HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 01/13/1986 *DEPUTY CITY CLERK
NOTE: THE MEETING WILL COMMENCE AT 7 :15 P.M. (15 MINUTES EARLY)
• FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERVIEWING APPLICANTS) TO THE
CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
FOURTH FLOOR ROTUNDA ROOM
January 13, 1986, 7 : 30 p.m.
** Proclamation of Appreciation to Bill Silver
** Proclamation of Appreciation to Elliott Stephenson
** Presentation of Pedestrian Safety Citation to City by Larry
Starling, District Manager, American Automobile Association
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Invocation
Roll Call
City Council Comments
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO PUBLIC
All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are considered
to be routine and will be enacted by one motion in the form list-
ed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items.
If discussion is required, that item will be removed from the
Consent Calendar and considered separately. Vote may be by
roll-call.
1. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of December 9, 1985
2. Approval of Treasurer ' s Report - November 1-30, 1985
3. Approval of Finance Director ' s Report - November 1-30, 1985
4. Claims of Nester Bernardo and Armando Flores (Amounts
Unspecified) (RECOMMEND DENIAL)
5. Ordinance No. 115 - Zone Change 8-85 - Urban Sciences,
Inc./Dodson - 9425 E1 Bordo (Lot 30-31, Tract 5) - Change
zone from RSF-Z TO L (PD5) (SECOND READING)
6. Lot Line Adjustment 13-85 - 4595 and 4450 Traffic Way
• - (Jesse Bentley, et al/Shirley Moore)
7. Lot Line Adjustment 7-85 - 6505 Santa Cruz Road (DeWelt/San
Stewart)
8. Final Parcel Ma 18-84 - 10995 San Marcos Road (Major Dan
• P 7 /
Stewart)
9. Final Parcel Map AT 820802: 1 - San Marcos Road (Ptn. Lot 46,
Block 40) (Langford & Ibsen Ent./Dan Stewart)
10. Motion authorizing Public Works Director to request proposals
for Sycamore Bridge Project
11. Request by Public Works Director for authorization to hold
Public Hearing on Traffic Committee Items
12. Motion endorsing Mayor Nelson' s appointment of City Council
representative (to be designated at Council Meeting) and
Henry Engen to the S.L.O. County Economic Monitoring and Mit-
igation Program Advisory Committee (Off-shore development)
13. Request by Public Works Director for authorization to adver-
tise for bids and enter into Consulting Agreement with Fred
Schott & Associates for the final design of Phase IIC-HVAC
and Interior Renovation - City Hall Renovation Project
B. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (AC D)
(Council will recess and convene as the Atasc dero County
• Sanitation District Board of Directors)
1. Public Hearing on proposed formation of Sanitary Sewer
Improvement District No. 3 (Cont'd from 10/14, 10/28, 11/12 &
11/25/85)
2. Public Hearing on pro oe4_4nnexation of Improvement District
No. 3 into ACSD - Proposed Res. No. 123-8 (Cont'd from
10/14 , 10/28 , 11/12 & 11/25/85) :
a. Lots 73-87, Marchant Way
b. Lots 66-72, Santa Rosa Road
(The Board of Directors will adjourn and reconvene as the City
Council)
C. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS
1. Consideration of Ord. No. 116 establishin Business Improve-
ment Association (B.I.A. ) Area Boundaries (PUBLIC HEARING)
2. Appeal by Nancy Jacobson of curb, gutter and sidewalk
requirement and paved parking requirement for G.U.P. 22-85
• (Kaleidoscope Kids Preschool) - 6300 Marchant Avenue
i
• D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Proposed Resolution No. 134-85 - Authorizing Community Devel-
opment Director to enter into agreement for electrical
service prior to final inspection (Cont'd from 12/9/85)
2. Appeal by Gifford of Planning Commission denial of Condition-
al Use Permit 16-85 , 6455 Santa Lucia (23-Unit Elderly
Facility) (Report of staff findings with regard to density
issues) (Cont'd from 11/25/85)
3. Council appointment to Citizens' Transportation Advisory
Committee
E. NEW BUSINESS
1. Consideration of possible additional General Plan Amendments
for Cycle 1 - 1986 (Report by Community Development Director)
2. Adoption of California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A. )
Guidelines
F. COMMUNITY FORUM
• G. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
1. City Council
2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk
4. City Treasurer
5. City Manager
NOTE: MEETING WILL ADJOURN TO A CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS
LITIGATION IN THE CASE OF JACKSON VS. CITY OF ATASCADERO,
BARRETT VS. CITY OF ATASCADERO, AND PROPERTY ACQUISITION
FROM COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO;
MEETING ADJOURNED TO JANUARY 23 , 1986, 7: 30 P.M. , COUNCIL
CHAMBERS/CLUB ROOM, FOR A SPECIAL JOINT STUDY SESSION WITH
THE DEVELOPMENT FEE AD HOC COMMITTEE. MEETING IS OPEN TO
THE PUBLIC;
MEETING ADJOURNED TO JANUARY 27 , 1986 , 6:30 P.M. , COUNCIL
CHAMBERS/CLUB ROOM FOR A SPECIAL STUDY SESSION (PRIOR TO
NEXT REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING) FOR MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW.
MEETING IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
•
MEMORANDUM �_._ �� . IJA
• TO: CITY MANAGER •
FROM: CHIEF OF POLICE
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM - COUNCIL MEETING OF JAN. 13, 1986
DATE: JANUARY 7 , 1986
Per our last staff meeting, the following should be
included in the next Council Agenda:
Pedestrian Safety Citation - presented by the American
Automobile Association (Larry Starling, District Manager) .
"City of Atascadero is cited for its record of no pedes-
trian fatalities as reported in the AAA Pedestrian Safety In-
ventory while meeting AAA standards of program performance.
Two year achievement. "
This item should be placed at the beginning of the
Agenda as Mr. Starling wishes to award the citation to Mayor
Nelson at that time.
• RICHA D H. McHALE
RHM: sb
•
r7D A te.
• MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting, December 9, 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, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
An invocation was given by Rev. Larry Etter , Community Church of
Atascadero.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers Mackey, Molina, Norris, Handshy and Mayor
Nelson.
Absent: None
STAFF
Mike Shelton, City Manager ; Robert Jones, City Attorney/City Clerk;
Bud McHale, Police Chief; Mike Hicks, Fire Chief; Henry Engen,
Community Development Director ; .Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works
Director; Cindy Wilkins, Dep. City Clerk.
COUNCIL COMMENT
Councilwoman Mackey expressed her feeling that the tree lighting cere-
mony which took place (downstairs) prior to tonight' s meeting was very
nice.
Mayor Nelson relayed that he had just received (unofficial) notifica- '
tion regarding the U.S. Postal Service Project; the acquisition of
land and new construction plans are going through at 9700 & 9800 E1
Camino Real (between San Gabriel & Montecito) , beginning in 1985 for a
duration of 48 months.
Mayor Nelson presented plaques to the Future Farmers of America (FFA) ,
Atascadero Chapter , members who recently won awards in national compe-
tition, recognizing the value of their dedication and significance of
their accomplishments and proclaiming the weeks of December 9-22,
1985, as FFA Weeks.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilman Molina requested Item A-5 be pulled for separate vote;
Councilwoman Mackey requested Item A-6 be pulled for separate vote.
1. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of November 25 , 1985.
2. Proposed Resolution 130-85 - Endorsing Bottle Bill
3. Tentative Tract Map 28-85 - Request submitted by Ralph and Gale
• Day (Kennaly Engineering) to create a six-unit commercial
condominium tract - 8935 Morro Road (Lot 2, Block EC)
1 �.
Councilman Molina inquired of Mr. Dodson if he would object to not
entering into an agreement with the County should he be successful in
his acquisition of the two lots and proper zoning for the project.
Mr. Dodson responded that, although unsure of how sphere of influence
issues work, he wants to be cooperative with the County wherever pos-
sible but doesn' t want to get 'cross-wise' of either entity (City or
County) ; he indicated he doesn' t need the Heilmann Park lot to meet
parking needs.
Maggie Rice, Chamber of Commerce, voiced support for the project;
after discussion with Mr. Dodson, primarily regarding her concern over
the intrusion of parking and the noise factor , she feels reassured
about the project, feeling Atascadero needs both the recreation and
the revenue.
Mr. Engen noted that, when the site plan comes in as a use permit,
staff will pencil out the parking and see what other uses, besides the
central use, are there and will key their recommendation on that
evaluation.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to read Ord. 114 by title only,
seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously. Mayor
Nelson read Ord. 114 by title only.
MOTION: By Councilman Handshy that this constitutes the second
reading and adoption of Ord. 114 , seconded by Councilwoman
Norris; passed unanimously by roll-call vote.
MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to read Ord. 115 by title only,
seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously. Mayor
Nelson read Ord. 115 by title only.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey that this constitutes the first
reading of Ord. 115, seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed
unanimously. Second reading will be at the first meeting in
January.
C. NEW BUSINESS
1. Proposed Resolution 128-85 - Designating a No Parking Zone on
Solano Road at El Camino Real
2. Proposed Resolution 132-85 - Establishing left turn lanes on Cur-
baril Avenue at E1 Camino Real and eliminating parking within 50
feet of the intersection on Curbaril
3. Proposed Resolution 133-85 - To prohibit parking on Palomar Avenue
(front of mini-storage)
4. Proposed Resolution 131-85 - Reducing speed on Atascadero Avenue
Paul Sensibaugh gave staff report on all four of the above proposed
resolutions and responded to questions from Council.
3
Police Chief McHale explained the process of "Realistic Speed Zoning"
which was used (as required by State Vehicle Code) in arriving at the
recommended speed limit on Atascadero Ave.
No public comment.
MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to approve Resolution # ' s 128-85,
132-85, 133-85 and 131-85, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey;
passed unanimously by roll-call vote.
D. OLD BUSINESS
1. Proposed Resolution 134-85 - Authorizing Community Development
Director to enter into agreement for electrical service prior to
final inspection
City Attorney, Robert Jones, gave staff report.
Councilman Molina relayed that Michael Sherer requested that this
item be postponed until the Council' s Jan. 13th meeting since he
has additional input and couldn' t be present tonight.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris that this item be continued to the
meeting of Jan. 13th, 1986, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey;
passed unanimously.
MOTION: By Councilman Handshy that Council recess and convene as the
Atas. County Sanitation District Board of Directors, seconded 0
by Councilman Molina; passed unanimously.
E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (ACSD)
1. Status Report on a Sanitary Sewer Draft Report (Verbal - Wallace
Associates)
Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director , said that, although staff
has received draft copy of the sewer report, they would like to
meet with the consultant for additional review and changes in
order to present it to the Board in final draft form.
Consultant John Wallace outlined the progress of the sewer study
to date. He noted that his firm believes the study, so far , has
been a great impetus for looking forward to planning for financing
the sewer system facilities. He expects to have the completed
report available within a couple of weeks after the last General
Plan selection and unit determination by City staff. He stated
that the plant' s remaining capacity of 1, 500 units is essentially
committed by projects under construction, capacity required to
serve cease and desist areas, and pending planning applications;
however, the plant is relatively easy to expand on.
2. Authorization to enter into agreement and expend district funds
for engineering services for Cease and Desist areas "C" and "E"
(Seperado & Cayucos)
4
Paul Sensibaugh gave staff report.
No public comment.
MOTION: By Director Molina that the Board approve staff
recommendations, seconded by Director Mackey; passed
unanimously by roll-call vote.
MOTION: By Director Handshy that the Board recess and reconvene as
City Council, seconded by Director Mackey; passed
unanimously.
F. COMMUNITY FORUM
No public comment.
G. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
Councilman Handshy reported that he met with General Palumbo of
the National Guard last Thursday and discussed the Guard's future
plans regarding training activity in the County. It was mentioned
that, over a period of years , the Guard plans to use Camp San Luis
Obispo as its main area training center , doing away with the Atas-
cadero Armory (in 2-3 years) ; it' s also planned to move a South
County Armory establishment to Camp SLO. Gen. Palumbo provided a
copy of the Natl. Guard' s report to Councilman Handshy, and he
forwarded it to Mike Shelton, City Manager .
Mike Shelton noted that the Atascadero Armory property is
currently owned by the County and, in past discussions, they have '
indicated a willingness to discuss turning it over to the City of
Atascadero.
Councilwoman Mackey asked if the concerns regarding the
Amapoa-Tecorida drainage problem have been approached. Paul Sen-
sibaugh responded that it will be one of the first priorities in
the aerial mapping process. He explained how the issue is being
approached by staff, noting that it will be, at minimum, next fis-
cal year before anything can be done in terms of a solution.
Mayor Nelson requested a Closed Session following tonight' s
meeting for the purpose of discussing litigation in the case of
L. Barrett vs. City of Atascadero.
Mike Shelton, City Manager, announced that the second monthly
Council meeting, scheduled for Dec. 23rd, has been cancelled, due
to the Christmas Holiday; proper public notice will be given by
the City Clerk ' s Office. Mr . Shelton also reported the receipt of
several letters commending service by City employees (various
departments) , which are included in his monthly newsletter to
Council.
5
i
0 0
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8 :40 P.M. TO A CLOSED SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DISCUSSION OF LITIGATION REGARDING THE CASE OF BARRETT VS. CITY OF
ATASCADERO; NEXT REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULED FOR MON. , JAN. 13, 1986, AT
7:15 P.M. , 15 MINUTES EARLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERVIEWING
APPLICANTS) FOR THE CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHICH
IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
RECORDED BY':'
l
ROBERT M. dam , City Clerk
PREPARED BY:
CINDY WILKTNS, Dep. City Clerk
6 (�
• CITY OF ATASCADERO
TREASURER'S REPORT
NOVEMBER 1, 1985 TO NOVEMBER 30 , 1985
RECEIPTS
TAXES
Property Tax 32,729. 86
Cigarette Tax 3,475. 70
Motor Vehicle "In Lieu" 53 ,235.22
Sales Tax 114,000 .00
Franchise Tax 2, 306 .27
Occupancy Tax 600 .95
LICENSE/PERMITS/FEES 49,289.86
GAS TAX 20 ,435.16
RECREATION FEES 7,187.32
RETURNED FROM LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND
AND MATURED TIME DEPOSITS 125 ,000.00
TRANSPORTATION SB-325 2, 521.75
• MISCELLANEOUS
Rents/Concessions 377.30
Sale Maps/Publications/Reports 207.90
Special Police Services 57.00
Fines & Penalties 533.92
Planning Permit Deposits (8 ,237.71)
Bails/Bonds 697. 50
Traffic Safety 3,299. 56
Reimbursement from Sanitation District 29,817 .43
Reimbursement to Expense 490 .01
P.O.S.T. 3 ,088. 87
Refunds 1,908.00
Appeals 200 . 00
Performance Bonds 3,600 .00
Overages & Shortages 1. 00
Traffic Safety Officer 10 ,667.41
Weed Abatement 2, 086. 80
Miscellaneous 291. 63
Accounts Receivable 112. 36
Voucher ' s Payable 806 .08
TOTAL $ 460 ,787 . 15
1
•
CITY OF ATASCADERO
FINANCE DIRECTOR' S REPORT
NOVEMBER 1, 1985 TO NOVEMBER 30 , 1985
BALANCE AS OF OCTOBER 31, 1985 11, 403. 89
DEPOSITED BY TREASURER, SEE RECEIPTS,
TREASURER'S REPORT, PAGE 1 460 ,787 . 15
TOTAL 472,191. 04
HAND CHECK REGISTER DATED 11/30/85 57, 522.49
CHECK REGISTER DATED 11/01/85 30,837. 09
CHECK REGISTER DATED 11/08/85 48,684. 83
CHECK REGISTER DATED 11/15/85 2,102. 25
CHECK REGISTER DATED 11/15/85 27, 687. 86
CHECK REGISTER DATED 11/21/85 71,596 . 67
CHECK REGISTER DATED 11/27/85 28, 513.93
CHECK REGISTER DATED 11/27/85 2;102. 25
EXPENSE LISTING 130 , 599 . 35
TOTAL 399, 646.72
BALANCE AS OF NOVEMBER 30, 1985 72, 544. 32
• PETTY CASH 200 . 00
TREASURY INVESTMENTS
SEE TREASURER'S REPORT, PAGE 2 1, 375,000.00
TOTAL 1,447 ,744. 32
I, MICHAEL SHELTON, do hereby certify and declare
that demands enumerated and referred to in the foregoing
register are accurate and just claims against the City and
that there are funds available for payment thereof in the
City Treasury.
DATED: December 19, 1985
MICHAEL SHELTON
Finance Director/City Mgr .
4
Gl
0
DECEMBER 19, 1985
To All Council Members:
The breakdown detail on all accounts is available
for your viewing in the Finance Department.
Michael Shelton
Finance Director/City Mgr.
3
�1
•
M E M O R A N D U M
TO. Mike Shelton u ~
FROM: Dick Anthony
SUBJECT: Claims of Nester Bernardo and Armando Flores , on behalf
of Roy Flores , deceased on or about Aug. 24 , 1985
DATE: December 30 , 1985
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council deny claims submitted on November 25 , 1985 , by the
above-named individuals.
BACKGROUND
N. Bernardo is the father and A. Flores the son of the deceased.
Roy Flores was a patient at the Atascadero State Hospital when
• he died while being restrained. Claimants ' attorney advises that
he filed these claims to protect the 100-day statute in the event
the City of Atascadero is eventually found liable. City' s adjus-
tors , Carl Warren & Co. , have reviewed claims and respond that
this appears to be a case of no liability (nor City personnel
involvement) and recommend denial.
DEA/cw
•
}v
•
M E M O R A N D U M :
TO: CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 13, 1986
VIA: MICHAEL SHELTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: HENRY ENGEN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 8-85 (ORDINANCE NO. 115 - SECOND
READING) (9425 EL BORDO: URBAN SCIENCES INC. )
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 115 (SECOND READING) .
BACKGROUND :
iON DECEMBER 9, 1985, THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERED THE ABOVE-
REFERENCED SUBJECT, APPROVING THE ZONE CHANGE AND THE
SUBSEQUENT ORDINANCE NO. 115 WHICH HAD A FIRST READING.
PS
•
Zone Change 8-85 (Urban Sciences/Dodson)
Section 3. Publication.
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once
within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a
newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in
this City in accordance with Government Code Section 36933 ; shall cer-
tify the adoption of this ordinance; and shall cause this ordinance
and certification to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of this
City.
Section 4. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and ef-
fect at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage.
On motion by and seconded by
, the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its
entirety by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager
APPROVED AS FORM:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
HENRY ENGEN,
Community Development Director
2
18
V.Aa� aA�`c.i;%'. � ^)-1��\\y 4�� w) fit. -a,•:r: a X', -A7-�•St 'IL•El^
- AT-l9-23
r JP• e ,)�•ao g y \7 ♦� .+s, S \
AT-51-183 I
`!`p �`,y •fie% .`.t�t•`A �J• 1,T 131 zS6 s zs 62
.... ISa dr'7�i� ��G ^• y.• �+•"' ��7 „ •_�•:,5. •555 R \ ..
10
- e,b• I.1r \a.`• ° /ter.( „s .,•� � AEV i520': DATE:
..•[♦,.' .. V" of se''2�s.^' a'6"' , _ .1�
34 4
L (PDS'
--- e^� '/ -armss\��° 'lya.met 3 > Oeb�• �,� ,��. _ I -
tp,a 'o• \Gg > '. t�YU"\•41 b'•;,' d,};,-•_p°a � .
epi .r ,• a"i o''•.., b;; ,.� ,
17
�r a,P .f x.`.91....1.. .. • ..
34
R14
ja
vD"'D,-AL\_ a, ,.. ° `.'4A� .I.1�. - — r,an t �♦° ��
�`''�.8•" P h •-`, ,'nv 4 �:� ,sit 30 ♦;10
'7�''�•
CT :?�� / sl # F Z
34
i '4• �. > _ /"� RMF/
R'' m
.. .. 4�m g'.� L oases - &� nae♦•,;a✓.P ``. - •�h
17
.RMF 1, .\
° to-i _ � e� e -, y.a. °•7 � i�p�\J ,'
- _1 I.S. a \ � l.�a• � a' O
34
•:fr• �f I \ �\ 2) i tom\- � .as.+ .r��.\��� �;♦
20 � �.<. `� '...,y•c 27 .lel r-N+N _ •'
,a•_ - ___ -c� / ,[- \, \
23
>Nt,
� . CITY OF ATASC
�Planning Depart
,; nin;n..,:
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council January 13 , 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager K�1 -
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director +Yc
SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment 13-85
LOCATION: 4595 and 4450 Traffic Way
APPLICANT: Jesse Bentley, et al (Shirley Moore)
REQUEST: To adjust two lot lines to coincide with the new
existing Traffic Way alignment.
On December 2, 1985, the Planning Commission considered the
• above-referenced request on its consent calendar, unanimously
approving the application subject to the findings and condi-
tions contained in the attached staff report.
There was no public testimony given.
HE:ps
cc: Jesse Bentley
Shirley Moore
•
l�
Lot Line Adjustment P35 (Dulitz/Moore)
10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Generally level
11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt
C. ANALYSIS:
In a RSF-Y zone, the minimum lot size ranges between one acre when
sewer is available and 1 1/2 acres when sewer is not available.
The lot zoned RSF-Y in this case is .53 acres and is a nonconform-
ing legal lot of record. There is no minimum lot size in an in-
dustrial zone.
The two parcels are currently separated by the existing Traffic
Way. The applicant is proposing to dedicate this portion of Traf-
fic Way to the City and adjust the two adjacent property lines to
coincide with the current alignment of Traffic Way.
This adjustment to the lot lines would add additional acreage to
both Parcel 1 and Parcel 3. Parcel 1 would be increased to . 68
acres and Parcel 3 increased to . 57 acres. In effect, this ad-
justment is making the residential lot less nonconforming.
The applicant has also requested at this time to remove an oak
tree located along Traffic Way on Parcel 3. Staff determination
on removal of this tree will be made after receiving documentation
from a tree specialist that the tree is either dead, diseased, or
damaged beyond reclamation.
In sum, this proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with all
the City' s general plan and zoning ordinance regulations.
D. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Lot Line Adjustment 13-85 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 - Lot Line Adjustment Map
2
Lot Line Adjustment if 35 (Dulitz/Moore)
EXHIBIT A - Lot Line Adjustment 13-85
Findings/Conditions of Approval
December 2, 1985
FINDINGS
1. The application as submitted has been determined to be categori-
cally exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
2. The application as submitted conforms with all applicable zoning
and subdivision regulations.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The Lot Line Adjustment as generally shown on the map attachment
provided herein shall be submitted in final map format to be ap-
proved by the Planning Department prior to recordation by the
County Recorder ' s Office.
2. The proposed adjusted lot lines shall be surveyed and monuments
set at the new property corners prior to recordation of the final
map.
3. The location of all improvements and easements shall be delineated
on the Final Map.
4. Eliminate Parcel 2. Delineate the existing centerline of Traffic
Way and offer to dedicate to the City of Atascadero for public
road purposes, 25 feet from each side of the existing centerline.
5. Approval of this lot line adjustment shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless a time extension has been gran-
ted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date.
3
RS
. 3 ;. •a L•i.� • bit. ` .'� �I �� M .. ... .. .
LOCA-r-f d
� - is K°ra,� i�ti'[+ca�>�2,��'./`/ �• ��
,p� / . J f�ki_���,1\°' 7�[�>^.o`r• .. ` 41 t la a\}�Y•E'
t N � � � ti•1 \�
' -' ,�o•d' Vy /'' �'e';:n•3>•, eS•^/,^:�:t.p; .'\ ,i. f'><�1 ��-•-w0
-'� 1`;>.7 i °1 ��/ �i� t ;.y•�5,..•Lr..ti 1. are s�"1 Y 1 �\<a \`�\
� .. - L'T\ •,, a Cn o„P ��'^ car.^�'\ •�,� ����F� \ d tA.�so!i<l y5l�i fid'1 \\�c�''t \�:.
.
I..+'� ".wrc a 1✓ /: / f\.'Le7/'EV\�1 •{��/, \�`J �/ ` .;'A'�^'��L,o + r :t.sss
4T
l-�
.. .:;; � }F-R'� �/ ��'�..\ -' s>•:..rT,�'Y's'fi7^� 3 •y7' \•�\ � _•�'�';L/s�i 'tsr _,eis.>
' �a r ,F\/"/.\.a°oQya_ , is �Z',!.+1�±.- ro - ee .r• y,s\�� ami J+ 'r> , i:.s`
Cr4 +ss 'eT sx) a�''�„ „7 e;r le • w ,<� �” �� �a -J
- >e3y`�;..s1�, tsc +s,r' /:^>i).,,,,�/_�>>•J." � ,, •;• ,`i sy�Y �/,1,•s �.�_/
.. r`i•.'•` �! a. / t ,T � ?r..., i.=•e' o •l � > ms`s' \ .i'�_ o-
- �.\ 7 \>�+>rl•a `7 �, •� 7. ' 'h 9,-/" �- a' +at • �`iL `� AN Ya \ ci - a•'s
/J`F.Y a\ ..rt\ n. �' j� ��t�s� �s'F''t+,e ._�t z''r�/'), �� ¢s ,�\i `�1•(':�l"'1 •s � rrt
-r�, V \-: ar>\ � 71 Y�'��7 � pis 'Sbf,:ss t ,•r, •,-. ,sty. ,+`._m. +• Vl, �.\t'�`a �.d...���a�!•. ,tY ��W'
�� .t1'yS✓� � )b'O �.�♦ /t� )•>...�F/.A:,r _ -7 0 �r1 L ��\` .Y�� �' a 11•)
'=.I ,�, tl` r r\,o E$. '>or /ti ��'r 1 7•�/h.:�' 2 �.i: ��r.'• ..'!>e —
�Y '>. 7 Lam' ■e.=1" A /� /•r.. >+s.•2t_ '. _ �` +,.'S,V Kt'Y. ' r> \//\\ \\\:��_ •\; ..
I I \
: ��� gra F o'lbxr» •\ s i-= j P .;'ss ,2 >.-;jo a o eo ! t ca YS7r o � l\• - �' C �F ,
n 1 r �tys,m.;>+�� 2 ti y< •a- r aae / i'1J-\ \,>`,\:'t= } e>�a a 1 4.�
.w vi `0153' a t/\ru ,.3,-.., <tw �yrr,�('/ '�:'/ .,\f.� �a y a- �r Pj - l�ay� FV.C, R F
' �•i,�',`1 .e�f s,•:''�,.1 tir art `J!G'lrr.. .x-�iro •'+>';w.� v ��vC� .dl(,afjG, \ia �\•�.�s=6:N:-�o�?:4� (=o.c
>�.• . ..> ,t7F. r �. 7.) ,j/'�a`' \r l a�Yi't\�'' 'til ,'�/'�i G!t: 1^. �\, � \ e�e�A �i`� �•'i•'
fA:r. 'F ,rt�-.l�arrir /y?•' c > > �\�6 3t
`\.r o s.r•. •l �� lr)�'y r. .e/Y.9`b 'r" Y�••� �,tr aavi> .)w',.,+r .� /'�. !' � �\' �„ ��'.\ `�y'`�
• // tl/ `jTal � aoJ �p� ��\ a
li> a�`{J�I�,` >•�. ^��� .d - \.\\�.••rrs � 14'}I �''� S �Yy y'!�,(�'�+,Y�_r`i^. r a o .�.� ��' �,� ,,�`% '
l'•.'•N t'�'�.�yF /� 1i 4•� aa5 .. -� t,a 4F t.:.,tY ! i',�' a�y`''�ti�����t>e6� t :i_�P •.r 1 >a •� ,..\<- � �� _
���yxd .i'.27 l'� Jr j!• .a" t„ F, r ti ••iY� r�:9�d[QA . 1•/ r'bY� •�?.�: .0�,'39 :,�-. Y �n� �•r•'t1'°���
3 .' {Yt jf ..a ^�S . :o• to• to aji• r4 p 5:}S f a 'jy ��rvC� �\ .�,". ,
�4 •. >glt>1' �� ,r� �. •r21 'I� '� ��u «a7 &tnb o l "• ,S,>. 1 `'•� •1` Y� „
s ,f•, i�•' •�r'i � w �f ao•8�.�{t" � � s a ''���o - x`
- f. i.Va ' '�•��.� '/��>�.• ��as• ,Has %ae•'•. r!Pa ra ...`�.3 •1 �s 'i� e? >I,r� i�\, r�,�P`. {`
-■ :��''- � ,0/ \a= •�a3` .eJp � sr•+ � r . > „ .I.Q;t,4 � ;��� �' (� t-'.
•+"�.: „OV,
Y,•w >•r.•..v t•'t5 oo //• 'a. �,: .d)3^ 7!JI SW S \'.+Z '-.
V'-`' . - � �`f, ,�'� :/"'"?5.;.5�(;` a' .a• ,t`'� eg> :� sms r• Yto � o� 'r<I'= - 1': � :�. /y\a r .eSY
-r.r f - /�'.i �.}`M eot / orr> •r �T-_ r�• 7\• ' a ,B '+� p ru �"\ 4
- - v 4` ^'�' r /-. sw5 r°s• .�'�rS .�'t /t � ,l az);'i j,+[•.•, 3,l Y�,)'t.r' �t�. ,�
LSF_ -=.'�:� 4"�;��., .��'� 1,a. •, "••� �,�___�� _� „�;��-., a „.t>•� . (��,,
''�1.lp'6.7 �'9_ ��- v� s,t' hr � °' H'i's���/// r� ra • L\. �-t:`. .'r rr.
(X) � 1'Po� },,:F!rJ� f�♦ > n a ���1 •H ler ^��as to �•��.•,DTM ��' _> SI/;X. /v i "t.
lf-/�
aas•1�.�iYe?f j'•'.,, t! ��4=}�( 7 7 i./� •� ,7`F( 1'!,,.. f�'- / ,.�! r�,'('•„ s'.. r..;Tsaari.ah7a': 111 c7 a' ._. ,''•j> ;� I.L...-
.r ry �v:y''� �>� ftT(�/ 1 � n.. 1F` -'/ r• �!/U / L� ; l'.>1 •1`,.-:: � '0:� n( .4.'..� �.. •^�n.7�N// —
,� e 1.IF'•, �--�1jt ~'- �1 mer' �`i, r\l (�,,�! �Y 1 � r�
..•AA14
`����e rE( /f w+//{�.�Jl��'•Flq 1 s lLthat t t��- • .\ +'e,)\, " 1 1/ r•a .lrl,lj. �, ' 'LII
.hs� d f�1••}} \ / ,./`•\`�•1'S' ; r'_t\\.,�iil j1 T' Lk>� 4lel�lL•\`C/•//`` .��,yy\ s7,
,57
-lit ��s)so
:? `F.'L\ ./a F , "'�.S�rr >�•�� J-r a r s'•�-2„�_±- 1 \ I �r .. .,1-:: /< S' s. // `^>' - .
