Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet 06/28/1982
AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting June 28, 1982 7: 30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building Call to order Pledge of Allegiance Invocation Roll Call CERTIFICATION OF ELECTIONRESULTSBY PRESENT COUNCIL 1. Resolution No. 27-82- reciting the fact of the General Munici- pal Election held in Atascadero on June 8, 1982, declaring- the result thereof and such other matters as provided by law 2. Presentation of Certificates of Election to City Council, City Clerk and City Treasurer 3. Oath of Office administered to new City Council, City Clerk and City Treasurer ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR NEW COUNCIL 4. Election of Mayor 5. Election of Mayor Pro Tem REGULAR BUSINESS Public Comment A. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If dis- cussion is required, that item will be removed from the Consent Calen- dar and will be considered separately. Vote may be by roll call. 1. Minutes of the regular meeting of June 28, 1982 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 2. Resolution No. 28-82 opposing the State of California's "Re- verse Bailout" budget proposals (RECOMMEND ADOPTION) 3. Resolution No. 29-82 opposing construction or establishment of any new correctional institutions and the expansion of existing correctional' facilities within the County of San Luis Obispo at Camp Roberts (RECOMMEND ADOPTION) AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 28, 1982 4. Agreement with the State of California, Caltrans, for main- tenance of State highways in the City of Atascadero (RECOM-0 MEND APPROVAL) 5. Tentative Parcel Map AT 820108:1, 9365 El Bordo, Don Jensen (Stewart) to allow resubdivision of six parcels into four lots (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDA- TION) 6. Tentative Parcel Map AT 820401:1, 10320 Atascadero Avenue, Barry and Sandra Clarke (Morgan) to allow the division of 5.30 acres into two parcels (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 7. Tentative Parcel Map AT 810305:1, Palo Verde Road, William Fortington, to extend the time allowed to complete require- ments for the approved tentative map (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 8. Appeal of conditions of Departmental Review R820407:1, 8842 Palomar , Jerry Noble, to establish a lumber storage/retail sales yard (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOM- MENDATION) B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. Public hearing on General Plan Amendment GP 820331:3, Morro Road between Pismo and Santa Rosa, Norman P. Klowgard with expanded area initiated by Planning Commission, to change General Plan land use designation from High Density Single Family Residential to Recreation 2. Public hearing on General Plan Amendments GP 82020`4:1 and GP 820325:1 (El Camino Real-MontecitoStudy Area) ; area bounded by El Bordo Avenue, El Camino Real, Montecito Avenue and Las Lomas Avenue, including lots on the northeasterly side of Las Lomas; Maxwell, Eddy, Hixson, Pflum, Lilley & O'Farrell, Williams House of Carpets, Forsman and Ward; ex- panded area initiated by Planning ` Commission; to consider certain General Plan map amendments for Retail Commercial and Low Density Multiple Family Residential in the Study Area 3. Public hearing on General Plan Amendment GP 820419:1, initi- ated by the Planning Commission, to consider text amendments to the Land Use Element which would eliminate specific stan- dards for the keeping of animals and replace them with gener- al policy statements 4. Appeal of private sewage disposal system requirements, 7900 San Clemente, Edward Halliday, to determine that an existing watercourse is not a stream necessitating a 50 foot distance separation between it and a proposed private sewage disposal system. 5. City Attorney Report No. 20 0 • AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 28, 1982 C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Halliday appeal of drainage requirements, 7900 San Clemente, to allow use of a formula other than the rational method to calculate drainage for a proposed driveway culvert at each end of the culvert - continued 2. Resolution No. 30-82 approving an interim budget for the 1982-83 Fiscal Year and appropriating funds therefor 3. Ordinance No. 55 amending Section Map 12-0-33 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero by placing certain property in the R-4-D Zone, Reamer - second reading 4. Ordinance No. 56 adding Chapter 1 through 9 to Title 6 of the Atascadero Municipal Code relating to Health and Sanitation D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request of City of San Luis Obispo change occupancy tax 2. Review of San Luis Obispo Area Council of Governments agenda E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT BUSINESS None • F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Manager NOTICE: The City Council will hold a closed session after the regular meeting to discuss employee negotiations. The interviews of applicants from Parks and Recreation Advi- sory Board originally scheduled for 7: 00 p.m. this evening has been postponed to 7: 00 p.m. , July 12, 1982 which will be just prior to the regular Council meeting. 3 TO: City. Council _M_E_M_O_R_A_N,D_U_M FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Election certification The attached resolution certifying the election results will not be completed until Monday afternoon, since that is the earli- est we can get the information from the County Clerk. According- ly, we will have to fill in the blanks just prior to Monday night' s meeting. With regard to the process of seating a new City Council, the old Council, chaired by the present Mayor, must pass Resolution No. 27-82. The old City Clerk will present the Certificates of Election to the new Council, City Clerk and City Treasurer and will administer collectivelythe Oath of office. Upon completion of the Oath of Office, the new City Clerk will chair the meeting for the express purpose of electing a Mayor . Once the Mayor is elected, the new City Clerk will relinquish the Chair and the new Mayor will then conduct the election of the Mayor Pro Tem. Upon completion of the election of Mayor Pro Tem, the newly constitued Council will the continue with the regular business. MU RAY WARDEN MLW:ad 6-24-82 ! • RESOLUTION NO. 27-82 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL RECITING THE FACT OF THE GENERALMUNICIPALELECTION HELD IN SAID CITY ON JUNE 8, '1982, DECLARING THE RESULT THEREOF AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW WHEREAS, a regular general municipal election was held and con- ducted in the City of Atascadero, California, on Tuesday, June 8, 1982, as required by law and WHEREAS, notice of said election was duly and regularly given in time, form and manner as provided by law; that voting precincts were properly established; that election officers were appointed and that in all respects said election was held and conducted and the votes cast thereat, received and canvassed and the returns made and declared in time, form and manner as required by the provisions• of the Elec- tions Code of the State of California for .the holding of elections in cities; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 36-81 adopted December 14 , 1981, the County Clerk of the County of San Luis Obispo canvassed the returns of said election and has certified the results to this City Council, said results are received, attached and made a part hereof as "Exhibit A" . NOW, THEREFORE, THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That there were voting precincts established for the purpose of holding said electron consisting of of the regular election precincts in said City as established for the holding of state and county elections. Section 2. That said regular general municipal election was held for the purpose of electing the following officers of said City as required by laws relating to cities in the State of California; to wit: Two (2) Members of the City Council of said City for the full term of four (4) years; Three (3) Members of the City Council of said City for the short term of two (2) years; A CityClerk of said City for the full` term of four (4) years; A City Treasurer of said City for the full term of four (4) years; , Resolution No. 27-82 - Election Canvass Section 3. That the whole number of votes cast in said City (ex- cept absent voter ballots was) was