Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 06/09/1986 -CINDY WILKINS DEPUTY CITY CLERK • NOTE: THERE WILL BE A CLOSED COUNCIL SESSION AT 6 :30 P.M. , FOURTH FLOOR CLUB ROOM REGARDING NEGOTIATIONS AND PROPERTY ACQUISITION ISSUES WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM JUNE 9, 1986 7 :30 P.M. ** ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS, STAFF MEMBERS AND CITIZENS ARE REMINDED ** PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Invocation • Roll Call City Council Comments A. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar , are considered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is required, that item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Vote may be roll call. 1. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of May 12, 1986 2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of May 27, 1986 3. Bid Award -Construction of Zoo Building - to Hamilton and Son 4. Acknowledge Notice of Completion - 1985 Overlay Project M.J. Hemreck (Bid #85-32) 5. Accertance of Atascadero Business Improvement Association • Bylaws 6. Approval of Proposed Resolution 60-86 - 1986-87 Claims for Local Transportation and State Transit Assistance Funds 1 i7. Approval of Proposed Resolution 61-86 - Establishment of Fees for Reproduction of City Documented Records 8. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 5-86 —9630 Laurel - Division of 7.44 acres into 2 parcels of 3. 84 and 3. 60 acres - Haase/ Coronada-Nelson 9. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 10-86 - 10885 San Marcos - Division of 7.92 Acres into 2 Parcels of 3.96 Acres Each Hale/Cuesta Engineering 10. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 11-86 - 8555/8575 Amapoa - Creation of 4 Residential Air-Space Condominiums - Stinchfield/Summers/North Coast Engineering 11. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 12-86 - 8615/8635 Amapoa Creation of 4 Residential Air-Space Condominiums - Washburn/North Coast Engineering -12. Approval of Lot Line Adjustment 2-86 - 5100 , 5120 , & 5300 San Benito Road - Adjusting Lot Lines Between 3 Existing lots - Golden West Development/Volbrecht Surveys 13. Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 9-84 - 3584, 3580 , & 3590 Maricopa — Russell/Dan Stewart, Engineer B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1. Proposed Zone Change 19-86 - Parking Standards - City of Atascadero A. Proposed Ordinance 136 - Amending the Zoning Ordinance Text on Off-Street Parking Requirements for Multi-Family Projects and Signage Identifying Handicapped Parking Spaces (FIRST READING) 2. Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Proposed Tentative Parcel Map 7-86 - 6625 Santa Cruz Rd. - Subdivision of One 5.03 Acre Parcel into Two Parcels of 2. 53 and 2. 50 Acres - Garlick/Daniel Stewart, Engineer C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Proposed General Plan Amendment 1C-85 8555 E1 Corte (Lots 1-10, Block 1, Eaglet 2) - ACOMA Corp./Poe • a. Proposed Ordinance 133 - Amending the Zoning Map from Residential Single Family Medium Density to Residential Multiple Family, Four (4) Units per Acre (SECOND READING) (Cont'd from 5/27/86) 2 t i • 2. Proposed General Plan Amendment 1K-86 Initiated by the City of Atascadero A. Proposed Ordinance 134 Amending Zoning Text to Establish Procedures for Lot Line Adjustments Which Result in a Reduction of Lot Size for Existing Non- Conforming Lots (SECOND READING) (Cont'd from 5/27/86) D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Pre-Application Agreement for Building Permit Applications Submitted Prior to July 1, 1986 E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (ACSD) : -(Council will recess and convene as the Atascadero County Sanitation District Board of Directors) 1. Bid Results - Assessment District #3 - Marchant Sewer Project (The Board of Directors will adjourn and reconvene as City • Council) F. COMMUNITY FORUM G. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5. City Manager 3 MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting, May 12, 1986, 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. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Handshy, Mackey, Norris and Mayor Nelson Absent: Councilman Molina (Unavoidable business reasons) STAFF Mike Shelton, City Manager ; David Jorgensen, Administrative Services Director; Robert Jones, City Attorney/City Clerk; Henry Engen, Commun- ity Development Director ; Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director; Bob Best, Recreation Director; Lt. Chuck Hazelton, Police Department; Cindy Wilkins, Deputy City Clerk. COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS Councilwoman Mackey asked that the Kankiewicz request (11145 Viejo Camino, GPA 1D-86 & Zone Change 4-86) be reconsidered sometime, • feeling that the zoning and how large the sewer needs would be should be determined before the Bordeaux Project gets on line. Mr. Engen proposed that the Kankiewicz property be included in a study area cov- ering current Gen. Plan applications, between the Urban Service Line and the City Limits, and there could be a future public hearing after an EIR is prepared to review possibilities for other uses. Mayor Nelson announced that Council met in closed session prior to tonight' s meeting to discuss property acquisition. Mayor Nelson read three proclamations: - Proclaiming May 14, 1986, as "Day of the Teacher" - Proclaiming May 18-24, 1986, as "California Traffic Safety Week" - Proclaiming May 11-17, 1986, as "National Police Week" and Thurs- day, May 15th, as "Atascadero Loves its Cops Day" A. CONSENT CALENDAR * Mayor Nelson announced that Items A-5 & A-6 are moved to Public Hearing, Items B-4 & B-5; also, A-8 should read: "Support Staff Recommendations Regarding San Luis Obispo County Solid Waste Manage- ment Plan - Preliminary Draft" 1 b. Proposed Ordinance 110 Amending the Zoning Ordinance. text relative to the establish- ment of a "W" suffix for 10,000 square foot minimum residential lots in the LSF and RSF Zoning Districts (FIRST READING) 2. General Plan Amendment 1J-86 and Zoning Map Amendments (Zone Change 10-86) Designating Specific Areas for 10,000 Square Foot Lots (Cont'd from 4/28/86) a. STUDY AREA "A" (MORRO FLATS AREA) : 1. Proposed Res. No. 39-86 2. Proposed Ord. No. 126 b. STUDY AREA "B" (PALOMAR/ARCADE ROAD AREA) 1. Proposed Res. No. 40-86 2. Proposed Ord. No. 127 c. STUDY AREA "C" (FRESNO/TUNITAS ROAD AREA) d. STUDY AREA "D" (LAS LOMAS AREA) : 1. Proposed Res. No. 42-86 2. Proposed Ord. No. 128 e. 9240 ATASCADERO ROAD (Mayor Nelson announced this item post- poned to meeting of 5/27 at applicant' s request) : 1. Proposed Res. No. 43-86 2. Proposed Ord. No. 129 City Attorney, Robert Jones, explained the effect of the voting on this issue from the last Council meeting and summarized the alterna- tives before Council: (1) Do nothing, which would let the prior deci- sion of denial stand; (2) approve another continuance to the meeting of 5/27 for full Council consideration, and (3) approve reconsidera- tion of the matter , which would require another fully noticed public hearing. Mr . Jones recommended that Council concur with recommenda- tion #1, based on Council' s previous suggestion (s) for an over-all General Plan review. Each Councilmember expressed opinion on the matter at Mayor Nelson' s request. Mayor Nelson announced that this appears to be a dead issue at this time; however, he offered to take public testimony. Public Comment Steve Devencenzi , representing one of the applicants (Petersons/Study Area B) , asked what happens to his client' s funds and efforts related to this request. Mr. Engen responded that applications affected by Council' s decision would fall into the category of "denied without prejudice" and would be included in the General Plan update process; applicants would not be required to pay fees again for reconsidera- tion. Mr. Devencenzi favors a continuance on this issue by Council. 3 4 Bob Clark, resident in Study Area C, suggested the issue be put on t ballot for decision by the people. Council responded its possible t include it on the ballot for the November General Election. John Bunyea, 8942 Palomar, expressed dissent at the way this issue has been "dragged out" . Brad Davis, 4470 Sycamore, expressed concern for the provision of affordable housing and asked Council to consider the young people of Atascadero; he' s concerned his employees may be forced to move. Lydia Kellerman, resident on Honda (Study Area C) , spoke in opposition to allowing for additional units in the Tunitas/Bajada area; she ex- pressed the residents' dissent with the minimal landscaping around a large apartment building located on lot 7-7a. Mr . Engen was requested by Council to review the CC & R' s on that project to verify compliance with the landscaping requirements. Bob Clark spoke again, noting that he counted 50 mailboxes on Tunitas tonight (claims that equals approx. 150 people living in the 3.2 mi. area) ; he spoke in opposition to more density on Tunitas or Bajada. Art _Jazwiecki expressed disagreement with some of the zoning informa- tion relayed by Mrs. Kellerman. Mayor Nelson clarified, at Mr. Bunyea' s request, that the 10,000 st ft. zoning designation was included in the Housing Element of t General Plan to provide affordable (or optional) housing to all seg- ments of income in different areas of the community. Michael Lane, Fresno St. , spoke in favor of increasing housing lots by looking at the multiple unit zones in the City and not considering breaking down existing neighborhoods further . MOTION: By Councilman Handshy that Council accept City Attorney' s recommendation (to let prior decision stand) , seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously, with Councilman Mo- lina absent. 3. Proposed Zone Change 11-86 - 9955 E1 Camino Real - Goldie Wilson/ Ron Poulin - Revising Existing Commercial Tourist Zoning to Com- mercial Retail - Proposed Ord. No. 131 (FIRST READING) Henry Engen, Commun. Devel. Dir. , gave staff report. Public Comment Ron Poulin, 1916 Creston Rd. , Paso Robles, urged Council support of this request based on unanimous favorable decision by Planning Commis- sion. Maggie Rice, Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of this request although she shares concerns expressed by Councilman Handshy relating to the need for maintaining the central business district. 4 Mayor Nelson expressed the necessity 'for traffic study in the area. MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to read Ord. 131 by title only, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously, with Councilman Molina absent. Mayor Nelson read Ord. 131 by title. MOTION: By Councilman Handshy that this constitutes the first reading of Ord. 131, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unani- mously, with Councilman Molina absent. Second reading will be at Council meeting of 5/27/86. (* Note: The following two items, B-4 & B-5, were moved from the Consent Calendar to this portion of the agenda. ) 4. Vacating Public Utilities Easement at 6905 E1 Camino Real (El Camino Associates ) - Proposed Resolution 45-86 Henry Engen, Commun. Devel. Director , gave staff report. No public comment. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to approve Res. No. 45-86, seconded by Councilwoman Norris; passed 4:0 by roll-call vote, with Coun- cilman Molina absent. 5. Vacating Public Utilities Easement at 8793 Plata Lane (Azerkan) - Proposed Resolution 44-86 Henry Engen, Commun. Devel. Director, gave staff report. No public comment. MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to approve Res. No. 44-86, seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed 4:0 by roll-call vote, with Coun- cilman Molina absent. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Proposed Zone Change 2G-85 - Revising the Zoning Map from RSF-Y, Residential Single Family (one acre minimum with sewer) to RSF-X, Residential Single Family (1/2 acre minimum with sewer) - Coromar Road Area (City-Initiated/Lopus) - Proposed Ordinance No. 124 (SECOND READING) (Cont'd from 4/28/86) Henry Engen, Commun. Devel. Director, gave staff report. No public comment. MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to read Ord. No. 124 b title only, Y. seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously, with Councilman Molina absent. Mayor Nelson read Ord. 124 by 5 title. MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris that this constitutes the second reading and adoption of Ord. 124 , seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed 3:1 by roll-call vote, with Councilwoman Mackey voting NO and Councilman Molina absent. 2. Mayor to Enter Agreement with Architectural Firm of Ross, Levin and MacIntyre - Police Facility (Cont'd from 4/14/86) Mike Shelton, City Manager, gave staff report (Chief McHale out of town) . Mr. Rod Levin, representing Ross, Levin & MacIntyre, responded to Council questions relating to the programming for the project (i.e. , setting the criteria as to how the building is designed to meet the needs and design of the community) . Public Comment -Debra Kankiewicz, 11455 Viejo Camino, asked Mr . Levin what the esti- mated cost of blueprints for the facility is; Mr . Shelton responded that it will be 7% of the value of the project, as indicated in the architect' s proposal, which is a standard fee. In response to concerns expressed by Councilman Handshy relating to deficit spending, David Jorgensen, Admin. Services Director , reviewe some of the financing plans for the police facility, in addition t 1f comments by Mr. Shelton. MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to enter into agreement with Ross, Levin & MacIntyre in the amount of $13,650 for Phase I , sec- onded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed 3 :1, with Councilwoman Norris voicing NO and Councilman Molina absent. Robert Jones, City Clerk, requested the vote be by roll-call. Councilman Handshy withdrew his motion. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to adopt the funding for Phase I , $13,650 , for Programming & Site Analysis, seconded by Mayor Nelson; failed 2:2 by roll-call vote, with Councilmembers Handshy and Norris voting NO and Councilman Molina absent. Councilman Handshy expressed his desire for Council to hold a special work study session on this project and its relation to other budget issues. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Discussion - Reappointment of Recreation Commission Vacant Positions (Effective 7/86) 6 S • Bob Best, Director of Parks & Recreation, gave staff report. No public comment. MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to accept staff recommendations, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously, with Councilman Molina absent. 2. Proposed Lease Agreement with Richard Oswald for : A. City Concession - Scribner ' s Snack Bar - Atascadero Lake Park B. City Concession - Pop' s Tackle Shop - Atascadero Lake Park Bob Best, Director of Parks & Recreation, gave staff report. Councilwoman Mackey expressed that she feels it would be in the City' s best interest to require $1 million liability insurance for lakeside facilities; Robert Jones, City Attorney, made comments in response to -those concerns. Public Comment Bob Clark, resident, asked if it' s possible for the lessee to operate under one policy combining both concessions; staff responded no. MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to approve staff recommendation to approve both use permits, seconded by Councilwoman Norris; passed unanimously, with Councilman Molina absent. (Note: There is no Item D-3. ) 4. Proposed Dial-A-Ride Services for 1986-87 by Community Transit Services Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director, gave staff report. Council consented to ask Mr. Sensibaugh to bring back a report propos- ing a taxi service for review of options. No public comment. MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to accept staff recommendations and renew Dial-A-Ride Contract, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously, with Councilman Molina absent. 5. Proposed Ordinance 130 - Declaring a Need for a Redevelopment Agency (FIRST READING) Mike Shelton, City Manager, gave staff report. 7 Public Comment Maggie Rice, Exec. Mgr. of Atas. Chamber of Commerce, spoke of the Chamber ' s Board of Directors having voted in unanimous support of the concept of a redevelopment agency, making note of the recent formation of the BIA as an "important first step". Bonita Borgeson, 4780 Del Rio Rd. , spoke in opposition to this propos- al and feels such a large decision warrants further study, encouraging Council to keep the public fully informed of the process. Jaime Lopez-Balbontin, downtown businessperson, spoke in support of this concept with the understanding that its purpose is to fund im- provements that the business owners cannot themselves afford to make. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to read Ord. 130 by title only, seconded by Councilwoman Norris; passed unanimously, with Councilman Molina absent. Mayor Nelson read Ord. 130 by title. MOTION: By Councilman Handshy that this constitutes the first reading of Ord. 130 , seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unani- mously, with Councilman Molina absent. Second reading will be at the Council meeting of 5/27/86. 6. Proposed Revised Bid Procedures - Uniform Construction Cost Acle counting - Proposed Ord. No. 132 (FIRST READING) and Proposed Res. No. 46-86 Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director, gave staff report. No public comment. MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to read Ord. 132 by title only, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously, with Councilman Molina absent. Mayor Nelson read Ord. 132 by ti- tle. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey that this constitutes the first reading of Ord. 132, seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously, with Councilman Molina absent. Second reading and consideration of Res. No. 46-86 will be at the Council meeting of 5/27/86 . 7. Lewis Avenue Bridge Development Fee - Review by Task Force Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director , gave staff report. Councilman Handshy spoke in favor of discussion of this issue in a budget study session prior to decision by Council. 8 Public Comment Gaylan Little, one of the developers of Century Plaza, spoke in favor of the bridge project; however, he favors a more equitable reassess- ment of the fees which are heavy both at $1.93 or $1. 63 per sq. ft. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to agree with staff recommendations, seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed 3 :1, with Councilwoman Norris voicing NO and Councilman Molina absent. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey that Council recess and convene as the Atas. County Sanitation District Board of Directors, seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously. E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (ACSD) 1. Status Report and Recommendation for the Seperado/Cayucos Proposed Assessment Districts Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director, gave staff report, noting corrections to the Tentative Schedule in agenda packet: The two Neighborhood Meeting dates should be changed to May 20 & 22, 1986. Robert Jones, City Attorney, reported on the Bond Counsel recommenda- tion of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. No public comment. MOTION: By Director Handshy to approve staff recommendations 1-4, seconded by Director Mackey; passed unanimously, with Director Molina absent. (Staff recommendations 5-7 to be decided at a later date) 2. Recommendation Regarding the Assessment District No. 3 (Marchant Way Sewer Extension) Bid Proposal Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director, gave staff report, suggesting staff re-advertise for bids on May 14 , 21 and 28, receive bids on June 3, and award on June 9, 1986. No public comment. MOTION: By Director Handshy to accept staff recommendations, seconded by Director Norris; passed unanimously, with Director Molina absent. MOTION: By Director Mackey to adjourn as ACSD Board of Directors and reconvene as City Council, seconded by Director Norris; passed unanimously, with Director Molina absent. 9 a • • F. COMMUNITY FORUM Lydia Kellerman, resident, suggests Council offer persons a choice to respond to comments made related to them by other persons. John Befumo, 7420 Atascadero Ave. , expressed his feeling relating to Planning Commission Public Hearing noticing procedures. Judy Maseus, 9080 Amapoa, expressed comments relating to the delay of issuance of her business license, as Atas. Police Dept. awaiting the return of the set of fingerprints submitted to the Dept. of Justice. Mayor Nelson director Ms. Maseus to contact the City Manager to dis- cuss the issue. Council recommended staff bring back necessary resolutions in support of various ballot propositions affecting cities. G. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION City Council - Councilwoman Norris announced that Nurse of the Year for SLO County will be announced May 30th, and she hopes Council will invite that individual here to receive recognition. City Clerk - Robert Jones announced the next Council meeting will be held on Tues. , 5/27/86, due to Memorial Day Holiday on Mon. , 5/26. City Manager - Mike Shelton reminded Council of scheduled breakfast with State Assemblyman Eric Seastrand at Hoover ' s Hacienda, 8:00 a.m. this Friday, May 16th. Mr. Shelton reported briefly on the status of the City Council sub- committee meeting with the School District sub-committee regarding the Lewis Ave. Bridge fees. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10 :55 P.M. TO TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1986. RECORDF,i? ,/ n ROBERT ,M.. JONES, City Clerk PREPARED BY: CINDY WILKINS, Deputy City Clerk 10 i I AGMQA D .h 09/96 _t1o i# • MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting, May 27, 1986, 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. ' ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Handshy, Mackey, Molina, Norris 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, Commu- nity Development Director ; Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director; Steve Decamp, Senior Planner; Cindy Wilkins, Deputy City Clerk COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS Councilman Handshy commented on the ballot propositions on the agenda and expressed opposition to some of the misleading TV ads regarding • Prop. 51. Councilwoman Mackey expressed she still feels Council should consider a building moratorium on multi-family units due to present sewer capa- city. Mayor Nelson announced that public hearing on the formation of ass e ess- ment district in the Seperado area will not bheld this evening but after scheduled neighborhood meetings are held. Mayor Nelson announced that approval of the minutes of the 5/12/86 Council meeting will be held over to the meeting of 6/9/86 due to their late submittal. Councilwoman Mackey clarified (re: Item A-15) that the date of comple- tion of the Fire Station office addition was May 7, 1986. A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of May 12, 1986 2. Approval of City Treasurer ' s Report - April 1-30 , 1986 3. Approval of City Finance Report - April 1-30, 1986 • 4. Recognition of City Employee of the Month for April by the Em- ployee Recognition Program Committee - Steve Sandeffer 1 Henry Engen, Commun. Devel. Director, gave staff report and responded to questions from Council. Public Comment Guy Green, Planning Consultant representing the applicant, spoke in support of this request, noting that they are willing to commit to a plan that will respond to the existing character of the neighborhood, without changing it, through any device the Council deems appropriate (i.e. , P.D. , conditioned on a corresponding tentative map, or other) . Mike Hawkins, applicant, spoke in support of this request and would agree to assurances to do away with the possibility of future flag lots. Dennis Lockwood, 8935 Atascadero Ave. , feels this proposal would cre- ate aO island. He asked for a definition of P.D. , to which Mr. Engen responded, explaining Planned Development. Mr . Lockwood questions the way this item has progressed and also feels the Lopus request encour- aged similar requests in the area. He spoke in favor of protecting people' s investments in the General Plan. Terril Graham, 6205 Conejo Rd. , supported comments of the previous speaker and questions the City' s public noticing practices. Mr . Engen reviewed the public notice process. Dorothy Smith, 8795 Morro Rd. , also complained about noticing proce- dures. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to continue this item until after review of an expanded study area to be considered as part of the current General Plan Cycle, seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously. Mayor Nelson and Mr . Engen clarified how public noticing will be ac- complished before additional public hearings on this item. 2. Proposed General Plan Amendment 1C-85 & Zone Change 3-85 - 8555 E1 Corte (Lots 1-10 , Block 1, Eaglet 2) - ACOMA Corp./Poe A. Proposed Resolution 47-86 - Amendment to the General Plan from Low Density Single Family to Low Density Multiple Family B. Proposed Ordinance 133 - Amending the Zoning Map from Residential Single Family Medium Density to Residential Multiple Family, Four (4) Units per Acre (FIRST READING) Henry Engen, Commun. Devel. Director, gave staff report, noting that this is a combined proposal for both a GPA and PD rezone for Council consideration. Public Comment 3 Bill Poe, project developer , thanked Commun. Devel. staff for the work over the past year and recommended approval of this project. He spoke in support of the project, noting that although the use of PD overlay dictates the multi-family zoning designation, this is a sin- gle-family project; Mr. Poe responded to questions from Council, not- ing this would be an adult community. Roger Bailey, resident on Sierra Vista, said he has studied the design and concept and highly supports this project. Steve Devencenzi, representing Harold & Marvel Peterson (who own prop- erty adjacent to the proposed project site) , spoke in support of the planned development proposal but expressed concern as to how this project will relate to them; he reviewed the history of attempts by the Petersons to develop their property and hopes that Council will consider including them in the current General Plan cycle, similar to other recent decisions concerning properties in the area, to review site density issues. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to adopt Res. No. 47-86, seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously by roll-call vote. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to read Ord. 133 by title only, second- ed by Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously. Mayor Nelson read Ord. 133 by title. MOTION: By Councilman Molina that this constitutes the first readin or Ord. 133, seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed unani- mously. Second reading will be at the first Council meeting in June. 3. Proposed General Plan Amendment 1K-86 and Zone Change 12-86 Initiated by the City of Atascadero A. Proposed Resolution 48-86 - Amending the General Plan to Provide for Lot Line Adjustment resulting in the Reduction in Size of Existing Non-Conforming Lots B. Proposed Ordinance 134 - Amending Zoning Text to Establish Procedures for Lot Line Adjustments Which Result in a Reduction of Lot Size for Existing Non-Conforming Lots (FIRST READING) Henry Engen, Commun. Devel. Director, gave staff report. Public Comment Edward Jewell, resident who has a non-conforming lot and who'd like to make a lot line adjustment, spoke in support of this proposal. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to approve Res. No. 48-86, seconded b� Councilwoman Norris; passed unanimously by roll-call vote. MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to read Ord. 134 by title only, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously. Mayor 4 iNelson read Ord. 134 by title. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey that this constitutes the first reading of Ord. 134, seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously. Second reading will be at the first Council meeting in June. 4. Proposed General Plan Amendment 1M-86 - Amending the Public and Quasi-Public Services Element - Initiated by the City of Atasca- dero A. Proposed Resolution 49-86 - Amendment of the General Plan Land Use Element, Chapter VII "Public Quasi-Public Services" Henry Engen, Commun. Devel. Director , gave staff report, noting that the letter from the Atas. Unified School District (included in agenda packet) and a similar request from the County (per discussions with the City Engineer to obtain an easement across the golf course in or- der to provide sewer to the clubhouse) have not been considered by the Planning Commission, which Council may wish to direct as outlined in staff recommendation. No public comment. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey that Council concurs with staff recom- mendation to refer new requests back to the Planning Commis- sion for report, seconded by Councilwoman Norris; passed unanimously. 5. Proposed General Plan Amendment 1L-86 - Amending the Urban Service Line to Include Areas Outside Existing Boundary - Initiated by the City of Atascadero A. Proposed Resolution 50-86 - Amending the Urban Service Line to Reconcile with the Sewer Improvement District Henry Engen, Commun. Devel. Director , gave staff report. No public comment. MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to adopt Res. No. 50-86, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously by roll-call vote. 6. Public Hearing - Weed Abatement Posting Mike Hicks, Fire Chief, gave staff report, commending Peggy Green and Capt. Roland Snow for their efforts in accomplishing the mass mailing of weed abatement notices. 5 • Public Comment Dorothy Smith, 8795 Morro Rd. , expressed dissent with having received an abatement notice for weeds on a berm along one edge of her proper- ty. She also expressed complaints of general trespassing which has historically occurred. In addition, she is concerned about construc- tion developments in the Amapoa area bordering her property. Chief Hicks complimented Ms. Smith on the appearance of her parcel, reiter- ating, however, that she is responsible for clearing the weeds on the berm as well. Bonita Borgeson, 4780 Del Rio, complimented Chief Hicks on the im- proved weed abatement noticing procedure, but she suggests a one-on- one communication in cases such as Ms. Smith' s. Chief Hicks invited Ms. Smith to make an appointment to meet with him. Nina Bunyea, 8189 San Dimas, questioned her receipt of an abatement notice because they have no weeds; Chief Hicks advised Mrs. Bunyea to disregard the notice and invited her to call the Fire Dept. and he' ll see that her property is taken off the list. MOTION: By Councilman Molina that the Fire Chief or his authorized representatives are ordered to abate the nuisance of noxious or dangerous weeds on the lots identified in Res. No. 27-86, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Ordinance Number 130 - Declaring a Need for a Redevelopment Agency in Atascadero & Council to Act as Agency (SECOND READING) (Cont'd from 5/12/86) Mike Shelton, City Manager, gave staff report. Public Comment Dorothy Smith, 8795 Morro Rd. , expressed concerns of friends on Morro Rd. regarding costs of sewer annexation and wonders if a redevelopment plan could provide for low-cost loans for those improvements and, pos- sibly, to solve the drainage problems on Amapoa/Azucena Avenues; Mike Shelton commented on the "findings of blight" required as a necessary step in formulating a redevelopment agency. Bonita Borgeson, 4780 Del Rio, spoke in opposition to the concept of a redevelopment agency and urged the Council to please have informed public meetings on this issue. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to read Ord. 130 by title only, sec- onded by Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously. Mayor Nelson read Ord. 130 by title. 6 MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to approve Ord. 130 , seconded by Councilwoman Norris; passed unanimously by roll-call vote. COUNCIL RECESSED FOR A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK 2. Proposed Zone Change 11-86 - 9955 E1 Camino (Portion of Lot 1, Block 7, Eaglet 2) - Wilson/Poulin A. Ordinance Number 131 - Amendment of Zoning Maps from CT (Commercial Tourist) to CR (Commercial Retail) (SECOND READ- ING) (Cont'd from 5/12/86) Henry Engen, Commun. Devel. Director, gave staff report. No public comment. MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to read Ord. 131 by title only, second- ed by Councilwoman Norris; passed unanimously. Mayor Nelson read Ord. 131 by title. MOTION: By Councilman Handshy that this constitutes the second reading and adoption of Ord. 131, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously by roll-call vote. 3. Proposed Revised Bid Procedures - Uniform Construction Cost Ac- counting: A. Ordinance Number 132 - Amending Municipal Code by Adding Chapter , "Informal Public Construction Bidding Ordinance" (SEC- OND READING) (Cont'd from 5/12/86) B. Proposed Resolution 46-86 - Establishment of a Uniform Cost Accounting Standard (Cont'd from 5/12/86) Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director , gave staff report. No public comment. MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to read Ord. 132 by title only, sec- onded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously. Mayor Nelson read Ord. 132 by title. MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris that this constitutes the second reading and adoption of Ord. 132, seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously by roll-call vote. MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to adopt Res. No. 46-86 , seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously by roll-call vote. 7 D. COMMUNITY FORUM - No public comment. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION City Council - Councilman Handshy noted the several resolutions on the Consent Calendar in support of the various State ballot proposi- tions. Councilwoman Norris commented on the City' s charges for providing the service of photocopying ($ . 10 per copy) , noting it' s signifi- cantly less than the County; City Attorney Robert Jones supports and recommends an increase, feeling the charge should bear a reasonable relationship to the staff time involved in providing that service as well as to the actual cost of making the copy; Mayor Nelson directed Mr. Jones to prepare a recommendation for Council review. City Manager - Mike Shelton commented on the budget schedule, noting it' s hoped that the preliminary budget, in bound form, will be available for Council at the next meeting; however, due to a recent back injury to Admin. Services Director Dave Jorgensen, it may be delayed further. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10 :15 P.M. TO 6:30 P.M. ON JUNE 9TH, PRIOR TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING, FOR A CLOSED SESSION REGARDING NEGOTIATIONS. RECORDED BY: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk PREPARED BY: CINDY WILKINS, Deputy City Clerk 8 Item A-3 THE BID AWARD DOCUNFNTATION FOR CONSTRUCTION! OF THE ZOO BUILDING WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TO YOU BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AT. A LATER TIME. MEETjjjj-� DATA I' VA NOTICE OF CONTRACT • RXMXXffiUM NKMV Completion Date May 22, 1986 TO: City Manager FROM: Public Works Department 1. Contract No. 85-32 dated 10-28-86 for 1985, Overlay Project 2. Contractor M.J. Hermreck 600 Hill Street, P.O. Box 217 Nipomo, CA 93444 • 3. Work to commence b Commenced work on November 1985 Contract completed on April, 1986 Total days Contract days allowed extensions Total 4. Remarks Contract completed within allotted time schedule. Signedd� cc: Contractor Finance • TO: Honorable City Council June 9, 1986 FROM: Mike Shelton, City Manager SUBJECT: BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION (B.I.A. ) BY-LAWS RECOMMENDATION• City Council adopt the attached B.I.A. By-Laws. DISCUSSION: A petition from the Interim Formation Committee to the City Council resulted in the adoption of Ordinance Number 116 on January 27, 1986, establishing the Business Improvement Association (attached) . Section 36500, et. seq. of the Streets and Highways Code requires thE adoption of By-Laws by the City Council. Accordingly, By- aws have been drafted by the B.I.A. Executive Committee, reviewed with the membership, and are being recommended for your approval. Attached is a memo from the City Attorney expressing three areas of concern, of which two have- been addressed in the attached pro- posed By-Laws. Regarding item three, Kirk Pearson has requested the Council act on the By-Laws, after which an amendment will be presented to Council at a later date specifying regular meeting dates, location and time, and noticing procedures for non-regular meetings. MS:kv File: MBIA2 cc: Kirk Pearson, B. I.A. • BYLAWS -OF- THE ATASCADERO BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION ARTICLE I. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: NAME Section 1.1 This organization is established pursuant to Section of the Atascadero Municipal Code, and shall be known as The Atascadero Business Improvement Association or, simply, the BIA. ARTICLE II. PURPOSE Section 2.1 The BIA is created to implement these specific purposes: a. To provide adequate parking and traffic circulation within the defined area. b. To work towards the overall beautification of the defined area. C. To coordinate promotional activities for all businesses within the defined area. d. To act as a representative body for all businesses within the defined area. ARTICLE III. MEMBERS Section 3.1 Classification of Members. The Association shall have one class of members only, and each member shall have one vote and other equal rights. Section 3.2 Eligibility. Membership shall be comprised of all holders of active city business licenses within the defined BIA bounda- ries. All businesses, persons or institutions doing business within the BIA boundaries that are exempt from the payment of the business license tax shall also be members. Any business, person or institution owning property within the defined BIA boundaries shall be permitted to volun- tarily associate as a member. Section 3.3 Boundaries. The boundaries of the BIA shall be as set forth in Ordinance 116_ of the City of AtascacTer0 ARTICLE IV. DIRECTORS Section 4.1 Government; Number. The government of the BIA shall be vested in, and the business conducted by, a board of nine (9) Direc- tors who shall be members in good standing and serve without salary. Collectively the Directors shall be known as the Board of Directors. Section 4.2 Function. The Board of Directors, in carrying out the purposes of the BIA, shall advise and recommend policy to the Atascadero City Council. Section 4.3 Term of Office. So that there will be continuity from year to year, one third (1/3) of the directorships shall be voted upon each year. An elected Director shall hold office for a term of three (3) years. In no event, however, shall a Director hold office for more than two (2) consecutive terms without a lapse of one (1) year as a member of the Board. Section 4.4 Removal of Directors. Any Director may be removed and replaced by a vote of at least seven (7) members of the Board of Directors. Section 4.5 Vacancies. Vacancies on the Board of Directors shall exist on the death, rebignation, or removal of any Director. Any such vacancy shall be filled by appointment for the unexpired term by the President with the approval of five (5) members of the Board. Section 4.6 Absentees. The unexcused absence of a member of the Board from three (3) consecutive regular meetings, or five (5) meetings in a calendar year, and recorded by the Board, shall be deemed by the Board as that member's resignation from the Board. Section 4.7 Nominations. In October of each year, the President shall select a Nominations Committee composed of at least three (3) regular members of the BIA in good standing, who may or may not be Board members, securing the concurrence of the Board in their appointment. Section 4.8 Official Ballot. Promptly upon being appointed, the Nominations Committee shall proceed to the selection of candidates for membership on the Board of Directors for the ensuing year, and shall prepare a list of such candidates in a number equal to at least the number of vacancies to be filled, securing the consent of those members selected in each instance, and reporting the completed list to the Board at its regular November meeting. The Board shall then cause a ballot to be prepared showing the full list of candidates and the names of their businesses. Said ballot shall contain additional spaces for possible write-in candidates, and voting instructions on the ballot indicating the number of vacancies to be filled. Section 4.9 Annual Election. Within seven (7) days after the November meeting of the Board of Directors, the Official Ballot shall be mailed to each member of the BIA to be returned on or before 5:00p.m on a date specified by the Nominations Committee. Section 4.10 Election Results. Returned ballots shall be can- vassed by the Nominations Committee and reported at the regular meeting of the Board of Directors in December for verification of results. The new Board members shall take their positions in January next following. ARTICLE V. MEETINGS Section 5.1 Regular. The Board of Directors shall meet at least once each month at a place and time determined by the Board. Section 5.2 Special. Special meetings may be called by the President or three (3) Board members when deemed necessary. Section 5.3 Quorum. A two thirds majority of the authorized number of Board members shall constitute a quorum at any Board meeting. Section 5.4 Annual Meeting. At least one meeting of the total membership of the BIA will be held each calendar year. ARTICLE VI. OFFICERS Section 6.1 Humber and Titles. The Officers of the Association shall be a President, a Vice President, a Treasurer, and a Secretary. Each of said Officers shall be a member of the Board of Directors. Section 6.2 Election. The new Officers shall be elected at the December meeting of the Board of Directors. Section 6.3 Term. Officers elected shall take office at the first regular meeting of the Board of Directors in January and shall serve until the first regular meeting in January of the next year. Section 6.4 Duties of the President. The President shall be the chairperson of the Board of Directors and shall be the executive head of the BIA, shall preside at all Board meetings, and shall either represent or appoint a representative to all functions where the BIA is to be represented. The President shall, subject to the approval of the Board, appoint all committee chairpersons and he/she shall be an ex-officio member of all committees. Section 6.5 Duties of the Vice President. In the absence or disability of the President, the Vice President shall carry out all of the responsibilities and functions of the President and shall have the same powers and be subject to the same restrictions as the President. The Vice President shall have such other powers and perform such other duties as from time to time may be prescribed by the President or the Board of Directors. Section 6.6 Duties of the Treasurer. The Treasurer shall be the Chief Financial Officer of the BIA. Section 6.7 Duties of the Secretary. The Secretary shall record accurate and timely minutes of the Board meetings and be responsible for mailing notices of meetings and the ballot for election of Officers. ARTICLE VII. EXECUTIVE COMKITTEE Section 7.1 Members. The Executive Committee shall be composed of the President, the Vice President, the Treasurer, the Secretary, and the immediate Past President so long as the latter continues to serve on the Board of Directors. If the immediate Past President's term on the Board has ended, then such vacancy on the Executive Committee may be left vacant or filled by appointment of the President with the approval of the Board. Section 7.2 Duties. In the interim between meetings of the Board, the Executive Committee shall conduct the non-policy business affairs of the BIA. ARTICLE VIII. ADMINISTRATION Section 8.1 Administrator. The Board of Directors, with the consent of a majority of the voting membership, may choose to employ an Administrator or Executive Secretary to assist with the routine business affairs of the BIA. The Administrator shall serve at the pleasure of the Board of Directors, subject to a contract agreement between the Administrator and the BIA. The Administrator shall be selected through an application and screening process approved by the Board. ARTICLE IX. FINANCES Section 9.1 Funding. Funding for the BIA shall be derived from an assessment equivalent to a percentage of the City business license fee, paid by each license holder, using the following formula: 25% in 1986 50% in 1987 75% in 1988 100% in 1989 and thereafter Persons, businesses and institutions exempt from paying the city business license fee shall be assessed at the following rate subject to the above formula. That rate shall be the same as the current City business license basic fee. A fee for voluntary membership by persons, businesses, or institutions which own property within the BIA boundaries will be established by the Board of Directors in December for the following year. Section 9.2 Budget. The BIA shall operate on a fiscal year basis ending on June 30 of each year. The budget for the fiscal year shall be approved by the Board of Directors and presented to the City Council for ratification. ARTICLE X. CojonTTEES Section 10.1 Standing Committees. In addition to the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors, the BIA shall have the following standing committees: a. Parking b. Beautification c. Promotions d. Budget e. Nominations f. Government Liaison Section 10.2 Appointments. Immediately upon taking office the President shall appoint, or cause to be appointed, committee chairpersons subject to approval by the Board of Directors; providing, however, that chairpersons for the Budget Committee and Nominations Committee need not be appointed before the March meeting and October Board meeting, respec- tively. Section 10.3 Ad Hoc Committees. The President shall appoint special committees as may from time to time be needed, or as may other- wise be provided elsewhere in the Bylaws, or with the approval of the Board of Directors. Section 10.4 Limitations of Authority. No person or committee shall have the power to commit the BIA to any financial or policy obligations without prior approval from the Board. Section 10.5 Chairpersons. Committee chairpersons shall select the members of their committee upon the advice and consent of the President. It shall be the responsibility of the appointed committee chairperson to prepare agendas and keep minutes of all duly called meetings, and to keep himself/herself apprised of the current, approved, operating budget and to operate within these areas on the matter of finances. Upon conclusion of the annual fiscal year or upon termination of the committee, whichever is sooner, a final report for that previous period of operation must be submitted to the President of the BIA. ARTICLE %I. KISCELLAHEOIIS Section 11.1 Amendments. These Bylaws may be amended by a two thirds (2/3) vote of the Board members. Any proposed amendment must be submitted in writing at least fourteen (14) days prior to a scheduled Board meeting. Proposed amendment(s), as considered by the Board, must then be mailed to every member by the Secretary in time for consideration at the next regular Board meeting. Section 11.2 voting. When voting by the membership is required, a ballot must be mailed to each member. The ballots must be returned within ten (10) days of the date ballots are mailed. A majority of the ballots returned shall determine the issue. Section 11.3 Implementation. The Bylaws shall become effective upon the formation of the BIA, presentation to the membership, approval by the Board of Directors, and ratification by the City Council. Section 11.4 Order. All meetings and business affairs shall be conducted by Robert's Rules of Order, except as may otherwise be incon- sistent with these Bylaws, in which case the Bylaws shall govern. Section 11.5 Co----- �dence. Correspondence of the B.I.A. will be conducted through Post Office Box 1607, Atascadero, Ca. 93423. ATASCADERO BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION: APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS M E M O R A N D U M TO: MIKE SHELTON CITY MANAGER FROM: ROBERT M. JONES CITY ATTORNEY May 28 , 1986 RE : By Laws of Atascadero Improvement Association I have reviewed the attached By Laws of the Atascadero Improvement Association for the purpose of recommending modifications or additions , where advised, so that the City Council may ratify their adoption by the BIA. My comments concerning additions or modifications are as follows : 1 . The By Laws should set forth the principal place of business or office for the purpose of correspondence and notice of the Business Improvement Association. 2. The assessments--for BIA members exempt from paying the City Business License Fee is unclear. Presently the By Laws state that the assessment rate shall be the same as the current city business license fee. If in fact they are in the Business License Ordinance or Resolution and this language should be cleaned up. 3. The By Laws should set forth notice requirements for date, time and place of regular and special meetings to ensure due process requirements are met. A reasonable time frame should be used. Other than the above suggestions , the By Laws appear to comport with the requirements of Section 36500 , et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code. i 21 M E M O R A N D U M • TO: Mike Shelton, City Manager A.-I-L FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: F.Y. 1986-87 Local Transportation Fund Claim F.Y. 1986-87 State Transit Assistance Fund Claim DATE: July 3, 1986 It is recommended Council approve Resolution No. 60-86 , approving the following transit claim requests: A. 1986-87 Local Transportation Fund Claim 1 - Regional Handicapped Transportation System $ 24 ,111 2 - Atascadero Dial-A-Ride Transportation System $231, 525 3 - Atascadero to San Luis Obispo Transit System 5,940 4 - Street Maintenance 85,567 TOTAL CLAIM $347,143 B. 1986-87 State Transit Assistance Claim 1 - Street Maintenance $ 33,656 2 - Atascadero Dial-A-Ride Transportation System 548 TOTAL CLAIM $ 34 ,204 Council action on these claims and various certifications are required in order to receive the above transportation funds. PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH PMS/vjh cc:City Attorney ANNUAL CLAIM FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS AND STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS CLAIM NO. : TDA-AT-86/87 FISCAL YEAR: 1986/87 TO: San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council County Government Center San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93408 FROM: CLAIMANT: CITY OF ATASCADERO ADDRESS: P. 0. Box 747 CITY: Atascadero, CA ZIP CODE:93422 CONTACT PERSON: Mike Shelton PHONE NO. :466-8000 This claimant, qualified pursuant to Section 99203 of the Public Utilities Code, hereby requests, in accordance with Chapter 1400, Statutes of 1971, as amended and applicable rules and regulations, that an allocation be made for the purposes and in the respective amounts as described in the attached claim form. Total LTF/STA funds being claimed are: $ 381,347 a) Annual Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportionment $347,143 b) Annual State Transit Assistance (STA) Funds $ 34,204 - Operator Revenues $ 548 Apportionment $_ 33,656 CITY OF ATASCADERO (Claimant) By: Mike Shelton Title: City Manager Date: June 3, 1986 This claim was approved by San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council at their meeting by Resolution No. 86- Title: Date: 3924-1/(27171) [13] Page 1 of 2 FY 86/87 CITY OF ATASCADERO TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT ANNUAL PROJECT AND FINANCIAL PLAN Briefly describe all proposed projects (title and descriptions) the proposed use of these funds (by Article and Section of the Transportation Development Act) and the proposed expenditures for the ensuing year for all TDA funds including local transportation funds (previously SB 325) and State Transit Assistance Funds. Project Title and Brief Description Purpose: PUC Article/Section Amount LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND # 1 Regional Handicapped Payment of City share of regional $ 24,111 Transportation System handicap transporstation system (Article 4, Section 99260) # 2 Atascadero Dial-A-Ride Includes all direct costs related $231,525 Transportation System to operation of the City's Dial-A- Ride transit system_ (Article 4, Section 99260 3 San Luis Obispo to Payment of City share of the SLO $ 5,940 Atascadero transit to Atascadero commute run (Article run 4, Section 99260 4� 4 Street maintenance Asphalt overlays for roads and $. 