31
`r �, .'�f:,� 'r;t��:` �.ry fir- ✓ s 'i'- c� Sari � .• J .IG :s � d
_ h1..s�'ti,�- �/>s��»:y',r( �1TL�•,s �aF%ti; 1•• ,5_� 1 ioa / �y a////,ye
.1 .�'4 ..t\ `d,• �k,{y \ 1� �� r-rlf 4<,tY �.. HY, 1 �r 't a•Y �(•..,�'�;
• s �•`4'�ta,^/ 'a.r '4 '��'"3�i° �y�'L'�/�' ?'t'- �y�T;r siI •�'��v. s '..+ ,%i'a�7�'"C 7 _
' [' � ��+": r 6l �'�ti,.• s;.'� As+o sa / az p 1 91 dY '+`a ��_.• Q.1/•�"''1 s�' •/ '
> ✓X,:., e1.'� _l•.. n �%.'o<•�7d ,•�ti X4"1 .i”Ig. J:te, �i:19 'r`''' )o�rt• ,./ .�•�• 1 -
. _ •. "t\e. a ••�_:/!,'w..` _S''''f`a arlo k ,�: •o;F•a�rPa`.. ,-�` I',1 � , .7 ,
ZfL
CR
/` _—�+\�A ��. -1.�%r,^1•J t ,,� RO ��(i\Ix�F. �'�v� a� :i/"''�� ` '`\ A
% r
���'.�,>�c• tcY'j�F �r�— ti .\',„ �� r;"� •': �� � V'- �r RMF/16
. .1 .. \1'.,5� e .d•}:.\'�,�/�.�' ;;5�',s\�Y•��<t.. s:s,:,s•�-t,�j.a. 7 '.Yl_,-.<iy�,,"��
14
,c _ .• J,\�,.,C�\ / rs,r-ask, Lr� �
!
o�°<p,�� R' ',�-�,Ir TAT ft _
• �/ /�-I'ir,>.r �tri •� y � ('It ^tr.t!_ � ..
� - - .. - /:• l.. x-69';t>,�.• arK' O � •. ` ,?.:� ���sl., �
t J/ LLQ I� -�3in
----...— - RNFI�"o \l 'l\
O
Ns.
h� i
A;a 41
O. l�/ Y
_. � �•�. ��, epi � i }.,A •. :..
on, jo
EyS ' d t
n
�g
sx'm
os` Z
'q
•
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council ` January 13 , 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager NA' .
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 7-85
LOCATION: 6505 Santa Cruz Road
APPLICANT: Jim DeWelt (Dan Stewart)
• On August 26 , 1985, the City Council approved Lot Line Adjustment
7-85, subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the
recommendation of the Planning Commission. The required condi-
tions have been complied with and the final map is recommended
for approval.
HE:ps
cc: Jim DeWelt
Dan Stewart
•
�3
.., .DA
_77
-8
•
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council January 13, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager y .
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 18-84
LOCATION: 10995 San Marcos Road
APPLICANT: Paul Major (Dan Stewart)
On S 84 -
September 10, 19 , the City Council approved Parcel Map 18 84
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
cc: Paul Major
Dan Stewart
•
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Councilpp January 13, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager ('amu
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director Vkf
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Parcel Map AT 820802:1
LOCATION: San Marcos Road (Ptn. Lot 46, Block 40)
APPLICANT: Langford and Ibsen Enterprises (Dan Stewart)
• On May 23, 1983, the City Council approved Parcel Map AT820802:1
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 for the Phase I portion of the map only.
HE:ps
cc: Langford and Ibsen Enterprises
Dan Stewart
•
TDA
• MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Request for Proposals, Consultant Services for Bridge
Replacement, Sycamore Road at Atascadero Creek,
Bridge No. 49C-157
DATE: January 7, 1986
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that a request for proposal be send to a minimum
three qualified engineering consulting firms and that the bridge
design be started as soon as possible.
Background:
The City has qualified for Federal Aid Bridge Replacement
Funds. Federal and City participation will be 80% and 20%,
respectively.
The existing bridge is a four span wooden structure with a
total length of 86 feet. The existing structure will be load
rated by order of the Director of the Department of Transportation.
The proposed structure will sustain legal loads and meet current
State and Federal standards and is invisioned to be reinforced
concrete flat slab structure with an overall length of 150 feet.
Proposal:
The consultants shall submit proposals to provide design
engineering, detail construction plans and construction engineering
service acceptable to the Department of Transportation and the City
of Atascadero.
Fiscal Impact:
Monies for this service have been budgeted in the 1985/86
Capital Improvement Budget.
Attachment:
• Scope of Services
0 i
NOTE:
The City will provide any maps, records or other data that
it has readily available upon request by the consultant. The
Consultant should satisfy himself prior to submittal of his pro-
posal as to what information is available.
BACKGROUND:
The consultant shall present the City with background in-
formation on his firm and the key individuals that will work on
this project. A contact person will be named if the proposal
is accepted. The company's experience in San Luis Obispo County
and in Atascadero and with the California Department of Trans-
portation, should be included.
FEES:
The consultant shall present his proposal based on a cost
times a multiplier or an alternate similar approach if his
accounting system dictates. In any case, a not to exceed figure
shall be given. Out of pocket expenses shall be shown as a
separate estimate but shall be included in the upset figure.
TIME SCHEDULE:
Time is of the essence with this project. The consultant
shall indicate a completion time for the proposed services.
We look forward to your submittal and are ready to answer
any questions that you may have. Proposals are due on or before
12:00 noon, January 20th at the office of the Director of Public
Works/City Engineer.
Sincerely,
PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
GEORGE A. WOLFRANK
Senior Civil Engineer
2
)LI ��
• MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
e
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager ,
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Request Authorization to Hold Public Hearing on Traffic
Committee Items
DATE: January 7, 1986
Recommendation:
Staff is recommending that a Public Hearing be held to discuss
items that have been brought to the attention of the Traffic
Committee. Public Hearing, if approved, to be held January 22, 5:00
p.m. at the regular meeting of the Traffic Committee in the Council
Chambers.
Background:
• It has been brought to the attention of the Traffic Committee
that the parking of tall vehicles near driveways causes a severe sight
distance problem. The Traffic Committee is recommending prohibiting
the parking of vehicles 6 ' in height or over within 100 ' of driveways.'
Additionally, the Traffic Committee is recommending establishing
2-Hour Parking on El Camino Real from San Anselmo to San Gabriel
Roads. This action is to alleviate reoccurring problems connected
with long term parking.
Discussion:
While both of these recommendations appear warranted, it is
felt that the impact would be sufficient to justify holding a Public
Hearing on both matters.
The Public Hearing would be held by the Traffic Committee and
a report of comments and recommendations would be sent to the City
Council for action.
Fiscal Impact:
Approximately 170 signs would be necessary to complete the
above recommendation and 2 men with a vehicle would be tied up for
approximately 2 weeks could cost up to $15 , 000 and could not be taken
• from the present budget without sacrificing other projects.
1 . .,
ti
•
M E MO R A N D U M
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Mike Shelton
SUBJECT: City Council representative appointment to the San Luis
Obispo County Economic Monitoring and Mitigation
Program Advisory Committee
DATE: January 9, 1986
Recommendation
City Council endorse Mayor Nelson' s appointment of
as the City' s elected representative and Henry Engen as
the staff representative to the San Luis Obispo County Economic
Monitoring and Mitigation Program Advisory Committee.
Background
• The purpose of the Economic Monitoring and Mitigation Program
Advisory Committee is to monitor socio-economic impacts and, as
appropriate, recommend mitigation measures related to the devel-
opment of offshore oil and gas projects. Attached is a letter
from Supervisor Diefenderfer, dated Oct. 14 , 1985 , speaking to
the needs of this committee. Also attached is a memo dated Sept.
16 , 1985, from Michael G. Powers, Santa Barbara County, defining
the role of Advisory Committee members.
The attached letter/memos speak to the formation of a tri-county
(Ventura, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties) committee.
At the November 13, 1985 , Mayor ' s Meeting, the formation of the
tri-county committee and San Luis Obispo committee was discussed
at length. It was the consensus of the group that the Mayor Se-
lect Committee would meet to appoint a San Luis Obispo County
appointee to the tri-county committee. Accordingly, Councilman
Chuck Comstock of Grover City was appointed.
In addition to the tri-counties committee, the County is formula-
ting its own committee, consisting of an elected official and a
staff representative from each of the seven cities, as well as
representatives from the County.
For the timely formation of the County committee, Atascadero has
• been requested to designate its representative at this time. The
County' s committee will have responsibility for monitoring future
potential off-shore development in San Luis Obispo County. This
committee will determine levels of project impact significance
1 ��
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
IOPFCOUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93408 • 805-549-5450
October 14, 1985
's
Members of the Board
The Honorable Mayor Rolfe Nelson JERRY DIEFENDERFERWILLIAM B.COY
City of Atascadero EVELYN DELANY
Post Office Box 747 RUTH E.BRACKETT
Atascadero, CA 93423 CARL HYSEN
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR A REPRESENTATIVE ON A TRI-COUNTIES SOCIO-
ECONOMIC MONITORING AND MITIGATION PROGRAM - PROGRAM
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Dear Mayor Nelson:
Santa Barbara County has approved a number of oil and gas projects
related to offshore development within the last 18 months that may
have wide-ranging socioeconomic impacts in San Luis Obispo, Santa
Barbara, and Ventura Counties. They are forming a program advisory
committee with representatives from the three counties to ensure
that adequate input is provided on how to monitor these impacts.
San Luis Obispo County will have a representative and they have
requested that a representative from a city in our county also
participate. I am requesting that you designate a representative to
this committee. I am attaching a report concerning the purpose and
nature of this program and the participation of the Program Advisory
Committee. If you have any questions, please contact Patricia Beck
of the Planning Department at 549-5981.
San Luis Obispo County is now beginning the Environmental Impact
Report for its first onshore project related to offshore oil and gas
development. We may also determine that similar monitoring and
mitigation will be necessary for this project. This may call for
participation from the affected cities. The Program Advisory Com-
mittee proposed by Santa Barbara County will likely be a valuable
learning experience.
I look forward to your appointing a representative.
Sincerely,
JERRY DI FENDERFER
Tri-County Oil Committee
Representative
Attachment
NOTE: This item will be heard at your next Mayors Meeting.
r? �` 922 Laguna Street
GERALD R. LORDEN !� l �•- , �t-�..,• Santa Barbara,Calif. 9
Director + jilt / �� ,
b . Telephone: 9637193
-� N 26-.;
DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL PROGRAMS
September 16, 1985
To: Technical Advisory Committee
From: Michael G. Powersva
Re: Advisory Committees and their roles in the socioeconomic monitoring
and mitigation program for oil and gas projects.
As the Socioeconomic Monitoring and Mitigation Program (SEMP) is refined,
several major changes to the scope of program dictate a renewed look at
the organizational structure originally proposed in permit conditions.
During the hearings on the Exxon and Chevron projects Ventura County
opted to set up their own monitoring program because they felt that their
representation on the Technical Advisory Committee made up of nine
members was not adequate. As noted above, Ventura contracted with
Centaur Associates to develop a monitoring program. The final permit
condition on the Chevron, Exxon and subsequent permits included
representation from Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties only.
Since that time, Ventura County has elected to participate in the
monitoring and impact assessment elements of the Santa Barbara County
Program. Determination of levels o� significance and recommendations for
^itigation measures for Ventura County would still be accomplished at the
county level via the existing Ventura County Technical Advisory Committee.
Santa Barbara County welcomes the participation of Ventura into a
tri-county program because socioeconomic impacts are rarely divided
neatly by jurisdictional boundaries and duplication of effort would be
avoided.
Along these same lines San Luis Obispo County also expressed interest in
participating in the tri-county monitoring and impact assessment portions
of the program, but again emphasized that specific County thresholds of
significance and mitigation measures would be best determine3 a-t—T e
County level.
The common needs of each county, as well as the applicants, are met with
the development of a consistent monitoring program and an agreed upon
model to determine impacts. All parties agree that mitigation and
thresholds of significance are best determined at the county level with
mitigation recommendations in all cases brought to the Santa Barbara
County Board of Supervisors for final action (ratification).
Due to the above changes, the current make—up of the Technical Advisory
Committee as outlined in the Chevron, Exxon and other permit conditions
may not adequately serve the needs of the program. Ventura County has no
formal recognition and San Luis Obispo County has one representative to
Santa Barbara County's three.
As the Ad Hoc Working Group discussed the functions of the Technical
Advisory Committee the following issues came to light.
1) It was not appropriate nor realistic to expect elected
representatives to participate in resolving the "day to day"
technical issues which will arise. This function is more
appropriate for the staffs of local agencies and designees of
oil and gas companies.
2) At the same time it was necessary to provide a means by which
the program could be developed in a manner sensitive to the
Political concerns of affected jurisdictions.
3) There should be a formal integration of Ventura County, and
one city representative from Ventura and San Luis Obispo
Counties into the technical and strategic side of program
development.
4) There was a need to provide a forum to achieve concensus on
elements of the program prior to its implementation. The
forum would include both representatives of impacted oil and
gas company representatives and elected officials.
The organizational chart portrayed in Figure 1 attempts to respond to
these and other concerns.
The Tri—county socioeconomic monitoring and mitigation program (SEMP) is
divided into two phases: program development and program implementation.
The first phase, program development, is administered by the Department
of Regional Programs, County of Santa Barbara. Centaur Associates Inc.
has been retained by the County to assist in the technical specification
of the program. Two advisory committees will assist the Department of
Regional Programs in developing a successful program.
The Technical Advisory Committee (now known as the Ad Hoc Working Group)
will assist the Department of Regional Programs in specifying the
technical direction and various elements of the socioeconomic monitoring
program. Its membership will consist of the staffs of Department of
2
an
1
• •
FIGURE 1
TRI-COUNTY
SOCIOECONOMIC MONITORING AND
MITIGATION PROGRAM
D Santa Barbara County
E Board of Supervisors
V I
E Centaur Department of
L Associates Regional Programs
0 Inc.
P
M Arbitration—Technical Advisory Program Advisory s�
E Group Committee Committee
N (option) (currently Ad Hoc (currently TAC)
T Working Group)
-Dept. Resource Management (1 ) -County of Santa Barbara
P -2 Cities from Santa Barbara County
H -Ventura County Planning Div.(1 ) -San Luis Obispo County
A -San Luis Obispo -1 City from San Luis Obispo County
S County Planning (1 ) -Ventura County
E -Oil and Gas Company Reps. -1 City from Ventura County
-Oil and Gas Company Reps.
-City Staff Reps. (4)
-CCOG Rep. (1 )
PI Input data from Department of
participating oil Regional Programs
L and gas companies as Program Administrator
E
M Santa Barbara County San Luis Obispo County Ventura Countv
PImpact Report ImpactReportImpact Report
T Affected Agencies, San Luis Obispo VenturaCounty
T Santa Barbara County County Planning Department PlanningIDivision
I Santa Barbara County County Specific County Specific
0 ���4�( ���At' Mitigation Process Mitigation Process
C'
Departments of Regional Programs Action by Action by
Resource Management San Luis Obispo County Ventura County
P joint recommendation to Board of Supervisors Board of Supervisors
H Santa Barbara County
A Board of Supervisors
S on Mitigation
E i
Action by Ratification by Ratification by
County Board of Supervisors Santa Barbara County Santa Barbara County
Board of Supervisors Board of Supervisors
3
0
Resource Management, County of San Luis Obispo and Ventura County, and
one representative from each company subject to the SEMP condition. One
staff person from each participating city on the Program Advisory
Committee will be able to participate. A representative from the
California Coastal Operators Group (CCOG) is also included on the
Technical Advisory Committee. CCOG participation will improve
coordination of the monitoring program being developed for the oil and
gas industry by CCOG (prime contractor Pacific Research Inc. ) with the
broader tri—county socioeconomic monitoring and mitigation program.
The Program Advisory Committee (PAC) will provide a forum for elected
officials and oil and gas company representatives to achieve consensus on
the major elements of the SEMP prior to setting the program in
"concrete. "This Committee will insure that the program takes into
account the concerns of impacted agencies. Ventura County and San Luis
Obispo County will be a part of the PAC and, by use of their own internal
program, can communicate the concerns of their neighboring jurisdictions
to the Santa Barbara County Department of Regional Programs. The PAC
will also provide a formal means of communication between elected
officials and the oil and gas companies affected by the program. These
meetings could be open to the public and could also be the source of
public input prior to action by the Santa Barbara County Board of
Supervisors. The role of the PAC, however, is on broader strategic
issues, not detailed technical items.
The primary focus of the Program Advisory Committee during the
development process will be impact mitigation. The PAC will be briefed
on technical products of the socioeconomic monitoring program, however,
their principal task will be development of guidelines for impact
mitigation. This approach will achieve integration of the monitoring
phase with the mitigation phase of the program, and, assist in achieving
consistency in the development of an impact mitigation program which
spans three counties and many jurisdictions.
The tri—county oil subcommittee will continue to operate outside the
specific socioeconomic monitoring and mitigation program. Continued
coordination is assured since some elected representatives on the
tri—county oil subcommittee are also on the Program Advisory Committee,
and, staff representation on the Technical Advisory Committee is staff to
elected officials on the tri—county oil subcommittee.
In the implementation phase of the program the Santa Barbara County
Department of Regional Programs obtains input data from participating
companies and runs the data through the impact model. Impact reports are
prepared for separate agencies. Cumulative impacts are also addressed.
Those impacts applying to Ventura County are sent to the Ventura County
Planning Division for distribution to agencies within Ventura County. An
identical process happens in San Luis Obispo County. Within these two
counties an internal process is developed which eventually leads to an
action by the respective Boards of Supervisors on mitigation. This
. action is then ratified by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors.
4 �
In Santa Barbara County the Department of Regional Programs distributes
impact reports to affected agencies. A Santa Barbara County
industry—government advisory committee participates in developing
specific mitigation measures as recommendations to the County Board of
Supervisors. To assure consistency among mitigation as it affects other
projects and other conditions on oil and gas companies the Department of
Regional Programs and the Resource Management Department will jointly
sign off on mitigation recommendations presented to the Santa Barbara
County Board of Supervisors.
This memo finalizes the framework for the development and implementation
of the socioeconomic monitoring and mitigation program. The next task is
two fold: detail how the program will work within each county, and,
develop guidelines for mitigation of identified impacts. A forthcoming
memo will present major issues for consideration of the later tri—county
issue. The memo will rely on the recent experience of Ventura County in
examining implementation of the mitigation phase of the program.
T d33
5 �
• MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: City Hall Renovation Project: Advertisement for Bids and
Authorization for Consulting Agreement
DATE: January 7 , 1986
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that (a) authorization be given to advertise
for Bids for the various phases of the project, and (b) authorization
be given to the Public Works Director to enter into an agreement with
Fred Shott & Associates for the final design of Phase IIC - HVAC and
Interior Renovation.
Background:
Enclosed is background information from Fred Shott and Al
Nibecker regarding the itemization of construction costs and con-
sultation and inspection fees.
The State Historical Preservation office has a deadline on
expending their funds, thus it behooves the City to move the project
along quickly.
The new HVAC system for all floors, the fire-proofing or draft
stop work, the ceiling work, painting, carpeting and other
miscellaneous work need to be designed and prepared for bidding.
The asbestos removal, 3rd floor restroom renovation, and the
4th floor structural work including parapet walls is now ready for
bid, subject to SHPO review.
Discussion:
Shott & Assoc. are asking direction from staff for the final
room arrangements, including the Council Chambers location. These
decisions will have to be made within the next two weeks so that
redesigning will not be necessary.
The SHPO has nixed the idea of the mezanine enclosure on the
2nd floor and at this stage the internal reconstruction for the
police rooms on the 2nd floor have been eliminated.
•
FRED H . SCHOTT & A S S O A TES, I N C
CIVIL&STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS Fred H.Schott,P.E. Kevin T Devaney
Richard N.Kopecky,Arch. Matthew J.Edwards
200 Suburban Road 805/544-1216 Leonard Haeger,A.I.A. J.J.Emrick
San Luis Obispo,California 93401-7589 805/929-3216 Philip R.Henry,P.E. Brian Husting
Michael P.Bailey Richard J.Nadelson
Larry Bogovich Perry C.Schacht
November 27 , 1985
City of Atascadero
Post Office Box 747
Atascadero, California 93423
Attention: Mr. Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works
Subject: Phase IIC Remodel Work at the
Atascadero City Administration Building
Dear Paul :
Since our last meeting, we have been in contact with Mr. Al
Nibecker, our Mechanical Consultant, to discuss your concerns
regarding the proposed H.V.A.C. system for all City staff offices
and the 4th floor rotunda. We requested a written statement from
him that outlines the history of the various mechanical
improvement plans prepared over the past 5 or 6 years and a cost
comparison of the most recently designed mechanical system versus
the proposed "water source heat pump" system. We have enclosed a
copy of Mr. Nibecker ' s letter to us for your use and information.
We emphasize that the "rough" estimates for the "hydronic-fan
coil" system and the "water-source heat pump" system should be
considered for relative comparisons only. Until a new system is
designed and drawings prepared so that material quantities can be
determined, it is impossible for Mr. Nibecker to give us' anything
more than a very rough estimate of mechanical costs.
If you feel it desireable, Mr. Nibecker could be present at the
next City Council meeting when the Phase IIC improvements are
discussed. He can answer any specific questions that the Council
might ask regarding the mechanical design work. If you concur,
please advise us as soon as possible so we may notify him well in
advance.
In order to avoid any future confusion, we have elected to
reorganize our identification of the different improvement phases
to the City Administration Buildings. Phase IIA will be divided
into Phase IIA and IIB. The new Phase IIA will include only
asbestos removal work. The new Phase IIB will include all
improvements to the third floor public restrooms, structural
bracing of high and low fourth floor parapet walls and 22 ' high
unreinf orced masonry walls at the fourth floor, and reinforcement
F R ED H . S C H O T T & A S S SI A T E S, I N C . Fred H.Schott,D.E. Kevin T.Devaney
CIVIL& STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
Richard N.Kopecky,Arch. Matthew J.Edwards
1700 Suburban Road 805/544-1216 Leonard Haeger,A.I.A. J.J.Emrick
San Luis Obispo,California 93401-7589 805/929-3216 Philip R.Henry,P.E. Brian Husting
Michael P.Bailey Richard J.-Nadu
Larry Bogovich Perry C.Schad
CITY OF ATASCADERO page 2
November 27 , 1985
of existing floor beams at the fourth floor. The old Phase IIB
will become Phase IIC. This phase will include the installation
of a new H.V.A.C. system in all staff offices at the lst, 2nd,
3rd and 4th floor rotunda. In addition, new carpeting, carpet
base, painting, t-bar ceiling, lighting, and additional electrical
wall outlets at all "future" City staff offices at the 1st, 2nd
and 3rd floors that are presently unimproved.
We have enclosed our rough estimate of Phase IIC improvements for
your use. You will note that Item 4 is listed as $250,000 instead
of $195,000 as previously stated by Mr. Nibecker. We requested
an ultra conservative estimate from him and it was $250,000.
Therefore, we listed the higher figure.
In closing, we have reevaluated our estimate for Phase IIC
professional services. These services include our mechanical and
electrical consultants and supercede our letter of November 5,
1985 outlining our not-to-exceed cost estimate for Phase IIB
Professional Services.
1. Professional Design Services: $36,575.00 - $40 ,575.00
2. Construction Administration Services: $14,600.00 - $20,600.00
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact
US.
Sincerely yours,
Richard N.Iope`c�ky
Chief Architect
RNK:rcds
Enclosures:
FRED H . SCHOTT & ASSCOATES, INC . •
CIVIL&STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS Fred H.Schott,P.E. Kevin T Devaney
Richard N.Kopecky,Arch. Matthew J.Edwards
200 Suburban Road 805/544-1216 Leonard Haeger,A.I.A. J.J.Emrick
San Luis Obispo,California 93401-7589 805/929-3216 Philip R.Henry,P.E. Brian Husting
Michael P.Bailey Richard J.Nadelson
Larry Bogovich Perry C.Schacht
CITY OF ATASCADERO
November 27 , 1985
ATASCADERO CITY HALL PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
FOR PHASE IIC IMPROVEMENTS
November 27, 1985
SCOPE OF WORK: Installation of new "Water Source Heat-Pump"
H.V.A.C. System with complete electric service at 1st, 2nd, 3rd
and 4th floor rotunda; remote equipment pad and fenced enclosure
for H.V.A.C. cooling tower, boilers and pumps; installation of
plaster draft stops at all vertical mechanical chases of each
floor ; new carpeting, carpet base, painting, t-bar ceiling,
lighting, and extra surface mounted duplex electrical wall outlets
at all future City staff offices at 1st, 2nd, and 3rd floors not
presently improved.
1. Bond: $ 3,200.00
2. Mobilization: $ 5,300.00
3 . Lath & Plaster (Draft Stop Work) : $ 20,400.00
4. H.V.A.C. (Water Source Heat Pump System) : $250,000.00
5. H.V.A.C. Electrical Service: $ 16,000.00
6. Paint (Staff Office Areas) : $ 16,800 .00
7. Carpet & Carpet Base (Staff Office Areas) : $ 20,000 .00
8. Acoustic T-Bar Ceiling (Staff Office Areas) : $ 9,700.00
9. Ceiling Lighting/Extra Electrical Outlets
(Staff Office Areas) : $ 25,000.00
10. Remote Mechanical Equipment Area: $ 5, 500 .00
Sub-Total : $371, 900.00
10% Contingency: $ 37 ,200.00
TOTAL: $409,100.00
-----------
0
a�
AL NISECHER & ASSOCIATES. INC.
CONSULTING MECHANICAL ENGINEERS
NOVEMBER 21, 1985
FRED SCHOTT AND ASSOCIATES
200 SUBURBAN ROAD
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF. 93401
ATTENTION: MR. RICHARD KOPECKI
SUBJECT: ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING--MECHANICAL SYSTEMS DESIGN
DEAR RICHARD:
AS DISCUSSED, TWO DIFFERENT MECHANICAL SYSTEMS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
HAVE BEEN DESIGNED. THIS HAS TAKEN PLACE OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS. EITHER
SYSTEM WILL ADEQUATELY FULFILL THE PROJECT REQUIREMENTS AS DESIGNED.
UNDERSTANDABLY, THE CLIENT HAS SOME QUESTIONS AS TO WHY A THIRD MECHANICAL
SYSTEMS DESIGN FOR CONDITIONING THE BUILDING HAS BEEN PROPOSED. THE PURPOSE
OF THIS LETTER IS TO RECOUNT THE HISTORY OF THE PROJECT AND TO CLOSE WITH THE
OPTIONS FOR MEETING THE PROJECT'S MECHANICAL NEEDS.
AS IT STANDS, THE EXISTING STEAM SYSTEM IS INADEQUATE TO SERVICE THE BUILDING.
THE PIPING IS OLD AND LEAKING. MUCH OF THE INSULATION IS EITHER NON-EXISTANT
OR IN POOR SHAPE. CORROSION HAS FOULED MUCH OF THE PIPING AND HEAT
EXCHANGERS. BASICALLY, THE EXISTING SYSTEM IS CLD AND UNABLE TO MEET THE
BUILDING DEMANDS. IT HAS PRCBABLY BEEN QUITE A MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING TASK
TO KEEP THE HEATING SYSTEM ON-LINE.
APPROXIMATELY SIX YEARS AGO, IT WAS DECIDED TO RENOVATE THE ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING. THE BASIC REQUIREMENT FOR THE MECHANICAL SYSTEM WAS TO DESIGN AN
INSTALLATION FCR HEATING THE BUILDING WITH THE PROVISION FOR ADDING AIR
CONDITIONING AT A LATEER DATE. A FEW SELECTED AREAS, SUCH AS DATA PROCESSING,
WERE TO RECEIVE AIR CONDITIONING DURING THIS DESIGN PHASE. THE FOURTH STORY
AREA WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE WORK; AND A MAJOR PORTION OF THE WORK INVOLVED
THE COMPLETE RENOVATION OF THE BASEMENT WHICH WAS TO BE THE NEW POLICE
DEPARTMENT.
THE BUILDING HAS AMPLE PIPE CHASES FOR THE EXISTING STEAM SYSTEM.
ADDITIONALLY, AT THE TIME, THE EXISTING BOILER WAS FAIRLY NEW AND COULD BE
RETAINED. THE LOGIGAL CHOICE FOR THE HEATING (AND LATER AIR CONDITIONING) THE
BUILDING WAS A 'HYDRONIC' SYSTEM UTILIZING HOT WATER FOR HEATING AND WITH THE
PROVISION FOR THE INSTALLATION OF FUTURE CHILLED WATER COOLING. SUCH A SYSTEM
CIRCULATED HOT WATER THOUGH-OUT THE BUILDING. THE HOT WATER IS SUPPLIED
THROUGH FAN COILS IN EACH ZONE WHICH PROVIDES FOR FORCED AIR HEATING. THE FAN
COILS WERE SPECIFIED WITH BOTH HEATING AND COOLING COILS BUT THE CHILLED WATER
PIPING SYSTEM WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR THIS PHASE OF THE PROJECT. SUCH A SYSTEM
IS EASILY EXPANDABLE AND PROVIDES FOR COMPLETE THERMOSTATIC CONTROL IN ALL 0
MAIN OFFICE: 935 Riverside, Unit 19 • Paso Robles, CA 93446 • (805) 239-3666
BRANCH OFFICE: 155 Granada St., Suite A 0 Camarillo, CA 93010 9 (805) 987-3410
ZONES. THE BASEMENT AND PERIMETER AREAS OF THE FIRST THREE FLOORS WERE
INCLUDED IN THE DESIGN. THE PRESENT MUSEUM AREA AND ENTIRE FOURTH FLOOR, AS
STATED, WERE TO BE INCLUDED AT A LATER DATE.
LATER, THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT WAS GREATLY REDUCED. A DECISION WAS MADE TO
PLACE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ELSEWHERE AND THE ENTIRE MECHANICAL SYSTEM FOR
HEATING AND VENTILATING THE BASEMENT BECAME OBSOLETE. APPARENTLY, THE
AVAILABLE FUNDS WERE APPLIED FIRST TO THE ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIOR DESIGN OF
THE NEW OFFICE LAY-OUT. THE RENOVATION OF THE BUILDING'S PLUMBING SYSTEMS WAS
INSTALLED AS DESIGNED BUT THE HEATING SYSTEM WAS TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY MODIFIED.