That the whole number of absent voter ballots cast in said City was _34N , making a total of votes cast in said City. Section 4. . That the names of persons voted for at said election for Member of the City Council of said City are as follows: William H. Stover John W. Cole Larry D. Waugh Robert (Bob) Wilkins, Jr . Rolfe Nelson George P. Highland Harris Hesketh Cecil A. Barrett Willy Tilley Marjorie R. Mackey Howard G. Marohn George Molina That the names of the persons voted for at said election for City Clerk of said City are as follows: Kendra Sheridan Barbara Norris That the names of the persons voted for at said election for City Treasurer of said City are as follows: Steven M. Rizzuto Joan E. Roberts Kenneth G. Audibert Neil New That the number of votes given at each precinct and the number of votes given in the City to each of such persons above named for the respective offices for which said persons were candidates were as listed in Exhibit A attached. Section 5. The City Council does declare and determine that: Rolfe Nelson was elected as Member of the City Council of said City for the full term of four (4) years; Marjorie R. Mackey was elected as Member of the City Council of said City for the full term of four (4) years; George Molina was elected as Member of the City Council of said City for the short term of two (2) years; • 2 Resolution No. 27-82 - Election Canvass Robert (Bob) Wilkins, Jr. was elected as Member of the City Council of said City for the short term of two (2) years; 0 William H. Stover was elected as Member of the City Council of said City for the short term of two (2) years; Barbara Norris was elected City Clerk of said City for the full term of four (4) ye s; Steven M. Rizzuto was elected City Treasurer of said City for the full term of four (4) years. , Section 6. The City Clerk shall enter on the records of the City Council of said City, a statement of the result of said election, showing: (1) The whole number of votes cast in the city; (2) The names of the persons voted for; (3) For what office each person was voted for; (4) The number of votes given at each precinct to each person; (5) The number of votes given in the city to each person. Section 7. That the City Clerk shall immediately make and deliver to each of such persons so elected a Certificate of Election signed by the City Clerk and duly authenticated; that the City Clerk shall also administer to each person elected, the Oath of Office prescribed in the State Constitution of the State of California and shall have them subscribe thereto and file the same in the office of the City Clerk. Whereupon, each and all of said persons so elected shall be inducted into the respective office to which they have been elected. Section 8. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter the same in the book of ori- ginal Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute of passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council of said City, in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. On motion by Councilman and seconded by Councilman the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote: AYES: NOES; ABSENT: ADOPTED: 3 0 0 Resolution No. 27 -82 - Election Canvass • ROBERT J. WILKINS, JR. , Mayor ATTEST: MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Cler APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk • 4 MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL • Regular Meeting June 14, 1982 7:30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building The meeting was called to order at 7: 30 p.m. by Mayor Wilkins with the Pledge of Allegiance. John Cole of the Atascadero Bible Church - gave the invocation. ROLL CALL PRESENT; Councilmen Highland, Mackey, Nelson, Stover and Mayor Wilkins ABSENT: None PUBLIC COMMENT (a) Councilman Highland stated that he would ,be abstaining from voting in items B-2, C-2, C-3 and D-2 and he will not attend the closed session; also, he will not vote on any items withdrawn from the Consent Calendar . A. CONSENT CALENDAR • 1. Minutes of the regular meeting of May 24 , 1982 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 2. Treasurer ' s Report, 5-1-82 to 5-31-82 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 3. Departmental Review R820513:1, 7315 El Camino Real (Adobe Plaza, Bob Lawrence dba "Star Station 101" , to change condi- tions imposed by Departmental Review R810811:1 for the game arcade (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDA- TION) 4. Departmental Review R820414:1, 5005 Palma, F & M Construction (Harcourt) to allow construction of four multiplefamily -res- idential units (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 5. Tentative Parcel Map AT 820414: 1, 5005 Palma, F & M Construc- tion (Harcourt) to allow subdivision of four residential units into air-space condominiums (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 6. Tentative Parcel Map AT 820318: 1, 6625 Santa ' Cruz Road, Elwood Garlick (Dan Stewart) to allow division of an existing 5.03 acre parcel into two parcels (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) i MINUTES - ATASCADEROi CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 14 , 1982 7. Tentative Parcel Map AT 820312: 1, 8950-9100- San Marcos Road, Colleene Yeager (Twin Cities Engineering) , to allow resubdi- vision of two existing lots totaling 8.5 acres into three parcels (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEN- DATION) 8. Tentative Parcel Map AT 820408:1, 3763 Ardilla, Norman and Helen Rich (Hilliard) , to allow resubdivision of 13.5 acres into three parcels (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 9. Tentative Parcel Map AT 820309:1, 10570 San Marcos & 9600 Laurel, Frank Atkinson (Twin Cities Engineering) to allow division of 54 acres into four parcels (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 10 . Tentative Parcel Map AT 820311:1, 11605 Cenegal, John White (Twin Cities Engineering) to allow division of 49 acres into four parcels (RECOMMEND APPROVAL PLANNING COMMISSION RECOM- MENDATION) 11. Tentative Parcel Map AT 820226:1, 14000-14700 Santa Lucia, Tenneco Realty Development (Twin Cities Engineering) to allow resubdivision of four existing lots totaling 57 acres into six parcels (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOM- MENDATION) 12. Tentative Pracel Map AT 810908:1, Palo Verde Road', Rudy Ruda* (Hilliard Surveys) to revise certain fire protection condi.- tions ondi-tions of a previously approved tentative parcel map (RECOM- MEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 13 . Acceptance of Lot Line Adjustment LA 820121:1, 8200 Casita, Jim Carpenter/Ed Anderson (Twin Cities Engineering) (RECOM- MEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 14 Acceptance of Tentative Tract Map 777, 5625-5655 Capistrano Avenue, Kamm.-McNamara (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMIS- SION RECOMMENDATION) 15. Road Name Change, Puento Road, initiation by Planning Depart- ment to change the name of Puento Road to Cenegal Road (REC- OMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 16. Award of bid for weed abatement (RECOMMEND BID BE AWARDED TO KEITH SCRIBNER AND GARY KUHN) 17. Audit Agreement with Robert M. Moss Accountancy Corporation for fiscal year ending June 30 , 1982 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 18. Traffic Signal Maintenance Agreement with State Department of Transportation (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 2 0 i MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 14 , 1982 19. Acceptance of a portion of San Marcos Road for City mainten- ance (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 25-82) Mayor Wilkins reviewed all items on the Consent Calendar . MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved for the approval of the Consent Cal- endar. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried by roll call vote. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. Hearing on weed abatement protests Mr . Warden stated that only one letter had been received from a Mrs. Charles R. Mills which wasn' t really a protest. He read the let- ter to Council. Mayor Wilkins asked if there were any protests from people in the audience with regard to the weed abatement program. Mr . Pierce said that after his property had been posted, he had put two horses on the property which has eliminated the weed problem. Mike Hicks, Fire Chief, stated that if the problem was eliminated, the Fire Department will not abate the property and the property owner will not be charged. As there were no other protests, the hearing was closed. Coun- cilman Mackey asked about abatement if the weeds were on the roadside area. Mike Hicks said that abatement would be the responsibility of the property owner since property is owned to the middle of the street. MOTION: Councilman Stover moved that Council direct the Fire Chief or his authorized representative to abate the nuisances or fire hazards. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried. 2. Appeal of Planning Commission determination concerning of- fices as a permitted n - p to use i the R 2 Zone, Ralph Deffenbaugh Associates Larry Stevens reviewed the request before Council and the Planning Commission' s determination that offices were not a permitted use in the R-2 Zone. Mr . Deffenbaugh appeared before Council requesting that they allow some elasticity in the General Plan and Zoning requirements of the City. He felt that his project would preserve one of the original colony homes and that this would be an asset to the community. He had a petition signed by residents in the neighborhood supporting the use of this house for office space. Mel Schroer , pastor of the Community Church located near the house, spoke in support of the use. 3 0 • MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 14 , 1982 Mr . Stevens stated that under present City ordinances, Council is not able to grant this use. The alternative is to direct City Staff* to draft an ordinance to allow special consideration for historical structures in an R-2 Zone. Mr . Stevens noted that in his opinion, it is not appropriate to allow a commercial use in a residential area. There are other alternatives such as using the house for a day care or other care facility, moving the structure to property properly zoned for offices, etc. MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved that Council turn this appeal to the Planning Department and ask them to come back with a recom- mendation that will allow some leeway in historial structures so that they can be used. The motion was seconded by Coun- cilman Nelson and unanimously carried by roll call vote with Councilman Highland abstaining. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1 1. Ordinance No. 53 correcting statutory citations in Ordinance No. 48 (City Clerk functions) - second reading MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved that Ordinance No. 53 be read by title only. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimously carried. Mayor Wilkins read Ordinance No. 53 by title only. MOTION. Councilman Stover moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 53. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried by roll call vote. 2. Halliday appeal (continued) Mr . Warden stated that this matter had . been continued from the last meeting so that Mr . Halliday could have an opportunity to meet with Mr . McPherson, Public Works Director and City Engineer, regarding his problem and to provide Mr . McPherson with Mr . Halliday' s calcula- tions. Mayor Wilkins asked the Hallidays if they had provided Mr . McPher- son with the calculations as requested at the last Council meeting. They said that they had provided him with part of the information; they were not arguing the calculations, but the values used. They were also objecting to applying an urban services district criteria for determining the proper values. There was considerable discussion with Mayor Wilkins not in favor of allowing the Hallidays to spend the time doing the calculations when the basic data had not been provided to the Public Works Depart- ment. Mr. Grimes reminded Council that this was not an appealable matter , but a ministerial one and Council could dispose of it as they see fit. 4 9 0 MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 14 , 1982 Mr . Halliday asked if Mr. McPherson would accept his engineer ' s calculations. Mr . McPherson stated that he would review any informa- tion submitted to him. MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved that this matter be continued. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously car- ried. 3. Ordinance No. 55 amending Section Map 12-0-33 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero by placing certain property in the R-4-D Zone (Reamer) - first reading MOTION: Councilman Stover moved that Ordinance No. 55 be read by title only. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried. Mayor Wilkins read Ordinance No. 55 by title only. MOTION: Councilman Stover moved that this constitute the first read- ing of Ordinance No. 55. The motion was seconded by Council- man Mackey and unanimously carried by roll call vote. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Ordinance No. 56, Health and Sanitation - first reading MOTION: Councilman Stover moved that Ordinance No. 56 be read by title only. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried. Mayor Wilkins read Ordinance No. 56 by title only. MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved that this constitute the first read- ing of Ordinance No. 56 . The motion was seconded by Council- man Mackey and unanimously carried. Councilman Mackey asked if there was anything in the Ordinance re- quiring mandatory garbage pickup. Mr . Warden said that there was not. 2. Consideration of Resolution No. 26-82 approving the transfer of the Community Antenna Television Franchise from Falcon Cable Corporation to Falcon Cable TV of Northern California Mr . Warden reviewed this request and stated that Falcon will be coming in with a request for a rate structure change in the near fu- ture. Council will, at that time, have an opportunity to assure that they live up to the franchise terms or to request changes to the terms. MOTION: Councilman Stover moved that Resolution No. 26-82 be read by title only. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried. Mayor Wilkins read Resolution No. 26-82 by title only. 5 0 MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 14 , 1982 MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved for the adoption of Resolution No. 26-82. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey an unanimously carried by roll call votewith Councilman Highlan abstaining. E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT BUSINESS There were no items for consideration, however , Mayor Wilkins and Mr . Warden reported on the closing meeting and pre-construction con- ference attended by Federal, State, County and City officials. F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council (a) Councilman Mackey stated that she had received com- plaints about the no parking signs just north of the bowling alley. They were not a part of the Council ' s recent action regarding parking on E1 Camino Real , however , had been there for some time. The Police Department had been enforcing the signs of late but will stop. (b) Councilman Mackey commented on the Sanitation District audit and stated that it is not in very good financial shape. (c) Councilman Mackey stated that the Beautification Commit tee had had a meeting and wanted to declare the week o July 12 through 17 as Clean Up Week and have the Mayor sign a procla- mation to that effect. (d) Councilman Mackey stated that, contrary to rumor , she is not running for Mayor . (e) Councilman Highland noted the regular attendance of Mr . and Mrs . Don Smith to Council meeting, all without an ax to grind. 2. City Attorney Mr . Grimes had nothing to report. 