85,567 streets within the City Select System (Article 8, Sect 99400a) 00ject Title and Page 2 of 2 Brief Description Purpose: PUC Article/Section Amount STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUND 1 Street Maintenance Asphalt overlays for roads and $ 33,656 streets within the City select system (PUC, Section 99313.3) CAC Section 6731(d) 2 Atascadero Dial-A-Ride Operational costs funded from $ 4 transportation system estimated "operator revenues" operations/maintenance (PUC Section 99314; Section 67302) Total Claim for LTF funds $347,143 Total claim for STA Funds $ 64,2U4 - Total TDA Claim - $,38.1,347._ NOTE #1: Any Additional LTF funds which may become available during the fiscal year are proposed to be applied to local street work providing the work can be obligated during the fiscal year (Article 8, Section 99400a) or transit system .(Art. , Section .). NOTE #2: Total agency budgeted expenditures for streets and roads (copy must be attached to claim). $ CLAIMANT SLOACC ACTION: CERTIFIED: Date: By: Mike Shelton Agenda Item Title: City Manager Resolution # Date: June 3. 1986 7-1 [97] ?tOA • TO: Michael Shelton June 9, 1986 City Manager FROM: Karen Vaughan Administrative Secretary City Manager SUBJECT: ESTABLISHMENT OF FEES FOR REPRODUCTION OF CITY DOCUMENTED RECORDS (PROPOSED RESOLUTION 61-86) RECOMMENDATION• Council, upon review by the City Attorney, establish a fee for providing copying services for the general public of City documented records and adopt Proposed Resolution 61-86. Council set the copying fee at fifty-cents ($. 50) for the first copy and ten-cents ($.10) for any additional copy of documents not exceeding 8 1/2 x 14 inches in size. BACKGROUND: • The City has previously, through City policy, provided copying services of City documented records to the general public at a fee of ten-cents ($.10) per page. Upon a recent survey of other Cities in the county, it was determined that the above proposed copy fee is fair and compatible with fees charged by other Cities. FISCAL IMPACT• The above proposed fee will fairly compensate the City for providing copying services to the general public. cc: Proposed Resolution 61-86 File: MCOPY APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MIC SHELTON, City Manager APPRO AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. SONES, City Attorney I • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council June 9, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager A `✓� • FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 5-86 LOCATION: 9630 Laurel Road APPLICANT: Edward and Christine Haase and Kenneth and Betty Coronaria- Nelson REQUEST: Subdivision of 7.44 acres into two parcels of 3.84 acres and 3. 60 acres each. • On May 19, 1986, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this subject unanimously approving the land division request subject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached staff report. Christine Haase and Betty Coronada-Nelson appeared and stated they were in agreement with the recommendation. No one else spoke on the matter . PS:ps cc: Edward and Christine Haase Kenneth and Betty Coronada-Nelson O Tentative Parcel Mapt 86 (Haase/Coronaria-Nelson 10. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. ANALYSIS: The property proposed for subdivision is located in the RS (Resi- dential Suburban) zone. Minimum lot size in this zone ranges between 2.5 and 10.0 acres depending upon the "score" of various performance standards. For this site, the minimum lot size cri- teria are: Distance from center (12,000-14 ,0001 ) 0.40 Septic suitability (slow) * 1.00 Average slope (11-20%) 0.75 Condition of access (paved) 0 .40 General neighborhood character (4.80 acres) 0.96 Minimum lot size: 3. 51 acres *Note: Septic suitability based upon on-site percolation tests. The lot sizes proposed (3.84 and 3.60 acres) are larger than the minimum sizes that would be allowed. Both of the proposed lots have adequate building sites that are nearly level. Proper siting of building pads and driveways should result in a minimal amount of required grading. Any grading that is required for driveways or building pads on slopes in excess of 20% will require a precise plan review and approval. Precise plan review is done at staff level and is dictated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and this City' s guidelines for its implementation. Laurel Road is a paved, City-maintained road. The property in question should pose few problems for residential development. Adequate building sites are available and access is good. Properly designed septic systems should provide adequate waste disposal. There are numerous trees on the property; how- ever , the building sites are relatively clear so that tree removal should be minimal. Finally, the density proposed for the property appears to be appropriate for the site and surrounding areas. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conditional approval of Tentative Parcel Map 5-86 based on the Findings in Exhibit A and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B. SLD:ps 2 Tentative Parcel Maf5-86 (Haase/Coronada-Nelsorfi ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings for Approval Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval Exhibit C - Location and Zoning Map Exhibit D - Tentative Parcel Map 3 Tentative Parcel Mapq 86 (Haase/Coronada-Nelson EXHIBIT A - Tentative Parcel Map 5-86 Findings for Approval May 19, 1986 FINDINGS: 1. The creation of these parcels conforms to the zoning ordinance and the general plan. 2. The creation of these parcels, in conformance with the recommended conditions of approval, will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4._ The site is physically suitable for the density of development proposed. 5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision or that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474.6 of the State Subdivision Map Act as to methods of handling and discharge of waste. 4 Tentative Parcel Malk-86 (Haase/Coronada-Nelsof EXHIBIT B - Tentative Parcel Map 5-86 Conditions of Approval May 19, 1986 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel or its public utility easement prior to recordation of the final map. 2. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines, and other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are other building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 3. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, prepared by a regis- tered civil engineer , shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to - issuance of building permits in conjunction with installation of driveways, access easements, or structures. This shall appear as a Note on the final map. 4. Obtain encroachment permit(s) from the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit and construct improvements as directed by the encroachment permit(s) prior to ,final building inspection. 5. An offer of dedication to the City of Atascadero shall be made for the following rights-of-way a. Street Name: Laurel Road b. Limits: Property frontage C. Minimum Width: 20 feet from the centerline 6. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways and driveway easements shall be submitted for approval by the Communi- ty Development and Public Works Departments in order to determine average grade and appropriate improvement requirements. This shall appear as a note on the final map. 7. Submit a drainage plan, prepared by a registered civil engineer , providing for mitigation measures relieving any downstream drain- age problems or alternatively a stormwater detention basin. If a detention basin is selected, then the design shall be based upon a 100 year design storm, site developed, with outflow limited to 10 year design storm, undeveloped, site and as required by the Deten- tion Basin Policy adopted August 12, 1985. The alternate selected must be acceptable to the Public Works Director. 8. The fire hydrant located at 9705 Laurel- Road shall be improved to City standards. 9. A final map, in compliance with all conditions set forth herein, 5 4 Tentative Parcel Map �-86 (Haase/Coronaria-Nelson shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners have been set or shall be set by a date specific and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit- ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 10. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. 6 _ Local DN Z©N i Nd4 9(,30 L-AuK5L- izD• f 04 OVUL y - amu., n ?d 3 T .:: -• i •: N. 1) ► J iY•.c If le17 1 — rt' 11 2Lc' T>r° 27 o!p 2e 23 { p 4ei n _ ! 21 .r a 2• 1lo+ 30 aa 1 '.aa. Ip�r L sa. 7 • � p . co,, till32 —Atj 33 .:.• 34 1° li � 11' r Ya► 1 ,= 41 20 ,,, IesTM' '6ea+ „=r ` r u Y r► 17 605 34 w1 r�'i�CeD Av1 SIG [I�^i•a�i .sr.Y .. �� nkre rp IS 12 104.1, 33 is ,Jie ' 1 PC 2 w 20 11 -fto Ssr -70 �Y 's ,( yt "w�•T�tA M• � w�' a H r e �'; 1de 6A zaal 21 r° p \O� CITY OF ATASCAD + F �'I&Plannin \-//`��■ ..t. -r.r,,,- ,�;;(1,i g' DearptRRO ment �\ Y r('�19 7f; o 77, RS Map No. 14 ' g m i •y 4 r 1 / o` 10, _ � zs w v..3 ® t .I � �kn 1 L�_ i M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council June 9, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager er FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 10-86 LOCATION: 10885 San Marcos Road APPLICANT: Tom Hale (Cuesta Engineering) REQUEST: Subdivision of 7.92 acres into two parcels of 3.96 acres each. • On May 19, 1986, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this subject unanimously approving the land division request subject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached staff report. John Falkenstein, Cuesta Engineering, representing the applicant, appeared and expressed his concurrence with the recommendation. Noone else spoke on the matter. PS:ps cc: Tom Hale Cuesta Engineering • Tentative Parcel Map 10-86 (Hale/Cuesta Engineer7ng) C. ANALYSIS: The property proposed for subdivision is located in the RS (Resi- dential Suburban) zone. Minimum lot size in this zone ranges be- tween 2.5 and 10.0 acres depending upon the "score" of various performance standards. For this site, the minimum lot size cri- teria area: Distance from center (14,000-16,0001 ) 0.50 Septic suitability (slow) * 1.00 Average slope (26-30%) 1. 25 Condition of access (paved) 0.40 General neighborhood character (3.94 acres) 0.79 Minimum lot size: 3.94 acres *Note: Septic suitability based upon on-site percolation tests. The lot sizes proposed (3. 96 acres) are larger than the minimum size that would be allowed. Both of the proposed lots have adequate building sites. Proper siting of building pads and driveways should result in a minimal amount of required grading. Any grading that is required for driveways or building pads on slopes in excess of 20% will require a Precise Plan review and approval. Precise Plan review is done at staff level and is dictated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and this City' s guidelines for its implementation. San Marcos Road is a paved, City-maintained road. The property in question should pose relatively few problems for residential development. Adequate building sites are available and access is good. Properly designed septic systems should pro- vide adequate waste disposal. Finally, the density proposed for the property appears to be appropriate for the site and surround- ing areas. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conditional approval of Tentative Parcel Map 10-86 based on the Findings in Exhibit A and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B. SLD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings for Approval Exhibit B - Conditions -of Approval Exhibit C - Location and Zoning Map Exhibit D - Tentative Parcel Map 2 I Tentative Parcel MAO-86 (Hale/Cwesta Engineef"ing) EXHIBIT A - Tentative Parcel Map 11-86 Findings for Approval May 19, 1986 FINDINGS: 1. The creation of these parcels conforms to the zoning ordinance and the general plan. 2. The creation of these parcels, in conformance with the recommended conditions of approval, will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4.. The site is physically suitable for the density of development proposed. 5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision or that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474. 6 of the State Subdivision Map Act as to methods of handling and discharge of waste. 3 i Tentative Parcel Map�0-86 (Hale/Cuesta Enginee 0g) EXHIBIT A - Tentative Parcel Map 10-86 Conditions of Approval May 19, 1986 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel or its public utility easement prior to reordation of the final map. 2. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines and other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are other building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 3. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, prepared by a regis- tered civil engineer , shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to - issuance of building permits in conjunction with installation of driveways, access easements or structures. This shall appear as a note on the final map. 4. Obtain encroachment permit (s) from the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit and construct improvements as directed by the encroachment permit(s) prior to final building inspection. 5. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways and driveway easements shall be submitted for approval by the Communi- ty Development Public Works Departments in order to determine average grade and appropriate improvement requirements. This shall appear as a note on the final map. 6. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth hererin shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division .Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners have been set or shall be set by a date specific and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit- ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 15. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. 4 • LoGA��ort � ZoN �u4 -w-. _FM to - 361 15 IA ORTAL ppAp p I It IS' q ` '2 " ! N••• 17£ fte a' .. • 22 23 ® e s 2s ti•, ori ..• ,y, 'p 2• 23 � 9 a0i 21 4 CL 40 'a 3 ; •,'.ya: •ter '• �sI �aP•,,�V'('iy. .13 RSa ! • s •` �.. �•` tr +`r c 2,,.00, ,• 40 a 2 SIG 1• f' • 11 �°a I•'� �• ' .loos ' 12 Io . i .^�• I iA ar-^. 20 .�° ro5w �e� 4 20 ° c / )3\.�o/s - 4! ItA /ego 4/s5 A.Q. s .; j - .. Ieces � •Sap,%• �S L 9 1 b I°i11 a] 9 a Yty /eASJ J 17 •, Aa X12 IA' / Y 34 qs L 7 ` t e 0.1 '�•t' G..� '� 14 e •� p•,Io q ISA 's Io�vs irs•Kr�7DI 'QJ};�i.» 's - e a3 ect Fi kl�k- '.IsfO s. I�O • ,. ,. L L • /0705 \�• ✓•Ah„ . . ,• 1 tee? ~ I• ,075! „ �A`bA(tt�" AM ... • ` •~ .�f� A �.-�� Al � \ •� r A'► �'a �/1 1088-5 SAN N1446,03 RD ��" • . ' •'' s' 1 • „ 1. A 9.• r w.:. RS(PD2) i LrFi�. 0.•Y .r._ I 1 b� \ \pS I1 -• b ,. 1 2 L , 1 ki. if Y.RS I t /oyoo •u. o n` . 'MOrtRO. StOp01 �'y CXI l i gIT iFAA S& • �X�Rw d 2 o p 1 � Nys ,oma-'•-, V Au rN CR rz l\ �� _ � 0� �•.11.��111•, Ilyi .W �.-i.I,_ q.--_�, `' � 1 �,� Ill l;rrr ri r, / "t•• 1 1. '. � � ---- ,u-}�'o� '/,';�',•' ��' D 1 2 i Q ' �1 4 T a � m pppp y t 1 , �19 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council June 9, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director } SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 11-86 LOCATION: 8555/8575 Amapoa APPLICANT: Stinchfield and Summers Inc. (North Coast Engineering) REQUEST: Creation of four residential air-space condominiums. On May 19, 1986 , the Planning� Commission conducted a public hearing on • this subject unanimously approving the application request subject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached staff report. Richard Summers, applicant, appeared and indicated his agreement with the staff report. Caroline Latham, 8485 Amapoa, stated she was in favor of this condo- minium conversion and expressed concern that assurances be made that drainage will not be allowed to flow onto her property. There was concern expressed by the Commission concerning the existing condition of Amapoa with regard to expediting the necessary road im- provements needed for this street. Paul Washburn clarified his understanding of the road design for Ama- poa and drainage plan by the Engineering Department, and stated he was anxious to have Amapoa paved. No one else spoke on the matter. PS:ps cc: Stinchfield and Summers Inc. • North Coast Engineering ,Z City of Atascadero Item: B-4 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 5/19/86 BY: Steven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: TPM 11-86 Project Address: 8555/8575 Amapoa Avenue SUBJECT• Creation of four residential air-space condominiums from two duplex units which are currently under construction. BACKGROUND: Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on May 9, 1986 . All property owners of record located within 300 feet of the subject property were also notified on that date. A. LOCATION: 8555/8575 Amapoa Avenue (Lot 34, Block DC) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .Creation of four residential air-space condominiums 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Stinchfield and Summers, Inc. 3. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .North Coast Engineering 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.36 acres 5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Amapoa Avenue is a paved, City- maintained street with a 40 foot right-of-way. 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF/16 (FH) (Residential Multiple Family - 16 units per acre) 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Two duplex units currently under construction 8. Adjacent Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . .North: RMF/16 (FH) South: RMF/16 (FH) East: RSF-Y(FH) West: CP (FH) (PD3) 9. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Multiple Family 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Flat 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt Tentative Parcel Map�l-86 (Stinchfield & SummervInc. ) C. ANALYSIS: This application proposes the creation of four residential air- space condominium units. The project consists of the conversion of two duplex units which are currently under construction to individual ownership. This will allow individual ownership of the dwelling units and common ownership of the parking and open-space areas. This is one-half of a larger project reviewed and approved under Precise Plan 59-85 and for which building permits have been is- sued. The overall project consisting of four duplex units (eight dwelling units total) was approved on two legal lots. Each lot, which is under separate ownership, is now before the Commission for condominium conversion. The other half of this project has been submitted as Tentative Parcel Map 12-86. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conditional approval of Tentative Parcel Map 11-86 based on the findings in Exhibit A and the conditions of approval in Exhibit B. SLD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings for Approval Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval Exhibit C - Location and Zoning Map Exhibit D — Tentative Parcel Map 2 Tentative Parcel Mapgl-86 (Stinchfield & Summe#Inc. ) EXHIBIT A - Tentative Parcel Map 11-86 Findings for Approval May 19, 1986 FINDINGS: 1. The creation of these parcels conforms to the zoning ordinance and the general plan. 2. The creation of these parcels is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA (Section 15301. (k) ) . 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development proposed. 5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision or that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474. 6 of the State Subdivision Map Act as to methods of handling and discharge of waste. 3 Tentative Parcel Mapgl-86 (Stinchfield & Summe4pInc. ) EXHIBIT B - Tentative Parcel Map 11-86 Conditions of Approval May 19, 1986 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and Restric- tions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control of nuisances and architectural control of all buildings. a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to approval of the final map. b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by a Condominium Homeowners Association. 2. A six foot Public Utilities Easement shall be provided along the frontage of the property along Amapoa Avenue. 3. The open space shall be designated as a Public Utilites Easement. 4. A sewer connection permit from the Public Works Department shall be obtained prior to hooking up to public sewer . 5. Road improvements, including curb, gutter, five foot sidewalk and paveout, shall be installed, bonded for , or a deferment agreement entered into as required as a condition of Precise Plan 59-85 prior to recording the final map. 6. All drainage improvements required as a condition of Precise Plan 59-85 shall be completed prior to recording the final map. 7. The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City, acceptable to the City Attorney, agreeing to participate in an assessment district for drainage and related improvements intended to mitigage flooding in the Amapoa-Tecorida drainage area and in those areas impacted by that drainage prior to recording the final map. This shall be noted on the final map. 8. A drainage easement (and/or drainage release) shall be provided for surface drainage of storm water entering project boundary from Lot 35, Block DC, to nearest natural watercourse as approved by the Public Works Department. 9. An offer of dedication to the City of Atascadero shall be made for the following right-of-way: Street name: Amapoa Avenue Limits: Three (3) feet Minimum width: 46 feet (total right-of-way) 4 Tentative Parcel Map,*l-86 (Stinchfield & SummeroInc. ) 10. An offer to dedicate to the City of Atascadero shall be made for a future drainage easement along the easterly property line a mini- mum ten (10) feet wide. 11. The following easements shall be created for the purposes noted: a. The southerly 15 feet of Lot 34; Block DC for common ingress/ egress for driveway shared with Lot 35 , Block DC. b. The northerly five feet of common ingress/egress for drainage purposes. 12. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to or simultaneous with recording the final map. 13. One handicapped parking stall shall be appropriately striped, marked, and posted per Section 9-4.115 (c) of the Zoning Ordinance. 14. A final map, in compliance with all conditions set forth herein, shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners have been set or shalt be set by a date specific and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit- ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 15. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. 5 l,ss -4 . ,177z`e ? 'atio X611 B C( G ` 73 sL �3 7zss zso t '& Lo6A•c to N 4 7310 '73os � '��3' 13 i rA& ' 7 ^ - o / �♦ 13 7; 17�5� 7SSs 7�oJ s 73sPQ S 9 I p. : 740$8; 74 rr tr "'°'o > i 7y g >'lyo C =96o t�4: 7500 '¢ 1 LSF—Y .— • a 7 a . r. • R d�5o 7SSTg; 'Szp T 0 cs s ' :'g �s �Na Q� %�rytS • 75� ::14 :`�7I0 ?( �+�� �', r !► � G o 7605 770 24 z3 �1 , H� � a� 7c�4 s ' �7 4„so 7ws� Ssoa J ss �` 78 4 7 7860 k t= 7eso os yz ! 7775 3- 7 -777 ► t`o ,Soo u'!� a$— •7 1 30 N '��. �. w �9S W cn• � � o p'f 1 '1C .�r O 6 1 i ya �,, jf20 ,' gibs T t: 11 e y Ps J 6 ss � � •11 Eos :� .C�' w.. .:� r �.. J) ♦ t0 b� �� 115��:. X10 i`�, �LYI" ♦ er s td oci �_ • �S ao t L 5 84sOa ereo L5 l o l �' '' b ► + r0 Jt8' r►d �s5 63 Z � azs'r PT • 9 �� .r � Ir . - eft S� 1 e), 1• �7 N � � o � �9 f���,��j 05558575 ANI R FOA a O J1 3 Ap w G ' z 1 BSS / B 1 ti" l x �7 • -Y (FHRS F ) 75 T gra t lr j R iq A �; J + ! Z t♦ `oto 8yos �� lift %- � `qtr 3 t..•s� � 4 •" ; r a e94o ' A\h $ O 1 0 "• _ I ►N7 RMF/1 (FH 1 Exp i Cif i l7 n2,l�yti�} V I! Il < .n b ire W oQ�Q.w.t d W J W Z O p aZ W Zu, ESQ , Wv� w ¢ V o oC a 3 YY 3 WoI��, v t7 c c ? w �� ~ a I w�,�iaWaSw www_ wW• aJ e � e �Q V I ti J t N I _ o ti r v � J I L. / • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council N June 9, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director '"S SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 12-86 LOCATION: 8615/8635 Amapoa APPLICANT: Paul Washburn (North Coast Engineering) REQUEST: Creation of four residential air-space condominiums. On May 19, 1986 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this subject unanimously approving the application request subject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached staff report. Paul Washburn, applicant, appeared and indicated his concurrence with the recommendation. There was brief discussion on this item as most of the discussion had taken place under Tentative Parcel Map 11-86 (Stinchfield and Summers) . No one else appeared on the matter. PS:ps cc: Paul Washburn North Coast Engineering • City of Atascadero Item: B-5 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 5/19/86 BY: Steven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: TPM 12-86 Project Address: 8615/8635 Amapoa Avenue SUBJECT: Creation of four residential air-space condominius from two duplex units which are currently under construction. BACKGROUND: Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on May 9, 1986. All property owners of record located within 300 feet of the subject property were also notified on that date. A. LOCATION: 8615/8635 Amapoa Avenue (Lot 35, Block DC) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .Creation of four residential air-space condominiums 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Paul Washburn 3. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .North Coast Engineering 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.35 acres 5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Amapoa Avenue is a paved, City- maintained street with a 40 foot right-of-way. 