The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 11/10/1986 CINDY WILKINS DEPUTY CITY CLERK r A G E N D A ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING FOURTH 'FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM NOMTER 10,' 1986 7:30 P. M:' Call to Order ' Pledge of Allegiance Invocation - Pastor David Inks Roll Call City Council Comments ** Proclamation proclaiming November as "National Hospice Month" COMMUNITY FORUM - (Only 15 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum at the beginning of the agenda. Citizens are requested to keep remarks under 5 minutes, and that a speaker person speak in behalf of groups. ) 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 by roll call. 1. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of October 27, 1986 2. Proposed Resolution 126-86 - Adopting Special Condition for State/Federal Security Interest in Property Acquired with Grant Funds for Atascadero Sanitation Plant Expansion 3. Recognition of September Employees of the Month - Valerie Humphrey, Public Works Dept. and Cindy Wilkins, City Clerk ' s Office 4. Approval of Lot Line Adjustment 7-86 - 9099 La Linia - Lot Line Adjustment between Two Existing Developed Lots - Shores/ • Volbrecht Surveys 5. Approval of Tentative Tract Map 24-86 - Creation of 15 Air Space Condominium Units - 7425 El Camino Real - Messer/Camino Real Properties/Cuesta Engineering 1 • 6. Approval of Tentative Tract Map 27-86 - Creation of 13 Commercial Air Space Condominium Units - 7500 Morro Road - Dunn/North Coast Engineering 7. Approval of Tentative Tract Map 26-86 - Creation of 28 Residential Condominium Units with Common Area - 7408-7478 Santa Ysabel - Montanaro/North Coast Engineering 8. Accept Final Map 5-86 - 9630 Laurel Road - Hass/Coronaria- Nelson/Tartaglia & Hughes Engineering 9. Approval to Enter into Contract with Mark Henry Bartholomew for Temporary Full-Time Employment on General Plan Update Work Program 10. Approval of Proposed Resolution 125-86 - Establishment of Stop Signs Cortina Ave. , Encinal Ave. , and Sonora Ave. at Their Intersection with Valle Avenue. 11. Approval of Proposed Resolution 124-86 - Prohibiting Parking on a Portion of E1 Camino Real from Pacific Home Improvement Center North to Northerly Property Line of Idler ' s • B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1. General Plan Amendment 2H-86 / Zone Change 22-86 Atascadero- Portola Residential Study Area - City of Atascadero/Hawkins A. Public Hearing B. Proposed Resolution 127-86 - Approving Amendment to General Plan Land Use Map from Moderate Density Single Family to High Density Single Family C. Proposed Ordinance 140 - Amending the Official Zoning Maps from RSF-Y to RSF-X (FIRST READING) 2. General Plan Amendment 2G-86 / Zone Change 27-86 - 1200 - 1800 E1 Camino Real - City of Atascadero/Leonard Brazzie A. Public Hearing B. Proposed Resolution 128-86 - Approving Amendment to General Plan Land Use Map from Suburban Single Family to Retail Commercial C. Proposed Ordinance 141 - Amending . the Official Zoning Maps from Residential Suburban to Commercial Tourist (FIRST READING) 3. Status Report on Business Improvement Association (B. I.A. ) 2 • • • C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Proposed Resolution 129-86 - Agreement between the City of Atascadero and the County of San Luis Obispo Relating to Transfer of Properties and Interest in Properties from Each Public Entity to the Other (Cont'd from 9/10/86) 2. Ad Hoc Committee Reports - Faith Baptist Church, Bethel-Messer and Nelson, and Ordinance 24 Committee Status Report D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution 123-86 - Council Approval for Match Funding with the School District for Crossing Guard at E1 Camino Real and Santa Rosa Streets E. PUBLIC FORUM • F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5. City Manager NOTE: THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED TO A SPECIAL OPEN COUNCIL MEETING IN THE CITY MANAGERS OFFICE, ROOM 207, ON FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1986, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERVIEWING FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY POSITION R a l °i 1 F d •71N • 8 �$c w. y,w }R ?�k�+.� r X � �tya �'"'` t a x t �. x :. K (j �P i a6 rFrt ;s �.` h� 4 ,A�a wt pp 1 ? �F�' "�� ` t��, .'�� *Y".�r-��Ra� ..r. y '`� f� '3.b�� ,�A•�� #��¢5� 4': � t W-2 ; '"p',fS, +,dok • il�.�,S:..! ,'t'`', ��. �' �; vi �5��,�� x• t • r µ e+'` 142"3� l�T�� t�,�� r•�.. i'�4�.�,�`* �x tz•,�'i�^�.. °t�� z '• :f z- � 50- . dit cJ � ■ • ' ' tfl• > ++ , �r°�� i • • ° .�r • b•.,:�� t Y F${�� e�h �r •• • r � • •'�s�?,c • 1� .}� e � • • `a • Q, x�if 9s�� 4� T f ,� 7]e • x * •, ver.,,• • ..,>,� 1 , a v,i t 7 r e'.`'e r�rte r � �. 3 rc: ,°,�, `t" •�z$ ' i R - wl rx`• '" � r�`�*�'Fa i�PY�' ..„r-' f� ,''�`�� ,�� '�'.,�,-� �� f, x:y � a� � f;x� t, h� �`'� � t r 4411 4; rc y�+F ��xsS� ��..�•, '�'i.��'S r">�;�`r' n.��y� � •� � � • i t �� '� r ��.1'[q} �r sl � r4'T} ', f7 `�.. r� -F j '� � Y. �.">� � } , •'1f3 ib� �O .�✓ � � �wsa. <a"c •; f a �Y„ �L+,�ea +6Yzt �a }} ps t no .f1d., x �- � '�..'� r � si s` r �•ti%�� a -. t{5¢'�'tx�c #� t, t ��"; �f.,S�j.S� �:4��,�`�' "'k''�`,�'. `r "f ! r F , '§ it Y k ''.' wcZ,7 x ,.�'"` a,''Wj`"s,_ r$J "f .•. '1.-taf"s}F�q� Y}Tf'� '• • 1 , a . }k!7k i ! Kit as•e sr��' �r :��s -:`�`P?�.� a��^'. r+' _ a ,i4"' a �' r� r 'n'p o�r;_s `Tf f 4�`i it }�..� ry� �Gi �?� •xr u', 1'#' .,�5,�' x�' ��, 16tr}�t 5i �j4 }� '' � 4 r � _ � i � ; f r f pry 4- +k� At � � r h �., '• ,* � ,�'��€y � �'z f r,, `�i��`�k'�a � > C fir. a? '"�se�sP�� } `-l<�'n�� `A''�y'"''1"tF•Yr�'r nxrv,i•. lEE•ffo lqo / I � AGENDA O TEITEM ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 27, 1986 Atascadero Administration Building The regular meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Mackey, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. An invocation was given by Rev. Roland Dexter. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Borgeson, Handshy, Molina, Norris and Mayor Mackey Absent: None STAFF Mike Shelton, City Manager ; David Jorgensen, Administrative Services Director; Lt. Chuck Hazelton, Police Department; Mike Hicks, Fire Chief; Steve DeCamp, Senior Planner ; Paul Sensibaugh, Public works Director; Boyd Sharitz, City Clerk; Robert Jones, City Attorney; Cindy Wilkins, Deputy City Clerk COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS Mayor Mackey read prepared comments urging both the public and fellow Councilmembers to keep their remarks to the subject at hand, avoid personalities and be brief, addressing only the Chair, especially in view of the anticipated length of tonight' s meeting. She also ex- pressed that her vote at last meeting was not a condemnation of any person and that she believes we ,have an excellent staff and City Man ager, noting that any further discussion on this subject will wait until the next regular meeting. _ Mayor Mackey announced Community Forum moved to end of meeting. A. CONSENT CALENDAR * Mayor Mackey announced the addition of Item A-14. 1. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of October 13, 1986 2. Approval of Finance Director ' s Monthly Report - September , 1986 • 3. Approval of Treasurer ' s Monthly Report - September, 1986 4. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 28-86 - 8500 Corriente Subdiv- ision of 2 parcels at 10.0 Acres into 3 Parcels of 3. 20, 3.20 and 3.60 Acres Each - Dodson/Twin Cities Engineering 1 0 5. Approval of Tentative Tract Map 6-86 - 10705 E1 Camino Rel Creation of 140 Residential Condominium Units (88UnitsCon- structed & Occupied, 52 Units Not Constructed) - Casa Camino Property Owners/Bethel and Associates 6. Acceptance of Final Tract Map 3-86 - 5550 Traffic Way Mulholland/ Twin Cities Engineering 7. Acceptance of Final Tract Map 14-84 - 9805 El Camino Real Nelson/ Jensen-Lenger Surveys 8. Acceptance of Final Tract Map 2-86 - 9650 Las Lomas - Sherer/Lee/ Twin Cities Engineering 9. Acceptance of Final Tract Map 7-85 - 7700/7800 Balboa - Rich/Twin Cities Engineering 10. Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 14-86 - 8205 Coromar Road Lopus/ Cuesta Engineering 11. Adoption of Proposed Resolution 119-86 - Supporting Proposition 57 - Retirement Benefits for Non-Judicial and Non-Legislative Elected State Constitutional Officers 12. Adoption of Proposed Resolution 120-86 - Opposing Proposition 61 Compensation of Public Officials, Employees and Individu4 Public Contractors 13. Adoption of Proposed Resolution 121-86 - Opposing Proposition 62 - Taxation of Local Governments and Districts *14. Proposed Resolution 122-86 - Authorizing Mayor to Enter into an Agreement with Blue Shield Ins. Co. to Provide Medical, Dental and Life Ins. Benefits & California Care HMO to Provide Medical Benefits to City Employees MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to approve Items Al-14, seconded by Councilwoman Norris; passed unanimously by roll-call. ** C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (** Agenda order changed) 1. Ordinance 139 - Amending the Plumbing Code to Allow Sewage Disposal Systems on Slopes of 30% or More (SECOND READING) (Cont'd from 10/13/86) MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to read Ord. 139 by title only, second- ed by Councilman Molina; passed unanimously. Mayor Mackey read Ord. 139 by title. MOTION: By Councilman Molina that this constitutes the second readi and adoption of Ord. 139, seconded by Councilman Handshy* passed by 4:1 roll-call, with Mayor Mackey opposed. 2 i • Mayor Mackey announced that Councilmembers are wearing red ribbons in observance of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention in Community Schools, for which a proclamation was issued at the Council Meeting of 10/13/86. Two new City employees were introduced: Lt. Hazelton introduced Ann Banks, new Support Services Aide, Police Department; Paul Sensibaugh introduced Edward Limon, Maintenance Worker I, Streets Department. COUNCIL RECESSED (APPROX. 10 MINUTES) UNTIL 8:00 P.M. , WHEN ADVERTISED PROTEST HEARING FOR SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 4 WAS SCHEDULED TO COMMENCE. Mayor Mackey called meeting back to order at 8:OO p.m. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. Sewer Assessment District Number 4 Separado/Cayucos Sewer Project: A. Property Owner Protest Hearing B. Proposed Resolution 116-86 - Confirming Assessment and Ordering Proposed Improvements, Providing for Notice of Recording of Assessment and Designating the City Treasurer to Collect and Receive Money C. Proposed Resolution 117-86 - Awarding Contract for the Construction of Public Improvements for the Separado/Cayucos Assessment District Mayor Mackey announced availability of "Withdrawal of Protest" forms from City Clerk, present. Mayor Mackey declared the public hearing open. Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director , gave brief staff report. Present with staff were: John Wallace & Gary Simms of Wallace & As- sociates, Engineers of Work ; Carlo Fowler, Senior Partner of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Bond Counsel; and, Richard Clark & Cathy Williams of Security Pacific Capital Markets Group, Bond Underwriters. Protest Hearing proceeded in accordance with procedure (provided by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) listed in agenda packet, pp. 35-37, attached as Exhibit A. Public Comment Note: Staff responded to comments of individuals speaking following their comments, summarized below. 3 ! i David Hunt, 4586 San Jacinto (APN 28-152-55) , made inquiries regardilo the costs involved: Mr. Wallace clarified that the approx. $3,700 cost for the Separado area, shown earlier , is the bonded cost; Mr . Sensibaugh responded that the City' s contribution figure was reduced from that indicated at the 9/8/86 meeting due to the City's portion of the benefit derived from the favorable bid received from Beaver Con- struction, and he reviewed the factors affecting the formula by which the final figures were determined. Mr. Hunt summarized some of the various viewpoints of the property owners affected, noting two factors uniting them all -- the price of the sewer to each owner is viewed as excessive, and the City' s financial involvement (reduced from that proposed at the 9/8/86 meeting) is not viewed as aid to those who will be impacted by the assessment; the second factor has been the inherent unfairness of the situation in view of the fact that many owners were unaware of the forthcoming assessment, where the City was aware for the past five years that improvements would ultimately be necessary. He petitioned Council, in the interest of fairness, to address the issue of notice to other owners in potentially similar situations (noting that the Cease & Desist Order applies to other areas of Atas- cadero where owners may still be unaware) and to adhere to the contribution figures proposed on 9/8/86 . Douglas Nix, 4533 Yerba, seconded all of the previous speaker ' s com- ments, reviewed the history of this issue and expressed dissension with the five years of "non-action by this body" . He urged that th City eliminate the $850 annexation fee and, to make up for the lack notification, pay one to two thousand dollars of each parcel asses ment. Steve Rizzuto, 4532 Mananita, expressed concern about emergency acces- ses and parking during construction of the improvements. He also urged greater financial participation by the City. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to extend the meeting past 11: 00 p.m. , seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously. Gary Ferris, 4593 San Jacinto, asked Council to consider an option that homeowners might exchange labor and/or skills for credit toward their assessments. Gary Robertshaw, 4955 Arizona, who owns two lots there and will be doubly assessed, spoke in opposition to the cost. Ken Millett, 4815 Arizona, spoke in opposition to the improvements as well as the cost, urging Council to support the homeowners monetarily as much as possible. Jim Christian, 4125 Arizona, spoke in opposition to being included in the assessment district due to the unique situation of having double frontage on his property. Gary Bateman, 4525 San Jacinto, spoke in opposition to the hook-0 fee. Mayor Mackey closed public comment portion of hearing. 4 ! 0 Mayor Mackey asked if anyone wanted to withdraw their protest; there were none. John Wallace announced that the protests received total between 53 and 54% (45. 08 acres in total area) . (Note: Submitted protests are on file in the City Clerk ' s Office. ) COUNCIL RECESSED AT APPROX. 11:45 P.M. TO ALLOW ENGINEER OF WORK TO DEVELOP RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL. Mayor Mackey called the meeting back to order at 12:02 a.m. , and the proceedings continued in accordance with the schedule listed (see Exh. A attached) . MOTION: By Councilman Molina to override the majority protest, sec- onded by Councilman Handshy; passed by 4:1 roll-call, with Councilwoman Norris opposed. Carlo Fowler of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Bond Counsel, asked that on Pg. 3 of Res. 116-86 , the first complete paragraph be amended to read: "Whereas, this Council found and determined that protests against said proposed improvements were made by the owners of more than one-half of the area of the land in said assessment district to be assessed for said proposed improvements and determined by a 4/5 vote to overrule such protest" . Paul Sensibaugh, Pub. Works Director , further noted that on Pg. 2 of the resolution the time of the public hearing should be amended to reflect 8: 00 p.m. as its fixed time. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to adopt Res. No. 116-86 and formulate Improvement District No. 4, excluding the lot on Arizona (4125/Christian - in accordance with amended staff recommen- dation) , seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed by 4:1 roll call, with Councilwoman Norris opposed. MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to adopt Res. 117-86 (awarding con- struction contract to Beaver Construction Co. ) , seconded by Councilman Molina; passed by 4:1 roll-call, with Councilwoman Norris opposed. Council concurred to make the $850 annexation fee payable within 3 years from the time of final notice of completion of the public im- provements. D. COMMUNITY FORUM Joe Knyal, resident, expressed comments regarding alleged pictures in Councilman Molina' s possession taken of Mr. Kynal without his permis- sion, and he questioned their "spy-type" nature. Doug Nix, 4533 Yerba, expressed his ashamedness of the Council' s deci- sion regarding Improvement District No. 4. 5 i r E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION City Manager - Mike Shelton announced that the construction bids for the new library were opened today, they were significantly over the construction estimate and budget, and the library committee will be meeting to review alternatives. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:05 A.M. TO A JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ON NOVEMBER 5, 1986, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE FOURTH FLOOR CLUB ROOM. MINUTES RECORDED BY: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk PREPARED BY: CINDY WILKINS, Deputy City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit A 6 i (EXHIBIOA TO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 0 10/27/86) CITY OF ATASCADERO IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 4 SEPARADO-CAYUCAS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1913 PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 27, 1986 On September 8, 1986, the City Council of the City of Atascadero adopted Resolution 100-86, which, among other things, set October 27, 1986 as the date for the public hearing on the City of Atascadero Improvement District No. 4 (Separado-Cayucas Assessment District) . Certain notices and publications were to have been executed by the City Clerk in preparation for this public hearing. The following certificates and affidavits are on file with the City Clerk: (a) Affidavit of filing boundary map with San Luis Obispo County Recorder [A-1 ] . (b) Affidavit of Compliance with the Requirements of Law for Publishing, Posting and Mailing Notices of Hearing Protests [A-2 ] . (c) Affidavit of Posting Notice Inviting Sealed Bids [A-3 ] . (d) Affidavit of Posting Notice of Improvement [A-4] . (e) Affidavit of Publication from The Atascadero News re: publishing Notice of Improvement and Invitation to Bidders. (1) Mayor announces: "The hour of 8:00 o' clock P.M. having arrived, this is the time and place of the hearing of protests, objections or appeals with respect to the assessment and work under and pursuant to Resolution of Intention No. 70-86, adopted on July 14, 1986, and to the report of the Engineer of Work prepared and filed with the City Clerk on July 14, 1986, and preliminarily approved by Resolution No. 99-86 adopted on • September 8, 1986 and to the Municipal Improvement Act or,_ of 1913. " "I now declare the public hearing open. " (2) Mayor calls Engineer of Work, John Wallace, of John L. Wallace & Associates, for background report on proposed improvements in the assessment district, the nature and extent of the proposed improvements, including areas to be served, and the method of assessment, including the method of determining benefit and allocating costs, and for report on proposed method of financing pursuant to the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. Engineer also reports on status of construction bids. Engineer states that in his opinion and based upon his experience "The method of assessment has been applied in a uniform manner to each and every parcel within the assessment district, and the proposed assessments are fair and equitable and are proportional to the benefits estimated to be received by each parcel of land from the proposed improvements. " (3) Mayor calls bond counsel, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, for report on legal aspects of the assessment proceedings and issuance of bonds. (4) Mayor calls underwriter of bonds, Security Pacific Capital Markets, for report on financial aspects of the assessment financing and issuance of bonds. (5) Mayor directs City Clerk to read in full all written protests. filed with the City Clerk pursuant hereto. (6) Mayor asks: "Does any person wish to speak in favor of or against the project? (7) Mayor specifies that persons responding must state their names and addresses and assessment numbers. _ [Hear all persons responding. ] (8) Mayor asks Engineer of Work to respond to each written and oral protest. [Engineer of Work responds to City Council . ] (9) Mayor asks Engineer of Work what percentage of lands within the assessment district is represented by written protests. 2 041003-0001-198-4600d (10) Engineer of Work replies that less than per cent of the land within the assessment district is represented by written protests. (11) Mayor calls a recess to allow Engineer of Work to develop recommendation to be made to the City Council. (12) Mayor reconvenes and calls for report. (13) Engineer of Work reports on financial requirements of project in light of bids and recommends approval of same by the City Council. (14) Mayor asks Councilmembers whether they are satisfied with the evidence and testimony introduced at the hearing. [General discussion among Councilmembers follows. ] (15) Mayor entertains motion closing public hearing. (16) City Council adopts order determining that a majority protest is not present. If the City Council wishes to proceed, the following resolution is to be considered: (1) Resolution Confirming Assessment and Ordering Proposed Improvements to be Made, Providing for Notice of Recording of Assessment and Designating the City Treasurer to Collect and Receive Money [R-6] . It is then in order to consider the award of the construction contract. (1) The City Clerk informs the City Council of the number of construction bids received. (2) The Director of Public Works reviews the bids, reports on the lowest bid received and recommends approval of a construction contractor. (3 ) The City Council considers the Resolution Awarding Construction Contract [R-7 ] . 3 041003-0001-198-4600d f" AGENDA A - 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Directors Atascadero County Sanitation District THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: EPA Grant Audit DATE: November 4, 1986 Recommendation It is recommended that the Board approve the attached Resolution No. 126-86 granting Environmental Protection Agency and the California State Water Resources Control Board interest in the treat- ment plant property purchased with Grant monies. Discussion As stated more fully in the Resolution, the District is required as a condition of the grant to reflect and protect EPA's in- terest in property aquired with grant funds. The final audit of the grant has been essentially completed with this document being the final requirement. Fiscal Impact The EPA could, theoretically, bill us for all monies used for the purchase of the treatment plant property. If this requirement is adhered to there is no fiscal impact. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 126-86 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT GRANTING EPA AND SWRCB SECURITY INTEREST IN THE TREATMENT PLANT PROPERTY EQUAL TO GRANT MONIES USED TO PURCHASE SAID PROPERTY WHEREAS, the City -is dedebted to the Environmental Protection Agency, a Federal governmental agency, 215 Fremont Street San Fran- cisco, California (hereinafter known as "EPA" and the California State Water Resources Control Board, a State governmental agency, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California (hereinafter known as "SWRCB") as a result of EPA' s and SWRCB' s advancing through the Clean Water Grant Program, $68,000 used to pay part of the purchase of property herein- after described: All that portion of real property described in that deed from the State of California to the Atascadero County Sanitation District, in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, Recorded July 1, 1982 in Book 2416 Pages 598 et seq, official records in the County Recorder 's .Office, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California. WHEREAS, Title 40 , Section 30 .810.4 CFR requires the Distri to adequately reflect and protect EPA' s interest in property aquiss tions of $10,000 or more, per unit, in compliance with all recordation or registration requirements of the laws of the State of California. WHEREAS, Article 16, Section 6 of the California Constitution prohibits the State from making any gift of public money or thing of value to any individual, municipal or other corporation. Therefore, the SWRCB requires the District to adequately reflect and protect that interest in compliance with all recordation or registration require- ments of the laws of the State of California. NOW, THEREFORE, District grants to EPA and SWRCB security interest in the proprety hereinafter described "Collateral" . The Col- lateral is security for performance of District's obligation under the Grant Agreement between EPA and SWRCB and District. Disrict warrants, covenants and agrees with EPA and SWRCB that: 1. WARRANTIES - (A) statements contained in the District' s Grant application are true and correct; (B) Proceeds from the Grant were used for the purpose agreed upon; (C) District is the owner of the Collateral free and clear of any lien, encumbrance or security interest; and (D) District will de- fend the Collateral against any claim or demand adverse to EPA'as anai SWRCB's interest. 2 L' 2. INSPECTION - EPA AND SWRCB shall have the right to inspect the Collateral at any time. 3. USE OF PROPERTY IN OTHER PROJECTS - The District shall obtain approval from EPA and SWRCB for the use of the Collateral in other projects when the District determines that the property is no longer needed for the original grant purpose. To the extent of EPA' s interest, use in other projects shall be limited to those under other Federal Government Grant pro- grams or programs that have purposes consistent with those authorized for support by EPA. 4. REAL PROPERTY NO LONGER NEEDED FOR GRANT PURPOSES - When the real property is no longer needed for the grant purposes or for other projects, District shall request disposition in- structions from EPA and SWRCB. 5. DISPOSITION INSTRUCTIONS - The 'EPA and SWRCB shall observe the following rules in disposition instructions for the real property hereinafter described: (1) In the case of real property purchased in part with EPA and SWRCB funds, District at the direction of EPA' s and SWRCB' s Project Officers, may: (i) Retain title with Federal and State restriction removed if it compensates the Federal Government and the State Government an amount computed by applying the Federal and State percentage of participation in the net cost of the project to the current fair market value of the property, or (ii) Sell the property under guidelines provided by EPA and SWRCB and pay the Federal Government and State Government an amount computed by applying the Federal and State percentage of participation in the net cost of the project to the proceeds from sale (after deducting actual and reasonable selling and fix-up expenses, if any, from the sales proceeds) or (iii) Transfer title of the property to the Federal Government and State Government with their consent provided that in such cases the District shall be entitled to compensation computed by applying the District' s percentage of participation in the net cost of the project to the current fair market value of the property. 