o Q0 U 44 (Y) 44 r • �4 � i N • z �4 U r R Traffic Way ..W jm� ..r. .ten MM 0 � i • rl w_ wW r14O i ` ..Vrn U] N j �4 o w N +J . o z U � � � ;; o x x o a a a 1 44 za E--4 H �' Q a F14 ?+ 4-s �4 4-4 H 44 O rL4 t O i , � �'t ?i i ADMINISTRATION,BUILDING - POST OFFICE BOX 747 CITY ATTORNEY � ATAS'AOERO,CALIFORNIA 93423 - - POST OFFICE BOX 749 t r { NE:.(805) 466-8000 •ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93423 PHONE: (805( 466-5678 .CITY COUNCIL ' Tia ..-�... CITY CLERK POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY TREASURER ?MANAGER-- � _ INCIpRPORATEOa.IUL�Z'�`t�-979!''"x'" �-�'"y`3 '�'�"'� -,-�f � ��T.OFFICE BOX 747- (Nl(N,C,EEPARjMEN'1` ,,:r. `_ ; ft- =a!`� t � ,ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93423 PHONE: (805) 466.8600 , -,PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT' PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - - - `RECREATION DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93422 PHONE: (805) 466-2141 July 9, 1985 4 1-4 64 7 13 L.W.D. 'Inc. Mr.. Wally, Dunn 1731 San Fernando Road . Atascadero, CA 93422 RE: PRECISE PLAN 36-85 5760 to _5820_ Ardilla- Dear Mr. Dunn: .The City of Atascadero has .received and reviewed your application for- a .Precise Plan and Environmental Determination for approval of a 36 unit single phase condominium development. The proposed site is zone' RMF/16 and the proposed use would be allow- able . as defined as multiple family dwellings (Section 9-3.172 (f) ) . The surrounding properties are zoned RMF/16 to the south, and RSF-Z to the north, east and west. The proposed project is incompliance with the provisions of the Zon- ing Ordinance with the exception of: Section 9-4.142 (d) (1) Grading permit approval A review by the Planning Director of the Environmental Description form and- application along with other .background information shows that the project will have no detrimental effect upon the environment, therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Director has also -found the project to be in compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance with the exception of the section stated above. The proposed Precise Plan is approved as shown on attached Exhibit A (location map) , Exhibit B (site plan) and subject to the conditions of "'approval listed in Exhibit C. Final approval of the precise plan will 'become effective 5:00 p.m. on July 23, 1985, unless appealed. In the event you intend to appeal any of the conditions, your appeal should be in writing and should state the reasons for the appeal. Any appeal would be scheduled for Planning Commission consideration as a public hearing. You should, however, discuss any objections to the conditions with the Planning Staff. r sIf_{.you shoild','have.-anquesions, conernin this. ro 'ect, 9 p 7 you. are wel- come to,.contact- the Planning'3Departme—hE-Ifor`"assistance. F, Sincerely, ./ .. --r res Meorris 9 Assistant Planner MM•ps ccs Herb LaPrade, et al Richard Shannon Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Conditions of Approval v k ~1 Ar 8: 12. S•j,$'8L \/J/ .1 V Iw �� •a. • \•1 // a r�„ tiT; �.#-•Yar+F.:+s" K 4•�.�'- ��° _ . � a•,�, j• b � 1 '� I' ,�� [.• ;1. ^, RMF/10 C4NO. �,,.•.. :,,.° , '�: = RMF/ .� sen U N+k N• Y ''+ •' ><'• �... 14 � ' •�� d row as ` - .� ��' �> \s :. •tr , ''L- [� . •r , + _ _� • rra.i Inas \.9 '•�•', % `- ''•.',�. � �:R •'-j P- \ -f ;r •. z li ) e • .4 ya> f w Fq eY .�: .• ,`•n- ^� ,.4' h'I �": . _ : e 5°y +ri ,., , vto'•• Q� ° >-< 4 '• ::' T,•/E)..,CR..' .�Ar/ y• . -. '•s0 rat:�o.� � h" .. Y, uar+• tl•re i h�; ��i�.• /, •y;\ �l " ,ei q a .',µ..0'0.o ♦ ' it e ? , ��� A•/. ` h`V PQ E• .=,a •,a3 \a Gt's,,,�a 4s " a" 4"910 ;• , f`t./ ^ _+ to to a i ? =e t•g w r�rr. i 6 p t7os 1. O tns oli t a < • sts 34 F r S t 7, u r �. t .r sl•14' 1 i e • ` t " OV'[ 1! i _ • 7t! ram .rye '108 ., 't 1 ! �!t s• ,." { 117 Z q♦,i � .h 10 v • ratio v 'N • 1•• •�� �va eh •' ,'! h L`.p a S hi0 �'1' a't '•i aM.•� •7 •'4 •✓`�, F 10•D .yl•. �� , t.•d' S° 70 �• [• ••+ `j• a a .� �ta '� '�f f:•� :`Lr3G{�. _ b4•f� • `;:•. '� ++� aj•LSF /a •s s . L i + � S � � _ r.! j �• • AC'Y d a\ tem �,.; -• f:�, • L S i'o . .r Y.. br •• •'. :'•• .w G ..,1' ..a•�-• n. ,y >_''ria rb" .• tS. w •�, �e. IL FB 17 Sit ..v� 1 ✓»�.�S.Y �].,�. iD *�� ,ai ,✓�,t •r"u •r :•. (I'Y .lta +✓ •• ``!� t: - �-- �41i6� p•�ai etr ��t 7p•r y+ n` ' re + i• _, •s. f _ :re > o I leo tri 10 O �t••' n ri 1Z8 "•• -ta s i•3•t a� Nu r r.S D yL,li •�l :rot �'" • 1 •VP `'••i u ,3 tl . ^I•' .. •1 r,o -t :1 \ _ 1 [a 4 f • ,•• •Va 1 1.1e .SI .t .� s Via•:�, T .-,•�:.r�+• LSF :! 9S fro Y t- •r+• ! 4j ea o •ar '>> to , ~ :.. •T \ wr .t.-V• .'- • 'p •. h . a• . >• ,> �• t >••iS 7ear v •~•• C•,�•, ci IsJ��``150 ii•• ,t��\ . 46 � 6•• `.° )•.a >.>F�•y� •• •' t y ,'� IS •..r In s• ..:•' •..dJA• 4 _ • •l:�,e. � a � '�'r ;• ,,•.• ,!„ 'es7 .. .. , v'� Y•� Vol.) t n ..-vV •t o ,�,a s• '1•� >•>• S• :ice :ass IO •; - - v fl . M /aa• ,• .,' '' •'y, _� y 7Tsa . /.. S L •,�•• � Std r:a - •:� .°•.` Bt•o '.•,.; .,••,• .t � ` R•r�� . t 60 . . IR • ���`?! .,V,•1"„ •.f•, ..�'t0//ro S'. , as 1' .,,•• a ~' +�, t> • }�. +. us a�a tea. ,\ • � v V V,w • .1•.r • •li a,,•�,• '•ts LSF—) • �� e�Qt. � 'J 15 i . .(V V sj� t \ V�'• v0�w' i�tJ '\ �'\- •• •'• .•� �,�,u �� ���`r�. . V•.1 �,r' � i• K i c 9'• i tree a:•,� clti "AfIx / -' ( ' �►- CITY OF ATASCADE-1-tO ,Z �.;;;1• �- - )`�\4 . .. Planning,,, Departniciit tprk�n�„4 \ I Elf i .7' Ike ilrilUlar i>:�t� _ � �S Yki: i - / .. - t Wi •ii���e„ v . MM . !! V • •! '• 6 c i �I ja t 12 fa 40 o 0 1 r '` \ { \ I ��s �_` ��,� � *' ,��✓ � �_�'- `� � ma=r `I '. .� � I '� - l oto i �-• t�� � .. j• <oD�.�� I 1 El am Lj 7 kc -QL f�I ! LC�' S. •{ I I '{I+ ,, a� 1t , Yl a3+ 1 - 3 � i.•ii � R� :t l._L .i, / I �Y,;' Ca vi I i o�y� . EXHIBIT C Conditions ;APProval 'Prec ise Plan f_36-85gr . . 5760 to 5820 Ardilla Road - (L.W.D. Inca/Laprade/Shannon) 1. -All construction shall be in conformance with Exhibit B (site plan) , and Exhibit C (conditions of approval) , and all other ap- plicable codes and ordinances of the City of Atascadero. 2. Complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to, and subsequently approved by, the Planning Department prior to issu- ` ance of building permits (see Section 9-4.124 of the Zoning Ordi- £-nance) . The following items shall be noted or detailed on these s plans a. All areas including setbacks, parking lots, and unused areas shall be landscaped appropriatelyasper Section 9-4.125 (a) . b. Concrete curbing, or a functional equivalent, shall be pro- .-vided to enclose all required landscaping-. c. All existing trees with a diameter of eight (8) inches or `'more shall be shown. Trees which are to be removed shall be , noted as such. ' d. Proposed landscaping shall be accompanied with a planting schedule which includes species, container sizes, number of plants or flats, and the space distribution of ground covers. e. A trash enclosure shall be provided with appropriate details as per Section 9-4.129. , Please note that the construction standards require the bottom of the trash enclosure area to be concrete or an equivalent impervious material. i,- f. ' Parking areas which * abut an adjacent residential area shall be screened with solid fencing six (6) feet in height. g. Handicapped parking stalls shall be appropriately striped, marked, and posted as per Section 9-4.115 (c) . 3. Parking shall be designed according to Sections 9-4.117 and 9-4.118 on parking design standards. 4. Trash enclosures shall be located within 100 feet of each building (per Section 9-4.129) . 5. A lot merger shall be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. . A lot merger can be accomplished at .time of the tract map and its recordation with the County Recorder ' s Office. 6. Grading shall be redesigned so as to minimize site disturbance (per Section 9-4.142 (d) ) . The revised grading plan shall include details on the following: Jt�`*S ' a. Eliminate fill area <to the west of the driveway. Retaining walls shall be used to reduce cut and fill along driveway. b. Retaining walls along the back of the site shall be eliminated. 7. Prior to issuance of any permits, a tree protection plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department showing trees to be ,removed-and retained. Plans shall also . include methods for protection, of trees during grading ,and construction as well as of ter the completion of the project. 8. One , newmfire hydrant 'is to be installed in the landscape area at ,,the°entrance, to the farthest parking lot 9. The one fire hydrant existing at the driveway entrance on Ardilla shall. be upgraded to meet City standards. `10., � Install curb, gutter, and five foot sidewalk, and paveout along the property .frontage. Submit road improvement plans designed . by a registered civil en- gineer for review and approval by the Public Works Department. - 120, The pavement width of Ardilla Road .from curb face to centerline shall be 15 feet. 13. tt is. the applicant's sole responsibility to have removed or relo- cated or brought ;to grade any public utility facilities that may conflict with the approved road improvement plan. 14. Submit a drainage plan prepared by a Civil Engineer for review and .approval by the Public Works Department. 15. `Submit design, details, and calculations for a. storm water deten- tion basin. Construction of the detention basin and any on-site drainage structures shall be certified by the designing engineer prior to final inspection. 16. Wastewater disposal shall be by connection to the public sewer. 17. Submit sewer main extension plans prepared by a registered civil engineer. The sewer shall be extended from the end of the main to the westernmost property line. 18. Provide a downstream capacity sewer analysis prepared by a regis- tered civil engineer indicating the, effect that this project will have on the existing sewer lines during peak flow. 19. An. in-lieu sewer connection - fee of $26.35 per fixture unit shall be due in addition to usual connection, tap-in,' and installation fees. 20. Obtain a sewer connection permit from the Public Works Department blic Prigr to hooking usewer: p to�pp 2OV 1;"Obtain an encroachment prior to beginning work in the public _�.4 ` right-of-way. Sign an inspection agreement and a curb and gutter " - agreement guaranteeing that the work will be done and inspections paid for. 22. This precise plan is approved for one year from the date of final approval (July 23, 1985) . 