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF/16 (FH) (Residential Multiple Family - 16 units per acre) 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Two duplex units currently under construction 8. Adjacent Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . .North: RMF/16 (FH) South: RMF/16 (FH) East: RSF-Y(FH) West: CP (FH) (PD3) 9• General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Multiple Family 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Flat 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt Tentative Parcel Map2-86 (Washburn/North CoastOngin. ) EXHIBIT A - Tentative Parcel Map 12-86 Findings for Approval May 19, 1986 FINDINGS: 1. The creation of these parcels conforms to the zoning ordinance and the general plan. 2. The creation of these parcels is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA (Section 15301. (k) ) . 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development proposed. 5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivi=sion and the proposed improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision or that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474.6 of the State Subdivision Map Act as to methods of handling and discharge of waste. 3 Tentative Parcel Map 12-86 (Washburn/North Coastongin. ) C. ANALYSIS: This application proposes the creation of four residential air- space condominium units. The project consists of the conversion of two duplex units which are currently under construction to individual ownership. This will allow individual ownership of the dwelling units and common ownership of the parking and open-space areas. This is one-half of a larger project reviewed and approved under Precise Plan 59-85 and for which building permits have been is- sued. The overall project consisting of four duplex units (eight dwelling units total) was approved on two legal lots. Each lot, which is under separate ownership, is now before the Commission for condominium conversion. The other half of this project has been submitted as Tentative Parcel Map 11-86 . D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conditional approval of Tentative Parcel Map 12-86 based on the findings in Exhibit A and the conditions of approval in Exhibit B. SLD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings for Approval Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval Exhibit C - Location and Zoning Map Exhibit D - Tentative Parcel Map 2 Tentative Parcel Map�2-86 (Washburn North Coast' n in. / 9 ) EXHIBIT B - Tentative Parcel Map 11-86 Conditions of Approval May 19, 1986 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and Restric- tions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control of nuisances and architectural control of all buildings. a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to approval of the final map. b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by a Condominium Homeowners Association. 2. A six foot Public Utilities Easement shall be provided along the frontage of the property along Amapoa Avenue. 3. The open space shall be designated as a Public Utilites Easement. 4. A sewer connection permit from the Public Works Department shall be obtained prior to hooking up to public sewer. 5. Road improvements, including curb, gutter, five foot sidewalk and paveout, shall be installed, bonded for , or a deferment agreement entered into as required as a condition of Precise Plan 59-85 prior to recording the final map. 6. All drainage improvements required as a condition of Precise Plan 59-85 shall be completed prior to recording the final map. 7. The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City, acceptable to the City Attorney, agreeing to participate in an assessment district for drainage and related improvements intended to mitigage flooding in the Amapoa-Tecorida drainage area and in those areas impacted by that drainage prior to recording the final map. This shall be noted on the final map. 8. A drainage easement (and/or drainage release) shall be provided for surface drainage of storm water entering project boundary from Lot 34, Block DC, to nearest natural watercourse as approved by the Public Works Department. 9. An offer of dedication to the City of Atascadero shall be made for the following right-of-way: Street name: Amapoa Avenue Limits: Three (3) feet Minimum width: 46 feet (total right-of-way) 4 Tentative Parcel Ma q2-86 Washburn North Coas*n in. P ( / g ) 10. An offer to dedicate to the City of Atascadero shall be made for a future drainage easement along the easterly property line a mini- mum ten (10) feet wide. 11. The following easements shall be created for the purposes noted: a. The northerly 15 feet of Lot 35; Block DC for common ingress/ egress for driveway shared with Lot 34 , Block DC. b. A five foot utility easement for the power line serving Lot 34, Block DC. 12. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to or simultaneous with recording the final map. 13. One handicapped parking stall shall be appropriately striped, marked, and posted per Section 9-4.115 (c) of the Zoning Ordinance. 14. A final map, in compliance with all conditions set forth herein, shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners have been set or shalt be set by a date specific and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit- ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 15. Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. 5 ?• '17 Lco 7oilo 5 EX"II T C 4 6f '• � 33o LO c A i ( oN 4 ZEN r 1J f _s So p 73(p 7;ps )pts j.3 I 8 61 '• IgD r 73s=� 6 T3� 1�. � 7405;l4• If O. t 9!f56,• t3 r 4 G /b -$9 L J F—Y hi) 7 7S g� )YYo 7l go �.-.7500 i . ..'z 7-72 h5 Soo 1 ?Slot � r' 7550 p +_ 5Z5s :Z0 79 : l �)bop ) Its Eos 78 7 br» s fiar��so Q y55�•s t 75gp, .,. ,�� ���7�jGt 76��Q` x t a o 760s X70 2, ?1 T 77Z 7 77Ro Ta rs ljs-i 7 soa. 79ar -s_ �Dop >> t i,so 7LL5 • J 7 7660 s 777529 s ''� `:r dh 79St Z r I 1 too A q 79ea. 79 31 3C IJ/ ' as , mss �. • �' so Q N "J a per. � cm ( o{ T9t m° ,:< Vii► ' 7 i �.y f �y 0. p '� �•�' t J`��,y� .tom `4 d0. a ♦� fix' .:'.. ! i LSF-Yt: 3s s ��, gibs J! 5 So'IS S to. i0 ,. 8L64 ' di5 81 2 t 5 e37 �rtiti° s �; aa�R 1t , ��. . g(e l> 8 3 5 PINI APO/ a o 1j a ry m ►� s roo '�"'.!!'' s 140, RS F Y (FH) 5� '_ 'rZjr 8e, 857 3 3 r5 is v B5 •►, �► `� • �� 7 `� 3 i� 9s� 11 a:7S 8 top }s1 fl d 11 M r J 8 0 85� M M t RMF/16 (FH) o � L � � - ExNi131 IT D Pe-oeo5eD PAecf-=- MAP Trm s11WAPOA - 411E--- - — S/3'2G'26./"w Tr� p°n2zl�.. u 4y rc. Hca N w y lay m D O W t a ----r �-• s/s's2�ii o'ry ai ioo.09 b ay o y lu V o N S O {n r C A r'" C m -Ll a pn�'�' m m(A(� tiLrAj�i� Cn n ~ ONC_ a Z1 r ty m : }. U n <r �. j 't v ;` i, r•�jl _ � ti, p;? to ��It ol•" i � �-'t, to �a G) IL�ii 0 ^t" T Z r• � li �� ��Ui 1 f� 6-0 l,t f.o U (•) or t q Ai �' 6t r?i y '� -} it l iir r•. fit 0 2 O • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council June 9, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment 2-86 LOCATION: 5100/5120/5300 San Benito Road APPLICANT: Golden West Development Corporation (Volbrecht Surveys) REQUEST: To adjust the lot lines between three existing lots. On June 2, 1986, the Planning Commission reviewed the above-referenced subject on its consent calendar, unanimously approving the lot line adjustment request subject to the findings and conditions contained in • the attached staff report. There was no public testimony given on this matter. PS:ps cc: Golden West Development Corporation Volbrecht Surveys • s Lot Line Adjustment 0-86 (Golden West DevelopmenfCorp. ) C. ANALYSIS: The parcelsro osed for adjustment are located in the RS (Resi- dential 7 Suburban) zone. Minimum lot size in this zone ranges between 2.5 and 10.0 acres depending upon the "score" of various performance standards. For this site, the minimum lot size cri- teria are: Distance from center (8,000-10,0001 ) 0.25 Septic suitability (severe) 1. 50 Average slope (11-20%) 0.75 Condition of Access (paved) 0.40 General neighborhood character (1.80 acres) 0.36 Minimum lot size: 3.26 acres The lot sizes proposed (5.00 and 5.22 acres) are larger than the minimum sizes that would be allowed. The subject property consists of three parcels. One of the par- cels contains two residences. The other parcels are currently vacant. The lot line adjustment has been proposed to improve the configuration of the lots for future lot splits. No new parcels or building sites are being created at this time. . D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Lot Line Adjustment 2-86 based on the Findings in Exhibit A and the Conditions in Exhibit B. SLD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings for Approval Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval Exhibit C - Location and Zoning Map Exhibit D - Tentative Lot Line Adjustment Map 2 s Lot Line Adjustment86 (Golden West Developm t Corp. ) EXHIBIT A - Lot Line Adjustment 2-86 Findings for Approval June 2, 1986 0 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 applicable zoning, gen- eral plan and subdivision regulations with the City of Atascadero. 3 Lot Line Adjustment 0-86 (Golden West Developme f Corp. ) EXHIBIT B - Lot Line Adjustment 2-86 ` Conditions of Approval June 2, 1986 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The lot line adjustment as generally shown on the map attachment provided herein shall be submitted in final map format or reflec- ted in a record of survey to be approved by the Community Develop- ment 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 of record of survey. 3. If a final map is to be recorded, all existing improvements and easements shall be delineated thereon. 4. Approval of this lot line adjustment shall expire two years from the date of approval unless a time extension has been granted pur- suant to a written request prior to the expiration date. 4 i FF 0f F 0 m ZDN I Al G SI •� 11,11` �} .�_ �t` �` � --•---! _ 1 i «s'i � `� i �� `- F(FIS) �;V „ I ! , ,< •2 �} aS w w (W 1j t 271 1$ C ITA RI RM X15. �`1' I. is r. r-- 1�-Z_-'° ♦ / __ � �� I �, ice, �� .1' ,o„"' j �o\�� :'.•.: it ' ,,mss' `` 12• •♦ ♦♦ •�� ` _ s:!? 10 \�7.,\ 1 i sem .� �1 :• \ !`♦\ � \ ►c• A�• ,♦� � �� ..,�'. 4.4 s� \� ,♦_, ♦ .� ) .Y e \t.. la 1\ pn+ L°r 21 'VIP 7 ll Sgt: ;r\ ti ./ +/�io•'..`it// �a! `�acu/ \\e"*t {`.Fi'� oxo ,,aa IV ,11 52.0 33.• 1\],rJ� �•..: W.2% 5-A �pp.:�\. ,, 4a� \ SS ♦\ / ntc `C / ♦♦ 1p 34 53.2 RS ♦O ♦3 3 27A 24 33 ;� 72 33-0 \\ 1 .• •/ /� vase /v .32 29 •jam \\ ���.,�J ``\ _ /`f Jif 3 sz 31 \7 •� \� •'� •� �� 31 `.yyb _ Is' 34 33-F 33 32 32 ��f•• ,♦� .00-ns 11 3•.�' a / r�Si/y p �Q„ ♦ �,.� �120 •• o � _1 E! t �° 1 Aar„I ,•^♦a'.4 _h +' off• '�,i' `✓ '•r ,c� `� !-, r� �� i •30- ;y✓�yir \ 35a. 1,,"`i}� '`\\\ J.. .�' :\\ 2 0-0 rc i•e x►; �. . .C. \ 12\, � 1 _� / / 3 .� ♦ \ \ 'dab\\p\rl` . - - � QCT' J•\�•� � vb � \� to % 22 tz 2.0 14 �v. i0 y a 12 5°i5 j Ox21 �\ \� r 4♦ 15 •/ S� �O NS 5-100/5110/5-300 15-40BEtii t TO . —X4u f3�i (.o i LI N L- A A bs C-N Lxt76 - LP9.L/ k V 1 \ . NN m I l g a� 0 8 � r n _ 47e sis� 98n �' Inn el �9 0 N �. oi'° �. o F �� b�� •. w :fig �'����° ���� ;3 P 1'^-'SDA • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council June 9, 1986- VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director *A., SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 9-84 LOCATION: 3584, 3580 and 3590 Maricopa APPLICANT: Richard Russell, et al (Dan Stewart) • On September 10, 1984 the City Council approved Lot Line Adjust- ment 9-84 , subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The required con- ditions have been complied with and the final map is recommended for approval. HE:ps cc: Richard Russell, et al Dan Stewart i MA,A§ �r M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council 'l June 9, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director4YE, SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 9-84 LOCATION: 3584, 3580 and 3590 Maricopa APPLICANT: Richard Russell, et al (Dan Stewart) On September 10, 1984 the City Council approved Lot Line Adjust- ment 9-84, subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The required con- ditions have been complied with and the final map is recommended for approval. HE:ps cc: Richard Russell, et al Dan Stewart t1' �a c� �, •, ,���� � e`er g , 141 U ��1V•`� 44��Qa � ht q � � zi W a °1�i NsriV 'i st�Y X11 x Z4 h IT V W� � 0 pt^ b� �$ :e ✓yam � t r. T� Q, Q v g o r u s ° � 7 ' ti NO A • M E M 0 R=A N D U M TO: City Council June 9, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager ta. FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director . SUBJECT: Zone Change .19-86 LOCATION: City-Wide APPLICANT: City of Atascadero REQUEST: Consideration of zoning text changes relative to parking standards for multi-family residential projects and handi- capped parking space signage. BACKGROUND: • This request was considered by the Planning Commission at their meet- ing held May 19, 1986. There was public testimony and discussion by the Commission concerning this matter as referenced in the attached minutes excerpt. RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission and Staff: On a 6:O vote (with Commissioner Nolan absent) , the Planning Commis- sion recommended approval of the zoning ordinance text change as out- lined in attached Ordinance No. 136. - PS:ps ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Staff Report - May 19, 1986 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt - May 19, 1986 Ordinance No. 136 UNIT OF GOVERNMENT STANDARD San Luis Obispo City 1 space for studio units 1.5 spaces - first bedroom plus 1/2 space for each additional bedroom with guest parking at the ratio of one space per each 5 units Paso Robles 1.5 spaces per one bedroom 2. 0 spaces per two bedroom 2.5 spaces per three-bedroom or more Grover City 1 garage space per studio 1 garage space plus 1 space per one and two-bedroom units 1 garage space plus 1. 5 spaces per unit over two bedroom units We. have on file a study entitled Municipal Parking Standards for 115 Selected California Cities prepared in August, 1984 which shows a predominence of cities using a sliding scale standard keyed to number of bedrooms for apartment projects. Further--except for high density urban areas--requiring 2 spaces for 2 bedroom units is common. How- ever, a majority of the ordinances do not add an additional require- ment for guest parking. The enclosed draft ordinance proposed parking at the following ratios: Proposed Multi-family Parking 1.5 spaces per one-bedroom unit Requirement 2. 0 spaces per two-bedroom unit 0.5 spaces per each additional bedroom plus guest parking at the ratio of 1 space per 5 units or fraction thereof This standard is slightly higher than those referenced above with the standard strengthened for 2 and more bedroom unit developments. Fac- tors arguing in favor of a stronger standard for off-street parking for Atascadero include the lack of a fixed route bus system which would alleviate the need for one car per adult per unit. Further , there is a strong likelihood that eventually there will be no on- street parking permitted along major thoroughfares such as El Camino Real. A drive down any of the multi-family zoned streets in the City such as Santa Ysabel, Olmeda, Palma, Tunitas and south El Camino Real reveals numerous cases of cars parking on streets adjoining multi- family areas. Frequently, the pavement width is not sufficient to provide two clear traffic lanes plus on-street parking. There are also cases where garages are being used for storage space, thus pre- empting their use for parking and this has added to the problem. 0 It should also be noted that increasing the parking requirement for 2 and more bedroom units will reduce the likely number of units that could be developed on a given site. B) HANDICAPPED ACCESS SPACES As noted in the meeting of the Traffic Committee, Officer Sims of the Atascadero Police Department indicated that the state law had changed to make it discretionary to identify handicapped ac- cess parking spaces by both a freestanding sign and a template on the parking space itself. (A copy of this section from the Vehicle Code is attached. ) In further discussions with the Atascadero Police Department, however, they note that the posting of a proper sign enables them to have cars towed away. Practice heretofore has been simply to cite the cars a $50 fine. Hence, under the terms of the Vehicle Code, the City has the discretion to simply require a template on the parking space. Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, had provided con- tradictory standards to that in the Vehicle Code (see attached excerpt) . This statute requires that "Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel. . . . " Contact was made with the State agency responsible for handicapped access, and we were advised that new legislation has provided that the Vehicle Code takes precedence. Hence, the attached ordinance draft proposes to give discretion in the matter of mandating free- standing signs. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the attached draft ordinance increasing parking requirements for multi-family developments and making handicapped signage requirements more flexible. HE:ps ATTACHMENTS: Traffic Committee Minutes Excerpt - 11/27/85 Zoning Excerpt - Handicapped Parking Requirements Vehicle Code Excerpt California Administrative Code Excerpt Draft Ordinance --- - �'�__�4-x' '1��'"T�L _�- _ -!_� 'L7• ��---N�1N U-��� No '- . t this point Deidra Casparian left the meeting. r. Sight i nce at all intersections t 20 ' minimum No Parking. advised that minimum required sight distance should be 1 as speed increases. Officer Sims said he beli here an ordinance precluding parking wit ' feet of crosswa Committee consensus was t ort back if this is not the ca ssuming it the standard will be implemented by the Pu '1~r orks Department. Z. Off-street parking requirement - Especially Multi-Faimily Engen expressed his concern that the City parking standards for multi-family areas are insufficient as witnessed by the number of cars that seemed to be parking on streets adjacent to the project. Barbara Dickerson advised that people are using garage parking to store household goods and parking ratio is insufficient for their project, contrary to what the EIR_ for the Bordeaux House Apartment project contends. Engen also cited a survey of 114 cities in California together with a survey of all the communities in San Luis Obispo County which puts the city standard of 1. 5 spaces per unit regardless of bedroom count and one space for every 4 units for guests as evidence of the insufficiency of city standards With respect to the Bordeaux House project, they are proposing a 400 unit project with 700 parking spaces. The City of Paso Robles, for a 400 unit project by the same developer, has required 900 spaces. Following discussion, a motion was made by No€��-����� and seconded by Heath and carried unanamously to the Planning Commission to re-examine standards with a view to establishing parking requirements based on the number of bedrooms per unit looking to a minimum of no less than 2 spaces per unit plus guest parking. Motion made by Heath and seconded by Norris and carried unanimously to consider requiring a separate area for storage of RV' s and boats. ii. Elimination of Handicapped Signs - Except under Certain �.i on T-17—= it .j_-_ _ Conditions. Engen advised that they brought this matter to the committee to raise the question as to whether free-standing signs identifying handicapped parking spaces are necessary in view of the placement of the handicapped templet on the parking space itself. Norris and Heath advised of their experience with handicapped citizens and their families and felt that the sign was not necessary. Officer Sims indicated that the state law has been changed to make it an either/or situation. Following discussion, a motion was made by Sims and seconded by Norris and carried by unanimous vote to recommend a Planning Commission amendment to the City � I Zoning Ordinance to mandate painted template with the dis- cretion given to the planning staff as to whether the sign would also be needed for properly identifying the location. QUaJZ_man Sensibaugh indicated that the next meetill on Christmas 1111, he would like to finish off---i ms on the agenda which can' t be handled to t ' oto establish the next meeting of the Traffic-Sa.fety""Commit dnesday, December 11th at 3:15 p.m.�j,.n..-Ra6f —304. An additonal agenda i e e the pa g-~-6f U-Hauls across the street from Atascadero Rental. Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted Henry Engen, Acting Secretary ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 rc cle Parkin Lots with 20 or more spac re- placer aces with motorcycle at a ratio of one motorcycle spa spaces. Motorcycle spaces shall be a minim of t ix feet. Motorcycle space a designated by painting "motorcycle' , similar on the surface of the space. (c) Handicapped Parking: All parking lots, except for single family residential parking, shall include handicapped parking as follows, provided that these spaces may be included as part of the total spaces required. (1) One handicapped space for each 40 spaces or fraction thereof for the first 160 spaces, with one handicapped „rte✓�F 'S space for the next 140 parking spaces and with one for each 100 spaces beyond that. (2) Handicapped parking spaces shall be 9 by 18 feet in size - with a 5 foot access allowing room for handicapped per- sons to enter and exit a vehicle onto a level surface suitable for wheelchairs and assisted parking. The aisle width shall be the same as required for a standard space. (3) Handicapped spaces shall be located nearest to the main pedestrian access point from the parking area to the building or use served by the parking and shall be de- signed such that persons using wheelchairs or assisted parking are not compelled to pass behind parked cars. (4) Handicapped spaces shall be designated by painting blue striping or markings including the International Symbol of Accessibility, which shall be at least three by three feet in size, on the surface of the stall, and by plac- ing a 70 square inch sign, with the International Symbol of Accessibility, which may include the towaway provi- sion, in a visible location centered at the front of the space. Bic cle Soaces: Lots with 20 or more spaces may substit icycle rack providing space for at least five bic es at a ram ' of one bicycle rack for each 20 spaces. is recom mended t all shopping centers provide som icycle spaces in the proje (e) Parking District: ling requi ents may be modified within a parking distric h the district provides ade- quate parking within the m of the district and the park ing requirements of ew use ar ccommodated by the parkin district. (f) Shared On to Parking Adjustment: Where t or more non- resid_crrtial uses are on a single site, the numbe f parking40 spaces may be reducedthrough adjustment (Section .9- 12) at a rate of five percent for each separate use, up to a 4-10 I Div. 11 Div. 11 -355- § 22511.7 ovisions of subdivision (a) shall also ny person w o as ost,or as ost the use o , m one or ore lower extremitie effc5t d oreet parking facility ( )2, \awi�d th hands,or who has significant limitation in the use of lower extremities, r 2. has a diagnosed disease or disorder which substantially impairs or interf a'.the point(s)indicated deleted the following: mobility,or who is so severely disabled as to be unable to move witho t or resolution' f an assistant device. (2) ny person who is blind to such an extent that the person's cen visual acuity oes not exceed 20/200 in the better eye, with corrective enses, as parking meter zones or fix the rate I measure by the Snellen test,or visual acuity that is greater than 201 ,but with An ordinance establishing, e zone.a parking a limitatio in the field of vision such that the widest diameter of t visual field Auld be included within the subtends angle not greater than 20 degrees. streets and highways n be marked (3) Any pet on who suffers from lung disease to such an exte that his forced to and require vehicles to park within (respiratory) eRpiratory volume one second when measured b spirometry is less than one liter or his arterial oxygen tension (p02) is less than mm/Hg on room ority pursuant to this section with air ) rest. ective until the proposed ordinance (4) An person w o is impaired by cardiovascular dise to the extent that his writing by the Department of functional limitations a classified in severity as class II or class IV according to ill be submitted a the department o standards accepted by e American Heart Associatio . p (b) Disabled persons shall be allowed to park for limited periods in parkingg nd the proposed ordinance shall be zones restricted as to the leggth of time parking is p mitted and shall be allowed action establishing a parking meter to park in any metered par space without tel g required to pay any parking hall be subject n local referendum meter fees. This section shal ave no applicat' n.to those zones in which the Hance dealt with a matter referendum purely stopping,parking,or standing all vehicles i rohibited or which are reserved P Y for special types of vehicles. (c) As a condition to this.privi e, the ehicle shall display a distinguishing license plate which shall be issued fo a v icle registered to the disabled person, or a vehicle which is not registered a disabled person, but which is used primarily to transport a disabled perso d which would otherwise qualify.for a able exercise of their police powers I distinguishing license plate if the ve ' le . ere registered to the disabled person. .ce or resolution providing that no The distinguishing license plate s I be°fvued without additional fees by the )f,a motor vehicle shall permit it to Department of Motor Vehicle pursuan to procedures adopted by the on any grade exceeding 3 percent department. it blocking the wheels of the vehicle (d) Any disabled person,or hicle owner as ovided in subdivision (c) of this r means. section, may also apply tot pepartment of for Vehicles for issuance of a distinguishing placard for rking purposes when 'splayed on the driver's side t dashboard of a vehicle. T placard shall be at leas ix inches by twelve inches ed of snow by snowplows, and the in size and blue in colo f snow conditions,the Department The Department of otor Vehicles may establish pr edures for the issua and local authorities,in respect to of such placards.Th epartment of Motor Vehicles ma harge a fee suffici and maintain signs indicating those to pay the actual c t to the department for issuance of p cards. ither or both sides of the highways. (e) Prior to issing a disabled person plate or placard,the partment of Motor ny vehicle within the areas marked Vehiclesmay re ire a certificate,signed by a licensed physici or surgeon.The apt when necessary to avoid conflict blindness of a person applying shall be certified by a licen d physician or rections of a traffic or peace officer. sur eon who pecializes in diseases of the eye or a licensed opto etrist. Ape n who is temporarily disabled for a period of less than Npe year,may apply for placard as prescribed in subdivision (d) of this section. • Added 716,Stats. 