3 On motion by and seconded by the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE: ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ MARJORIE MACKEY City Clerk President of the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT ROBERT M. JONES, PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH, City Attorney Director of Public Works 4 . s' ��'' � ��`' � �"r 4,�'i �r'w� t�% "}4 !' � Y f �` wx� s► ��! �` � px +5 # Cyt �v Ottr 1��0 auaOMC11 w h ..ouhcr M ikAA = ariac�e T. E or s epaame r 1C Dil a r e a m, n e 4 he pec ar olvemen ea. pairGelsr ewe` aseusm Y ' tai he a n da e a ss stance� n� o � a dt i atift el ommendeo a enc ranc' bY1iy N A, H�-t - a '4'T+„�v9+h 16{i4 3l k .• +..'FfR+if t ti n. phis� :�rery a� co�pl x dime onsum�.. rp� g : �� .�ma�in�anng�}�tTiei��Qt °er. ,sual: fob: y '��es � r : Valer ie Humghr:e. 'Ci ndy:;Wilkns = r4, ;Personnei' i3.e ; Recreation- Departmen . i ! sr�-sem�a F, "�vt' TrS rmil ashy a a+ y Atl y ,, sr r � r t �' �f �.'p�.,�" '✓�r* ,�� "��,� rl�. .J. a 's �,tn CATE AGTIOd 11/10/86l:E�A � A-4 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council November 10, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager0) . FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment 7-86 LOCATION: 9099 La Linia APPLICANT: Jim Shores (Volbrecht Surveys) REQUEST: To adjust a lot line between two existing lots. On October 6, 1986 and October 20, 1986, the Planning Commission con- ducted public hearings on the above-referenced subject, unanimously approving the lot line adjustment subject to the findings and condi- tions contained in the attached staff report. There was considerable public testimony and discussion by the Planning Commission as referenced in the attached minutes excerpt. HE:ps cc: Jim Shores Volbrecht Surveys Attachments: Planning Commission Staff Report - October 20, 1986 and October 6, 1986 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt - October 20 , 1986 and October 6, 1986 ` • D City of Atascadero Item: B-1 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date 10/20/86 BY: Steven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: LLA 7-86 Project Address: 9099 La Linia Road BACKGROUND: At the October 6, 1986 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed the proposed lot line adjustment for Jim Shores on La Linia. The proposal was before the Commission as a public hearing item be- cause the adjustment, if approved, would result in a reduction in the size of an already nonconforming lot. The adjustment of the lot line was requested to eliminate an encroach- ment of an existing single-family dwelling onto a second lot. Both lots are owned by, the applicant, and both are currently nonconforming lots based on their size. At the direction of the Commission, staff has reconsidered its previ- ous position recommending approval of Lot Line Adjustment 7-86. Land Use Policy #10 on page 62 of the General Plan states, in para: "Reduction in size of existing nonconforming lots shall, however, only be allowed with lot line adjustments to correct historical and geographical use problems and to facilitate the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructure or easements where no increase in overall density will result. On past occasions when lot line adjustments of this type were consid- ered, both lots in question were fully developed. Not only did this situation fulfill the "geographical use problems" portion of the pol- icy, it also insured that there would be no increase in density. In the proposal currently before the Commission, the one existing structure has been constructed across the lot line. There is, there- fore, no "geographical use problem" as has been found in other pro- posals. In addition, LLA 7-86 could result in an increase in overall density if the "new" lot is developed with a single family home. RECOMMENDATION; Based on the above information, it is staff' s finding that Lot Line Adjustment 7-86 does not meet the intent of Land Use Policy #10. Findings for disapproval are attached- to this memorandum for your review. SLD:ps i • Lot Line Adjustment 7-86 (Shores/Volbrecht) EXHIBIT C (revised) - Lot Line Adjustment 7-86 Findings for Denial October 20, 1986 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 does not conform with all applicable zoning, general plan and subdivision regulations of the City of Atascadero. 3. The lot line adjustment proposed would constitute a grant of spe- cial privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other prop- erties in the vicinity and zoning district in which such property is situated. 4. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property, in- cluding size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, which would, upon application of this Title, deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the . same zoning district. 3 � ; City of Atascadero Item: B-1 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/6/86 BY: #pSteven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: LLA 7-86 Project Address: 9099 La Linia Road SUBJECT: Request to adjust a lot line between two existing parcels resulting in a reduction in the size of an existing nonconforming lot. BACKGROUND: The City' s Zoning Ordinance provides a method for accomplishing lot line adjustments that will result in a reduction in the size of exist- ing, nonconforming lots. This lot line adjustment procedure is the same as that required for the review of variance requests. Among the requirements for this type of action is that a public hearing be conducted. Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Fri- day, September 26, 1986 . All property owners of record located within 300 feet of the site were also notified on that date. A. LOCATION: 9099 La Linia (Lot 6 , Block 3, Eaglet #1) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Adjustment of a lot line between two existing developed lots. 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jim Shores 3. Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Volbrecht Surveys 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Parcel A = 0.13 ac (0. 16 ac) Parcel B = 0.28 ac (0.25 ac) 5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .La Linia is a paved, City-main- tained street with a 40 foot right-of-way. El Centro is paved and also has a 40 foot right-of-way. 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Y (Residential Single Family - one acre minimum lot size with sewers, one and one-half acres without sewer) Lot Line Adjustment 7-86 (Shores/Volbrecht) 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Single-family dwelling located on Parcel B. 8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RSF-Y, residential South: RSF-Y, residential East: RSF-Y, residential West: RSF-Y, residential 9. General Plan Designation. . . . .Moderate Density Single Family 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Flat 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt (Class 5) C. ANALYSIS: The property which is the subject of this lot line adjustment is located in the RSF-Y zone. The minimum lot size allowed in this zone is 1.0 acres where sewers are available. Neither of the af- fected parcels meet the minimum lot size and are considered to be nonconforming. Because one of the lots will be made smaller (more nonconforming) as a result of the proposed lot line adjustment, Section 9-7 .116 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that review and action on the proposal follow variance procedures (Section 9-1.113) . These pro- cedures require that the Planning Commission make additional spe- cific findings prior to approving such a lot line adjustment. The General Plan provides for the reduction in size of existing nonconforming lots through lot line adjustment in certain speci- fied cases. Land Use Policy #10 on Page 62 of the General Plan provides, in part: "Reduction in size of existing nonconforming lots shall, how- ever , only be allowed with lot line adjustments to correct historical and geographical use problems and to facilitate the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructure or ease- ments where no increase in overall density will result. " Parcel B is developed with a single family dwelling. A portion of the dwelling on this parcel has been constructed beyond the rear property line. Both of the parcels are very narrow (70 to 80 feet) precluding any other lot configuration which would result in an equal exchange of land between the parcels. This method is normally preferred to avoid any further reduction in the size of nonconforming lots. The location of the new lot line is the mini- mum distance allowed (10 feet) from the rear of the existing structure. This will at least minimize the resultant reduction in the size of Parcel A. 2 Lot Line Adjustment 7-86 (Shores/Volbrecht) Under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, there are four find- ings that must be made prior to the approval of the proposed lot line adjustment. These are the same findings that must be made prior to the approval of a variance. The first finding requires a determination that the lot line ad- justment does not represent a "grant of special privileges. " Al- though this project would result in the further reduction in the size of a nonconforming lot, it will not result in any increase in overall neighborhood density. Thus, even though other properties would not be allowed to subdivide into substandard lot sizes, they would be allowed lot line adjustments under similar circumstances. The second finding requires a determination that "special circum- stances" exist to justify the action requested. As noted above, one of the subject parcels is fully developed to the limits al- lowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Some of the improvements were placed across a property line and have existed that way for a num- ber of years. Due to the size and configuration of the lots and their improvements, there is no feasible alternative lot configu- ration that will meet the intent of the application without re- ducing the size of a nonconforming lot. The third finding requires a determination that the approval will not authorize a use not otherwise authorized in the zoning dis- trict. The use of both of the subject parcels is or will be resi- dential which is the allowed use in the zone. No change in the use or density of the parcels is requested or will be authorized through approval of the lot line adjustment. Finally, a finding must be made that the proposal will not, if approved, adversely affect public health, safety or welfare. The lot line adjustment requested will not result in any density in- crease or any new development not allowed for by current zoning standards. !lhe change requested is legal in nature and will not result in any The change to the subject parcels or the neighborhood character . Thus, there will be no effect upon the health, safetyor welfare. The proposed lot line adjustment meets the test of the required variance findings and is in conformance with all other General Plan and Zoning Ordinance provisions. In this case, there will be no detrimental', effects from the further reduction in size of an existing nonconforming lot. 3 g 0 r Lot Line Adjustment 7-86 (Shores/Volbrecht) D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Lot Line Adjustment 7-86 basedonthe Findings in Exhibit C and the Conditions in Exhibit D. SLD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location and Zoning Map Exhibit B - Tentative Lot Line Adjustment Map Exhibit C - Findings for Approval Exhibit D - Conditions of Approval 4 I . _ mmmo MEN Mor . 0 1..11 ♦ � . � d i w C xt�t 8i� t3 L.LA ?- 26, — po Ik4 A � p I °0 I z I � � `•"� yIH IIS 7IA ��y; ,�yl� ilk lu q, n Lot Line Adjustment 7-86 (Shores/Volbrecht) EXHIBIT C - Lot Line Adjustment 7-86 Findings for Approval October 6, 1986 FINDINGS: 1. The application as submitted has been determined to be categori- cally exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. The application as submitted conforms with all applicable zoning, general plan and subdivision regulations of the City of Atascadero 3. The lot line adjustment authorized does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zoning district in which such prop- erties in the vicinity and zoning district in which such property is situated. 4. There are special circumstances applicable to the property, in- cluding size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, and because of these circumstances, the application of this Title would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the viciity and in the same zoning district. 5. The lot line adjustment does not authorize a use which is not otherwise authorized in the zoning district. 6. The granting of such lot line adjustment, under the circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, adversely affect the health or safety of persons, is not materially detrimental to the public welfare, nor injurious to nearby property or improvements. 5 r 0 Lot Line Adjustment 7-86 (Shores/Volbrecht) EXHIBIT D - Lot Line Adjustment 7-86 Conditions of Approval October 6, 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 or 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. 6 ITA-1 MENG DATE: 11/3/86 MINUTES - ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meetin 9 Monday, October 20, 1986 7:30 p.m. tascadero Administration Building The regular meeting of the Atascadero Planning C mission was call to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Bond. Com i.ssioner Lopez- Balbon 'n led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commis 'oners Kidwell, Hatchell, chielssen, Nolan, Copelan Lopez-Ba ontin, and Chairman Bo d ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Henry EngeCommunity Development 'Director ; and Patricia She p ar , Administrative Secretary I A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of re lar meeting of Oc ber 6, 1986 With regard to age 2 of the October 6, 86 minutes concerning the motion r Item B-1 (Lot Line Adjustm t 7-86) , Commissioner Hatchell of red the following correction for the last sentence in the mo ion - to reflect staff to bring back indings "not nec- essarily//for denial" of the request. MOTI Made by Commissioner Copelan, seconded by Co issioner Hatchell and carried unanimously to approve the consent calendar as presented with the above correction t the minutes as noted. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Lot Line Adjustment 7-86 : Continued public hearing on request submitted by Jim Shores (Volbrecht Surveys) to allow an adjustment of a lot line be- tween two existing developed lots. Subject property is loca- ted at 9099 La Linia, also known as Lot 6 of Block 3 in Eaglet #1. Mr. Engen presented the staff report giving a brief background on _ the previous meeting's actions concerning the item. He stated the key issue involves what the Commission' s intent was at the time the new procedure for lot line adjustments was incorporated in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, i.e. , was it intended to Minutes - Planning Commission - October 20, 1986 permit new dwelling units on substandard sized lots. 0 Chairman Bond stated he was in contact with the applicant' s agent and had been notified that the applicant had received two certifi- cates of compliance from the City before purchasing the property. He did not feel comfortable with this having occurred before the lot line adjustment. Mr. Engen explained the procedures for cer- tificates of compliance and noted in this particular case there had been numerous changes in ownership of the property, and noted staff did not know at the time of preparing the certificates that a portion of the house straddled the lot line. Commissioner Michielssen felt that density was not a key factor in deciding this issue, and asked for clarification on this as he was not present at the previous hearing to which Commissioner Kidwell explained what the Commission's concerns were at the last hearing. In response to question from Commissioner Michielssen, Mr. Engen explained that certificates of compliance are sought by people who want to confirm that they have legal lots of record that can be sold and are in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act. Commissioner Hatchell added that with regard to the Commission's intent concerning lot line adjustments with nonconforming lots, he felt the intent is that there is recognition that there are nonconforming lots in the City which will continue to come before the Commission and the intent is not to increase the degree of nonconformity but to rectify the situation that has occurred whether it be encroachment of fences, houses, etc. Commissioner Nolan asked if El Centro is a City-maintained street to which Mr. Engen stated he did not think it was. Richard Shannon, representing the applicant, gave a brief history of the purchase of this property in relation to obtaining the certificates of compliance and in discovering the encroachment of a family room onto the lot line. He felt that this application meets all the necessary criteria,, and noted that the density would not be increased as the property is two separate lots and, there- fore, is buildable on the vacant lot, and further noted that the County has assessed this lot as a separate parcel for many years. There was continued discussion by the Commission concerning the appropriateness of approving this lot line adjustment request. Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin asked that when staff issues certifi- cates of compliances, is it possible to have staff look into whether houses are encroaching on two lots. Mr. Engen explained that City staff resources are limited in terms of surveying, etc. and that a possible alternative would be to have applicants certi- fy that any structures do not encroach within the required set- - backs on the property. 2 0 0 Minutes - Planning Commission - October 20 , 1986 Commissioner Michielssen added that certificates of compliance process should be kept simple and assurances made to see that the lot complies with the Subdivision Map Act. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Kidwell, seconded by Commissioner Copelan and carried unanimously with a roll call vote to approve Lot Line Adjustment 7-86 subject to the findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report. Commissioner Hatchell asked that clarifications on certificates of compliance be made so the applicants will be aware that encroach- ments on their lots may preclude issuance of building permits. 2. Tentative Tract Map 24-86 : Request submitted by Don Messer/Camino Real Prop ties (Cues- Engineering) to allow creation of fifteen co ercial air- s p ce condominium units. Subject property is ocated at 7425 El mino Real, also known as Lot 2 of Block A. Mr . Engen ga a the staff report on this matter and noted that the shopping cent is almost complete on the si . Neither the appl ant nor an agent appear d on behalf of this item. There was no public t timony given. Commissioner Lopez-Balbo in asked f the City is assured that the purchasers of these commer ial co dominiums will make sure that appropriate maintenance o t property will be kept up. Mr. Engen responded that the CC&R would cover maintenance, shared parking, common landscaping r as, etc. and noted that the Zoning Ordinance, as well, require that this maintenance be kept up. Mr. Engen also pointed o that c dition #1-b should reflect the Condominium Owners Assoc ' tion, not 'Homeowners. " There was brief discu sion concerning t City' s ability to en- force the CC&Rs. MOTION: Made by ommissioner Nolan, second by Commissioner Copela and carried unanimously t approve Tentative Trac Map 24-86 subject to the findin and conditions con ined in the staff report, with modification to Con- di ion #1-b to reflect "Condominium Own! Association" stead of "Condominium Homeowners Associat n. " 3. entative Tract Map 27-86: Request submitted by Wallace Dunn (North Coast Engin ering) to allow creation of thirteen commercial air-space con min- ium units. Subject property is located at 7500 Morro Rad, also known as Lots 8 and 9 and a portion of Lot 19 of Bl o k RB. 3 0eting Date : 10/20/86 Item: A-1 MINUTES - ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Monday, October 6, 1986 7:30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building he regular meeting of the Atascadero Planning Commission w Calle to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Bond. Commissioner pelan led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commis 'oners Kidwell, Hatchell, Nolan, pez-Balbontin, Copelan d Chairman Bond ABSENT: Commissione Michielssen (excused) STAFF PRESENT: Henry Eng , Community De lopment Director; Steve DeCamp, Sen ' r Planner ; nd Patricia Shepphard, Admin- istrative Sec etary I A. CONSENT CALENDAR , 1. Approval of the mi tes of the ugust 18, 1986 meeting 2. Approval of th minutes of the Sep mber 15, 1986 meeting 3. Excused abs nce from October 6, 1986 m ting by Commissioner Michielss n Commission Nolan referenced the September 15, 86 minutes, page 5, 4th p agraph, and asked for clarification as to who actually respon d, Mr. Barrett or Mr. DeCamp. Mr . DeCamp pr ided the clari 'cation and noted that both had commented on the ssue. M ION: Made by Commissioner Hatchell, seconded by Commis 'oner Copelan and carried unanimously to approve the Cons t Calendar as presented. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Lot line Adjustment 7-86 : Request submitted by Jim Shores (Volbrecht Surveys) to allow an adjustment of a lot line between two existing developed lots. Subject property is located at 9099 La Linia, also known as Lot 6 of Block 3 in Eaglet #1. Minutes - Planning Commission - October 6 , 1986 - Mr. DeCamp presented the staff report recommending conditional approval of the request. Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin asked if there would be any problems building on the second lot as small as it is. Mr. DeCamp stated it is a buildable lot (5,600 square feet) , however , it is quite small, and added that sewer is available on the site. Chairman Bond questioned the appropriateness of Finding #4 con- cerning special circumstances applicable to the property. Mr. DeCamp responded that the applicant' s request was based on the fact that the single family dwelling had been built across the lot line and is, therefore, a special circumstance in itself. Chair- man Bond questioned the feasibility of this due to the resulting substandard lot which would occur in relation to surrounding neighborhood density. No one appeared to speak on behalf of the application, and there was no public testimony given. Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin asked if another dwelling could be built if the application were to be denied, to which Mr. DeCamp responded that because of an existing encroachment problem, this could not be done. There was discussion concerning fully developed lots versus lots which have not been fully developed with regard to the intent of these types of lot line adjustments. In response to question from Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin, Mr. De- Camp noted that it may be possible to create a flag lot for this property depending upon what type of development would occur. Commissioner Kidwell noted that the surrounding lots on El Centro are sizeable. There was discussion as to when these lots were originally created and when the house was constructed. Mr . Engen commented on the County' s definition of these kind's of lots being referred to as "defacto lot mergers" when a building was built across the lot line, it has the practical effect of committing both lots to that single use. He noted that if this were the case with this subject lot (prior to City incorporation) , this is probably the standard the County would have used. Commissioner Hatchell stated he would like to see some additional findings before a motion for denial would be made. MOTION: Moved by Commissioner Hatchell, seconded by Commission- er Lopez-Balbontin and carried with Commissioner Copelan dissenting to continue the hearing on Lot Line Adjustment 7-86 to October 20 , 1986 with the direction to staff to bring back some additional research on the property along with possible findings for denial. 2 M ^rINIG AGENDA 11 / 10/86 A - 51- M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council November 10, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager . , FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director j SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 24-86 LOCATION: 7425 E1 Camino Real (Plaza de Pueblo) APPLICANT: Don Messer/Camino Real Properties (Cuesta Engineering) REQUEST: To allow creation of fifteen commercial air-space condominium units. On October 20, 1986, the Planning Commission conducted a public hear- ing on the above-referenced request unanimously approving the condo- minium application subject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached staff report, with modification to condition #1-B to reflect "Condominium Owners Association" instead of "Condominium Home- owners Association. " Neither the applicant nor an agent appeared on behalf of this matter. No public testimony was given. cc: Don Messer Cuesta Engineering City of Atascadero Item:—B-2 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/20/86 BY: Steven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: TTM 24-86 Project Address: 7425 El Camino Real SUBJECT: Creation of fifteen (15) commercial air-space condominium units on a 1.4 acre site. BACKGROUND: Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Fri- day, October 10, 1986 . All property owners of record located within 300 feet of the subject property were also notified on that date. A. LOCATION: 7425 E1 Camino Real (Lot 2, Block JA) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Creation of fifteen (15) commer- cial air-space condominiums. 2. Applicants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Don Messer/Camino Real Prop. 3. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cuesta Engineering 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. 4 acres 5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .El Camino Real is a City-main- tained street. 