THIS OFFICE WAS REQUESTED TO FORMULATE PLANS FOR THE LEAST EXPENSIVE SOLUTION
TO THE EXISTING BEATING PROBLEM, WITHOUT REGARD FOR CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING.
OUR DESIGN RETAINED THE MAIN PIPING AND BOILER ROOM ADDITIONS FROM THE
ORIGINAL DESIGN BUT COMPLETELY ELIMINATED ALL THE FAN COILS, DUCTING, AND
CONTROLS AS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED. IN PLACE OF THIS EQUIPMENT, SELF REGULATING
HOT WATER BASEBOARDS �vERE CHOOSEN AS THE LEAST COSTLY ALTERNATIVE.
THIS WORK WAS COMPLETED APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR AGO.
APPARENTLY, FUNDS HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE FOR BOTH HEATING AND AIR
CONDITIONING A SIZABLE PORTION OF THE BUILDING. THE BASEMENT, WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF A FEW AREAS TO BE HEATED, IS NO LONGER A MAJOR PORTION OF THE
WORK. THE FOURTH FLOOR COUNCIL AREA HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE PROJECT,
IF A MECHANICAL SYSTEM IS TO BE INSTALLED WHICH HAS COMPLETE AIR CONDITIONING
AND HEATING SERVICES, A SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS CAN BE REALIZED BY UTILIZING A
'WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMP' INSTALLATION. ALL DESIGN WORK TO DATE DOES NOT
INCLUDE CENTRAL PLANT AIR CONDITIONING. AIR CONDITIONING CAN BE DESIGNED WITH
THE ORIGINAL WORK, AND THE PLANS CAN BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE THE FOURTH FLOOR
(AND DELETE THE BASEMENT. THE FINAL INSTALLATION WILL BE EXPENSIVE, HOWEVER.
A 'ROUGH' ESTIMATE FOR THE INSTALLED COST FOR THE HYDRCNIC-FAN COIL
INSTALLATION IS ABOUT $265,000.
THE PROPOSED WATER SOURCE HEAT PUMP SYSTEM UTILIZES TWO UNINSULATED 'WATER
PIPES INSTEAD OF THE FOUR INSULATED PIPES REQUIRED FOR THE FAN-COIL
INSTALLATION. ADDITIONALLY, THE SIZE AND COMPLEXITY OF THE CENTRAL MECHANICAL
PLANT AND CONTROLS ARE GREATLY DECREASED. WHILE THE WATER SOURCE HEAT PUMP
SYSTEM IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN DUE TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR
AIR CONDITIONING, THE INSTALLATION WILL BE LESS EXPENSIVE WHEN BOTH HEATING
AND AIR CONDITIONING ARE REQUIRED. A. ROUGH ESTIMATE FOR THE INSTALLED COST OF
THE WATER SOURCE HEAT PUMP INSTALLATION IS $195,000.
ADDITIONALLY, ENERGY USE WILL BE MUCH BETTER WITH THE WATER SOURCE HEAT PUMP
SYSTEM. THE INSTALLATION HAS THE ABILITY TO USE ENERGY REJECTED FROM ONE ZONE
TO HEAT OR COOL A DIFFERENT AREA. IT IS ESTIMATED THAT THE WATER SOURCE
INSTALLATION WILL REQUIRE ABOUT 20-30 PERCENT LESS ENERGY THAN THE STANDARD
FOUR-PIPE HYDRONIC INSTALLATION.
IN SUMMARY, THE ORIGINAL WORK CAN NOW BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE CENTRAL PLANT AIR
•
CONDITIONING. ALSO, THE WORK CAN BE REVISED TO SERVICE THE FORTH FLOOR, THE
INTERIOR PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURE, AND TO DELETE THE 'WORK IN MOST OF THE
BASEMENT. HOWEVER, IF A FULL HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING PLANT IS NOW
REQUIRED, THE OPTION OF THE WATER SOURCE HEAT PUMP INSTALLATION I5 A BETTER
CHOICE. BOTH THE 'FIRST-COST' AND OPERATING COST FOR THIS SYSTEM ARE BETTER.
BOTH OPTIONS WILL REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF A MECHANICAL PLANT IN SOME AREA
ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING.
FOR ADEQUATELY HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING THE BUILDING, BOTH SYSTEMS
DISCUSSED WILL BE APPROPRIATE. EITHER INSTALLATION WILL REQUIRE SUBSTANTIAL
ALTERATION OF THE EXISTING DRAWINGS. IT IS FELT THAT THIS WORK WOULD BE BEST
APPLIED TO A MECHANICAL SYSTEM WHICH BEST MEETS THE PROJECT REQUIREMENTS AS
THEY ARE NOW DEFINED.
HOPEFULLY, THE ABOVE INFORMATION WILL BE HELPFUL TOWARDS COMPLETING THE
PROJECT. YOUR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS WILL BE APPRECIATED.
dZIEZ, ,
A.F. NIBECKER PE
AFN/BT
FRED H . SCHOTT & ASSCOATES, INC . Fred H. httP.E. KevinT
Sc o Devaney
CIVIL& STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS Richard N Kopecky,Arch. Matthew J.Edwards
200 Suouroan Road 805 544-1216 Leonard Haeger,A.I.A. J.J.Emnck
San Luis Obispo,California 93401-7589 805/929-3216 Philip R.Henry,P.E. Brian Husting
Michael P.Bailey Richard J.Nadelson
Larry Bogovich Perry C Schacht
November 5, 1985
City of Atascadero
Post Office Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
Attention: Mr. Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works
Subject: Cost Estimate for Phase IIA & IIB Remodel Work
at the Atascadero City Administration Building
Dear Paul :
In response to your request, we have prepared a cost estimate for
Phase IIA & Phase IIB work at the City Administration Building. The
estimate is in keeping with our recent meetings to discuss the City' s
modified remodeling program and the . addition of a new State grant
approved by the State Office of Historic Preservation. Our cost
estimates are based on staff time being billed on an hourly basis of
the individuals doing the work with a "not-to-exceed" maximum figure
for each phase of the work. Our fee includes services by our
consulting Mechanical and Electrical Engineers. Our consulting
Mechanical Engineer is Al Nibecker & Associates and our consulting
Electrical Engineer is Mr. Alvin Smith. We have broken our estimate
down into two primary construction phases.
The general scope of construction work for Phase IIA includes the
following:
A. Asbestos removal at the first floor ceiling.
B. Total renovation of third floor men ' s and women ' s restrooms.
C. Structural bracing of high and low parapet walls at the fourth
floor .
D. Structural bracing of 22 ' high unreinforced masonry walls and
reinforcement of existing floor beams at the fourth floor .
PHASE IIA Professional Services
-------------------------------
1. Recent and future meetings with City staff.
2 . Preparation of 1986 State Historical Grant application.
3 . Coordination with consultants, State Architect, and City staff.
4. Revision of Architectural, Electrical, Mechanical plans and
specifications for Phase IIA construction.
FRED H . SCHOTT & ASSMOIATES, INC . 19
CIVIL& STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS Fred H Schott,P.E. Kevin T.Devaney
Richard N.Kopeck-y,Arch. Matthew J.Edwards
200 Suburban Road 805/544-1216 Leonard Haeger,A.I.A. J.J.Emrick
San Luis Obispo,California 93401-7589 805/929-3216 Philip R.Henry,P.E. Brian Husting
Michael P.Bailey Richard J.IN
Larry Bogovich Perry C.Schao
CITY OF ATASCADERO page 2
November 5, 1985
5. Preparation of bid packages for contractors.
Professional Services $ 9,725.00
Construction Administration Services $ 2, 500.00
The general scope of construction work for Phase IIB includes the
following:
A. Install new H.V.A.C. system at all City staff offices and remote
mechanical plant with a new cooling tower, mechanical pumps, and
boilers.
B. Install new t-bar ceiling system, ceiling lighting and wall
outlets in City staff offices where required at first, second and
third floors.
C. Install new carpeting and carpet base in City staff offices where
required at first, second and third floors.
D. Paint City staff offices where required at first, second and third
floors.
E. Construct draft stops at all vertical mechanical shafts at each
floor .
PHASE IIB Professional Services
-------------------------------
1. Meetings with City Staff.
2. Coordination with consultants, State Architect, and City staff. `
3. Preparation of Architectural and Electrical plans and
specifications for Phase IIB construction.
4. Preparation of Mechanical design plans and specifications of new
H.V.A.C. system for entire administration building.
5. Preparation of bid packages for contractors
Professional Services $39, 575.00 - $44, 575.00
Construction Administration Services $14,600.00 - $24,600.00
FRED H . SCHOTT & ASS01RATES, INC .
Fred H.Schott,P.E. Kevin T Devaney
CIVIL& STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS Richard N.Kopecky,Arch. Mattnew J.Edwards
200 Suburban Road 805/544-1216 Leonard Haeger,A.I.A. J.J.Emrick
San Luis Obisoo,California 93401-7589 805/929-3216 Philip R.Henry,P.E. Brian Husting
Michael P.Bailey Richard J.Nadelson
0 Larry Bogovich Perry C.Schacht
CITY OF ATASCADERO page 3
November 5, 1985
We have enjoyed our past association with the City and hope that our
business relationship will continue. We hope this proposal meets with
your approval. If you have questions regarding this matter, please do
not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely yours,
Fred H. Schott
RNK:ac
0
- � MED NOV 1 � /985
FRED H . SCHOTT & ASSWATES, INC .
CIVIL&STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ed H.Schott,P E. Kevin T.Devaney
Richard N Kopecky,Arch. Matthew J.Edwards
200 Suburban Road 805Z'544-1216 I eerard Haeger,A I A. JJ-Emrick
San Luis Obispo,California 93401-7589 805/929-3216 Philip R.Henry,P.E. Brian Husvng
Michael P.Bailey Richard J.Naae
Larry Bogovich Perry C.Scha
November 13 , 1985
City of Atascadero
Post Office Box 747
Atascadero, California 93423
Attention: Mr. Paul Sensibaugh
Director of Public Works
Subject: Construction Cost Estimate for Phase IIA
Remodel Work at the Atascadero City Hall.
Administration Building
Dear Paul :
To supplement our letter to you dated 'November 5, 1985, and
based upon the previous bids received January 31 , 1985, we have
prepared a preliminary estimate of construction costs for Phase
IIA.
A. Asbestos removal at the first
floor ceiling: $ 12,000
B. Total renovation of men ' s and
women ' s restroom at the third floor : $ 19,000
C. Fourth floor structural bracing
of high and low parapet walls, 22 ' high
unreinforced masonry walls, and
reinforcement of existing floor beams: $ 711,000
Total $102,000
Assuming that it does not jeopardize the state grant that has
been approved for the rehabilitation work, we would recommend
that Item A, asbestos removal work, be bid out separately to
qualified asbestos removal companies. The primary advantage to
the City is that there should be approximately a 20% cost
savings by the elimination of a general contractor ' s overhead
and profit. Because asbestos removal work is dangerous to
FRED H . SCHOTT & A S S MI A T E S, I N C . Fred H.Schott,P.E. Kevin T.Devaney
CIVIL& STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
Richard N.Kopecky,Arch. Matthew J.Edwards
200 Suburban Road 805/544-1216 Leonard Haeger,A.I.A. J.J.Emrick
San Luis Obispo,California 93401-7589 805/929-3216 Philip R.Henry,P.E. Brian Husting
Michael P.Bailey Richard J.Nadelson
Larry Bogovich Perry C.Schacht
CITY OF ATASCADERO page 2
November 13 , 1985
anyone not properly protected, we are specifying that the work
be done during non City business hours to eliminate any
possibility of a freak accident involving the City staff or
general public. This requirement will also allow the City staff
to function in a normal manner without interruption or
inconvenience. If you disagree with this approach, please
advise us at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely yours,
Fred H. Schott
FHS:rcds
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Board of Directors
Atascadero County Sanitation District
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager .
FROM: Paul�,�ensibaugh, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Marchant Way Public Hearing - Sanitary Sewer
District No. 3
DATE: January 2, 1986
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Board approve Alternative 2A
(sketch attached) boundary and set a maximum assessment of
$4150 per lot, with each parcel to also be charged the standard
$850 annexation fee.
Background:
(See attached report from the November 25th Board Meeting)
Discussion:
No written protests have been received at the time of this
writing, but they may be received up to one (1) hour prior to the
public hearing.
Attachment:
Letter to Property Owners
November 25 Report
t�G•'1'� 1=r/��c1�W'1/ .:i j' a.,�j;>�'_r.J M��`^ C1..��Ti�k �`u�J-%��i��n t?� �3:.r C_�:�.! �'v k
-At.
•
�y
Assuming an interest rate of 10% the annual payment on $4,150
maximum assessment per parcel would be approximately $545 . Again,
all assessments will be equal due to equal benefit.
Property owners within the district boundary have the right to
protest the formation of the district. Protests must be written
and received by the City Clerk at least one (1) hour prior to the
Public Hearing.
This is a new resolution and any pervious protests on other
alternatives are not valid for the above described district.
h
2
I '
I
r /
r
I �
i N+ Y nvel�..� sve"1`fit I
I; Ci 3 f E E
k• v
. Y
O
b
i i u I
i a 0
r �
1 3
ti
lz
IZ
1=
c ` uis 1 1
r r �i D
> C,
c Z rs
m �D+
A �' —Zi Z J,
0 D m
Un
rn
z JN
J/ /
n
m
rn n
7d F.
1
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Directors
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Marchant Way - Santa Rosa Sanitary Sewer District
DATE: November 20, 1985
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Board take no action on Resolutions
118-85 or 123-85 and that the majority of protest be received by
the Board on Alternative No. 2, said alternate being presented at
the November 12 meeting. It is further recommended that staff
present the financing alternative discussed herein to those involved
in Alternative No. 2 and continue the hearing until such time as staff
can recontact all of the property owners involved. If the owners
agree to the new arrangement, they can voluntarily withdraw their
protests at the continued hearing. In addition, staff recommends
that the Board entertain seperately any future requests for emergency
measures from the southerly side of Santa Rosa for failing septic
systems and help obtain easements if necessary to accomplish the
connections to Marchant Way.
Background:
The November 12 hearing was continued to November 25 to allow
the property owners to hold a neighborhood meeting on November 18
7:30 p.m. That meeting convened with the City staff and the pro-
ject engineer presenting the options that were discussed at the
hearing and was then opened up to questions from the floor . Staff
indicated that, due to the infringement upon the Urban Services
Line, Alternate No. 6, which seemed to be favored heavily by the
group, was not feasible without initiating a General Plan Change.
Staff emphasised that we would recommend Alternate No. 2 which
unfortunately is not economical to those being assessed.
Discussion:
The Board has now received greater than a 51% protest against
. Alternate No. 2. While staff still feels that Alternate No. 2 is
the most feasible plan with respect to the General Plan, there is
a strong concern for making the project work because of the Cease
and Desist order on this area. This particular area has an affect
on the general public because of its contribution to the bacteria
level in Atascadero Lake. Placing this area onto the public sewer
system would be of major significance - in the effort to clean up the
lake so that it could once again be utilized for recreational pur-
1
poses.
Additionally, the City ownes the last lot at the Marchant Way-
Santa Rosa intersection and, even though that lot does not derive a
direct benefit, continuing the sewer along that frontage will
implement our own policy of extending the sewer to the next adjacent
lot upstream.
Furthermore, the Cease and Desist areas were originally intended
to be included in the plant expansion project, but the costs exceeded
the grant expectations. The ACSD only postponed its involvement in
cleaning up the Cease and Desist Areas.
Conclusion:
j_
Staff feels strongly that the ACSD should bear some of the burdeny
of this assessment district due to the benefit to the general public.
It is suggested that the ACSD pay any costs over $5,000 per parcel,
including the annexation fee, and that equal assessments be the
method used instead of the area method suggested previously.
Fiscal Impact:
Equal assessments on $140 ,000 would mean that each of the 22 lots
being benefitted including the City lot, would be $6363 each, plus
850 annexation fee for each plus the cost of abandoning the septic
C tanks and private plumbing costs for extending the laterals.
The total cost of the project is. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$140,000
*The Engineering cost is. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$15, 000
The City Lot would be. . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 6 ,363
It is estimated that the estimate is 10% high. . . . . .$14,000
The contingency fund will not be used if the project
is smooth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$14,000
Possible cost to parcels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$90,637
Divided by 21 lots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 4,316
Plus $850 .00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . .$ 5,166
It is therefore conceivable that the ACSD will only have to pay
for the City lot plus the engineering and at minimum another $166 per
lot. The worse case situation for the ACSD would be $650 per lot
plus our share, or about $35, 000.
There is $191,400 available from FmHA at 5% interest. With
$35, 000 directed toward this district, there would be approximately
$117,900 remaining that the Board could use for other Cease and
Desist Areas.
*The Board previously agreed to contribute to at least the
Engineering for Cease and Desist areas to show a good faith effort
to the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
FmHA at last correspondence has emphasised that they would prefer
that their funding be used for construction as well as engineering
2
0 ~
and that the fund be drawn down within six months. The above dis-
cussion is subject to FmHA approval, but the Board would have the
option of using other available district funds for this purpose
such decison being made at the equalization hearing when all final
project costs are known.
h�
31
RESOLUTION NO. 123-85
A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
APPROVING THE ANNEXATION_ OF IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 3
TO THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 4834 ET SEQ OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
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 to the -Improvement
District of the County Sanitation District; and
WHEREAS, the Atascadero County Sanitation District has received
a petition from property owners residing on Marchant Way and Santa
Rosa Road in the City of Atascadero requesting to be annexed to the
Atascadero County Sanitation District
to include Lots 66 through 87 of block JC
in the City of Atascadero, and
WHEREAS, the Atascadero County Sanitation District Board of .
Directors has properly noticed a Hearing for the proposed annexation
of the aforesaid lots; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of Atascadero County 0
Sanitation District to provide sewer service to the subject pro-
perty, as afore described; and
WHEREAS, the extension of utility service to existing private
structures are categorically exempt or receive a negative declaration
pursuant to 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 Atascadero County
Sanitation District, and creation of Improvement District #3;
Section 2. The Territory that is intended to be annexed to the
Sanitary Improvement District, thereafter entitled Sanitary
Improvement District #3 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District
is listed as follows:
1
H4
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.111. 31-331-36
Lot 69 Block JC , Atascadero Colony
A.P.N. 31-381-44
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
O^ '� B10C'_: ,C , Atascacaro Col on-,
-CC 7 Bloc C , AtascaQcrO Color,-,-
T
`
_OC 75 Bloc" !C , AtaScacero -oto^y
�OtBloc.'- ?C
7� . , aSCero Col O^v
of7 B1CCY.
T-Ot ,? Block 'C , :_t-r! CC10-1 ,
Tot i9 310Ck JC , Atascadero Colon`;
LCL 0 Block JC , :.tascaCero Colon-,r
Tot <1 31;,ck 7C _tasca ero Col_...
LotBloc" sc.. on-
A.
�n
Lot 83 Block JC Atascadero Colony
A.P.i?. —
Lot 84 Block JC , Atascadero Colony
A.P .1.
Lot 85 Block JC , Atascadero Colony
A.P .N. —
Lot 86 Block JC , Atascadero Colony
A.P.N.
Lot 87 Block JC , Atascadero Colony
A.P.N,
Section 3 . The Atascadero County Sanitation District Board
shall file a certified Map of this Resolution together with a map
or plat of the new boundaries of the Improvment District as required
by Section 54900 , 54901 and 54902 of the Government Code. Upon such
filing, the annexation of the territory of the Improvement District
shall be effective.
On motion by Board Member and seconded by
Board Member , the foregoing Resolution is
adopted in its entirety by the following role call vote:
AYES:
NOES :
ABSENT:
DATE:
ATTEST:
MIKE SHELTON, Secretary ROLFE NELSON, Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
ROBERT M. JONES , City Attorney PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH
Director of Public Works/
City Engineer
0 0
02194 Q --/ I I
• TO: The Honorable Rolfe Nelson, Mayor , and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert M. Jones , City Attorney
RE : Establishment of Parking and Business Improvement Area
for the City of Atascadero
DATE : January 9 , 1986
The establishment of a parking and business improvement area pur-
suant to Section 36590 et seq. of the Streets and ??ighway Code re-
quires that a hearing be held before the City Council to allow for all
protests and evidence for or against the proposed establishment. This
is a majority protest hearing and if protest is made by a majority of
the businesses in the proposed area which would pay a majority of the
assessments or charges proposed be imposed, the hearing shall be terrai-
nated. In addition, if the City Council decides to change the bound-
aries of the proposed area then it :Aust continue the hearing to a time
at least fifteen (15) days after its decision.
The City Council may establish separate benefit zones wit:-.in the
area proposed, and may impose different charges within those zones .
''_owever, the Business Improvement Association has recommended that due
• to the small size of the dotirnto,,m area, that no separate zones be es-
tablisred. This simplifies the charge imposed, thereby avoiding sepa-
rate classifications of benefit zones . However , where the City deter-
mines that a parking facility for the benefit of the area is necessary ,
any assessments against businesses shall be on the basis of benefits
determined for those businesses in the particular area.
The proposed ordinance provides that the City Council s}",.all have
the right to audit the records of the established Business Improvement
Association and the Council should determine how the funds shall be dis-
bursed.
It is recommended that the Business. Improvement Association be
treated in the same way that the Atascadero Chamber of Commerce is treat-
ed in its promotional activities , with the understanding that the City
is ultimately responsible Eor the collection and disbursement of funds .
Sincere : ,
i
7.obert M. Jones"'
City Attorney
:nay
•
t9L�
From the South corner of Morro Road at the Highway 101
over-crossing then in the generally northwest direction
immediately adjacent to Highway 101 , to a point , at the
intersection of El Camino Real and Rosario Ave. , then
easterly along Rosario Ave. , to a point at the intersection
of Rosario and Palma Ave. , then easterly along Palma Ave.
to the rear lot line of parcels on the west side of Traffic
Way, then north along said rear lot lines to the rear lot
lire of parcels on the south side of Olmeda Ave. , then
easterly to the rear lot line or parcels on the west side
of Traffic Way, then north along said rear lot lines to
include Lot 24 of Block LA, of Atascadero , then northerly
along the center line of Traffic Way, to a point , then
easterly to include the presently existing ;rational Guard
Armory Property, then to a point easterly to the intersection
of West Mall and Santa Ysabel Ave. at the West Mall bridge ,
then southerly along Santa Ysabel Ave. to a point at the
intersection of the southerly leg of Hospital Drive and
Santa Ysabel Ave. , then easterly from that point to the ex-
tension of proposed :?ighway 41 , then southwesterly to the
Morro Road/Highway 101 over-crossing, point of beginning.
The area shall include all businesses located on parcels contiguous to
the Traffic Way boundary.
3-6 . 03 BUSINESSES AFFECTED. Each and every business in the Dountwon
Parking and Business Imrpovement Area as defined by Section 36502 of the
Streets and Highways Code, shall be subject to , and shall pay, such new,
separate and additional charges that may from time to time be levied
to carry out the purposes of the Downtown Parking and Business Improve-
ment Area as setforth in this Ordinance and Section 36500 et seq. o.C' the
Street and Highways Code.
3-6 . 04 PROPOSED USES FOR REVETTUES. The proposed uses for which the
proposed revenues from said area s all be expended are:
(1) The acquisition, construction, or maintenance of parking
facilities for the benefit o= the area.
(2) Decoration of any public place in the area.
(3) Promotion of public events which are to take place on
or in public places in the area.
(4) The general promotion of business activities in the
area.
3-6 . 05 CHARGES. Charges for obtaining funds to provide services
and programs for the area shall be levied on all businesses in the
area in amounts equal to the business license charge on such businesses .
based upon the following percentages and in the Following years .
(a) 1956 - 25% of applicable business license charge on
such businesses .
-2-
�G
0 •
(b) 1987 - 50% of applicable business license charge on such
businesses .
(c) 1988 - 75% or applicable business license charge on such
businesses .
(d) 1989 -100% of applicable buisness license charge on such
businesses .
3-6 . 06 ASSESS11ENTS . Assessments as defined in Section 36504 of the
Streets and Highways Code , for the purpose of construction of physical_
improvements shall_ be made only after furth.er bearings and findings are
required under the Streets and Highways Code Section 35500 et seq.
3-6 . 07 COLLECTION OF ASSESSiT"1T A�?D Cl-!A-,-.P-FS . Collection of assessment
and charges imposed herein shall be made at the same time and in the
same manner as any other City business license -Fee.
3-6 . 08 DENEFIT T�-) BUSI`?ESS AND A'EA. T'_-?.is Council rinds and determines
that parking and other defziciencies are so generally in the Downto-an
Section of the City, and that the size of the neva area is so small , t1 at
each business in the area wi .l_ benefit from expenditures -nor parking
facilities substantially in proportion to the amount of additional cha-_-ges
and assessments to be levied upon all businesses .
3-6 . 09 BUSINESS IiLPROVE!F_"1T ASSOCIATION. The Atascadero City Council_
shall have �1-ull authority—to enter into annual agreements with the Atas-
cadero Downtown Business Improvement Association, consisting of repre-
sentatives among those who had businesses in the area and who are sub-
ject to the charges and assessments under this Orcinance. The Business
Improvement Association pursuant to its agreements with the City Council
of Atascadero , shall be authorized to expend area revenues in accorJance
with 0-ity budgetary and accounting procedures .
The Business Improvement Association shall , as a irst order or business ,
establish By-Laws for its operation, which By-Laws shall be subject to
approval by the City Council. of Atascadero.
SECTION 2 .
The City Clerl_ scall cause this Ordinance to be published once with-
in fifteen (15) clays after its passage in t'-e Etascadero News , a news-
paper of general circulation, printed, nub ..is"..ed an ? circulated in t' is
city in accordance with Governmental Coje Section 36933 ; scall certify
the adoption of this Orcinance; an- shall cause tris Ordinance and cert-
irication to be entered in the Book o:" tDrdinances or tris city.
SECTION 3 .
V11s Ordinance shall go into ef.=ect and shall be in full force ancr
and effect at 12 : 01 A.M. on the 31st day a'-ter its passage .
On 11- otion by and seconded by
t1.- __oregoing Ordinance is hereby adcod.
in its entirty by the fo _owing roll call vote:
_
3-
1�1
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT' :
DATE ADOPTED:
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO
k"�
Robert P . Jones , City C er Ro ,.e Nelson, Mayor
APP ',OVED AS TO CONTENT :
Michael Shelton, City Manager
APP_ZOVED AS TO FORI,i:
a'obert L . Jones , City Attorney
E X H I B IT ,�
► A .2
:v.,•., ...::. ........ ... .:�![{i,;w.::; ::XR:: ::•: :•>:.>:^:is :::r::;.+.;,lrvy,w. - !?;Rx. - :{:f•! .;.A,?v.;:•. : ?!^C::.
;lrn.
.. .:.. . r.♦ .'i•........ ... :.y..a .t. ... ... .. .. .. .'i�..... .. ..>.....,•:. ::. ::..#...... ... ... .....:4:.. .. YY %pit<::;•�'~�
-. . . .,:::. rr:. .::.:. .::... .. :::.:...
- ... .. .. ..�:::... \�. .. ... :::::::::::vi:vi?i: iii:::{; �:: �:•: is ir:::.; � {ii:w...w:::::::::..... l$
.. .... ..... .. .. Oji.... .. ...d ... ........ ..... ... ,,... ... 4:::.�::::::....v.;!..•::. ... '%':':"�•' :t;%:{
:.. .. ...... .....w. .... '[... .. ..... .. .....r.. ..,... :•.w: •:. yr ....
...s>!. ..� ....... . .sem....t....,. ..:...... .:.�..,•..
.. . . ... x.. .•>e 2i.....(..,..... .....:...�..... i.... .. . ... . .. . .. .. .:. .
.....�.. ..............
•::..
:::.:.... :.
.t. .:.�:. .. ... ... int•. . .,........ .:........ �:. :. . .i>h ..:r! ... ,Z',. +:. . :.; ........................
.r. k.. Y ... :...+...... S wF... . .+. :.<:.. ::::. ::.......................
Nr..... ..... .,.Y>. ..,.Ec- r
..... .. ..r....+ .,. ., yr .. .. {. ia .... .................... ::.. ,;;.;.
....... .y. .. ......... ......... .v ....., #.. ..,f'v. ^ v .... ...............v:{.>};}:cif'
-.�: . ......r. 1.Y r. .,..T
.}Y.
... ...i.. - -,+. ...+n.. .......r. .XX+. t
c ............... ...:w::.. ..}. .ri::::::::,}fC}•.�.♦.:�...:l:P:•,?::7ti:.[.. v. •: ',��%%%%%il•,i?i:bi:•i:y:%i:/� :'
L ::k:•;t+..}:! ice:`::•. v:Ii;.v::::.;Yf:•;•i.::if:•.v::::?:::n;} ,MF'' - •- •''i:i4.,, ::::;:
, r•[Q?:�.;. i- :=•i%i�:;•>:c•?:::: YF%tr••F".}1>�S �- � 't''$9Zf}i'"`�.'•r:if:i�x
Ic
�•i�.,,: `•.N•:fY�*.'•fit+;i�?r;••:: •''• :5.:::.......... ;:��*x ; •:):
C13
G
�v
f
1�
1
- 1
ui
Ls 9
+::arir itit
1,
Q
u
u
a
r
M
Q
<<: v
WILCI
X.
O J Q
40
X.
Q
v
M
a
Z .
O
CO
t.
•l:f�. L•:+?i?'•:. `"+iii.�: p
..r. .w.. .. ..,-::: .... .... ::. ... .:.
..........
W
J:::: :. :. ::•::� ...:+.;,.. ':::::�'�: .::::..... .;i' '•iii'::;. : :���:
Lu
*l
'r:i•i. '
k[ii
.. ..... ........ .. ....... ... .. .. .:•: .1.. ...: :::. .... .. :.,�ii4. ...... .... ....,, �:: ::•....:.::
' � ::. iiiii: :.}i,:. `i :::: '�iii:�:. .: ..:: ::::. �. :�: '•?:C•. :: ..iii: :4:•i ii}:
•i}ii?:
... ....... n..
ii.
�: � ...:... ::: ::•. '{•iii:
.. .... ..l. ::.::. ... ... .::: ,ii:::• .•. ';i�:i<S`�i . :::'-�'•�{•: ::. :-�i::4:�:i:i. 5'i :�[•'�[�'[' `: ;. .. .$t': ;;;''-.."'::::i:''7».::
{.:i:::::::iii:: :L::•: 'iY ::.... . '4Li:•iii. ::. :ii. i?:iiii. ...+::: ..M.
i
X.