1959.Effective Sept. 18,1959. Amen d Ch. 1184,Stats. 1961.Effective Sept.15,1961. n of this code, any veteran, who is • Ame ed Ch.378,Stats.1970.Effective Nov.23,1970. 3 in Section 9105 of this code and Am ded Ch.723,Stats. 1972.Effective Mar.7,1973. Code, shall be allowed t0 ark in • ended Ch.234,Stats.1974.Effective Jan. 1,1975. p ended Ch. 1097,Stats.1976.Effective January 1,1977. any metered parking space without Amended Ch.649,Stats. 1977.Effective January 1, 1978.Operative July 1,1978.Supersedes Ch. 7. This section shall not be construed, ' Repealed and added Ch.457,Stats. 1978.Effective January 1,1979.Supersedes Ch.380. nding of a vehicle at the times and Amended Ch.261,Stats.1980.Effective Januaryi 1981. :11 vehicles is prohibited absolutely • Designation of Parking for Disabled Persons and Veterans • 22511.7. Local authorities may by ordinance or resolution designate parking spaces for the exclusive use of vehicles which display a distinguishing license plate or a placard issued pursuant to Section 22511.5 or to disabled veterans,as specified in Section 9105.Whenever a local authority so designates a parking space,it shall be indicated by blue paint on the curb or edge of the paved portion of the street adjacent to the space. In addition to blue paint, the space may also be indicate by signs or other suitable means. x'. a� f x'� l' } 22511.8 § -356- Div. 11 'Div:i11 Theprovisions of this section shall.not be construed to restrict the privilege no crossing at grade unless the tow c granted to disabled veterans by Section 22511 and to disabled persons by Section 22511.5. to a disabled vehicle. Added Ch.688,Stats.1975.Effective January 1,1976. Amended Ch.441,Stats.1967.Effective NoN Amended Ch.1096,Stats.1976.Effective January 1,1977. fire Hydrants Removal of Unauthorized Vehicles From Disabled Person's 22514. No person shall stop park Designated Parking Areas of a fire hydrant except when local au 22511.8. Any local authority, by ordinance or resolution, and any person in I or markings, and except when such lawful possession of an offstreet parking facility may designate stalls or spaces in ( is seated in the front seat and who c an offstreet parking facility owned or operated by the local authority or person for necessity.This section shall not appl, the exclusive use of vehicles which display a distinguishing license plate or a ` by a fire department and clearly m placard issued pursuant to Section 22511.5 or to disabled veterans,as specified in f Amended Ch.1615,Stats.1961.Effective Se Section 9105.Such designation shall be made by posting immediately adjacent to, Unattended Vehicles and visible from, each stall or space, a sign consisting of a profile view of a No person driving,or in cc . wheelchair with occupant in white on a blue background. 22515. to stand on any highway ur I prakes thereon and stopping The owner or person in lawful possession of an offstreet parking facility, after bermit in notifying the police or sheriffs department, as the case may be, and any local pp g the m authority owning or operating an offstreet parking facility,may cause the removal, Locked Vehicle from a stall or space designated for physically handicapped persons in such facility 22516. No person shall leave sta: e nearest public garage,of any vehicle not displaying one of the distinguishing person who cannot readily escape t Oacent ards or license plates specified in this section if there is posted immediately to, and visible from, such stall or space, or, if there is posted, in a Opening and Closing Doors conspicuous place at each entrance to the offstreet parking facility,not less than 22517. No person shall open th 17 by 22 inches in size with lettering not less than one inch in height,a sign which ( moving traffic unless it is reasona clearly and conspicuously states the following:•"Unauthorized vehicles not interfering with the movement of s displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically open upon the side of a vehicle av handicapped persons will be towed away at owner's expense.Towed vehicles may conger than necessary to load or ur be reclaimed at Amended Ch.162,Stats.1963.Effective Se or by telephoning » (Address) (Telephone number of local law enforcement agency) Regulation of Offstreel Parking The provisions of this section shall not be construed to restrict the privilege 22519. Local authorities may b) granted to disabled veterans by Section 22511 and to disabled persons by Section regulate the parking, stopping or 22511.5. facility which it owns or operates.N Added Ch.688,Stats.1975.Effective January 1,1976. signs giving notice thereof have be Amended Ch.1096,Stats.1976.Effective January 1,1977. Added Ch.1486,Stats.1959.Effective Sept %ity Vehicles Stopping on freeway Except as otherwise indicated in subdivision (b),none of the fo win 22520. No person shall stop,park provist shall apply to the driver or owner of any service vehicle ned or which has full control of access an( operated or for or operated under contract with a utility or lic utility, (a) When necessary to avoid inj whether priv ly, municipally, or publicly owned, used in construction, (b) When required by law or in operation,remov or repair of utility or public utility propeoy or facilities,when control device. the vehicle is stoppstanding, or parked at the site of work involving the (c) Any person actually engagge( construction,operation,rwoval,or repair of such utilily'br public utility property property or any employee of a pubt t or facilities upon,in,over,ur,or adjacent to a highway,or of a vehicle,whether of official duties. privately, municipally, or pub owned, engaged in authorized work on the (d) Any vehicle which is so disa highway,and warning devices are s layed.--- stopping and any vehicle which h (a) Sections 21112, 21707,21708,2M2,W�0709, 05,25253, 25300,27700, 27907 and vehicle or person, including a vel- 41102. � � assistance,which has been summon (b) This chapter, except Sectioia 22511,22515, and 22517. of a placard or sign given to the d 4 (c) Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 0). the specific purpose of summoning Amended Ch.618,Stats. 1972.Effdbtive Mar.7,1973. donor. Amended Ch.545,Stats. 1974,Effective Jan.1,1975. (e) In locations where stopping. Amended Ch.391,Stats. 1.980.Effective January 1,1981. Cars /' '' provided, however, that buses m: provided with shoulders of sufficier 13. The owner or operator of a tow car who com lies with th equirements with the normal movement of traf o this co p fast lanes to reach the bus stop. d�relating to tow cars may stop or park such tow car upo highway (f) Any person reporting a traf': for the,-liurpose of-rendering assistance to a disabled vehicle, except t such p person may not stop or park upon a freeway which has full control of acces d of an emergency lteleerson phone specific i 2-7102(c) Cont'd t is the requir a ope or t se ramps and are handraila also required? The length should be such that a level area is provided at the car door and t slope should not exceed 8.33% (I and 12). Side slopes are acceptable at one a eight. Handrails are not required. This typical ception allows an exception to the general regulations providing equiv ent facilitation is provided. However, an unreasonable hardship must be termined in order to use this exception. See 2-422(c) for the definition of eaaonable hardship. EXCEPTION NO. 2: Where the enforcing agency determines tna compliance with any regulation of this subsection would create a unreasonable hardship, variance or waiver may be granted, whe equivalent facilitation is rovided. EXCEPTION NO. 3: Park spaces may be provided which woul require a physically handic ed person to wheel or walk behin other than handicapped parks spaces when the enforcing agent determines that compliance with these regulations or providin equivalent facilitation would crew an unreasonable hardship. Se Section 2.-105(b)110. People with disabilities often can't move quickly, ople in wheelchairs are very difficult to see in parking lots, therefore, have this requirement. If this exception is to be granted, then it is requir that it receive concurrence of the local enforcing authorities Appeals rd. (d) SlopePa of Parking Space. Surface slopes of parks spaces 010 the physically handicapped shall be the minimum pos Me and shal not exceed 1/4 -in (6.35 mm) per foot (2.083% gradi t) in an direction. Cross slopes are very difficult for those using wheelchairs and often very dangerous for people using walkers or canes. (e) Identification. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified bY a pSrmanently affixed reflectorized constructed of porcelain on steel , beaded text, or ua e InternMURV Symbol o The sign shall not be smaller than 70-in s2 0.0452 mmi s2 ) in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80-in (2,032 mm) .from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered on the wall at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 36-in from he parking space finished rade, ground, or mm om t 9 (914.4 ) Pa 9 Pa sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted, in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17-in x 22-in (431.8 x 558.8 am) in size with lettering not less than 1-in (25.4 mm) in height, which clearly and conspicuously states the following: -153- 2-7102(e) Cont'd ' 'Unauthorized vehicles not displaying : distin uisnin placards or 9 9 license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed array at owner' s expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephoning In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification duplicating the symbol of accessibility in blue paint, at least 3 ft. sq_ (0.2787 ati s2 ) . What is considered equal to porcelain or steel with beaded test and what color of blue is correct? Painted metal signs are acceptable whether they are steep, aluminum, or whatever. Blue paint for the symbol of accessibility and curb markings should match color No. 15090 in the Federal Standard 595A as specified in Section 2-1720 of the regulations (similar to Royal Blue). Parking Structures. Entrances, to and vertical ciear%c within parking structures shall have a minimum vertical clearanc or ft 2-in (2.4384 m 50.3 mm) where required for accessibili t handicapped parking spaces. EXCEXION NO. 1: Where the enforcing agency determ' es tha complilA�ce with Section 2-7102(f) would create an reasonabl hardship��an exception may be granted, when equivalen facilitatio is provided Ay do I need to pride such high clearance you ask? any wheelchair users\dr',4ve sitting in their wheelchair This usually ecessitates an extremely ZZ van with a hydraulic Z '�t to accommodate the heeZchair user. Surveys do a during the public he ing process of these egulations produced evidence'`t at eight foot two 'n fact is not tall enough 4for some of these types of vans t accommodate 'a significant number of them. r orgy may I provide equivalent facili tion? Lcovered accessible space outside the king structure no farther from the cilities served than the main struct re ' considered equivalent fffacilitation; another alternative z 'to prov ' a all the disabled parking spaces on the first floor of the parking sir dot in this way only the first Zoor would have to complXInIt with fhe eight foot tt�o height requirement. these exceptions mean have to plan for accessible parking inside my rZrking structure. No! The application o4leither of these exemptions to th 8' 2" height requirement will not exempt you from providing accessible parking under the requirements of Section 2-7102(a). The provisions of the exceptions to structure height requirement,,yas never (intended to totally eliminate accessible spaces inside the structure. 11any i not most disabled drivers do not vans. In fact, the majority o, persons who must transfer to a tahee c air ive standard passenger card,, cars which can enter the conventional height parking structure. However, in order for these individuals to be able to park, space for Zoading and unloading adjacent to the auto aace is recluired. Minutes - Planning Commission - May 19, 1986_ Discussion ensued among the Commission concerning issues rel ed to this project including Amapoa's present road condition, d ain- 0 age improvements and the appropriateness of bonding or de erring t e road improvements at this time. Commission consensus was to urg the expeditious improvement of Amapoa. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Michielssen, seconded by Commis- ioner Bond and carried unanimously to a rove Tentative Pa cel Map 11-86 subject to the find ' gs and conditions cont ined in the staff report. 5. Tentative Par 1 Map 12-86 : Request submitte by Paul Washbu (North Coast Engineering) to allow creatio of four res' ential air-space condominums. Subject property is ocated 8615/8635 Amapoa, also known as Lot 35 of Block DC. Mr. DeCamp presented the s f report recommending conditional approval of the project. Paul Washburn, applic t, appeared a indicated his concurrence with the recommenda 'on. Commissioner Kid ell asked what procedures the Commission could follow to ad ess their concerns over Amap being paved at this time to the gineering Department. Mr . Engen oted that he would send a tra mittal to the Public Works Departmen conveying this request. MOTI Made by Commissioner Bond, seconded by Co issioner Kidwell and carried unanimously to approve Tent tive Par- cel Map 12-86 subject to the findings and conditi s con- tained in the staff report. 6. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 19-861 Request initiated by the City of Atascadero to consider zon- ing text changes relative to parking standards for multifam- ily residential projects and handicapped parking space signage. Mr. Engen presented the staff report summarizing the background involved with the initiation of this request. Chairman LaPrade felt that an excellent job had been done in prep- aration of the staff report adding that shortage of parking for multi-family projects has been a problem for the City for many years. Commissioner Bond felt that two spaces for each one-bedroom unit should be required. Commissioner Kidwell concurred. Mr. Engen added that although it is recommended for 1. 5 spaces for each one-bedroom unit, the required spaces have been increased for 5 Minutes - Planning Commission - May 19, 1986 _ two- and three-bedroom units which will provide a higher standard overall. Bill Davis, area resident, stated he has built apartment projects and noted that the number of units that are allowed on a lot is also determined by the number of parking spaces. Sometimes, a project will not be feasible if too many parking spaces are required. Debbie Kankiewicz, area resident, agreed that two spaces for one- bedroom units should be required. Commissioner Kidwell asked what would happen when the law is changed to prohibit on-street parking. Mr. Engen responded. Commissioner Michielssen agreed with the recommendation and felt that if the requirements are increased much more, it will make it more restrictive. He stated that it is not just the parking space being increased, but also the land involved with back-up space, landscaping space, etc. Chairman LaPrade added that it is the responsibility of the landlord or homeowners association to enforce the parking requirements. Further discussion ensued. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Michielssen, seconded by Commis- sioner Hatchell and carried unanimously to recommend ap- proval of Zone Change 19-86 as reflected in the staff report. C. LIC COMMENT There s no public comment at this time. D. INDIVIDUAL ACTIO AND/OR DETERMINATION 1. Planning Commiss ' n Commissioner Michielssen whed go on record to refute some comments made by City Counc ' candidate, Terrill Graham and pro- ceeded to briefly elaborate n ese comments. Commissioner Hatchell a ressed conc n that it would be helpful to have a represent ive from the Publ ' Works Department present at the Commission etings in order to an er engineering inquir- ies raised by e Commission. Mr . Engen r ponded that a trans- 40 mittal will be orwarded to the Department to t s effect. 6 s • ORDINANCE NO. 136 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT RELATIVE TO OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIRED FOR MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS AND SIGNAGE IDENTIFYING HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACES (CITY OF ATASCADERO: ZC 19-86) WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment proposes stand- ards consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is in conformance with Section 65800, et seq. , of the California Government Code concerning Zoning Regulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will not have a significant ad- verse effect upon the environment and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 19, 1986 and has recommended approval of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 19-86. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Council Findings. 1. The proposed zoning text amendment would be in compliance with the City of Atascadero' s General Plan. 2. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the Negative Declaration granted the project by the Community Development Director is appropriate. Section 2. Zoning Text Change. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 19-86 is approved to change the text of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: 1. Section 9-4.115 Off-Street Parking Required (c) Handicapped Parking, Subsection (4) is approved to read as follows: (4) Handicapped spaces shall be designated by painting blue striping or markings including the International Symbol of Accessibility, which shall be at least three by three feet in size, on the surface of the stall. Placement of a 70 square inch sign, with the International Symbol of Accessibility (which may include the towaway provision) may be required in a visible location centered at the front of the space or at entraces to the parking lot in order to properly identify the spaces location or to in- form of the existence of handicapped parking space (s) . 2. Section 9-4.118, Required Number of Parking Spaces, (c) (5) Residential Uses, Multi-Family Dwellings is approved to read as follows: Parking _ Loading Parking Spaces Lot Bay Use Required Turnover Intens. Multi-Family dwellings Residential Low N.A. (including condomin- Parking: iums and other at- tached ownership 1 b.r. unit-1. 5 spaces dwellings) 2 b.r. unit-2.0 spaces each additional bed- room -0.5 space Guest Parking: 1 space per 5 units, or fraction thereof Section 3. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause tis ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance, and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and ef- fect at 12: 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. The foregoing ordinance was introduced on and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA BY: ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: t MICHAEL HELTON, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director ZZ -�Z?-/Z-�L� • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council June 9, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director AYL SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 7-86 LOCATION: 6625- Santa Cruz Road APPLICANT: Elwood Garlick, et al (Daniel J. Stewart) REQUEST: Subdivision of one parcel containing. 5.03 acres into two parcels of 2. 53 and 2. 50 acres each. BACKGROUND: On May 5, 1986 , the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above-referenced subject, unanimously denying the application based on the findings contained in the staff report. There was con- siderable testimony and discussion by the Commission concerning this application as referenced in the attached minutes excerpt. On May 19, 1986 , the applicants appealed the Planning Commission' s decision to deny the request. It should be noted that although the applicants have submitted a percolation test which would reduce the minimum lot size to 3.0 acres, the proposed lots are still smaller than required by the zoning ordinance. RECOMMENDATION - Planning Commission and Staff: Recommend denial of the tentative parcel map due to the proposed lot sizes not being in conformance with the City' s minimum lot size stand- ards, with staff directed to review this area in the future with re- spect to appropriate lot sizes. PS:ps ATTACHMENTS: Letter of appeal dated May 19, 1986 Planning Commission staff report - May 5, 1986 Planning Commission minutes excerpt - May 5,1986 cc: Elwood Garlick, et al • Dan Stewart i' ', t • City of Atascadero Item: B-2 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 5/5/86 BY: Steven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: TPM 7-86 Project Address: 6625 Santa Cruz Road SUBJECT: Subdivision of one parcel containing 5 .03 acres into two parcels of 2.53 and 2.50 acres each. BACKGROUND: Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on April 25, 1986. All property owners of record located within 300 feet of the site were also notified on that date. A. LOCATION: 6625 Santa Cruz Road (Lot 19, Block 48) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To subdivide a 5 .03 acre parcel into two parcels of 2. 53 and 2. 50 acres each. 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Elwood Garlick 3. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Daniel J. Stewart 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . 03 acres 5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Santa Cruz is an unpaved, pri- vate road. 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban) 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Single family dwelling 8. Adjacent Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . .North: RS South: RS East: RS West: RS 9. General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Single Family 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Steep 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted March 21, 1986 I Tentative Parcel Map 7-86 (Garlick/Stewart) C. ANALYSIS: 0 The property proposed for subdivision is located in the RS (Resi- dential Suburban) zone. Minimum lot size in this zone ranges be- tween 2.5 and 10. 0 acres depending upon the "score" of various performance standards. For this site, the minimum lot size cri- teria are: Distance from center (14,000-16,0001 ) 0.50 Septic suitability (severe) 1. 50 Average slope (11-20%) 0.75 Condition of access (all-weather) 0.75 General neighborhood character (2. 56 acres) 0.51 Minimum Lot Size: 4.01 acres The lot sizes proposed (2.53 acres and 2. 50 acres) are smaller than the minimum allowed by the zoning ordinance. The applicant' s engineer was notified on March 24, 1986 that the proposed lot sizes were not in conformance with the City' s mini- mum lot size standards. The applicant was further notified of this fact on April 7 , 1986 and was given the opportunity to with- draw the application. The applicant informed staff on April 9, 1986 that the application would not be withdrawn. D. RECOMMENDATION: 0 Staff recommends disapproval of Tentative Parcel Map 7-86 based on the findings contained in Exhibit A. SLD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings for Disapproval Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C - Proposed Parcel Map 2 Tentative Parcel Map 7-86 (Garlick/s tewart) EXHIBIT A - Tentative Parcel Map 7-86 Findings for Disapproval May 5, 1986 FINDINGS: 1. The proposed map is not consistent with the applicable general plan. 2. The creation of these parcels would not conform to the provisions of the zoning ordinance. 3. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 3 EX441 i F &(o ZS -.,�AN7A e 2UZ (ZZO r co T _ A ✓ V� N 10� . (n N��✓ F ./ �O� �� N N ✓� /004 _ 0 !+ 0? o� p� m 1V !l N ,A r' i fJ N f k 01 tv 04 cu / M �^^" o� 46 j-- � ° Ctn� a Tn M A� c0 'o I t�-X41f3IT G •-. S.4iyj� �� w yh ;� oaw PKoPo �v PARe-6i— IV-AF rm 5- 86 lb tt Ab i� p �� q \! r' ♦ .6 g c • a .cb , 3/ 5 • • v S a r, as g 2 g`o tb Q1 to E� aa %SO d � o -rj :lb r +� I MAy _S Aim 1105 RECEIVEDMAY 1 1986 To: Members of the Atascadero Planning Commission and Atascadero City Council Submitted by joint tenants in common: Elwood Garlick- age 69, State of California Employee-retired 15 years a resident of the central coast. Irene Garlick- age 66, Airport Auto Center Office Manager-retired 15 years a resident of the central coast. Mike Kirkpatrick- age 30., born in Atascadero, fourth generation central coast resident, graduate of Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, father of two. Jody Kirkpatrick- age 28, Homemaker, Bookkeeper, mother of two Ryan-4 yrs. and David-4 mo. Subject: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP // / p 6625 Santa Cruz (Lot 19, Block 48) The vo5 1 The property (Lot 19, Block 48) in Atascadero, which consists of 5.03 acres of gently rolling hills spotted with oak trees, was purchased in June, 1981. The lot was a joint purchase made by myself, my wife Jody, and her parents, Elwood and Irene Garlick. Because an investment of this magnitude represents one of the largest single purchases made in ones lifetime, we prudently researched the current ordinances governing the usage of the land, and determined it to be perfectly suitable to our future plans. Since Elwood and Irene were approaching retirement. and looking for a location for their retirement home, and my wife and I were seeking a home to raise our family, our intention was to build two homes on our lot. To this day, that is our singular goal . A BRIEF HISTORY (see support materials package for details) A. Lot purchase complete 6719-81 B. Application for lot split complete and recieved 3-31-82 C. Approval of parcel map by City Council on 6-14-82, subject to 18 conditions listed in Staff Report dated 6-7-82 i D. Road exception request 1-24-83 E. Road exception request denied 4-3-83 F. Time extension request filed 6-25-84 G. Time extension request denied because of zoning ordinnace change 9-6-84 H. Appeal of denial of time extension request 9-26-84 I. Denial of appeal 10-26-84 J. During 1984-1985 property improvements include: 1. grading of Santa Cruz Road, and improvement to all-weather status. 