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..CR (Commercial Retail) 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Commercial (shopping center under construction) 8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: CR (commercial) South: CR (commercial) East: RMF-16 (residential) West: CS (commercial) 9. General Plan Designation. . . . .Retail Commercial 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Flat 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt (Class 1) Tentative Tract Map 24-86 (Messer/Camino Real Prop./Cuesta) C. ANALYSIS: This application proposes the creation of fifteen (15) a ' commer- cial air-space condominiums. The project consists of the conver- sion of an existing fifteen unit commercial structure to individ- ual ownership. Thus, each commercial unit will be individually owned with parking and other open areas owned in common. This project was previously reviewed and approved under the pre- cise plan and building permit processes. All public improvements that would normally be required at the time of tract map approval have been secured or conditioned as part of these prior approvals. Tentative tract map approval will not effect the imposition of those requirements. The conversion of the project to a condominium does not present any substantial planning issues of concern to staff. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map 24-86 based on the Findings in Exhibit C and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit D. SLD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location and Zoning Map Exhibit B - Tentative Tract Map Exhibit C - Findings for Approval Exhibit D Conditions of Approval 2 / ti ice,a �-•+ ,� i ` ,, �� . 1+� ��:.� � S� ,. ♦ ��i� �►�� 'moi ��1 �`-, . - . �•- ►- 1111 its WOW 111\ 1111110";,►n . � � . Y 111 • - ■t .. �� 111 N �i .a IPA �� ♦ ♦ � , _ � , iii �' OR Mpimffll WE w C>C W b i T 13 rig �,�� i r a c-� NL-Ar. i T,M Z4 -8(, n 47 zi zi I V t ti K, pn 1 E 2 aP6 1. �.� j;r •,Ii.Wi• � - , W ion°•, `�� a ;lt ` z�st•h Q .� ��`� it � � . � •, s '. �,.•c4 Z3.° L �_ off', i�� 4�� ^r, ..�� z «,« C 4 •.:'< 1 w ji w Ys•+ •� 4 fid '� �•e e � y 1 s 'ti 1 ra �1 a Z e, � � 1 ti 1 W SFoa i `Ya 2 n� of Tentative Tract Map 24-86 (Messer/Camino Real Prop./Cuesta) EXHIBIT C - Tentative Tract Map 24-86 Findings for Approval October 20, 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. (0) ) . 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development that is proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development that is proposed. 5. The design of the subdivision 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 type of improvement will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or that substantially equivalent alternate 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 0 • Tentative Tract Map 24-86 (Messer/Camino Real Prop./Cuesta) EXHIBIT D - Tentative Tract Map 24-86 Conditions of Approval October 20, 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 Department prior to approval of the final map. b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by a Condominium Homeowners Association. 2. The open space (Lot 1) shall be designated as a Public Utilties Easement. 3. Submit a soils report or engineer ' s certification that existing soils on the site are adequate to support proposed structures per Chapter 70, subsection (e) of the Uniform Building Code. 4. 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 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. 5. All conditions imposed on the project by Precise Plan 47-85 and building permits shall be satisfied prior to recording the final map. 6. 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. 4 It �4T3 11 L.10./86 A v 6 --------- M M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council November 10, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director . SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 27-86 LOCATION: 7500 Morro Road APPLICANT: Wallace Dunn (Notth Coast Engineering) REQUEST: To allow creation of thirteen commercial air-space condo- minium units. On October 20, 1986, the Planning Commission conducted a public hear iing on the above-referenced request unanimously approving the condo- minium application subject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached staff report, with modification to condition #1-B to reflect "Condominium Owners Association" instead of "Condominium Home- owners Association" , and with the CC&Rs to limit the Navajoa parking lot to employee parking only. There was brief discussion among the Commission concerning adequate provisions for ' parking to avoid any "spill-over" traffic such as ex- ists at the El Morro Plaza. Patsy West with North Coast Engineering, representing the applicant, stated that all of the conditions were acceptable. HE:ps cc: Wallace Dunn North Coast Engineering City of Atascadero Item: B-3 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/20/86 BY: Steven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: TTM 27-86 Project Address: 7500 Morro Road SUBJECT• Creation of thirteen (13) commercial air-space condominium units on a 1.0 acre site. BACKGROUND: Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Fri- day, October 10, 1986. All property owners of record located within 300 feet of the subject property were also notified on that date. A LOCATION: 7500 Morro Road Lots 8 9 tn. Lot 19 Block RB B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Creation of thirteen (13) com- mercial air-space condominiums. 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .Wallace Dunn 3. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .North Coast Engineering 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.0 acres 5., Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Morro Road (Highway 41) is a state highway with a 100 foot right-of-way. Navajoa is a City maintained street with a 40 foot right-of-way. 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CP (PD3) , Commercial Professional 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Office building (under construction) 8. Adjacent Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . .North: CP (PD3) and LSF-Y South: CP (PD3) and LSF-Y East: CP (FH) (PD3) West: LSF-Y . 9. General Plan Designation. . . . .Professional Office 10. Terrain. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Flat 0 • Tentative Tract Map 27-86 (Dunn/North Coast Engineering) 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt (Class 1) C. ANALYSIS: This application proposes the creation of thirteen commercial air- space condominiums. The project consists of the conversion of an office building to individual ownership. Thus, each office unit will be individually owned, and parking and other open areas will be owned in common. This project was previously reviewed and approved under the pre- vise plan and building permit processes. All public improvements that would normally be required at the time of tract map approval have been secured or conditioned as part of these prior approvals. Tentative tract map approval will not effect the imposition of those requirements. The conversion of the project to a condominium does not present any substantial planning issues of concern to staff. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map 27-86 based on the Findings in Exhibit D and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit E. SLD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location and Zoning Map Exhibit B - Tentative Tract Map Exhibit C - Precise Plan Conditions of Approval Exhibit D - Findings for Approval Exhibit E - Conditions of Approval 2 �► off► -� _ _ e/EWPAP ��I. �,��I��111\ MIIIIIIIR.�an . �'I,, ., •,,,I Twn MA owl 1 �� ♦ �� '!.. ��♦ •/sus��►� EX1k1 61 i 6 M ap T 1 /LA z-7— 8(, I Ci S. Z E Z Es a3` IQ jjOvCQ w a Q 5u. r Eo o $ E �. Q W J•!V V E N Q Z Q < Wa85n'' :$ lV Q J h V Ipbss says � re \ o (n sW g h �� W a:�, _ -9 s ��•_ 26'so - / 9.:1o,L6.9LS 9..66.2Eo9L S� 1 m 4 i r Q o T* OD o _ tn v v $ N \ a n e M.,8i,66,7L N EX41 BiT G T'r�c /EXHIBIT C Conditions of Approval Precise Plan 43-86 . 7500 Morro Road (Golden West/Elkins) 1. All construction shall be in conformance with Exhibit B (site plan Exhibit C (conditions of approval) , and all other applicable codes and ordinances of the City of Atascadero. Any modification to this approval shall be approved by the Community Development De- partment prior to implementing any changes. 2. Complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to, and subsequently approved by, the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permits (Section 9-2.124) . The pre- liminary landscaping plan appears generally complete. Please note the following: a. - All areas including setbacks, parking lots, and unused areas shall be landscaped appropriately per Section 9-4.125 (a) . b. All existing trees with a diameter of eight inches or more shall be shown. Trees which are to be removed shall be noted as such. C. Proposed landscaping shall be accompanied with a planting schedule which includes species, container sizes, number of plants or flats, and the space distribution of ground covers. d. Parking areas which abut an adjacent residential area shall . be screened with solid fencing six feet in height and a five foot wide landscaping strip. 3. One fire hydrant shall be installed at the entrance of the north- ern driveway prior to combustible construction. 4. A ten foot rear setback is required where commercial buildings over 12 feet in height abut a residential zone. The proposed site plan shows a building over 20 feet in height with a five foot rear setback (Section 9-4.108 (b) (2) ) . 5. Road improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. These shall include: a. Construction of road improvements shall be completed (or bonded for) prior to final building inspection. b. Improvement of Navajoa frontage to the following standard: - curb, gutter and five foot sidewalk and paveout. 6. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment per -t-from the Public - Works Department and shall sign an inspection agreement and a curb and gutter agreement guaranteeing that the work will be done and inspections paid for, prior to the issuance of any building per- mits. The improvements shall be constructed as directed by the encroachment permit prior to final building inspection. 7. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from CalTrans for work within their right-of-way prior to issuance of a building permit, and complete improvements as required by the permit. 8. Grading and drainage plans prepared by a registered civil engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Public Works and Communi- ty Development Departments prior to the issuance of any building permits. a. All drainage work shall be completed (or bonded for) prior to final building inspection. b. Drainage facilities shall be constructed to City standards. 9. The applicant shall make an offer of dedication to the City for the following right-of-way or submit proof acceptable to the City Engineer that the street has already been dedicated: Street Name: Navajoa Limits: Property frontage Minimum Width: 20 feet from the centerline 10. The applicant shall obtain a sewer connection permit from the Pub- lic Works Department prior to hooking up to the public sewer. 11. An in-lieu sewer connection fee of $20 . 50 per fixture unit shall be due in addition to. the usual connection, tap-in, and installa- tin fees, prior to the issuance of any building permits. 12. The applicant shall participate in eliminating a portion of the flood hazard to the property by posting a performance security in the amount of $3,343/cfs or $10 ,029/acre with the City, to be used for a drainage improvement project for channelizing the outflow from Atascadero Lake to Atascadero Creek. In the event that a future assessment district is formed for the area drainage im- provements that include this project, then credit in the amount of the deposit will be applied towards final apportionment of the assessment if allowed by the assessment district proceedings. 13. This precise plan is approved for a period of one year from the date of final approval (August 26 , 1986) . Tentative Tract Map 27-86 (Dunn/North Coast Engineering) EXHIBIT D - Tentative Tract Map 27-86 Findings for Approval October 20, 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. (0) ) . 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development that is proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development that is proposed. 5. The design of the subdivision 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 type of improvement will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or that substantially equivalent alternate 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 0 Tentative Tract Map 27-86 (Dunn/North Coast Engineering) EXHIBIT E - Tentative Tract Map 27-86 Conditions of Approval October 20, 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 Department prior to approval of the final map. b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by a Condominium Homeowners Association. 2. The open space (lot 1) shall be designated as a Public Utilities Easement. 3. Submit a soils report or engineer ' s certification that existing soils on the site are adequate to support proposed structures per Chapter 70 , subsection (e) of the Uniform Building Code. 4. 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 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. 5. All conditions imposed on the project by Precise Plan 43-86 and building permits shall be satisfied prior to recording the final map. 6. 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. 4 . MEET* AGENDA DATE _ 11/10186 ITEM f A - 7 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council November 10, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 26-86 LOCATION: 7408-7478 Santa Ysabel APPLICANT: Richard Montanaro (North Coast Engineering) REQUEST: To create 28 residential condominium units with common area. On October 20, 1986, the Planning Commission conducted a public hear- ing on the above-referenced subject, approving the application on a 6:1 vote (Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin dissenting) subject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached staff report, with Condition #8 to reflect a maximum amount of $500. 00 for the drainage mitigation fee (as stated by the Engineering Department) . There was considerable public testimony and discussion by the Planning Commission as referenced in the attached minutes excerpt. HE:ps cc: Richard Montanaro North Coast Engineering Attachments: Planning Commission Staff Report - October 20, 1986 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt -October 20, 1986 • s City of Atascadero Item: B-4 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/20/86 BY: Meg Morris, Assistant Planner File No: TTM 26-86 Project Address: 7408-7478 Santa Ysabel SUBJECT Request to create 28 residential air-space condominiums with -common area. BACKGROUND: Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Fri- day, October 10, 1986. All property owners of record located within 300 feet of the subject site were also notified on that date. A. LOCATION: 7408-7478 Santa Ysabel (One legal lot as merged by Lot Merger 4-86 in Block JA) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To create 28 residential condo- minium units with common area. 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Richard Montanaro 3. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .North Coast Engineering 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Approximately 1.75 acres 5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Santa Ysabel is a City-main- tained street with a 40 foot right-of-way. 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF/16 (Residential Multiple Family - 16 units per acre) 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .28 unit apartment complex under construction 8. Adjacent Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . .North: RMF/16 South: CR East: RMF/16 West: CR _ 9. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Multiple Family 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Flat 9 • Tentative Tract Map 26-86 (Montanaro/North Coast Engineering) 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt (Class 1 (k) C. ANALYSIS: A precise plan (PP 14-86) review was applied for in March of 1986 to construct a 28 unit apartment complex at this site. Develop- ment design was addressed as a part of this administrative review. The precise plan was subsequently approved and building permits issued for the project. This application now proposes the creation of 28 residential air- space condominium units. The 28 apartment units under construc- tion will be converted to individual ownership. This will allow individual ownership of the dwelling units and common ownership of the parking and open space areas. The residential units are still under construction and are not presently occupied or rented. However, it is estimated that con- struction could be completed as early as within 60 days. If these units were then to be occupied by renters (prior to recording the final tract map) , there would be several procedural steps to be followed as required by State law. These include notification of tenants of the conversion and offers to sell the units to existing tenants. The proposed conversion from apartments to condominiums will mod- ify the sewer connection fee requirements. Any fees charged previously will have to be amended. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map 26-86 based on the Findings contained in Exhibit C and the Conditions contained in Exhibit D. MM:ps - ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location and Zoning Map Exhibit B - Proposed Tract Map Exhibit C - Findings for Approval Exhibit D - Conditions of Approval 2 u ® , olp �� ems• �� ® ,4 ,� ♦ / MMM PAP �� .. 1111, ' .� � • ..v-P I� -.I ►�v�I�I1e�,, t/ . .. ., ♦ I �... 1 %alas j� 1 �: 'r _ �� •�� i• , �1�1® e��w�`moi% i WL WWI m lift- / 1 40 t flllll�lllll� 81111 �+— I.•�� , �11�/ � ,��,��•��'�., mow+, ' 7. QL tu CE e :q` W � sr j: N .moo 77 7 •si-10 IQ: Q � - O A O 71 LLN W V O 2 z may' Q� U W - -`Qy _ ..'� •, •Ql 1i1 �• lu 9Z) tu l3 47CS � � m 112 YAdo 739V5A b'1Nf1s o l .s �. zE.is• s -- 94 � I b '�� Z ti • �= ice- - � , � -=_1• � � p.:y �. ( a: �e. Q T— \ - f - _ --- : Q ! , -- - �. . . f 9 • Tentative Tract Map 26-86 (Montanaro/North Coast Engineering) EXHIBIT C - Tentative Tract Map 26-86 Findings for Approval October 20, 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 the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15301 (k) ) . 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development that is proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development that is proposed. 5. The design of the subdivision 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 type of improvement will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or that substantially equivalent alternate 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 ,rt Tentative Tract Map 26-86 (Montanaro/North Coast Engineering) EXHIBIT D - Tentative Tract Map 26-86 Conditions of Approval October 20, 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 Department prior to approval of the final map. b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by a Condominium Homeowners Association. 2. The open space (Lot 29) shall be designated as a Public Utilities Easement. 3. Submit a soils report or engineer ' s certification that existing soils on the site are adequate to support proposed structures per Chapter 70, subsection (e) of the Uniform Building Code. The date of such reports, the name of the engineer making the report, and the location where the reports are on file shall be noted on the final map. 4. All conditions imposed on the project by Precise Plan 14-86 and building permts shall be satisfied prior to recording the final map. This shall include grading, drainage and road improvements to be completed or bonded for to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 5. All requirements of state law (Subdivision Map Act) concerning the conversion of occupied residential units to air-space condominiums shall be complied with. 6. Wastewater disposal shall be connected to the public sewer , and the applicant shall pay all appropriate fees in force at the time of recordation of the final map, to include sewer connection fee per single family dwelling unit as established by City Ordinance. 7. A drainage maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be recorded at the time it is first conveyed and a note to this effect shall be placed on the final map. 8. A drainage mitigation fee, as determined by the Public Works De- partment, shall be paid to provide downstream drainage improvements. 4 Tentative Tract Map 26-86 (Montanaro/North Coast Engineering) 9. 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 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 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 a._ Minutes - Planning Commission - October 20 , 1986 n presenting the staff report, Mr. Engen pointed out tha condi- t' n #1-b should also reflect "Owners" associatio instead of "Ho owners" association, and noted staff' s recom ndation for appro 1. Commiss o r Nolan asked if there had been co ern expressed by the homeow rs on Navajoa, to which Mr Engen responded that during the pr ise plan process for this ' te, concern had been expressed, esp Tally concerning the rking situation, but that no appeal ever as result of project hanges made during the pre- cise plan process. Commissioner Kidwell noted her concern that there be adequate parking for the complexes there will not be spill-over traffic such as exists at the El M Plaza. Commissioner Nolan com- mented on guaranteeing at t parking lot exiting on Navajoa be limited to employees. Patsy West with N th Coast Engineer g, representing the appli- cant, stated th all of the condition were acceptable. MOTION: M e by Commissioner Hatchell, se nded by Commissioner opez-Balbontin and carried unanimou y to approve Tenta- tive Tract Map 27-86 subject to the fi ings and condi- tions contained in the staff report, wit modification to condition #1-b to reflect "Condominium O ers Associa- tion" instead of "Condominium Homeowners ssociation" with CC&Rs to limit the Navajoa parking lot employee parking. 4. Tentative Tract Map 26-86: Request submitted by Richard Montanaro (North Coast Engineer- ing) to allow creation of 28 residential condominium units with common area. Subject property is located at 7408-7478 Santa Ysabel. Mr. Engen presented the staff report noting the units are current- ly under construction, and stated staff' s recommendation for approval of the request. He pointed out the difference with this conversion request as opposed to the previous requests on the agenda. Mr. Engen stated that the grading plans have been revised since the precise plan process. Chairman Bond expressed his concern with apartment houses being converted into condominiums and asked what this is doing to the City' s rental structure. He asked why this is occurring to which Mr . Engen noted that usually the applicants obtain a precise plan and building permit approval first and then apply for a tract map for conversion, and pointed out that one advantage to proceeding in this manner is the applicants know at that point where the - walls of the building will be, where the improvements will be, and exactly what the details of the project will be in relation to the site plan. 4 Minutes - Planning Commission - October 20 , 1986 Commissioner Kidwell concurred with Chairman Bond' s concerns andle noted that since she has been on the Planning Commission (since April, 1986) , over 220 condominium units have been approved for conversion. Commissioner Michielssen talked about the advantages of condomin- iums stating that he felt the marketplace will take of itself in relation to apartments and condominiums. He commented on Atas- cadero's lack of housing opportunities to purchase homes. Commissioner Kidwell stated she would like to see the building of condominiums designed more specifically for first-time buyers. Chairman Bond stated he would like to see more mobilehome park condominium projects. Richard Montanaro, applicant, explained his intent in requesting the condominium conversion was to keep them for rentals, but with the future option of selling the units if market conditions so dictate. Patsy West with North Coast Engineering, expressed concern with Condition #8 concerning the drainage mitigation fee and stated the wording of the condition is vague and open-ended. Mr. Engen stated what the fee would be if charged from the fee schedule. He further stated he had spoken with Engineering and they had indica- ted they would not know what the exact fee would be until drainage plans have been evaluated. Discussion ensued. Ms. West stated that if this condition could be resolved before the map is scheduled for City Council consider- ation, it would be acceptable to them. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Hatchell, seconded by Commissioner Copelan to approve Tentative Tract Map 26-86 subject to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report with modification to Condition #8 to direct staff to come back with some type of upper or lower end cost for the mitigation fee prior_ to City Council' s approval. Commissioner Nolan asked for clarification contained in Exhibit B wherein it states there are 29 lots. Mr . Engen responded that actually there are 28 units with the 29th lot being open space. He stated this should be cleared up before the final map is recorded. The motion carried with Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin dissenting. C. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no publi mment at time. 5 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council November 10, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 5-86 LOCATION: 9630 Laurel Road APPLICANT: Edward & Christine Haase Kenneth & Betty Coronada-Nelson (Tartaglia-Hughes Engineering) • On June 9, 1986 the City Council approved Parcel Map 5-86, sub- ject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommen- dation of the Planning Commission. The required conditions have been complied with and the final map is recommended for approval. HE:ps cc: Edward and Christine Haase Kenneth and Betty Coronada-Nelson Tartaglia-Hughes Engineering XI4laI IT D Pty�Zc -L M A P pM S -8� i T -meq i w i / F � 6 11/10/86 z A _ 9 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council November 10, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager M1 , FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director - . SUBJECT: Request for Contract Employee: Temporary Full-Time Assistant Planner (Mark Henry Bartholomew) - General Plan Update Work Program BACKGROUND: As part of the fiscal year 1986-87 budget, $50 ,000 was appropriated to undertake Phase I of the General Plan Work Program. Of that amount, it is estimated that $35,000 would be required for personnel services. To date, work was commenced on land use and zoning survey work by three interns through September. A full-time, temporary contract assistant planner has been interviewed and is recommended for hiring to continue the work on tabulations, population capacity analysis, and community goals and objectives. ANALYSIS: Mr. Bartholomew has had experience with private consulting firms and public agencies since graduation from UC Santa Barbara with a degree in environmental studies. . He will be working under the direction of the Senior Planner on the General Plan Update Program. The salary is proposed to be $10. 