::}}ii:. iii:{•ii::., :•:. ��:::. ::<:j;:j}::}'
10
TO: City Council Members November 25, 1985
FROM: Michael . Shelton
City Manager
SUBJECT: BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION (B.I .A. ) - NOTICE OF
INTENT - PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 127-85
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council adopt the attached proposed resolution of intention
to establish a Business Improvement Association area.
BACKGROUND:
Attached is a memorandum from Harry H. Sackrider, Interim
Committee Chairman for organizing a Downtown Revitalization Task
Force, who is petitioning the City Council to undertake the
necessary steps to formulate a Business Improvement Association
for the downtown area. The staff report provides considerable
detail as to the background history and events transpiring and
resulting in the formulation request.
B. I.A. FORMULATION REQUIREMENTS:
The following steps are required for the formation of the
Business Improvement Association:
1. The Criity Council must adopt a "Resolution of Intent" to
establish the project area. The resolution must contain the
following information:
A. A description of the boundaries of the proposed area.
B. The time and place of a hearing to be held by the City
Council to consider establishment of an area.
C. The proposed uses to which the proposed revenues shall
be utilized.
D. A description of the system of assessments or charges,
which will be used and the businesses upon which the
levey will be made.
2. The City Clerk must publicize, 10 days prior to the hearing,
a "Notice of Public Hearing" in two ways:
1
�0
• 0
A. One publication of the Resolution of Intention in a
newspaper of general circulation. Is
B. Mailing a complete copy of the Resolution of Intention
to each business in the proposed area.
3. City Council holds a public hearing - Proceedings terminate
if a 51% majority protest is made.
4. City Council acts on an ordinance to establish the proposed
Business Improvement Association District.
In accordance with these requirements, the action requested of
the Council at your November 25, 1985 Meeting is to adopt the
Resolution of Intention, setting a public hearing date to receive
public input and to consider the enabling ordinance. The reso-
lution sets the hearing for January 13, 1985. A presentation by
the Formulation Committee and public input will be received at
that time.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Council, in adopting the Fiscal Year 1985-86 Budget, appropriated
$5, 000 as money for the Business Improvement Association, should
it be formulated. Noticing cost and all other direct costs will
be charged against this appropriation. Staff and Council time
will be required for both formulation and administration, per
State statute. Implementation of the District creates an assess-
ment against all business and revenues derived would be new
revenues and utilized for the purpose of the district.
MS:kv
File: MBIA
2
November 19 , 1985
IT L ME 0 R A !•1 D U if
TO : Honorable Rolfe Nelson,
Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert M. Jones , City Attorney
RE : Resolution of Intention to Establishing Downtown Parking
and Business Area: Dated November 25 , 1985
The attached Resolution of Intention to Establish a Downtown_ Par1king
and Business Area is proposed pursuant to Section 36509 et seq. of
the Streets and Highways Code. The Resolution provides for a description
of the boundaries of" the proposed area, the time and place of a Hearing
to be held by the -City Council to consider the establishment of an area,
the proposed uses to which the proposed revenue shall be put and a de-
scription of the system of assessments or charges which will be used and
businesses upon which the levy will be :Wade. There is an accompanying
me-morandum from Harry Sackrider , Committee Chairman for the "Business
Improvement Association" which has met on many occasions with members of
the proposed Business Improvement Association including election of
directors and with myself to normalize the Business improvement Associ-
ation, Resolution and Ordinance.
The Resolution provides for a Hearing for the first (lst) meeting in
January at which time the City Council shall hear all protests and re-
ceive evidence for or against the proposed action. If the City Council
CD
following the Hearing, decides to establish the proposed area, it shall
adopt an Ordinance to that effect which esentially will formally adopt
the description of the boundaries or the area estate , estate . of the
business in the area shall be benefitted by the parking and business
improvement area and the uses to which the revenue shall be put. It
should be pointed out to City Council that businesses recently estab-
lished in the area may be exempt from the assessment or charges imposed
for a period not exceeding one (1) year from the date the business
commenced in the area; this has been discussed with ��arry Sackrider ,
as well as Hike Lucas , or members of the Interim Formation Comrzittee of
the Business improvement Association.
Any questions concerning the 1:esolution and Proposed Ordinance may be
directed to this office or to the Business Improvement Association.
/r
nobert M. Jones , City Attorney
November 15 , 1985
Mr . Michael Sheldon V ��
City Manager N JV 1
P.O . Box 747
Atascadero , Calif. CITY M(;R.
93423
Dear Mike:
At the July 23rd 1984 City Council Meeting, Mayor Rolfe Nelson
named Councilman George Molina and the then Chamber of Commerce
Executive Director , Gary Larson as Co-Chairman to head a
"Downtown Revitalization Task Force" to explore several
persistant problems relating to the Central Business District.
By creating this task force , the Mayor insured citizen
participation of those most affected by the downtown problems.
The property owners and business owners of the down town area.
During the formation of their recommendation, the Revitalization
Task Force pursued various avenues of solution.
The recommendation that came out of this "Task Force" was the
creation of a "Business Improvement Association" . More
commonally known as a "BIA" . By using the form of a "BIA" the
needed solutions can be implemented and infuenced directly by
the people in the BIA area.
As a direct result of this recommendation, on May 2 , 1985 , an
Organizing Task Force of local business people was formed to
study the feasability of forming a "Business Improvement
Association" .
This committee consisted of the following people :
Chairman Mike Lucas Floyd Anderson
Garry Brill Henry Engen, City Planner
Joe Grisanti Tom Hatchell
John Kennaly Shirley Marengo
Irwin Manning Mary Pearson
Joe PeBenito Don Price
Maggie Rice , Exec . Dir. A. C . C. Harry Sackrider
Mary Walsh Jack Stinchfield
This committee , I think you will agree , represents a good cross
section of the business community.
Beginning with it ' s first meeting on May 23 , 1985 , and continuing
periodically, until it ' s last meeting on September 19 , 1985 , the
committee worked on defining the area , and the following concepts
to present to the business owners within the designated
boundries . Based on the recommendations made by the original
committees questionaire results .
" t�
A. FUNCTIONS
I . Parking
To provide adequate parking in the defined area.
II . Beautification
To work towards the overall beautification of the defined
area.
III . Promotion
To provide adequate promotion for all businesses within the
defined area.
IV. Representation
To provide a unified voice and to consolidate efforts
towards the emplementation of the goals that will be established
by the B. I .A. board of directors .
The above are the planned functions to be established by the
initial board of the new Business Improvement Association.
B. FEES
Annual dues will be based on the city business license fee. They
will be levied in the following manner:
In the first year of the Associaion the assessment will be 25% of
the business license fee. In the second year 50% of the
business license fee , and third and fourth years , 75% of the
buisness license fee , and the fifth year and therafter will be
equal to 100% of the business license fee .
C . MANAGEMENT
A Board of Directors will be established to direct the business
of the BIA. It will consist of not more than nine members of the
BIA who will serve without salary. Each director will serve for
three years and will be elected by the general membership of the
BIA.
The above concepts were presented to the business owners within
the defined area at a meeting held on September 26, 1985 . This
meeting was attended by 87 people representing 46 businesses . Of
the business owners present , thirty-three (71 %) signed petitions
in support of forming the above proposed BIA. Subsequent to this
meeting , an additional twenty-one petitions have been received
for a total of 54.
Our survey shows that approximately 148 businesses are located
within the proposed boundries . All have been notified at least 3
times inviting their participation in the development and
formation planning
as well as the public meeting which was held on September 26 ,
1985 . To this date , I have no knowledge of any organized
s
opposition to the establishment of "Business Improvement
Association" for our recommended downtown area of Atascadero.
Based on the findings of the Task Force and the overwhelming
support shown at the September 26th meeting, we are now
requesting that you proceed as quickly as possible to adopt a
Resolution of Intention" to establish a BIA.
Should you need further information, contact either Jack
Stinchfield , Mike Lucas , or myself.
ncer 1 ,
arry ac rider
Int ' m Committee Chairman
cc: Grigger Jones
Members of Interim Formation Committee
RESOLUTION NO. 127-85
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO OF INTENTION TO ESTABLISH A PARKING
AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN
SECTION OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND SETTING A
HEARING DATE THEREFORE PURSUANT TO STREETS AND
HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION 36500 ET SEQ.
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has received a request from busi-
nesses located in the downtown area of Atascadero to formulate,_a park-
ing and business improvement area pursuant to Section 36500 et seq . of
the Streets and Highways Code; and
WHEREAS, in 1979 the California Legislature enacted Streets and
Highways Code Section 36500 et seq. (Parking and Business Improvement
Area Law of 1979) ; and
WHEREAS, it is therefore in the best interest of the City and
downtown business improvement area to establish the area, under
Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Atas-
cadero as follows:
1. The City of Atascadero intends to establish a parking and
business improvement area in the downtown section of the City
pursuant to the provisions of California Streets and Highways
Code Section 36500 et seq.
2. The purpose in establishing a parking and business improve-
ment area is to impose assessment or charges or both within
a parking and business improvement area which is in addition
to any assessments, fees, charges, or taxes imposed in the
City and to use such proceeds for the benefit of businesses
within such parking and business improvement area by doing
any of the following:
a. The acquisition, construction, or maintenance of parking
facilities for the benefit of the area.
b. Decoration of any public place in the area.
C. The promotion of public events which are to take place
on or in public places in the area.
d. Furnishing of music in a public place in the area.
e. For general promotion of business activities in the
area.
3. The boundaries of said proposed area are generally shown on
0 0
Resolution No. 127-85
Exhibit "A" (Map attached hereto) , and more specifically de-
scribed as follows: From the south corner of Morro Road at
the Highway 101 overcrossing then in a general northwest dir-
ection immediately adjacent to Highway 101, then easterly
along Rosario Avenue to a point at the intersection of
Rosario and Palma Avenue, then easterly along Palma Avenue to
the rear lot line of parcels on the west side of Traffic Way,
then north along said rear lot lines to the rear lot line of
parcels on the south side of Olmeda then easterly to the rear
lot line of parcels on the west side of Traffic Way, then
north along said rear lot line to include Lot 24 of Block LA,
then northerly along the centerline of Traffic Way, then
easterly to include the presently existing National Guard
Armory property, then to a point easterly to the intersection
of West Mall and Santa Ysabel Avenue at the West Mall bridge,
then southerly along Santa Ysabel Avenue to a point at the
intersection of the southerly leg of Hospital Drive and Santa
Ysabel Avenue, then easterly from that point to the extension
of proposed Highway 41, then southwesterly to the Morro Road/
Highway 101 overcrossing, point of beginning.
The area shall include all businesses located on parcels con-
tiguous to the Traffic Way boundary.
4. The Council will hold a public hearing at 7 :30 p.m. Monday,
January 13, 1986 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 6500
Palma Avenue, Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California,
to consider the establishment of said area.
5. Charges for obtaining funds to provide services and programs
for the area shall be levied on all business in the area in
amounts equal to the business license charge (exempt busi-
ness categorized as general fee) on such businesses based
upon the following percentages and in the following years:
a. 1986 - Twenty-five percent (25%) of applicable business
license charge on such business.
b. 1987 - Fifty percent (50%) of applicable business li-
cense charge on such business.
C. 1988 - Seventy-five percent (75%) of applicable business
license charge of such business.
d. 1989 - One hundred percent (1000 of applicable business
license charge of such business.
Charges based upon the percentages and levies against such
businesses for that year shall be from the date that any
ordinance is enacted adopting the proposed downtown parking
and business improvement area boundaries.
2 /n
0
Resolution No. 127-85
6. Assessments for the purposes of construction of physical im-
provements shall be made only after further hearings and
findings are required under Streets and Highways Code Section
36500 et seq.
7. On direction of the City Attorney, the City Clerk shall pub-
lish and mail notices as required by Section 36522, Streets
and Highway Code.
On motion by Councilmember HANDSITY , seconded by Council-
member NORRIS , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted
ol
in its entirety by the flowing roll call vote :
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS HANDSITY, MACKEY, MOLINA,_.NORRIS_AND. 14AYOR NELSON
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
DATE ADOPTED: 11/25/85
CITY Pg ATASC,✓A�D�ERO, CALIFORNIA
BY: �
ROLFE D./ NELSON, Mayor
ATTESJI'.�',1 r
ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk
APPRi D AS TO CONTENT:
Michael- Shelton, City Manager
APPR D AS TO ORM:
Aj
ROBERT M. JON -L-C y Attorney
3 /�`
EXHIB IT
X
X K
...........N
x
x
2-:: x x .. i.,
ih
X
MA .
Xi
------------
X.,
N
..............
XXX
-X X,
.... ........
....... ....
..........
.. ............... ..................
-X
Vi �.x
X...
W
:X.
x"4Z
40—
jo
-X-
+K ......
40
►ui
avx
K.: ...
tN
o
tVW
CO
X.N.N.X.N.M.
x
X
LU
X.
.77-5-:-
4C
CIO
4L
............ -)I
.C:kvM
xk:,",
Lj
jr
x
..........
cc
:X
X.
:4::
a: XX
............
&
X". X
. ................
"!x
M E M O R A N D U M
• TO: City Council January 13, 1985
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Appeal by Nancy Jacobson of curb, gutter and sidewalk
requirement and paved parking requirement for Conditional
Use Permit 22-85 (Kaleidoscope Kids Preschool) : 6300
Marchant Avenue
RECOMMENDATION:
Denial of the appeal.
BACKGROUND:
On November 18, 1985 the Planning Commission approved a conditional
use permit for a 30 student preschool at 6300 Marchant Avenue (refer
to attached staff report and Planning Commission minutes excerpt) . In
her letter of appeal dated December 2,1985 (see attached) , Ms. Jacob-
son is appealing Conditions #2b requiring that parking spaces and the
driveway be paved, and Condition #12 which requires installation of
• curb, gutter , and five foot sidewalk and paveout along the property
frontage, indicating that they are renting the property and the re-
quirements would strain their budget.
ANALYSIS:
The project is located in an RMF/16 (multifamily zone) which includes
a standard requirement that developments provide for curb, gutter and
sidewalk. Although the neighborhood contains many single family
homes, it is gradually transitioning into a more multi-family charac-
ter . The adjoining property at the corner of Marchant and Alcantara
has installed curb, gutter and sidewalk and a recent new project down
Alcantara similarly provided this improvement. There are apartments
across the street and next door to the site which do not have these
improvements at present, but City standards require that new projects
provide for public facility needs generated by this high density zon-
ing. It should be noted that compliance with the conditions may be
obtained by guaranteeing construction of the improvements within one
year upon acceptance of guarantees by the City Engineer . This would
not be applicable to the paving required for the parking lot.
ATTACHMENTS: Letter of Appeal - December 2, 1985
November 18, 1985 Staff Report
Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt - November 18, 1985
• cc: Nancy Jacobson
6D
City of Atascadero Item: B-2
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 11/18/85
BY: Meg Morris, Assistant Planner File No: CUP 22-85
Project Address: 6300 Marchant
SUBJECT:
To allow for the conversion of an existing residential structure into
a children' s day care center and preschool for approximately 30
children.
BACKGROUND:
Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Fri-
day, November 8, 1985 and all owners of record property located with-
in 300 feet were notified by mail that same date.
A. LOCATION: 6300 Marchant (Lot 6 , Block VA)
B. SITUATION AND FACTS :
1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To allow the conversion of a
residential structure into a
children' s day care center and
preschool for approximately 30
children.
2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kaleidoscope Kids
3. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nancy Jacobson
4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Approximately . 36 acres
5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Marchant is a City-maintained
street with a 30 foot right-of
way.
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF/16 (FH) (Residential Multiple
Family with an allowable density
of 16 units per acre and flood
hazard overlay)
7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Two residential structures
8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RMF/16 (FH) , residential
South: RMF/16 (FH) , residential
East: RMF/16 (FH) , residential
West: RMF/16 (FH) , residential
0 i
Conditional Use Permit 22-85 (Kaleidoscope Kids/Jacobson)
9. General Plan Designation. . . . .High density multiple family
10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Generally level
11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration
C. ANALYSIS:
The City zoning ordinance states that a preschool may be estab-
lished in a residential multiple family zone as a conditional use.
This conditional use permit will evaluate applicable development
standards for the establishment of this use.
State Licensing Requirements:
Title 22, Division 2 of the California Administration Code estab-
lishes State regulations and laws pertaining to the licensing of
children' s preschool facilities. These regulations are based on
the number of children attending the school as well as size of the
facility and staff.
The applicant is requesting approval for a maximum of 30 students
at this facility. Staffing requirements are one teacher for every
12 children enrolled. Space requirements are 35 square feet per
child indoors and 75 square feet per child outdoors. One toilet
and washroom facility is required for every 15 students. Also re-
qired are one toilet and sink for staff and emergency use. One of le
these must be accessible to the handicapped. Each of these re-
quirements are regulated by the State and, therefore, must be com-
plied with prior to obtaining the State license necessary for
starting the operation of the facility. It will be necessary for
the applicant to undergo interior building and plumbing modifica-
tions in order to comply with applicable licensing requirements.
Zoning Ordinance Standards:
The following standards apply from the City zoning ordinance, in
addition to the State licensing requirements:
1. Minimum site area is 6,000 square feet where a facility is to
accommodate seven or more children.
2. All outdoor play areas are to be enclosed with a solid fence
a minimum of four feet high and a minimum of six feet in
height on any property line abutting a residential use on an
adjoining lot.
3. For facilities with seven to twelve children, an off-street
drop-off area is to be provided with the capability to ac-
commodate at least two cars, in addition to the parking nor-
mally required for the residence. Parking and loading re-
quirements for more than ten children are to be established
through conditional use permit process.
2 ��
Conditional Use Permit 22-85 (Kaleidoscope Kids/Jacobson)
The proposed site for the preschool is well above the required
minimum site area. In addition, the application as submitted will
include the fencing of the outdoor play areas which complies with
zoning requirements.
Parking:
The zoning ordinance does not set specific standards for preschool
off-street parking requirements. Staff' s review of off-street
parking needs was based on the following criteria:
1. One space per each staff member .
2. Two spaces per every 40 students or fraction thereof.
Using state guidelines, the staffing required for 30 children
would be three teachers; therefore, a minimum of five parking
spaces will be needed for the site. There is an existing two car
garage which provides for two spaces. There is also an open area
along the western property line which provides room for additional
parking. Staff feels that the applicant will be able to work out
a parking design that can meet necessary requirements.
The applicant is proposing a circular driveway to be installed in
the front of the site. This driveway design is intended to. pre-
vent loading and unloading of children in the public street.
Section 9-4.158-160 of the zoning ordinance establishes standards
for street and frontage improvements required with development
projects authorized by an entitlement. The ordinance requires
that curb, gutter , and sidewalk be installed in a RMF/16 zone
along the entire frontage of the site. Installation of street
improvements would make it necessary to remove the existing hedge
which presently screens the house as well as the proposed drop-off
area. The City would require replacement landscaping in the front
yard to minimize the visual appearance of the parking and drop-off
area.
Overall, staff feels that the applicant has proposed a well
thought out project which is sensitive to the residential charac-
ter of the neighborhood.
D. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 22-85 based on
the findings and conditions of approval contained in Exhibit A.
MM:ps
ATTACHMENTS : Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B - Location Map
Exhibit C - Site Plan
Exhibit D - Supplemental Development Statement
3 �`�
Conditional Use Permit 22-85 (Kaleidoscope Kids/Jacobson)
EXHIBIT A - Conditional Use Permit 22-85
Findings/Conditions of Approval
November 18, 1985
FINDINGS:
1. The application together with the recommended conditions of ap-
proval complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and
General Plan.
2. The application as submitted will not have a significant adverse
effect upon the environment and preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report is not necessary.
3. The site of the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to ac-
commodate all yards, parking, landscaping, and fencing required by
the Atascadero Zoning Ordinance.
4. The site is adequate in size to carry the kind and quantity of
traffic generated.
5. The proposed preschool use will not have an adverse effect on
abutting property.
6. The proposed project will not be detrimental to public welfare or
be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Site development is to be consistent with the submitted site plan
and all modifications required for this use shall be installed
prior to the opening of the preschool.
2. Provide a minimum of five (5) off-street parking spaces with three
(3) of the spaces designated for employee parking. Design and
placement of these spaces will be reviewed in conjunction with
building permits and/or business license approval.
a. No spaces are to be designed to allow backing directly into
the street.
b. Required parking spaces and driveways shall be paved.
3. The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans
for review and approval by the Community Development Department.
Approved landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
City business license.
4
�7
0 0
Conditional Use Permit 22-85 (Kaleidoscope Kids/Jacobson)
4. All outdoor areas are to be enclosed with a solid fence a minimum
of four feet high. Any fence along the property line shall be a
minimum of six feet high.
5. On-site signing shall be limited to an aggregate area of two (2)
square feet for the entire project and not to exceed the height of
the building. All signing is to be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Department.
6. The applicant shall design one bathroom to meet handicapped re-
quirements and shall provide any necessary ramps to comply to
standards of Part 2, Title 24 of the California Administrative
Code.
7. This approval is granted for a preschool with a maximum of 30
students.
8. This project shall meet all requirements of the Facilities Licen-
sing Division of the Department of Social Services for a preschool
(Title 22, Division 2 of the California Administrative Code) ,
Group E-3 occupancies of the Uniform Building Code and all condi-
tions of approval established herein prior to the start-up of the
preschool operation.
9. A letter or similar documentation verifying approval by the Facil-
ities Licensing Section of the State Department of Social Services
shall be submitted prior to occupancy of the building by the pro-
posed use.
10. The applicant shall obtain a "Change of Occupancy" permit from the
Community Development Department and shall comply with all Uniform
Building Code requirements applicable to Group E-3 occupancies.
11. Prior to any construction or modification to the existing struc-
ture, the applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits
from the City.
12. Install curb, gutter and five foot sidewalk and paveout along the
property frontage.
a. Submit road improvement plans designed by a registered civil
engineer for review and approval by the Public Works
Department.
b. the pavement width of Marchant Avenue from curb face to cen-
terline shall be 15 feet.
13. The building shall comply with all applicable fire codes which may
include a fire alarm system, fire extinguishers and smoke detec-
tors. The Fire Department shall conduct a full compliance inspec-
tion prior to opening of the facility.
5 ��
0
Conditional Use Permit 22-85 (Kaleidoscope Kids/Jacobson)
14. This conditional use permit shall expire one year from the date of
final approval, unless all conditions are satisfied and the pro 0
-
ject shows substantial progress, or unless an extension is granted
pursuant to Section 9-2.118 of the Zoning Ordinance.
6
E9 ..
RMF/16'.
p � ii; ,➢<I` AE`s •+ ,o a -
/�;
-- ����i; < 'Oq ,, ) !y ,,;»�.....,,`' �^2' • :UCC-'. V�/ ��;
8S-
s a^� I• r l- u L Q0.! l'T`f :(r 1.
_ - ,•• qac
RMF/'16 <' -' _ A J , �?Qh F�1 � ) c •,� `;, .ti,`. .. �a*
' •'-,r _ Y., .��Izi.. ,Y? � o , �'•C• tips ,• t. ° •T�` ,
z 1 " /) v t• ``d �;� ''�j J4 i. -'^ CCC w• ,.\l t I „•s ef,
+1'� .;T-�° •../7 .�i{,? „S la I' ,` 12i,.. .�,Yi•°. ,;,�+I.�R •_ r hr
18
qp- >,� (j••.' tib „ spy is_ s, rp}n, r,a , - + f� .' .���'
Y4' a�P e' * i Rg i •OE „o:° LII to ":� •t: r ,
' LSF-Y .� , ,,,;: .:,� „ •.,�` . , ''- ' '•`� .,,tom ,,... ,, '
b
21
.•L:.r ' - ,b =' i � ,p s7 see ,. .TS.• •l1
.i �,.. LSF-Y(FH) .
,`° a'7,,. '`h ' 7�r •a •( •�-�.
i .tz7- .- ?>7 'x..0.1 �' * .''-' `♦
LSF-Y(FH)
` • . �./Y ir,('I- ]t -Jp r -,t �7_ ,rte A• SIA 14 •�°J -
LSF Y r �, rol. wa
19
,'jam` „ a\L ,>-' ,° ,.•�, ,K �', '.�'+, eo"0�•�' et+' ..
V<k S,1� I ` 5 , Ii?�,t,�• 2'J 1! 11
°+.: /ten` � �-• p ,.
•. � t 4z'I. /tom'-'.. �\ `f ..y e V .
27
. _ CN7_ i. C• •rt� YJ�.�,,, n!ads �'�; •y'/ � ,. ',.♦ btcP
�_• - ��y •• �` 27`, 9.4„�� •moi+,� B° ` , ��
- � /� ;yam ,yf;' eg°• c4� • » g Y )' w°°-;�� ^,r• r����°.
-
RM
112
31
ua0 �
• 22
M e
Y,. �
cup
J
S i TF, FLA r�-4
L t�/ r
-foci-
1
vti
T
1
1-4i
�CtoSCt fiaSEt cw too ROM
Peflurf { AKEA � 2Fhf AZA
�-
u�Y- - I
n
L�wki
� � i-1il-t+l alhila_r� j—�alltltlltt��tR{� '� J
/CKDtJ t YARD
pf c 1
►��'��t �EUSc ��
A kaleidoscope is a spectrum of color and creativity.
Each individual can create his or her own unique image.
Each image is beautiful in its own right , just as our
children are to us.
KALEIDOSCOPE KIDS Preschool is a unique alternative
to typical child care. Conveniently located and open
hours to accomodate working parents, we offer creativity
in learning along with rest and play in a bright country
HOME atmosphere. Each child is treated as an individual,
allowed to work and play at his or her own capability,
and is cared and nurtured for by qualified teachers.
We believe that the child profits from the opportunity
to make choices. In order to facilitate meaningful
choice-making we will give the child the chance to
move about in an environment which offers many attractive,
interesting, valid , and stimulating things to do. We
will be open, flexible, and always willing to experiment
with the environment for, as the child grows, so must his
surroundings.
By educating, nurturing and caring for our children today,
they will grow up to be educated and caring citizens for
Atascadero, tomorrow.
ID
�o
Minutes - Planning *mission - November 18 , 19
John Kennaly, representing the applicants , noted his concurp4lnce
h the staff report.
Commis ' ner Michielssen questioned the $12, 500 amoun referenced
in the re rt to help fund necessary future drain improvements
and asked if is amount was what the applicants ave deposited.
Mr. Engen rep ' d that there has been som fine tuning to this
deposit wherein the eposit has been reduce to about $10 ,000. He
also noted that there ' an ongoing re-e luation of how to best
solve the flooding proble in the are
There was some discussion conce ' g an assessment district being
formed in this area, as well r very payments being asssessed
for those who have made dep its with egard to projects along
Morro Road. Mr . Eng e stated that Trans has been formally
asked to include this ea as one of their s to-wide projects.
Commissioner Nola asked if Amapoa is going to be ' roved.
MOTION: Ma by Commissioner Michielssen, seconded by ommis-
oner Bond and carried unanimously to approve Te ative
Tract Map 28-85 subject to the findings and condit s
contained in the staff report.
2. Conditional Use Permit 22-85 :
Request submitted by Kaleidoscope Kids (Nancy Jacobson) to
allow the conversion of an existing residential structure
into a children' s day care center and preschool for approxi-
mately 30 children. Subject property is located at 6300 Mar-
chant, also known as Lot 6 of Block VA.
Mr . Davidson presented the staff report noting that interior
building modifications will be necessary for establishment of the
proposed use. He also stated that Condition #2 should reflect
seven parking spaces instead of the five listed, and that Condi-
tion #5 concerning signing should be deleted.
Nancy Jacobson, applicant, spoke about the background involved in
desiring to establish a day care facility and noted her only ob-
jection to the recommendation concerns installation of curb, gut-
ter , five foot sidewalk and paveout along the property frontage
(Condition 412) . She stated this would be quite an expensive im-
provement to the property that she is leasing from the property
owner .
Carmen Salvato, owner of an adjacent condominium on Marchant, felt
that some sort of E. I .R. should be prepared due to the impact of
parking and traffic that will result from the project. He also
spoke about fencing around the condominium project and noted that
the condominium homeowners association had put the fence in, and
asked to see more details on what is involved with the project,
i.e. , safety considerations, hours of operation.
2 �'
Minutes - Planning Col mission - November 18, 198
Mrs. Jacobson explained the operating hours would be 7: 00 a.m. to
6 :00 p.m. and the age range of the children will be 3-5 year olds,
and spoke about the quality of a day care center . She also painted
out that the state requirements in order to open a day care center
are very strict and stated that she intends to have one teacher
for every eight children instead of twelve children.
There was some discussion on the state requirements for these
facilities. Commissioner Bond stated that a day care center such
as this proposed one is very much needed in this area. Commis-
sioner Kennedy concurred and noted she is in favor of the philo-
sophy behind this project. Commissioner Sanders talked about the
quality of a day care center , but addressed the concerns of the
condominium owners. She asked if there would be avenues open to
bring this matter back traffic, noise and other related factors
were to cause a problem in the neighborhood.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner
Commissioner Bond and carried unanimously to approve
Conditional Use Permit 22-85 subject to the findings and
conditions contained in the staff report with modifica-
tion to the following:
Condition #2 to reflect seven (7) off-street parking
spaces instead of five (5) listed in the report.
Deletion of Condition #5 .
3. Zone Change 8-85 :
Request submitted by Urban Sciences, Inc. (Bruce Dodson) o.
change the zoning map from RSF-Z (Residential Single F mily
Density) to L (PD5) (Recreation Planned Dev opment
Ove ay No. 5) in order to allow for the devel ent of a
parkin and administration area for an outdoor r reation use
(watersli ) . Subject property is located at 25 E1 Bordo,
also known Lots 30 and 31 of Tract 5.
Chairman LaPrade step- down from the Comm' sion due to a possi-
ble conflict of interest.
Mr . Davidson presented the sta rep t and noted that this re-
quest was in conjunction with Z Change 7-85 which had been ap-
proved by the Commission at the as meeting. He explained that
the property involved with his req st would be utilized for a
Parking area to provide a , ch needed 75 aces, and pointed out
that since the site pl is conceptual in ature only, there are
still issues and ques ' ons which will remain u nswered until such
time as development lans are submitted for a on ' tional use per-
mit process.
Commissione anders asked why this application was not b ng pro-
cessed as general plan amendment. Mr . Davidson explain the
"wavy ne" concept involved in making this determination.
3 �
i T E L? 0 R A i1 D U r (CAONT'r FRS;•. 12/9/85)... _ _
• December 5 , 1985 _
TO: Honorable Rolfe nelson, and
members of the Atascadero City Council
FROM: Robert M. Jones , City Attorney
RE : Resolution No. 134-85
?resolution to authorize Community Development
Director to enter into agreement for electrical
service to structures prior to final inspection.