2. grading and paving of access road 3. construction of 1200 sq. ft. , two bedroom home and seperate two car garage 4. utilities brought in: water, electricity, telephone, and cable TV 5. grading of second home site, and access road K. Application for tentative parcel map .3-21-86 L. Letter from Steven DeCamp indicating the Planning Commissions intention to recommend denial of application based on a recent ordinance change (20% factor in lot split criteria calculations) OUR CASE At the present time the Garlick/Kirkpatrick family have. invested well in excess of $25,000.00 in improvements to the property. This does not include the cost of the property or the cost of the existing home. This is the only real estate that we own and it represents the entire life savings of our combined families. Discussions with neighbors that border our property have found them to be wholly supportive of our plans and they have pledged their assistance in this matter. Of the fifteen parcels surrounding our parcel , we possess the most acreage. Six of these lots are less than 2.0 acres and all are complete with homes except one. The Flaharty property, bordering us on the west side, currently has two seperate single family dwellings built on it. This is what we are seeking to do. The De Welt property, bordering us on the east side, has recently undergone a lot line adjustment resulting in a 2.5 acre lot and a newly constructed home.. Jim De Welt maintains that our improvement to Santa Cruz Road aided him in his efforts to develope his land and he also pledges his complete support of our plans. A large parcel on Santa Cruz Road east of Garcia Road has recently been split into nine 2.5 acre parcels and is now being developed. Granting our request will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. In fact, as far as traffic is concerned, our entire family (4 adults & 2 children) now lives in the existing house and therefore there will be no additional load to the traffic system. All grading on our project has been kept to a minimum. All necessary roads and grading have been completed on our parcel and without the cost of removing a single tree. A contract now exists with Palomar Associates, a local home builder, to constuct a second dwelling on our lot. A complete set of home plans can be obtained upon request. CONCLUSION The extensive improvements and expenditures we have made show our level of commitment to the land. We have at one time obtained approval of our plans to divide the property, and have been the victim of two changes in city ordinances. We believe that there are special circumstances affecting this property. We also believe that some resolution to our problem is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. The proposed development is consistent with the areas existing development. In fact, during the past five years many others in our area have succeeded in doing precisely what we are requesting to do. At the Planning Commission meeting on May 5, 1986 we would like to obtain some type of resolution to our problem. We would appreciate one of the following solutions : 1. Recommendation of the Tentative Parcel Map to the City Council 2. Acceptance of a provision allowing a seperate additional single family dwelling 3. Suggestions from the Planning Commission as to how we may realize our plans. In concluding, we believe that a variance may be in order here, and we are prepared to accept the decision of a jury of our peers. We request that you consider Californias commitment to allow the construction of second dwellings for retired family members. At stake is the wellbeing of our entire family, and we fully intend to pursue this issue to the limit of the law. We made a prudent decision to purchase our land based on previous zoning and our intentions have never changed. It' has never been our intention to profit by the split of our lot, and we ask only that you correct the injustice that exists and recognize our basic rights. It is our opinion that our family has been a positive addition to this community and we would appreciate a timely solution to this problem. Sincerely, Elwood Garlick 56��(�Z.� Irene Garlick ` Michael Kirkpatrick Jody Kirkpatrick "'� i Minutes - Planning Commission - May 5 , 1986 here was continued discussion concerning various options ail- ! ab with the site plan with regard to the parking. Engen adde that the redesign would provide for 37 spaces. e motion was defeated with a roll call to as follows: AYES: Commissioners Hatchell and Mi ielssen NOES: Com ' ssioners Kidwell, K nedy, Nolan and Acting Chairm Bond MOTION: Made by Commission Mi c ielssen and seconded by Com- missioner Nolan to a w for a redesign of 37 spaces with as deep a rear yar as ssible, based on Exhibit A. Commissioner Kidwell a ressed concer with less than 40 spaces. The moti carried with a roll ca as follows: AYE Commissioners Michielssen, Nola Hatchell and Acting Chairman Bond NOES: Commissioners Kennedy and Kidwell ting Chairman Bond commended Mr . Befumo and Mr. Azerkan o their efforts in trying to reach a compromise in this matter . 2. Tentative Parcel Map 7-86 : Request submitted by Elwood Garlick (Daniel J. Stewart) to allow the division of 5.03 acres into two parcels of 2. 53 and 2. 50 acres each. Subject property is located at 6625 Santa Cruz Road, also known as Lot 19 of Block 48. Mr . DeCamp presented the staff report on this matter summarizing the lengthy history involved with this lot split, and noted staff' s recommendation for denial of the "request based on the proposed lot sizes being smaller than the minimum allowed by the zoning ordinance. Mr. DeCamp also pointed out that the applicant had submitted percolation tests which would affect the septic suitability rating factor , but would only bring the proposed minimum lot size to 3. 0 acres, which is larger than proposed. Mr. DeCamp noted that the septic suitability factor listed in the staff report as 1. 50 should be changed to 0. 50. Commissioner Nolan asked about the lot line adjustment on property adjacent to the subject property, to which Mr. DeCamp explained this adjustment took place when the zoning ordinance had provision for the 20% lot size reduction factor. In response to question from Commissioner Hatchell, Mr . DeCamp noted that there were some additional lot splits in the general area, but pointed out that this was not the basis for determining the average lot size in the surrounding areas. That was taken 3 Minutes - Planning Commission - May 5 , 1986 from the most recent Assessors parcel maps and from the Depart- ment' s most recent files. Acting Chairman Bond asked about the grading which has taken place on the subject site. Mr. DeCamp pointed out that the grading had taken place without a grading permit. There was discussion and clarification given concerning the delays involved for the recording of the tentative map. It was pointed out that at this time, there is no flexibility given that the City Attorney could find within the codes or ordinances to allow for approval of the map. Acting Chairman Bond asked if a guest house would be feasible for the site, to which Mr. DeCamp replied that this could be allowed provided the unit not have a kitchen. Discussion ensued. There was also discussion concerning any options that may be available regarding this particular situation. Mr. Engen added that the Council has endorsed the concept of bringing to public hearing a zoning map that would "pin" a number on all of the lots within the City and does not force everybody to go through the tedious process of measuring, etc. Discussion continued to this regard. Mike Kirkpatrick, one of the applicants, restated the facts in- volved with the purchase of this property back in 1981, and pro- ceeded to explain the difficulties involved in trying to comply with the 18 conditions which were part of the initial lot split approval they received in 1982. Mr . Kirkpatrick further stated he was not aware of the elimination of the 20% lot size reduction and pointed out that $25,000 has been invested in improvements to the property. He further stated that he has a group of signatures from adjacent property owners supporting this lot split, and did not think the lot split would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Dan Stewart, engineer for the applicants, stated he had prepared a map of the area which showed approximately 50 parcels within 1500 feet of the subject site which are 2 1/2 acres or less, and showed the Commission this map. He felt that the applicants are victims of the ordinance changes, and cited the vesting map and explained how this occurred. He also added that he has done this type of work for over 20 years and has never encountered this type of problem. Commissioner Hatchell asked how the average slope is broken down in the category rating, to which Mr . DeCamp responded. Commissioner Kennedy felt that since this is such an unusual situ- ation, would there be any way the City Attorney could again review this matter to see if there is some way this application could be approved, and felt that there should be some kind of exception. Mr . DeCamp explained that the City Attorney had reviewed the back- ground involved and still could not find any kind of an exemption. 4 4 Minutes - Planning mmission - May, 5 , 1986 Acting Chairman Bond asked if there was a possiblity of adding a second unit without kitchen facilities, to which Mr . DeCamp re= sponded that only one meter to both units would be allowed. There was continued discussion concerning the appropriateness of a variance, the possiblity of a zone change for the property, as well as whether or not the old parcel map could be retroactively applied. Commissioner Kennedy wished to go on record to reflect her feeling that this lot split is appropriate. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Hatchell, seconded by Commissioner Kennedy and carried unanimously to deny Tentative Parcel Map 7-86 without prejudice, along with a recommendation to the City Council that this area be looked at as a study area with respect to appropriate lot sizes. C: PUBLIC COMMENT: Th re was no public comment at this time. D. INDIVID ACTION AND/OR DETERMINATION 1. Planni Commission Commissioner Mi ielssen asked some questi s concerning precise plans. There was discussion concerning a status of the proposed Kmart store. 2. Community Develop nt Director Mr. Engen reported on the ' st general plan studies which is expanding and spoke about t budget request of $50 ,000 for a lst phase general plan evaluatio He explained that two students from Cal Poly are propose to e utilized initially for the project. Mr . Engen also provi d an update on e 10 , 000 square foot lot issue. Meeting adjourn at 9 :06 p.m. MINUTES RECO ED BY: PATRICIA SHEPPHARD Administrative Secretary I MIN ES APPROVED BY. HENRY ENGEN Community Development Director 5 \ l A Ct�'*ING litt�7 �.. • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council June 9 , 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Zone Change 3-85 LOCATION: 8555 El Corte (Lots 1-10 , Block 1, Eaglet 2) APPLICANT ACOMA Corporation (Bill Poe) REQUEST: To revise the zoning map from RSF-Z (Resi- dential Single Family) to RMF-4(PD) (Resi- dential Multiple Family, 4 units per acre, with a planned development overlay) . BACKGROUND: • On May 27, 1986 , a public hearing was conducted on the above-referenced subject, unanimously approving the request as referenced in Ordinance No. 133 . At that time, a first reading took place. RECOMMENDATION: Second reading of Ordinance No. 133 and formal adoption of the zone change. PS:ps i Section 3. Zoning Text Change. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 3-85 is approved to change the text of the Zoning Ordinance to read as follows: 1. Section 9-3.650 is added to the Planned Development Overlay Zones to read as follows: 9-3.650. Establishment of Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 6 (PD6) . The Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 6 is established as shown on the official zoning maps (Sec- tion 9-1.102) . The following development standards are established: a) Approval of a conditional use permit reflecting a master plan of development for a residential development and related uses shall be required prior to approving a grading permit, or tentative parcel or tract map. The master plan of development shall be applied for and pro- cessed as a conditional use permit (Section 9-2.109) . b) In approving a master plan of development, the level of processing for subsequent projects or phases may be re- duced to a plot plan provided that the master plan con- tains sufficient detail to support such a determination. c) No subsequent plot plan, precise plan, conditional use permit, or tentative parcel or tract map shall be ap- proved unless found to be consistent with the approved master plan of development. Any amendment to a master plan of development, including conditions thereof, shall be accomplished as set forth in Subsection (a) of this Section. d) Building height shall be limited to thirty (30) feet (not to exceed two stories) . e) An open space easement shall be provided for those areas above the 960 foot contour line as shown on the 1965 Atascadero, California USGS Quadrangle (15 minute series) . f) No portion of any structure, excepted as provided in Section 9-4.113 of the Zoning Ordinance, shall be exten- ded above the 960 foot contour line as shown on the 1965 Atascadero, California USGS Quadrangle (15 minutes series) . g) A master plan of development prepared pursuant to this Section shall include a traffic analysis and circulation study, including analysis of ingress and egress to the area originating/terminating at El Camino Real. h) No development shall occur prior to the extension of sewer service to each lot, parcel, or building site pro- posed for development. i) The developer or applicant for development entitlement shall contribute a fair share of the cost of required off-site drainage, sewage, and circulation improvements as identified in the master plan of development and as required by the City Engineer. Section 4. 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 5. 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 BY: ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVE Aj TO CONTENT: RICH SHELTON, City Manager I ORDINANCE N 133 EXL41FbI( /l ZONE CHARGE- 3 Zona, G�a"y 3-SS AGOMA GorPova�tol1 95-5-s C C Go✓ L��3 t-io Bi��:� t �g (� z ♦b : eisu.• � � ,'f ani. .�•, � 400 lei aL • qe/ Ai V , P J• i •1 a •, ;. �• err: �� rl - • ,•�b•' •,,.' 'w w'1'� �. Rs r -� �(Z�.s adwnk►a.,l -St l r •,;, a/y .y ,�• t / �•, �' ra wl 1 I M li Ll c u w\ .CS ♦off° .spv �� ,, : .+. To ,• �� •'p• G s ' •,� • �� •'ei ;+'' ,4�' 1.:1_ Nlu�'T1�I�4 FA �y - four .�„ 44,0 {, i�nrrn !�• -1 rae�� • .;�4� �:�. ,., � •,,� t .`�vi. •+�C'w s � T1s V N 1`r'S Pte!• �-c:r� — �e� r ' i:r. • `ye •4f `,•�: i.VkVC�I.� .I��t,%,aiIT :gin° ,•,: �• ♦,e o•e te� • _ A i ♦ iCJr I .P• :z''� may' J•.•..s 4• .."qtr S'•4d' V7 1 }a•�. \G� 1�• t'Z _� �• Vin• �• y. J ;.-'1 4 6-" �'r' r ' yy�� o ••�•s g •^�`R�'�1r ' • N4 A2�B.ti1 �••. � a• a 6•. 2. �:4 f. rr , + Irk C` ,;•'b%. •'+•w �f C>t.0 _ • N` r ��.' C07FS77,lb av .,4 23: A� �0's , le •"�X26`r �I! SII s to • \ )' / 4y 9F ✓ " a x e 11�,J s I Y 6�s � ' • �„ �+ M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council May 27, 1986 y' VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager�4 FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 4W. SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 1C-85 and Zone Change 3-85 LOCATION: 8555 E1 Corte APPLICANT: ACOMA Corporation (Bill Poe) REQUEST: To revise the existing General Plan land use map from Low Density Single Family to Low Density Multiple Family and the zoning map from RSF-Z (Residential Single Family) to RMF-4 (PD) (Residential Multiple Family, 4 units per acre, with a planned development overlay) . BACKGROUND: • This matter was heard by the Planning Commission at their meeting of March 31, 1986. There was public testimony and discussion by the Com- mission concerning this matter as referenced in the attached minutes excerpt. RECOMMENDATION - Planning Commission and Staff: On a 6:0 vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendments to the general plan text and zoning ordinance text, as but- lined in attached Resolution No. 47-86 and Ordinance No. 135, respec- tively. The planned development zoning requires that a master plan of development be approved by the Planning Commission through a condi- tional use permit process. A traffic study would be required together with contributions to mitigate off-site drainage, sewage, and circula- tion impacts. /Ps ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Staff Report - March 31, 1986 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt - March 31, 1986 Resolution No. 47-86 Ordinance No. 133 • City of Atascadero Item: B-4 • STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 3/31/86 BY: Steven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: GP 1C-85 and ZC 3-85 Project Address: 8555 E1 Corte SUBJECT: Request to revise the existing General Plan land use map and zoning map from Low Density Single Family (RSF-Z) to Low Density Multiple Family (RMF-4) with a Planned Development (PD) overlay. BACKGROUND: The applicants are requesting an amendment to both the general plan land use map and the zoning ordinance text and map from low density single family to low density multiple family with a planned develop- ment overlay. This proposal was continued from the last general plan amendment cycle at the applicant' s request. Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Fri- day, March 21, 1986 and all property owners of record located within 300 feet of the subject property were notified on - that March 20, 1986. A. LOCATION: 8555 El Corte (Lots 1-10 , Block 1, Eaglet No. 2) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .General plan and zoning ordi- nance from Low Density Single Family to Low Density Multiple Family designation. 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ACOMA Corporation 3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 acres 4. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E1 Corte is a paved (18-20 feet) City-maintained street 5. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Z (Residential Single Family 1. 5 - 2. 5 acre minimum lot size) 6. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Partially vacant/warehouse (former Mushroom Farm) • General Plan Amendment 1C-85/Zone Change 3-85 (ACOMA/Poe) 7. Adjacent Zoning and Use to. . .North: RSF-Y • Entire Study Area South: Golf course (San Luis County) East: Golf course (SLO County) West: RSF-Y 8. General Plan Designation. . . . .Low Density Single Family 9. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Flat at the lower elevations to steep at higher elevations 10. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. ANALYSIS: The minimum lot size in the RSF-Z zoning district is 1.5 to 2. 5 acres depending upon the site' s "score" based on various perfor- mance standards. This zone does not envision the availability of sanitary sewer service. The proposal for low density multiple family zoning would more than quadruple allowed densities in the area. There are, however, factors that tend to mitigate the ef- fects of this increased level of density. Surrounding Uses: The property to the south and to the east of the subject parcels • is the Chalk Mountain Golf Course. This large expanse of open space will lessen the impact of higher densities on the adjacent parcels by maintaining low overall area densities. The parcels to the west of the subject site have been recommended by the Planning Commission for redesignation to RSF-W (10,000 square foot lots) . Although the RSF-W zone is for single family lots, the applicant' s proposed RMF-4 zoning designation would result in similar overall densities (4 units/acre) . The property would not, therefore, be an island of higher density surrounded by low density uses. Site Design: The applicant is proposing a planned residential development em- bodying significant areas of open space. The applicant has pro- posed, and an open space easement will assure, that the upper por- tion of the slopes on the site will remain open. Building heights and location on the site will be controlled to the same end. Each of these considerations will lessen the visual impacts. Public Services: Sanitary sewer service is currently available to only one of the parcels proposed for redesignation. the entire site .is, however, within the Urban Service Line and could be annexed to the sewer district. Because of the terrain on and surrounding the site, and the number of dwelling units possible, the developer will be re- quired to provide off-site sewer system improvements. These im- provements will be designed as part of the master plan of develop- ment for the site. 2 r i General Plan Amendment 1C-85/Zone Change 3-85 (ACOMA/Poe) Access to the site from E1 Camino Real via La Linia Avenue, Cas- cada Road and/or Arcade Road is of concern to staff. Each of these roads is paved but narrow. Traffic flows are currently light and adequate capacity exits for some additional development. The cumulative impact of this project and others approved in sur- rounding areas must be considered, however . The recommended re- designation of adjacent areas for 10,000 square foot lots could result in an excess of eighty-five (85) new lots. Not all of these potential new lots would impact the roads mentioned here, but when added to the seventy-two (72) dwelling units proposed by the applicant in the RMF-4 zone, impacts could be of concern. This issue could be addressed by requiring a master plan of devel- opment with appropriate offsite improvement requirements identi- fied and imposed. These may include, but not be limited to, street, drainage, and sewer system improvements. A related issue to that discussed above is the question of access from this site and surrounding areas onto E1 Camino Real. Traffic generated by build-out of the area between El Camino Real and the golf course could trigger the need for a traffic signal at one of the side streets and E1 Camino Real. This site ' s contribution to future traffic loads will be identified in a circulation proposed to be completed as part of the master plan of development prior to building permit applications. Appropriate fees will be levied prior to the eventual issuance of building permits. • A redesignation of the affected property to low density multiple family would allow for development that appears to be appropriate for the site. The preparation of a master plan of development will provide an opportunity to assure design which is suitable for the neighborhood and which assures that the development contrib- utes its fair share to necessary neighborhood improvements. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of General Plan Amendment 1C-85 and Zone Change 3-85 based on the findings contained in Exhibits E and F. SLD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Existing General Plan Map Exhibit C - Existing Zoning Man Exhibit D - Site Plan Exhibit E - Draft Resolution Exhibit F - Draft Ordinance Exhibit G - Supplemental Statement 3 ..,WE�r'r I rt ���I��'�'�'� � ,� '�.II IIIA il�/��-1/rJ�•:;\. wo M. fill wl .tea .0 RR�„11� S viii',h11 ��•- ( �\���/ =�—�—Ci X111•♦ ��' �j.:'.V��►ry���{=- �\ 'moi ��j•. � . IJP _ _t�, s . rf ftij �� •� �, IS /f� \ 1 0 10 MA -RA" lk - St o ♦ /�' .1 �► ��• ,� fir® �® o� 1111►�, "� !1► �►iii���a ��I/IIte11� 1— wr it of-• �� ' �.� fit y 1 EXHIBIT C :•' EXISTING ZONING MAP Jam. Jy,.' �• . a is �• � / ami'.- -•••-h '>? y - i °y � . ._ or ,,, �: -'' +pia 'd ,s� '• ,,,.z ` G\ 1,•+ O �c. Y J grY � *� SITE ZC 3-85 ♦P`.°\• '• isr A1C r,r •' �`�` ��� n �: 8555 EL CORTE W •` r�Y'•.:r" r�`' " r.�""`�' �-Z� �5:.'rt= :..a a c. •�e4 a �� � .t�, .=f. .sy:r •'•fid ' e is�• �.^ -S '�,• ,o'♦• o' '_,.y7 '',.ray`!. aySJ ,,,,, gip° .. _ �vT• ,� Wt`y3'•. � 5 -�-4E2�s� S• 1 •A�^„ '„�`�` ,. �. • Y� naw .3\.'11�r �e,n 1 •3. °+ �, - '• , i¢ - /.. tls�t `1 b"`e �1 3, ' . •:fie%� rd.•'� ,' � _�,� 3♦ t� •neo r xms S+s _ 31 4,4 1G �a 1'\� �,• t>t.o} n�im 7X3J7pu to ' -Is �AS 30 :tom C,• I ' �� > 3 .. �: +,S ►. '+. 00. to \ ,d. .✓. s►�V 5 •,•• �` s/� � '�e•:�.r•t may. t �J ; ,7 . - ,..Kr I.S. °� ��•• ,r PY° 1 1 Ilk � • �t � �__ _-_, _- _ 'fir/�� pp �a / • /' +.i - J ^ Fir Y Q1f-1 JY, 1 7 Exhibit G 1 General Plan Amendment and Zone Change RSY-Z to RSY POD 4 8555 E1 Corte Road • Adult Plan Unit Development: The idea of this project is to provide an alternative environment for active adults. Designed by Barry Berkus AIA, founder and president of Berkus Group Architects, a national firm of architects and planners with headquarters in Santa Barbara, Newport Beach, and Washington D.C. Lifestyle is the key word for this planned unit development,,-a retiree who doesn't feel like retiring. The idea for this project was taken from his Leisure Village Ocean Hills, the 1985 Gold Nugget Award of Merit for the best low density development. The site plan was cautiously laid out to take advantage-of the views of -Chalk Mountain Golf Course and the distant Santa Lucia Range, yet it doesn't impose on the hillside. Using open space and a height limitation (approximately 960') means almost 65% of this development will be landscaped, common area or open space. • With the abandonment of La Linia and a stucco wall along E1 Corte, the development creates its own environment within. One entrance and cart access to the golf course helps to accentuate this. This is the same effect Berkus created with Leisure Village. The Spanish style stucco and tile roofs make one think of a small Mediterranean hillside village. This project will be a compliment to the neighborhood and a welcome addition to one of Atascadero's most beautiful assets, Chalk Mountain Golf Course. THIS PROJECT IS PRESENTED BY ACOMA CORPORATION Bill Poe • President Minutes - Planning Commissiohz-rr= _Mash 31, 1986 • n d for nursing homes and explained the procedures in app ing to he State Office of Health, Planning, and Developmen which contr the amount of certificates which will be issu She explain d an application she has submitted to the Cit and would hope that each nursing home could be judged on its ow merits and compatibili with the neighborhood. She furthe explained the difficulties he would encounter with the update language pro- posed. Mr. En n elaborated on this. There was discuss* concerning institution ized uses and the appropriate locatio s for these. It was oted that this section should be looked at f future long-rang nursing requests. Mrs. Young felt that if t ' smore re ricted wording is adopted and another project is su fitted or senior citizen housing, how can one refer back to the nu i home section and justify a different recommendation sin c this specifically says "nursing homes. " Mr . Engen felt that a ."pe sons-per-a e" language is a good way of establishing impact on a land for sp ial kinds of uses which would include nursing omes. Further di cussion ensued. Mr. Engen suggested hat in the last sente ce of the "Nursing Homes" section, t t reference to "single fa ily" be deleted from the proposed la uage in the last sentence. MOTION: Ma by Chairman LaPrade, seconded by Co issioner Bond d carried unanimously with a roll 11 vote to recommend approval of General Plan Amendme t 1M-86 with the suggested amendment to the section on nu ing homes and institutional uses. airman Laprade called a recess at 9:01 p.m. Meeting reco vened at 9: 11 p.m. 4. General Plan Amendment 1C-85 and Zone Change 3-85 : Request initiated by ACOMA Corporation (Bill Poe, represen- tative) to revise the existing General Plan land use map and zoning map from Low Density Single Family (RSF-Z) to Low Den- sity Multiple Family (RMF-4) with a Planned Development (PD) overlay. Subject property is located at 8555 El Corte, also known as Lots 1-10 , Block 1, Eaglet No. 2. Mr. DeCamp presented the staff report and noted a copy of the pro- ject' s site plan and elevations which was distributed to the Com- mission, and proceeded to summarize the background involved with this application, which had been continued from the previous gen- eral plan cycle at the applicant ' s request. Items addressed in- cluded surrounding uses, site design, and public services. It was also pointed out that a significant portion of the site would remain in open space, and the proposed master plan of development was explained. 