27 per hour, which represents Step A of the Assis- tant Planner range plus an allowance for private contribution towards hospitalization. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the City Manager to sign the attached employment agreement. IMPACTS: The cost for 7 1/2 months at- this rate - including a small contribu- tion to PERS and Workmens Compensation - would be approximately $13,800. HE:ps Enclosure: Employment Agreement cc: David Jorgensen EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT MARK HENRY BARTHOLOMEW THIS CONTRACT entered into this 12th day of November, 1986 by and between the CITY OF ATASCADERO, StateofCalifornia, hereinafter re- ferred to as "City" , and Mark Henry Bartholomew, a full-time, tempo- rary person hereinafter referred to as "Contractor . " WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero desires to hire a person to fill the job classification of temporary full-time assistant planner ; and WHEREAS, Contractor is qualified to perform such services for the City. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do mutually agree as follows: 1. Employment. City hereby engages Contractor and Contractor hereby agrees to perform for the City services hereinafter set forth for the compensation hereinafter set forth, all pursuant to the terms and conditions herein. 2. Scope of Service. Pursuant to this agreement, Contractor is being retained on an hourly basis to perform the job as generally described by employer of Assistant Planner with emphasis on the Atas- cadero General Plan Update Work Program. He will be expected to per- form all duties as described in said employers description and other duties which may reasonably relate thereto. 3. Contractor Status. Contractor understands and agrees that he is not, and will not be, eligible for membership in or any bene- fits from any City group plan for hospital, surgical or medical insur- ance or for paid holidays, vacation, sick leave, or other leave, with or without pay, or any other job benefits accruable to an employee in the service of the City. Contractor understands and agrees that his term of service is gov- erned only by this Agreement, that no right of tenure is created here- by, and he does not hold a position in any department or office of the City, and that his service to the City under this Agreement is governed solely and in all respects by the terms of this Agreement. 4. Warranty of Contractor. Contractor warrants that he is qualified to provide the services herein agreed to. 5. Compensation. City shall pay to Contractor as compensation in full for all services performed by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement, the sum of $10.27 per hour. Payments by the City shall be made in accordance with established City procedures on a bi-weekly basis to coincide with the City' s normal pay day. 6. Terms of Agreement. This Agreement shall commence on Nov- ember 12, 1986 (which shall be date on which Contractor commences work under this Agreement) , and shall be terminated on June 30, 1987 unless extended by mutual written agreement of the parties. a) All work shall be performed for the Community Development Department under the direct supervision of the Senior Planner or other person designated by the Community Development Director. 7. Termination of Agreement for Convenience. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving to the other party fourteen (14) calendar days' written notice of such termination, spe- cifying the effective date of such termination. Termination shall have no effect upon the rights and obligations of the parties arising out of any termination occurring prior to the effective date of such termination. Contractor shall be paid for all work satisfactorily completed prior to the effective date of such termination. 8. Termination of Contractor for Cause. If Contractor fails to fulfill in a timely and professional manner his obligations under this Agreement, or if Contractor shall violate any of the terms or provisions of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement effective immediately upon the City' s giving ten (10) calendar days' written notice thereof to Contractor. Termination shall have no effect upon the rights and obligations of the parties arising out of any transaction occurring prior to the effective date of such termination. Contractor shall be paid for all work satisfac- torily completed, as determined by City, prior to the effective date of such termination. 9. Modification. This Agreement constitutes the entire under- standing of the parties hereto and no changes, amendments, or altera- tions shall be effective unless in writing and signed by both parties. 10. Non-Assignment of Agreement. This Agreement is intended to secure the individual services of the Contractor . Any attempt by Con- tractor to assign, transfer, delegate or sublet this Agreement or any interest therein without the City' s prior written consent shall cause this Agreement to be null and void. 11. Covenant. The validity, enforceability and interpretation of any of the clauses of this Agreement shall be determined and gov- erned by the laws of the State of California. 12. Enforceability. The invalidity and unenforceability of any terms or provisions hereof shall, in no way, effect the validity or enforceability of any other terms or provisions. 2 • • 13. Actions. In the event of any action or suit upon this Agreement, both parties shall be entitled to receive reasonable attor- ney's fees and costs. It is agreed that any breach of this Agreement by the Contractor shall entitle the City to apply to any Court of com- petent jurisdiction to enjoin any violation, threatened or actual, of this Agreement. 14. Nondiscrimination. There shall be no discrimination against any person employed pursuant to this Agreement in any manner forbidden by law. 15. Conflicts of Interest. No officer , employee, director or agent of the City shall participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which affects his personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he is directly or indirectly interested, nor shall any such person have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the provisions thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Contractor have executed this Agree- ment of the day and year first hereinabove set forth. CONTRACTOR: CITY OF ATASCADERO: MARK HENRY BARTHOLOMEW MI AEL HELTON, City Manager APPROVED AS TO BUDGET AUTHORIZATION: DAVID JORGENSEN, Administrative Services Director PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director 3 P 11/10/86 s� A 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul Sensibau h, irector of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution 125 86 establishingstop signs. p s g s on Cortina Avenue, Encinal Avenue and Sonora Avenue at their intersections with Valle Avenue. DATE: November 4, 1986 Recommendation: The Traffic Committee recommends that Council adopt Resolution 125 -86 establishing stop intersections on Cortina Avenue, Encinal Avenue and Sonora Avenue at their intersections with Valle Avenue. Background: The Traffic Committee has received requests for these stop signs from various residents in the neighborhood. The location has been observed by the committee and stop signs determined to be appropriate at these locations. • Discussion: Valle Avenue has many side streets which, without stop controls, create a hazardous condition for both the drivers on Valle and on the side streets. Fiscal Impact: The cost to the City is approximately $225 and can be paid out of the 1986-87 Fiscal Year Budget - Capital Improvement ($. 50 tax) PMS/vjh n i RESOLUTION NO. 125 -86 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DESIGNATING STOP INTERSECTIONS ON CORTINA AVENUE, ENCINAL AVENUE AND SONORA AVENUE AT THEIR INTERSECTIONS WITH VALLE AVENUE WHEREAS, Section 4-3.801 et sequence of the Atascadero Municipal Code allows the City Traffic Engineer to determine the location of STOP intersections, and to place and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating the same; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Traffic Committee has recommended that establishing STOP intersections on Cortina Avenue, Encinal Avenue and Sonora Avenue at their intersections with Valle Avenue will alleviate a hazardous condition; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Atascadero directs the City Traffic Engineer to place and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating STOP intersections on Cortina Avenue, Encinal Avenue and Sonora Avenue at their intersections with Valle Avenue. On Motion by ,and seconded by the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: • AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk MARJORIE MACKEY,Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH Director of Public Works/ City Engineer 2 V ETTING 11/1AGENDA ATc 0/86 ITEM A 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager . FROM: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution No. 124-86 to Prohibit Parking on a portion of El Camino Real DATE: November 4, 1986 Recommendation: The Traffic Committee recommends establishing a No Parking area on E1 Camino Real from Pacific Home Improvement Center north to the northerly property line of Idler ' s. Background: As stated previously, sight distance at driveways are a pro- blem on E1 Camino Real. This condition is exagerated at this location due to the curvature of E1 Camino Real in that area. Discussion: Council has previously approved the establishment of no parking zones on the southwest side of El Camino Real from Santa Rosa to the northerly property line of Pacific Home Improvement. While this action did alleviate the problem of semi-trucks parking in that area there still exists a sight distance problem when exiting businesses onto El Camino Real. It is anticipated that extending the red curb to the north will improve this condition. Fiscal Impact: The cost for this improvement will be approximately $75.00 to be paid out of the street budget. PMS/vjh r� RESOLUTION NO. 124- 86 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DESIGNATING A NO PARKING ZONE ON EL CAMINO REAL WHEREAS, Section 4-2. 1101 et sequence of the Atascadero Municipal Code allows the City Traffic Engineer to determine the location of No Parking areas, and to place and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating the same; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Traffic Committee has recommended that prohibiting parking on the west side of El Camino Real from Pacific Home Improvement to the northerly property line of Idler ' s will alleviate a hazardous sight distance problem; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Atascadero directs the City Traffic Engineeer to place and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating a NO PARKING AREA on El Camino Real from Pacific Home Improvement to the northerly property line of Idler ' s. On Motion by , and seconded by , the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk MARJORIE MACKEY, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer 2 �4 MEET Na 11/ 10/8 6AGENDA g _ -1 • DAAL ITEM M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council November 10, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director �. SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 2H-86/Zone Change 22-86 LOCATION: Atascadero - Portola Road Residential Study Area APPLICANT: City of Atascadero (Hawkins) REQUEST: To revise the existing General Plan land use designation from Moderate Density Single Family Residential to High Density Single Family, and to revise the existing zoning from RSF-Y to RSF-X. BACKGROUND: On September 15, 1986 , the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above-referenced request. There was considerable pub- lic testimony and discussion by the Commission as referenced in the attached minutes excerpt. RECOMMENDATION: On a 7:O vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the change in land use designations as referenced in attached Resolution No. 127-86 and Ordinance No. 140 . HE:ps ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Staff Report - September 15, 1986 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt - September 15, 1986 Resolution No. 127-86 Ordinance No. 140 cc: Mike Hawkins c�� City of Atascadero STAFF REPORT ITEM: B-8 FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 9/15/86 BY: Joel Moses, Associate Planner File No: GP 2H-86 and- Henry Engen, Community Dev. Director ZC 22-86 Project Address:_ Atascadero - Portola Road Residential Study Area SUBJECT: General Plan amendment and zone change to revise the existing moderate density, single family (1 acre with sewer to l 1/2 acres without sewer minimum lot size) to high density single family residential (1/2 acre minimum lot size) , and to revise the existing RSF-Y zoning designation to RSF-X. BACKGROUND: In 1985, the City received an application to consider the revision of the General Plan land use map for property owned by Mike Hawkins on Atascadero Road. The original request was to allow for the creation of 10,000 square foot lots. As the City considered the request, the applicant revised his request to allow for the creation of one-half acre lots. The City then continued the consideration of the amend- ments until the next General Plan cycle. As a part of this cycle, staff reviewed the request and proposed an expansion of the area to be studied. This was as a result of a General Plan amendment along Coro- mar Road and the spotnatureof this request. The existing General Plan land use map designation for the area is moderate density single family residential with a corresponding zoning designation of RSF-Y (Residential Single Family with a minimum lot size of 1 acre with sewer , 1 1/2 acres without sewer) . The proposed revision would change the General Plan land use designation to high density single family residential with a corresponding zoning designa- tion of RSF-X (Residential Single Family, 1/2 acre minimum lot size). The study area covers approximately- 60 acres and existing lots would allow for the creation of approximately 40 new residential lots. Notice of public hearing was published- in the Atascadero News on Fri- day, September 5, 1986 and all property owners of record located with- in 300 feet of the subject site were also notified on that date. A. LOCATION: Atascadero-Portola Residential Study Area (Exhibit A) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To revise the existing General Plan land use designation from Moderate Density Single Family Residential to High Density n i� Single Family, and _ to revise the existing zoning from RSF-Y to RSF-X. 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .City of Atascadero (Hawkins) 3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Approximately 60 acres 4. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Atascadero - arterial Portola - residential Santa Rosa - arterial 5. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Y (Residential Single Family 1 acre with sewer, 1 1/2 acre without sewer minimum lot size) 6. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Residential uses and vacant lots 7. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RSF-Y, residential South: RSF-Y and P, residential and school East: RSP-X, residential West: RSF-Y, residential 8. General Plan Designation. . . . .Moderate Density Single Family Residential 9. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gently rolling sloping to north and west. 10. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. ANALYSIS: As previously noted, the proposed application evolved from a pre- vious application. The initial review of the proposed 10 ,000 square foot lot designation along Atascadero Road opposite Santa Rosa School received a recommendation of denial from staff based on the spot nature of the designation, the existing lot sizes in the area, and the existing General Plan policies. The situation has changed in that the application has been changed to request 1/2 acre minimum lot size. This is more in line with the existing lot sizes in the area. The City also approved a General Plan land use amendment along Coromar Road allowing for 1/2 acre lot sizes (GP 1C-85 - Lopus) . A review of the study area notes that approximately 40 new resi- dential lots could be created if the revision is approved. Of the splits, five parcels are large enough to allow for the crea- tion of more than four lots (thus requiring a tract map and pos- sible private street) . Two possible designs have been given to staff for, two such lots (Exhibits D and E) . These would leave approximately 11 lots that would create four or fewer lots. the 0 • use of flag lots would potentially be needed in some of the designs, but specific designs would be reviewed at the time of parceling. - Within the existing land use pattern in the study area, of the approximately 63 lots in the study area, 19 could be split or -30% of the lots. Of the remaining 60% of the lots, the majority are 1/2 acre or smaller. Thus, the proposed revision for the most part reflects the existing land use pattern. The study area is presently within the Urban Services Line and sewer is available to development in the area. It has not been determined if the sewer lines are able to handle the additional sewer flows. Forty new lots would generate $71,520 in fees.- Should computer program runs show needs which could not be rea- soned by those fees, then special conditions might be established by the City Engineer. Fees should also cover the cost of any ad- ditional drainage needs in the area or in the overall Amapoa-Tec- orida drainage area. The proposed study area is served by Atascadero and Santa Rosa Roads for traffic circulation. Both of these roads are presently arterial roads as noted in the General Plan Circulation Element. Portola Road and Coromar Road also serve the area as residential streets. It is anticipated that the estimated 400 trip ends crea- ted by 40 new residential units will not have a detrimental effect on traffic patterns in the area. In fact, if the Iverson property is developed as proposed, a new cross connection between Coromar and Atascadero Avenue would help overall area circulation. The General Plan lists several policies that would have a bearing on the proposed revision. The General Plan states that residen- tial densities shall decrease as one moves outward from the core. The proposed revision with 60 acres would extend the high density residential area out from the center of the community some distance. Looking at the neighborhood land use pattern, the proposal would adjoin and continue the previously approved General Plan pattern established along Coromar. It would appear that the revision is in conformance with past actions. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of General Plan Amendment 2H-86 and Zone Change 22-86 revising the existing General Plan designation from Moderate Density Single Family Re-sidential to High Density Single Family and adding through street marking between Coromar and Atas- cadero Roads, and existing zoning from RSF-Y to RSF-X for the ini- tial study area recommended by the Planning Commission, and ex- clusing the expanded area on Atascadero Avenue added for consider- ation by the City Council. t JM:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - General Plan Map Exhibit C - Lot Size Map Exhibit D - Possible Subdivision Design - Iverson Exhibit E - Possible Subdivision Design - Hawkins Exhibit F - Draft Resolution Exhibit G - Draft Ordinance t n �wt'ly�••�.5.�1f`$�1'. r.,O.. .• 'N •• 1• T •N a a � � u��\J Irl �'tT \}f• �{�.� 'r'�" (t • •t ' • ,m'il •a.e. ••-,,i •. • J ,., a` •�'e>'.+ , • r,.� It 1 •.iJ. , O tst • 'T1 �' • ,V,,r--a ,t32 .` H ^'• • /••• tl I }arae tea• •' r�'� '• •�V I ••�'•,y'••yi:,:• •1 r ..yJ A. � (Jatif� ..� I� �A.. •t off ••r•' � ;• :: {�L: ''•• \I •1Oi� ,r�,^3•.•\�•��4 w. � �f ;y 1,. �.�CJd(POJ7 •..fd� ,t�1� �b • >w '1.v e•-x. '�'' .iy ••�i �L•• ♦ w' �• _�1`a :a:' ti •r r � ( "•" h tt• lj ytf a� ' i. • rr aJ ��' , •ay .v sl s• �O �aH •rte , ra/ � � ,•° \ � 'L� .�•'t, �„• j e• ll` ' .r. � nvt ^'(i'�'' Id 13.6 �'' � 9�C.^� �,`v •\ tau,'�!d y.{ •.+ i: ° . 1 • . • '�•�' 3• so Y• D 1, .pi� r° •'�.� j34• Ir •• a, " • ',L, ,� -. •' fes. • 1• 'r'a I 'J. — -; ASF—Y •' •', "r.? ! .•• � •, n ,• • ••'p 8 _w •. ''n';..1. •It \ - i!1'•'d }'•I+ . •al••ti gf•��•aN° ` , •Jk q. ,�� °:+� .:L,S 'al• r r ] r, a•- u • rq• .,g' Y»� r". •ya•.'�� .s h.lt. ��r. a' a � �. :�� r :�` M 1; •r M •y ` �f + T� aY ' �Y'i ,1/0 1. , L`r'(�'�{ ♦1,�• 3 ' ,.Q I, i• � •i ; '� ♦..� ••1- ,•tea•► iSJf"-/ •J; �j:'J.�. So! 1.\ ,:�:;' /O ,•� .. al• n .y. •..- `5 f''r, '2! ;+: V 4`l vr. )/• f-C :,, ,1'" •y d ":'.} c 1 '�y:'i L '.�:� .fit. t't! w�, 9�`,• r r ,� a.t C. ��1• _ tt ,• ._;� .•• ,l.Ir n r •� • .,��+. �` i •!J a � ,•,;a•� ,�2 173 ,t'.f, ;• ;::,•pi• .L .•••. Ti A,'' '�`j T:•y; •, I i '.J ,�.4 , 3 'r r.. \ A7�9Jtt7 �UiZ1aLR ..,.,� J ,,.a�' .. N• ILV nD JIVL�II�IG�1. � •.,;• a a • �Ya`atv`, a• 'i•. •C� � W�IX��`P�t'1� •ice) 5(N1 F�'N (LL5. -TD-t • .... �. � ��,...��••� ,.. � '•�, �,;,, „s:.�S' i { 5TY. 7D l 'Iz AC W ILur : ,• ' N 'F• b ,. .•,• fa •• ._ 25 F (�,�, �c un rti c.Qrs� �•• -,t .. �` 110•A � ."1;� • •1 •tii'=t •,. a;y.•t .'•, i �,-�• •D 1 t� 12 1 1 •• fa � sl Iwo r ,; • y orf a��i.�' ~.l .• '••�' ..t}i(• rF N ( • � -, - •'• •. h CT RSF •'•'r�•. _:;f•�.:.: � •.'r �1• A a,el i '.•r:! � • 'r O. •t'j'.'. ... ' 4J� ,'•'��::, , : '• •t� • s •••• 1 t. psi •'�.,• '� •L:f-•' :• • .gyp � ` �L.•.', • �.• � •. 1 n f 1' } •l. :, .a •. .• ♦ �,1(.'•{^,'� w' a• •• 1J • ��.•. •r �a' n..�"S 1. �7I•i ,Lr t::�` �•�'t' -C'•, .•%t�,tj'.q/•r i ♦ '� •a i1: ' , ia• .�� ' 6 .,;, �. • .. l,/•. '" ..• .Sr•�r• ,9 t!• �`I�.t •r • „9• •fir:.. so ( �. 13•v;t .;.,' .�n + �. w/ � •ate,( • •` ' o♦ o , .S � ✓♦ •.��. •µ ..1 `�, • 't y'• / �/ ! ..:� •• w 1. t•f \, to • •,✓:.f: �. of ' `'• �\ tti\r 'r t�c 1 (I,rp •:..�,+ ,� '.{.( ,.r ' �. �ti ( .�� • � o � • • , as �y''� Ir, t•~i+e .p •\:.�•• K\,• ,%Rr ti +} •? ��ae t. \,` •.. .` .. t _ �� la' s. ,.. i 1 1% i tT! +Jnr l t ► -io a `22 •~ '•�'. � � ••1} t�i/i' •` y9. :r.:" l� \a��r �•� 1E i.l• �• $ �� ,* t i• '23 +. •'; r iC 3 '• =�• Hlq. r�aa A F,4 Z • rt•• lr! }�_, ' J t .o•a lo-. t.: �� a '' 'wa/ 8 ,�� i ♦ •rl A ra�• ,j.'' :iYbl:+,7• 1 .a , a.•+ .i��b •'}� \ `�' .q, f ! •••a : .t-��+ ,ita'1•"D .J •..N i a:t.•y1 IF / • � ('...t I�'tt ;• ;..s,.t r }! ♦ \a is � . . p,p l ltna••>' • s34 t ' t '• �r Ja f •',i+: � '-'tel u �73• :M1.' iia •.•a:; ,.•• ..,•.� '•. ..r �� lob •t0 N• �.•,�` < { wIJ .r1••µ L rt'1:':;f!1. •••.,n -•� ••..•• fl • .°. I • ti '� •j� 4 loss* 33 14 12a�p 11 a '•' 3 I.'' p.r.:. .. r/�..�7.��) p�p.1f� } IXYI l lel 1 A I �l l V I[A AA 11 V CdlLP/nl_F[.,M)/kIMMhH,CIT ZIA 14 ./ 3 zo" 2Z'86 34 35 AM .� -F��t �7M STUN AW 34 MQD.QDJ.SFTL IV EI1614 F3W S.FTZ. TLSO `/ TD V-SF -X �: • r 0► • 1�II � �� D P ` �•I�i 0 � � I 1 `s•N1 �■H B p B ■■. � Y ® B D � � r ame M It ,t{ ► f e a AM IN e a ; � B ® p�■N I p E � • - � s11 ► � I � � t�{ a• • .;� ''•Hti, to :al • n.+� ,)UQ,; •� • � T� ,J• !'7•. p.' • ,•\� ,� .p� K \)�tw 'a' •'v;,;`''.i: :•'fit a• �» �,t j.: •' GI.f 10 y;• \J 4 `;syr, �Z•: ��/�(/ 3 '.�.� '. . �C. . .!r•O, t\• �• � ''"ems+./ .:'1%• ,i' .°- •a; fi" .;� yrs �.M '�,�r1 ;dA �'?f �1j,r4C •al\• •t, .a+� : .�1 f1 ,f •,- "I 6�\ i s'Y Ise �` °� E � ��,J:� `• (vd .,�4v ,'1O �. 13 lb .\• „+ a �'^:�• t+ •ra` �.'a , Y =� •t`, '�9 •�;•N'':'_r.�y.•,�^��.' ..i Ise .`• 1 �,�r .f+`F.': \ / O -. eye :•T .! �• t nr ,• y.: J . ,,� . .,,...��,. ••:,• . •u .y 1 1t� 7 �• ,1. '- `f�rj0 0 � O j'` `1 a (��L' S •'t•'::'',_, ''' r W �` r✓ .r./ • D - - old' t G .Z �a ';s 4:\ •w SF-'I ~• '`�Si1 6 �'". :t-. r .'.i :ee•� ,p yin �ti`�`, •3t '•`til/ , P 1y 4,J %•tet ',T • ♦, .3.11.. ?•Yg', . }_ ,; ..,'.. . :aj7aj U •V�'f,• :�+� •„r / •u, - '♦.7 `•� � t� • Irl' 1 rn '+r W 1 v gni `• +•• tt ► . .y ♦t'�4flvc •S`'• S I•.. , 1•`• /}}�{^••S/!, ..`• iaa..N.. ; "t ` \ •v,s t f�`/.� " N•� � 6 1N� O �•♦ ,• C as _i u .:S'u .v i. •,.1 yL r2 : •�� <'y10`\s'tt I .��7�"f 't' "♦�'$ 'O.A , 1• '.bit 21,E. b i °r110•� µll ! 'rt+"S,�\.,� '••�2) `'�O VY• ~ v• i �•/v s� !� i /ri..-, .. ,. _, jl. -^,rrl a i2'• • w `: )' O /,. •.�`v 9� � Ir it •• •It sy 11 f4'w �.• ♦ 7� ai ., y Z4 S ^fib\ to •:`�. 2 a ri -4 •c� ;�:': ' RSFY Io • .f ••�.:�;..• IS oSITS i STVO'y AM A :a;e � • ' �, 1 • ' �� : ExtSTlN4 Lo TS �/2 FSG. , - � to KF , � � ,. ....5:" n• ,b .. ' ;;��-.s�3't .. • � c' �C „p •;� -:.RMF ,� tl ` y'••r•� y, "•q � , ^`•f• a •SI' t •. 'f :o' r.,�',. .!.�:° o. iKj—'~—'— f•ot e' •� `+�'" � 'r yo 4 r i• �• u.1., . • .\`.�,�`y•4v^ w Y,1 r o;`'- '.e:�:r•:\ ,_. °UY ° 'OA 'y_':.' T •\••'�'/ r:�`"" 7 L,..J .,,, ti• \Y�r � �� •.I frs X,�`:.`��y,�S.\ � 1 a,� 4 t w,J•• �P4 '"� 't' ,;. ` o'er''-9 � ."rye. • � .. � � '� s ,•L:'. ,✓' � !I C 10 , 3 • ',w•,i• 1i ,:w� ,• °„p °-•,�� •1, rl lr.a. • na �•'iw .:.' 1' w��• �S .• r . 34 1 Im.e „ •. =tat S 1 So-. �j1 • y c loleo ~__ •� �': .~ i't 22 •w.r O ' --3°. 12 11......•• j, i C •.,a• •:•�_-.. lZ�(�'-2�' i , • . $. r .i I •a ..•• - t I 20 'r r i rr t :...� DV11Kf1' C L.UT-size IM l� rTf ZC%)E� CRt-kyE Z2'JL 44 °� �p17)�FT�'�L•.rI\1I'LJyt.�C/� GC(7/Y/i'l�••VLA K1111\U .1•IV117 11 -Cf 1 1VJY •X 1D IL-7T •X CQ LV �r H4 LLJ r s` IZI 6 _ LLLrr• L,J �� , t 'h J _ 9 v -- ?�'--=1 •:i+. _ s mss` �' �'J �D - q `7 9 fives Cd`? Ci 14) °� N &. m a -,4z, o 0 00 GC/ &C 67/ I /FbbL Yt.'6./y,Lfry 56 60/ �� 2 CCi as CLQ OSl M.Cid x/Y L)IJkN tI5 1-14 1 i .ti a•J. J /b�lj aQ. Z �h Ul .7C Eeo ROAD - 5% _ 9TA5CA ;b CXF-I ISTFID �1 RAJ P�MG IMGyvT z ZVLE Chi' AM Z2•bG ATffLK0 T7L)U 1LA CAD gLDI A& WIUD..M. STV- TO 6kl(Ifl Dw<n TLST'•Y -TD ASF X 408.98' -oma zm I i toloe M } (JID I, .. « lu Ti 9 OK no lu > O 7 Is Ti ® v / (o u 415'• - ° ATASCADERO ROAD " o C-Li,fCPiriL EtM KWti0"M/T TD 9/SF-)( t Minutes - Planning Commission - September 15, 1986 Com ' ssioner Hatchell asked if there any feasible zoning esigna- tions ntained in the zoning ordinance which would al w .Mr. Brazzi to evelop his use. Discussion ensued. It was noted that the majority f the North El Camino Real corrido would become nonconforming b ause of the number of existiPTresidences in the area which would n be allowed in commercial zones. Also pointed out was that this are s presently outs ' a the Urban Services Line. Further discussion continued c rning the appropriateness of a Commercial Tourist designatio whi could possible fit Mr. Brazzi 's use. MOTION: Made by Com ' sioner Hatchell, sec ded by Commissioner Lopez-Ba ntin and carried unanimous to continue the hearin for this item to the meeting of tober 6, 1986 in der for staff to bring back appropriat anguage commending approval of a Commercial Tourist z ing designation for 1800 El Camino Real (Brazzi ' s pro ty) . 