0 ADOPTED JUNE 27, 19 ZON INC*=' Cr t219 ; tQPI SPL_ , In the event that a propose3 use is found by the Plan- ning Director (or by the Planning Commission or City Council in an appeal) , to be not equivalent to any listed use, the proposed use shall not be allowed. -1.1 0 . Public Hearings: When a public hearing before the Plan- ing C mission or the City Council is required by this Title, su earing all be conducted as follows: (a) No 'ce of Hearing: Notice of a public hearing shal incl e the time and place of the hearing, a gener 1 descri tion o the request, the location of the site, atY any addi tional i formation which the Planning /aear eems appro- priate. uch notice shall be given at (10) days before the earing by first class mailage prepaid to all perso whose names and addresson the last equalized asse sment roll as owning prhin three hundred feet fr the exterior boundarparcel whi h is the subject of the hearing. Such nl also be published at least nce at least ten 10) days before the hearing in a newspap of general c ' culation, published an circulated in the City or if theEg is none, it shall be posted in at least thre public aces in the City. (1) If the number of notic s equired is greater than 1,00C , as an alternative to th notice required by 9-1.110 (a) such notice shall be g ' e at least ten days prior to hearing by placing a ispla advertisement of at least' , one-fourth page in newspaper of general circulation in the City or by pla ng an insert with any generalized mailing by the Ci , such as biding for City services to property owne s in the area re uired to be notified. (2) Persons filin a written request to receive any such n - tice shall b given notice by first ass mail. A fee may be char,Eed to recover the cost of uch mailing. (b) Schedulin of/Hearing: When an application �s been ac- /licable, as c plete for processing, received stiff review, a d en ation on the Environmental Determinat-\iron or Envi - 1 mpact Report has been completed, it shall be sched- uledpublic hearing on the next available Plank ng Com- a agenda reserved for such matters. Appeals shall be d on the Planning Commission or City Council 'agenda, icable, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the, ap-, public hearing on an application or appeal may bed to a date specific without providing additional 9-1.111. A eal: Decisions of the Planning Department or Plan- ning Commission may be appealed by an applicant or any aggrieved per- son, including the Planning Commission and the City Council, and indi- vidual members thereof. An appeal shall be filed in the form of a �- 1-6 ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 letter setting forth the reasons for the appeal. An appeal shall be accompanied by any fees required. Appeal fees shall not be required for appeals initiated by the Planning Commission or the City Council. -% When an appeal has been filed, the Planning Director will prepare a report on the matter and schedule the appeal for consideration by the appropriate body within thirty (30) days of receipt of the appeal. The hearing body may affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the action, decision or determination which is the subject of the appeal, based u on findings of fact regarding the particular case. Such findings shall identity the reasons for -the action on the appeal, and verify the compliance or non-compliance of the subject of the appeal with the provisions of this Title. Appeals relating to matters which are re- solvable through adjustment, variance or amendment of this Title, shall be processed according to the procedures of Section 9-1. 112, 9-1.113, 9-1.114 and 9-1. 115 , respectively. (a) Planning Department Actions: Determinations on the meaning or applicability of the provisions of this Title which are believed to be in error, and cannot be resolved with staff, and any decision of the Planning Department to approve or deny an application may be appealed to the Planning Commis- sion. The Planning Department shall provide the Planning Commission and City Council with notification of its actions. Appeals shall be filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission within fourteen days after the decision of the Planning Department. The appeal will be decided by the Plan- ning Commission following a public hearing conducted in ac- cordance with Section 9-1.110 (Public Hearing) . (b) Planning Commission Decisions: Any decision of the Plan- ning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by filing a letter of appeal with the City Clerk within fourteen (14) days of the action of the Planning Commission. The Planning Department shall provide the City Council with notification of Planning Commission actions. Appeals will be decided by the City Council following a public hearing conducted pursu- ant to Section 9-1. 110 (Public Hearing) . . 12. Adjustment: (a) W Allowed: When a standard of Chapters 9-4 9-6 identi_`f�s specific circumstances under w z reduction of the standa`�,is appropria=ssing: � may request an ad- justment to thtandard. �a (b) Application Filingand Rxadjustment request shall be filed with th fanning Department as an attachment to the project app ation, an�shall include appropriate supporting mate ' "ls. The request=-shall specify the standard requested fo djustment and documen'-tthe manner in which the proposed ject qualifies for the adjustment. A request for adjust t shall not be accepted for processnr��by the Plan- nin epartment unless the request is within the e of - �' ustments prescribed in the standard. A request for 1-7 AnOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 9-2.108. Precise Plan. Precise Plan approval is required when a development or use of land is listed in a particular zoning aistricz� as an Allowable Use and when it is determined by the Planning Director that the development project, or the establishment of a use of land !� which is not a development project, isnot eligible for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21084 and the State EIR Guidelines. Precise Plans consider the greater effects such uses may have upon their surroundings, and the characteristics of ad- jacent uses which could have detrimental effects upon a proposed use. The preparation and processing of a Precise Plan shall be as follows: (a) Precise Plan Content. Precise Plan applications shall in- clude an application prepared as specified in Section 9-2.107 (Plot Plan) , as well as the following: (1) Preliminary Floor Plan. For all structural uses ex- cept single family residences and agricultural accessory buildings; and (2) Architectural Elevations. For all structural uses except single family residences and agricultural acces- sory buildings. Elevations, renderings or perspectives of each proposed • structure shall be provided, identi- fying all exterior finish and roofing materials; and (3) Drainage Plan. When required by Section 9-4.148 (Drainage) or overlay district requirements; and (4) Landscaping Plan. To be prepared as required by sec- tion 9-4. 124 (Landscaping, Screening and Fencing) , for all uses, except single family residences and agricul- tural accessory buildings; and (5) Contour Map. To be prepared as follows, except when a grading plan is required by Section 9-4.138 (Grading) : (i) Inside Urban Services Line. Site contour infor- mation shall be provided at five-foot intervals for undeveloped areas and two-foot intervals for build- ing sites and paved or graded areas. (ii) Outside Urban Services Line. Site contour infor- mation shall be provided at ten-foot. intervals, which may be interpolated from USGS Topographic Quadrangel Maps, for undeveloped areas, and at two- foot intervals for building sites and paved or graded areas. 2-6 i ! 0 ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 (iii) Areas in excess of 30% slope may be designated as such and contours omitted, unless proposed for grading, construction or other alteration. (6) Supplementary Development Statement. Shall include a phasing schedule for project construction if one is pro- posed and identification of any areas proposed to be reserved and maintained as common open space. Applica- tions for Special uses (Chapter 9-6) shall include ex- planation of how the applicable provisions of Chapter 9-6 will be met. (b) Precise Plan Processing. Precise Plan applications shall be submitted to the Planning Department and shall be pro- cessed as follows: (1) Environmental Determination. A Precise Plan applica- tion accepted for processing as set forth in Section 9-2.102 (Determination of Completeness) shall receive an environmental determination as required by the Califor- nia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . The Planning De- partment shall process the application concurrently with the environmental determination. . (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; and (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 tii ADOPTED JUNE 27, 19* describe the proposed use and explain how interested people may obtain additional information about the pro- ject. The notice shall inform the property owners in the vicinity of a Precise Plan proposal of their oppor- tunities to review, comment upon, and appeal the approv- al of the project, if desired. (4) Review and Approval. The Planning Director shall ap- prove a Precise Plan application at the end of the pub- lic notice period when the proposed project or use sat- isfies all applicable provisions of this Title. The approval shall become effective for the purpose of issu- ance of a building or grading permit, or establishment of a use not involving construction, fourteen (14) days after the notice has been sent, unless an appeal is filed with the Planning Department as set forth in Sub- section (b) (5) . (5) Appeal of Precise Plan Decision. Any aggrieved person may appeal a decision on a Precise Plan application as set forth in Section 9-1. 