5 Minutes - Planning Commission- _March 31, 1986 Commissioner Bond asked for clarification on how access would be . provided for the project. Bill Poe, applicant, thanked staff for the recommendation on this project, and spoke in support of approval. He stated he was aware of the restrictions that will be imposed during the development process. With regard to Solano Road, Mr . Poe stated it was his understanding that the abandonment of Solano would hinge on the improvement of La Linia between the Peterson property (on El Dor- ado) and DeCou Lumber and noted that it was not really a closing of an access for his project to E1 Camino Real. Bill Remple, 8475 E1 Dorado, expressed his opposition to the pro- posed project because of the large scale and the poor roadways leading to the site. Mr. Remple cited the previous Commission recommendations for approval of the Peterson and Lindsey general plan and zone change amendments which would result in large pro- jects as well, and felt that all three of these are to be devel- oped, a very large impact will result on the neighborhood. He felt that if the density is going to be changed, then the neigh- borhood aspects should be upgraded along with the increased density. William Anderson, Palomar resident, stated his residence adjoins the back of the subject site, and felt that this proposal along with the Lindsey and Peterson proposals are in opposition to the rural nature as set forth in the general plan. Mr. Poe pointed out that this particular application was submitted well over a year ago, and before the other two proposals were applied for . Barbara Reiter noted she likes the idea of planned unit develop- ments but does not agree with the proposed density. She felt that the City does not need to rezone any more property from single family to multiple family. Chairman LaPrade clarified the reasoning for the proposed RMF-4 zoning. Commissioner Bond stated he had viewed the site and had discovered that no oak trees were proposed for removal during the development of the site. Mr. Poe showed an overhead exhibit of the proposed development and proceeded to explain the phasing of the project, and explained the purpose that the planned unit development would serve. Commissioner Hatchell noted staff has done a good job in analyzing the needs of the neighborhood and addressed some general comments about the project. • 6C Minutes - Planning Commissioh-__;--_March 31, 1986 Chairman LaPrade commented on the planned unit development concept and felt the project has merit and will be an asset to the community. Commissioner Michielssen talked about the improvements that will be required in order to mitigate traffic problems in the area. In response to question from Commissioner Michielssen, Mr . DeCamp responded to questions concerning the types of conditions which will be placed on the development of the project. There was some discussion concerning the site's existing use. Commissioner Michielssen inquired about Lots 1 and 2 which adjoin the subject property and asked if these lots would be added to the project. Mr. DeCamp noted that eventual development of the lots should occur, following public hearing, under the same master plan of development for the entire site and stated the applicant has been in contact with the owners of those properties with the po- tential of purchasing them to add to the rest of the project. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond, seconded by Commissioner Nolan and carried unanimously with a roll call vote to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 1C-85 and Zone Change 3-85 as recommended in the staff report. C. PUBLI COMMENT There was public comment at this time. D. INDIVIDUAL ACTIO_ D OR DETERMINATION 1. Planning Commissi n Commissioner Bond pointed - t that Ata adero Ford is again park- ing their display cars alo the s pe to the rear of their site which was supposed to be for la ds ping only. Mr . Moses respon- ded that several inquiries hav een received to this regard and that staff is working with the gen to correct this problem. Commissioner Bond also com nted on a noise generated from the loud speakers and asked if nything has een . done to alleviate this. Mr. Moses expl ned that the zon g ordinance contains a standard with regard t noise set per decibe er a time period during the day. Ho ever , the City does not ha at this time, a decibel meter . a. Considera ion of City-wide study of multi-family oning and possib redesignation to single family residential ith den- sity anges from 4-8 parcels per acre (Michielssen) Mr . E en addressed the joint City Council/Planning Commiss ' n 7 i M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council June 9 , 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Zone Change 12-86 LOCATION: City-Wide APPLICANT: City of Atascadero REQUEST: To revise the zoning ordinance text to allow for a reduction in the. size of existing sub- standard lots as a result of lot line adjustments . BACKGROUND: • � On May 27 , 1986•, a public hearing was conducted on the above-referenced subject, approving the request as ref- erenced in Ordinance No. 134. At that time, a first reading took place. RECOMMENDATION: Second reading of Ordinance No, 134 and formal adoption of the zone change. PS :ps • n and geographical use problems and to facilitate the reloca- tion of existing utilities, infrastructure or easements. Under no circumstances shall lots conforming to minimum lot sizes be reduced in size to a nonconforming status. 2. Section 9-7.116 (Procedures for Lot Line Adjustments) is added to read: 9-7.116. Procedures for Lot Line Adjustments: Application for a lot line adjustment affecting a nonconforming lot(s) shall be in a form approved by the Community Development Dir- ector. Procedures for Planning commision consideration and action on such lot line adjustments shall be as provided for variances in Section 9-1.113 of this part. Section 2. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and ef- fect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. The foregoing ordinance was introduced on and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By: ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager i APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney PREPARED BY: '-- HENRY EN EN, Co munity Development Director M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council May 26, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager vl , FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director U SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 1K-86 and Zone Change 12-86 LOCATION: City-Wide APPLICANT: City of Atascadero REQUEST: To revise the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance texts to allow for a reduction in the size of existing substandard lots as a result of lot line adjustments. BACKGROUND: On March 3, 1986, March 31, 1986 and April 7, 1986, public hearings were conducted by the Planning Commission on this matter . There was public testimony and discussion by the Commission concerning this mat- ter as referenced in the attached minutes excerpt. RECOMMENDATION - -Planning-Commission and Staff: On a 6:0 vote, the Planning Commission, on April 7, 1986 , recommended approval of the amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance texts as outlined in attached Resolution No. 48-86 and Ordinance No. 134, respectively. /Ps ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Staff Report - March 31, 1986 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt - March 3, 1986 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt - March 31, 1986 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt - April 7, 1986 Resolution No. 48-86 Ordinance No. 134 i l' • ITEM : B-1 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning Commission March 31, 1986 FROM: Steven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 1K-86 and Zoning Text Change ZC12-85: Lot Line Adjustment Policies BACKGROUND: On March 3, 1986, the Commission received a staff report recommending denial of the City-initiated general plan and zoning ordinance text amendment regarding lot line adjustment policies for substandard lots. The Commission referred this matter to the City Attorney for review and preparation of appropriate language for general plan and zoning ordinance text amendments. The item has now been rescheduled for your further consideration. Attached for you review and consideration are the following items: 1. Staff report dated March 3, 1986 recommending denial of General le Plan Amendment 1K-86. 2. Memorandum dated March 11, 1986 :from Robert Jones, City Attorney, to Henry Engen providing justification for amended General Plan Language regarding lot line adjustments. 3. Recommended language for a general plan amendment allowing for lot line adjustments whereby existing substandard lots can be made smaller. 4. Recommended language for a zoning ordinance text amendment to im- plement the proposed general plan amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the attached resolution and draft ordinance. SLD:ps Enclosures cc: Robert Jones, City Attorney i I 3 City of Atascadero Item: B-7 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 3/3/86 BY: Steven L. Decamp, Senior Planner File No: GP 1K-86 Project Address: City-Wide SUBJECT: .To revise the general plan text to allow for a reduction in the size of existing substandard lots as a result of lot line adjustments. BACKGROUND: On December 2, 1985, the Planning Commission reviewed and concurred with a list of staff and property owner-initiated general plan amend- ments. The City Council further reviewed and concurred with the list of proposed amendments on January 13, 1986. Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Fri- day, February 21, 1986 as required by the provisions of the California Government Code. A. LOCATION: - City Wide B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To revise the general plan text regarding lot line adjustments affecting existing substandard lots. 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .City of Atascadero 3. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. ANALYSIS: The City' s policy regarding lot line adjustments affecting exist- ing substandard (nonconforming) lots has been to require an equal exchange of land between the two affected parcels. This has been done to insure that nonconforming lots are not allowed to become "more substandard" as a result of the lot line adjustment. This practice has resulted in the creation of undesirable irregular lot configurations in some cases (Exhibit D) and in other cases may preclude the accomplishment of a lot line adjustment entirely. It should be noted that an existing legal lot would not be allowed to become substandard through the lot line adjustment procedure. it General Plan Amendment 1K-86 ' Substandard lots, like nonconforming uses, exist as a result of changes in land use policies and minimum lot size requirements. Early plat maps often created lots that are very small by today's standards. These are, however, legal lots because they were prop- erly created prior to the enactment of modern ordinances that made the small lots "nonconforming. " The general plan recognizes the existence of such lots and the difficulties in herent in their development (see Exhibit B) . In this same section, the general plan cautions against creation of additional lots that will exhi- bit these development difficulties. The City' s zoning ordinance discusses nonconforming lots in Chap- ter 7. Here again, the zoning ordinance' s minimum lot size re- quirements were adopted after the creation of the small parcels. Thus, substandard lots are "legally nonconforming" if they were legally created prior to the enactment of the ordinance. Such lots can be developed and used provided that minimum site require- ments (setbacks, etc. ) can be satisfied (Exhibit C) . The City's general plan and implementing ordinances (specifically, the zoning ordinance) articulate community goals and standards for land development. The general plan' s residential policies speak to the question of substandard lots in Policy No. 13 : "Lot splits shall be thoroughly evaluated and be in accor- dance with community plans and principles. Strict adherence to the lot sizes defined in this Plan is essential in order to retain the desired character of the community. Creation of lots smaller than those recommended must not be permitted if the maximum population of approximately 30,000 is to be maintained. " This policy can be extended, by inference, to the question of al- lowing substandard lots to become "less conforming. " The City' s zoning ordinance does not speak directly to the issue of reducing lot sizes for existing nonconforming lots. This sub- ject is closely related to that of nonconforming uses; however , inferences can logically be made from the discussion relative to those uses. Generally, nonconforming uses are allowed to continue but not to expand or enlarge. Applying this concept to noncon- forming lots would imply that such lots can be used, but should not be made more nonconforming. Such and interpretation is in conformance with the general plan's language. The general plan and zoning ordinance set minimum standards for the development of the community. It is the intent of these doc- uments that all uses, both new and existing, be brought into con- formance with these community standards and goals. Recognizing the impracticality (and illegality) of imposing all such stand- ards retroactively, provisions are made for the continuation of existing nonconforming lots or uses. Creation of new, or exasper- ation of existing nonconforming uses or lots is not good planning planning practice and is not allowed by the general plan or zoning ordinance. 2 i General Plan Amendment 1K-86 ' As part of this general plan revision analysis, a thorough review of the planning literature was undertaken. This research did not locate any reference to or discussion of, ordinance language per- mitting a reduction in lot size for existing nonconforming lots. Finally, numerous city and county planning agencies throughout the state were contacted. Their response to the idea of reducing the size of nonconforming lots was universally negative. Indeed, sev- eral of these agencies actively seek lot mergers to eliminate nonconforming lots where practical. D. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings contained in Exhibit A, staff recommends denial of General Plan Amendment 1K-86. SLD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings Exhibit B - General Plan References Exhibit C - Zoning Ordinance References Exhibit D - Lot Line Adjustment Examples 3 General Plan Amendment 1K-86 EXHIBIT A - General Plan Amendment 1K-86 Findings March 3, 1986 FINDINGS: 1. The proposed general plan text change is not consistent with the policies of the general plan. 2. the proposed general plan text change is not consistent with the intent of the general plan. 3. The proposed general plan text change would result in the crea- tion of substandard lots and the reduction in size of existing substandard lots. 4 EXHIBIT 'B GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1K-86 In much of Atascadero Colony, the original subdivision created lots which are excessively long and narrow, as much as five times longer than wide. Many of these lots are rather small P s 9 and located in areas destined for urban development. These lots are particularly difficult to maintain in their present form, and taking them down to more usable sizes is sometimes even more difficult. Special studies related to these areas must explore the most practical approach to their highest use, including the need for more stringent standards for re- view of lot splits . 10. Lot splits shall be thoroughly evaluated and be in accordance with community plans and principles . Strict adherence to the lot sizes defined in this Plan is essential in order to retain the desired character of the community. Creation of lots smaller than those recommended must not be permitted if the maximum popu- lation of approximately 30 , 000 is to be maintained. EXHIBIT C i GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1K-86 9-7.113. Nonconforming Lot Defined: Any lot having an area less than the smallest minimum parcel size required by this Title or other ordinances, is a nonconforming lot if: (a) The lot is shown on a duly approved and recorded subdivision or parcel map; or (b) The lot has, or is eligible for , a certificate of compliance or a conditional certificate of compliance. 9-7.114. Use of Nonconforming Lots: A nonconforming lot may be used for any use identified as an allowable or conditional use by Chapter 9-3 (Zoning Districts) provided the minimum site area require- ments established in Chapters 9-3 and 9-6 for particular uses are satisfied. c ■■ ■■■ ■■ N ■H ■ ■H■■■ 1eo ■■HH■■■ ■■ a■�■ ■■■■■■ H■s on I= ■H - ■■�ril�■■■■■ ■■ ■■■■ ■■i■om�N■rnH■■■Nr■H■■ ■■■■.■■■.■■■■■■E■■C■■■■C ■meiM � r■■ ■ ■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■ ■�■N■■■■■rnn■H ■■N ■■■ ■ ■■ E" rr ■■l■f smC■r■■sm■■■■■■■Ho�su:■■■■SOMEONE i■H■nH■®■u ises ■■■tomqN■:■�m■■HHH■■C■■Cq!nii■■■r�i■mtE■m■E■flnMn■■■Ems■■■■ir■e■■■uqNsC■snC■CHpC■CrerC■■ne ■ e ■ gs �eion � /■:t■ttmtlt■HlNt■�mo■t■meN■eH'e.N�■R■■e■■■,e■■1t�e■■[io■■e�tmC■■!■■s■■cN■■w=■■L�r■r�e■:tme■■Nm■l■■■■e■■mN■■e■■■mn:■■ ■■■■ s01 nHNgs ■ ■■n■■ ■■H■■■■■■C■■■■■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■f■H■■■■eHnusConolsmommNCCsomn■on■ nm■i■ Msmo ---------------■ ■ ■■■moms ■ ■m ■�� s■mmmm ■ oW ■ ■nosaOEM a ■■q■ ■■ ■s� mHl�m Ems ONE ■mime■m =H■= CEM soHHmo■ ■■C■mEma in■mniCMM■ 0 mNg ■■mn■ mm■■ � CCniNn ■Hnnnri ■1r ■■■ m ■ ■■ ■ sEm■ l ■H■■owon N ■■■■ NmoH ■■■ Rise memomemosmism�s ■m HROMEHH man ■aNSOMEONE■■■ 0 s ■r MEN OEM--- so■ i �� ■ on ■■soma it■■■■■ ■■sggmm■nnNs ■q■®m■srm■q■mmH■■■N■sn■r■s■■mNnmoss■■■sm■■sN■■■■ ■l■oH■■■■ et■ M■■ m■totm■e■mNC■ H ■■■■■■NHH■■■■m■■m■■■■m■r■m■■nm■■mm■■■■■ n NOME= � omno■ mr■m■■m■■■m■ gmNMa no■ moom■■■ so �momomom ■■ M!m ■ 00 on ■■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■none nr■ - Em■msmHm n■Nm■■q■t■m■■m■■■smN■mmm■M■n■■■Nrs■Nt■H■mmmmm■■m ME0 M a" ■amH■Nni NH�q ■■Nom nmif■N■N■■H■m■Nr■m■■mn■n■■■■■■ �s■m■■nHlwe H■:m■HllHtm■.■tomNo■mo■rm■nmmNN■■■NNn■mmmom mpgmgi ■H �r 1 %7 H■ss■■n■■■mmmmos■■■r■H■■■N■■■t■■■■■ it■HnsNE ■■rH■■ ■■s■mm■■s■no■■nno o■ssn■gs■nn■m ■�gngsgq�■nnmm� sn■sM■s■■s■■ ss■■■ms■HNnssgno■ gmN■wi qs,■ SCA■ /m■■N�■tomm■�Ntm■s H■ H=on me i■N _ttttr�o�� ■■!1I�■m■■■sHss���t MEMO q mn■mss■ ■■ sq■ ■ ■■m■■sm■■q■■■ ■■rsn■■n■s■ ■■nomm■smn ■IN=■N ■n■o■momo■mmq■■WE ■■ q■o■N■■■o nH ■■ ss ■■�o C■sCC momHH AmNsoNm■mm._ tt■t■t ■ mmso ■ H ■ oleo som■ni '�■■■nm nN■1e 4sme 0141flIff am so ■ ■ r n■■ME ■mom s■i■H■■t■s■ ■Hm: smom n=o NHs Me u ■n n s ossCHSH■! s oss ssp ■ ■ ■ ®■n ■■n mol■ q 7 q ■ TO Henry Engan, Community Development Director FROM Robert M. Jones , City Attorney DATE : March ll , 1986 RE General Plan Amendment , IK-86 Subject: Revision of General Plan Text to allow for a reduction of the size of existing sub-standard lots as a result of lot-line adjustments. On March 3 , 1986 , the Atascadero. Planning Commission reviewed a General Plan text change pertaining to lot lire adjustments affect- ing existing substandard lots . The matter was referred to this office for an opinion before the Planning Commission would make a decision. I have reviewed the staff report , general plan, and Atascadero Zon- ing Ordinance as well as the Subdivision leap Act and I am giving you my opinion relative to this matter. Historically, Atascadero' s policy regarding lot line adjustments has been to require an equal exchange of lane between two affected par- cels. Where there are two substandard parcels , lot line adjustments are not allowed. This has created a great hardship on applicants w due to longstanding uses of adjoining property, have sought to "reme these use problems through lot line adjustments . Their solution has taken the form of creation of easements between the parcels so that each parcel may have the full historical_ utilization of that parcel. The creation of an easement is an inadequate remedy but avoids a violation of the Subdivision Map Act which prohibits lot line adjust- ments which do not meet the approval of local agencies . Staff has expressed its concern that the Atascadero General Plan would not allow for a text change for lot line adjustments affecting sub- standard lots Specifically, the Atascadero General Plan' s Residential Policy Number 13 speaks to the question of sub-standard lots as follows : 1 . "Lot-splits shall be thoroughly evaluated and be in accordance with community plans and principles . Strict adherence to the lot sizes defined in this plan is essential in order to retain the desired char- acter of the community. Creation of lots smaller than those recommended must not be permitted if the maximum population of approximately 30 ,000 is to be maintained. " I,r�l Memorandum to Henry Engan March 11 , 1986 Page 2/ I disagree with Staff that the General Plan' s Policy Number 13 speaks to the text change in question, in that Policy Number 13 relates to lot divisions and the General Plan' s desire to place a "cap" on population at 30 , 000 . I do agree that there is some language which mandates the retention of smaller lots and I would submit that specific language "Creation of lots smaller than those recommended must not be permitted. . . " should be modified to allow for exceptions where there are historical and geographic use pro- blems such that the creation of smaller lots would be allowable only to resolve these historical and geographic use problems . In addi- tion, this should only apply to non-conforming lots and not to con- forming lots which by a lot line adjustment would be made non-con- forming. The Subdivision Map Act, Government Code §66412(d) is instructive on this point in the following language : "Government Code §66412 , this division shall be inapplicable to: . . . (d) a lot line adjustment between two or more existing, adjacent parcels where the land taken from one parcel is added to an adjacent parcel, and where a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created, provided the lot line adjustment is approved by the local agency or advisory agency. A local agency or advisory agency shall limit its re- view and approval to determination of CD whether or not the par- cel resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to local zoning . and building ordinances . An advisory agency or local agency shall not impose conditions or exactions on its approval of a lot line adjustment except to conform to local zoning and building ordinances , or except to facilitate the relocation of existing utilities , infrastructure , or easements . No tentative map , parcel map , or final map shall be required as a condition to the approval of a lot -line adjustment. The lot line adjustment shall be reflected in a deed or record of survey which shall be recorded. " In order to make a General Plan text change consistent with the policies of the General Plan, I would recommend adopting specific language which grants exceptions to existing lot sizes in a very limited and narrow area; for example ,"facilitating the relocating of existing utilities , infrastructure or easements , or historical or geographic uses ." In addition, I would recommend that once the General Plan text change has been adopted, the zoning ordinance 1�� Memorandum to Henry Engan March 6 , 1986 Page 3/ be amended to require all lot-line adjustments to be treated as variances to allow a review process to be undertaken so that the Planning Commission has an opportunity to review all lot-line ad- justments that affect sub-standard lots . The specific language that may be adopted as a General Plan text change is as follows: "Exceptions to existing lot sizes shall only be allowed. with lot-line adjustments to correct historical and geo- graphical use problems and to facilitate the relocation of existing utilities , infrastructures or easements . " Careful attention should. be directed to the drafting of the zoning text change relating to lot-line adjustments being treated as vari- ances . Obviously, most lot-line adjustments will not involve sub- standard lots , but the local agency should have some flexibility in .granting equitable relief to adjoining sub-standard lots with his- torical use problems , and at the same time maintaining the overall integrity of the zoning ordinance , General Plan, and use consistency of lots in the neighborhood. RMJ/mdw Minutes - Atascadero Planning Commission - March 3, 1986 1I-86 and Zone Change 9-86. ' The mot' carried with a call vote, as follows: AYES: Commi ers ielssen, Nolan, Bond, Kennedy and Chai Prade NOES- ommissioner Hatchell Mr. gen stated that hearings would be scheduled the City ouncil on the Commission' s recommendations. 