` Attached to this Nemoranaum is a Performance Agreement between an
Applicant/Builder of a work of improvement in the City of Atascadero
who seeks to have electrical service provided to the job site prior
to final inspection and occupancy permit as issuer' by the Building
Department, andthe City of Atascadero . At the November 25 meeting,
°ic!7.ael Sherer appealed the decision of the Burling Department deny-
ing him the right of electrical power to the job site, and this Council
unanimously agreed that the Community Development Agency Director
assist iIr. Sherer it obtaining electrical service during the course
. of construction.
The attached Resolution_ and Agreement is proposed by Legal Counsel and
the Community Development Agency Director to be used by the City when
application for electrical service is requested. You will note from
the Agreement that the Applicant specifically agrees that there shall
be no human occupancy of the improvements being constructed and that in
the event that there is a breach of the Agreement , the Building Depart-
ment has the right to discontinue the electrical service at the job site.
In my opinion, this Agreement should satisfy the Applicant as we?_l as
protecting the City .
ROBERT M. JONES , City Attorney
•
�3
I
RES . NO. 85-
Page 2
ROBERT M. JONES , City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
d
MICHAEL B. SHELTON, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROBERT M. JONES , City Attorney
qh
PERFOR.'ANCE ACREMHE ?T
FOD ELECTRICAL SERVICE P .IOR TO
ISSJANC : OF OCCUPANCY PERMIT
PEIRMITI NITHBER
This agreement entered into this day of ,
19_, by and between hereinafter
called "Applicant" whose address is
and the City of Atascadero, a political subdivision in the State of
California hereinafter referred to as "City" .
1 . The Applicant agrees that the City be empowered to act as agent
for the Applicar_t and hereby appointed the Applicant ' s agent for the
purpose or accomplishing the discontinuance of electric power at the
-pollowing location:
2 . T1_e Applicant agrees further that no occupancy of the inproveO
ments being constructed at or on the w=ore-mentior_ed location will take
place without first receiving permission oL the City.
3 . The Applicant additionally agrees to satis_':actorily complete
all improvements as required by Title S of the Ata.scaclero Municipal Code
and any other applicable codes administered by the Community Development
Agency of th.e City of Atascadero .
4 . In case of failure to accomplish satisfactory completion o.r
the improvement being constructed, within days from the date of
this agreement , Applicant agrees that the City acting as agent for
Applicant may authorize an accomplish the discontinuance of all elec-
tric power at the location stipulated a'::ove and permission is hereby
0 0
granted to the City or its authorized agent to enter upon the land
which is the subject to this agreement for purposes of accomplishing
the said discontinuance of all electric power.
S . Applicant shall de}elid, indemnify and save harmless the City
of Atascadero , its officers , agents and employees from any and all
claims , demands , damages , costs , expenses or liability occasioned by
the performance or attempted performance of the provisions hereof , or
in any way arising out-of-this agreement , including but not limited to ,
inverse condemnation equitable relief , or any wrongful act or
any
negligent act or omission to act on theart of Applicant or of agents ,
P PP g ,
employees or independent contractors directly responsible to the Applicant ,
providing further that the foregoing shall apply to any actively or
passively negligent acts or omissions to act , committed jointly or
_
con-
currently by Applicant , th.e Applicant ' s s agents , employees or independent t
contractors . Not,iing
containedinthe foregoing ev oinQ
_ndemnitY provisions shall
be construed to require the Applicant to indemni'-T the City againstainst any
responsibility or liability in contravention of Section 2782 of the
Civil Code.
6 . ;10 waiver by the City at any time of any of t'-)e terms , con-
}itions or covenants at this agreement shal'_ be deemed as a waiver at
any time thereafter of the same or of any other term, condition or
covenant Herein contained.
7 . It is understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto
that this agreement shall bind the heirs , executors , administrators ,
successors and assigns of the respective parties to this agreement .
8 . In reliance of the terms and conditions herein agreed, tt,e
City shall permit the energizing of the electrical service facilities
at the aforementioned location
0 •
Q. Pursuant to the City Council of Atascadero ' s :resolution
='umber 35- , the Community Development Agency Director of the
City of Atascadero or his duly authorized representative may execute
this agreement on behalf of the City.
Applicant
Ac'dress
CITE OF A1ASCADERO
HE ,?P_Y ENCE`'
Community Development Agency Director
BY:
ab
J
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council January 13 , 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Continued Consideration of Appeal by Elbert Gifford of
Planning Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit 16-85 ,
6455 Santa Lucia (Senior Citizens Housing)
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider approval of attached Resolution No. 2-86 and its findings and
conditions of approval for a 19 unit project.
BACKGROUND:
At the November 25 , 1985 Council meeting, a public hearing was held to
consider Mr. Gifford' s appeal of the denial of this proposed 23 unit
elderly housing project by the Planning Commission (see attached min-
utes excerpt) . The action of the Council was to continue this item to
January 13th in order to allow staff to develop draft findings for
approval. It was the intent of the Council to assure that should this
project be approved, that it not invite inappropriately high density
bonus projects throughout the community.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant has testified that their occupancy experience. with a
project in San Luis Obispo, also administered by the San Luis Obispo
Housing Authority, has been barely over one person per unit and fewer
than one car per every three parking spaces provided. Staff has re-
viewed the City' s population density standards that were used with the
1980 General Plan before it was amended. These were as follows:
High Density Multi-Family = 18 one bedroom units per acre
High Density Multi-Family = 36 person per acre
Applying these to the 19 unit configuration proposed at the last meet-
ing, yields the following population projection for the project:
19 one bedroom units
X 2 persons per unit
38 persons
. 55 acre
• 69 persons per acre
RESOLUTION NO. 2-86
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
APPROVING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-85 AND APPROVING AN AMENDED
CUP 16-85 (6455 SANTA LUCIA: GIFFORD/BRANNON)
WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed the denial of said use permit
by the Planning Commission on October 7, 1985; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the record of testimony
before the Planning Commission, staff reports and public testimony on
November 27, 1985 and January 13 , 1986 before the Council on this
issue.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve
as follows:
Section 1. Council Findings.
1. The project will not have a significant adverse impact upon
the environment, and preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report is not necessary.
2. The project, with the conditions of approval, conforms to all
applicable zoning regulations and is consistent with the Gen-
eral Plan.
3. The establishment, and subsequent operation or conduct of the
use will not, because of the circumstances and conditions
applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health,
safety or welfare of the general public or persons residing
or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental
or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of
the use; and
4. The project, with the conditions of approval limiting the
number of persons per room, vehicle per unit, and minimum age
of 62 years for residents, will not be inconsistent with the
character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its
orderly development.
5. The project, with the conditions of approval, will not gen-
erate a volume of traffic beyond the safe capacity of all
roads providing access to the project, either existing or to
be improved in conjunction with the project, or beyond the
normal traffic volume of the surrounding neighborhood that
would result from full development in accordance with the
Land Use Element.
(d�
0 •
6. Streets in the vicinity of the project are adequate to carry
the kind and quantity of traffic generated by a senior citi-
zens housing project.
7. The conditions imposed are necessary to assure that the pro-
ject will be reasonably compatible with existing and future
uses in the area and with the character of the neighborhood
and its orderly growth.
8. A density bonus of 116% pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section
9-3.175 is appropriate with the following findings:
a. The project, prior to the granting of the density bonus,
shall consist of a minimum of four dwelling units.
b. The dwelling units allowed by the bonus shall be avail-
able to the targeted income group for a minimum of 15
years.
C. Performance and management guarantees in the form of
project administration by the San Luis Obispo Housing
Authority, (and agreements to be recorded with the Coun-
ty Recorder) have been provided which demonstrate con-
tinued availability of dwelling units for the targeted
income group as provided by Subsection (b) .
d. The granting of a density bonus will serve to support
goals and objectives set forth in the Housing Element of
the General Plan.
e. The proposed density increase would assist the City of
Atascadero to meet goals and policies of the General
Plan Housing Element along with assisting in the reach-
ing of the regional housing goals for affordable
housing.
fl The reduced parking at a rate of one per unit will be
able to accommodate the needs of the senior housing with
conditions of approval limiting the ratio of vehicles
per unit to .75 vehicles/unit.
g. The proposed use of senior housing has characteristics
that are different than those of a standard multi-family
project.
h.,:' The project location within walking distance of the
N,1 downtown, churches, and medical offices makes it unique-
ly qualified for a density bonus in excess of 25%.
Section 2. Conditions of Approval.
1. Site development including buildings, driveways, parking,
landscaping and other features shall be consistent with plans
submitted (per Exhibit A) , and all provisions of Title 9.
The maximum number of units shall not exceed nineteen (19) .
2 1��
2. Submit four copies of landscape and irrigation plans in con-
formance with Section 9-4.124 et seq. prior to issuance of
building permits.
3. Building architecture shall be consistent with the elevations
submitted (Exhibit B) . Any mechanical equipment uses shall
be screened in accordance with Section 9-4. 128.
4. Fencing and screening shall comply with Section 9-4.128.
5. On-site signing shall comply with Sections 9-4.130 through
9-4. 136.
6. Parking shall be provided as set forth in Sections 9-4.114
through 9-4.119 with the number of required parking stalls to
be reduced from 35 stalls to 19 stalls including one handi-
capped stall.
2� °6?n ✓ The applicant shall comply with the following regulations
which shall be incorporated into an agreement acceptable to
the City Attorney and recorded in the Office of the County
Recorder .
a. Minimum age of residents shall be 62 years.
b. The maximum number of residents permitted shall be 1. 25
per unit or 24 persons (43 persons per acre) .
C. The maximum number of vehicles permitted shall be . 75
per unit or 14 vehicles.
d. Copies of annual reports to the San Luis Obispo Housing
Authority shall be sent to the Community Development
Department providing census information relative to age,
number of residents, and vehicles owned.
e. Any change in these residency or occupancy criteria
shall not be made without approval of the City of
Atascadero.
8. Curb, gutter, five foot sidewalk, and pave-out along the
Santa Lucia frontage shall be provided. Pave-out shall bring
the pavement width of Santa Lucia from curb face to center-
line shall be 20 feet.
a. All road improvement plans shall be designed by a regis-
tered civil engineer and shall be reviewed and approved
by the Public Works Department.
9. It is the applicant' s sole responsibility to have removed,
relocated or brought to grade any public utility facilities
that may conflict with the approved road improvement plan.
3 1��
10. The applicant shall submit a drainage plan prepared by a
registered civil engineer for review and approval by the Pub-
lic Works Department.
11. Submit a drainage plan, prepared by a registered civil engin-
eer, providing for mitigating measures relieving any down-
stream drainage problems or , alternatively, a stormwater de-
tention basin. If a detention basin is selected, then the
design shall be based upon a 100 year design site dev-
eloped, with outflow limited to 10 year design storm undevel-
oped site, and as detention basin policy adopted August 12,
1985. The alternate selected must be acceptable to the
Director of Public Works.
12. Wastewater disposal shall be by connection to the public
sewer.
13. The applicant shall obtain a sewer connection permit from the
Public Works Department prior to hooking up to public sewer.
14. Obtain an encroachment permit prior to beginning work in the
public right-of-way. An inspection agreement and curb and
gutter agreement shall be signed, guaranteeing that the work
will be done and inspections paid for.
15. Bonus units shall be conveyed only to persons who have been
certified as having household incomes which are 120% or less
of the median income of San Luis Obispo County, as such in-
come is determined from time to time by the Housing Authority
of San Luis Obispo County.
16. Provision shall be made for this project to connect to commu-
nity water and sewer facilities. A letter shall be obtained
from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company stating that they
are willing and able to serve this project and submit the
same to the Community Development Department.
17. All other utilities not already in place shall be extended
underground at the time of building permit.
18. Efforts shall be made to minimize grading that would be dis-
ruptive to the natural topography. All grading and drainage
shall conform with Sections 9-4.138 through 9-4. 154.
19. Fire supression facilities shall be provided as required by
the Fire Department and shall include, but not be limited to,
upgrading of the existing fire hydrant and the installation
of additional hydrants.
20. All conditions of approval herein shall be complied with
prior to occupancy of any structure.
21. This conditional use permit is granted for a maximum period
of one year from the date of final approval unless an exten-
sion of time is granted pursuant to Section 9-2. 118.
4 10�
! 0
On motion by Councilperson and seconded by Council-
person , the foregoing resolution is adopted in its en-
tirety by the following vote :
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATSACADERO, CALIFORNIA
By:
ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk
APPRO D AS TO CONTENT:
MICHAtL SHELTON, ity Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
HENR Eomrqginity Development Director
5 `�5
i
I
{
0
z -
e•Y•d
' I/ s. kit
LU
z -➢ "ah-�— I %�i�
�4 aD y
x �
LU,
V
SAh1TA LUCIA AVE
JOB 0714 S ITE FLAN MR. GLbGRT 61PPpRD
OATS 10404 CHIS PA NP
I�I�1 OpC Vbl�p�-O' .�T�`woe Ro, c,.. -1 .T.D. BRANNON, ARCHITECT
O y C'•'BKm 4•}•70�-F� -lr,i AVG
M
p REVIBEO y am PBO OT.,BAN IAAi.OWPo,GALR 9340'1
y i LoT 1�, 6i.GCK HD,.GTAaG. GOL.
a A.P.N. •i0-1'11-a CALF.REQ C-70863543-70"641-7Y7B
li
EXHIPl � `A --
12E V l 5E D s17 E PL 4;-,l- 1.U L71
--Af-01/c-ma E:4, 9 a
-- --
k ,
• I; fir ®� I � �.
~ I
f
I I
SANTA LUCIA AV
- f IIII
•C� GOiY S ITt I-��nr MR a_ba RT si/TORO
� �b�-r-O� .►AO 1 oC'd i S I.►
lei
J.D. BRANNON, ARCHITECT
Mme,/a` • lol. ■N P ' f...YN UjM O�IaPO.ul�.b�01
,..... �o_ .a cw�f. —a- c-wwa LOOM e -eta I
t�t
8 8
Ell
88
I 1 D
8 E
<
El El '-
P :1
9 i�oe,• a�ev.o.7;v�s ] • .�cea c.ro��
' t J.D. BRANNON. ARCHITECT
o ow�rvN moi.v.c
ca�oco
R<VIYD 1M PmvAp *T.•4.N 1O�wO.CA -OA01
CALF.Rea.1 C.�1Ce11 a 010x/Mi�l�n
y`T
0 -c-o u N I L_
COUNCIL MINUTES - 11/25/85 �
PAGE FIVE
Ask
to allow the Planning staff and both the City and County as well s
r. Dodson to proceed.
Nanc arvey, an Atas. High School student , spoke in sup t of the
water s ' de , feeling it will be a great contribution t Atascadero
and will h keep kids out of trouble. She feels e hot tubs wit
be used all ar long -- even in August -- and t any concerns re
garding alcohol n the premises can be handled s they come up.
Gordon Davis , speaki for Atas. Mutual Water Co. Board of Directors,
related that they are v enthusiastirabout this project and feel
it would be a great contra tion to die community' s recreational
needs , in addition to making e operty more appealing to the eye.
Whether the project goes or no they are in favor of the zone Chang .
Councilwoman Mackey state, she feels , ' f Dial-A-Ride service is con-
sidered (so less parkinpaces have to e provided) , a subsidy shou d
somehow be paid to Dizl-A-Ride as it ' s cos to the City to operate
that system.
MOTION: By Counc 'zHandshy to read Ord. 114 by tit only, seconded
by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously. Ma Nelson read
Ord:` 114 by title only.
EMOTION,; By Councilman Handshy that this constitutes the first re ing
of Ord. 114 , seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unani . us-
v, ' ly. Second reading will be the first meeting in December.
2. Appeal by Gifford of Planning Commission Denial of Conditional Use
Permit 16-85 , 6455 Santa Lucia (23-Unit Elderly Facility)
Henry Engen, Commun. Develop. Director, gave staff report and res-
ponded to Council questions regarding project density.
Public Comment
David Brannon, project architect , spoke in support of the project ,
explaining that it is intended to serve the needs of the low-income
elderly in the community, and it will be a subsidized housing pro-
ject to be administered by the Housing Authority. He noted that ,
even with a 25% density bonus , only 11 units would be allowed, which
would not make construction economically feasible , thus the need to
appeal. Mr. Brannon provided copies of a letter of support for the
project ( from Mr. Chubon, Administrator of the San Luis Obispo Hous-
ing Authority) to Council.
Mary Middlec amp , resident on Venado , expressed her concern for the
provision of recreational facilities for the residents; as a consul-
tant for the Tri-Counties Regional Senior Citizens Center , she spoke
of the social needs of the elderly. She also hopes the traffic safety
issues are carefully studied.
Mr. Eldridge Hughes , an elderly citizen, stated he feels the project
proposed is too large; he agreed with the previous speaker regarding
r
J
• i
COUNCIL MINUTES - 11/25/85
PAGE SIX
the need for congregational facilities as well as plenty of landscaple
ing: "People reed space; that' s what Atascadero is about" .
Al Wright asked Council to think about giving 19 old people a place
to live instead of kicking them out into the street.
Mr. Engen stated he had received a letter this afternoon from Norma
Boneso , a property owner of 6603 Santa Lucia (duplex adjoining the
subject property) , supporting Mr. Gifford' s project.
David Brannon spoke again, rebutting Mrs. Middlecamp ' s "total mis-
representation" of the project. He pointed out that an indoor
recreation room is in the plans , as well as an enclosed, sheltered
exterior patio; there is space for another exterior patio. He in-
vited Council to visit a similar facility in San Luis Obispo whose
residents express they're very happy with their living quarters and
situation and would probably express support for this project.
Councilman Handshy read excerpts from a publication which addressed
the issue of planning for retirement and the nation' s need to provide
independence and security for its elderly population.
MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to continue this item to Jan. 13th in or-
der to allow staff to write up a very discreet set of findings
for approval (with respect to density issues) so that inappro-
priate future proposals can be avoided, seconded by Councilwoma0
Mackey; passed unanimously.
FOR A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK AT 10 : 00 P .M.
3. Ap dal of Planning Commission action allowing removal of the camore
tree 7040 E1 Camino to allow expansion of a Kentucky Fr' d Chick-
en (KFC) estaurant >`
Henry Engen ga staff report.
Councilman Molina as d for clarification o .nahether or not a conflic
of interest exists due Councilwoman Maokey' s request for Council
support of the subject app 1 and her ,,f-fling a letter of intent to
initiate it. Robert Jones , Ate-y. , responded that , in his opin-
ion, since the filing fee didn 't "ccompany the letter and Council-
woman Mackey subsequently rem ed ti letter because another group
took the action of filing,t e appeal , .ere is no conflict of inter-
est.
nter-
est. Vis'
Public Comment
Marion Young.,-!`Young Bros. Construction, representingthe franchise-
owners of,-the KFC , spoke in support of the Planning Comml�sion' s
recommendations and decision to allow for the tree removal. He note
' that;' to his knowledge , a governing committee has not made a mal
16-termination that the Sycamore is a heritage tree. He also note
`dthat every means of remodeling the structure without harming the tre
ISD
(J
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council November 25, 1985
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager N_t) -
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director i4E.
SUBJECT: Appeal by Elbert Gifford of Planning Commission' s denial of
Conditional Use Permit 16-85 (6455 Santa Lucia)
RECOMMENDATION:
Denial of the appeal.
BACKGROUND:
On October 7, 1985 the Atascadero Planning Commission considered this
request for a 23 unit residential facility for the elderly on a . 55
acre parcel across from Saint Williams Church. Action of the Commis-
sion was to deny the request as representing an excessive density
bonus for a senior citizens project and to invite the applicant to
submit a revised site plan containing a maximum 25% density bonus (see
attached resolution) . The applicant has subsequently appealed this
decision (see attached) and has also submitted a site plan application
for a 19 unit project with 19 parking spaces.
ANALYSIS:
As indicated in the attached staff report, the City' s General Plan
provides language which allows for utilization of a 25% density bonus
for low and moderate income housing and which permits flexibility in
development standards as a means of loweringcosts for such units
in-
cluding t projects for the elderly.
The land is zoned RMF/16 which would permit nine units for a conven-
tional project or eleven units for a project requesting a flat 25%
density bonus as provided for in State law and in the zoning ordi-
nance. The zoning ordinance also indicates under Section 9-3 .175 (c)
(1) "Amount of Bonus:
( i) The maximum density bonus shall be 25% except when a greater
bonus is allowed by Subsection ( iii) of this Section.
(ii) The number of units allowed by these bonus provisions shall
not be less than, but may exceed, the actual number of
dwelling units provided for the targeted income group.
14�
• •
Re: Conditional Use permit 16-85 (Gifford/Brannon)
(iii) The amount of a density bonus may be adjusted by the Plan-
ning Commission in order to accomplish goals and objectives
set forth in the housing element of the general plan. "
The Planning Commission reviewed the proponent' s proposed project for
23 units and considered public testimony (see attached minutes ex-
cerpt) and concluded that the density was excessive. Issues included
on-site amenities, usable open space, parking adequacy, adequacy of
the street system in the area, and pedestrian access to the downtown.
They noted that Planning staff had supported a revised project appli-
cation for 17 units with a like number of parking spaces.
On November 18 , 1985, the applicant submitted the accompanying pro-
posal for a 19 unit project with 19 parking spaces.
ALTERNATIVES:
Should the Council choose to uphold the appeal, there are three site
plans that could be considered; one for 17 units, one for 19 units,
and the original application for 23 units. Again, all three exceed
the standard 25% density bonus, but approval of any three is within
the discretion of the City Council.
HE:ps
ATTACHMENTS: November 1, 1985 letter of appeal
Revised site plan - 19 units
October 7, 1985 minutes excerpt from Planning Commission
meeting
October 7, 1985 staff report to Planning Commission
Resolution No. 9-85 denying C.U.P. 16-85
0
1I
2
Nov. 1 , 1985
City of Atascadero
P.O. box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
Re: Appeal of Use Permit #16-85
6455 Santa Lucia
Gifford Construction
J.D. BRANNON,ARCHITECT
488 piano,sae hrb obiWo,(mlftnia 93401 x{805)513-7978
RECEW ;J - 1985
Dear Sir:
We find that it is necessary to appeal the decision to deny our
application for a 23 unit residential facility for the elderly to
the City Council . We don't feel that the Planning Commission fully
understood our proposal or gave our oral presentation proper con-
sideration.
We feel that we can make viable arguments in support of this project,
which will be acceptable to the City and Community. This is a
facility that is much needed in Atascadero. This facility is sup-
ported and approved by the San Luis County Housing Authority.
Sincerely,
Elbert Gifford
��3
RESOLUTION NO. 9-85
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DENYING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 16-85 (6455 SANTA LUCIA: GIFFORD/BRANNON)
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on October 7, 1985 ; and
WHEREAS, at that meeting, after considerable discussion, it was
decided that this project proposal was too dense for this site; and
WHEREAS, the intent of the density bonus provision is not to be
unlimited in nature; and
WHEREAS, the applicant was invited to submit a revised site plan
containing a maximum of a 25% density bonus.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Atascadero Planning Com-
mission does hereby deny Conditional Use Permit 16-85 as follows:
Section 1. Commission Findings.
1. The proposed project or use as modified is inconsistent with
the General Plan. 0
2. The proposed project or use does not satisfy all applicable
provisions of this Title.
3. The establishment and subsequent operation or conduct of the
use will, because of the circumstances and conditions applied
in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety
or welfare of the general public or persons residing or work-
ing in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or in-
jurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the a,
use.
4. The proposed project or use will be inconsistent with the
character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its
orderly development.
5. proposed use or project will generate a volume of traffic
beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing access to the
project, either existing or to be improved in conjunction
with the project, or beyond the normal traffic volume of the
surrounding neighborhood that would result from full develop-
ment in accordance with the Land Use Element.
6 . The granting of a 155% density bonus would conflict with the
goals and objectives set forth in the Housing Element of the
General Plan.
Resolution No. 9-85 Gifford)
Section 2. Commission Action.
1. Denies Conditional Use Permit 16-85.
On motion by Commissioner Bond and seconded by Commissioner Sand-
ers, the foregoing resolution is adopted in its entirety by the fol-
lowing roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bond, Sanders, Hatchell and Kennedy
NOES: Commissioners Michielsson, Nolan, and Chairman LaPrade
ABSENT: None
DATE ADOPTED: October 7, 1985
WAYNE LAPRADE, Chairman
ATTEST:
HENRY EN EN,
Communit Develo ent Director
2 a��
• 0
City of Atascadero Item: B-2
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/7/85
BY: Joel Moses, Associate Planner File No: CUP 16-85
Project Address: 6455 Santa Lucia
SUBJECT:
Request to allow for the establishment of a 23 unit residential care
facility for the elderly. Request includes a density bonus, a parking
reduction, a reduction in landscaping, and the location of parking in
the front setback. Current zoning (RMF/16) would allow for nine
units.
BACKGROUND:
In 1982 the applicant filed for a variance (V820212 :1) requesting the
approval of a three story, 27 unit senior citizen apartment complex.
At that time, Mr. Gifford' s application was denied due to the required
findings. The applicant was informed with the denial of the variance
that the City was in the process of rewriting its zoning ordinance,
and that the ordinance was being written in order to comply with State
law provisions for allowing density bonuses for low and moderate in-
come projects. The ordinance was also being reviewed to allow modifi-
cation of landscaping and parking standards for specific projects.
The applicant has now resubmitted the project showing 23 residential
units in a two story building. The exterior elevations show a tan
stucco building with red tile roof and black wrought iron railings.
The applicant proposes to provide 17 parking spaces. The applicant
has submitted a development statement noting that the project be lim-
ited to the elderly and that the project would be administered by the
Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo.
The project is required to obtain conditional use permit approval
based on four modifications to the zoning ordinance. The most impor-
ant is the request per Section 9-3.175 (c) to allow a residential den-
sity bonus increase from nine units to 23 (255%) . The applicant is
proposing a parking reduction from 43 parking stalls to 17 (39%) as
provided in Section 9-4. 115 (1) . The applicant is also requesting for
a modification to the zoning ordinance pertaining to landscaping
standards and parking location.
A. LOCATION: 6455 Santa Lucia (Lot 24 , Block HB)
0
111,9
Conditional Use Permit 16-85 (Gifford/J.D Brannon)
B. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Request for a conditional use
permit for a 255% density bonus
increase, a 39% reduction in
parking stalls, and modification
to landscaping and parking
location.
2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gifford Construction
3. Architect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .J.D. Brannon
4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 , 000 square feet ( . 5509 acres)
5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fronting on Santa Lucia, a two
lane paved road with a 50 foot
right-of-way designated as an
arterial undivided in the
General Plana
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF/16 (Residential Multiple
Family, 16 units per acre max-
imum density)
7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant lot
8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RMF/16, church
South: RMF/16 , telephone co.
East: RMF/16, multi-family
residential
West: RMF/16 , multi-family
residential
9. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Multi-family
10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Level, sloping gently to the
southeast corner of the site
11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration
C. ANALYSIS:
A few years ago, the State, in an effort to provide more housing
for low and moderate income families, required cities to provide
new provisions to enable 25% density bonus increases into their
zoning ordinances. Atascadero' s ordinance also provides for an
unlimited density bonus increase if required specific findings
were made and that the project is found to accomplish goals and
objectives.
2 i l�
Conditional Use Permit 16-85 (Gifford/J.D Brannon)
The required findings listed in the ordinance require: that the
project consist of a minimum of four units; that the bonus units
be made available to the target income group for a minimum of 15
years; that performance and management guarantees be provided to
demonstrate continued availability of the dwelling units to the
targeted income group; and that the density bonus will serve to
support goals and objectives of the housing element of the General
Plan. The project will or can be conditioned to meet the first
three required findings.
The fourth finding and the special finding deal with the General
Plan and housing element in particular is more complex. The Gen-
eral Plan' s land use designation notes a maximum density of 16
units per acre, but also notes the possibility of density bonuses.
The housing element notes in Problem No. 2 that development and
land costs are a problem not only for new units and rentals. As a
spolicy, the element provides direction to provide flexibility in
development standards as a means to lower overall costs of low and
moderate income housing units and that the City should continue to
utilize the 25% density bonus for low and moderate income housing
(Policies 1, Problem 2.3 - page 19) (Exhibit I) . The housing ele-
ment also addresses the housing needs of special groups such as
the elderly. Program 11. 2 notes again the maintaining of flexi-
bility in zoning standards by allowing variations in development
standards to house special groups such as the elderly (Problem 11,
Policy Program 11.2) (Exhibit I) .
It would appear that the project would meet the required special
findings to grant a density increase, but the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance makes no mention of a maximum increase that could
be approved. The addition of 14 units to 9 units could be consid-
ered for a total of 23, but viewed in the light of being a 255%
density increase, this could also be considered excessive.
A further review of the project' s site plan reveals some problems
that are caused by development standards associated with the den-
sity and size of the project. The applicant has requested modifi-
cation of the development standards to allow a reduction from 42
required parking spaces to 17 parking spaces to a reduction of
40%. The applicant has also requested reduction of the 10% land-
scaping required for parking lots along with an encroachment into
the front yard setback of three spaces, and the installation of a
non-useable parking area off the street to provide fire access
(this will reduce on-street parking) . These are primarily caused
by the size of the structure. The staff has, in the past, noted
approval of a use permit for modifying parking requirements for a
seniors project, but required a one to one relationship between
units and parking excluding handicapped stall requirements (Condi-
tional Use Permit 3-84 - Young (California Manor) ) . The applicant
has noted the use of local public transportation and the exper-
ience on other sites as reasons to reduce parking requirements.
However , the City already has a perceived parking problem in the
nearby downtown area and due to the status of Santa Lucia as an
arterial, it would seem unwise to potentially add to a parking
problem.
3 l'Q
Conditional Use Permit 16-85 Gifford J.D Brannon
It would appear that the size of the project has required several
modifications that will have a detrimental effect on the neighbor-
hood if approved in its present form.
Modification of the project could be done as shown in Exhibit H,
eliminating the east west wing to reduce the project to 17 units,
a bonus of 8 units (188%) from the allowed 9 . This would allow
for the relocation of the three parking stalls within the front
yard setback along with providing 18 stalls (one stall per unit
and one handicapped stall) . The reduction would also allow the
elimination of the fire access. Landscaping requirements could
then be met too. Additional outdoor amenities may also be pro-
vided. The density per acre would still be a generous 31 per
acre.
D. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 16-85 with
modification shown on Exhibit H (modified site plan) , based on the
findings and conditions of approval contained in Exhibit A.