111 (Appeal) ; provided that the only basis for an appeal, or action on an appeal by the Planning Commission or City Council shall be whether the proposed use satisfies all applicable provisions of this Title. I9 Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit is the• rocess used to review land use proposals of a nature or magn' de which uld significantly affect their surroundings. Because the intensit of such uses, public review and input into cisions on whether to a rove such proposals is needed. That inpu is given in a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Th Conditional Use Permit is a discretionary approval and the P ning Commission may approve or disapprov a Conditional Use Permi or may adopt additional conditions of approval. Conditional Use P mit applications may be denied by the Planning Com Sion because of specific findings identi- fied through public hearing tetimon or because of provisions of this Title. When Conditional Use Perm' approval is required to authorize a use by Chapter 9-3 (Zoningistr' ts) , preparation and processing of the application shall be s follows: (a) Conditional Use Permit Content. The oontent of a Condi- tional Us Permit application is to be-the same ,as required for Prec ' e Plan use by Section 9-2. 108 (a) -° �� (b) Con tional Use Permit Processing. Conditional Use�Permit plications shall be submitted to the Planning De-iar-tment and shall be processed as follows: 2-8 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING CITY ATTORNEY POST OFFICE BOX 747 POST OFFICE BOX 749 ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93423 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIAA X3423 PHONE: (805) 466.8000 PHONE: (805) 466.5678 CITY COUNCIL NZL2!!!� CITY CLERK ^CITY TREASURERPOLICE DEPARTMENT 47 CITY MANAGER POST OFFICE BOX IA -� ATASCHONE: CALIFORNIA 93423 FINANCE DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805) 466-8600 PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT »+ PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT RECREATION DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93422 PHONE: (805) 466-2141 August 13, 1985 Signed Supporters of Precise Plan 36-85 Appeal Thank you for familiarizing me with your concerns regarding traffic flow and drainage relative to the above referenced pro- ject. I will, via a copy of this letter, a-ddress those concerns to Henry Engen, Planning Director on a point-by-point review of your July 20 letter to me. (1. ) Traffic Flow (a) Capacity of streets and highways .-are usually described as the number of vehicles per lane per hour for a particular level of service. The number of vehicles can be determined by calculations. The Level of Service is not easily measured and is a relative term. Levels A through E are used with Level A being free flow and Level E being conjested flow. Ardilla generally would be considered to operate at Level B however, a good case can be made that at it's intersection with Traffic Way the Level of Service is Level C. I will assume Level C in my discussions. Streets are usually adjusted to growth instead of growth adjusted to the street. However, it would -be desirable that a street such as Ardilla would maintain at least Level of Service C throughout its design life. The 36 units would normally be assumed to generate 7 trips per unit per day. Personally I feel that 10 trips p-er day per unit is more accurate. The additional traffic therefore would be approximately 360 vehicles per day (ADT) . Design capacity is tied to a traffic term called Design Hourly Volume (DHV) . The DHV in this area would be about 10% of the ADT or about 36 vehicles at the design hour. This is a two-way volume and the directional volume here would be assumed to be about 60% of the DHV (called the DDHV) , or about 22 vehicles per hour in the heavier traveled lane. Now to compare this to what the street will handle (without parking) . A Level of Service C in this area is assumed to handle from 300 to 500 vehicles per hour per 12 ',foot lane. Since there are several potential conflicts near Traffic Way I_ will assume 300 VPH per lane. Although no traffic counts are available for Ardilla or Traffic Way the capacity of Ardilla would be approxi- mately 3000 vehicles per day (ADT) and the DDHV would be about 180 vehicles per hour per heavier lane. Using the above rationale it would appear that as a worse case, the proposed development could increase the traffic by about 12% at the critical flow time. The result could mean that three cars would try to exit onto Traffic Way from Ardilla in a one minute time period, or in other words a car would have about 20 seconds to get into the main flow. If it actually took 20 seconds consistantly to make that move the Level of Service would probably go to Level D and a traffic signal may be warranted. I would anticipate that it would take about a 100% increase in traffic to get to that level of service. It is not unrealistic to assume, however, that as development continues on Ardilla that the above situation could occur before the auildout year for the City. It is my conclusion that the existing streets, if brought in conformance with City Standards, are adequate to carry the traffic that will be generated by this development, and that this development standing alone will not have a significant impact on the future level of service. (b) (1) I have contacted Mr. William Heath, Area Traffic Engineer for Caltrans. He said that there is no hazardous rating for the on-and-off ramps at Traffic Way and Highway 101. Although there is some congestion at peak hours, the ramps are not considered a safety problem. (2) There is a conflicting movement as indicated. Bus traffic is generated at specific times of the day and usually peak at hours different than the traffic discussed above. Caution should be emphasized during these times of potential con- flict which will have an affect on the level of service that can be enjoyed. (3) This adds to the concern addressed in (2) above and although there may not be an immediate cause for concern there most likely will be by the buildout year. (4) Traffic that will continue north on Ardilla would benefit from this, but the right hand turn movement, which is also the through movement from Santa Lucia, would suffer a decrease in level of service. It may be appropriate to have a Yield sign at this location. Perhaps this is an issue that could be best addressed by the newly formed Traffic Committee. 2 (5) Perhaps a Stop Ahead sign on the north leg of Ardilla would improve the safety of the combination of events as described. I would further suggest that"a Hidden Drive sign be placed prior to the Empire Motel driveway. Also, I would suggest the removal of brush and other growth on the bank of the above drive in order to improve sight distance for the vehicles a exit- ing the motel. This should be adequate and not require the widening of Ardilla into the drive. A stop sign should be erected at the drive entrance to Ardilla. (c) There is no question that more cars visit units than for which there are offstreet spaces. If this occurs when all the spaces are actually being used, particularly at night, then the vehicles overflow into the street. The developer is required to widen the street which will accommodate a few vehicles along his frontage. This will not be convenient for visitors since the development is at a much higher elevation than the street level. If parking becomes a safety problem, however, No Parking areas would be a viable correction. The owner could choose to alleviate a 'potent_ial problem here by providing additional off street parking fo.j_ visitors. It should be noted that guest parking is required at the rate of 1 space for the site plus 1 for each 4 units or fraction thereof. (2) Drainage (a) If it can be shown that sprinkling or increased runoff (prior to acceptance by a detention basin) will add to the problem already recognized, then the developer should propose a way to alleviate the concern. Creative landscaping, underdrains or other methods may be appropriate. Staff has conditioned a drainage plan to be submitted for review. Until that plan is received and studied I am not in a position to comment further. (b) There is evidence of the erosion indicated from the church drive and the surrounding area. An erosion control plan should be conditioned for this project. The existing properties should also be encouraged to provide similar controls. In addition to the above drainage concerns I suggest that the roadside ditch along the subject frontage be cleaned and that some offsite channeling be provided to meet the culvert south of the drive location. I hope that I have adequately addressed your concerns. I believe your concerns are real and need to be brought out. On the other hand, the concerns appear to be ones that can be adequately addressed in relationship to the proposed development. As future development occurs it may be harder for me to remain neutral on the safety issues and signalization or other traffic control may have to be provided. Again, adjusting growth to the street is a political issue and I am only in a position to adjust 3 the street to the growth. Sincerely PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH Director of Public Works/City Engineer PMS/vjh cc: Mike Shelton, City Manager Henry Engen, Planning Director George Wolfrank, Sr. Civil Engineer ` pp3685 - 4 July 20, 1985 Paul Sensibaugh Public Works Department Traffic Committee City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA. 93422 Dear Mr. Sensibaugh, We, the residents, in the area neighboring the land re- lated to the Precise Plan 36-85 of the Planning Department, recognize the right of the individual to develop his property as he sees fit within the law, but we also recognize that this right must be exercised with a concern for the safety and well being of the permanent residences of the affected areas. It--is with this thought in mind that we present to you the following concerns: CONCERNS 1. TRAFFIC FLOW a. The streets in the vicinity of -the proposed single phase condominium development are not adequate to carry the quantity and type of traffic generated. b. The total impact of adding 36-72 autos to the current traffic patterns of the following areass needs to be evaluated and documented: 1 . Effect on the Cal-Trans rated hazardous Traffic Way off and on ramps to Highway 101 . 2. Entry onto Ardilla from Santa Lucia in relationship to the high school and commuter traffic including the movement of busses to and from the storage area on Santa Lucia. 