3. City Manager (a) Mr . Warden stated that there have been three responses to the City' s advertisement for Parks and Recreation Advisory Board applicants. Mrs. Doser has asked for consideration for reappointment and the School District has reappointed Dan Ross as their representative. Council agreed that they would interview appli- cants before their regular meeting on June 28th. (b) Mr . Warden stated that the City is in receipt of proposals for the South Atascadero Park development plan. He requested. that Council appoint two members to meet with Staff and members of the Recreation Advisory Board to screen the proposals. Mayor Wilkins ap- 6 MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 14 , 1982 • pointed Councilmen Stover and Mackey as the committee members and him- self as alternate. (c) Mr . Warden stated that an Energy Workshop will be held Tues- day, June 15, at 7: 30 p.m. in Room 306 to explain new State energy regulations affecting single family residences and to describe City procedures implementing those regulations. (d) Mayor Wilkins and Mr . Warden reported on their trip to Sacra- mento regarding budget cuts; the outlook is not good. (e) Mr . Warden stated that he has a resolution from the City of San Luis Obispo in which they are requesting support in op- posing the construction of a new correctional institution and the ex- pansion of existing correctional facilities within the County of San Luis Obispo. He said that if Council agrees with this concept, he will bring back a resolution in support for Council adoption at the next meeting. Council agreed that they would like to support this matter . (f) Mr . Warden stated that he has received a resolution from the City of Morro Bay opposing oil driling in the Outer Continen- tal Shelf and asked Council if they would like to support this resolu- tion. Council said that they would. (g) Mr . Warden stated that he had received correspondence from the State Department of Transportation regarding parking in • Atascadero. At the East Mall/Highway 41 location, they agreed with the Council' s parking prohibition from the easterly curb return to a point 30 feet east; however , would like to extend this prohibition 76 feet further east to the curb offset at the bridge to improve the site distance. At the West Mall location, they would like to extend the existing 30 feet of parking prohibition for an additional 40 feet fur- ther east to make left turns southbound onto E1 Camino Real easier and safer . Council agreed with these modifications. (h) Mr . Warden reminded the Council about the Mayors and Council- members Executive Forum in Monterey on July 7-9 , 1982. (i) Mr. Warden stated that all permits needed for the fireworks display have not been received; Councilman Nelson is working on getting the applications in. (j ) Mr. Warden stated that he would like to cancel the closed session listed on the agenda as the item he expected to dis- cuss with Council has not materialized. The meeting adjourned at 8: 58 p.m. Recorded by: • MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk By : Ardith Davis Deputy City Clerk 7 _M E_M_O R_A_N_D_U M TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Resolution opposing reverse bailout budget proposals We have received several requests from other cities to pass a resolution concerning the current State budget problems. The attached reiterates those resolutions. This may provide an op- portunity for further expression of your concerns with the cur- rent State budget. MUR Y L. WARDEN MLW:d 6-24-82 RESOLUTION NO. 28-82 0 RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL OPPOSING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA' S "REVERSE BAILOUT" BUDGET PROPOSALS WHEREAS, the Legislative Analyst' s Office has provided information on the impact on the California cities of proposed vehicle license fee reductions; and WHEREAS, the proposed reductions would reduce the City of Atasca dero' s revenues by more than $400,000; and WHEREAS, this reduction represents a "reverse bailout" at the ex- pense of the City of Atascadero; and WHEREAS,` this reduction places a disproportionate load of revenue reductions on the City of Atascadero; and WHEREAS, cities should be provided with subventions which permit revenue growth at least comparable with schools or counties, that is approximately 7%; and WHEREAS, such a reduction would require a curtailment of essential services for the protection of the public health, safety and; welfare; and • WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council believes that each ; govern- mental entity in the State bear its fair share of any revenue cuts as a result of the State' s fiscal crisis. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Atascadero calls upon the Governor and the State Legislature to adopt a fair share ap- proach to the reduction of subventions for state programs and local services, and that reductions in subventions to cities be based _upon a formula which provides for a reasonable revenue growth of each city' s general purpose .funds of a minimum of 7% for Fiscal Year 1982-83. On motion by Councilman and seconded by Councilman the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its en- tirety on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: Resolution No. 23-82 • ATTEST: BARBARA NORRIS, City Clerk APPROVED AS frO FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Manager 2 M E M O R A N D U M - TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Resolution opposing construction of new correctional facilities The attached resolution is brought to you at the request of the City of San Luis Obispo in an effort to prevent any change to the existing number and location of correctional institutions within the County. It is my understanding that the other cities in the County have supported this viewpoint. BRAY WARDEN MLW:ad 6-24-82 RESOLUTION NO. 29-82 RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL OPPOSING CONSTRUCTION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY NEW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE EXPANSION OF EXISTING CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES WITHIN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AT CAMP ROBERTS WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council recognizes the need for added space to house the ever expanding prison inmate poulation; and WHEREAS, the County of San Luis Obispo has already recognized its social responsibilties by supporting three State correctional facili- ties within its boundaries with a combined inmate population of in excess of 4,000 persons which we feel more than represents San Luis Obispo County' s fair share; and WHEREAS, the increase of an additional three to four thousand felony inmates resulting in a_ proportionate number of families and correctional employees to the existing four thousand inmates already housed in this County would have a severe adverse impact on our al- ready overburdened natural resources, housing and job markets, court facilities, etc. and WHEREAS, over 95 percent of the present County inmate population consists of commitments from other areas of the State, especially the metropolitan areas; and 0 WHEREAS, the Council is aware of a proposal that would possibly bring 3,000 additional convicted felony inmates to the facilities of Camp Roberts in the northern part of our County and possible other similar facilities at a later time; and WHEREAS, this Council has a moral and legal responsibility to pro- tect the citizens of this community to the fullest extent possible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero City Council opposes the construction or establishment of any new correctional fa- cilities or institutions and the expansion of any existing correction- al facilities within, the County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby instructed to send copies of this resolution to: Edmund G. Brown, Jr Governor of the State of California Sacramento, California Mr. Ruth L. Rushen, Director California Department of Corrections Sacramento, California Kenneth Hahn, Chairman L. A. County Board of Supervisors Los Angeles, California 0 ! Resolution No. 29-82 On motion by Councilman and seconded by Councilman the foregoing motion was adopted in its entirety on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: 13ARBARA MORRIS, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO LORM: ALLEN GRIMES , City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Manager L 2 M E M O R A N D U M • TO: Murray FROM: Larry McPherson SUBJECT: Standard Maintenance Agreement with Caltrans Recommendation: It is recommended that Council approve execution of an "Agreement for Maintenance of State Highways in the City of Atascadero This is a standard agreement for payment of services provided by Caltrans within the City which are the responsibility of the City. Exhibit "A shows those specific services and the cost distribution factors. Background: This contract is updated from time to time to reflect changes in conditions or policies concerning maintenance services provided on State routes within the City. The previous contract was between the State and the County of San Luis Obispo and this agreement formalizes the spread of maintenance costs as they had been agreed to in the past. It can be seen from Exhibit "A that this agreement covers only traffic signals