JM:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B - Location Map
Exhibit C - Applicant' s Site Plan
Exhibit D - First Floor Plan
Exhibit E - Second Floor Plan
Exhibit F - Elevations
Exhibit G - Development Statement
Exhibit H - Modified Site Plan (staff)
Exhibit I - Housing Element Policies
4 li�
0 0
Conditional Use Permit 16-85 (Gifford/J.D Brannon)
EXHIBIT A - Conditional Use Permit 16-85
Findings/Conditions of Approval
October 7, 1985
FINDINGS - Required for approval of a conditional use permit per
Zoning Ordinance Section 9-2.109
1. The proposed project or use as modified per Exhibit H is consis-
tent with the General Plan.
2. The proposed project or use satisfies all applicable provisions of
this Title.
3. The establishment and subsequent operation or conduct of the use
will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in
the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or wel-
fare of the general public or persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to prop-
erty or improvements in the vicinity of the use.
4. The proposed project or use will not be inconsistent with the
character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its orderly
development.
5. The proposed use or project will not generate a volume of traffic
beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing access to the pro-
ject, either existing on to be improved in conjunction with the
project, or beyond the normal traffic volume of the surrounding
neighborhood that would result from full development in accordance
with the Land Use Element.
FINDINGS - Required for approval of a Density Bonus per Zoning Ordi-
nance Section 9-3. 175
6. The project, prior to the granting of the density bonus, shall
consist of a minimum of four dwelling units.
7. The dwelling units allowed by the bonus shall be available to the
targeted income group for a minimum of 15 years.
8. Performance and management guarantees have been provided which
demonstrate continued availability of dwelling units for the tar-
geted income group as provided by Subsection ( ii) of this Section.
9 . The granting of a density bonus will serve to support goals and
objectives set forth in the Housing Element of the General Plan.
10. The proposed density increase would assist the City of Atascadero
to meet goals and policies of the General Plan Housing Element
along with assisting in the reaching of the regional housing goals
for affordable housing.
5 '��
Conditional Use Permit 16-85 (Gifford/J.D Brannon)
FINDINGS - Additional:
11. The reduced parking at a rate of one per unit plus handicapped
stalls and employees will be able to accommodate the needs of the
senior housing.
12. The proposed use of senior housing has characteristics that are
different than those of a standard multi-family project.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Site development including buildings, driveways, parking, land-
scaping and other features shall be consistent with plans submit-
ted including modifications (per Exhibit H of modified site plan
- staff) required herein and all provisions of Title 9. The maxi-
mum number of units shall not exceed seventeen (17) .
2. Submit four copies of landscape and irrigation plans in confor-
mance with Section 9-4.124 et seq. prior to issuance of building
permits.
3. Building architecture shall be consistent with the elevations sub-
mitted. Any mechanical equipment used shall be screened in ac-
cordance with Section 9-4.128.
4. Fencing and screening shall comply with Section 9-4. 128.
5. Onsite signing shall comply with Sections 9-4. 130 through 9-4. 136.
6. Parking shall be provided as set forth in Sections 9-4.114 through
9-4.119 with the number of required parking stalls to be reduced
from 47 stalls to 17 stalls and one handicapped stalls.
7. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions and Restric-
tions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control of nuisance
and occupancy of density bonus units.
a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the City
Attorney and Community Development Department prior to ap-
proval of building permits.
8. Curb, gutter , five foot sidewalk , and pave-out along the Santa
Lucia frontage shall be provided. Pave-out shall bring the pave-
ment width of Santa Lucia from curb face to centerline shall be
20 feet.
a. All road improvement plans shall be designed by a registered
civil engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the C
Public Works Department.
9 . It is the applicant' s sole responsibility to have removed, relo-
cated or brought to grade any public utility facilities that may
conflict with the approved road improvement plan.
6 2i
l
0 0
Conditional Use Permit 16-85 (Gifford/J.D Brannon)
10. The applicant shall submit a drainage plan prepared by a regis-
tered civil engineer for review and approval by the Public Works
Department.
11. The applicant shall submit design, details, and calculations for a
stormwater detention basin. Construction of the detention basin
and any on-site drainage structures shall be certified by the
designing engineer prior to final inspection.
12. Wastewater disposal shall be by connection to the public sewer .
13. The applicant shall obtain a sewer connection permit from the Pub-
lic Works Department prior to hooking up to public sewer .
14. Obtain an encroachment prior to beginning work in the public right
-of-way. An inspection agreement and curb and gutter agreement
shall be signed, guaranteeing that the work will be done and in-
spections paid for .
15. Bonus units shall be conveyed only to persons who have been certi-
fied as having household incomes which are 120% or less of the
median income of San Luis Obispo County, as such income is deter-
mined from time to time by the Housing Authority of San Luis Obis-
po County. The Community Development Director shall certify eli-
gibility with this criteria upon application by a prospective
purchaser. The CC&Rs shall specify the application procedure and
all eligibility requirements which shall not be modified or re-
vised without approval by the City of Atascadero.
16 . Provision shall be made for this project to connect to community
water and sewer facilities. A letter shall be obtained from the
Atascadero Mutual Water Company stating that they are willing and
able to serve this project and submit the same to the Community
Development.
17 . All other utilities not already in place shall be extended under-
ground at the time of building permit.
18. Efforts shall be made to minimize grading that would be disruptive
to the natural topography. All grading and drainage shall conform
with Sections 9-4.138 through 9-4.154.
19. Curbs, gutter , five foot sidewalk, and pave-out shall be installed
along the Santa Lucia frontage. Drainage and street improvements
shall be approved by the City engineer.
20. Fire suppression facilities shall be provided as required by the
Fire Department and shall include, but not be limited to, upgrad-
ing of the existing fire hydrant and the installation of addition-
al hydrants.
21. All conditions of approval herein shall be complied with prior to
occupancy of any structure.
22. This conditional use permit approval is granted for a maximum
7 �2�i
0
Conditional Use Permit 16-85 (Gifford/J.D Brannon)
period of one year from the date of final approval unless an
extension of time is granted pursuant to Section 9-2. 118.
8 l��
t
•-
i
f
1
� e„ i' _ ;: •to
°l' -' -.- -- ' P� . �,I,,Pte` fir- �\ zv • iI
n
nq P6
' /� Lar 2 _pr p j_�C�:or—_ , �/ /�•//;�•
71
ill A
c. Y "••i: ��f:�, � � i/iii'.� � -�'1•'
SANTA L LIC IA AVE
EX N I LIT' C
' S I TE' PLA N "AFFULA N-T—D
C.UF lfo - 85
h !' 013 OD14 s 7- f- v MR. G_CGC` ,--OtO /
DCA ATE ve �r ; �� �,rz (o't5S- SANTA LUCIA\
DRAWN o'' v C, IF-nK I31ZA�1�lON
A FlEVISGD C t9" � .is v -,C
1 ,
1 _
A fll illllllll i - - -�
FI,
is r
Q ^7
I .
I pPr-n
1
Illi iil'lllll
I r
_ F(�l'UST F'LD6T- FLAN
I JOB OyII. LGwaR rLOOR r�. .N MR. •�� G�FFpRO LUL ! to -S-5-
4545E
$�
! BGALQ I/O�1-d
_ �_. G j SFT-SpRD TFYAN1N DRl
y GICCK EO
Q REVI56O
t
9 T��F
- ,•
Ll F
—TI
La
• lill!!I!IIG � •
,,Fo7,n
Z': .
EXI•-I M IT C
SET-nMD IFLMRion T'LAN
CUp
DAT p-j�p UrrGR r,00R rlAti I MR CLoeHT &,.ro„o �oL{J.� .SANTA - LUCIA
f SCA E ,,l-rte (:
O y CME KEDG I FFD
D ISD B Ie.I 1 t\I1y��
a ARGVISEO A `
e i
rI iJ�
low
Hj
El
j111
y El Z
,RO I PJ
LE
13 E
I- FE `,iii z :j � � I j� t m
EX�4MF -
LC
o
DATE 45t'I C�Cv-710 GU'PI Flo •Cas'
DRAW fldl-I�.� Lv� SW
�1-•�'-� l^,
z P� DRAWNC�E7.D.G II ISS 1�.1l A ���'!� I V
iii scA LIEED ii
�REVISED
3 � I? �I FFOFz.D • B`ZA�1N Oi�,l �
June 19, 1985
Atascadero Planning Dept.
Henry Engen
Atascadero Planning Director
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Re: Retirement home for
E. Gifford
J.D. BRANNON,ARCHITECT
288 plum,son lull obispo,callfomia 93401•(805)543-7978
Dear Henry:
We are attempting to build a retirement home on Lot 24 at 6455
Santa Lucia Road, which will require special approval for several
items that are not in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. We
have reduced the scale of the project some since our meeting, which
should make it easier to make the necessary findings to approve the
Conditional Use Permit.
1 . The project is now 23 units, reduced from 27 units.
2. The parking lot will have 17 parking spaces, reduced from
18.
The items which must be adjusted by the Conditional Use Permit are
the density, the parking ratio and use of the front setback.
The density for this RMF-16 zone would be 9 units, so we are asking
for a 255% increase. Considering that the tenants in this project
will be limited to the elderly, and that the facility will be ad-
ministered by the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo County, we
do not feel that this is over impacted. Each unit is provided with
a private patio, and we also are providing a common outdoor patio
and indoor common room. We have this same arrangement in the faci-
lity in San Luis Obispo. It works out very well . Several of the
first tenants to move into the San Luis facility are still living
there.
We feel that justification for this density bonus can be found in
the City' s Housing Element, which states as one of its goals, to
EX1-kIS1T (R-
=-
i
=- EM PMENT STATEN ENT
CUP 1 to • SS
(o9 ES 5AUTTA LDC I A G'
GIFT61TD • EV- IANDN l�'
Engen Page -2-
provide adequate housing for every sector of the community. Cer-
tainly low income elderly citizens are in real need of adequate
housing in this city. This project, which is reserved for the
elderly, administrated by the Housing Authority, and qualified for
subsidized rents, meets all of the required findings listed in the
Zoning Ordinance for density bonus.
The parking ratio, as established by the Young project, was one
parking place per unit. We are only providing 17 parking spaces,
which is 74% of what would be required. We feel this is more than
adequate parking for an elderly housing project, because few of the
tenants will have cars. The project in San Luis, which we have
based this project on, has 24 units, but I have never seen more than
10 cars in the parking lot at any one time. I have been checking
periodically for the last month at varying times . Transportation is
not a problem, because the project is within easy walking distance
of downtown via the Traffic Way underpass. The minimal staff and
maintenance would only use two parking places at any one time.
The plan that we are proposing encroaches into the front setback
of the site at two places. The building corner intrudes on one side,
but due to the curving setback line, the other corner is over three
feet behind the line. The average setback to the building is slight-
ly over twenty-five feet.
The parking lot also encroaches into the setback from four to ten
feet. To reduce this would cost us two parking spaces and increase
our shortage from the code. We feel that the amount of landscape
we have provided around the sides of the parking lot should satisfy
the intent of the code to screen and break up the parking area, as
wellas the additional front setback would. We have also provided
two landscape islands in the parking lot .
Engen Page -3-
In conclusion, we would reiterate that we feel that we are providing
a much needed facility in the community. We feel that considering
the use, we are meeting the intent of all of the codes and regula-
tions and that we qualify for the special consideration as provided
in the Zoning Regulations and Housing Element. We do need these
variances and bonuses, however, to make this an economical project
for us and for the Housing Authority.
We will be at the public meeting to present our verbal arguments
and hope to have a representative from the Housing Authority fami-
liar with the San Luis Obispo facility.
Please call me if you need any more information.
Sincerely,
. Brannon
2i
1
AV
@ NILI
\'
(�I Y @
•
n
_ jam, ��" � �J •1� }•� ��'v'�:-r-�,;��`�`�''�'1 " � "�\ t;,�j`��
SANTA L LIC IA A�/E
z , DCHVE17
MODIFILD 31TE-7LAN STIFF
I� JOB 0714 S .TE v p nnR C_GGC� G ��OR� LUF 16 - 95-
DATE } iteos to I55- SANTA LUCIA �•
_ ;^ SCAI-E Vb•�11-0 • A�A'�GP��(O, U '11412 y���/•�1�.�/� �/�1��Ir^1
T O r CME KED
VISEO Dv GI 1 1 U{�D L J[�� i14i�LON
C.REVISED G X74 i��'v iG 4 4VC
1- G_GGG .b.A�4SC. G
w
1. Problem: Home 'Ownership It is becoming difficult for many
people to become homeowners. The costs of owning a home
throughout California are increasing faster than average
incomes. Most home purchases are limited to the higher
income households or previous homeowners who have sub-
stantial equity from a previous home sale.
Policies: 1. Promote the development and construction of new
housing units for low and moderate income persons.
2. Promote and encourage the development and construc-
tion of new housing units for first time homebuyers.
2. Problem: Development and Land Costs. Financing, construction,
land and development are the major components of hous-
ing production costs. Increases in production costs are
generally passed onto the consumer in the form of higher
prices for new homes, as well as rental units.
Construction costs have decreased dramatically from 1949
to 1980 according to the California Housing Task Force
and the Construction Industry . Research Board (69% to
42. 5%) . The cost of land, on the other hand, has in-
creased sharply (11% to 27 .8%) . Land costs may be a
larger portion than this figure .for new housing , espe-
cially in cases where there 'is shortage of buildable
land, strong competition for available land, or wide-
spread speculation.
10
Construction financing has increased also, more than
doubling from 1949 to 1980 to 12. 0% of the finished cost
of a house. Thus, consumer credit has increased and
without credit, most consumers cannot afford to purchase
housing.
Policies: 1. Provide flexibility in development standards as a.
means to lower overall costs of low and moderate
income housing units.
Programs: 1. 1 Continue the housing policy which permits factory
built housing such as modular or mobile homes to be
approved as standard housing stock .
2. 1 Continue to monitor and evaluate development stand-
ards and advances in methods of housing construction
to lower development costs where feasible.
2. 3 Continue to utilize the 25 percent density bonus
for low and moderate income housing .
3 . Problem: Government Requirements and Review Time. The cost to
a developer of holding property while securing permits
is an expense generally recovered in the sale of the
housing unit. The longer this process takes , increased
housing costs or decreased housing production may
result.
19 GUP I a n Lf7KbN7_ 1 OU Ll FS
�f SS SA UT_A LOLI A
CT 1 FFM • TSF-PrIU Ki ow i33
11.- Problem: Special Needs and Variety in Housing Opportunities.
The range of household types and "lifestyles" in Atasca-
dero necessitates a range of housing types. (Current
I standards permit a maximum minimum lot size for single
family homes of 1/2 acre, with sewers.
Policy: Encourage a wide range of housing opportunities, includ-
ing manufactured housing , and consider development of
any form of housing which has proven itself as a reli-
able housing sources. _
Programs: ll. l Maintain flexibility in zoning standards which
provide for housing of various densities and in dif-
ferent zones: provide for a minimum lot size of
10 ,000 square feet for single family homes within
the sewered area when compatible with residential
neighborhoods.
11. 2 Maintain flexibility in zoning standards (use per-
mit, planned development, and residential accessory
uses) to allow variations inenvelopment standards
to house special groups, such as the elderly and_-
handicapped.
11. 3 Encourage lending institutions to back loans for
innovative projects.
12. Problem: Housing Assistance. Housing assistance comes from a
variety of federal, state and local laws whch attempt to
provide housing for low income households, the handi-
capped, and elderly. Most often it is in the form of
direct rental subsidies or the operation and maintenance
of apartment buildings. It is difficult to determine
the exact number of those needing rental assistance, but
according to the 1980 census, there were 195 families
with an income of $5 , 000 or less and a total of 668 fam-
ilies with an income of $10 , 000 or less in the City.
According to the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority,
there are presently 61 people receiving rental assis-
tance in Atascadero under the Section 8 program. The
difficulty in quantifying those needing assistance does
not mask the fact that there are many people in Atasca-
dero who qualify for assistance that are not getting
any.
Policies: 1. Encourage the rental assistance effort, including
participating in available Federal and State housing
assistance programs.
2. New construction of additional assisted housing
should be of high priority.
3 . Existing housing should also be made available to
provide additional housing assistance.
4 . The people who need housing assistance the most
should be given the first available choice.
23
�r ,
• •
/2E v e -7- E G .S-t?E 40LA"- 19-_Wk '"
k I',
I
F
� b
i � sly �I� I � i •
I I
I
I} �
�a
• e
� Lo
----------
5ANTA LUCIA AV
b 14. sirs r-L-- MR. •LGaRT Nl�1�-O� G4iSr^ R.O
tt
C-- ,?D,A�1.[h[S JD. BRANNON, ARCHITECT
� G470 3►r.�T ..IGiA Avg ON PWPAO s ,siw LLM CN@Mpo,CALF.rN3.""LOT St G,.GGI[ M . �L. CALF.Mao.•C-
.,. e +ossa iww
i�
i
8 8Eli"
loll 1 11 L
E �
8 B�_'{- e Ali . e ➢ •F�.
8 8
D _ e er
o c D 8 B
a o �
;
r
Q ,qr. eqt• aLcv,R.TiaHs
J.D. BRANIN�1
ON. ARCHITECT
P� OpMNM 1.O.p
Oi0(�
Q iSVr(D iM SAW LUIS OoY GLr
C.10GALF.Fum.# 1111011114111
amOs4-70"
1��0
f.
rn
I
J
P
!I
7
I I
Al
V
i '
Ll
yw
Q .1�all
C71i LOWER I�L�OR F•L,►.N MR. C�pL RT 6iFFORG
A■ u�
ora.wN I-".41 J.D. BRANNON, ARCHITECT
.o.s
a Fo9vop
cw�s.aaa.0 c-tea
Ll
Ir,5l,
4�.
r
v
r-771-1
Z c'r
b
.J01 0711 Urrin PLoon 1'L— Mn —Oo,r GI►rono
J.D. BRANNON. ARCHITECT
� OnANN roe
�r PMO R..YN Lia GMMgWC.GAM
CALi.RW..G_10M7 voo Mi-7If�
0
Minutes - Planning Commission - October 7 1985
DougDavidson
presented the staff report and pointed out that thi
application was similar to several recently approved lot sp ' s
herein site specific criteria was considered as opposed the
mi imum lot size criteria factors as outlined in the zoning
ordi nce.
Tom Vaugh representing the applicants, spoke in pport of the
request, a asked for modification to Condi ' on #1 to reflect
that the soil eport be submitted prior to is ance of a building
permit. He also equested that with regar to Condition #7-a,
that one half of 20 foot rural road se ion be required instead
of the full 20 foot.
There was brief discussion oncern ' g the need to eliminate the
minimum lot size adjustment it is as it now exists in the zon-
ing ordinance.
MOTION: Made by Commiss ' er Michi ssen, seconded by Commis-
sioner Bond a carried unani usly to recommend approval
of Resoluti No. 8-85 , with mo fications to conditions
#1 and #7 a as follows:
"l. preliminary soils report shall b prepared by a
registered civil engineer prior t issuance of a
building permit. If tests indicate critically
expansive soils or other soils problems, orrective
measures shall be taken. "
117-a. The construction of one half (1/2) of a 20 fo
rural road section on Ortega Road along propert
frontage. "
2. Conditional Use Permit 16-85 :
Request submitted by Gifford Construction (J-D Brannon, ar-
chitect) to allow a 23 unit residential care facility for the
elderly. Request includes a density bonus, a parking reduc-
tion, reduction in landscaping and the location of parking in
the front setback Subject property is located at 6455 Santa
Lucia, also known as Lot 24 of Block HB.
Joel Moses, in presenting the staff, report, spoke briefly about
the prior history of this project in which a variance was reques-
ted for a 27 unit senior citizens housing project. It was pointed
out that the variance was denied as the Commission could not make
the required findings to allow for the project to be approved
under the variance in the old zoning ordinance. Under the cur-
rent zoning, the density bonus can be considered. Staff is recom-
mending a reduction in units to 17.
David Brannon, project architect, explained that this project has
been scaled down to a requested 23 units and compared it to other
high density developments in the area. Mr . Brannon explained that
the majority of the building is set back quite a bit from the
street and stated that the project will be administered by the
2 ��
Minutes - Planning Commission - October 7, 1985
Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo. Mr . Brannon emphasized that
the units would consist of one bedroom and would be rented strict-
ly to senior citizens. He further spoke briefly about the reques-
ted reduction in the number of parking spaces.
Commissioner Bond asked what would happen if each of the occupants
of the units had a car . Mr . Brannon responded that historically
this has never been the case and referenced various similar type
projects in the San Luis Obispo area.
Richard Chubon, director of the Housing Authority, spoke in sup-
port of the project and explained the need for more affordable
housing for the elderly. He commented on the parking situation
and pointed out that most elderly people do not drive. Mr. Chubon
explained that the need for parking with the San Luis Obispo sen-
ior projects is less than what is provided and proceeded to cite
statistics of other similar projects in which this was the case.
He felt that the proposed 17 spaces is adequate for the size of
this project.
Commissioner Sanders asked Mr. Chubon what the requirements are
for qualification both as to median income and as to age. Mr.
Chubon explained the eligibility criteria factors involved under
the Section Eight program.
Jayne Sacks; Ardilla resident, referenced a recently approved pro-
ject for 36 units (Dunn) and stated that the Santa Lucia/Ardilla
corner is very hazardous with regard to traffic. She hoped thatle
something could be done regarding this traffic situation as she
felt it would present a hazard to the elderly who would be walking
and crossing these streets.
Mary Middlecamp, 5705 Venado, referenced the Marian Residence
located in Santa Maria and felt that it is important to have this
kind of facility for senior citizens; but she stresed the quality
of life for the residents as opposed to the pocketbook of the
developer who says it has to be financially able to be built. She
further emphasized that the project be safe and conducive to life
by lowering density and providing amenities.
Jane Clifford, Venado resident, pointed out that she was not op-
posed to the project but that the traffic issue needs to be con-
sidered. She stated that it is quite difficult to cross the
streets in the Santa Lucia/Ardilla/Traffic Way area and pointed
out there are no crosswalks in this area. She suggested an area
to be designated for pedestrians.
Commissioner Bond stated he was not against the project and could
agree with between 8 to 11 units being built, and felt that a
parking space should be provided for each unit. He also stated
his concurrence with testimony given by Mrs. Middlecamp.
3 ��
• •
Minutes - Planning Commission - October 7, 1985
Commissioner Sanders inquired if the 15 year contract which would
be administered by the Housing Authority would cover just the
bonus density units or all of them. Mr. Moses responded that in
the past, the Commission has required this contract to cover all
of the units. She further noted she had spoken with the City of
San Luis Obispo concerning their policy for density bonuses and
had been informed that San Luis will give up to a 50% bonus
density, and she stated she would be comfortable with between a
25% to 50% bonus.
Chairman LaPrade talked about the 25% density bonus being State-
mandated and explained the intent was to come up with an equitable
formula based on each project' s merits, and offered some comments
on the history of this project. He further explained he was in
favor of senior housing and did point out that there could be some
problems in the future if the housing intended for seniors did not
end up that way.
Commissioner Michielssen referenced Ed and Judy Young ' s senior
citizens project on E1 Camino Real and spoke briefly on the densi-
ty bonus the Youngs had requested. He felt consistency should be
given to this project to reflect that which was given in the Young
project.
Commissioner Hatchell felt that the project was an ideal situation
but felt the site was not adequate because of the scale of the
project, and noted his concurrence with staff report.
Commissioner Nolan concurred with the other commissioners and ex-
pressed concern over the traffic situation in that area. Commis-
sion Kennedy also agreed with the previous statements given.
Commissioner Sanders felt that an 188% density bonus is still too
large, but commended the staff' s efforts in preparing the report.
There was further discussion concerning the percentage of density
bonuses and whether they should be larger than 25%.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond and second by Commissioner
Sanders to deny Conditional Use Permit 16-85 based on the
proposed density but to invite the applicant to come back
with a proposed project which reflects a 25% density
bonus.
Commissioner Michielssen stated he would be more comfortable with
approving a 50% density bonus which would be an additional four
units.
Commissioner Sanders clarified that the representative from San
Luis Obispo whom she spoke with has given up to a 50% bonus based
on the individual site.
4
• 0
Minutes - Planning Commission - October 7, 1985
The motion carried with a roll call vote, as follows:
AYES: Commissioners Sanders, Hatchell, Kennedy and Bond
NOES: Commissioners Michielssen, Nolan and Chairman
LaPrade
Mr. Engen noted that a resolution reflecting findings for denial
would be brought back on the consent calendar for the October 21st
Commission meeting.
3. Conditional Use Permit 20-85:
Request submitted by Paul Washburn to allow for an addit' n
of 3,165 square feet of retail space to an existing r ail
center . Request also includes a signage master plan fo the
center . Subject property is located at 8550 El Cami Real,
also known as Lot 45 of Block 7 .
Mr. Mo es presented the staff report for this reques and noted
that st f recommends that the project be redesigned to conform to
landscapi requirements.
Commissioner olan asked if any consideration h been given to
having a dri way on the Plata Lane side of he site. Mr. Moses
responded that c sideration had been given o this but, upon re-
view, the Fire epartment and Communit Development Department
determined it would of be necessary.
Paul Washburn, applican addressed c cerns he had with the staff
report with regard to th monument sign, the building-mounted
signs and the Plata Lane andsca ng. He felt that the monument
sign was a matter of interpr at ' n of the zoning ordinance and
pointed out how his sign w interpreted to be 102 square feet
rather than 51 square feet. urther commented on the visibil-
ity factors from El Camin Rea in trying to identify signs and
pointed out that the Glen ks Plaz is set quite a bit back from
the street.
With regard to the buding-mounted signs Mr . Washburn wondered
if square footage is an issue and noted he parapet wall on the
building which was esigned for signs. In speaking about the
Plata Lane land aping, Mr. Washburn pointed ut that an unbuild-
able lot was cr ated between his property and th Plata Lane prop-
erty and that o conditions or restrictions to ndscaping were
placed with egard to maintenance of that property. He also spoke
about the rainage problem in the area. He stated th t he would
lose two arking spaces if the five foot of landscape is re-
quired, and suggested that a fence be put in along Plata ane.
Com ssioner Sanders addressed the area of signs as they elate
to the limits as outlined in the zoning ordinance. There was
rther discussion concerning the appropriate number of squa e
footage for identification purposes for the tenant buildings.
5 '��
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Honorable City Council
AA
FROM: Mike Shelton M 1�1
SUBJECT: Citizens ' Transportation Committee - Atascadero Citizen
Appointment
DATE: January 9 , 1986
Recommendation
Based upon interviews prior to Council Meeting, City Council ap-
point Atascadero citizen to the Citizens' Transportation Advisory
Committee.
Alternative
City Council direct staff to solicit additional interested citi-
zens for further consideration.
Background
• At the November 12, 1985, City Council Meeting, Council directed
staff to solicit citizen applications to serve on the Citizen' s
Transportation Advisory Committee. Accordingly, the City Clerk ' s
Office has posted notices and advertised (twice - November 16th &
20th) in the local newspaper . Former appointee, Bill Silver,
recommended a replacement, Mrs. Joan Doore. Mrs. Doore was-
sent an application and personally requested to apply. To date,
we have received one application from Mr . James A. Rodger.
Though Mrs. Doore has indicated she would submit an application,
to date she has not responded.
Appointment Term
No appointment term is required by the Citizens' Transportation
Advisory Committee By-Laws. Council has discretion in making the
appointment on an open-ended basis, or may restrict the term.
The By-Laws do indicate that three unexcused, consecutive absen-
ces, with a 2/3 vote of the Committee, results in the appointee
being dismissed.
MBS/cw
may recommend that the appointing entity drop a member from its rolls
after three (3) consecutive absences upon a vote of two-thirds of the
active Committee membership.
Section 4: Vacancies. Should a vacancy occur on the Committee by reason
of resignation, disability, or otherwise, the original appointing entity
shall then appoint a member to fill the vacancy.
ARTICLE III
OFFICERS
Section 1: Officers. The officers_ of the Committee shall consist of a
Chairman and Vice-Chairman. A staff secretary will be provided to:
1. Keep the minutes of all meetings.
2. Give or serve all notices required by these By-Laws.
3. Prepare the agenda for all meetings.
4. Be custodian of Committee records.
Section 2: Selection of Officers. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall
be chosen by majority vote of the regular members of the Committee.
Secretarial services shall be provided by the San Luis Obispo Area
Coordinating Council. The selection of officers shall take place at the
April meeting.
Section 3: Term of Office. Officers shall serve for a term of one year.
No elected officer shall serve more than two (2) consecutive one-year
terms in any office.
. Section 4: Vacancies. When a vacancy occurs it shall be filled by an
election at the next regular meeting to follow such vacancy by a majority
vote of the members present.
Section 5: Duties of Officers.
A. Chairman:
1. To preside at all meetings of the Committee.
2. To call special meetings of the Committee in accordance with
these By-Laws.
3. To see that all actions of the Committee are properly taken.
4. To appoint standing subcommittees.
�U
B. Vice-Chairman:
C1. To exercise or perform all the duties and be subject to all the
responsibilities of the Chairman during the absence, disability,
or disqualification of the Chairman.
2. To assist the Chairman in the conduct of Committee business.
ARTICLE IV
MEETINGS
Section 1: Regular Meetings. A Regular meeting of the Committee shall be
held at least prior to each Area Council meeting. Notice shall be sent to
members stating the time and place of the meeting. A Regular meeting may
be cancelled or rescheduled by the Committee at any meeting.
Section 2: Special Meetings. The Chairman may call a Special Meeting of
the Committee, provided written notice is given all members at least 24
hours in advance and proper public notice is given.
Section 3: Quorum. A quorum shall consist of five (5) members of the
Committee. No formal action shall be taken in the absence of a quorum,
except to adjourn the meeting to a later date.
Section 4: Agenda. Items for the agenda shall be provided to the
Chairman by staff at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting. The
Chairman, at his/her discretion, may add matters of urgent business to the
agenda. A written copy of the agenda for each meeting shall be given each
regular and Technical Advisory member at .least 48 hours in advance of a
regular meeting.
Section 5: Proceedings. In all matters, not otherwise provided for
herein, all meetings of the Committee shall be conducted in accordance
with Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised.
ARTICLE V
SUB-COMMITTEES
Section l: The Chairman shall appoint the members and determine the
duties of Sub-Committees, as needed or directed by the Committee.
Section 2: Sub-Committees shall make and submit recommendations to the
full Committee for appropriate action.
i
ARTICLE VI
EFFECTIVE DATE
Section 1: These By-Laws and any amendments shall go into effect upon the
date of adoption by the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council.