3. Entry onto Ardilla in relationship to traffic related to St. Williams ' Church parking lot usage for ride sharing, the Christian Bible School, new multiple dwellings on Atascadero Avenue, the playschool on Ardilla, and the Assembly of God Church on Ardilla. 4. Lack of stop sign on the section of Ardilla paralleling the 101 on ramp. 5. Congestion of traffic entering Ardilla from Santa Lucia, Traffic Way, and Atascadero Ave. during peak rush hours, and traffic entering from the site of concern and then the narrowing of Ardilla by the entrance to the Empire Motel and the stop sign on Ardilla just after this property. C. Potential for visitors parking on Ardilla with relationship to total effect on traffic flow. � I1 Public Works Department Traffic Committee Page 2 CONCERNS: 2. DRAINAGE a. The type of road surface and the potential run-off caused by the shale and road surface material in relationship to the potential run-off is of concern. The off-site problem related to the run off caused by sprinklers and natural rain fall through the shale to the adjoining lower elevation properties is of grave concern to these properties owners. b. Drainage coming down Ardilla includes the run-off from tributary roadways north of the building site. This traditionally causes mud pools to form at the base of the site on the Ardilla side. Adding any additional run-off to the current situation is of . concern:. We continue our efforts to control the number of dwellings developed on the site through this letter of concerns. We thank you for considering our concerns during the exercise of your authority. Sincerely, Signed Supporters of Precise Plan 36-85 Appeal. We, the undersigned, support the Precise Plan 36-85 Appeal as stated in the attached letter to the Planning Department of the City of Atascadero. DATE NAMEs� ADDRESS TELEPHONE # 7- .20 7 - - pJ— � �� S70_S OE-NDO U�lo-ro-1S�. � �� !�>3L C / , i �f . !� /1% ��', r✓i�C1/ � !/.� �' ��,,�`�L/(.�� � f- � _�-`•�.moi S. 7- ;/,-)C' i.Qy2l� .sees A45414,Oo -lab 6- 3�y� 7k /�514�j./� Sseo a.�.d.�,a.. 71g0y �� Pt� 5 Q'�r�a. �6� 3yi9 We, the undersigned, support the Precise Plan 36-85 Appeal as stated in the attached letter to the Planning Department of the City of Atascadero. DATE NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # C 1 • o ! ° � 5 > .� 'u w a a r A -1 4-444 4-1 � � 4a 3 X 00 O ri In 4J a r I ri r oic -4 0 4-) O fu O O H W Ej N 4J 14 U) v m j & tea, O14 a 4J N 44 4. 14 r-1 i O W 0 h C:) . � U � � 3 A 1 � ri 3a 2 � a m u, W )4 - Z p0-. O 3 3 O O V) FL-dogs Srig G`, 'O ToubTH off E+ I ~ o r H ai i ai o o 0 U � s r+ a H { 0 W 1 D4 E j Y EHE q E- � a ascn W z oil, E- e a O \m �T_� �anPp� : �` w 'm W � a E-+ br a! 114 O E.., J V1 �+ • o U) . cn 0 o ra o r444 4-4 w a o i o p 0O O +� r0 O r-j O O 4-4 4-4 its I4 >-t ro >1 a r < ✓ 14 r r, 3 0 'a O cr) Q > . + E N Q1 ro r` L4 ty. zs t O U 44 rn U) 4-4 Q C � O 03 i (� z U) zo Traffic Way c z i z -14 a c 1 _ U) F ' �4C4 ZT J�x C crs O i 44 3 z C) ro >1 W 4 U f-1 44 C >r y4 —4; s., (_N.� � q W ` d Present Road Scale on Ardilla at Empire Motel Entrance Development Empire Inn Ardilla Proposed Road Change Under Conditions of Approval Empire Inn Development Widen area ending at the property line, of Empire Inn Ardilla Road narrows Traffic Flow Increase with 36-72 Autos 0 Possible Changes to Prevent Wide to Narrow Roadbed Ardilla Widen e i e area infrom of Empire Inn and Development causing loss of access to Empire Inn ATTACHMENT NUMBER 3 TRAFFIC FLOW ILLUSTRATION FOR CONCERN 1 .c. n, i /a !."�INCORPORgTED JULY 2, 1979 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION (To be completed by applicant) This form is being used to obtain information concerning your project. The information you supply will be used to make a determination as to whether any significant adverse environmental impacts may result from the proposed project. This form should be submitted to the Planning Department for evaluation in conjunction with your application. It is to your advantage to see that all the necessary information is supplied and is accurate. If the information is inaccurate or not sufficient, you will be required to submit additional information upon request. For Office Use Only: Applicant Name _L / —� p File No./Primary Address f 7 -3f SHN /'�✓��/�� /� Entitlement: Phone Contact Person // n Name ,l a l�9 C�' �;U(ai�/•� /, Proposal Title: Addr_e s s f 7- / ^A/ /-C,rv�},v�f c AOr, Phone `76 Description of Project: 36 tIA;it Legal Description of Property: Z-04 1 7 J L r 161 Assessor' s Parcel Number: �� -70 -2-7/ C- 6 7/ 0 3 A. GENERAL INFORi-1ATION: 1. 14ill this project produce odors , steam, vapors, or Yes NoAl waste? 2 . Is the project to utilize an individual subsurface Yes No sewage system? (if yes , complete Section C of this form) Initial Study Env ' ronmental Description _0 3. Is the project to be connected to existing sewer Yes)LNo lines? (if yes , complete Section D of this form) 4. Do you contemplate constructing sewage treatment Yes No facilities? -4 5 . Will industrial waste be discharged? (if yes , co_m- Yes No plete Sections D and F of this form) 6. Will this project have onsite water softening Yes No regeneration? 7 . Site Information: If more detail is needed, attach sheet. a. Terrain: Level to gently rolling, 0-10% slopes ( , Acres slopes of 10-30% J. Acres steep slopes over 30% 0 Acres b . Hydrology: springs, streams , lakes, or marshes Yes Nok on the site Describe: c. .Proposed grading and land changes v _J,C Iffe /0 flA fop< g, IWI�O d. Vegetation: All natural vegetation already re- Yes No x moved or altered Natural vegetation will be GveR ,fo j. YesX No undisturbed — Significant tree-cutting or YesxNo vegetation removal proposed (describe number of trees , area affected, etc.) 7 eeS' to 3cz /^c' /'/1 a v 2d wl l/ 'c' zt/e e. Are uses on adjacent properties similar to those Yes-'X_-NO proposed on the project site? Different use. Describe YO f. Describe any other unique or significant features of the /� site: v'ij4 i"o"off c; 1.1 vuve?f?Xe, �n/�4' ':zitial Study Env onmental Description -3 8 . If you think the project will not or cannot have any signifi- cant environmental effects , indicate your reasons below: 9 . Are any of the following being submitted with this environmental description? a. Grading Plan Yes No b. Drainage Plan Yes No 1. Slope map YesNo 2 . Contour map Yes No C. Vegetation Pap YesNo 1. Trees to be removed Yes±No 2 . Trees to be replaced YesNo 3 . Trees to be planted Yes±No__ If yes to c. (1) , (2) , or ( 3) describe : d. Landscaping plan Yes / e . Building plan Yes —No 10. Amenities in project, such as park areas , open space, common recreation facilities, natural area. Describe: _�"�� 7,�? J zL a2(zcl _N_ .A��-,,4/ "4J 4-osslyle 11. Are there any proposed signs and/or lighting? Describe: Y 12. Are there any proposed or existing deed restrictions? Yes No--'�- If yes , describe: a. nature of restrictions b . administrative responsibility T C. maintenance responsibility l Initial Study Env' ronmental Description - - 13 . Potential impact on community services : a. Number of school children in project /V-1 N �/' �►le c School district 7e ,ql� b. Need for police service y e—i Location of nearest station 41 Z &Sor, - Alm., J;�. Response time (in minutes) /✓1 Iry�lt,S C. Need for fire protection Y e:j Location of nearest station 41 / ve� uc? Response time (in minutes) 2 _ r�;i�rJ B. WATER: 1. Water Supply Existing system Yes-&-No New system with permit required Yes No-y- 2 . Source Well p Surface }` Yes No )( Imported Yes —No 3. What is the use of the water? Domestic Residential YesXNo Type: (Homes, apartments , trailer park) OQ,AjCi-;,,,n„�� � Commercial Yes No Type: (Food estab. , shop, etc. ) Industrial '-ion-:-Domestic Yes NoN Type: (Agricultural, processing, recreational) 4 . Is there sufficient water available for this use? I Yes-Y-No Present Maximum Capability 1 ,000000 g,p.d. Maximum pressures at maximum demand psi 5. Number of service connections required for the project. 27 6. Population served O 7 . Does water meet Health Department quality reqs-irements? Bacteriological Yes ✓INo Chemical Yes No Physical Yes ✓ No Water Analysis Report submitted Yes /` No ` _iiitial Study Env*nmental Description -5 C. SUBSURFACE SEWAGE TREATMENT: I f /� • l.: Has an engineered percolation test been accomplished? Yes Nod 2 . \Has conclusion been stated as to the suitability of Yes /No idual systems? 3. conclusion been stated 'as to the amount of re- /Yes No quire sq. ft. of bottom area of leaching lines per 100 ga Tons of septic tank capacity? 4 . Has a co clusion been stated as to the amount o re- Yes No quired sq. ft. of sidewalk of seepage pitsper 100 gallons of eptic tank capacity? 5 . Is the area ( arcel, lot, etc. ) of sufficient size to Yes No provide an are equal to 1000 of original installa- tion to provide or expansion? j 6 . What is the depth f the water table?/ 7 . What is the quality f any shall9w (in relation to existing ground evalu ions) water table? Explain: B . Is there a portion of the lot s) that is unsuitable for individual installations due to soil or g ologic conditions , slope, etc? Yes No If yes , please explain: i 9 . What is "the distance to the nearest sewer\\hne? ft. 10 . What i� the distance to any neighboring water \wells? ft. 11. Will subsurface drainage result in the effluent r1q- Yes No appearing on adjacent lands? 12 ./Will subsurface drainage result in the possibility \Yes No of effluent reappearing in surface water? \� D. SEWAGE TREATIMENT FACILITY (WASTE TREATMENT) : 1. What is the capacity of existing (or new) sewage fyo,,o CO,o g.p.d. treatment facilities? Initial Study En*onmental Description - 2 . What is the present maximum flow of existing sewage 87QO00 g.p.d. treatment facilities? 