7. General Plan Amendment 1K-86: Request initiated by the City of Atascadero to revise the general plan to allow for a reduction in the size of existing substandard lots as a result of lot line adjustments. Steve DeCamp presented the staff report on this matter. He noted that a review of planning literature was undertaken and contact was made with various city and county agencies with respect to the allowing a reduction in lot size for existing nonconforming lots. The response to these contacts was universally negative. Commissioner LaPrade stated that there is a majority of lots in the city which do not conform to the zoning, and he would be in favor of having an ordinance such as this proposal. Commissioner Hatchell asked how this proposal was initiated originally. Mr. DeCamp explained the background involved and pointed out that the City Attorney has not had an opportunity to respond to the staff report. Doug Lewis, area resident, suggested that perhaps there could be some limitations on how much reduction could be permissible and set some sort of standards to this regard. Ed Jewell, 4370 Rosita, spoke in favor of approving this proposal and proceeded to explain his efforts and frustrations with noncon- forming lot lines on property he owns in an effort to resolve the lot line situation with his and his neighbors ' properties. Discussion ensued on this issue with the possibility of handling as a sort of variance type situation, and there was discussion on prescriptive rights. Debra Kankiewicz, 11455 Viejo Camino, stated that when she lived in Oregon, there was a law that if a fence line was changed after seven years and that fence was there, then that is where the new line was. Mr. Engen suggested that the Commission continue the matter for recommendations from the City Attorney. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Hatchell, seconded by Commissioner Bond and carried unanimously to continue the hearing on 9 i --Minutes - Atascadero Planning Commission - 'March 3, 1986 on General Plan Amendment 1K-86. 10 Mr. Engen asked what the Commission's consensus would be to re- serving March 31st (fifth Monday) as a possible meeting date for general plan hearings. The Commission agreed. C. UBLIC COMMENT: De a Kankiewicz referenced the February 18, 1986 Planning Commis- sion meeting concerning the signage requests and aske for some clari ications regarding this. D. INDIVIDU ACTION AND/OR DETERMINATION 1. Plannin Commission Commissioner Ha hell expressed concern ove the visual effects on the lot north of he Wil-Mar truck area o San Luis Avenue and asked staff to loo into this and report ack. Commissioner Bond sta ed that he and C mmissioner Kennedy had been talking about the lan caping a1n the Highway 101 corridor through Atascadero. would 1 i k to, as individuals, look into the possibility of community contr ' utions to the landscaping and work in conjunction with 1Tra to properly landscape this cor- ridor. Discussion ensued wi h e possibility of the private sec- tor, (i.e. community groups) coming involved with this effort. Comments in support of such pr ram were heard by Marge Mackey and Maggie Rice. 2. Community Developm t Director Mr. Engen stated tha registration and tel reservations for the Planning Co lo rs Institute have been taken care of and everything is read to go. Meeting adjourned a 10 :55 p.m. MINUTES RECORD BY: PATRICIA SHEPPHARD Administrative Secretary I MINUTES A ROVED BY: HENRY ENGEN Community Development Director 10 Otem: A-1 Meeting Date : 5/5/86 MINUTES - ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION Special Meeting Monday, March 31, 1986 7:30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building The special meeting of the Atascadero Planning Commiss ' n was call to order at 7 :35 p.m. by Chairman LaPrade. Commiss " her Mich- ielssen ed the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissi ers Hatchell, Michielssen, olan, Bond, and Chair- man LaPrad ABSENT: Commissioner Ken edy (excused) . VACANCIES: One STAFF PRESENT: Henry Engen, Co u ' ty Development Director ; Steve De- Camp, Senior anner, Joel Moses, Associate Planner ; and Patric ' Shepphard, Administrative Secretary I A. CONSENT CALEND 1. Cons ' eration of staff report concerning ap oval of parking pr isions for Fire Station No. 2. MO N: Made by Commissioner Bond, seconded by Co issioner Hatchell and carried unanimously to approve th Consent Calendar as presented. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. General Plan Amendment 1K-86 : Request initiated by the City of Atascadero to revise the general plan to allow for a reduction in the size of existing substandard lots as a result of lot line adjustments. (Con- tinued from March 3 , 1986) Steve DeCamp presented the staff report summarizing the points raised at the previous hearing on this matter. He noted that con- tact was made with the City Attorney concerning an opinion for appropriate language which would allow an adjustment of the lot lines of existing substandard or nonconforming lots. The City Attorney' s language has been included in the staff report. It was pointed out that this language would serve only to ,correct prob- lems with substandard or nonconforming lots, and that the policy is very specific in its intent. Minutes - Planning Commission - March 311, 19$6 '_ Chairman LaPrade stated he has spoken with the City Attorney and it was not his understanding that Mr. Jones felt that this should le be for existing uses only. He felt that this could also be ap- plied to improve a building site provided there was no major change done to either parcel and with no new parcels being created. Mr. DeCamp referenced the City Attorney' s memo and noted that the purpose of this text change would be to correct historical and geographical use problems and to facilitate the relocation of ex- isting utilities, infrastructures or easements. Discussion ensued on this. Commissioner Nolan asked approximately how many nonconforming lots exist in Atascadero. It was noted that there are well over 100 of these lots. Ed Jewell, 4370 Rosita, spoke in support of approving the request and noted his difficulties in trying to get a lot line adjustment approved for his property. Chairman LaPrade stated his reservations with this text change having to be tied into a "problem" . He felt it would make sense to be able to make a minor adjustment in a lot line between two parcels wherein a definite improvement would occur . Commissioner Hatchell concurred, and stated he would agree with the City Attor- ney' s opinion on this matter. Discussion continued with the general consensus being that further clarification frm the City Attorney would be appropriate. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond, seconded by Commissioner Nolan and carried unanimously to continue the hearing on General Plan Amendment 1K-86 to the meeting of April 7 , 1986 . General Plan Amendment 1L-86 : equest initiated by the City of Atascadero to �isethe ex ' ting Urban Services Line to include new are outside the exists Urban Services Area to reconcile wi the sewer im- provement ' strict line. (Continued fro arch 17, 1986) Joel Moses presented staff report on is matter recommending approval of the genera an amend t, and noted the purpose of the amendment is to reconcile he isting situation where sewer services have already been ap d beyond the Urban Services Line. In response to questi from Commissioner M ielssen, Mr . Moses explained what the rpose of an "urban service rea" is. Terrill Grah , 6205 Conejo Road, asked if the extensi of this le service uld, in any way, enhance the capability of th ewage syste o serve the ceast and desist areas in the City. Mr . s 2 *em: A-2 - : _ Meeting Date: 5/5/86 MINUTES - ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Monday, April 7 . 1986_ 7:30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building regular meeting of the Atascadero Planning Commi ion was called o order at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Kennedy led a Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioner atchell, Michiels , Nolan, Bond, Kennedy, and Chairman La ade ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Steve DeCamp, nio Planner ; Doug Davidson, Assistant Planner; Pa icia Shep ard, Administrative Secretary A. CONSENT CALEND 0 1. Appr al of minutes for the meeting of March 7, 1986 MOTI Made by Commissioner Bond, seconded by Co issioner Michielssen and carried unanimously to approve the Con- sent Calendar as presented. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. General Plan Amendment 1K-86 : Request initiated by the City of Atascadero to revise the general plan to allow for a reduction in the size of existing substandard lots as a result of lot line adjustments (contin- ued from March 31, 1986) . Chairman LaPrade commented that the misunderstanding associated with this amendment may have been resolved. Steve DeCamp gave the background involved and summarized the actions taken at the previous hearing for this matter. Chairman LaPrade noted he was satisfied with staff ' s recommenda- tion along with the City Attorney' s recommended language for the text amendment. Commissioner Bond stated he would be more comfortable if the City Attorney could be present to answer any questions the Commission may have. _Minutes - Planning Commission-.-=f_April 7, 1986 Commissioner Michielssen asked for a clarification of the "geo- Ift graphic" factors involved in the proposed language, to which Mr- IW DeCamp responded. Mr. DeCamp pointed out that the City Attorney was out of town un- til April 21st and suggested that the hearing could be continued to the first meeting in May. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond, and seconded by Commissioner Nolan to continue the hearing on General Plan Amendment 1K-86. Chairman LaPrade noted he did not think it would make any differ- ence with regard to the recommendation on this matter if it were to be continued and stated he is willing to accept the recommendation. Commissioner Bond asked if this issue could be brought up at a later date. Mr. DeCamp stated that the City Council would be hearing this and would make the final decision. After further discussion, Commissioner Bond withdrew his motion and Commissioner Nolan withdrew his second. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond, seconded by Commissioner Michielssen and carried unanimously with a roll call vote to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 1K-86. 2. Zone Change 11-86 : equest submitted by Goldie Wilson (Ron Poulin, representa- ti ) to revise the existing commercial (C zoning to CR (Com cial Retail) . Subject property is 1 ated at 9955 E1 Camino eal, also known as a portion of t 1, Block 7, Eag- let Tract 2. Doug Davidson prese ed the staff repor on this request recom- mending approval, an noted that a reliminary development pro- posal for the site has be submitt for consideration. Ron Poulin, representing the a licant, spoke in support of the request and explained the pr osed development. He felt this project will benefit the C ' y, espe ' ally with regard to residen- tial areas in south Ata adero. There was some disc sion concerning the a 'acent zoning designa- tions and uses in he area. Commissioner ichielssen felt the site was commer al in nature and was t appropriate for a commercial touris designation. Chairma aPrade noted that in previous discussions, i was the Commi ion' s general consensus that either CR or CT zo ng was sui ble. 2 t�,, ti C � '�DA tr� I � W M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council 4�` June 9, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Pre-Application Agreement Procedure: Pre-July 1 Building Permit Applications BACKGROUND: Some questions have arisen regarding the accompanying pre-application agreement which was established to facilitate efficient handling of building permits submitted before the July lst deadline for develop- ment impact fees. Last year , immediately prior to the October 1st deadline for the $.50 development impact tax, we were inundated with marginally complete and • incomplete building permit applications. In an effort to provide a systematic procedure for handling what we expect will be a similar surge of applications, we developed the attached pre-application agreement which calls for a $250.00 deposit to be accompanied by signed agreements which enables review of plans before accepting them as received. Staff is concerned that everybody be given a fair review but, at the same time, that we not be forced into taking plans which are seriously lacking in necessary detail to be considered complete with the City thereby losing capital projects revenue. In short, the intent of the process is to assure efficiency and fair- ness in handling applications. It should be -noted that the Council, in acting on the task force recommendations for adoption of the devel- opment impact fee ordinance, provided for significant lead time prior to the effective date of July 1. Initial review began in January, 1986, the ordinance was adopted on February 24 , 1986 and it does not apply to any projects which have building permits accepted prior to July 1. Staff, through the North County Contractors Association news- letter, alerted contractors and other interested parties to this pro- cedure, which has been generally well-received. DEPOSIT FORFEITURE ISSUE: As noted in the attached handout, there is an indication that the $250.00 will be forfeited if plans are found to be incomplete or lack- ing necessary detail. It would be a judgement call to reject plans, • and the Community Development Director would review any plans proposed for rejection with the Chief Building Inspector . Further , it would be appropriate, in such cases, to forfeit up to $250.00 contingent on ac- 1� ADMINISTRATION BUILDING i CITY ATTORNEY POST OFFICE BOX 747 -��" POST OFFICE BOX 606 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93423 PHONE: (805) 466-8000 PHONE: (805) 466-4422 �aseade�® CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY TREASURER INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 POST OF CALIFICE FORNIA 93423 OX 747 CITY MANAGER - PHONE: (CA FORMA ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT 466-8600 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 . �. PRE-APPLICATION AGREEMENT PHONE: (805) 466-2141 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Effective July 1, 1986, Development Impact Fees will be charged for new development prior to the issuance of building permits . Complete plans submitted prior to July 1st, will be exempt from these fees. To preclude the submission of incomplete applications/plans and the subsequent difficulties that have arisen in the past, the following procedure will be enforced effective May 26, 1986. All plans/data submitted will be accompanied by a Permit Application and a check for $250. The plans/data submitted will undergo a cursory review within five ( 5 ) working days. If it is determined that they contain the appropriate information to undergo complete plan review, the $250 will be applied towards the deposit fee and the applicant will be so notified. The appli- cant will then submit a check for the remainder of the deposit and the plan review process will commence effective the next working day. If, however, the plans/data are found to be incomplete or lacking in detail to faciliate plan review, they will be rejected and returned to the applicant . The $250 deposit will be forfeited. Incomplete applications may be resubmitted anytime prior to July 1, 1986, submitting the required documents and a check for $250 subject to the aforementioned procedures. These procedures will be suspended effective July 1, 1986, when the new fees take effect and plans/permits will be processed as they have been in the past . --------------------------------------------------- I have read and fully understand the terms and conditions of this letter and desire to submit my permit application along with the appropriate data necessary to expedite Plan Review. SIGNATURE DATE RESOLUTION NO. 10-86 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 119 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero has adopted Ordinance No. 119 known as the "Development Impact Fee Ordinance" ; and WHEREAS, Section 3-8.04 and 3-8.05 of Ordinance No. 119 pro- vides for the adoption of a fee schedule required to be paid by developers. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The following tax rate schedule shall be effective July 1, 1986 : a. Development Impact Fees (Dollars per Sq. Ft. of Building or Alternate Fee) Fee/Land Use Commercial MultiFamily Single Family Drainage $0.141/S.F. $0.073/S.F. $0.034/S.F. $770. /cfs $533. /cfs $46.00/cfs Traffic $0.500/S.F. $0.022/S.F. $0.001/S.F. $43.46/ADT $2.27 /ADT $0.18 /ADT Bridges $0.157/S.F. $0. 126/S.F. $0.080/S.F. $13.62/ADT $13.29/ADT $13.43/ADT Roads $0.067/S.F. $0.054/S.F. $0.034/S.F. $5.34 /ADT $5.70 /ADT $5.76 /ADT Parks $0.000/S.F. $0.309/S.F. $0.015/S.F. Police $0.291/S.F. $0.189/S.F. $0.009/S.F. Fire $0.278/S.F. $0.180/S.F. $0.009/S.F. Bldg/Grounds $0.083/S.F. $0.083/S.F. $0.083/S.F. TOT.0 FEE $1.517/S.F. $1.036/S.F. $0.265/S.F. w r IL !, ql • 1. —..._._ _.Dirt._- ....._ ,�__• •� � w svh.�. ;=�.. r, :`� i � Q 1- tQ, A, ff ♦ CD 00 fh._aD T1i' �—_t'� •��_ �•Wit.—_ ��_v;• ` fir. # � s._ �kn,a� 1 1 41 t — - - - X11 t 1 o co — — — v a• �a 'ta IL Co all Lt r='a 7F MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Directors, Atascadero County Sanitation District THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager fA- . FROM: Paul SensibA-� Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Bids for Assessent District No. 3, Marchant Way Sanitary Sewer DATE: June 3, 1986 Recommendation: Reject the two bids received for the above project and re-bid. Background: At the Board Meeting of May 12, 1986 , the Board authorized staff to re-bid the above project. As you know, the bid received on the initial bidding was 33% higher than the Engineer ' s • Estimate. Bids were again received on June 3rd. Although two bids were received this time, both were much higher than the Engineer ' s Estimate. The summary follows: West Coast Tank Piping Const. $141,732. 00 Jamieson Construction 144 ,252.20 Engineer ' s Estimate 107, 000. 00 Discussion: Again, staff recommends that this project be re-bid. The time allowed for bidding the project will be increased in an effort to attract contractors. Fiscal Impact: Although we will incur additional advertising costs, it is anticipated that a re-bid will result in lower costs. • The undersigned agrees, if awarded the contract, that there shall be paid by the undersigned and by all subcontractors under him, to all laborers, workmen and mechanics employed in the execution of such contract or any subcontract thereunder, not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages, and rates for overtime and legal holidays in the locality in which the work is to be performed as ascertained and determined, pursuant to the State statute thereto applicable, by the City Council, the schedule thereof being on file in the office of the City Clerk. The undersigned understands that the quantity or quantities given are approximate only, being given as a basis for the comparison of bids, and the City of Atascadero does not, expressly or by implication therewith, warrant that the given quantities of work will be performed, but reserves the right to increase or decrease the amount of any portion of the work, or to omit portions of the work, as may be deemed necessary or advisable by the Engineer without claim for damage or loss of anticipated profit and that payment will be made only on the basis of the actual quantities of work performed. I understand that the owner reserves the right to reelect this bid, but that this bid shall remain open and not be withdrawn for a period of thirty days from the date prescribed for its opening. If written notice of the acceptance of this bid is mailed or delivered to the undersigned within thirty days after the date set for the opening of this bid, or at any other time thereafter before it is withdrawn, the undersigned will execute and deliver the Contract Documents to the Owner in accordance with this bid as accepted and will also furnish and deliver to the Owner the Performance Bond, Labor and Material Payment Bond, and proof of insurance coverage, all within ten days after personal dellivery or after deposit in the mails of the notification of acceptance of this bid. Notice of acceptance, or requessst for additonal information, may be addressed to the undersigned at the address set forth below. The names of all persons interested in the foregoing bid as principals are: ti ( IMPORTANT NOTICE: If bidder or other interested person is a corporation, give legal name of corporation, state where incorporated, and names of president and secretary; if a partnership, give name of firm; if bidder or other interested person is an individual, give first and last names in full. ------------------- ------------------------------ - I--------- --- Cz T---------- ----------- ----- r l - ---- ' 7 Licensed in accordance with an act for the r istrati n of contractors, and with license number___ � _��� _. SIGN HERE: --- -------- - --------- --- --------- Signature of bidder NOTE: If bidder is a corporation, set forth the legal name of the corporation together with the signature of the officer or officers authorized to sign contracts on behalf of the corporation. If bidder is a partnership, set forth the name of the firm together with the signature of the partner or partners authorized to sign contracts on behalf of the partnership. Business address: -------- Telephone Humber: ) /�� �- _ Fc c Date of proposal: - --- ------f- --------------- This affidavit shall be executed by the successful bidder, but bidder may execute the affidavit on this page at the time of submitting his bid. 8 ' BID ,FORM PROPOSAL FOR MARCHANT WAY SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 3 To The Honorable City Council City of Atascadero *. Atascadero, California 93422 Gentlemen: Inaccordancewith the Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, the undersigned, as bidder, declares that he has carefully examined the location of the proposed work, the plans and specifications, contract and bound forms, and agrees that if this proposal is accepted, . he will contract on the required form contained in the specifications with the City also, at his own cost, do all work and furnish all equipment, materials and labor necessary to complete the work in the manner and time described in the plans and specifications and agrees to provide all bonds and insurance certificates and fulfill all requirements of the contract for the following price: The price which the bidder quotes is inclusive of the costs for all applicable taxes, including but not limited to sales taxes, ' licenses, and permits. The 'bid shall consist of the bid items listed below. APPROXIMATE UNIT NO. ITEM QUANTITY PRICE TOTAL 1• 8" PVC SEWER 1861 L. F. __$52_00 $96,772.00 2• MANHOLES 7 EACH 13,200.00 22,400.00 3. 4" PVC LATERALS 22 EACH 600.00 13,200=.00 4. - TRENCH RESURFACING 1170 L. F. ____8_00 9,360.00 TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID 1411732.00 6 The undersigned agrees, if awarded the contract, that there shall be paid by the undersigned and by all subcontractors under him, to all laborers, workmen and mechanics employed in the execution of such contract or any subcontract thereunder, not less than the 6 general prevailing rate of per diem wages, and rates for overtime and legal holidays in the locality in which the work is to be performed as ascertained and determined; pursuant to the State statute thereto applicable, by the City Council, the schedule thereof being on file in the office of the City Clerk. The undersigned understands that the quantity or quantities given are approximate only, being given as a basis for the comparison of bids, and the City of Atascadero does not, expressly or by implication therewith, warrant that the given quantities of work will be performed, but reserves the right, to increase or decrease the amount of any portion of the work, or to omit portions of the work, as may be deemed necessary or advisable by the Engineer without claim for damage or loss of anticipated profit and that payment will be made only on the basis of the actual quantities of work performed. I understand that the owner reserves the right to reject this bid, but that this bid shall remain open and not be withdrawn for a period of thirty days from the date prescribed for its opening. - If written notice of the acceptance of this bid is mailed or delivered to the undersigned within thirty days after the date set for the opening of this bid, or at any other time thereafter before it is withdrawn, the undersigned will execute and deliver the Contract Documents to the Owner in accordance with this bid as accepted and will also furnish and deliver to the Owner the Performance Bond, Labor and Material Payment Bond, and proof of insurance coverage, all within ten days after personal dellivery or after deposit in the mails of the notification of acceptance of this bid. Notice of acceptance, or requessst for additonal information, may be addressed to the undersigned at the address set forth below. The names of all persons interested in the foregoing bid as principals are: (IMPORTANT NOTICE: If bidder or other interested person is a corporation, give legal name of corporation, state where incorporated, and names of president and secretary; if a partnership, give name of firm; if bidder or other interested person is an individual, give first and last names in full. WEST COAST TANK & PIPE-STATE OF CALIF-Tim Selby, President, Geraldine Selby, --------------------------------------------------------------- Sec Treasurer, --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- 7 { Licensed in accordance with an act for .the registration of contractors, and with license number___ _______________- SIGH HERE: - ------------- - --- -- ------- ----------------------------------------- - Signature of bidder NOTE: If bidder is a corporation, set forth the legal name of the corporation together with the signature of the officer or r officers authorized to sign contracts on behalf of the corporation. If bidder is a partnership, set forth the name of the firm together with the signature of the partner or partners authorized, to sign contracts on behalf of the partnership. Business address: 825 26th Street, ------------------------------------- Paso Robles, Ca. 93446 ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- Telephone Number: __,8II5.-2-U=9923 ------------------------ I Date of proposal: ___g-2g6_________ -------------------- This affidavit shall be executed- by the successful bidder, but bidder may execute the afidavit on this page at the time of submitting his bid. 8