and lighting at the intersection of Morro Road and El Camino Real and off-ramp inter- section lighting at two other freeway interchanges • This agreement does not reflect the traffic signal maintenance at the Curbaril and Traffic Way intersections of El Camino Real since this work was subject to another contract that was approved by Council on June 14th. It should be emphasized that this is a standard Agency-State con- tract form and most of the verbage presented in the document does not specifically apply to our present situation in Atascadero. All four copies of the contract document are to -be executed and returned to Mr. Crandall of the District Maintenance Office of Caltrans in San Luis Obispo. OLRENCE McPHERSON 7b 9 ¢�t "t (- LM:vh ��LpO °d/ ¢iN(} 11f##1t41V14t cc: City Attorney att. • i AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF STATE HIGHWAYS IN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO • THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed in duplicate this day of , 19 , by and between the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "the STATE" and the CITY of ATASCADERO hereinafter referred to as "CITY" . W I T N E S S E T H A. RECITALS: The Parties desire to provide for the CITY to perform particular maintenance functions on the State highway within the CITY as provided in Section 130 of the Streets and Highway code. B. AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall supersede any previous AGREEMENT for MAINTENANCE OF STATE HIGHWAYS IN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO and/or AMENDMENTS thereto with the CITY. In consideration of the mutual covenants and promises herein contained, it is agreed: The CITY will perform such maintenance work as is specifically delegated to it, on the State highway routes or portions hereof all • as hereinafter described under Sections I and J hereof or as said sections may be subsequently modified with the consent of the parties hereto acting by and through their authorized representative. C. MAINTENANCE DEFINED: Maintenance is defined in Section 27 of the Streets and Highways Code as follows : Sec. '27. (a) The preservation and keeping of rights of way, and each type of roadway, structure, safety convenience or device, planting, illumination equipment and other facility, in the safe and usable condition to which it has been improved or constructed, but does not include reconstruction, or other improve- ment. mprovementa (b) Operation of special safety conveniences and devices, and illuminating equipment. 1 " (c) The special or emergency maintenance or repair necessitated by accidents or by storms or other weather conditions, slides , settlements or other unusual or unexpected damage to a roadway, structure or facility. " D. DEGREE OF MAINTENANCE: The degree or extent of maintenance work to be performed and the standards therefore shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Streets and Highways Code and the provisions of this Agreement as hereinafter specified or as may be prescribed from time to time by the District Director. "District Director" , as used herein, means the District Director of the Department of Transportation assigned to the territory in which the CITY is located, or his authorized representative. A guide to the proper degree of maintenance in specific programs is set forth in the current edition of the State Maintenance Manual, a copy of which has been provided to the CITY. The level of service of maintenance in each of the programs delegated to the CITY has been considered in setting authorized total and route dollar amounts. The CITY may perform additional work if desired by the STATE but the STATE will not reimburse the CITY for any work in excess of authorized dollars. The District • Director may authorize adjustments needed because of inflation or changes in program emphasis. E. LEGAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES : Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties not parties to this contract or affect the legal liability of either party to the contract by imposing any standard of care respecting the maintenance of State Highways different from the standard of care imposed by law. It is understood and agreed that neither STATE, nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by the CITY under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to the CITY under this Agreement for Maintenance. It is also understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895. 4 CITY shall defend, indemnify and save harmless the State of California, all officers and employees from all claims , suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or in account of injuries to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from anything done or omitted to be done by the CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction� delegated to the CITY under this Agreement except as otherwise provided by Statute. 2 The CITY waives any and all rights to any type of express and implied indemnity against the STATE, its officers or employees. It is the intent of the parties that the CITY will indemnify and hold harmless the STATE, its officers or employees from any and all claims, suits or actions as set forth above regardless of the existence or degree of fault or negligence, whether active or passive, primary or secondary, on the part of the STATE. F. MAINTENANCE FUNCTIONS: Certain maintenance functions may be delegated to the CITY as indicated under Section J of this Agreement. The CITY shall not perform any of these maintenance functions unless specifically delegated under said Section J (DELEGATION OF MAINTENANCE) . The various maintenance functions or duties are defined and described by the following programs. The numbers without prefix relate to the Maintenance Management System (MMS) Program and the numbers with the prefix HM relate to Caltrans budgetary codes. *01 and *02 - FLEXIBLE AND RIGID ROAD MAINTENANCE PROGRAM HM-11 HM-12 This covers the maintenance required for the restoration and repair of both the surface and base within the roadbed area. Roadbed means all surface and subsurface structures of the traveled • way, parking banks and shoulders. *03 - ROADSIDE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM HM-21 Roadside shall be described as that area between the roadbed and the outer highway right of way boundary line. Maintenance of roadside includes the cleaning of culverts, ditches, natural water channels and gutters, restoring side slopes, removal of drifted material, drift prevention, erosion control work, and maintenance of walls, cribs or bank protection facilities, curbs and side- walks, and other roadside facilities. Maintenance work to be performed within the area designated as roadside maintenance shall include such sidewalk and curb inspection and action toward repair of sidewalks, curbs and other facilities as is necessary to keep them in a reasonably safe condition. Joint inspection should be on a biannual basis. The STATE will not pay for maintenance of any sidewalks. The CITY shall follow the same policy and procedures generally followed by it with respect to CITY streets in the matter of requiring sidewalk repairs and control of vegetation to be made by or at the expense of abutting owners who are under legal obligation to perform such work. It is agreed that reasonable diligence will be exercised by the CITY in performance of required sidewalk repair and control • of vegetation as outlined in this portion of the agreement. 