3 . What is the amount of the proposed flow? C g,p,d* 4 . Describe the type of treatment and disposal: R f P N — OX7l N 01,) //,,S r 5. Does. the existing collection, treatment and disposal Yes-KNo system have adequate additional capacity to accept the proposed flow? 6 . Do you have letters or documents from the facility Yes No operator verifying all of the above? E. SOLID WASTE: 1. What is the type of solid waste? Domestic /\ Industrial Agricultural Other 2 . What is yardage per capita per day? 3. What type of storage? Dumpster - Single Containers Other 4 . Do .you have a storage site? Yes-XNo 5 . Where is the waste disposal storage in relation to buildings 1 6 . Have you made arrangements for collection? t YesX—No F. COj%UIERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS : Describe project: ^ �/� iitial Study Env nmental Description -7 1. Are-" any emissions (gases , smoke, odors , fumes , Yes No vap0"Nthere j 2. Do you anticipate that this project will increase tlYe /Yes No noise leve in the immediate vicinity? ;! 3 . Anticipated s rces of noise: 4 . Will shielding be provide for p entially hazardous Yes No operations (including heat, ra ation, light & noise). If yes , describe: x %/ �\ 5 . Will protection be-- provided for stooge of hazardous Yes No materials? 6 . What specific wastes are produced? G. VECTOR CONTROL: (insects rodents etc. 1. Are recreational lakes being planned for the project? Yes No'Z_ 2 . Are there adequate facilities for cleaning and dispo- Yes No V" sal of fish parts? 3 . Are there any swamps, wet lands, salt marshes , springs ,Yes No or wilderness areas adjacent to the project? 4 . Are there any irrigated pastures on or adjacent to Yes No ,) the project? 5 . Are there any sewer ponds on or adjacent to the pro Yes No ject? 6 . Are there any waste disposal sites on or adjacent to Yes No .Z the project? 7 . Are there any plans for drainage on and from the Yes�( No project? - 8. Are there any plans for controlling standing water Yes No in borrow pits , drainage ditches , curb drains , etc? 9 . Are there any Flood Control Projects on or adjacent Yes No to the project? Initial Study En*onmental Description - 10 . Are there any feed lots , poultry operations , dairies Yes Nol horse stables, hog ranches , rabbitries , or other animal operations adjacent to or within a mile of the project? 11. Are there any animal manure stockpiles on or near the Yes No project? 12 . Is there any extensive fruit and/or vegetable harvest- Yes No ing near the project? 13 . Are there any food producing plants near the project? Yes No If you answered "yes" to any of the above questions, please explain: 14 . Are there plans for weed abatement? Yes 4No If yes, what materials are to be used? � ' eeS 7 e,,C 15. Are there special plans for handling refuse? Yes No 410 If yes, describe: I have completed this Initial Study and the information contained is accurate to the best of my knowledge. Date Signature 4,41-y" Name (Printed) Address v 'L vL- - Phone- ! . V1 •o to N 11 'to loi • APPENDIX G SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS A project will normally have a significant- effect on the environment if it will: (a) Conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located; (b) Have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect; (c) Substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species; (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; (e) Breach published national, state, or local standards relating to solid waste or litter control; (f) Substantially degrade water quality; (g) Contaminate a public water supply; (h) Substantially degrade or deplete ground water resources; (i) Interfere substantially with ground water recharge; (j) Disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic archaeological site or a property of historic or cultural significance to a community or ethnic or social group; or a paleontological site except as a part of a scientific study; (k) Induce substantial growth or concentration of population; (1) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system; (m) Displace a large number of people; (n) Encourage activities which result in the use of large amounts of fuel, water, or energy; (o) Use fuel, water, or energy in a wasteful manner; (p) Increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas; (q) Cause substantial flooding, erosion or siltation; x (r) Expose people or structures to major geologic hazards; (s) Extend a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development; (t) Substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife or plants; 'L (u) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community; (v) Create a potentialublic health hazard or involve the use, production or disposal P Po of materials which pose a hazard to people or animal or plant populations in the area affected; (w) Conflict with established recreational, educational, religious or scientific uses of the area; (x) Violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (y) Convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use or impair the agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land. (z) Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. a L i 1 1 - 1 ` I �I7i �14 X11 �1 _ R ^� 1 I ' B-2 • MEMO TO City Council FROM Interim Finance Director DATE September 9 , 1985 SUBJECT Revenue Sharing Public Hearing Prior to Final Passage of Fiscal Year 1985-86 Budget RECOMMENDATION: That a public hearing be held in connection with the proposed expenditure of $769,900 in revenue sharing funds for capital projects as listed on pages 16 and 17 of the Proposed Budget for fiscal year 1985-86 . DISCUSSION: Revenue sharing regulations require that a public hearing be held prior to the final passage of the annual budget. Purpose of the hearing is to give citizens the opportunity to comment on the relationship of revenue sharing funds to the entire budget. This hearing has been properly noticed. • i' BUDGET STUDY SESSION SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER ?, 1985 FOLLOW-UP SUMMARY I. Council discussion regarding General Fund unappropriated ending fund balance: Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$89,000 Less: Library Contribution re: City/County Agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $27,000 Additional Public Safety Overtime. . . . . . .$15, 000 Outside Organization Requests:* Chamber of Commerce. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$18, 000 Business Improvement Association. . . . .$ 5,000 Action for Animal Rights. . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 7,000 Senior Citizens United. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 5,000 Family Services Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 300 Hospice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 300 Hotline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 300 E.M.S.A/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,700 ©,2.00 �9;soo- Add to Council Contingency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Total =. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -0- Note: Outside Requests - No new allocations (same as last year) with exception of Business Improvement Association. Council noted outside requests traditionally funded with Revenue Sharing Funds, and with likely loss of Revenue Sharing Funds next year, Councill will need to reevaluate donation policy. II. New and Expanded Service Level • Add: Microfiche Reader/Printer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3 ,000 III . Zoo Market Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3 ,000 Zoo Consultant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 3, 000 1 Other discussion: Refrigeration System ($18,000) Food Room - Total= . . . . . .$45, 000 Staff to prepare report, review with Park and Recreation Commission and make recommendations to Council at quarterly Budget Update Meeting. Zoo Master Plan to be prepared, reviewed with Parks and Recreation Commission, with report to Council. IV. Pavilion: Requested formation of Subcommittee to include City represent- atives. City representation requested: Council person, Parks and Recreation Commission member and staff representation. V. Staff to analyze feasibility of use of "Butler Buildings" Either use them or sell them. Report from staff due by first of the year (1986) . VI. Senior Citizens United: Staff to submit for Council Meeting of September 9 , 1985, Support Resolution for Senior Bond Act Grant to purchase adjacent property to their building for a parking lot. VII . Atascadero Park - Property Acquisition: Staff to research financial option to purchase parcels in front of park and Alvord Field. Finance options include debt financing and City selling parcels around lake for cash exchange. VIII. Development Fees: Staff to pursue development fees for future year C. I.P. revenue needs. Specific fee need discussed included: Public Safety Facility Fee, Storm Drainage Fee, Bridge Fees, and Sewer Fees. IX. Overlay Project: Add appropriation of $409 ,975 for street overlay improvements during fiscal year. X. Parking Lot: City to approach School District to solicit contribution for parking lot improvements. 2 RESOLUTION NUMBER 92-85 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING A BUDGET FOR THE 1985-86 FISCAL YEAR AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREOF BE IT RESOLVED by the Atascadero City Council as follows: SECTION 1: Pursuant to provisions of the Government Code, a budget is hereby approved, per attachment entitled Budget, Fiscal Year 1985-86, and as may be amended by City Council for the City of Atascadero for Fiscal Year 1985-86 . SECTION 2: The City Manager may transfer appropriations within, but not between, each of the departmental activities, as required to achieve the orderly and efficient functioning of the City. SECTION 3: The Sanitation District and Local Transit Funds are hereby designated as Enterprise Funds. Accordingly, general, administrative, and other costs are to be allocated to these • funds, as appropriate for Fiscal Years 1984-85 and 1985-86 in the amount of $100, 000 for each year. These costs are estimates only and will be adjusted upon adoption of a formal cost allocation system. SECTION 4 : The Council, from time to time, by motion, may approve additional appropriations, as they deem necessary. On motion by Councilperson and seconded by Councilperson F the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA ROLFE NELSON, Mayor • Resolution 92-85 ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: k, M C AEL SHELTO , City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES, Interim City Attorney ,T2 9/9/85 C-1 C-1 • MEMORANDUM TO: City Council September 9, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 