8. General Plan Amendment 2H-86/Zone Change 22-86 : Request initiated by City of Atascadero (Hawkins) to revise the General Plan land use map designation of Moderate Density Single Family to High Density Single Family, and to revise the zoning from RSF-Y to RSF-X (Atascadero - Portola Road Residential Study Area) . At this time, Commissioner Michielssen stepped down from the Com- mission due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Engen presented the staff report and summarized the history of this request and the prior actions of the Planning Commission and City Council. In response to question by Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin, Mr . Engen explained the sewer capacity involved in this study area. Mike Hawkins, applicant, spoke iri support of the application and noted that out of 63 lots, 44 are one half acre or less. He ex- plained the reasoning for the one-half acre concept ad talked a about his desire to avoid creating flag lots. There was brief discussion concerning the issue which has been recently raised concerning net acreage versus gross acreage. Dennis Lockridge, 8935 Atascadero Avenue, stated his opposition to the amendment request. He noted there are a lot of improvements needed in the Atascadero-Portola area and commented on the safety concerns with regard to children walking to and from Santa Rosa School, the narrow streets. He asked if it were possible to have a more thorough report on overall impacts other than just on this particular development (Hawkins ' ) , to which Mr . Engen explained. 8 Minutes - Planning Commission - September 15, 1986 Nancy Nunemaker, Portola resident, agreed with Mr. Lockridge' s concerns. She spoke about the large number of trucks that use Portola Road as a cut-off to and from the freeway. Robert Shulls, 8630 Portola Road, stated he purchased his property over 20 years ago and commented on the history of the zoning which has occurred under County jurisdiction. He noted he was in favor of one-half acre lot sizes in this area. Dean Crawford, 8575 Portola, expressed concerns with the traffic situation on these roads and especially with the increase that will result when a new shopping center is completed (Plaza Madrid) . Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin noted his agreement with the concerns expressed for safety for children going to the school in this area and spoke about the different improvements which would be necessary to help minimize potential dangers in this area. chair- man Bond concurred and also spoke about safety considerations. Discussion ensued . MOTION: Made by Commissioner Hatchell, seconded by Commissioner Copelan and carried unanimously to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 2H-86 and Zone Change 22-86 as reflected in the recommendation outlined in the staff report. C. NEW INESS 1. Cons eration of General Plan Conformity Report: County and City p erty transfers. Mr. Engen presen d the staff report on this m ter recommending that the proposed oeprty transfers be in c formance with the General Plan. There was brief discussio concerning e County properties (the Armory and County clinic ar s) with egard to the need to have sidewalks. MOTION: Made by Commissioner ope n, seconded by Commissioner Hatchell and carri unanim sly to recommend to the City Council that the roposed pro rty transfers listed in the staff repo would be in con rmance with the City' s adopted Gene 1 Plan, with the sug stion that the County put in sid alks for Parcels 11 2, 3, and 4 . 2. Consider ion of staff report of City Council r erral: Re- evalu ion of multi-family residential standards. 9 r', RESOLUTION NO. 127-86 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATACADERO APPROVING GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN PERTAINING TO THE ATASCADERO-PORTOLA RESIDENTIAL STUDY AREA FROM MODERATE DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY TO HIGH DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (GP 2H-86: HAWKINS/CITY OF ATASCADERO) _ WHEREAS, an application has been filed to amend the City of Atas- cadero's General Plan pertaining to the Atascadero-Portola Road Residential Study Area; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero conduc- ted a public hearing on the subject matter for an enlarged study area on September 15, 1986 and recommended approval of the amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero conducted a public hearing on the subject matter on ; and, WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65323 provides that a general plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and �l WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as follows: t`t 1. The proposed general plan amendment recommended by the Plan- ning Commission is consistent with the goals and policies of the City' s General Plan. 2. The proposed general plan amendment provides a logical repre- sentation of the residential site within the existing land use pattern. 3. The proposed general plan amendment is compatible with sur- rounding land use and zoning. 4. The proposed general plan amendment will not have a signifi- cant adverse effect upon the environment. The Negative Dec- laration prepared for this project is adequate. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve to approve General Plan Amendment GP 2H-86 as follows: 1. Amendments to the General Plan map as shown on Exhibit A. On motion by and seconded by the motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: By: MARJORIE MACKEY, Mayor City of Atascadero, California ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director OWN, N•M N. •r r M•M J - .moi °�-., • '�' + � ate• :;;•, , �_� P P ♦ /lit 4t + � � ♦- S1�' ` rte on t••1 h b + n � + • � tb q , • . !D f0 . • � 8 P P ® P r + 0 P w P + P��•Ni••••�wivr�j P • �� / .� .. b + 1.p�_•N • P Q / � � I 1 i o ♦ ORDINANCE NO. 140 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING SECTION MAP NUMBERS 17, 19 AND 22 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY ON ATASCADERO AND PORTOLA ROADS FROM RSF-Y TO RSF-X (MINIMUM LOT SIZE - ONE-HALF ACRE) (ZONE CHANGE 22-86: CITY OF ATASCADERO/HAWKINS) WHEREAS, The proposed zoning map amendment is 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 reg- ulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will not have a significant ad- verse effect upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Council Findings. 1. the proposed land use map change results in a logical repre- sentation of the existing residential area. 2. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. 3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse en- vironmental impacts upon the environment. 4. The proposal is consistent with the policies of the General Plan land use policies and other elements of the General Plan. Section 2. Zoning Change. Map Numbers 17 , 19 and 22 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero on file in the City Community Development Department is hereby amended to reclassify the following described property from RSF-Y to RSF-X: Lot 2 of Block 12 of Atascadero Colony and the enlarged study area including all lots fronting on Atascadero Road north and south of Portola Road and Portoal Road from Coromar Road to west of Atasca- dero Road as shown on attached Exhibit A. Section 3. Zoning Map. Map numbers 17, 19 and 22 of the Official ZoningMaps of the Cit P Y of Atascadero on file in the City Community Development Department is hereby amended as shown on the attached location map which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. 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 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 5. 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: By: MARJORIE MACKEY, Mayor City of Atascadero, California ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney .t• t.,ar' ! n . �~ � ,�, a• :•/ to .101 • ? R. Y .�t`G;Y::' .•fir:�i.glf�� J✓'�t i �• "•`�/t .. %"/ ryTTT 1r •a r�;�r;�•yyrC{V'i!:':r. S'. r � • r ,L •. a . .LII.. r .r•:'rlTt T.� y?t� .rr +. r t0 lata ,N • '.,ir' a.e• •yi ✓ '♦ • .•.^L•J•.-a X11 T'�r, .%r..�,��,r,�' '., •11• �•` a .� r ••n .• ,J �:.:r:f'~.. ' I:•'i •..y:'r'?'.?.:YT�;)/�``,',,..•i • " f ,`t l�•. • 0 ..0 e ...,' ,. , ':.!L N..� 'v •�M.-fir.. :.:•.'a:,.''!'/• :��Y'i�)'.�SF�1 "••• ^' ..i r•IJ ,� /e�� r• ..N • � r.'t0� r•iee• + �. •'�� • !•YjJ`•�i�<M•�;'• ! ^::L;'••iF~ 1 •° ': ••J ` `� •• a., '• 'i f•:r. 'yai, ,r' .•1 •�•L •-•'�;• i:� rti,b••''� .. .y`' r.tL\�`L' � i�/�/ • • •.q• nr ^J• r,rr ,ria 1 •u a r •:}::� 'a•/r�•• ✓�7�.� ! { '•.`i :t;� t• +L.Irrw ral •w• r•r. 0 `` � C 'ti �O '�? •/\ � '-�'�., 'S!, ... �. •w, ,• � • •• 1. nr. Z�i•:, `1cS:vr •rt:,r.r,s► 4 \f, t,,. t:;j CJd(PO]) '�'. .^rd •' •�f• 4r • ��-" . , � �+' �>^ •'ly�� .,y •R,`4•• ..• /. ;1`., R <';.,� 3`''� � •'• 'h• •rrl `r�� s a �.. ':Lv t. f �`;�`'�.�•...,..., 1 • ••sem ;'•. j •''•• j, 1i. �• 1 n•• lis •.,-*•�� X19 :_; �r •+ ' y • -"( i^ �- 1r Y '••. t 11. t +.... . ,� 1`1. —ill 1lµ ✓., ,1• ✓d. rlfi a y.•� \: .r1I. a,.•:; • 'i �, rY ice• � 4 i� ,•r � � '� h � it 1r Ui �''Yaf _,y ��•�`2.^� �' •`, 'y� ,r _ 1 tr � )rri ' • +.•. 96" /1M'• tY, •,lV N.+'/�. :y;i ::CCCS?�•lR�. ° • 1 • l�' • • 'i• r a y`sa 1} R�� p,�f jy{• / ` ,=IC ;•-�� LJF!1 �� a w• ,• • •1 B • � Ir•., t•• -•It �•\ i1r•'B Y•�/► a •f• �•� •��` , •.1k 4 'o y`S ;.�:�j.','.,:� lam; •• r.• ,t• `• •`' • i•Y • µ, 1}• ,� .�J'a . " R• ,• /`�'� • �20 � � '1'�•1•�;� J/ fes"•� ••" .•� •" •• or1• r• •ti tiV�Si'r.'}• :a�1. �%} 'ti.`L��`• •r' t•C "R4 •�•f � 'fes� i `:••• ��''i ;,'r! � sir •' '4, l , ^ ►, �,+r. y. Rfvrr •?:' :1 '" •.N• � 'l• r•j '._I •='. ... !"r:� •l • '•ryy' r 16 �;jy ,fF ' _ -.j (~`f. ,'r _ �,1•�•O• \G 's J••a`Q •`I `. .:y.� 't ..�.:; � • wrj�'4 ,,•i'„r, (``�� ! •` 7 ol'yy. .t tt?w '.0 y ,^ •�' f\\�e'V. /711 Wr 1r�-✓-�EaFY-1 DQ O--4 ILL/rly./ JIIA�l `, • 4• • • • 1�•M•fR�\• J. 1•, t�• /- ZONE G-}iY 6F TL=ZZ:EL CK wl JUJV ZDM lo-► 4ti % �� '�`�t "� •• � 'd -M fZSF-X C hACPE IMNV LOTS 11 1 1 =W� ". ,,.ti Y �• 4 .� -L��f.'7zyL�•', i ' • ••�w a � e^ t 1. .(�Jr r , ��Z' 0;r. ..i',:�,,�` �.! I+ �r/(H .fay!. .� LI ,• •'� pc R �, • a•• •R•C• N,,r��. ;�'�o' •ya s. t� •� -? •• N 1� 2 rf� / +' • RSF `:::'., L,, •, ''' •, ar ,. , i'.'.� is �._�j,. ;. ,'(` 12 ••ice. •! •a. �t:.P - • ,r •j,,`., .o , 1 1' •. ! ' 4 " R ��'� i'I • ~ �� ' ,�%• • Dia' 1.1•• � `•� •• 1 �'•' ' la ••� it ' .� J n..,: / L 7 t • •,� DN fl�d� •L�`7:,1•.• ^l.'_ G:yf3.•,(ii,r L • �� ::L:^:� , , f• .� tE ••�. t. •, y �+.. ...•.a„`' S ••r• ,,�. /t3•a , . / . L o' .re' \ 1, o . ;p+21.4••) •:.. •� ,l=sir. ! ,:_i :n l //�� "� y 4 r = �• ' i.. •'` �rJ oda Jti\` •rte C`+• Q �, t .a •? •Tgi,e/. mit l} \ •y s r. � r•t� 4 •lo.a t ,.`=Z' '1 • ••ri •i/�, \• �.�, •'L':+ �C•• , i� tj ti LI•• 7. y1� * t. ll J IP 30 3 1 hr` A • ,ON 111•. �'a • 0 � •mar. t.t A ,`• -. I''' :,1:.{.,a•, - . .1 •�-' C'� of .'• �; % • • •. \\ • .10.`• . •• Y. -W ••�•~ •• J•ro,S'p1`� ••!1 I I.M Ja fffi a�n••lnaa j`_�w•:-' 1+ � ' .... � •st, L 'tto •�i •..1.. r r•.• �_`. S ,O 0Yl Ll tl I ' ;.� y • � 34 t,�T.,� ` d:'v�•f ' • Itn•,lt' /i i '� � ��a �'��L �• ;a ••� .L,.�, •)3 ' • \, +L 7 �,•... .�Iw4o t tl J r. 0 1/r• ; 30• t-33• L••,• •1�p wa' 10 �`•• • �� r '•� •}} • 1 37 ....r' •� ..� • 1 J /�)/ it '/' �0 v.,•y • 1 :� p:r: :i 1 �` c J, � � '.' 'w+• t•. ""'•.. - 'tet FD ^.1':: •' -1�'.J •'•r •.�r l ♦ 4 S ! 0 77 o :.itC. C�`•.• utM L..a• .•rw X14 �•.�"jRR/�1 •i0 ~ •`\`\ ` � � w.,U J1•''• !' •`�M�i.�f.•.'�• .I�.M r\ "IH•• 3• •) '• 33 A z• R r"lP t' 3S •• - -' __. .. • int',b`. go - - l EX M 16(T^ A » ° =1 DLkM PML STUDY f> EA 3J 33 as 37. OfGDI IJWLE NO . . x _ TZSF •7 TD TZ.S FX }nnrr 17 ra n1,in ") 7 DAMN 11/10/86 AETIDA B _ 2- M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council November 10, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director AFE SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 2G-86/Zone Change 27-86 LOCATION: 1200-1800 El Camino Real APPLICANT: City of Atascadero/Leonard Brazzi REQUEST: To revise the existing General Plan land use map designa- tion of Suburban Single Family Residential to Retail Com- mercial, and the existing zoning from RS (Residential Sub- urban) to CR (Commerecial Retail) or other commercial des- ignation for the area located between El Camino Real and Highway 101 north of Del Rio Road BACKGROUND: On September 15, 1986 and October 6, 1986, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on the above-referenced request. There was considerable public testimony and discussion by the Commission as referenced in the attached minutes excerpt. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended denial of the request for the five reasons cited in the staff report to the Planning Commission. If the project is con- sidered for approval, it is recommended that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: ' On a 6:0 vote (with Commissioner Michielssen absent) , the Commission recommended approval of a CT (Commercial Tourist) zoning designation for a limited portion of the study area (specifically, Leonard Brazzi' s property at 1800 E1 Camino Real) as referenced in the at- tached Resolution No. 128-86 and Ordinance No. 141. HE:ps ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Staff Report - September 15, 1986 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt - September 15, 1986 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt - October 6, 1986 B. I.A. -Correspondence Resolution No. 128-86 Ordinance No. 141 cc: Leonard Brazzi City of Atascadero STAFF REPORT ITEM: B-7 FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 9/15/86 BY: Joel Moses, Associate Planner File No: GP 2G-86 and Henry Engen, Community Dev. Director ZC 27-86 Project Address: 1200-1800 El Camino Real SUBJECT: General Plan amendment and Zone Change to revise the existing General Plan land use map designation of Suburban Single Family Residential to Retail Commercial, and the existing zoning from RS (Residential Subur- ban) to CR (Commercial Retail) or other commercial designation for the area located between El Camino Real and Highway 101 north of Del Rio Road. BACKGROUND: During the previous General Plan amendment cycle, the City reviewed and denied a General Plan amendment (GP 1A-86) - Submitted by Leonard Brazzi to revise the existing General Plan designation from Suburban Single Family to Retail Commercial, and the existing zoning from RS (Residential Suburban) to CR (Commercial Retail) at 1800 El Camino Real. As a part of the denial, the City noted that potentially a larger area should be studied for redesignation. As a part of this cycle of General Plan amendments, the City initiated a study area to cover the area between El Camino Real and U.S. Highway 101 north of Del Rio Road. Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Fri- day, September 5, 1986 and all property owners of record located with- in 300 feet of the subject site were also notified on that date. A. LOCATION: North El Camino Real Study Area (Exhibit A) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To revise the existing General Plan designation from Suburban Single. Family to Retail Commer- cial and revise the existing zoning designation from ' RS to CR or other commercial zoning designation. 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .City of Atascadero (Brazzi) 3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14. 6 acres 4. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .El Camino Real - undivided General Plan Amendment Chan 2G-86/Zone a 27-86 / g arterial U.S. Highway 101 - access via Del Rio and San Ramon Road on-ramps 5. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban) 6. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mixed uses, predominately residential 7. Adjacent Zoning and Use. .. . . .North: RS, residential South: CN, vacant, bar East: RS, residential West: RS, residential 8. General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Single Family (Beyond the Urban Services Line) 9. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Generally level draining to west to freeway 10. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .If the project is to be consid- ered for approval, it is recom- mended that an Environmental Im- pact Report be prepared. C. ANALYSIS: The proposed revision would change the present residential desig- nation in the study area to commercial. This revision would be a major shift in land uses. Presently the area contains 15 lots, of these, 11 lots contain single family residential uses, 1 residen- tial care facility, 2 veterinary clinics, and 2 vacant lots4 The proposed revision would start to alter the existing residential nature of the area by changing .the area to commercial zoning and commercial uses. In reviewing an area proposed for land use change, the existing land use pattern is of concern as well as the condition of those uses. The majority of the residential units are in good condition with several recently remodeled or newly established. Two homes in the area do have home occupations (a contractor and a music teacher) . The neighborhood, by all signs, is a viable and healthy residential neighborhood. If the change to commercial land use was granted, all the existing residential uses will become non- conforming uses and, as such, the uses will be restricted and will be encouraged not to expand or continue to exist in the area. Commercial use would likely be piecemeal and adversely affect ex- isting housing. The area also contains two commercial uses that technically would not be allowed without a conditional use permit (Residential Care and Animal Hospital) . 2 General Plan Amendment 2G-86/Zone Change 27-86 At the present time, the City has 370 acres of commercially zoned property. Most of the commercial zoning is in the form of a 4.6 mile strip along E1 Camino Real comprised of land designated in the General Plan for Retail Commercial, Commercial Park, Heavy Commercial, and some Industrial Park containing heavy commercial uses. The study area being requested for plan change considera- tion is comprised of an additional 14 acres and .an additional one- half mile commercial strip. The City' s General Plan contains the following language with re- spect to Retail Commercial: "General Retail - This land use currently is found along E1 Camino Read from Traffic Way to San Anselmo Road, on the east side of E1 Camino Real from the Thrifty Drug complex to Pueblo Avenue, and on the east side of E1 Camino at Santa Rosa Road. There are many vacant properties in each of these areas which can be developed to meet shopping needs for the immediate future. The text goes on to note the problems associated with the strip commercial area including parking on shallow lots, inadequate parking in the central business district, vehicular movements, individual signage producing visual chaos and confusion, pedes- trian crossings, and shoppers being required to use their auto- mobiles to go from one business to another. The Plan contains the following language with respect to general retail policy proposals: "3. Commercial uses shall be developed in clusters to encourage concentrations of compatible retail trade service. Each cluster shall be developed in a coordinated architectural design. Signing - identification of a store in each cluster shall be combined, thus reducing confusing clutter. "4. Commercial uses outside the Urban Services Line shall be examined and reviewed, on an individual basis, to ensure that there is no conflict between the intensity of the land use and minimum parcel sizes. Sewage disposal shall be a prime factor for consideration. " Specific policy proposals are made in the General Plan for the central business district commercial area which has been zoned in its entirety as CR Retail Commercial, the same type zoning being requested for the study area. The purpose of the CR zoning is "to provide for a wide range of commercial uses to accommodate most of the retail and service needs of the residents of the City and surrounding areas. " This is the zoning that has been applied to the central commercial area of the City. In effect, consider- ation of the same type zoning beyond the Urban Services Line on the north edge of the City duplicates that existing in the core and undermines attempts to strengthen the downtown area of the City (see attached communication from Business Improvement Assoc) . 3 General Plan Amendmen? 2G-85/Zone Change 27-86 The City is in the process of. revising the General Plan and to consider changes as major as that proposed in this instance would be premature and compromise the overall analysis of the City' s needs that is under way. Retail Commercial General Plan designation with a retail commer- cial zoning would introduce a new land use trend to the north side of the City. The land area to the south at the intersection of Del Rio and El Camino Real is designated for neighborhood commer- cial use on all four corners, and is largely undeveloped. Impacts of the proposed change could not be totally determined at this time. It is foreseen that additional traffic generation will occur impacting both El Camino Real and the intersection of Del Rio Road along with the freeway off-ramps. Visually the project will expand the commercial area along the freeway with unknown visual effect. Additional growth inducement would occur. Water runoff will also be increased substantially if the area is devel- oped commercially. The proposal creating a 1/2 mile long finger of commercial area along El Camino Real raises several unanswered questions that could only be fully evaluated by way of an Environmental Impact Report. The area is a viable residential area and change at this time would not be conducive to the stability of the residential area. To summarize, the following factors argue against favorable con- sideration of the requested land use and zoning changes: 1. It is a viable residential area at present. 2. It is beyond the City' s Urban Services Line and the General Plan designation being sought is highly urban. 3. It is contrary to the City' s General Plan with respect to increasing strip commercial development at the expense of . the City central core. 4. It would introduce a new land use trend, the full effects of which could only be evaluated on the basis of a complete Environmental Impact Report. 5. Consideration of the request would be premature in view of the City' s upcoming comprehensive re-evaluation of the City' s General Plan. D. RECOMMENDATION: Denial. If the project is to be considered for approval, it is recommended that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared. JM:ps 4 General Plan Amendme* 2G-86/Zone Change 27-86 ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - General Plan Map Exhibit C - Land Use Map Exhibit D - Findings Exhibit E - BIA Letter , September 10, 1986 Exhibit F - E1 Camino Veterinary Hospital Letter , September 8, 1986 5 F General Plan Amendment 2G-86/Zone Change 27-86 EXHIBIT D - General Plan Amendment 2G-86/Zone Change 21-86 Findings for Denial September 15, 1986 FINDINGS: 1. The proposed land use map change does not result in a logical expansion. 2. The proposal is not compatible with the surrounding or existing land use and zoning in the area. 3. The proposal will result in significant adverse impacts upon the existing neighborhood that an Environmental Impact Report would better address. 4. The proposal is not consistent with the existing policies of the General Plan land use element. 6 •tel 1 �._��` '\` _ .. 1 - i r y, ti \ \`\ GAR ,� r �` \•\� \\`\ i : _ _._ - �� \ may/ i„c 1 ,I►e z 1 ter:s I /st•, L �MF/7 = 1 ► i 4 ,v f f l •! " �� " x . gI g ( 7.51.2�=(� \� RC < y' ITA I 4• • 12-0 �////// z. . - RM X,16. ,e Is' 1• -+ -- . ! NO2T1-4 EL C& A l KC) TLL-,-74 C_ . '' �• .:' �' .�o�/~ 3 5L)T73U'2C A N S[h1G-u= �ltttiliOy II '1S 20 ( ,\ .\ 11�� o ai "�(�7 �L�� L-- 1 v 1 Zc.-TK L L R_MF/16 ... x.10 ,�F �`\. % ;2 CvbAML YU—t A-L A44 ' ��1 'I 1 sy1 � \�^' �.• 2t // :� -�/� \ ' \ e �s-s,`�/ � y�: � � ,p��-a _ 1~ 34 ♦ / 323 xo •or \ to / !1'� r ` / `•.�\\. s 44 �73d / 23 3 r,�foo \ •\_ .�`'i \\ J .,{ 32-C >, i lEA�:•� ♦ ♦ 'Ycy t.`c' _.+ \ as !t`+,{o pla / jry i \ �''\�/C) • 34 ♦ qu l `\ `\• . 32-8 3s-C top \'`M6 j r% '\, \ rsw .4( �/ \ 4•''•\ b/" - 32-A 40 43 4 46 S 23 �bW3O 1 39 t 31 110 33•/ /' {' / `.:.` �/ 3 .{r �5• / 34 3331 32 / • \ ,.j 320 /7 /v27 t` -" ��/3;:, ` `�'`• '� •.;?� !•✓ %N �', ,q `L •ice--_��.�l�_f!_ y • 113 ��' •�\ /C� J" -c i•e gA; ` 4. / \ �. I'' `�• -Ile `"�� 'M12 x!0.0 14 a�;•�'� 'L�\\�• i� t /' •'` \{;F 1 `6_--i \ 1{ \mac 'j ��\\\ ...PPP "-•' � I l I �" \ O 02-2 12 10 21 `�• �1 21 � I� L J ;o 1� / LX H 161-r A LpCAT1 U N MAS -, c _ A�n CF G DepCN1 "A PIAN �11(� �1►1 c CITY OI' ATA c�P •2G� ' �� --� '=moi' :.-vi!:��I'Ianniz2�• N piL`t'i� trZ c►3-wt l'N v RkT}t .... ....._ __.... .. i N M � ■ 1 • • • . '� i • • • Ir � • i 1 OOA / E • • e + Low,` m �► some II. .ides •NN. ■ PY-.� • . • _ _•'jNN�N �� • • I NM I ► . .} M■ J FK49 Ir R48Hyl n cqv 4A 2 r q6 •9040 f1 ` FR 49 13 IzI., A me 01 7 'Iar _ __ 2• e 17 ur y.. 7 6 J2 I ,OQ 71 576.4 I ,If ? - 77 i5 ito ,2rrw. 2 12 i ZC 12 - uc % rrK N 6 . VE m x n •ozibav� w ovob z �\ tl r---------- '^ �J I St1� F � Ik N•�l L`( a a K - j` I4 ♦� `2 irs i- '• ..a b ♦se Mb r ♦ o ♦ �l » k ev/ gz O F, A 2 O OEC' RIO YRO ` >�. ♦ _ :0= O O �.°` OBIS-Po' RIO q RD OEL e ••-zi• a d m E EX W Ida)-7-- G LAW) OSE MAP J FILA�-1 A'tAC�4 0 m Et-j 7 ® Q ZC 2 I - rad 'T1co EJn --------------- -------------- 1---4' iko ILY.UI (.._ JIl1V r ATASCADERO DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION Post Office Box 1607 Atascadero, California 93423 September 10 , 1986 REC`IVEp SLP 1 4 41986 Atascadero Planning Commission City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Atascadero, CA 93422 Re: Requested Changes in General Plan from Residential to Commercial Zoning Dear Members of the Commission: We, as directors and representatives of the Downtown Business Improvement Association, strongly support commercial development in Atascadero. We believe a strong business community is not only a benefit to Atascadero businesses , but also a benefit the citizenry and City government . Our efforts as the Business Improvement Association are dedicated to the commercial betterment of the City as a whole . Keeping this goal firmly in mind, we feel we must express our belief that the expansion of commercial zoning within the City at this time would not be beneficial to the citizenry, the business community, or the City. A strong and vibrant downtown business district is essential to the commercial vitality of Atascadero as a city. The downtown area is the heart of our City, not only geographically, but civically as well. It must be strong and energetic in order to support growth on the outer fringes of our City limits .