3 *04 - ROADWAY LITTER AND DEBRIS PROGRAM HM-22 This program includes all work concerning roadbed and roadside cleanup operations to insure that the highway presents a neat, clean and attractive appearance. Sweeping and cleaning shall be limited to the removal of dirt or litter normally coming onto the roadbed from the action of traffic or from natural causes. STATE will not undertake nor pay for picking up or disposing of rubbish or debris swept into or otherwise placed on the highway from abutting property. The extent of sweeping and cleaning on the State highways shall not be greater than customarily done on comparable CITY streets. The sweeping activities covered in this program pertain to the sweeping of paved medians, curbed CITY street sections and curbed or rolled gutter types on other highways. *05 - VEGETATION CONTROL PROGRAM HM-23 Vegetation control refers to the maintenance treatment of all vegetative material growing native within the non-landscaped highway rights of way. Included is treatment by chemical means and cutting and trimming by hand and mechanical means. Vegetation includes brush control and tree trimming. Routine tree maintenance shall include care necessary to maintain trees in a healthy growing condition. Tree trimming shall be limited to the occasional removal of dead or low over- hanging limbs. Extensive tree reconditioning work, spraying or removal are not routine maintenance operations and will not be paid for unless such work is specifically authorized by the STATE. The above, when delegated to the CITY, shall not be construed as restricting, prohibiting or otherwise relieving the CITY of the responsibilities for inspection and upkeep of trees in a manner that will insure maximum safety to both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The STATE will not pay for maintenance of landscaping or trees which the CITY planted or which were planted under authorization of any encroachment permit and the CITY is responsible for maintenance. *06 - PAVEMENT DELINEATION PROGRAM HM-41 The pavement delineation program involves all work necessary to maintain distinctive roadway markings on the traveled way. This includes, but not limited to layout, removal , cleaning and/or replacement of existing delineation and roadway markings. All work shall conform to the Standards established by the STATE. Except for the red "No Parking" zones at the approach to and 4 exit from intersections controlled by traffic signals, the STATE will not pay curb painting or parking lines as may otherwise be required for the regulation of parking. The cost of maintaining pedestrian crosswalks at intersections shall be shared between the STATE and CITY in the same ratio as the number of intersecting roads or streets under jurisdiction of the respective agencies bears to the total number of intersecting CITY street, STATE highways and COUNTY roads within the particular intersections; for example, a 50-50 basis will apply to the regular cross street intersection wherein a COUNTY road is not a factor (City only) . State reserves the option to check at random all the pavement delineation program maintained by the CITY to assure conformance to the _pavement delineation maintenance levels. Failure of the CITY to comply to the pavement delineation maintenance levels should be reason to terminate this agreement as specified under Section L, "Term of Agreement" . *07 - SIGN PROGRAM HM-42 The sign program includes all maintenance work performed on signs placed or to be placed, on STATE highways for the purpose of warning, or regulating traffic. The work consists of replace- ment of existing signs and the repair, cleaning and painting of these signs. Upgrading of existing signs or installation of new signs is not a part of this program. All signs shall conform to the specifications adopted by the STATE, or as otherwise specifically authorized by the STATE. Positioning of such signs shall conform to standards adopted by the STATE. Unless specifically authorized, the State will not maintain or pay for maintenance of regulatory signs installed for the purpose of stopping vehicular traffic at pedestrian or school crossings nor the regulatory signs installed for the prohibition or the regulation of parking. *08 - ELECTRICAL PROGRAM - NOT DELEGATED HM-43 This program includes all state operation and maintenance work performed on highway electrical facilities used to control flashing beacons, traffic signals and traffic signal systems, and safety lighting. STATE will not pay for the maintenance, installation, repair, servicing, nor power for ordinary street lighting; however, lighting at intersections, which qualifies as safety lighting 5 under warrants approved/accepted by the STATE, will be paid for when approved and specifically authorized by the District Director. . Where such lighting has been specifically authorized at an inter- section, the maintenance and operating costs thereof shall be shared between the STATE and the CITY on a prorata basis in the same ratio as the number of legs in the intersection under each jurisdiction bears to the total number of legs. The CITY will furnish service for or perform such maintenance work as specifically delegated to it in other sections of this agreement, and the STATE will furnish service for or perform the work not otherwise assigned to the CITY. It is agreed that monthly billings , applicable to the inter- section involved, shall be established for the operation and main- tenance of the traffic signals and other electrically operated traffic control devices based on actual cost. Estimated monthly billings based on a cost per units shall apply for all other elec- trically operated devices. These billings shall include overhead and other indirect expenses incurred by the STATE in these specific operations. The cost of operating and maintaining traffic signals or other electrically operated traffic control devices now in place at the intersection of any STATE highway route and any CITY street identified in Exhibit "A" shall be shared between the STATE and the CITY on a prorata basis in the same ratio as the • number of legs in the intersection under each jurisdiction bears to the total number of legs. The same principle of cost distri- bution shall apply to freeway interchanges. The participation ratio shall be based on the ratio of the number of legs of the respective agencies to the total number of legs of the interchange. The percentage of costs to be borne by the STATE and CITY shall be shown on Exhibit "A" . The STATE will submit monthly bills for operation and routine maintenance as defined above. Bills shall be in accordance with that shown on Exhibit "A" and as subsequently modified in accor- dance with Section G. (GENERAL GUIDES) Extraordinary expense, such as for repair or replacement of extensive damage, shall be assessed directly against the particular installation involved. Billings for such costs shall be itemized as to materials, including service and expense, salaries and wages, and equipment rental. • 6 EXHIBIT "A" Effective ELECTRICAL FACILITIES OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST DISTRIBUTION Billed and Maintained by the STATE Type of Cost Distribution Route Location Facility Units State City SIGNALS 041 Morro Road Traffic 1 1/2 1/2 & El Camino Actuated FLASHERS NONE LIGHTS 041 Morro Road 400W MV 2 1/2 1/2 & El Camino 101 Santa Rosa Rd. 200W HPS 1 1/2 1/2 to " of 400W MV 1 1/2 1/2 . " Traffic Way UC 400W MV 3 1/2 1/2 UTILITY OWNED - BILLED BY THE STATE NONE 7 *08 - ELECTRICAL PROGRAM - DELEGATED HM-43 This program includes all maintenance work performed on highway electrical facilities used to control flashing beacons, traffic signals and traffic signal systems, provide safety and sign lighting. STATE will not pay for the maintenance, installation, repair, servicing, nor power for ordinary street lighting; however, light- ing at intersections, which qualifies as safety lighting under warrants approved/accepted by the STATE, will be paid for when approved and specifically authorized by the District Director. Where such lighting has been specifically authorized at an intersection, the maintenance and operating costs thereof shall be shared between the STATE and the CITY on a pro-rata basis in the same ratio as the number of legs in the intersection under each jurisdiction bears to the total number of legs. The cost of maintaining and operating traffic signals or other electrically operated traffic control devices now in place or those which may hereafter be installed at the intersection of any STATE highway route and any CITY street/road shall be shared between the STATE and the CITY on a pro-rata basis in the same ratio as the number of legs in the intersection under each jurisdiction bears to the total number of legs. The same principle of cost distribution shall apply to freeway interchanges. The participation ratio shall be based on the ratio of the 'number of legs of the respective agencies to the total number of legs of the interchange. Timing of traffic signals shall be the responsibility of the STATE. Timing shall be determined after consultation with the local agency; however, the decision of the District Director of Transportation shall be final. Maintenance of the "designed" timing is the responsibility of the CITY. Timing records shall be kept in both the STATE and CITY maintenance and traffic branches. NOTE : Cost of electrical energy charges