146 RE: Community Development Block Grant - Further consideration of time extension and agreement amendment RECOMMENDATION: Request that the Block Grant agreement be amended to add six months to the terms of the agreement. BACKGROUND: At the City Council' s meeting of August 26th, a public hearing was • held to provide a basis for a grantee performance report on this pro- ject. The Council also had a submittal by Ted and Judy Young request- ing revisions to the agreement to provide funding for various public facilities (see enclosure) . Action of the Council was to continue this matter until we could get some direction from the State as to whether these activities would be grant eligible. STATUS REPORT: Discussions have been held with our grant representative in Sacramento who requested additional information on the project' s request to be funded out of unexpended monies from the Block Grant. These have been requested from the applicant, and are in the process of being trans- mitted to Sacramento. The State representatives have indicated they will try and advise us in time prior to your September 9th meeting. In any event, we would still like to have a six month time extension to wrap up the necessary paperwork for the work done to date, regard- less of whether there is an amendment to cover assignment of costs to the public facility items requested by the Youngs. HE:ps Enclosure: August 22, 1985 funding request • cc: Ed and Judy Young i ! Henry Engen August 22, 1985 City Administration Building Planning Department Atascadero, California 93422 RECEIVE[) U 1" ,41"G 2 6 t3$5 Mr. Engen, California Manor, 95 unit Senior Congregate Rental Housing Project would like to ask the Council to submit a request to HCD for a draw down from Block Grant. Requests are attached. 1) P.G.& E. 2) Engineer / Survey (offsites) 3) Water/ Fire Hydrants Sincerely, /Judy"Young cuNtes: • 0 REFERENCE: ❑ DIVISION PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY E10064 Ll CUSTOMER - GM4486536 ❑ ACCT. DEPT. AGREEMENT TO INSTALL FACILITIES Ll DISTRICT OR PERFORM OTHER WORK CALIFORNIA PROPERTY MARKETING, a Calif . Corporation, ....................•---•--•---•----------•---•-•-----•----•-----------------•--•---••-----••--•------------...--•-...-•----•-•-•-. •--•--•...-••••-••-•-----•-•-----••----•. ------ ------------------------------------------------------------- ------ -•------•----- •------•-------•--•----•-•---•--••-- .....-----( ftrreinafter ,called Customer, has requested Pacitic Gas and Electric Company, hereinafter called Pacific, to perform the hereinafter-described workat....101-6.5_..E1_..Camino.._Real_,... Ata-scade.ro,- - -•------ ---•-- San__ Luis Obispo.•County-----------•---------•---------------------- Slate of California. Pacific will perforin said work art([ furnish all necessary labor, appliances, materials and facilities re- quirt-d therefor, subject to th6 following conditions: 1. Said work shall be as follows: (Dc,cril(e hereunder in Retail the materials and facilities to he furnished and/or work to lie (lone. For each facility installed, specifically indicate whether ownership shall vest In Pacific or Customer upon completion of work. if Inure space is required use other side and attach any necessary drawings.) Trench Inspection Fees: $ 88.32 Electric Rule 16 (copy attached) Service Charges: 1,851.96 Electric Rule 20 (copy attached) Costs to Remove Existing overhead Facilities Crossing the Site: 1,344.00 "Customer shall pay to Pacific upon demand the total actual cost of the work performed by Pacific hereunder. Total actual cost as used herein includes costs incurred by Pacific for labor, materials and supplies, transportation, stores expense, tools, payroll taxes, insurance, supervision, general office overheads, and other direct costs which are allocable to such work in accordance with Pacific's standard practice under the applicable Uniform System of Accounts prescribed by the California ` Public Utilities Commission. Customer shall pay to Pacific on account of such work, prior to the commencement thereof, the sum of $3,284.28. If, upon completion of said work, the cost thereof to Pacific, as above defined, shall be greater or less than this sum, the difference shall be paid to Pacific by Customer or repaid to Customer by Pacific as the case may be, without interest." i . rshi shall Upon ca��p�eticn, o.ane_...._p vest in Pacific. , 2. Whenever part or all of said work is to be furnished or performed upon property other than that Of Ctlsto,ner, Customer shall first procure from the owners thereof all rights-of-way and/or permits necessary therefor in form satisfactory to Pacific and without cost to it. — --f-ustomrr5tra�r�rmrrediatrt�-,—nptm-tit�nrrtrt7-try—t"stitrt-TTaS—tTr t'ariti�—�s—rttrem[rtcte—ctmtri;t.'t— ------dollars (S.......................... Executed this............... i........day of-----....... .------•-•---. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COIEPANY Customer CALIF. PROPERTY MARKETING ------------------•---------------------•-----•---••-•-•-------•--- For: Manager MISSION TRAIL Division Mail Address:.....9.485---E.1 Camino. Real . ........... .. ....... Atascadero, CA 93422............. ............. 62_.52, REV. 1-62 ........................ ............-- i Kenraly Engineerin_a 5975 Traffic way 466-6827 P.O. Box 1198 Atascadero, California 93423 • STATEMENT audy Young Valifouaia Manor L 008-85 PLEASE RETURN THIS STUB WITH YOUR REMITTANCE.YOUR CANCELLED CHECK IS YOUR RECEIPT. $ !?3;85 OF`isite ?itlit-; 21 an X682:`00 ``anon :ease re=ar REDiFoArvt�s 8S 874 POLY PAK (50 SETS) SPR74 VoIb,-.ctl -irye �w August 26 , 1985 Mrs . Judy Your j California Len,, yrs 9485 E1 Camino Real Atascadero, Ct+ 93422 Subject: Califorr is Manor-Fire Protection Main, Later :1 and Fire Hydrants Dear Judy , Our proposal t� %vrite an easement description and set construction stales for the subject above is as follows: 1. Write legal descri, tion of Fire Protection Main, service laterals on,,.; Fire Hydrants $ 1, 200, ,�)(:j 2 . Construe; On stakes. for the above improvements 1,360 . 00 This proposal is based on staking all six Fire Hydrants it one time and staking the fire main in a separate operation. All requests for additional stakes will be according to our current fee schedule . Thank you , and please do not hesitate to call if you _':ould have any questions. Sincerel,,, , L Alan Voli)recht W/rmv Enclosure 6275 Palma Avenue . Post Office Bax 753 • Atascadero. Cnlifnrnia o Q?.."') z 5850 TRAFFIC WAY • P.O. BOX 6075 • ATASCADERO, CA 93423 • (805) 466-2428 ATASCADEROIMUTUALIVATE:RU'OMPANY ESTABLISHED 1913 August 2, 1985 .irs . Judy Young 9485 El Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Judy : Re: Waterline installation costs California Manor � As requested, I am forwarding updated costs for water main installation and fire hydrants on the above project. 1470 ft. - 6" water line loop in project $ 11,760. 00 5 fire hydrants onsite 7,747. 50 'lease let me know ;Then you are ready to update the 4-inch meter :^aterials costs. "-he ner unit connection fee of $215. 00 has not changed. Sincerely, Robert �. ;iamilton, Superintendent 9scar rtaee sw.ii'.xias�- ,.. � - f�,ri, j �.�.3v � -�..�ar.C3•4^:'k:, .:'i f..:�' ' tea ' + ° -(: � ^i _ .. ---------------- AIr 17 a 4 • -r L ? r rr-C74 - pl 1 - i ,�3 ♦ L , t ti. ,�{{ fin, s. � � �: a - � � �. Y i!. 4 r-•q y � 4 �. ' , _.ti S� S - � !c� n^sF. c - s..t. ..$S `iay! � -�Z ,�•,�..'.,� i .y;`o�, �a�a`.a Q�o o Fina 4`�' -`�.a- - +-' ♦k:%{' -E.c.' �- _,3 X33 y� CCRg � jSt � j 'S Lke� � — s. r� �qy ���ti�'O�a _ J4ps�-:: i - - - �a t� � 1. '-r-C e4 .� � ,y+C •F � •s i -��. .� �\� �n'a OV� ��� =��^A� ?1C �..:iy Z .�•-• i _ - L i t .�t _ l o.-E f F °�/r�� ,,�i "tel• � `;Z ( I - .. � -���1 �.. �.. ;( ft1CJiJ - ..... - •- ,._/Nc^f+'A9ci/nnf Cc-i%ae/ml q' _ -i 9/9/85 s- ,, D _ 1 M E M O R A N D U M September 4 , 1985 To: City Council Via: Mike Shelton, City Manager From: Bob Best, Parks & Recreation Director Subject: Status Report on Trash Removal at Atascadero Lake INTRODUCTION It is my understanding a concern has been expressed concern- ing litter control around Atascadero Lake. In the past this work has been performed by Mental Health workers. PROBLEM STATEMENT During budget preparation for FY 1985-86 , I was informed that due to no appropriation of funds for contract employees in the past • fiscal year, my request for mental health workers would not be approved based on the base level budget concept. As a result fund- ing was eliminated from the Parks Department for mental health con- tract employees. CONCLUSIONS As a result of the contract employees dollar amount being eliminated from the budget, it has put yet another burden on the department staff. The mental health group provided an excellent and reliable service to the City of Atascadero for a minimal amount of money. RECOMMENDATION Approve funding for Mental Health to continue cleanup work at Atascadero Lake. This will provide the manpower needed for litter control at Lake Park. FISCAL IMPACT A total of $1, 200 per year is needed to provide funds for Mental Health to perform lake cleanup duties. • D 9/9/85 iT_7m , F-I RESOLUTION NUMBER 93-85 RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPROVING A BUDGET FOR THE 1985-86 FISCAL YEAR AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREOF BE IT RESOLVED by the Atascadero County Sanitation District Board of Directors as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to provisions of the Government Code, a budget is hereby approved, per attachment entitled BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1985-86, and as may be amended by the Board of Directors for the Atascadero County Sanitation District for Fiscal Year 1985-86. SECTION 2. The City Manager may transfer appropriations between line items, as required, to achieve the orderly and efficient functioning of the District. SECTION 3. As an Enterprise Fund, the District will accept • equitable general, administrative, and other costs, as allocated for Fiscal Years 1984-85 and 1985-86 . These costs are currently esti- mated at $100 ,000 for each year but will be adjusted upon adoption of a formal cost allocation system. SECTION 4. The Board of Directors, from time to time, by motion, may approve