- Without a strong and commercially viable downtown business district, the far flung commercial centers of the City will not present adequate atmosphere, convenience, and personality to draw customers . Atascadero is presently developing as a "strip" commercial community. The automobile is essential for the citizens to move between one store and another . They must move along an increasingly congested and hazardous El Camino Real from one commercial island to another in order r • September 10 , 1986 _ Atascadero Planning Commission Page Two to complete their shopping. This type of development lacks depth, increases the use of E1 Camino beyond capacity, and does not provide shoppers or other commercial customers with convenience or an aesthetically pleasing experience. Rezoning residential to commercial property now would be untimely. Our downtown needs the chance to redevelop its resources . Our energies should be focused upon development of further downtown parking, beautification, and commercial development . Innovative development along the creek could make Atascadero a showplace and commercial center of the North County. Once this core of our city , is strong, it can support and compliment further commercial growth in Atascadero' s outlying areas . We are not asking the City Council to interfere with any owner ' s existing rights to develop their land. We are, at this time, only addressing the pending proposed zoning changes from residential to commercial within the City. We firmly believe, however , increased commercial zoning would further emasculate the City 's present commercial district . Such a result is likely to cause a further loss of customers for the City 's businesses . We ask the City Council to deny any present request to rezone residential property to commercial property in the outlying areas of Atascadero. Working together , we can create a tremendously pleasing and convenient shopping and professional district in our downtown . Our energies should be focused on the goal of a vital and vibrant downtown business district . This goal must be reached before our limited resources are stretched beyond the point of no return. Sincerely, BOARD OF DIRECTORS Atascadero Downtown Business Improvement Association By KIRK PEA N, Chairman Approved by resolution 9/2/86 l_RIYLLY20 VEEFJILI2QlLt/ 05�LERL DR. ENNIS J.OGORSOLKA 1380 EL CAMINO REAL ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 PHONE (805) 466-6677 September 8 , 1986 Mr . Henry Engen _ E Community Development Director SP 1 1986 City of Atascadero , Ca . 93422 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dear Mr . Engen and Staff: This letter is in response to proposed General Plan Amendment GP 2G-86 to revise the existing Suburban Residential land use designation to Retail Commercial for the area located north of Del Rio Road between E1 Camino Real and Freeway 101 . This change would result in my business of a veterinary hospital going from a conditional use to a non-conforming use . It is my understanding that I would be allowed to continue business as usual , however , it would be very unlikely that structual changes or business function changes would be allowed . Such a change would seriously undermine the vitality of a business , such as veterinary medicine , which must constantly change to remain current with modern advances in techniques and equipment. This may also require structural changes . Any business must be allowed to update its facilities or it will soon become out-moded , unable to deliver current acceptable techniques and can soon become a "thorn in the community ' s side . " Current tax structures , depreciation schedules , and basic economics do not allow many businesses , including veterinary 1 medicine , to recover costs of equipment and physical plants in a five to ten year period. So , businessmen and women of a community must be assurred that major investments will be worthwhile and profitable or you will see a decline in quality. What business person is going to build top quality structures or improve his or her facility if there is the constant threat of being placed in a non-conforming use , jeoprodizing the entire investment? To encourage quality structures and construction practices in Atascadero to house our business community we must assure the business community that they can conduct their businesses for a reasonable period of time , say twenty years , keeping the structure in good repair and up to date then be able to sell the property in its present state and the business continue serving the community as it has for years . My personal case brought me before the Atascadero Advisory Council and the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission in 1977 , who unanimously approved the site of my present veterinary hospital . Zoning was correct ; plans were good ; it was all systems go . I choose my present location because I wanted no problems with zoning or limitations on future growth that I knew would be essential to keep my facility current with community changes as well as medical advances . I built a structure that I hoped would fit into the potential growth I saw in Atascadero . Emphysis was placed on an attractive design with special attention to structure relative to such items as sound-proofing . Items that would make me a welcome neighbor , now and in the future . This represented considerable investment . 2 n i Then several years ago we became a city. The first thing that happened was my zoning was down-graded , from an approved conforming use to a conditional use. (Agriculture A 1-2 1/2 to Suburban Residential) Now I ' m faced with a further down-grading from a conditional use to a non-conforming use . This is totally unacceptable . Medicine is a rapidly changing field and I must have the capacity to constantly update medical and surgical techniques which may require alterations to the hospital structure . To prevent such changes would eventually reduce the quality of veterinary medicine our facility could deliver to the community combined with my reluctance to keep the facility in "tip- top" condition. Soon it could become a "thorn in the community ' s side" instead of , and I hope you agree, a valuable and attractive asset to our community . I have little doubt that business persons in many other fields have or will find themselves in similar situations if current trends continue . I know veterinary hospitals can be constructed and managed in such a manner that they can be valuable assets to a community in a variety of planning zones . This is an established track record and can be varified in hundreds of communities across our nation. This fact must be a reality for other businesses also , or at least feasible . When a zone change is necessary , instead of arbitrarily going down the list and informing existing businesses that they are now non-conforming ; ask , "How can this business be constructed and managed in order to keep it as an asset to the community and maintain it in an approved and conforming zoning use?" A veterinary hospital out on the Carrisa Plains , 50 miles 3 from the nearest soul does not have the same concerns with design that a hospital in a high-density , multiple residential area would have . I was involved with building a veterinary hospital in such a zoning in Seattle , Washington. My present hospital was built to the same specifications . I am not aware of a single complaint from our neighbors of the Seattle hospital or here in Atascadero . After nine years in the community I assume we are living in harmony. Four years ago problems developed with the original roof of my hospital requiring early replacement. I was told of advancements in the roofing industry of materials available and construction techniques that would not only give me a more durable roof but would improve on heating, cooling and sound- proofing . I was under no obligation to improve my roof in this manner, but I incurred the extra cost because I wanted the best available in this area of construction. Consultation with architects and engineers reveals that significant advancements have been made in the construction and design field that would improve my existing structure should any alterations be made in my hospital at the present time . I submit to you that with this continual downgrading of my zoning and the ever-increasing chance that I might have to "scrap" my building , why should I care? Why should anyone in our community put forward that extra effort , that extra monetary investment , if they run the risk that two to four times per year their zoning could change putting their efforts at risk or even bringing them face to face with economic ruin. 4 f If you were to ask me today what the communities of Carmel , California , Edmonds , Washington; Leavenworth , Washington; San Luis Obispo , California; Solvang , California; might look like in 10 to 20 years with regard to architectural design, continuity of growth, etc . , I ' m sure most of us would have a firm concept of what these communities would be like . Atascadero , on the otherhand , appears to be a "hodge-podge" of structures , concepts and design. I personally see no continuity , no apparent firm course of design. I see no community profile unfolding . Atascadero has lost many golden opportunities of becoming a truely beautiful community and is rapidly becoming just another California strip city with no class or "pizazz" . This can be changed ! The following requests are made with these points in mind : 1 . That the Planning Commission make no decision on the proposed zoning change for the area north of Del Rio Road between E1 Camino Real and the Freeway 101 until a comprehensive study of land use presently available and presently in use in Atascadero has been completed . 2 . That the City of Atascadero adopt a plan outlining architectural and design conformity that would give continuity to the growth and design of Atascadero that members of our community can take pride in. 3 . That the City adopt a policy to insure that members of our community , including business , will be encouraged to continually improve their physical facilities without fear of being zoned to a non-conforming use , at some future date , jeopardizing their investment and livelihood . 5 4 . That the City include in this policy a provision that when a zoning change is necessary, existing facilities will be evaluated and allowed to continue as an approved function as long as future improvements help to improve their conformity to the new zoning requirements . 5 .That the Planning Commission and the City Council of the City of Atascadero rule AGAINST the proposed General Plan Amendment GP 2G-86 to revise the existing Suburban Residential land use to Retail Commercial for the study area north of Del Rio Road between E1 Camino Real and Freeway 101 . 6 .That any zone changes finalized for said area include veterinary hospitals as a approved and conforming use. Please include my letter , formally , in the record . Thank you very much for your consideration of the contents of this letter . Please contact me is I can be of any assistance . Sincerely. Ennis J . orsorka , DVM '`1 • • Minutes - Planning Commission - September 15, 1986 6. Conditional Use Permit 26-84 (Reconsideration) : Request submitted by Century Plaza (Gaylen Little) to low a modification to the previously approved use permit elating to signage. Subject property is located at 6905 E1 Camino al (Century Plaza) , also known as Parcel 1 of C 73-06. Mr. DeCam presented the staff report and noted the revious approvals 1 volved with this project. He stated a conditions of approval are identical to the last approval wit a slight modifi- cation in the rding for condition #5. Al Ingersoll with N Signs, representing t applicant, indicated his concurrence wit the recommendation. Ken Clark, owner of the rook Hill an Happy Steak Restaurants in the central coast area, n ted the p mary reason for the change in the previously approved mo ment sign for the shopping center was that due to the location at a ck of the lot and some of the natural obstructions, it was t imperative that the restaurant have sufficient identificatio . Commissioner Kidwell stat this is n area that needs special treatment. Chairman Bo concurred. MOTION: Made by Com ssioner Kidwell, s onded by Commissioner Mich: s and carried unanimous to approve the recon- siderati of Conditional Use Perm' 26-84 subject to the staff commendation, with modificati n to condition #5 as f lows: " A master signing plan in conformance ith the ap- proved use permit, Exhibit C, and stan rds of the Zoning Ordinance shall be reviewed and a roved by the Community Development Department prior to issu- ance of building permits. Monument signs sh 11 be for plaza identification, with the exception the theaters and the Brook Hill Restaurant. " At this point, Chairman Bond called a recess from 9 : 01 to 9 :14 p 7. General Plan Amendment 2G-86/Zone Change 27-86 : Request initiated by City of Atascadero (Brazzi) to revise the General .Plan land use map designation of Suburban Single Family to Retail Commercial, and the existing zoning from Residential Suburban to Commercial Retail or other commercial designation. Subject property is located between El Camino and Highway 101 north of Del Rio Road (1200-1800 E1 Camino Real) . Mr. Engen presented the staff report and provided a background on this study area and the determination of the boundaries included in the study area. He noted the recommendation was for denial and stated factors against favorable consideration of the requested land use and zoning changes. 6 Minutes - Planning Commission - September 15, 1986 In response to question from Commissioner Kidwell, Mr. Engen re- plied that the animal hospital is a permitted use and that if the zoning was changed to CR, it would still be a permitted use. Discussion ensued concerning the inappropriateness of CR zoning which should be limited to the downtown area rather than this particular area. Commissioner Hatchell referenced this application with Leonard Brazzi 's original application for his property last year and asked Mr. Engen to elaborate on the initial application with regard to a nonconforming use at that particular property. There was discus- sion of the past action of the Council to approve Commercial Neighborhood zoning adjacent to Mr . Brazzi' s property. Leonard Brazzi, 1800 E1 Camino Real, stated he was a little con- fused with this present proposal and noted his intent to establish a mobile home sales for his property. He explained how he would be utilizing his property if the amendment is approved. Dean Harris, adjacent property owner, stated he has lived in this area for 27 years. He stated that the freeway noise has become such that the land would be more suited for some type of commer- cial use. Kirk Pearson, president of the Business Improvement Association, commented that their concern is that Atascadero grow in an orderly manner and noted some of the problems with the strip development along El Camino Real. Ennis Ogorsolka, owner of the animal hospital on E1 Camino Real, clarified his letter he had earlier submitted to staff with regard to these hospitals possibly becoming a nonconforming use. He explained that the basic intent of his letter still stands. Mr. Brazzi responded to comments expressed by Mr. Pearson. Commissioner Nolan asked for clarification on the notification of property owners for this hearing.` Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin noted he shared Mr . Brazzi ' s concerns with the wayhis application pp ation was approved by the Planning Commis- sion last year but was turned down by the City Council. Chairman Bond noted he was not in favor of the entire study area in light of the impending general plan evaluation and update. Commissioner Kidwell felt that a careful study is necessary for a proper determination for land use designation in this area. Commissioner Michielssen added some comments and noted he would be in favor of developing the downtown area first. 7 Minutes - Planning Commission - September 15, 1986 Commissioner Hatchell asked if there any feasible zoning designa- tions contained in the zoning ordinance which would allow Mr. Brazzi to develop his use. Discussion ensued. It was noted that the majority of the North E1 Camino Real corridor would become nonconforming because of the number of existing residences in the area which would not be allowed in commercial zones. Also pointed out was that this area is presently outside the Urban Services Line. Further discussion continued concerning the appropriateness of a Commercial Tourist designation which could possible fit Mr. Brazzi ' s use. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Hatchell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin and carried unanimously to continue the hearing for this item to the meeting of October 6, 1986 in order for staff to bring back appropriate language recommending approval of a Commercial Tourist. zoning designation for 1800 E1 Camino Real (Brazzi' s property) . 8. General Plan Amendment 2H-86/Zone Change 22-86 : Request initiated by City of Atascadero (Hawkins) o revise e General Plan land use map designation of Mo rate Density Si le Family to High Density Single Family, d to revise the ning from RSF-Y to RSF-X (Atascadero - ortola Road Reside ial Study Area) . At this time, C issioner Michielssen step d down from the Com- mission due to a ssible conflict of int est. Mr. Engen presented t staff report a summarized the history of this request and the pr ' r actions o the Planning Commission and City Council. In response to question by Co ssioner Lopez-Balbontin, Mr. Engen explained the sewer capacity olved in this study area. Mike Hawkins, applicant, oke in port of the application and noted that out of 63 to , 44 are one half acre or less. He ex- plained the reasoning or the one-half cre concept ad talked a about his desire to oid creating flag ts. There was brief scussion concerning the is a which has been recently raised concerning net acreage versus oss acreage. Dennis Lock dge, 8935 Atascadero Avenue, stated h opposition to the amend nt request. He noted there are a lot of provements needed the Atascadero-Portola area and commented on he safety concer s with regard to children walking to and from SanRosa Scho the narrow streets. He asked if it were possible have a re thorough report on overall impacts other than just on his rticular development (Hawkins ' ) , to which Mr . Engen explaine . 8 • 0 Minutes - Planning Commission — October 6 , 1986 Mr. lkins clarified that there are two distinct pr jects for this area nd the site planning was done by two differe t people. He noted hat much of the discussion concerning the arking situation had bee discussed by Mr . Elkins with staff pri to this hearing. He addedhat because of the small size of the lots, they will probably b developed individually, and there is likely to be dif- ficulty in ying to reach the amount of re ired parking spaces. Commissioner lan asked that if the alle way were to be aban- doned, how_ woul access to the creek fro E1 Camino Real be reached, to which Mr. DeCamp responded Commissioner Hatche stated he has lways admired the creekway plan and wishes it we a in place a this time. He felt that a five foot encroachment in relatio to 300 feet being utilized for the accessway would not resent major problem to sacrifice 15 feet of the alleyway, eve if were along the entire strip. He felt there is a lot of are t re that can be utilized. Commissioner Copelan stated s e did not have a problem with aban- doning the 15 feet as it a ery small percentage of the creek- way, and felt this would e a f ' r exchange because the proposed development will enhanc the down own area and consideration of the additional parkin would help a area, . Commissioner Lopez- Balbontin concurred ding that he It this development would be very compatible. I may be a long ti a before the creekway plan is developed. Mr. DeCamp, in sponse to question from ommissioner Lopez-Bal- bontin, stated a did not know exactly whe the creekway would be developed, an added that the creekway plan, as adopted in the General Pla , could not be completed in its e tirety if the alley- way is aba doned. He further added that the a tire alleyway from El Camino Real to the creek would be abandoned i approval were to be gran d. MOTIO Made by Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin, secon ed by Com- missioner Copelan to continue the hearing on Road Aban- donment 2-86 in order for staff and the appli nts to work together in an effort to seek a solution t their proposed development. At this point, Chairman Bond called a recess from 9 :35 p.m. o 9:45 p.m. 5. General Plan Amendment 2G-86/Zone Change 27-86 : Request initiated by City of Atascadero (Brazzi) to revise the General Plan land use map designation of Suburban Single Family to Retail Commercial, and the existing zoning from Residential Suburban to Commercial Retail or other commercial designation. Subject property is located between E1 Camino Real and Highway 101 north of Del Rio Road (1200-1800 El Camino Real) . CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 15 , 1986 . 7 tit • • Minutes - Planning Commission - October 6, 1986 Mr. DeCamp presented the staff report giving a snyopsis on the actions taken at the previous hearing for this request. He went over the language proposed for approving a Commercial Tourist zoning designation for the property. Leonard Brazzi, applicant, asked for clarification as to the proceedings which will take place in order to obtain final approv- al of the land use change, and explained how he first began initiating this zoning change. There was brief discussion among the Commission concerning this matter. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin, seconded by Com- misioner Kidwell and carried unanimously to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 2G-86 and Zone Change 27-86 as referenced in the draft resolution and ordinance recommending approval of a Commercial Tourist zoning designation. 6. Zone Change 20-86: Request submitted by Williams House of Carpets to vise the isting Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zoning to mmercial Re it (CR) . Subject property is located at 2 5 E1 Camino Real. (REQUEST TO BE CONTINUED) . Mr. DeCamp not d that the applicant has reque ed that this matter be continued to future date when the next ycle of General Plan amendments will be considered. C. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of report o lot size determination. Mr. Engen presented the st f repo which included the City Attorney' s legal opinion, oncerning nimum lot size determina- tions in the City. He :t:alked about fut a General Plan amendments that could make provisions for a 20 ,000 uare foot lot size. Discussion ensued td this regard, as well discussion on the confusion which s specifically related to a residents along Coromar Road r ating to the different maps whi h were used in determining t sizes. Alan Volbrecht, representing several property owners Coromar , talked out the history of how the City road system ca into existence and noted he had some additional information wh ' h he was btaining from the County which may shed some light on e s ' uation. 8 �ii • • RESOLUTION NO. 128-86 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AT 1800 EL CAMINO REAL (LOTS 3 AND 4; BLOCK 48) FROM SUBURBAN SINGLE FAMILY TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2G-86: BRAZZI) WHEREAS, a request to amend the City of Atascadero General Plan has been received as follows: General Plan Amendment 2G-86 : Request initiated by the City Council to change the General Plan Land Use Element Map designation from Suburban Single Family Residential to Retail Commercial. Subject property is located at 1800 E1 Camino Real, also known as Lots 3 and 4 of Block 48. WHEREAS, this request was considered by the Planning Commission at a hearing held on September 15, 1986 and continued to October 6, 1986; and WHEREAS, such amendment to the General Plan was considered by the City Council during a public hearing; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65323 provides that a General Plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as follows: 1. The proposed General Plan land use map revision would be con- sistent with existing and proposed policies contained in the General Plan land use element due to the proposed project' s consistency with the general" level of land use intensity ad- joining the site. 2. The proposed land use designation would be an extension of existing designations and would be consistent with existing land use patterns in the area. 3. The site is not within the sewer improvement district and sewer services are not yet available to the site, but poli- cies and procedures can be initiated to include the area. 4. The proposed amendments will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. A negative declaration has been prepared and determined to be adequate. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve to approve General Plan Amendment 2G-86 (Brazzi) to change the 1980 0 0 Atascadero General Plan Land Use Map as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" entitled GP 2G-86. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Atascadero, California, held on the day of , 1986. CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA BY: MARJORIE MACKEY, Mayor ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director 2 •• � ` .111 ' , � /• �lullAll . { mw -IVm r 1 1 , 1 .ii , • ; _ ` •f C�//. r � 1r 1 ORDINANCE NO. 141 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING SECTION MAP NUMBER 4 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY AT 1800 EL CAMINO REAL FROM RS (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN) TO C" (COMMERCIAL .TOURIST) (ZONE CHANGE 27-86 : $RAZZI) WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendment is 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 reg- ulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will not have a significant ad- verse impact upon the environment. The Negative Declaration previ- ously prepared for the project is adequate. WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 15, 1986 and October 6, 1986 . NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Council Findings. 1. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. 2. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan. 3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse en- vironmental impacts. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. Section 2. Zoning Map. Map Number 4 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero on file in the City Community Development Department is hereby amended to reclassify Lot 3 and 4 of Block 48 from RS (Residential Suburban) to CT (Commercial Tourist) . Section 3. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proofing 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: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By: MARJORIE MACKEY, Mayor ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director 2 •_1 r m .s- EM: B_-�3 . , = 1 :�j PLEASE NOTE: THE STATUS REPORT,r41N THE B. I .A MEMO WILL BE PROVIDED THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT A L R TIME. 1�? 'i $`.` k�F��rt� 'R'k t£it�.is+ r�a t#�- 'a.�to `+n"` .: i` ,�„ � ♦/� y.Mc s h -fi t .y,,,y vs, s r'Y SLs F.-'+ ti, s' .. ,� L: ,-_`, c'�)�„ •A1� 'cr•r 'y.�V NQAY f PLEASE I NCL1[?ETj MEMO , „ Q 1!I'0,/86, y"r s r K ��I NTO THE 1 f 10 ,IrOUNC A PACKE t. �HRNIC5 - s =� t, OF C i `TY GR 5 r 0 �Clt�` Councx gerae�• °F e r UBJECT 4 TRANSMIT WF,:;COUNTY ""PROPERTIES.ATO HE ` RECOMMENDATIO t7,-,Council a orae a Ma or n e nt aaz�e the ,Count r Y �, .; uS�. �fi4po to ranee: ode es � I � ,III ro ernes $ACRGROUND'; t the= conc union h�mos ecen o ego' t pith he. oun n anuary,ro 986, a . oyv Y en fed �ar.. o er dies"h in he 4Cit 'g� � g - P rh exon ed �o; hey ou ecause . .