will be charged separately. EMERGENCY OPERATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS DURING EQUIPMENT FAILURE A written "Contingency Plan" for operation of traffic signals should be prepared for emergency operation of each signalized intersection. Copies of the plan shall be kept in the controller cabinet and in the Maintenance and Traffic Branches of STATE and CITY. a. The plan shall be prepared by the STATE with the concurrence of the CITY. 8 b. The plan shall detail the method of restoring a malfunctioning traffic signal to service as follows : (1) Place the signals in the flashing mode of operation. (2) Replace defective units. (3) I.f direct replacement of defective units cannot be made immediately, place the signals under control of an emergency replacement controller. C. The operation shall be considered as the "primary emergency mode of operation at all intersections" . The plan shall specify the color each phase will display during flashing operation. Red/Yellow or all red may be used. d. The plan shall specify the timing of each interval of an emergency replacement controller. e. The "Contingency Plan" for an intersection may be changed at any time to meet changing conditions following the procedure above. f. Documentation of the engineering reasons for selecting a particular plan for a specific location shall be kept on file in the STATE and CITY Branches. The goal shall be to provide the safest emergency mode of operation. The same plan may be applicable for a large number of inter- sections. Every effort shall be made to restore the operation of the intersection to normal operation as soon as possible. STANDARDS FOR DELEGATED ELECTRICAL MAINTENANCE The level of maintenance work to be performed on highway electrical facilities is listed below. These levels become the "Degree of Maintenance" specified or prescribed under Section D of this Agreement. Damaged or malfunctioning electrical installations which seriously affect public safety or capital investment should be promptly repaired or temporary corrections made until permanent repairs can be scheduled. Repair of inoperative or damaged electrical installations which do not seriously affect public safety should be coordinated with routine maintenance operations. A routine surveillance of electrical facilities shall be made in an effort to observe and correct potential deficiencies before serious problems develop. • 9 To insure a minimum standard of operation, highway lighting, sign illumination, and flashing beacons shall be routinely inspected during hours of darkness. Important illuminated signs, require prompt attention on notification of a blackout or extensive burnout. Signals A detailed check for proper operation, including inspection and necessary replacement of auxiliary equipment such as relays, contactors, etc. , shall be made at intervals of approximately 30 (thirty) days. Fixed-time electro-mechanical controllers shall be overhauled approximately once a year. Traffic-actuated, electro-mechanical controller units shall be overhauled in the shop approximately once every year. Traffic signal lamps shall be group replaced on a planned schedule based on rated lamp life. All signal maintenance inspections or repairs shall be logged and records maintained in the control cabinet. Signal standards and control cabinets shall be maintained • in a presentable manner. Flashing Beacons Flashing beacons shall be routinely inspected for proper operation approximately once every 6 (six) months. Electro-mechanical flasher mechanisms shall be removed, cleaned and adjusted and excessively worn parts replaced, approximately once a year. Flashing beacons shall be relamped on the same schedule as outlined above for traffic signal lamps. Highway Lighting and Sign Illumination Luminaires and fixtures for illuminated signs shall be inspected and cleaned in conjunction with scheduled relamping; more frequent cleaning should be performed when required. Lamps shall be replaced on a planned schedule based on the rated life of the lamps currently in use. The State reserves the option to check at random all traffic signals maintained by the CITY on STATE highways to assure con- formance to the electrical maintenance levels. Failure of the CITY to comply to the electrical maintenance levels would be reason to terminate this Agreement as specified under Section' L, "Term of Agreement" . 10 Re-delegation of traffic signal maintenance to third parties shall be done only upon specific written approval of the District Director of Transportation. Such re-delegated work shall be per- formed to the same levels of service as spelled out herein and will be subject to the same random checks as provided for work performed directly by CITY forces. If the District Director of Transportation determines the third party is failing to comply with the specified levels, the CITY shall , within 30 days of notice, terminate the third party agreement and resume maintenance by CITY forces or terminate this agreement as specified under Section L, "Term of Agreement" . *09 - TRAFFIC SAFETY DEVICES PROGRAM HM-44 Work performed under this program includes replacement of guide posts or markers; and the repair, replacement, cleaning and/or painting of guard rails. Also included are the repair of median barrier cable, chain link fence, and portland cement con- crete walls; the repair and maintenance of energy dissipators such as water type bumpers, sand traps or other devices installed for the purpose of absorbing vehicle energy. Energy dissipators (crash cushions) must be repaired within 48 hours after being hit. The CITY shall maintain sufficient inventory of the necessary parts approved by the STATE needed to accomplish the repairs within this time limit. Sand, used to fill certain • types of energy dissipators, shall meet STATE require- ments. *12 - LANDSCAPE PROGRAM HM-25 This program refers to the treatment, maintenance and replace- ment of all vegetative material planted within the landscaped STATE highway right of way. Work includes watering, pruning, fertilizing, plant replacement, weed control by hand and mechanical means, tree trimming and/or removal, chipping and miscellaneous work such as pest control and inhibitor spray. Repairs to the electric portion of automatic controls is covered in this 12-Land- scape Program. NOTE: There are several activities that are duplicated in the 05 Vegetation Control Program; for this reason, care should be exercised when reporting, that the proper program is cited. The STATE will only pay for the maintenance of landscaped areas , ornamental plantings of trees installed by the STATE at STATE expense or other areas specifically designated by the District Director. 11 *13 - BRIDGE AND PUMP MAINTENANCE PROGRAM HM-31 The Bridge and Pump Maintenance Program includes work performed on all structures which provide for passage of highway traffic over, through or under obstacles and/or qualify for bridge number as assigned by the State Office of Structures. Work under this program consists of structure repair, maintenance, painting and cleaning, electro-mechanical equipment and sump pump maintenance, repair or cleaning, and navigational light repair. Storm inspection of sump pumps is also included in this program. Bridges, as defined above, will be investigated by a repre- sentative of the State ' s bridge engineering staff once each year and more often, if considered necessary, In addition to such annual investigation, routine maintenance to be performed under provisions of the Agreement shall include monthly inspection of each bridge by qualified personnel and immediate repair of the minor defects when the. cost does not exceed $500. The District Director shall be immediately notified of major defects as are hereinafter defined. Bridge repair work costing in excess of $500 on a single structure shall be considered as being a major repair project. Except in the case of emergency, such major repair projects shall conform to the methods and procedure to be recommended by the STATE. Major bridge repair is not a routine maintenance operation and will require specific authorization. *15 — PERMITS HM-47 This section provides for the processing and enforcement of transportation permits by the CITY and preliminary engineering, processing and inspection of encroachment permits by the CITY where authorized to perform this work. ENCROACHMENT PERMITS When authority to issue Encroachment Permits is delegated to the CITY by the District the authority shall pertain to all parts of the highway throughout the particular length of streets indicated under Sections I and J of this Agreement. Permits shall be issued on a form provided by the STATE and the CITY will furnish a copy of all permits to the STATE. The CITY agrees that all permits issued by CITIES shall be made out in conformance with STATE-authorized encroachment policies and standards. STATE standards of design are to be used, except in cases where CITY standards, covered by ordinance, are more restrictive than STATE requirements, in which case CITY standards of design will be honored. All STATE policy questions should be . referred to the Caltrans District Permit Engineer. 