additional appropriations, as they deem necessary. On motion by Director and seconded by Director I the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA • ROLFE NELSON, Mayor A ; 9/9/85 E-2 r • MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Directors Atascadero County Sanitation District THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: W ensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Marchant Way DATE: September 5, 1985 RECOMMENDATION:. Staff recommends that the Board continue the hearing for the Marchant Way sewer extension district (Resolution 85-86) until September 23, and to approve an additional resolution annexing a portion of Santa Rosa Road to the ACSD and setting a hearing for the same for September 23. BACKGROUND: At the last regular meeting the Board set a public hearing for • the Marchant Way sewer extension to provide for an assessment district for those lots to be served. Discussion was also presented that some Santa Rosa lots should be included in the district boundaries. DISCUSSION: Santa Rosa residents are being contacted to establish their desire to be annexed into the sewer improvement district and be a part of the Marchant Way sewer extension. Regardless of their desire, they are within the Cease and Desist area designated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Engineering estimates will be available prior to the hearing date for Marchant Way alone and for a Marchant Way - Santa Rosa joint venture. The Board may, however , be faced with a difficult decision if some of the Santa Rosa residents object to their inclusion into the district since 51% of the frontage owners (including Santa Rosa) are represented by a petition. This means that despite objections the Board may approve the assessment district by a simple majority. While staff considers it important to include Santa Rosa into the district, the Board should be aware that the issue could be complicated if any of the Marchant Way owners would refuse to grant • an easement across their property or if the City sends a contractor onto a Santa Rosa property against their will. There will be a variety of remedies to these problems if they occur, which could include condemnation, payment of the objectors assessments at an VA ' RESOLUTION NO. 102-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF LOTS 66 THROUGH 72 OF BLOCK JC TO THE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT OF THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 4834 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE (SANTA ROSA ROAD) WHEREAS , the Atascadero County Sanitation District is impowered by Section 4834 of the Health and Safety Code to annex territory already a part of the County Sanitation District through the improvement district of that County Sanitation District; and WHEREAS , the Atascadero County Sanitation District has received a petition from the owners of 13 lots located on Marchant Way, City of Atascadero , requesting that their property be annexed to the Sanitation Service District; and WHEREAS , it is in the best interest of Atascadero County Sanitation District to provide sewer service to the subject property, to-wit Lots 66 through 72 of Block JC of the City of Atascadero; and WHEREAS , the extension of utility service to existing private structures are categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 19) . 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 annexation to the improvement district; Section 2 . The territory that is intended to be annexed to the Sanitary Improvement District is listed as follows : Lot 66 Block JC, Atascadero Colony A.P.N. 31-381-56 Lot 67 Block JC, Atascadero Colony A. P.N. 31-381-55 Lot 68 Block JC, Atascadero Colony A. P.N. 31-381-36 Lot 69 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A. P.N. 31-331-44 Lot 70 Block JC, Atascadero Colony A. P.N. 31-381-41 Lot 71 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P.N. 31-381-62 Lot 72 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P.N. 31-381-61 Lot Block Atascadero Colony A.P.N. Lot Block Atascadero Colony A.P.T.- Lot Block _, Atascadero Colony A.P.N. Lot Block Atascadero Colony A.P.N. Lot Block Atascadero Colony A.P.N. — Section 3 . A hearing shall be held at Atascadero City Hall , on September 23, 1985 , at 7 : 30 p.m. on the proposed annextion of the aforesaid property to be annexed into the Atascadero County Sanitation District . Section 4. Any interest person desiring; to make written protest against such annexation shall do so by written communication, containing the signature and street address of the protestant , and shall be filed with the Clerk of the Atascadero County Sanitation District , P. 0. Box 747 , Atascadero , CA 93423 , not later than 7 : 30 p .m. September 23 , 1985 . On motion by Board Member and seconded by Board Member the foregoing Resolution is adopted in its entirey by the followin role call vote: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: DATE: ATTEST: MIKE SH 'LTON, Secretary ROLrE NELSON, Chairman U N Q u 2 O!� n i: V Y N ^ w Q Q �� (ri r6 IL Lij LL Z Qom `' v QrAN M g- oo — O V OCO C� N M L19�5 LL O400 6F 96� W V a0Cie ti qo Tl� CC LLI 01,10 V �. w (� z C � Q w aBff/ C- Ltd N V Q �� Lij ka 00 i (� V Ln In o,•„��� O .a, � j� Y C Cie N aD Q CMN � � V CA V ti LAj �Qp ti b �� a l.l..l O O ^ pd c `,l� _ WCo LU ti N "IU v Cl— � S9 O U � `-- n �ti `/i cn�� � 1 k 1 O W Z 0 Q LU4:,LU P-�qr,f 0 S�6 ig•µ. IZZ Q uj1 •a� a m So co w p QU-4 O S m M � n � V 2 1L. /(• �� � W oy s ro zP M�;e.rz s LL Fy !� 0,611 ID 40 w s 71 �' cc"H i0or, n RESC ` 86 LUrION .dO. - 85 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATIO14 OF LOTS 73 THROUGH 87 OF BLOCK JC THROUGH THE I121PROVEMENT DISTRICT OF THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 4834 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE I-THEREAS , the Atascadero County Sanitation District is impowered by Section 4834 of the Health and Safety Code to annex territory already a part of the County Sanitation District through the improvement district of that County Sanitation District ; and 1,ZHEREAS , the Atascadero County Sanitation District has received a Petition from the owners of 13 Lots located on Marchant Way, City of Atascadero , requesting that their property be annexed to the Sanitation Service District; and WHEREAS , it is in the best interest of Atascadero County Sani- tation District to provide sewer serivice to the subject property, to-wit Lots 73 through 87 of Block JC of the City of Atascadero; and ITHERLAS , the extension of utility service to existing private* structures are categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (class 19) . NO , 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 Zesolution will be benefited by annexation to the improvement district ; Section 2 . The territory that is intended to be annexed to the Sanitary Improvement District is listed as follows : Lot 73 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A•P • N• 31-381-20 Lot 74 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P ._d. 31-381-51- Lot 75 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.n •NT. 31-381-51 Lot 76 Block JC Atascadero Colony A.P .N, . 31-381-53 Lot 77 Block JC , Atascadero Colony i A.P .N. 31-381-52 Lot 78 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 31-381-46 0 • Lot 79 Block JC , Atascadero Colony . A.P .N. 31-381-47 Lot 80 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P .i1. 31-381-59 Lot 81 Block .7c , Atascadero Colony A.P.N. 31-381-60 Lot 82 Block Jc , Atascadero Colony A.P.N. 31-381-32 Lot 83 Block Jc , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 31-381-43 Lot 84 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A•P .N. 31-381-10 Lot 85 Block is , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 31-381-09 Lot 86 Block Jc , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 31-381-35 Lot 87 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 31-381-07 . Section 3 . A Hearing shall be held at Atascadero City Hall , on September 9 , 1985 , at 7 : 30 P .M. on the proposed annexation of the aforesaid property to be annexed into the Atascadero County Sanitation District. Section 4 . Any interested person_ desiring to make written protest against such annexation shall do so by written communication, containing the signature and street address of the protestant , and shall be filed with the Clerk o.-` the Atascadero County Sanitation District , P. 0. Box 747 , Atascadero , California 93423 , not later than 7 : 30 " :M. , September 9 , 1985 . On motion by Board :Member NORRIS and seconded by Board Member MACKEY the Foregoing Resolution is adopted in its entirety by the Following role call vote: AYES : DIRECTORS HANDSITY, MACKEY, MOLINA & NORRIS AND CHAIR"IAN NELSON NOES : NONE ABSENT: NONE DATE : AUGUST 26 , 1985 ATTEST: 1_L Mike Shelton, Secretary 'lobe =\1e son, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORT!: Robert M. Jones , Interim City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT : Paul M. Sensi augh, Dire for of Public Works/City Engineer OD I n r, a ti 't � � Q 00 a .Sw cc w Q In U- 1r wQ (n � L LL 1S'6ll N N� M'SS�SfSf 0 a0 p o V w 66901 co K uj H w ti w M f oQ�fS Q k 9r 6f1� t Cn LLJ W a/ $ p o b cS in Lo CC) LU N i V ae rcl c. ti Hti L • u ��/ w ful R x. 00 Odti N � Z CMN ; w � V a� U cc.; o� Ilb 4 Lu Lco s3 Lu as Sa Oe Q cz -'r � u N t.