APPENDIX
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RD/hf/cbl
ms/21771
a�`
SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL
CITIZEN'S TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER, 1985
APPOINTMENT DELEGATE ADDRESS/PHONE
1st District Ed Hagan P. 0. Box 239
Atascadero, CA. 93422
466-3418
2nd District Keith Taylor 921 Anchor
Morro Bay, CA 93442
772-7449
3rd District Steve Otto Let's Travel Travel
Agency
902 Grand Avenue
Grover City, CA. 93433
489-1333 (office)
4th District Judie Hagstrom 606 Heritage Lane
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
489-4921
5th District Harriet Grove 1661 McCollum
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
543-3154
Arroyo Grande Faith Wescom 203 E. Cherry Ave.
Arroyo Grande, CA. 93420
481-2933
Atascadero Bill Silverj `U" \L'1 10025 El Camino Real
Atascadero, CA 93422
466-3949 - 466-2044
Grover City Herbert Keaton 1295 Mentone Avenue
Grover City, CA 93433
481-1462
Morro Bay Bancroft "'Bea" Rohan 2501 Elm Avenue
Morro Bay, CA. 93442
772-8803 (home)
Paso Robles Bob Weissgerber P. 0. Box 517
Paso Robles, CA. 93446
238-3322 (home)
Pismo Beach Mrs. Kay Luis 198 E1 Portal
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
773-4064 (Home)
773-4430 (Work)
�y
APPOINTMENT DELEGATE ADDRESS/PHONE
San Luis Obispo Karl Hovanitz 441 Luneta Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA.
93401
544-7346 (home)
Area Council Kitty Shaffer 681 Woodland Drive
Los Osos, CA. 93402
528-1655 (home)
Area Council Robert H. Morris 1135 Oceanaire Dr.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
549-8366 (home)
Area Council Gary Deno 3134 Spring Court
San Luis Obispo,. CA.
93401
544-7845 (home)
Area Council Stephen Devencenzi 2960 Hawkhill Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
544-5359
STAFF
Area Council Ronald L. DeCarli County Government Center `-
549-5714 (office)
Area Council David Bryant County Government Center
549-5711 (office)
Area Council Karen Bass County Government Center
549-5712 (office)
Caltrans Fred Miller P. 0. Box 8114
San Luis Obispo, CA.
93403-8114
549-3225 (office)
Caltrans Nancy Sanderson P. 0. Box 8114
San Luis Obispo, CA.
93403-8114
549-3325 (office)
9-12-85
hf/cl/2617-1
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO
CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
James A. Rodger
Name of Applicant
6440 Navajoa Rd Atascadero, CA 93422
Residence Street Address City Zip Code
466-6662 546-1363
Residence Telephone Number Business Telephone Number
Construction Management Department
California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, Ca 93407
Business Street Address City Zip Code
1. Are you a full-time paid officer or employee of local/state government
(circle one)? NO YES If so, where Cal Poly Position Assoc. Prof.
2. Education: M.S. Building Construction
3. Present occupation: Associate Professor in the Construction Management Dept.
4. Membership in organizations
5. Please describe why you are interested in serving on this committee.
(Use reverse side for any additional information--200 words maximum.): 0
I have a personal interest in public transportation issues with snecif_ic
intarasts in transportation planning and mass tranportation Systeme
6. Please describe other community activities that you have been involved
in.
Served briefly on the predecessor of the Atascadero Beautification
CnmmittPP_ Currently serving as liasion between the Atascadero Community
Cb„rrh and Boy Scout Troon 150_
n
J.
' 7. Signature of applicant: VA
i
8. Date: December 23, 1985 i +
0887L D
Z
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council January 13, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager 1(k) ,
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consideration of possible additional General Plan Amendments
for Cycle 1 - 1986
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve bringing to hearing the General Plan amendments recommended by
the Planning Commission at their meeting of December 2, 1985 , together
with any other amendments the Council may wish to add.
BACKGROUND:
At their meeting of December 2, 1985 , the Planning Commission consid-
ered the attached staff report which reviewed both privately-initiated
and City-initiated amendments to the General Plan. In addition, sev-
eral of the plan amendments were proposed for consideration as part of
a larger study area.
The action of the Planning Commission was to recommend the report to
the City Council.
WHAT'S NEXT:
With Council approval, the enclosed General Plan amendments would be
advertised for future public hearings before the Planning Commission.
Given the number, it is likely to take a minimum of two hearings to
evaluate all of the amendment requests. The Planning Commission will
make recommendations on each item for subsequent hearing before the
City Council. At the time of Council hearing, the Council may approve,
modify, or accept recommendations of the Commission. In cases where
the Council is disposed to alternative actions not considered by the
Planning Commission, the Council must refer same back to the Commis-
-sion for a report.
HE:ps
ENCLOSURE: December 2, 1985 Planning Commission Staff Report
l�l
Re: General Plan Amo ments - Cycle 1 - 1986 0
GP 1I-86: 10850 Colorado Road (Steil/Roberts/Jagger)
Suburban Single Family to Moderate Density Single Family
GP 1J-86 :* Areas A, B, C (City)
From existing general plan designations to High Density
Single Family (10, 000 square foot lots)
GP 1K-86 :* City-Wide (City-initiated)
Text amendment to allow the revision of nonconforming lots
to be less conforming
GP 1L-86:* City-wide (City-initiated)
Text and map amendment to the Urban Services Line in spe-
cific areas.
GP 1M-86:* City-wide (City-initiated)
Text amendments to Public and Quasi-Public Services Element
to update and add policies.
The following are General Plan amendments that have been continued
from prior cycles:
GP 2G-85: Coromar Study Area (Lopus/Kennaly)
Moderate Density Single Family to High Density Single
Family
GP 2D-85: 9240 Atascadero Road (Hawkins)
Moderate Density Single Family to High Density Single
Family (10 ,000 square feet)
GP 2C-85 : 8555 E1 Corte (Poe/ACOMA)
Low Density Single Family to Low Density Multi-Family
GP 2E-85: 2205 El Camino Real (Hilchey/Kennaly)
Suburban Single Family to Low Density Multi-Family
GP 2J-85: City-wide (City-initiated)
To add High Density Single Family (10 , 000 square feet)
ANALYSIS:
GP 1A-86 : 1800 EL- CAMINO REAL (BRAZZI) :
The applicant has submitted applications for both a general plan land
use map amendment to revise the existing suburban single family resi-
dential to retail commercial, and a zoning map amendment from RS (Res-
idential Suburban) to CR (Commercial Retail) . The area is adjacent to
an existing commercial area designated for a commercial area along
north El Camino Real between E1 Camino Real and the freeway north of
Del Rio Road. No expansion of the area requested is foreseen.
GP 1B-86 : 8515 EL DORADO (PETERSON) :
The applicant has submitted applications for both a general plan land
use amendment to revise the existing Moderate Density Single Family
Residential designation to a new designation being considered (GP
2J-86) of High Density Single Family Residential/10 ,000 square feet,
2
Re: General Plan Am# ments - Cycle 1 - 1986 0
and a zoning map amendment from RSF-Y (Residential Single Family) to a
new designation being considered of RSF-W. The application is one of
five applications dealing with 10 , 000 square foot lots being processed
at this time. The site is also located in close proximity to two
other applications and a proposed study area. It would appear that
the application be considered as part of a larger study area, but the
request will be considered as a part of the overall establishment of
the 10,000 square foot lot areas.
GP 1C-86 : 5800 VENADO (WARREN) :
The applicant has submitted applications for both a general plan land
use map amendment to revise the existing Low Density Single Family
Residential designation to High Density Multi-Family, and a zoning map
revision from RSF to RMF/16 . The City has received a letter from an
adjacent property owner requesting that their property be included in
the revision. The site is contained in a residential neighborhood
with all surrounding property designated for single family residential
use. Expansion of the area is not seen as being advantageous to the
consideration of the request or the planning process.
GP 1D-86: 11455 VIEJO CAMINO (KANKIEWICZ) :
The applicant has submitted applications for both a general plan land
use map amendment to revise the existing Suburban Single Family Resi-
dential designation to High Density Multiple Family, and a zoning map
amendment from RS to RMF/16. The proposed request located on the
northeast side of Viejo Camino is adjacent to an existing High Density
Multiple Family area and the new City park (South Paloma Creek) . The
application will also consider the expansion of the Urban Services
Line so that sewer services may be extended to the site. This consid-
eration will be reviewed as part of GP 1L-86 . No expansion of the
area being reviewed is not considered as being advantageous to the
consideration of the request or the planning process.
GP 1E-86 : 7500 NAVAJOA (COOK) :
The applicant has submitted applications for both a general plan land
use amendment to revise the exising Moderate Density Single Family
designation to a new designation being considered (GP 2J-86) of High
Density Single Family Residential/10 ,000 square feet, and a zoning map
amendment from LSF-Y to a new zoning designation being considered of
RSF-W. The application is one of five applications dealing with
10,000 square foot Rots being processed at this time. The site is
also located within an area recommended as a study area as recommended
in GP 1J-86. The application will be considered as part of the
overall establishment of the 10, 000 square foot lot areas.
GP 1F-86: 4155 CARRIZO ROAD (LOPEZ-BALBONTIN) :
The applicant has submitted both a general plan land use map amendment
to revise the existing Suburban Residential designation to Moderate
Density Single Family, and a zoning map amendment from RS to RSF-Y.
The site is located on the south side of Carrizo Road, west of Traffic
Way. The surrounding area is designated Suburban Residential. No
expansion of the area being reviewed is not considered as being ad-
vantageous to the consideration of the request or the planning
process.
3 �`�
Re: General Plan Amo .nents - Cycle 1 —1986 0
GP 1G-86 : 9655-9855 LAS LOMAS/9325-9355 EL BORDO (FORSMAN/GREENE/
WILLIAMS) :
The applicants have submitted applications for both a general plan
land use amendment to revise the existing Low Density Single Family
designation to a new designation being considered (GP 2J-86) of High
Density Single Family Residential/10, 000 square feet, and a zoning map
amendment from RSF-Z to a new zoning designation being considered of
RSF-W. The application is one of five applications dealing with
10, 000 square feet lots being processed at this time. The site is not
located within an area recommended for study as recommended in General
Plan amendment GP 1J-86. The area has been studied in the past for a
General Plan amendment (GP 820325 :1) to allow Low Density Multiple
Family, which was subsequently denied. It would be logical to again
expand the application to cover the area between El Bordo and E1 Corte
east of Las Lomas. The application will be considered as part of the
overall establishment of the 10, 000 square foot lot areas as Area "D" .
GP 1H-86 : 8800 EL CENTRO (LINDSEY/E P A ) :
The applicant has submitted applications for both a general plan land
use amendment to revise the existing Moderate Density Single Family
designation to a new designation being considered (GP 2J-86) of High
Density Single Family/10,000 square feet, and a zoning map amendment
from RSF-Y to a new zoning designation being considered of RSF-W. The
application is one of five applications dealing with 10,000 square
foot lots being processed at this time. The site is also located
within an area recommended as Study Area B recommended in General Plan
Amendment GP 1J-86. The site has previously considered for a general
plan amendment to Low Density Multiple Family that was withdrawn
(GP 1C-85) . The application will be considered as part of the overall
establishment of the 10, 000 square foot lot areas.
GP 1I-86 : 10850 COLORADO ROAD (STEIL/ROBERTS/DAGGER) :
The applicants have submitted applications for both a general plan
land use amendment to revise the existing designation of Suburban
Residential to Moderate Density Single Family, and a zoning map amend-
ment from RS to RSF-Y. The applicants propose two revisions within an
area between Colorado and Atascadero between San Diego and San Rafael
Roads. It would be logical to combine the requests and expand the
study area to cover the larger area (Colorado study area) .
GP 1J-86: AREAS A, -B, C, D (CITY-INITIATED) :
The City, as part of its previous general plan cycle, initiated a
study to establish 10 , 000 square foot lots within the City (2J-85) .
At that time it was proposed that the general plan and zoning ordi-
nance texts be amended and that specific areas be established with
further study. The City Council continued consideration of text
amendments until specific sites were studied. At the present time,
there are five applications in process to provide 10 , 000 square foot
lots. Staff has noted several areas that are sewered within areas
that were previously designated by the County as allowing 10, 000
square foot lots. These areas were further reviewed as to physical
development problems and refined to be Areas A, B, and C. An Area D
is recommended as part of GP 1G-86 and Area B is to be expanded as
4 ,��
Re: General Plan Ami!ments - Cycle 1 - 1986 0
part of another amendment (GP 1B-86) . As an overall process, this
amendment will include the five applications, the study areas, and the
text amendments.
GP 1K-86 : TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW NONCONFORMING LOTS TO BE MADE
LESS CONFORMING (CITY INITIATED) :
The City Attorney has recommended that the City examine the general
plan to make such modifications that would allow lot line adjustments
to reduce the size of already nonconforming lots due to size provided
overall density would not be increased.
GP 1L-86: TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE URBAN SERVICES LINE
URBAN SERVICES LINE:
Staff has noted a need to revise the exiting general plan map and text
to bring existing areas served by sewer into the Urban Services area
and to modify the text to provide for specialized services.
GP 1M-86: TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC AND QUASI-PUBLIC SERVICES
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (CITY-INITIATED) :
The amendment is a proposed look at the elements and to bring it up to
date and to include actions already taken by the City.
GP 2G-85: COROMAR STUDY AREA (LOPUS/KENNALY) :
The City previously reviewed the request but tabled it until a sewer
study is completed. The study is currently being prepared and should
be ready in the near future. The City has received a request to ex-
pand the area along Portola Road. Staff sees no problem with the ex-
pansion of the area as requested.
GP 2D-85: 9240 ATASCADERO ROAD (HAWKINS) :
Under the previous cycle, the applicant submitted applications for
both a general plan land use amendment to revise the existing Suburban
Residential designation to a new designation being considered (GP
2J-85) of High Density Single Family Residential (10,000 square feet) ,
and a zoning map amendment from RS to a new zoning designation being
considered of RSF-W. The application is one of five applications
dealing with 10 ,000 square foot lots being processed at this time.
The site is not located within an area recommended as Study Area "A"
recommended in General Plan amendment GP 1J-86 . The application will
be considered as part of the overall establishment of the 10 , 000
square foot lots.
GP 2C-85: 8555 EL CORTE (POE/ACOMA) :
The applicant submitted both a general plan amendment to change the
existing designation of Moderate Density Single Family to Low Density
Multi-Family, and a zone change from RSF-Z to a designation of RMF/4-
PD (Residential Multiple Family, 4 units per acre with a planned dev-
elopment overlay) . The applicant requested a continuance under the
previous cycle to allow time to work with the neighbors. The appli-
cant has also purchased additional property in the area. Staff would
feel that the area should be considered to be expanded to cover the
entire area on the east side of E1 Corte.
5 1�
Re: General Plan Amef.nents - Cycle 1 - 1986 0
GP 2E-85: 2205 EL CAMINO REAL (HILCHEY/KENNALY) :
4PUnder the previous cycle, the applicant requested both a general plan
amendment and zone change to allow for a Low Density Multi-Family
Residential area on North El Camino Real. The project was determined
to need preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. To date, the
applicant has not entered into the needed agreement for its
preparation.
GP 2J-85:
See GP 1J-86.
An overall General Plan map has been attached showing all of the pro-
posed General Plan amendments. Each amendment has been reviewed and
recommendations made on individual attachments. Public hearings will
be scheduled after the Planning Commission and the City Council have
reviewed the proposed applications.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
GP 1A-86 : Process as requested.
GP 1B-86 : Process as a part of expanded study area "B" of GP 1J-86
GP 1C-86: Process as requested without requested expansion.
GP 1D-86 : Process as requested and considered as part of GP 1L-86
dealing with the Urban Services Line.
GP 1E-86: Consider as a part of GP 1J-86 Area "A" .
GP 1F-86: Process as requested.
GP 1G-86 : Expand to cover area requested and be processed as a
part of GP 1J-86 Area "C" .
GP 1H-86 : Process as a part of Study Area "B" of GP 1J-86.
GP 1I-86: Process as a part of a Colorado Study Area.
GP 1J-86 : Areas A B -
C, and D� Establish study areas as shown
and GP 2D-85.
GP 1K-86 and Initiate study of text and map amendments.
GP 1L-86:
GP 2G-85: Expand study area to include area requested.
GP 2D-85: Process as proposed to be included as a part of GP 1J-86
for review.
GP 2C-85 : Process as a part of an expanded study area for E1 Corte
Road.
6 �
Re: General Plan AmW_aents - Cycle 1 - 1986
GP 2E-85: Is in need of preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report.
GP 2J-85: Process as a part of GP 1J-86 .
GP 1M-86: Initiate study
ATTACHMENTS
JM:ps
7 1�
oX
- (\
`\
r 1
0
N
I
-
z-
m
f
\
T
f ,
10,
AA
1980
F
m m m m m m
z Z
223c
DDDT-n>9
oo�momm �/� N• C] o '
ccm3-iD
��momro � t/l
MMLr�
rrzo�33
>rmDm� r �dOJ
t� / z M Mnn
.. % /
Z °D h I i\
I d
\
Vf 31 D �
LInFj
�
cm's Z m
......... •• .�
SITE • ;,
r : GP: IA: 86 - BRAZZI
...
1800 EL CAMINO REAL
.
..
.... ... :: ::... ::. �.::__ :::':.::::
:.:: ;:. :.. .: .... :.:
......
.......... :.. .......
:
.. ........'
....... :::::' ...... ::... ... :
.. ... f `:.
::::: :::::::::.:'.,::: GP° 1A: 86 - BRA77T
:........ :.'::..... ................::'::..........
1800 EL CAMINO REAL
:. ::::... .:: :::::::::::::: SUB. SNG. FAM.TO RET.COM
:: ::::.' ............
..::':::::::::::::::::
...•.......... ::: ::::::::..... : :::::::::::::: :::: ::: :::::::
�... .�..........
p ATASCAD R0co t.
GE���DRAL P3�A� MAP
CIRCULATION
1 LAND USE AND CIRC U
HIGH DENS. MULT. FAM. HEAVY COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE
LOW DENS. MULT. FAM. RETAIL COMMERCIAL RECREATION
HIGH DENS. SNGL. FAM. " COMMERCIAL PARK SPECIAL RECREATION
ARTERIAL
MOD.DENS. SNGL. FAM. SPECIAL
RCIAL
LOW DENS. SNGL.FAM. PROFESS ONALEOFFICE COLLECARTERI TORUS D CIV!DED (�
ViDED
SUBURBAN SNGL. FAM. i // INDUSTRIAL PARK -.-._._.-._._ JRBAN SERVICES uuE �vl
URBAN RESERVE L�NE
PUBLIC INDUSTRIAL
- - _ CITY BOUNDARY
••111'`.-!- /•.•.• .. :...� � / /
SITE
'> ) V. GP: 1B : 86 — PETTERSON
8515:'::: �:, ;'�,'•_ _ 51 5 EL DORADO
Z 1�
A
J _
_ yy
`:.
.....
Ai
;/ .. .........
...... ...
:::: :: : ::::::.:............
::•�. .......::::: :::::::...
::::...:::::............ :....:
GP' 1B ; 86 — PETTFRSON
.......
::::: 8515 EL DORADO
. .
MOD.DENoSFR.TO H.DEMFR
:. (10, OOOSQ. FT. LOTS)
............... ......
o ATASCAD-E -R) O
GETHERAL PLAN MAP y°
I LAND USE AIND CIRCULATION
r-- HIGH DENS. MULT. FAM. HEAVY COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE
�.,.. _ l
LOW DENS. MULT. FAM. 1 RETAIL COMMERCIAL RECREATION
HIGH DENS. SNGL. FAM. COMMERCIAL PARK SPECIAL RECREATION
SPECIAL___ _� LOW DENS. SNGL FAM. PROFESS ONAL OFFICE
ARTERIAL DIVIDED
COMMERCIAL
AL OFFICE CCLI-ECTARTERIAORS
u,vorviceo
SUBURBAN SNGL. FAM. INDUSTRIAL PARK — —.—.—._ `RBAN SERVICES LINE
PUBLIC , INDUSTRIAL URBAN RESERVE LNE
CITY BOUNDARY
t..
h ri
It I tag
t vH. r
9 t
1.30s;
: te r
ME
ATASCADERO
GE-ItTERAL PLAN MAP
LAND USE AND - CIRCULATION J
f F
..owHH.....ww.H....Iw"� H +IrA iN..N.I ..H...• .���_
�s =.��..H.H�_...v.•.�•iw•• H -11N.O9' H.H..11 .HH... -
'_a -3: /-1 : 1 1 � • •
ts a ^•:.
l
�o
t
s e
i
i
r
URE
• RETAIL COMMERCIAL i RECREATION
HIGH
SNGL
.. .
• DENS. RO • • CTORS '
LLE
SUBURBAN SNGL. FAM. INDUSTRIAL PARK SLRVICES LINE
PUBLIC INDUSTRIAL --;TY 90UNDARY
ate;• ::�� ] _.. _� `\\_ j � /\ \
"� \� �• \ SITE —
,'
GP; 1D; 86 —KANKIEWICZ
11455 VIEJO CAMINO
:••• ::
X.
�. :::::: ':':f: • '.::::: :�: :'
::" :: •
....
.
....... .
.. .. '
................::::
..
:. r V `� C G 4 :..::
r
a 0
n
::::::: ::ate: Y ............
J 4 L ...
................
...: •:::::::::......... .. ,� lj � Q c. �.� `� �.� �' Q 4 � �� �,- :�/ 4 Q 0�Q � � � Q. �r� Q 4 4 � 4CQ.Q�
............::::
........ .. v. �/ J `� �% �� O �;' V 4 Q •'f V
.. ... _ ,, ,� '� .' tic '✓ ., .. n -n. n /� A A A A
n. -,
:.......... :
• ..: � / 4 i� — :J
.... � : : 11455 VIEJO !�\
GP1D86 CAMINO
r > KANKIEEWICZ—
SUBoSNG. FAM. TO H.DEN MULT.;
t , FAM
o ATASCADER0
co
� (= F-7
i - AL ALAN MAPG
I LAND USE AND CIRCULATION
HIGH DENS MULT. FAM. HEAVY COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE
_-� jE LOW DENS. MULT. FAM. `I RETAIL COMMERCIAL RECREATION
HIGH DENS. SNGL. FAM. '7//1 COMMERCIAL PARK SPECIAL RECREATION
MOD.DENS. SNGL. FAM. I SPECIAL COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL CIVIDED
LOW DENS. SNGL.FAM. h" PROFESSIONAL OFFICEARTERIAL UNDIVIDED
••••••••••••••••... ........ COLLECTORS
SUBURBAN SNGL FAM. INDUSTRIAL PARK l R9AN SERVICES LNE
PUBLIC INDUSTRIAL IRBAN RESERVE L NE
CITY 9OUNDARY
\ ' gilt
EWEN •iii R'
•� ` ` a•ww: 4 ilii ���'� __♦
uu r.v
I•\.NH..uu...N... �r.. 1' ! � Imo•me
I
io
t r
� 11 I � • �
1 111 • •
1
k
GETNERAL PLAN MAP
LAND • , CIRCULATION
•
• RECREATION
RECREATIONHIGH DENS. SNGL. FAM. COMMERCIAL PARK SPECIAL
MOD.DENS. SNGL. FAM. ARTERIAL DIVIDEDSPECIAL COMMERCIAL
• ROFESSIONAL OFFICE
BOUNDARYCOLLECTORS
SUBURBAN SNGL. FAM, INDUSTRIAL PARK ...... �RBAN SERVICES LINE
LRBAN RESERVE -NE
PUBLIC INDUSTRIAL
T
SITE — :::.._
GP; 1F; 86 — LOPEZ/BALBON— �'` ::. ::.::::
TIN
4155 CARRIZO ROAD : .. ..
r .. :: .. '.... ... .. �. ••:
.........
...
1 ..
.: ......: • •'•
...... ':::::.: .:.:......::.::: .::
... ,:::•::•::•::•::.
:::........ :::::::.::.:::::::::: ter:
..................
...... 4
...
........... .......................
.... ................................
:::::::. ::: ..:: ........ .:::.: :::::::......::::......... .. ....::::: .':..:....... ::....:.:
.
.....
............ GP• 1F• 86 LOPEZ/BALBON—
TIN
:. :::: ......... ..... 415 5 CARR I ZO ROAD
.......... :.... ....._...::::..:.. ...... :.:...........................:. SUBoSIGoFAMoTOMOD,DENoSFR
c, E ATASCADERO
GENERAL PLAN MAP
! LAND USE AND CIRCULATION
HIGH DENS. MULT FAM. HEAVY COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE
-' LOW DENS. MULT. FAM. RETAIL COMMERCIAL RECREATION
;....
HIGH DENS. SNGL, FAM. COMMERCIAL PARK SPECIAL RECREATION
' MOD.DENS. SNGL. FAM. I SPECIAL COMMERCIAL
ARTERIAL DIVIDED
_ LOW DENS. SNGL.FAM. :""7 PROFESSIONAL OFFICE �• ARTERIAL UNDIVIDED
•"'•••••••••••• COLLECTORS
C
SUBURBAN SNGL. FAM. INDUSTRIAL PARK --- -.-.. RBAN SERVICES LINE
PUBLIC INDUSTRIAL ....• RBAN RESERVE L.NE
CITY BOUNCARY
_ ''stir•: :•�. �',•�-�' �-• i-��••','
t } SITE
EXPANDED STUDY AREA
GP; 1G; 86
9655-9855 LAS LOMAS
{ .: ... ... . .. . ..
,.
'ir ... .. .
....
::: ......... 1:....... . : ::.........
::: ...: : ::: ....... :: : :::..
,i ........:.. ...•t���•�►��,.......... ... ......:.. ... .• .. ..
.. .............: .... ................... .......... .. ... ...::... .. ....
JC
. . . . ...... . .
:..
... :::.::::::::::::.: C 4 4 4
:.. :. f , - GP; 1G; 86 —FORSMAN .GREENE_
:::. WILLIAMS
..... ...........:::j::....... 9655-9855 LAS LOMAS
......::::::::..:: ._. ::::::::::: :J/ r' r !`r LoDENoSFRo TO HoDENoSFR,
\V, ' (10, 000SQ. FT. LOTS)
Ip ATASCADO
0-
GE, PLAN TAP tion
LAND USE AND CI-,CULATION
-» 9 HIGH DENS. MULT. FAM. HEAVY COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE
LOW DENS. MULT. FAM. RETAIL COMMERCIAL RECREATION
-' HIGH DENS. SNGL. FAM. COMMERCIAL PARK SPECIAL RECREATION
MOD.DENS. SNGL. FAM. SPECIAL COMMERCIAL ARTARTERIAL DIVIDED
- -+
LOW DENS. SNGL.FAM. r""� PROFESSIONAL OFFICE COLLECTORS
SUBURBAN SNGL. FAM. INDUSTRIAL PARK -'- -.-.-.. URBAN SERVICES LNE
i~ PUBLIC INDUSTRIAL RFIAN RESERVE LLNE
CITY 90UNOARY
Ve
SITE i
GP; 1H; 86 - LINDS
�•: ::; _�,'. , 8800 EL CORTE
, a a
X.
i
` l �
:•.:
:.:'.
?� ... .
:r
.... "l:• ......
..:.. .... \ -��, �••�-`tom: •�•.�:::: ::::: ::::�• .:::..::::':::'.'::.'
::........ ... :........ :::::::::':.:.... �. .. ::
... . . . . . :...... _:
ri r �•r
�. .........
. .. ..
: ::::::.. ......... . GP; 1H; 86 - LINDSEY/EDD°A.
.. ... 8800 EL CORTE
........... ....... : :::: MOD°DEN° SFR° TO L°DEN°MUL
...... FAM.
: FAM..
........ :::: :.. . : :
... :. . :.: ::
ATASCADERO
co
Q� GENERAL PLAT MAP tion
LAND USE AND CIRCULATION
HIGH DENS. MULT, FAM. I HEAVY COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE
=` LOW DENS. MULT. FAM. RETAIL COMMERCIAL i RECREATION
HIGH DENS. SNGL. FAM. COMMERCIAL PARK SPECIAL RECREATION
MOD.DENS. SNGL. FAM, SPECIAL COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL DIVIDED
���.
�—
LOW DENS. SNGL.FAM. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ........................ ARTERIAL UNDIVIDEDOLLECTORS
SUBURBAN SNGL. FAM. INDUSTRIAL PARK — ---.—.
COLLECTORS
SERVICES LINE
PUBLIC INDUSTRIAL _ - _ CRBABOUNDARRESERVE L,NE
l
......
t ..
..
•' .. .. ..
••rte[ ... .. ..
.-•- ... .. . ..
U�TFtI; 86
_ 10850 COLORADO ROA
......: .'::.. :. �:..
.. ...:"
COLORADO STUDY AREA >yU `� � .• :
Y 0
4
r A
, .. ..... .. .. SC O '> C� �Q QC4 � � OQ4q
... JC (J � to J ;•J .� � "J � r Y A (. Cn
i
.... .........
,A A ,
, a r. 11 c2 d <5 0 "J
..........
.... ..... ^ J> Y A C GIP; 1I : 86 —STFTL/RORFRTI;
JAGGFR
::........... .:::::: '` q ,; c, 10850 COLORADO ROAD
... ��
SUB. SNG, FAM,TO MOD.DEN. SFF
1. . ......:::::.
o ATASCAO
'� rV
GETNERAL PLAN TAP
LAND USE AND CIRCULATION
HIGH DENS. MULT. FAM. HEAVY COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE t
LOW DENS. MULT. FAM RETAIL COMMERCIALRECREATION
,. . HIGH DENS. SNGL. FAM. " " COMMERCIAL PARK SPECIAL RECREATION
MOD.DENS. SNGL. FAM. � i SPECIAL COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL DIVIDED
y ��� �� �� ARTERIAL UNDIVIDED
COLLE
TORS
SRBAN SERCES LIN
UBURBAN SNGL. FAM. INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL PARK - •-. URBAND RESERVE L I E
LOW DENS. SNGL.FAM. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE
LIC
E
CITY BOUNDARY
J Ar iz� f
v
� _, - � •�+°a ; I � � -_ � ice,, � �
—� 4 cam•".^'~,�•, /_ _ � _ � �`* �_� ��'a� r���N ��� �' { ➢ �`_`i ��'-a
oil :'n - -�� t�..a,�__ ��; ��y� -. t ./- � .I _ C_- ���' ��5♦ � ;�_-� t .. �
t 1 7 � ��� .�.:W ♦ - n �"p
to
�_�/_� �� / � \per/i, ''a{�•i��g ���.'� �''�:"s��= D ", � -,�'�k {�'� -;poi � i�. �„�il�•.:�
-
_
Y S 114 i .=r-Y.���� � C�tea.{J t\`Q, � S� •/_ -E '� 2 •i��{ p�
L -.�o�\)` .•s-fW'f e g .� -... Ate . e\ 4 •_\/
� t.y: _
- -' -i� �r-4 1� �--- ::�L• iii-�- �
0j . 6
rn rnLn
.. r
rn
Z � �\,! .\� %�" ;mak Y�• � �\��' �/ t-\��� -�_ D �/ =
D O crn(-n v
3 Z -
�+ D rn
s r S co L.