< c�f,'� =these� roperties Frere,+ caned y � oust rio "ncorhoratonboth educe r _`potentia .ncorporaton ro e;rt is= ` y. he attachedesolu ori ePresen s e u �o a t`�a ed n the parameters sgi.ven y�the Counci y �ernbe�s dsh anc�_'Molina wer ., .a x} ppointed cmmittee a ern.` sss ego, latioiNr'ocesa )Asp n° accordance :.with^GeneralPlanconfor mi andig equ cments, " thePlanning Commission; "bn _"Septembez�r 15,"986"foun thepropoe :w ;property agreementn confromancewithhety'"sac�oed Ge era lan gThe :City Couric�lt :their Septemaer2 rt I986 �ddf iny, , „ found ,the agreement n 'conform ty, witntne -LieneraiL 'an.. 11xWRI Council is ,requested to execute >the attached k ocuments. ased ' pupon Council ,- approval, ,�l,t, is ;expected" that the Count Y Board of : Supervisors will act on the :agreement gat%``the' ; „egular meeti.i ” November 18, `1986. "' 4 Sx _ Execution of the agreement, ,;as proposed,,q�will �>=provide �,:thes ;City ` with , a ,police .facility site and enable ;.the .'poss'ible future sale ' ` or transfer of Atascadero' Lakeside "properties zRto ,enable ' acqui t- " sition of more useful properties fronting rthe" park adjacent oto lat °r Highway 41. E a; » a# aku5 �# r s i31f E - a FISCAL IMPACT a n �; i L , MR None, the City will acquire ownership of same ;'proper tiesa � z. 50-..year no-cost-lease for a ':portion of the old hospital sit be acquired, and deed restrictions will be "„removed on everalrte ` Atascadero lakeside' properties owned b the:_Cure P P4 � t ” .y `` '' t '•..t ` zy, *4 "xe a ,..:.`sn 's ,'L, ,.� i 'f` '", ''�" t 's `t6•-�` A; .rd? �°:w M$ KV , � MPR 0 P 1 FILE: ' �r �r . . RESOLUTION 129-86 RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTIES AND INTEREST IN PROPERTIES FROM EACH PUBLIC ENTITY TO THE OTHER. WHEREAS , the City of Atascadero and County of San Luis Obispo have in the past disputed each entities title to certain real property in the City of Atascadero, subsequent to the Incorporation of Atascadero; and WHEREAS , both the County of San Luis Obispo and City of Atascadero desire to enter into an Agreement to settle and conclude the real property title dispute between the parties ; and WHEREAS , the City of Atascadero is desirous of obtaining a lease- hold interest in land from the County of San Luis Obispo, on which it is sufficient to build and expand a City Police Department facility; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS : 1. That Agreement prepared by the County of San Luis Obispo, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A" , and made a part hereof, is hereby adopted. 2. The Mayor of the City of Atascadero , and City Clerk are hereby instructed to execute all appropriate documents to effectuate the executory provisions of that Agreement between the City of Atascadero and the County of San Luis Obispo as follows : (1) The Agreement between the City of Atascadero and County of San Luis Obispo; (2) The Certificate of Acceptance for the transfer of interest in real property; (3) The land lease Agreement relating to the lease of property for City Police Facility; (4) The Quitclaim Deed from the City of Atascadero to the County of San Luis Obispo affecting the following parcels : APN-105-25 , APN-29-105-16 , APN-29-105-13 , APN-091-01 , APN-30-292-18. On motion by Councilmember ' seconded by Council- member , this Resolution was duly adopted on the 10th day of Novem er, 1986 . AYES : NOES: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO BY: BOYD C. SHARITZ MARJORIE MACKEY City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT: ROBERT M. JONES City Attorney AGREEMENT This agreement is entered into this day of , 1986, by and between the County of San Luis Obispo, hereinafter referred to as "County" and the City of Atascadero, hereinafter referred to as "City" ; WHEREAS there has been ongoing disagreement between County and City ever since the incorporation of City over the question of title to real estate located within the incorporated boundaries of City and standing in the name of County since prior to the incorporation ; WHEREAS it is the desire of both County and City to permanently and forevermore conclude the real property title dispute between the parties by this agreement. NOW THEREFORF, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties to this agreement do agree as follows : 1 . County agrees to execute a quit claim deed to the City of Atascadero for the following parcels of real property located in the City: APN 29-091-06--vacant recreation land on Traffic Way APN 31-372-11--vacant land near zoo on Pismo Avenue APN 28-092-09--vacant land on Sycamore Road 2. County agrees to release certain conditions which were placed on various properties near Atascadero Lake which conditions restricted said properties to recreational and public f use purposes only. Said properties have previously been conveyed to the City but subject to said restrictions . These properties are listed as follows : APN 56-322-10--lot 28--block 12 APN 56-322-11--lot 29--block 12 APN 56-322-18--lot 33--block 12 APN 56-322-17--lot 34--block 12 APN 56-322-23--lot 36--block 12 APN 56-322-23--lot 37--block 12 APN 56-322-23--lot 38--block 12 APN 56-322-23--lot 39--block 12 APN 56-312-16--lot 40--block 12 APN 56-312-15--lot 41--block 12 3. County agrees to execute a fifty year lease to the City of Atascadero on presently vacant land located on the southernmost portion of the old hospital site in the City of Atascadero, APN 29-105-13, 29-105-16, and 29-105-25, legal description attached to lease itself and attached hereto, which is sufficient to build and expand a City Police Department facility. The parties agree to consummate this lease concurrently with their agreement in the form attached hereto. 4. City agrees to release all claims on property leased to the State National Guard Armory, located in the City of Atascadero , Assessor' s Parcel Number 29-091-01 . In order to give County a recordable document affecting Counties record title interest in this parcel , City agrees to provide County with a quit claim deed to the said parcel in recordable form contemporaneously with the execution of this agreement . -2- 5. City agrees that the remainder portion of the old hospital site not included in the lease to the City of Atascadero as set forth hereinabove, namely APN 29-105-13, 29-105-16, and 29-105-25, may be sold by the County at any time at its discretion and the City makes no claim upon this property. In order to clear County's record title from any claim, City agrees to and does execute a quit claim deed to County for these parcels contemporaneously with the execution of this agreement . 6. Both City and County agree that this agreement is intended to fully and finally dispose of all known real property claims and disputes between the parties as of the date of execution of this agreement. 7. City agrees to transfer to County those certain paved roads located on the County Hospital site and referred to as Roads M 4098 and M 4099. City reserves right of access to Capistrano Avenue on Road M 4097 also known as Hospital Drive both at the Southern entrance on Capistrano Ave. and at the Northern entrance where it joins Road M 4099. City may also use Road M 4098 for access to Highway 41 when Caltrans develops the realignment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this agreement the day and year first set forth above. -3- ATTEST: COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY CLERK and CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS By: Chairman of the Board of Supervisors By: AUTHORIZED BY BOARD ACTION on 1986 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT: CITY OF ATASCADERO JAMES B. LINDHOLM, JR. County Counsel By: Mayor By: Deputy County Counsel AUTHORIZED BY Dated: CITY COUNCIL ACTION on 1986 APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY By: 5103r -4- EXHIBIT A ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION Being a portion of land lying within the Ci ty of Luis Obispo, State of California more particularly described aasafollowsounty of San Beginning at a 1" iron pipe with a plastic cap stamped "SLO County Surveyor" found on the Easterly Right ofWay of Capistrano Avenue and which bears N 7' 00" E. ,41 -23 feet from a 3/4" iron pipe found at the beginningof centerline of Capistrano Avenue as shown on Parcel Map CO-74-185 North 66° 16 Page 86 of Parcel Maps; a curve on the as shown 6 said e P ; thence along the Northwesterl recorded in Book P towards a 1" iron pipe with a plastic caprstamped "SLO line of aCounty Surveyor" North 67° 42' 32" East, 197.88 feet to its intersection California Division of Highways Right Of as shown on Highwa Ri h SLO 41 Post Mile 16.4; with - the Map 220.44 feet to the beginning cof aaonon tan entsaid gcurve, cht of oncave -th 49' t hav ng a radius point which bears North 80. 43'- 40 West, concave to the East having a of 16° 43' 54"• thence Northerly 365.03 feet along 5 a�iid curve o feet ato a central angle leaving ' said Right of Way South 340 53' 30" West, 39.84 feet, thence South 13° ' 00" West, 25.92 feet to an intersection with the edge of pavement point; thence road to the present County Facility as located by a field surveyin 34 thence following alongP ement of an entrance said edge of pavement the following courss; South s370 54' 55" West, 12.04 feet; South 65° 02' S6" 32.88 feet; South 85° 43' West, 41 .24 feet; South 820 03' 53" West South 14° 07' 07" West, 38.25 feet; South 340 50' O1" West 18.22 feet; 43' S3" 58" East, 21.27 feet; South 19° 24'29" East 46.80 feet; South 12° East, 42.85 feet; South 60 18' 30" East, 57.40; South 00° 54' 55.21 feet; South 90 20' 20" West, 55.60 feet;;South 15° 12' 57" West South 320 26' 01" West, 45.50 feet; South 42 42 13 West, 41 .75 feet; 36�� East, 18' 446 West, 60.73 feet; South 67° 10' O1" °West, 57.43 fee ; Sou feet; West, 36.53 et; South 61 ° feet; South 40° 19' 31" West, 6.09 to an intersection with 33a non tangent curve on the ,Easterly Right of 'WayPoint of Capistrano Avenue having a radius 39"; thence Southerl 18" West, 502.50 feet and a central angle of 30 9' Southerly along said curve an arc distance of 27.22 feet to the Point of Beginning and containing 1 .31 acres of land more or less. 0 0 33 a•53'�o:✓ J/3'3/Q�7t/ ss,�• .t37•Jt'33 /Z�• . s/�•07•�1' Ixtr' 'ds aloe/ � 0! .1t.ItI• -1JT'f3'S3d- ltdS' Cf ,� �144 s c•/e sow s��• 4 s to zo:✓ sa-.co' ` h J�Z'IG'O/:✓ 4550' S51035 40-73 .#✓� Q •�= 6'OZ.6Z7 �l a P`h l� 2 of 2 F r� Q LAND LEASE AGREEMENT THIS LEASE AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 19 by and between the County of San Luis Obispo, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY" and the City of Atascadero, hereinafter referred to as "CITY". NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. PREMISES: County hereby leases to City, and City hereby hires and takes from County, for the term and upon the conditions hereinafter set forth, those certain premises, hereinafter referred to as the "Premises", as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. Said premises shall be construed to be land only, exclusive of real property improvements. City agrees that the parcel herein described as the leased premises in accordance with Exhibit A attached hereto, must be subdivided as an independent legal lot within 180 days from the execution of this Lease by County. City further agrees that all costs incurred in the subdivision process will be the sole responsibility of the City. In the event that City fails to create said legal lot, then this Lease may be terminated at the sole discretion of County. 2. TERM: The term of this agreement shall be for a period of fifty (50) years, commencing on the 1st day of January, 1987 and expiring at midnight on the 31st day of December, 2037. 3. RENEWAL: City shall not have the right to renew this Lease. City agrees that any extension or renewal of this Lease is at the sole discretion of and subject to approval by County. In the event County elects not to extend or renew this Lease during the term or at the expiration thereof, then City shall have no further rights hereunder unless expressly set forth herein. In the event that County does not renew this Lease and City elects not to purchase the leased premises at the expiration of the term of this Lease, then County will purchase from City the building improvements constructed on the premises by City at the then fair market value. Said fair market value shall be determined by a qualified independent appraiser mutually acceptable to both County and City. The cost incurred in obtaining said appraisal shall be shared equally by County and City. 4. QUIET ENJOYMENT: County covenants that upon City performing and observing all obligations under this agreement, City may peaceably and quietly have, hold and enjoy the premises for the term of this agreement, and any extensions or renewals thereof, subject to and subordinate to all provisions of this agreement, provided, however, that County's liabilities under this agreement shall be only for the period during which it shall be the Owner of the premises. 5. USE OF PREMISES: The premises may be used by the City for the purpose of constructing and operating a City Police Department. Any other use or purpose must have the prior written consent of the County in each instance. Said consent by County shall not be unreasonably withheld. City agrees that no representation, except such as are contained herein, have been made to City respecting the condition of said premises. The taking possession of said premises by City shall be conclusive evidence as against City that said premises were in good and satisfactory condition when possession of the same was so taken. a 6. OPTION TO PURCHASE: City shall have the right of first refusal to purchase the parcel of land defined herein as the leased premises. The said right of first refusal is effective and operative only in the event that County desires to sell the entire parcel as one independent parcel. In the event that, at any time during the Lease term, County shall decide to sell the said parcel, County shall first offer said parcel to City at the then appraised fair market value. Said fair market value shall be determined by a qualified independent appraiser and member of the Institute of American Real Estate Appraisers, or similar professional affiliation, mutually acceptable to both County and City. The entire costs incurred in obtaining said appriasal shall be shared equally by County and City. It is further understood and agreed by County and City that the appraised fair market value of said parcel shall not include the value of any structures or other improvements developed or installed by City during the lease term. County shall notify City of its decision to sell and other conditions and terms of sale by registered or certified mail addressed to City in accordance with paragraph 21 of this Lease. City shall have a period of sixty (60) days from the date of its receipt of the offer to sell to reply to said offer. If Cl rejects said offer or does not reply within said sixty (60) day period, County then offer the property for sale on the open market without further obligation to City. 7. MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS: City shall have the right on said premises, at City's sole cost and expense, to construct such fixtures, structures, additions and improvements as may be required in connection with City's operations hereunder, and to install therein and thereon such equipment and facilities as City may deem necessary or desirable, provided, however, that no such fixture, structure, addition or improvement shall be made or installed by City without the prior written consent of County, and City covenants and agrees prior to construction or installation of any such fixture, structure, addition or improvement, to submit the general plan, location and character thereof to County for approval, which approval County agrees, shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. City shall be required to obtain and pay for all necessary permits through the appropriate governmental agencies in connection with additions, improvements and alterations to the premises. There shall be maintained, at City's expense, at all times when any change or alteration is in progress, workmen's compensation insurance in accordance with law covering all persons employed in connection with the change or alteration, and general liability insurance for the mutual benefit of County and City covering the additional hazards resulting from the change or alteration. S. UTILITIES: County shall not be required to furnish any service to the premises, including but not limited to heat, water, electrical, gas, sewer and garbage disposal, and shall not be liable for any failure of water supply or of any service by any utility. City agrees to promptly pay all charges for all utility hookups and services used or charges imposed in or about or supplied to t premises, and shall indemnify the County against any and all liability on s account. 9. INSURANCE: City shall obtain and maintain in full force and effect at all times during the term hereof, personal and bodily injury insurance, including death resulting therefrom. This comprehensive general liability insurance shall include, Ago - i • but shall not be limited to, protection against claims arising from bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom and damage to property, resulting from any accident occurring on or about the road, driveways, or other public places used by City in the operation hereunder, caused or arising out of any act of failure to act of City, or resulting from any act or failure to act of City pursuant to this agreement. The above mentioned comprehensive general liability insurance shall provide single limit coverage applying to bodily and personal injury liability, including death resulting therefrom, property damage or a combination of these in an amount of not less that $1,000,000. City may elect to self-insure for all or part of the insurance requirements as set forth herein. In the event City elects to self-insure, then City shall submit to County a written statement in this.regard pursuant to which City waives subrogation or consents to a waiver of right of recovery against County. 10. INDEMNIFICATION: The City shall defend, indemnity and save harmless the County of San Luis Obispo, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, or liability occasioned by the performance or attempted performance of the provisions hereof, or in any way arising out of this agreement including, but not limited to, inverse condemnation, equitable relief, or any wrongful act of any negligent act or omission to act on the part of the City, or of agents, employees, or independent contractors directly responsible to the City; providing further that the foregoing shall apply to any wrongful acts, or any actively or passively negligent acts or omissions to act, committed jointly or concurrently by the City, the City's agents, employees, or independent contractors and the County, its agents, employees, or independent contractors. The County shall defend, indemnify and save harmless the City of Atascadero, in the same manner as expressed herein, as repects the parking area utilized by County in accordance with Exhibit B. 11. PROVIDING OF SERVICES: It is distinctly and particularly understood and agreed between the parties hereto that the County is in no way associated or otherwise connected with the actual performance of this agreement on the part of City nor as to the employment of labor or the incurring of other expenses; that the City is an independent contractor in the performance of each and every part of this agreement and solely and personally liable for any and all damages which may be occasioned on account of the operation of this agreement, whether the same be for personal injury or damages of any other kind. City does, because of City's status as an independent contractor, hereby agree to forebear from making any claims against the County pursuant to any federal or State laws providing for employee's liability compensation for personal injury or unemployment compensation. 12. ASSIGNMENT: City shall not mortgage, pledge, encumber, sell, assign or transfer, in whole or in part, or sublease, license or permit the use or occupancy by any third party of all or any part of the premises without County's prior written consent in each instance; provided, however, that in the event of any such permitted assignment, subletting, or permitted action by City, City shall continue until the end of the term hereof to be obligated to fulfill all of the terms and conditions hereof. 13. INSPECTION OF PREMISES: The County reserves the right of ingress and egress at any reasonable time to inspect, investigate and survey said premises as deemed necessary by County. 14. LAWS: City agrees and promises to comply with and observe any and all statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations of the Federal, State, County, Municipal or other public authority, and as amended. 15. NON-DISCRIMINATION: City shall not discriminate against any person or class of persons by reason of race, color, creed or national origin in the use of the premises. 16. SAFETY: City shall immediately correct any unsafe condition of premises, as well as any unsafe practices occurring thereon. City shall obtain emergency medical care for any member of the public who is in need thereof, because of illness or injury occurring on the premises. City shall operate premises in a manner to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public. 17. DESTRUCTION OF PREMISES: In the event premises shall be totally or partially destroyed by whatever cause, County shall allow City to restore said premises and this agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 18. CONDEMNATION: If the whole or any part of the premises shall be acqui or condemned by eminent domain for any public or quasi public use or purpose, then in that event, the term of this agreement shall cease and terminate from the date of title vesting in such proceeding and City shall have no claim against County for the value of any unexpired term of said agreement and City shall not be entitled to any part of any award that may be made for such taking, or to any damages therefore except that the rent shall be adjusted as of the date of such termination of this agreement. 19. HOLDING OVER: In the event that City shall hold over after expiration of the term of this agreement or any extension or renewal thereof, with the consent, express or implied, of County, such holding over shall be deemed merely a tenancy form month-to-month on the terms, covenants, and conditions, so far as applicable, and subject to the same exceptions and reservations, as herein contained, until such tenancy is terminated in manner prescribed by law. 20. NOTICES: Any notices, demands, or communication, under, or in connection with this agreement, may be served upon County by personal service, or by mailing the same by certified mail in the United States Post Office, postage prepaid, and directed to County at County of San Luis Obispo, Department of General Services, County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 and may likewise be served on City by personal service or by so mailing the same addressed to City at City of Atascadero, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422. Either County or City may change such address by notifying the other party in writing as to such new address as City or County may desire used and which address shall continue as the address until further written notice. 21. PARKING: County reserves the exclusive right to install, use and maintain fourteen (14) parking spaces along the northernmost property line of the premis as depicted on Exhibit B. 0 22, LANDSCAPING: City shall be responsible for providing all existing trees, lawn and plants on the premises with routine care, including but not limited to, water, trimming, mowing, raking and weeding. Any refuse created by City's responsibilities as contained in this Paragraph shall be promptly and properly disposed of at City's sole cost and expense. G Q 23. SUCCESSORS: The agreements herein made shall apply to, bind and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of County, and the successors and permitted assigns of City. 24. PROVISIONS DEEMED COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS: The parties hereto agree that all of the provisions hereof are to be construed as covenants and conditions as though the words importing such covenants and conditions are used in each instance, and that all of the provisions hereof shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement this day of 19 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO By: Chairman of the board of Supervisors Approved by the Board of Supervisors this day of 19 ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO By: Mayor Glerk of the Board of Supervisors Authorized by City Council action this APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT: day of 1986. JAMES B. LINDHOLM, JR. County Counsel By: Deputy County Counsel Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney By: cjt/js/6397p 11-1 e EXHIBIT A ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION Being a portion land Ca Luis Obispo, State of Calying within the City of Atascadero, County of San lifornia more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a 1" iron pipe with a plastic cap stamped found on the Easterly Right of Way of Capistrano Avenue and which bears North 66 f 00" E, 41.23 feet.from a 3/4 amped "SLO County Surveyor" centerline of Capistrano Avenue asoshowneonoParcel Map Cund at the 74185 o recorded in Book 16 Page 86 of Parcel Maps; beginning curve on the the as shown on said map towardshaI" iron pipe with Northwesterly plastic ca Surveyor" North 61° t property line of Parcel 4 California Division OfHighwaysways Right ofWayfeet to its intersection sect onstamped 'SwiithLO outhe SLO 41 Post Mile 16.4; thence along said Rightas shown May Noon rth 42'Right of Way Map ,. 220.44 feet to the beginning of a non tangent curve concave to the East having a radius point which bears North 80° 43' 40 � 27.E East, of 16 43 54"; thence Northerly 365.03 feet along 5aid curve 0 feet ato a central angle leaving said Right of Way South 34° 53' 30" ; thence 00" West, 25.92 feet to an intersection with the edge of pavement of oantentrance West, 39.84 feet, thence South 13° 34' road to the present County Facility thence following along said edge f pavas ement he following 55" Nest, 12,04 feet; South 65° 02' S6" y a field survey in August 1986; 32.88 feet; South 85° 43' 07" West, 41.24 feet;gSouths820 South137° 54' South fee ; S8" West, 38.25 feet; South 340 50 07est 53" WesAh 43' S3" East, 42.85afeet27Sou h.27 e 6' South lA° 24' 29" East,501 07" 55.21 feet; South 9° 20' 20" West °55 6'0 feet South 1150 12' 57" Nest, 42.04 feet; South 32° 26' O1° °,- South 00 54 36' East, 18' 44" West, 45.50 feet; South 42° 42' 13" West, 41.75 feet; South 610 West, 36.53tfeet;lS South 670 lo, 01 West 57.43 f ° tangent curve on the Easterly 19' 3 "of W t 6.09 tet% South 51 33' 14" t an intersection with a non Point which bears North 670 43' 18''West, 502.50 feet Of Capistrano a centralangleof 3° 9' 39"; thence Southerly along said curve an arc distance of 27.22 feet t having radius Of Beginning and containing 1.31 acres of land more or less. cft/6564p 1 of 2 G a 0 aes•ss•ao;✓�,v J/3.34Q�7t/ rS.Ot' -�3714;�• /ra/• � s.