�G of K Q U3 3 uj ��► � O p I � � �j v .oe�rf A O U!A v C 1 u ? M a � TO yrs � r�N 1'_ Cl \ m y 10!n co r 4 oy :'�:r:01 iR M£%i o;.:'S ti 6•I n RyOs �;• \ �� 1V �• � I `I� t0' �5 ry DA 9/9/85F-3 EM -AF-3 • MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Directors THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Requests for Sewer Annexation DATE: August 30, 1985 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolutions subject to the conditions listed in each. BOARD ACTION REQUIRED: Approve or deny BACKGROUND: Attached are four resolutions requesting annexation into the Atascadero County Sanitation District. Staff has reviewed these requests and have determined that the criteria for annexa- tion has been met in all cases. Discussion material forthcoming for next Board meeting with regard to Public Hearings. ALTERNATIVE: Denial of annexation requests eliminates the option of sewer service. The applicants are then limited to a on-site septic system which may or may not be feasible for the type of project proposed. FISCAL IMPACT: None, properties annexed into the district are required to pay an annexation fee and will be charged a monthly service fee. ATTACHMENTS : Resolution No. 95-85 Mr . & Mrs. Patrick Adams Lot 56 Block 12 Mountain View Single Family Residence . Resolution No. 96-85 Mr. Caroline Rehbock (Public Hearing Reqd) Parcel A, Lot 1, Block JB Ardilla Avenue Zoned RMF-10 RESOLUTION NO. 95-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT APPROVING SEWER EXTENSION EXTENDING PUBLIC SEWER SERVICE TO LOT 56 BLOCK 12, APN 56-322-01 AND INCORPORATING THE AREA CONCERNED INTO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SANITATION DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Atascadero County Sanitation District is empowered by Section 4741 of the Health and Safety Code to extend service to areas outside of its boundaries; and WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs Patrick Adams own the property described in Exhibits A and B attached to this resolution; and WHEREAS, said property, located on Mountain View Drive is contiguous with the existing 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 extension of utility service to an existing private structure is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (class 19) . 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: Lot 56 Block 12, Atascadero Colony Subject to the following conditions: a. Obtain all necessary plumbing and street encroachment permits b. Payment of all connection extension fees as provided in the Atascadero County Sanitation District Code. Section 3. The area included in Lot 56, Block 12 is hereby incorporated into the boundaries of the Atascadero County Sanitation Distict. 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 ROLFE NELSON Secretary Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES Interim City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: -PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH Director of Public Works/City Engineer 2 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 56 Block 12, in the City of Atascadero County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map recorded October 21, 1914 in Book 3 page 9B of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. 3 N oo' z Z U) OCL c� � c LU Q Quo N W rr, At V.3 `rnJ a z nj n h 3I Irk-___ryx o ( I I v O ol,_ t I ter' _ ! O N P I _smell LOl i `I m N tb A i Fl, "� p. •'ri O z� O � N r 69 bd! II�. I Tr�yy 6d _ I�ggb Zti I I 't�O'. \ 1Y bti'+ b �-i •t- Q Q i of O cli LL zsr p 0b J� 71 P N �h p _ U C m N (\J \� y C c� Q, wr- OT itr . LUz N co a E � ti � M lI cr. • I i • RESOLUTION NO. 95-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT APPROVING SEWER EXTENSION EXTENDING PUBLIC SEWER SERVICE TO PARCEL A, LOT I BLOCK JB APN 30-182-03 AND INCORPORATING THE AREA CONCERNED INTO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SANITATION DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Atascadero County Sanitation District is empowered by Section 4741 of the Health and Safety Code to extend service to areas outside of its boundaries; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Caroline Rehbock owns the property described in Exhibits A and B attached to this resolution; and WHEREAS, said property, located on Ardilla Avenue is contiguous with the existing 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 extension of utility service to an existing private structure is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (class 19) . WHEREAS, Parcel A. Lot 1, Block JB will be required to design and construct a sewer main extension at their expense prior to connection and it appears feasible to do so; and, 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: iParcel A, Lot 1, Block JB, Atascadero Colony • Subject to the following conditions: a. Obtain all necessary plumbing and street encroachment permits b. Payment of all connection extension fees as provided in the Atascadero County Sanitation District Code. C. The sewer main extension shall be designed by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California, and submitted for review and approval/ by the City Engineer. Section 3. A Hearing shall be held at Atascadero City Hall on September 23, 1985 at 7 :30 p.m. on the proposed annexation of the aforesaid property to be annexed into the Atascadero County Sanitation District. Section 4. Any interested person desiring to make written protest against such annexation shall do so by written communication containing the signature and street address of the protestant, and shall be filed with the Clerk of the Atascadero County Sanitation District, P.O. Box 747, Atascadero, CA 93423 , not later than 7:30 p.m. September 23, 1985. 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: b Mike Shelton ROLFE NELSON Secretary Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES Interim City Attorney 2 - -j d1 - O cc uj _-10 cn O < Ln cx Z -- G Q n Q r O N y Q a Q I Q, cy O J Z _ 4� J w I U w `- w O ri U Wc O dJ W n O U E� O 0 U Z hO N a N H h r ° CO O Q Lncv W 'oi v Q M a az s << O � U CL 0 3 CT 1`'j'1 •. 47 �NJ J �C Eryry�� I C C, h �/ ? C L I I s � RESOLUTION NO. 97-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT APPROVING SEWER EXTENSION EXTENDING PUBLIC SEWER SERVICE TO LOTS 29 & 30 of BLOCK KB APN 30-271-03 AND INCORPORATING THE AREA CONCERNED INTO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SANITATION DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Atascadero County Sanitation District is empowered by Section 4741 of the Health and Safety Code to extend service to areas outside of its boundaries; and WHEREAS, Mr. Wally Dunn owns the property described in Exhibits A and B attached to this resolution; and WHEREAS, said property, located on Ardilla Avenue is contiguous with the existing 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 extension of utility service to an existing private structure is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (class 19) . WHEREAS, Lots 29 & 30 , Block KB will be required to design and construct a sewer main extension at their expense prior to connection and it appears feasible to do so; and, 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: Lots 29 & 30, Block KB, Atascadero Colony Subject to the following conditions: a. Obtain all necessary plumbing and street encroachment permits b. Payment of all connection extension fees as provided in the Atascadero County Sanitation District Code. C. The sewer main extension shall be designed by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California, and submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. Section 3. A Hearing shall be held at Atascadero City Hall on September 23, 1985 at 7: 30 p.m. on the proposed annexation of the aforesaid property to be annexed into the Atascadero County Sanitation District. Section 4. Any interested person desiring to make written protest against such annexation shall do so by written communication containing the signature and street address of the protestant, and shall be filed with the Clerk of the Atascadero County Sanitation District, P.O. Box 747 , Atascadero, CA 93423, not later than 7:30 p.m. September 23, 1985. 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 ROLFE NELSON Secretary Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES Interim City Attorney 2 0 0 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH Director of Public Works/City Engineer 3 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 29 & 30 of Block KB, in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map recorded October 21, 1914 in Book 4 page 39 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. 3 1 N nA � c Ch _ S 16 1'W 25d= � Q o l ._ 275! re 2.50 43 � w t7f w S90t X.,Vz r Z y vib� CA fA -5z'01 IOG < u I ra t -_ fjo 1 100 2vJ�.n - i' 1 j '°°' r a IDOO w t. RESOLUTION NO. 98-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT APPROVING SEWER EXTENSION EXTENDING PUBLIC SEWER SERVICE TO PARCELS A, B & D OF 22-PM-97 APN 29-212-19 , APN 29-212-25, AND APN 29-212-11 AND INCORPORATING THE AREA CONCERNED INTO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SANITATION DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Atascadero County Sanitation District is empowered by Section 4741 of the Health and Safety Code to extend service to areas outside of its boundaries; and WHEREAS, Mr. George Knecht, Mr & Mrs LeJeal and Mr. and Mrs Day own the property described in Exhibits A and B attached to this resolution; and, WHEREAS, said property, located on Cayucos and Lobos Avenues is contiguous with the existing 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 extension of utility service to an existing private structure is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (class 19) . WHEREAS, Parcels A, B & D of 22-PM-97 will be required to design and construct a sewer main extension at their expense prior to connection and it appears feasible to do so; and, 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: Parcels A, B & D of 22-PM-97 Subject to the following conditions: a. Obtain all necessary plumbing and street encroachment permits and execute a sewer main extension agreement. b. Payment of all connection extension fees as provided in the Atascadero County Sanitation District Code. C. The sewer main extension shall be designed by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California, and submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. Section 3. The area included in Parcels A, B, & D of 22-PM-97 is hereby incorporated into the boundaries of the Atascadero County Sanitation Distict. 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 ROLFE NELSON Seczar - Chairman z-�7 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES Interim City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH Director of Public Works/City Engineer 2 6e lw 179 i r�o� 1�0� 59y/9/ 59 9� 59 y/ 59 9� 59 /9D /.9C /93 /9A 20 20D 20C 20L 59 9� 599i �� 599/ 5-.9 5-9.4!/ 9/ 59s zi 543 51 A 1115.4 °►� 53 60C3 30 oN �� 55A 55 53A -r' C,4 UCO o °j o� 5.95 ` o► Cc%y h b° 6211 62Z- �; v �O �2D °► 52007Z` 6246 Zr s$' `2A 61A T `/ 62 �.