DD2t
DDD cD
CD Z z z r ;a rn
O V) - O n ,,..� X49
CD
D — O J (DD !/\ 4
1 4
J <n -< rn rn77
\ (}�
,row to D O m D �• �� �����_ A. i�. ��j"\
70 3
-n z rn rn Qq
—1 0 D Z
F- U)
u rn
f 9
MORLAN & JONES, and HANLEY
An Association of Attorneys
THOMAS M.MORLAN 8655 MORRO ROAD,SUITE C TEMPLETON OFF[
ROBERT M.JONES POST OFFICE BOX 606 118 MAIN ST.—P.O.BOX 95
ROY A. HANLEY ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93423 TEMPLETON,CA 93465
TELEPHONE: (805) 466-4422 (805)434-2555
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE : July 26, 1985
TO : HENRY ENGEN
FROM: ROBERT M. JONES
SUBJECT: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS - SUBDIVISION MAP ACT
Pursuant to our recent discussion concerning the quandary
of several applicants for lot line adjustments where the approval
of the lot line adjustment would create a violation of the zoning
ordinance as leaving 1 parcel with less area than required under
the zoning ordinance and general plan, however disapproval would
leave the applicant with an irregular parcel, I request that this
matter be taken up before the Planning Commission on the next genera)
plan amendment cycle.
In the specific cases that we discussed, my recommendation to
the applicant was to grant recorded easements as to the parcels in
question thus effectuating the lot line adjustment. A problem does
exist with Section 66412 of the Government Code which makes inapplicable
to the Map Act a lot line adjustment ("between 2 or more existing
adjacent parcels , or the land taken from 1 parcel is added to an
adjacent parcel , and where a greater number of parcels as originally
existed does not thereby create it , provided the lot line adjustment
is approved by the local agency or advisory agency. ") The easement
would circumvent initial contact with the Planning Department , however,
if the creation of the easement is considered a prohibited transaction
or a violation of the act , then Section 66499. 34 of the Government
Code would presumably prevent the City from issuing a building permit
to either parcel.
However, to avoid possible litigation involving the City .over
whether the creation of an easement was in fact an illegal subdivision
of the land or whether merely a settelment of a dispute concerning
prescriptive rights between 2 land owners , my recommendation is to
amend the general plan and zoning ordinance to provide for lot line
adjustments to correct defective or non-conforming parcels .
GP; 1K; 86 - CITY
RIv:J : dt MORLAN & JONES TEXT AMENDMENT NONC R-
ING LOTS
Z/
�-RtCtERT M. JONES , Interim City Attorney O
1'�
/
I
. (YI
ZSZS \
'1
vy"
ZAN
:. _
t a
Y - , ..
In
......
b
i
.........' .':....
............ ... . ... .. ......
............ . ::.. .............
... .. ... ... ....
J
F
�:.
N,
.r..........
.........:::
r
tt{{ 6d
14R GLH �OCA1
iV VO QHS yN0 �, i
m� - mN
cco01Oc �H� o n
mm�oxfx � m a <x
mmmmmm t7l
z zzz
Ln
,� ffrl
J � 7
rrrr� M rp
ooxmOmm vl Nc >
VI
C,,m3
m n3 D< ^ V
-ammymi—n \L
z
DDon>n3 T c 3c nMT Nmy ,r /
r-rO�O /� F� Lri/ � /
x0xxxQ �..� ` z > �'\
mr
mncD
nxn
>mc
x ,\I -
r-> \
O
Qo
�' \\. j � it f �\i✓/ .::. �`\ � / /�,
•:1 _ "t 1. •`�.
�L•:•:::::•••' -\ J-.., t_ ',ti ):l_ �., -i x-11.� `�-•
�_ �• '�_'"\�.` ��,1 t 1 of ,'i -�
�j
do
X.
-T.. •: :: :•::Y
X.
0
C ROM
AR STUDY
AREA
.. .
EXPANSION REQUEST ..••: •
:.......................::
. GP; 2G • 86 —LOPUS/KENNALY
::....... ':' ::. e \ % COROMAR STUDY AREA
..:......
' o ATASCADERO
GETTE ,AL PLAN MAP �o
j LAND USE AND CIRCIIL.Cx-L
HIGH DENS. MULT. FAM. HEAVY COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE
LOW DENS. MULT. FAM. RETAIL COMMERCIAL i RECREATION
HIGH DENS. SNGL. FAM. \ COMMERCIAL PARK _' SPECIAL RECREATION
..... .....
' MOD.LENS. SNGL. FAM. SPECIAL COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL DIVIDED
T� ��
LOW DENS- SNGL.FAM. ""~ PROFESSIONAL OFFICE .........................., ARTERIAL UNDIVIDED
CDLLECTDRS
SUBURBAN SNGL FAM. INDUSTRIAL PARK -RBAN SERVICES LNE
PUBLIC INDUSTRIAL r BA gOIR ESERVE L.NE
l _ _
�. = ..... .. 7
4t1
A-xI'
M
:•.;•;•
SITE
GP; 2D; 86 —HAWKINS
... .... . .....
_. 9240 ATASCADERO ROAD.. '
... .
J .... Iy
:... :.: :: ::::: �J
GP; 2D; 86 — HAWKINS
............ :. d �::::::::::::::.'..... 9240 ATASCADERO ROAD
................:....)_ .::..::::::::.. ..... ......` MOD.DEN. SFR.TO H.DEN. SFR,
:...: : 10, OOOSQ. FT. LOTS
ATS.�C
.•, � ADFRO
G1-11TERAL PLAN MAP
LAND USE AND CIRCULATION
HIGH DENS. MULT. FAM. t HEAVY COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE
== LOW DENS. MULT. FAM. 1 RETAIL COMMERCIAL RECREATION
HIGH DENS. SNGL. FAM. COMMERCIAL PARK SPECIAL RECREATION �1
MOD.DENS. SNGL. FAM. SPECIAL COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL DIWIDED 1
/ ARTERIAL UNDIVIDED
LOW DENS. SNGL.FAM . PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ........................... COLLECTORS
SUBURBAN SNGL. FAM. INDUSTRIAL PARK —•—•— —.--. _RBAN SERVICES LINE
PUBLIC INDUSTRIAL RBAN RESERVE _,NE
CITY BOUNDARY
'SITE
GP 2C 85 —POE/ACOMA
8555 EL CORTE
_ EL CORTE STUDY A
REA I�
�% :�•"�'�c;'.:�'�• •::ice': '•.' •' �' �� _-i,�.
1 -
f• ... .
..
a i
:.t ..
k .. .
... ...
...
?.
. - ..
::: GP; 2C; 86 —POE/ACOMA
y 8555 EL CORTE
N
:::
: .' �;: r;
........... ............ LoDEN. SFRoTOLoDEN.MULTI o
> FAM.
............:::::::::: .-
ATASCADERO
tt.
Gt iXERAL PLAIN MAP
LAND USE AND CIRCULATION
HIGH DENS. MULT. FAM. i HEAVY COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE
LOW DENS. MULT. FAM. ) RETAIL COMMERCIAL RECREATION
HIGH DENS. SNGL. FAM. COMMERCIAL PARK SPECIAL RECREATION
_ MOD.DENS. SNGL. FAM. I SPECIAL COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL DIVIDED
�� ��
—� LOW DENS. SNGL.FAM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE 7 ARTERIAL UNDIVIDEDCOLLECTORS
i SUBURBAN SNGL. FAM. INDUSTRIAL PARK —•— —•— —•- IRBAN SERVICES LINE
PUBLIC INDUSTRIAL URBAN RESERVE L,NE
CITY BOUNDARY
•
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council January 13, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development 'Director 3
SUBJECT: Adoption of California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Draft Resolution No. 1-86 adopting guidelines for imple-
mentation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .
ANALYSIS:
The California Environmental Quality Act requires that the City adopt
formal guidelines for administering its implementation. The resolu-
tion would adopt the Resource Agency' s Guidelines by reference. This
® facilitates incorporating the latest amendments into our processes
without having to come back to the Council each time they are changed.
Enclosures: Draft Resolution No. 1-86
Environmental Review Guidelines
•
ATTEST:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MICHAEt SHELT N, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Robert M. Jones, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
HENRY ENG N, Commu-rUty Development Director
2 ��
•
CITY OF ATASCADERO
GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Table of Contents
PAGE
CHAPTER I GENERAL. 1
Section 101 - Authority 1
Section 102 - CEQA Guidelines 1
Section 103 - Purpose 1
Section 104 - Principles 1
Section 105 - Delegation of Authority 2
CHAPTER II. DEFINITIONS. 2
Section 201 - Applicant 2
Section 202 - CEQA 3
Section 203 - City 3
Section 204 - Council 3
0 Section 205 - County Clerk 3
Section 206 - Environmental Coordinator 3
Section 207 - EIR 3
Section 208 - Environmental Questionnaire 3
Section 209 - Initial Study 3
Section 210 - Lead Agency 3
Section 211 - Planning Commission 3
Section 212 - Project 4
Section 213 - Responsible Agency 4
CHAPTER III. PROCEDURES 4
Section 301 - Project Application 4
Section 302 - Preliminary Determination 4
Section 303 - Notice of Exemption 4
Section 304 - Initial Study 4
Section 305 - Mitigation 5
Section 306 - Preparation of Environmental Documents 5
Section 307 - Negative Declaration - Notice of Preparation 5
Section 308 - Negative Declaration - Certification and 6
Adoption
Section 309 - Negative Declaration - Findings 6
Section 310 - Negative Declaration - Notice of 6
Determination
Section 311 - Draft EIR - Notice of Preparation 6
Section 312 - Draft EIR - Review 7
Section 313 - Draft EIR - Action 7
Section 314 - Final EIR - Review 7
Section 315 - Final EIR - Certification 7
Section 316 - Standards for Adequacy of an EIR 8
Section 317 - Project Approval - Findings 8
wl
Section 318 — Notice of Determination 9
Section 319 - Public Hearings 9
Section 320 - Time Limits 9
CHAPTER IV. APPEALS. 10
Section 401 - Procedures 10
CHAPTER V. FEES. 11
Section 501 - Fees 11
APPENDIX
Environmental Impact Report Process A-1
Notice of Exemption A-2
Notice of Determination A-3
Notice of Preparation A-4
Notice of Completion A-5
�jD
CITY OF ATASCADERO
GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL.
Section 101. Authority.
These Guidelines have been adopted by the City Council of the City
of Atascadero pursuant to Section 21082 of the Public Resources Code
of the State of California and Section 15022 of the State CEQA Guide-
lines prescribed by the Secretary for Resources.
Section 102. CEQA Guidelines.
The State CEQA Guidelines, California Administrative Code, Title
14 , Section 15000 et seq. , including definitions and appendicies, are
incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full.
The City shall comply with all mandatory provisions of the State
CEQA Guidelines applicable to local government agencies. The Califor-
nia Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines shall pre-
vail in the event of any conflict between these Guidelines and the
State CEQA Guidelines.
Section 103. Purpose.
The requirements of these Guidelines shall apply to all projects,
both public and private, which require City approval. The Guidelines
set forth herein are intended to provide the City of Atascadero with
principles, objectives, criteria, and procedures for the evaluation of
projects to determine applicability of, and conformance with, the Cal-
ifornia Environmental Quality Act.
Section 104. Principles.
The following principles will guide the application of these
Guidelines to specific project proposals submitted to the City for re-
view and approval:
The least extensive environmental reporting consistent with the
purpose of these Guidelines shall be utilized; i.e. , an environ-
mental impact report will not be required if a negative declara-
tion can legitimately be filed. In this way, sufficient environ-
mental protection will be afforded while minimizing cost and delay
during project review.
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Environmental considerations will be dealt with at the earliest
point possible by emphasizing the use of an initial study. Any
potentially adverse effects properly mitigated through re-design
may preclude the necessity for more extensive environmental
reporting.
The primary goal of these environmental assessment procedures will
be to incorporate mitigation measures in precise plans and project
proposals brought to the Planning Commission or City Council.
Section 104. Delegation of Authority.
A. The City Council hereby assigns the following specific func-
tions to the Environmental Coordinator:
1. Determining whether a project is exempt.
2. Conducting an Initial Study and deciding whether to pre-
pare a draft EIR or negative declaration.
3. Preparing a negative declaration or EIR.
4. Determining that a negative declaration has been com-
pleted within a period of 105 days.
5. Preparing responses to comments on environmental
documents.
6. Filing of notices.
B. The City Council hereby assigns the following specific func-
tions to the appropriate decision-making body:
1. Reviewing and considerating a final EIR or approving a
negative declaration prior to approving a project.
2. The making of findings as required by Sections 15091 and
15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
C. Where an advisory body (such as the planning commission) is
required to make a recommendation on a project to the deci-
sion making body, the advisory body shall also review and
consider the EIR or negative declaration in draft or final
form.
CHAPTER II. DEFINITIONS.
Section 201. Applicant.
An applicant is a person who proposes to carry out a project which
requires from the City a permit, license, lease, certificate, or other
entitlement for use, or who requests or receives financial assistance
from the City in carrying out a project; or a City Department in the
2 j �
0 0
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
case of a public project.
Section 202. CEQA.
CEQA means the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 203. City.
City is the City of Atascadero.
Section 204. Council.
Council is the City Council of the City of Atascadero.
Section 205. County Clerk.
County Clerk is the County Clerk of the County of San Luis Obispo.
Section 206 . Environmental Coordinator.
The Environmental Coordinator is the Community Development Direc-
tor of the City of Atascadero, or the Director ' s authorized
representative.
Section 207. EIR.
EIR means Environmental Impact Report as defined by CEQA.
Section 208. Environmental Questionnaire.
An Environmental Questionnaire is a document which shall be com-
pleted by an applicant on forms provided by the City and filed with
the application for approval of the activity, for the purpose of pro-
viding sufficient information to enable the Environmental Coordinator
to make a preliminary determination of the environmental impact of the
project.
Section 209 . Initial Study.
Initial study means a preliminary analysis prepared by the Envir-
onmental Coordinator pursuant to these Guidelines to determine whether
an EIR or a negative declaration must be prepared.
Section 210. Lead Agency.
The City is the Lead Agency for those projects for which the City
has primary or first- responsibility for carrying out, approving, or
permitting an activity or project.
Section 211. Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission is the Planning Commission of the City of
Atascadero.
i
3 � a
9 0
Environmental Quality Act duidelines
Section 212. Project.
A project, as used in these guidelines, is a discretionary pro-
ject, as defined in the Public Resources Code, unless otherwise de-
fined or required by the context.
Section 213. Responsible Agency.
The City is a Responsible Agency for those projects for which the
City has secondary responsibility for approving or permitting an acti-
vity or project.
CHAPTER III. PROCEDURES.
Section 301. Project Application.
The project applicant shall submit, at the time of project appli-
cation, the data and information required by the Environmental Coor-
dinator to prepare an initial analysis of the project' s potential
environmental effects. Said data and information shall be in a form
prescribed by the Environmental Coordinator .
The submission of preliminary environmental data may be waived by
the Environmental Coordinator if it has been pre-determined that the
project will be exempt from CEQA.
Section 302. Preliminary Determination.
Upon receipt or preparation of an application by the City for
approval of a project, or a proposal for public project, a copy of
the application or proposal and an environmental questionnaire shall
be forwarded to the Environmental Coordinator . The Environmental Co-
ordinator shall make a preliminary determination and report the same
to the applicant.
Section 303. Notice of Exemption.
Certain projects have no substantial environmental impact by their
very nature because of size or type of activity. Such projects as
identified by the State Resources Agency will be categorically exempt
from further provisions of this Article. The list of categorical
exemptions will be published by the State Resources Agency and amended
from time to time. In the event that the State no longer publishes
such a list, a similar list shall be adopted by the City Council. If
the project proposal under consideration requires legal noticing under
other provisions of the City' s ordinances or State law, such notice
shall also include a statement that the project in question is cate-
gorically exempt.
Section 304. Initial Study.
Following formal application or , when possible, at the time of
pre-application, an initial study will be completed evaluating the
4 `��
0 •
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Ispotential environmental significance of the project. At this time,
the potential adverse environmental impacts, if any, will be identi-
fied. The initial study will consist of a questionnaire and any other
materials which may be necessary to evaluate the project. The results
of this initial study will determine what level of environmental re-
porting will be required: negative declaration, or environmental im-
pact report. The initial study shall also be used to determine sug-
gested modifications to the project, which, if incorporated in the
project design, may reduce the level of environmental reporting
required.
Upon completion of this initial study, the Environmental Coordina-
tor shall determine, in writing, whether a negative declaration or an
EIR shall be prepared. Such determination shall be completed within
forty-five (45) days after accepting an application as complete.
Section 305. Mitigation.
Upon a determination that an EIR shall be prepared, the applicant
may submit proposed changes in the project to mitigate the potential
adverse effects disclosed by the initial study. The Environmental
Coordinator shall then prepare a negative declaration if the Environ-
mental Coordinator determines that no substantial adverse effect will
result from the project thus modified.
Section 306 . Preparation of Environmental Documents.
A. The Environmental Coordinator shall require the applicant to
supply data and information necessary for preparing an envir-
onmental impact report or negative declaration. Such data
and information shall be submitted in the format approved by
the Environmental Coordinator and may be included in whole or
in part in any such report or declaration.
B. If this information is provided in the form of a preliminary
draft EIR or negative declaration, the City shall not use the
document as its own without independent evaluation and
analysis. The draft EIR or negative declaration distributed
for public review shall reflect the independent judgement of
of the City.
Section 307. Negative Declaration - Notice of Preparation.
If the Environmental Coordinator determines that a negative decla-
ration shall be prepared, a notice of the negative declaration shall
appear in the legal advertisement section of a newspaper of general
circulation at least ten (10) days prior to either the hearing on the
project if a hearing is otherwise required or project approval if no
hearing is required. In cases where project modification would make
the environmental effect insignificant, a provisional negative decla-
ration may be issued based upon project modification as required to
so reduce the environmental effects.
5 ��L)
i !
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
In addition thereto, notice shall be given to all reponsible
agencies pursuant to the Public Resources Code and to other public
agencies having jurisdiction by law, and notice may be given to per-
sons having special expertise as provided by the State CEQA Guide-
lines. Such notice shall be given at least ten (10) days prior to the
adoption of the negative declaration.
Section 308. Negative Declaration - Certification and Adoption.
The decision-making body shall, prior to determination on a pro-
ject, certify and adopt or disapprove the negative declaration. If
the decision making body disapproves the negative declaration, it
shall continue the project and, if applicable, the hearing. A draft
EIR shall be prepared for the project or the applicant may revise the
project to alleviate the adverse impacts as determined by the deci-
sion-making body. If the project is to be revised, the applicant
shall agree to waive the time period for completing a negative decla-
ration and/or EIR. In the event that the applicant does not so agree,
the project as originally proposed shall be deemed denied without pre-
judice to the applicant submitting a new, separate and revised project
application.
Section 309 . Negative Declaration - Findings.
In the certification of a negative declaration, the decision-mak-
ing body shall determine the project will not have a significant ad-
verse effect on the environment, specifically:
1. It will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment.
2. It will not achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-
term, environmental goals.
3. It will have no impacts which are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable.
4. It will not cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly.
Section 310. Negative Declaration - Notice of Determination.
Upon adoption of the negative declaration, it shall be signed by
the Environmental Coordinator. A notice of determination shall be
filed with the County Clerk and the Office of Planning and Research if
required by the State CEQA Guidelines.
Section 311. Draft EIR - Notice of Preparation.
Immediately after deciding that an EIR is required for a project,
the Environmental Coordinator shall send to each responsible agency,
by certified mail, a notice of preparation stating that an EIR will
be prepared.
6
• 0
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Section 312.1 Draft EIR - Review.
A. The Environmental Coordinator shall provide at least thirty
(30) days and not more than ninety (90) days for public re-
view of a draft EIR. The time for review shall commence with
the day following the day on which copies of the draft EIR
are deposited in the mail. Notice of the applicable review
period shall be affixed to the EIR when an EIR is submitted
to the State Clearinghouse. The review period shall be at
g
least as long as that required by the State Clearinghouse for
review by state agencies.
B. Public notice of the review period shall be given as pre-
scribed in the Public Resources Code.
C. A draft of the EIR may be purchased from the Environmental
Coordinator for the cost of publication, plus handling
charges.
D. Notice of completion shall be filed with the Office of Plan-
ning and Research.
Section 313. Draft EIR - Action.
Upon expiration of the public review period, the draft EIR shall
be transmitted to the Planning Commission for review. The Planning
Commission may hold a hearing on the draft EIR, if there is a hearing
required for the project, and:
A. Determine that the draft EIR is adequate; or
B. Determine that the draft EIR is inadequate and return it to
the Environmental Coordinator for further processing.
Section 314. Final EIR - Review.
A. The final EIR shall be distributed to persons and agencies
who submitted written comments on the draft EIR. Copies of
the proposed final EIR shall be placed in the Clerk ' s office,
public library and in locations designated by the Environmen-
tal Coordinator .
B. Copies of the final EIR may be purchased from the City by the
public for the cost of publication, plus handling charges.
Section 315. Final EIR - Certification.
The Planning Commission or City Council shall consider and review
the final EIR prior to taking any action on the project and shall:
A. Certify that it has been prepared in compliance with these
Guidelines, or
7 i��
0 0
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
B. If the City Council determines that the final EIR is inade-
quate, they shall return it to the Planning Commission or the Is
Environmental Coordinator .
Section 316 . Standards for Adequacy of an EIR.
An EIR shall be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to
provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a
decision which intelligently takes account of environmental conse-.
quences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed
project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be
reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement
among experts does not make an EIR inadequate.
A cost/revenue analysis shall be included as a part of every en-
vironmental impact report. The environmental impact report shall be
prepared in accordance with the latest guidelines adopted by the State
Resources Agency. If no adopted guidelines are in effect, the City
Council shall establish and adopt guidelines for the content of envir-
onmental impact reports.
Section 317. Project Approval - Findings.
Before the decision-making body acts on a project for which an EIR
has been certified, it shall certify that it has reviewed and consid-
ered the information contained in the EIR and determinedwhether the
project will or will not have a significant effect on the environment.
The decision-making body shall not approve or carry out a project for
which a certified EIR identifies one or more significant environmental
effects unless it makes one or more of the following findings:
A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, such project which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed
environmental impact report.
B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have
been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adop-
ted by such other agency.
C. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make in-
feasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the environmental impact report.
D. The Planning Commission or City Council may approve a project
which may result in significant adverse effects on the envir-
onment if it determines that there are social and economic
benefits which outweigh the possibility of environmental dam-
age. In such a case, the Planning Commission or City Council
shall issue a Statement of Overriding Considerations stating
how they arrived at the conclusion that the overall potential
benefits outweigh the potential environmental effects. No-
tice of such statement shall be published in the newspaper
of general circulation within fourteen (14) days of the
8 � �
• 0
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
decision.
Section 318. Notice of Determination.
After approval or disapproval of a project for which a final EIR
has been certified or a negative declaration made, the Environmental
Coordinator shall file a Notice of Determination with the County
Clerk. If the project requires discretionary approvals from a state
agency, the Notice of Determination also shall be filed with the Of-
fice of Planning and Research. Thereafter , the project, if approved,
shall be deemed to be in compliance with these Guidelines and, subject
to compliance with the provisions of other applicable laws, shall be
entitled to issuance of the permit or approval for which the applica-
tion was filed.
Section 319. Public Hearings.
No public hearing shall be required for the adoption or ratifica-
tion of a negative declaration or for the certification of a final
environmental impact report, or at any time prior thereto, unless the
project itself requires a public hearing, in which event a hearing on
the negative declaration or draft environmental impact report shall be
held in conjunction with the hearing on the project application; pro-
vided, however, that a public hearing may be required if the Environ-
mental Coordinator, City Council, or Planning Commission determines
that the magnitude of the project, the complexity of the environmental
issues, or the degree of public interest or controversy, indicates
that a public hearing is appropriate to facilitate the goals and pur-
poses of the California Environmental Quality Act and these
Guidelines.
Secton 320. Time Limits.
A. The City of Atsacadero shall:
1. Complete and certify an EIR in not more than one (1)
year ; and
2. Complete and adopt a negative declaration in not more
than 105 days.
The time limits shall be measured from the date on which an appli-
cation requesting approval for the project is received and accepted
as complete by the City. The time limits may be waived when the pro-
ject (s) will require compliance with both the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or
the applicant has requested or consented to the time waiver .
B. Failure of an applicant to notify the City in writing of the
status of the project and failure to pay the administrative
cost of starting the EIR within twenty (20) days of the final
decision to prepare the EIR, shall automatically terminate
any further consideration of the project by the City.
9 I �
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
CHAPTER IV. APPEALS.
Section 401. Procedures.
A. Exemption Decision Made by the Environmental Coordinator .
Any person permanently residing in the City limits may appeal
the decision of the Environmental Coordinator to classify a
project as exempt or non-exempt from the provisions of these
Guidelines and CEQA.
Appeals shall be made to the decision-making body which auth-
orizes or takes final action on the specific type of project.
Appeals shall be filed in writing with the Environmental
Coordinator no later than thirty days following the date upon
which the Notice of Exemption is filed.
Both the applicant and appellant shall be notified at least
ten days prior to the meeting at which a decision-making body
will consider the appeal.
B. Granting a Negative Declaration or Requiring an EIR.
Any person may appeal the decision of the Environmental Coor-
dinator to grant a project a negative declaration or require
the preparation of an EIR.
Appeals shall be made to the decision-making body which auth-
orizes or takes final action on the specific type of project.
Appeals shall be filed in writing with the Environmental Co-
ordinator no later than ten days following:
1. The date of publication of the negative declaration; or
2. Mailing of written notice to the applicant that an EIR
is required.
Both the applicant and appellant shall be notifed at least
ten days prior to the meeting at which a decision-making body
will consider the appeal.
Only after a final decision on the appeal is resolved can the
Environmental Coordinator, decision-making body, or advisory
body, take final action on the project itself.
C. _Petitioning the Decision-Making Body or Advisory Body.
In addition to the appeal procedure specified in Section 401A
and 401B, any person may request that the decision-making
body or advisory body reverse or modify the initial environ-
mental determination made by the Environmental Coordinator .
10 ���
0 •
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Any appeal request made pursuant to this paragraph shall be
considered by the decision-making body or advisory body at
the same public meeting when the body considers taking action
to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the project.
Appeals made pursuant to this paragraph shall be submitted in
writing to the Environmental Coordinator ten days prior to
the meeting at which the project will be considered by the
decision-making body or advisory body.
The project applicant shall be notified when the Environmen-
tal Coordinator receives an appeal pursuant to this
paragraph.
CHAPTER V. FEES.
Section 501. Fees.
A. Fees to recover the estimated cost for the preparation, pro-
cessing, and reproduction of EIRs, negative declarations,
initial studies, notices, related environmental documents and
other essential administrative costs shall be payable in the
amounts and at the times fixed by resolution of the City
Council.
B. The cost to the City of processing appeals filed pursuant to
Chapter 4 of these Guidelines shall be fixed by resolution
of the City Council. No action on any appeal shall be taken
by any City employee prior to the payment of said fee.
11 I0�
tascadeiCe
INCORPORATED JULY 2,1979
J �
J F+
:J Q
•L J
CO >
ern O 1J v a..+
U 'y 1+ •n Z
J •� G U
y N L
•> •� >.
0 > O C r
0000
� 3
G C CL O
< •-i W G <
• ., . cc
17 • U G C
^ • O W CO LJ
O = •
to y rl ^
^ L W
'2 • .. •r•i •ri CJ 4+
i U u G G
1 • L+
U • �--1 �+ N •.7 w
• G O U O
• O
• of L+ •n
:J :J • y p
tn cu
u J L : ri lJ Cf
4 0 C-
O
IA kh,
to
"75 cz t12
w W
I u
• .+ V • U O •14 •4 3
• 'rte, L
• ,."d, • O 1 G a O
• c1 3 r.
x • c ++
• U7 1J to
Q � C • v � •ri y 'p •n ;3
• u > y ++
• n :! L +i
• u
•
• U I I I r .0
•
, ~ tr
_ J
L _ J • 7 U J � � U V C
n i
A�Z
rOt ATED JULY I,if Tf
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
TO: Office of Planning FROM: City of Atascadero
and Research P.O. Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
_ County Clerk
County of San Luis Obispo
Project Title
Project Location Specific
Project Location-City Project Location-County
Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project
Name of Public Agency Approving Project
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project
Exempt Status: Check One
Ministerial (Sec. 15073)
Declared Emergency (Sec. 15071 (a))
Emergency Project (Sec. 15071 (b) and (c))
Categorical Exemption. State type and section number:
Reasons why project is exempt:
Contact Person Area Code Telephone Extension
If filed by applicant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving
the project? Yes _ No
Date Received for Filing
Signature
Title
A-2 ��
tasca�e�®
INCOQ�OlATED AUL 1979
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
TO: Office of Planning FROM: City of Atascadero
and Research P.O. Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
County Clerk
County of San Luis Obispo
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152
of the Public Resources Code.
Project Title
State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Telephone Number
(If submitted to Clearinghouse)
Project Location
Project Description
This is to advise that the
Lead Agency or Responsible Agency
has approved the above described project and has made the following determinations
regarding the above described project:
1. The project _ will, _will not, have a significant effect on the environment.
2. _ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant
to the provisions of CEQA.
A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the
provisions of CEQA.
The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be
examined at:
3. Mitigation measures were, _were not, made a condition of the approval
of the project.
4. A statement of Overriding Considerations was, was not, adopted for
this project.
Date Received for Filing
Signature
Title
A-3 `t��
NAV*40
�Saf
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
TO: FROM: City of Atascadero
Responsible Agency P.O. sox 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
(Address)
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
The City of Atascadero will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental
impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your
agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane
to your agency's statutory responsibilities ,in connection with the proposed project. Your
agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit
or other approval for the project.
The project description, location, and the probable environmental effects are contained
in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study is, is not, attached.
Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest
possible date but not later than 45 days after receipt of this notice.
Please send your response to at the
address shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency.
Project Title:
Project Applicant, if any:
DATE Signature
Title
Telephone
A-4
tascad
INCpQrp�ATED JULY 2.19)9_�
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
To: Office of Planning From: City of Atascadero
and Research P.O. Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
Project Title
Project Location Specific
Project Location—City Project Location—County
Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project
Lead Agency Division
Address Where Copy of EIR is Available
Review Period
Contact Person Area Code Phone Extension
cc: Responsible Agencies
Interested Parties
A-.5