#•50077�//dttl• s 14•07•d716 tlt7' •O!'a!0✓ ttp• ~ SHIP b � /s sa's3,_ Irad•• v,l so ie3o6• s•z4o• � . sa•ro•zo:✓ ss co• s/s iZ•�:d 02.04'• J�l•1L�,:✓4SSp• Al v• �l s o•�Fa�se� 1 y,�y o .)4•S� i i fopl• .. P`0 tib �r�gD �J1dy / L=6'02,6x' � G7• Z•'�� G !sg•p•�aJ„r' �_ � ISG” Z7.72' mla .'tIGG•p76�t� P` 2o 2 r Ca 4' "I rW jd n`• UW>t r- `��y S r.A. `+ N £ a = Ly`�'+ ? m V a 'm* co C) t .t _ \ _ O J WIN _ y v toy' o m O v i m n > sdR y m H 2 -I EXHIBIT "B" RELEASE OF CONDITION WHEREAS, the County of San Luis Obispo hereafter referred to as "COUNTY", and the City of Atascadero, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", having heretofore transferred title to certain real property, subject to certain conditions, wish to correct the deed to said transfer and wish to amend the conditions placed thereon, said deed being recorded on September 28, 1981 at 2358 Official records, page 0689 in the Office of the County Recorder. WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to release the conditions as placed in the above referenced Deed of Transfer in the manner proposed herein. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. That the condition of restriction in the above referenced deed which restricts the use of said property to recreational and Public Purposes is removed by the mutual agreement of the parties herein. 2. That the County and City acknowledge that an error in the above referenced deed resulted in the omission of Lot 33, Block 12 of Atascadero Colony, City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California per amended map of Atascadero, Amendment "G" as filed for record in book 3, page 9-C of maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County from the above referenced deed. The County does hereby release the above referenced condition from this lot. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Chairman, Board of Supervisors Approved by the Board of Supervisors the day of 1986. CITY OF ATASCADERO Approved by the Atascadero City Council on this day of 1986. ATTEST: County Clerk an Lx-Officio er o the Board of Supervisors, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT: JAMES B. LINDHOLM, JR. County Counsel By: Deputy County Counsel Date: mke/6572w/M#1 11-30 EXHIBIT "A" f RECORDING REQUESTED BY: WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: QUITCLAIM DEED The City of Atascadero, a body corporate and politic, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby remise, release, and Quitclaim to: The County of San Luis Obispo that real property located in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, as described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Executed on the day of 1986. CITY OF ATASCADERO By: Marjorie Mackey Mayor ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ) State of California )ss County of San Luis Obispo ) On this day of in the year 1986, before me BOYD C. SHARITZ, Citi Clerk6f the City of AtascadeFo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, personally appeared Marjorie Mackey, known to me (or proved to me on the oath of to be the Mayor of the City of Atascadero of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California) to be the person who executed the within instrument on behalf of said public corporation, agency or political subdivision, and acknowledged to me that such City of Atascadero, State of California, executed same. BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California (SEAL) By: cjt/6533p 10-11 Q Exhibit A PARCEL 1 APN 29-105-25 That portion of real property described in the deed to San Luis Obispo County recorded August 18, 1943 in Volume 344, page 290 of Official Records in the San Luis Obispo County Recorder's Office. Excepting therefrom, that real property described in a deed to Rex Hendrix and Betty Hendrix recorded on January 22, 1985 in Volume 2673, page 247 of Offical Records in said County Recorder's Office. PARCEL 2 APN 29-105-16 That portion of real property described in the deed to San Luis Obispo County recorded February 13, 1979 in Volume 2133, page 425 of Official Records in the San Luis Obispo County Recorder's Office. PARCEL 3 APN 29-105-13 Being a portion of land lying within the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis - Obispo, State of California and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a 1" iron pipe with a plastic cap stamped "SLO County Surveyor" found on the Easterly Right of Way of Capistrano Avenue and which bears North 66° 7' 00" E, 41.23 feet from a 3/4" iron pipe found at the beginning of a curve on the centerline of Capistrano Avenue as shown on Parcel Map CO-74-185 recorded in Book 16 Page 86 of Parcel Maps; thence along the Northwesterly property line of Parcel 4 as shown on said map :towards a 1" iron pipe with a plastic cap stamped "SLO County Surveyor" North 67 42' 34" East, 197.88 feet to its intersection with the California Division of Highways Right of Way as shown on Highway Right of Way Map SLO 41 Post Mile 16.4; thence along said Right of Way North 42° 49' 27" East, 27.54 feet to the True Point of Beginning, thence continuing along said Right of Way North 42° 49' 27" East, 192.88 to the beginning of a non tangent curve, concave to the East having a radius point which bears North 80° 43' 40" West, 1250.00 feet and central angle of 16° 43' 54"; thence Northerly 365.03 feet along said curve to a point; thence leaving said Right of Way South 34° 53' 30" West, 39.84 feet; thence South 13° 34' 26" West, 486.05 feet to the True Point of Beginning containing 0.69 acres of land more or less. PARCEL 4 APN 29-091-01 All that portion of Lot 12 of Administration Park of Atascadero, in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map recorded October 21, 1914 in Book 4 at page 1 et seq., of Maps described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 12 at the intersection of the centerline of Traffic Way and North Mall; thence South 61° 23' East 310.00 feet along the centerline of said North Mall and along the Southerly line of said Lot 12, to the most Southerly corner thereof; thence Northeasterly along the Easterly line of said lot, a distance of '129.09 feet to the most Northerly corner of Lot 12A of said Administration Park and the Southwest corner of that certain tract of land conveyed to Alice E. Upton, by Quitclaim Deed recorded July 11, 1946 in Book 433 at page 106 of Official Records, records of said County, said Southwest corner being the Southwest corner of that certain strip of land 20 feet wide excepted in said Quitclaim Deed as conveyed to Ted Bishop, running along the Southeasterly line of said conveyed tract; thence Northerly along the Westerly line of said conveyed tract and along the Westerly line of said excepted 20 foot strip of land, a distance of of 303.58 feet to a point in said Lot 12; thence North 61° 23' West, parallel to the centerline of said North Mall, a distance of 434.54 feet to its intersection with the centerline of Traffic Way and a point of the Westerly line of said Lot 12; thence Southwesterly along the centerline of said Traffic Way and along the Westerly line of said Lot 12, a distance of 578.73 feet to the point of beginning. Excepting therefrom all streets, roads and alleys shown on the map above referred to. PARCEL 5 APN 30-292-18 1 of 4 — 3 EAST MA`c — � N A S3030a3W S a a h ap � x �p a � N „ w aH� s Atwl ; yl CA x � 3�1tl� �►< .".i.rr� n L a M � Y 7 a • =c n Q • hr /1 Q " �o O 2 of 4 a r" Q 1 Tl f,♦ �y• � ti ,� .. �'RI J"q. � ..Q tea. ♦. r O Q t y r'm T Cn 01. O n. �------------}•N!i i�.-- ------ it tr t d �i I " � I 20 I --yrs — n•IeTi -------- 8 •r. �\ r y O .-�'t•i iris' pWD t civ O D O D ~ C ool d ®0 4)1?{4 Z t � No 3 of 4 N ° MORRO13 - -_--- - - 20 W c IYS i2.S •62.5 iI.9 42.T AVE U) N O I� A �1 Z 5 31^20'w a IO V O �V® - � D 61.09 63. ) IY5.10 •° .c.) 44 U Z O a fr ♦ 10730 102129.39 Jg 77 °h Q R•t9Y7� 9877 .2a 90.9 8,:. m474 y4.10 d Ib0�31 - 1016` t64 40B EP O 91 Bit O4 0`"2983) � u �Y,a•OOE Iu N 100 331.65 \\ � > r V1 \ O \/� CO 9 1 NORiN N l6 tN A o\ s9lq. No 0 a L4 Bot O N 4S zN `/-�■�■ eEf fro ` 0 69 ON 2 ;34.86 Q w 201.27 d N po 42'E _4 2�36.52"E O O 10� vPN A A d 4 D C 33718 20702 Ss E = N IJ°YO E N 1.I N A s O 283.52 E 28736 N 7-WE o = N 9°19'27•E U o 230.14 `4 400.89 101.45 �G N 10°50•E y 0f` •1,1 9943 z 0 o V4 b \O O, O h P ION `i9 !0 i � La O C9t1' (`I vn ` a D OM b laE 4f O BD` D$ 1> O n O'D 01w Q _ 1 C A S C P 1 E. V4 sow- 1 s ww RECORDING REQUESTED BY: WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: QUITCLAIM DEED The County of San Luis Obispo, a body corporate and politic, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby remise, release, and Quitclaim to: the City of Atascadero that real property located in the City of Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, State of California, as described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Executed on the day of , 1986. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO By: Chairman of the Board of Supervisors Authorized by the Board of Supervisors the day of 1986. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ) State of California )ss County of San Luis Obispo ) On this day of in the year 1986, before me FRANCIS M. COONEY, County a and Exx-Officio of the Board of Supervisors, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, personally appeared Ruth Brackett, known to me (or proved to me on the oath of to be the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California) to be the person who executed the within instrument on behalf of said public corporation, agency or political subdivision, and acknowledged to me that such County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, executed same. FRANCIS M. COONEY, County Clerk and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California (SEAL) By: Deputy Clerk 1750P/ss 11/30 EXHIBIT A Parcel A APN 28-092-09 That portion of real property described in the deed to San Luis Obispo County recorded June 16, 1950 in Volume 568, Page 291 of Official Records in the San Luis Obispo County Recorder's Office. Parcel B APN 29-091-06 +a A portion of Lot 12, Administration Park, Map of Atascadero, as per Map of same recorded in Book 4, Page 1, et seq., of Maps, County Recorder's Office, San Luis Obispo County, State of California, and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the northwesterly most corner of Lot 12, said point being common to Lots 12 and 13 of the above described Administration Park. From said point of beginning run S60° 55'E 128 feet along the common lot line of Lot 12 and Lot 13; thence S29° 05'W 75 feet; thence S85° 13' 55"W 261.37 feet to the easterly right-of-way line of Traffic Way; thence N29° 05'E 225 feet along the easterly right-of-way line of Traffic Way to the point of beginning containing 0.87 acres more or less. Parcel C APN 31-372-11 Lot 13 in Block JC of Atascadero, in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 4, Page 56-A of Maps on July 6, 1915 in the Office of County Recorder of said County. Excepting therefrom that portion of real property deeded to the State of California on July 1, 1944 in Volume 346, Page 284 of Official Records of said County. js/6885o/J#1 10/11 1 of 4 a rn � 8 06 a W a o o� a ZO'Ito ��i CrI y x fr� LL O cn 41Y 40 _ N 'l N � Q O n C f� I ui '. U ^ • 0 � � � SII ♦ N A �\ • N ! at h� CL o �� G a0 0 CL CO � O v Y m $ a cc 5 ® M NO o c i <K •r 0 AVE• BUENA 2 of 4 G n u ttt� 0pC j 41 a® r foo L+(Nj +C � y m `VOQ am a Y BOJ id - �NQ Q J •�C dor V� v V m r------- �Ff-- ' •� i O,y CL - i LIJ •� z •° O� _ � e z ti I C 0 1 V {41 CL. t i w W70 . 3 of 4 xa_f r" • <J RESERVA ON NO' 8 '-'" ATASCADERO CREEK IGHWAY NO• 41 MORRO AVE. s e's'w O O r. N ss . u o - W L�R�• a x O +� ro n -- 2 r• wl 2= .o• .a - �m A n n 75. �° .. i ^ 2 N 1 f r it N �! ♦ � s u m a oe e u t �t,65 a6 - ro Ift 90 ' o ` � O o q ss ► .i�� a O •c s r o s�do�� uz me d n re• � � AVEN WW1 a v �•� I r cn oc ion � o m <n zyn O zoo n m o � 0 c z '1 W 4 of 4 G 1 G Q CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the Quitclaim Deed dated , 1986, from the County of San Luis Obispo to the City of Atascadero, a political subdivision of the State of California, is hereby accepted by order of the Atascadero City Council on , 1986 and the grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. Dated: 1986 City of Atascadero By: Mayor ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ) State of California )ss County of San Luis Obispo ) On this day of in the year 1986, before me BOYD C. SHARITZ, City-Clerk of the City of Atascadero', County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, personally appeared Marjorie Mackey, known to me (or proved to me on the oath of to be the Mayor of the City of Atascadero of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California) to be the person who executed the within instrument on behalf of said public corporation, agency or political subdivision, and acknowledged to me that such City of Atascadero, State of California, executed same. BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California (SEAL) By: cit/6533p 10-11 "`7' 11/10/86 C - 2 TO: City Council Members November 10, 1986 FROM: Michael Shelton City Manager • � SUBJECT: AD HOC COMMITTEEREPORTS FAITH BAPTIST CHURCH, BETHEL-MESSER AND NELSON, AND ORDINANCE 24 COMMITTEE STATUS REPORT RECOMMENDATION City Council clarify authority of Council appointed committees. If deemed appropriate, confirmed recommendations of committees regarding Faith Baptist Church request to waive permit fees, Bethel-Messer and Nelson request for special consideration of sewer fees, and accept Ordinance 24 committee status report. DISCUSSION The use of committees have been commonly used in Atascadero for a wide variety of purposes. Recentlycommitteeshave served to provide additional study and analysis on difficult issues, in an effort to expedite Council Meetings, and/or to enable negotiations to transpire. Committee appointments of this nature are generally ad hoc, and as such are assumed to be advisory reporting back to thefullCouncil. Contrary to this, however, the City Council may designate beforehand authority for the committee to act in behalf of the Council and that the decision of the committee,' therefore, would be final and binding. Due to recent implementation deadlines for development and sewer fees, a number of issues have been raised in which builders; and developers have sought relief. Accordingly, the Council has appointed committees consiting of 2 Council members, staff, and the agrieved party to analyze, negotiate, and come to terms on the proper solution to problems. ` In these instances, staff assumed Council intended for appointed committee decisions to be final. However, clarification is requested,` and accordingly the most recent committee decisions on the Faith` Baptist Church request to waive permit fees and the Bethel-Messer and Nelson ' request for special consideration of sewer fees are attached. ' Of an unrelated nature, a status report by the Ordinance 24 Committee is also attached. If it is the decision of the City Council that the Bethel-Messer and Nelson committee actions is advisory, it willbenecessary_ for Council to -take' up this item of business under the Atascadero Sanitation District portion of the agenda. MSkv File: MAdhoc t�R „4 MEMORANDUM TO: Faith Baptist Church building permit file (Attention: Debbie Cini) FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Directors RE: Waiver of Development Impact Fees DATE: October 20, 1986 This is to advise that the Council subcommittee comprised of Council- men Molina and Handshy have reviewed the facts in this case and con- sidered their letter of October 3, 1986, and have , decided that dev- elopment impact fees not be charged for this project. Included in the factors which weighed in this evaluation were the un- derstandings held by the applicants and the progress made under a City-authorized grading permit. The standard fees for re-applying for the buildingpermit would still P ll be charged, reflecting any adjustments for work done during the first - application. HE:ps Enclosure: October 3, 1986 Correspondence `a� " M �` 10/6/86 ;• FROM: COUNCILMAN HANDSITY TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS tc- � HENRY ENGEN October 3, 1986 CITY COUNCIL City of Atascadero Atascadero, CA 93422 RE: FAITH BAPTIST CHURCH BUILDING PERMIT FEES EXTENSION Dear City Council: We find ourselves in a very difficult situation which is creating an undue hardship on our congregation. We submitted for a build- ing permit for construction of our new church building on August 20, 1985, making a deposit of $950 with our documents. In late January 1986, we received back our second plan check list from the building department. On September 25, 1986, the church plans were resubmitted for final approval for a building permit. We were told by the building department, that our application had expired, and that we would have to reapply and be charged an extra $20,000 in new fees for a permit. Lack of activity from January to September was the explanation given by the building department for cancelling our original application. Here is a list of our activities after January 1986: 1. February 14, 1986 Grading permit was obtained. 2. February 14, 1986 Employed Twin Cities Engineering to do engineering. 3. March 24, 1986 Farrell Cummings , church contractor, applied for City license to build church. 4. April 3, 1986 - May 19 , 1986 Grading was started and completed. 5. April 3 1986 - May 19 1986 On tour separate occasions , inspectors from the City of Atascadero building and/or engineering department visited the church building site to oversee progress of the grading. On one of these occasions , the inspector went to great length in going over every detail of the plans with Leonard Franklin, the grading contractor. >v` 6. April 3, 1986 - May 19, 1986 Cal Trans was consulted on driveway approach to church property. 7. April 9 , 1986 , and May 9 , 1986 Compaction tests were made by Twin Cities Engineering and the results were discussed with the City of Atascadero. 8. May 15 , 1986 The layout with elevations was completed and installed with wooden markers, to begin digging footings. 9. May 1986, - September 1986 Chris Lampman, structural engineer, was employed for engineering. 10. May 20, 1986 The temporary power pole was erected. 11. June 11 , 1986 Greg Lampman, church contractor, had a detailed conver- sation with Carl Butler, building inspector, to clarify fire assembly of floors and walls. 12. July 7 , 1986 - August 14, 1986 Gary Harcourt, architect, was employed to work on plans . 13. July 14, 1986 - August 14, 1986 Thoma Electric employed to work on electrical plans. 14. July, 1986 Robert Martin, plumbing contractor, completed plumbing plans . 15. July 27 , 1986 Electrical consultation was made with Thoma Electric to obtain building permit. 16. September 5 , 1986 - September 26 , 1986 Keith Brummell, mechanical engineer, was employed. 17 . September 11 , 1986 Greg Lampman, church contractor, had conversation with Carl Butler, plan checker , in great detail on handicap access to platform. 18. September 26 1986 The church applied for another building permit at the insistance of the building department. Please believe us when we say, we were never once informed that our application was about to terminate. No one in our church or the contractors , engineers , or architects , that we employed had any idea that such a thing would happen. Had we been informed, we would have most gladly complied and asked for an extension. Imagine our shock and dismay when, after months of working hard to finish all the additions and corrections required by the building department, we were told that we must start all over again from the beginning. We are a small, completely independant church, of 32 member families. We have no outside sources of income with which to build our church, and we cannot afford the $20,000 in new fees since they were not budgeted for in our financing package. It has taken much prayer and sacrificial giving for our small congregation to get this far in the process of realizing a new structure for our ministry. These new fees would be a great set- back that would greatly reduce the probability of progress on or even the finishing of our new church building. Because we are a non-profit organization serving Atascadero, and because of the extreme hardship, and also because we were originally submitted under the old fee structure, we would respectfully request that you extend our original application for abuilding permit. Slu y, c U.L FAITH BAPTIST CHURCH OF ATASCADERO cc: Marge Mackey, Mayor cc: George Molina, City Council cc: .Barbara Norris , City Council cc: Bear Handshy, City Council cc: Bonita Burgeson, City Council cc: Henry Engen, City Planning Director „ 11/10/86• �} � D 1 MEMORANDUM To: City Council Thru: Mike Shelton From: David G. Jorgensen4______ Date: November 5, 1986 Subject: Crossing Guard at E1 Camino Real and Santa Rosa Streets RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council appropriate $1071 to fund a Crossing Guard at E1 Camino Real and Santa Rosa Streets and that the need for this position be monitored and evaluated . prior to including it in the 1987-88 Fiscal Budget. DISCUSSION After lengthy discussion at a meeting of the City/School Committee, it was suggested that a need may exist for a Crossing Guard at E1 Camino Real and Santa Rosa Streets. The School District committed to finding funds to pay for half the salary during this fiscal year (1986-1987) , if the City would match this with the other half. Total cost for a Crossing Guard for the balance of this school year is $2142.63. A complete review and further evaluation of this proposal to determine the ongoing need, should be done prior to committing to funding a Crossing Guard in future years. FISCAL IMPACT Council to budget $1071 out of this year ' s Council con- tingency fund to cover the salary for this Crossing Guard. DGJ a1 file: crosgard V • RESOLUTION NUMBER 123-86 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO FUNDS TO PROVIDE A SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD AT THE INTERSECTION OF SANTA ROSA AND EL CAMINO REAL WHEREAS, a hazardous traffic condition exists for children crossing the street at the intersection of Santa Rosa and E1 Camino Real; and WHEREAS, the Santa Rosa P.T.A. has requested of the Atascadero City Council and the Atascadero Unified School District that a crossing guard be placed at the intersection of Santa Rosa and E1 Camino Real; and WHEREAS, the City/School Committee has reviewed the urgent need for a crossing guard at the intersection of Santa Rosa and E1 Camino Real and jointly agreed to recommend back to each of the respective bodies expeditious hiring of a crossing • guard; and WHEREAS, it is felt and recommended by the City/School Committee that the safe crossing by school children at the intersection of El Camino Real and Santa Rosa is a responsibility of both the City and the School District. THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Atascadero City Council hereby agrees to provide 50% funding during the remaining 1986/87 budget year for a Crossing Guard to be located at the inter- section of Santa Rosa and El Camino Real. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said City funds are appropriated from City Council Contingency Funds. On motion by Council Member and seconded by Council Member the Atascadero City Council hereby adopts the foregoing resolution in its entirety by the following roll-call vote: AYES: NOES: BSENT: ADOPTED: Resolution 123-86 ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ MARJORIE MACKEY City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES Interim City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MICHAEL B. SHELTON City Manager TTING AGENDA ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, pirector of Public Works SUBJECT: Sewer Fee Nego iations DATE: November 4, 1986 Committee Action: The Committee agreed to split the difference between- the old fee and the new fees for sewer charges and/or annexation fees to those who had a permit or a legitimate permit in process prior to July 1, 1986. Background At the October 13 regular Council meeting the Board of Directors appointed a committee to negotiate with developers Messer/Bethel and Nelson seperately regarding their request to pay the sewer fees in effect prior to July 1st even though they did not apply until after July 1. The Committee was made up of Councilwoman Norris, Couincilman Molina, City Manager Mike Shelton, and -Public Works Direc- tor Paul Sensibaugh. Due to the potential adverse fiscal impact staff had previously broken off negotiations and recommended that the new fee be charged. Discussion The Committee deliberated about an hour after hearing the developer ' s request before striking the midway position. Their de- cision was based on the fact that even though the City was correct in charging the new fee and that it met all of the legal noticing pro- cedures, there was considerable confusion between the independent sewer fee process and the newly enacted development fees. Fiscal Impact The difference between the old and new fees that applies to all similar situations is estimated to be over $68, 000. Therefore, the expected loss in revenue would be about $34 ,000. This is looked at through the developer ' s eyes as a gain in revenue of the same amount. Summary The Committee was working under the assumption that the Board of Directors had directed them to settle the matter without bringing it back to Coiuncil and that since the decision was the same in both cases presented, that it would apply to all such situations. TO: City Council Members November 10, 1986 FROM: Mike Shelton, City Manager SUBJECT: COMMITTEE STATUS REPORT - ORDINANCE 24 REVIEW Per City Council direction at the October 13 Council Meeting, the committee appointed to review Ordinance 24 met on October 30, 1986. The committee reviewed two areas: 1. Current City personnel practices as they relate to the City Manager/City Council responsibilities in the hiring and re- moval of Department Heads. 2. Current City personnel practices, as they relate to Depart- ment Head standing in the City' s competative service. The Committee, as appointed, consisted of Council Members Borgeson and Norris, Interim City Attorney Jones, and myself. The committee concluded that additional study would be undertaken before recommendation would be made. This memo serves to inform the Council of the Committee' s meeting and conclusion at this time. MS:kv Files MOrd24