12 Routine minor permits shall be handled by the CITY without STATE prior approval. Routine minor permits consist of: awnings, marquees, canopies, advertising signs, residence driveways, roof • drains, concrete sidewalks, temporary construction safety fences, installation or repair of utility service connections behind curb line and maintenance of existing pipeline within STATE right of way area. Except for exempt permits (those that are not subject to payment of fees) , the CITY is expected to collect sufficient fees from the permittee to cover its cost of permit issuance; and no cost shall be billed to nor borne by the STATE. No major encroachment permit shall be issued by the CITY unless prior approval by the Caltrans District Permit Engineer is obtained for the permit. Excluding exempt permits Caltrans will bill the CITY for such review and any subsequent inspection deemed necessary by Caltrans. Caltrans' billing will be in accordance with the Caltrans fee schedule. Excluding exempt permits, the CITY is expected to collect sufficient fees from the permittee to cover Caltrans' bill and any other costs incurred by the CITY. No costs for CITY administration, review or inspection shall be billed to nor borne by the STATE. Major encroachments include, but are not limited to all other work not included under routine permits such as : 1. Banners - Special Non-profit Events. 2 . Bus Stops . 3. Christmas Decorations within Right of Way. 4. Commercial Driveways. 5 . Curb and Gutter. 6. Curb Zones - Parking Restrictions. 7 . Drainage from Private Property, other than Roof Drains. 8. Drainage Structure Extensions , Replacements, etc. 9 . Electrolysis Test Stations or Anode Beds. 10. Fences. 11. Flashing Signs. 12. Landscaping - Planting, Maintenance, Removal. 13. Median openings. 14 . Memorial Markers - Historical and Recreational sites. 15. Motion Picture Photography within Highway Right of Way. . 16 . Parades and Public Gatherings on Highway Right of Way. 13 17. School Signs, Safety Devices, and Crossings. 18. Seismograph Work within Right of Way. 19. Street Connections. 20. Striping —Lanes, X-walks, Detours. 21. Traffic Signals Flashing Beacons and Street Lighting - Installation, modification. 22. Utility and other Substructures - except service connections back of curb. 23. Utility Poles, Anchors, and Aerial Cable. 24. Work in existing manholes requiring closure of traffic lanes. Authority to issue encroachment permits for the following items is not delegated to the CITY and the request for an encroachment permit shall be submitted to the Caltrans District Permit Engineer. 1. Any Work within limits of State Highway Contract. 2 . Cooperative Agreement Projects. 3. County Flood Control Projects. 4 . Prehistoric Artifacts - Excavation, Salvage , etc. 5. Property on the National Register, State or local inventory. 6. Railroad Grade Xings - Repairs, Construction. 7. Any encroachment requiring additional or revised easements or other Right of Way documents. Qualified CITY personnel shall be assigned for the review, construction and final acceptance of both MINOR and MAJOR encroachment permits issued by the CITY. The STATE will perform cursory inspection of all CITY written STATE highway permits and the STATE assigned field engineer shall be notified as required under the terms of all major encroachment permits. The CITY will furnish a copy of all permits issued on State highways to Caltrans immediately upon issuance. Failure to do so may result in loss of permit-writing authority. In addition, the CITY will set up a file for permits issued on State highways that Caltrans can monitor on a periodic basis. • 14 Upon satisfactory completion of the work authorized under any CITY administered State Highway Permit, the CITY must send a completion notice to the STATE including As-Built Plans. Where there is a discrepancy between the permit plans and the as-built plans and where the encroachment is an underground utility it is of particular importance to have this information to plot on the State ' s Utility Maps. TRANSPORTATION PERMITS Transportation permits will be required for all vehicles and their loads which exceed the limitations specified under Division 15 of the California Vehicle Code. Where authority to issue Transportation Permits is delegated to the CITY such authority shall pertain only to travel that originates and terminates within their corporate limits and it shall not apply to through haul transportation. In issuing such permits, the CITY shall follow the policies and regulations established by the STATE for the issuance of transportation permits as set forth in the State' s Maintenance Manual in effect at the time such permits are issued, including specifically, limitations upon the crossing of structures. All STATE policy questions should be referred to the Caltrans District Permit Engineer. *16 - OPERATIONS PROGRAM HM-46 This program includes electrical energy required to energize overhead lights, signals and other electrical facilities. G. GENERAL GUIDES : Maintenance of warning and regulatory signs, traffic control devices, and highway lighting facilities as hereinbefore referred shall include upkeep and repair of the supports, as well as such other items which are an integral part of the installation. Those facilities as defined under programs 06, 07, 08 and 09 above, which are installed subsequent to the execution of this Agreement, shall become subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement upon notice to the CITY from the STATE of the completion of any such installation. H. EXPENDITURE AUTHORIZATION: The STATE will reimburse the CITY for actual cost of all routine maintenance work performed by CITY as delegated under Section J of this Agreement, but it is agreed that during any fiscal year, the maximum expenditure on any route shall not exceed the amount as shown on Section I of this • 15 Agreement, unless such expenditure is revised by an amended Agreement or otherwise adjusted or modified as hereinafter provided for. A new "ROUTE DESCRIPTION AND AUTHORIZED EXPENDITURES" sheet (Section I) will be provided annually by the STATE for the ensuing fiscal year if necessary to insure equitable annual cost. The expenditure per route for routine maintenance work as referred to above may be increased or decreased, redistributed between routes, or additional expenditures for specific projects costing $5 , 000 or less may be made when such adjustment of ex- penditures for routine maintenance or such specific work is authorized in writing by the District Director or his authorized representative. Expenditures for specific projects costing in excess of the above amount may made when such specific work is authorized in writing by the District Director with prior approval from the Chief, Office of Highway Maintenance at Headquarters. Additional expenditures or adjustment of ex- penditures thus authorized shall apply during the fiscal year designated therein and shall not be deemed to permanently modify or change the basic maximum expenditure per route as hereinafter specified. An adjustment of the said maximum ex- penditure, either increase or decrease, shall not affect other terms of the Agreement. • • 16 I. ROUTE DESCRIPTION AND AUTHORIZED EXPENDITURES • ANNUAL MAXIMUM ROUTE LENGTH EXPENDITURE NO. MILES DESCRIPTION OF ROUTING AUTHORIZED 041 7. 86 State highway (Morro Road) -0- from 0 . 30 mile east of Old Morro Road West, Post Mile 10. 58 , to El Camino Real; then El Camino Real to West Mall; then West Mall to Cajistrano Avenue; then Cajistrano Avenue to Salinas River Bridge No. 49-102 east city limits , Post Mile 18. 44; approximately 7. 86 miles. 101 7. 40 Freeway from approximately 0. 35 -0- mile south of Santa Barbara Road OC Bridge No. 49-157 , Post Mile 41. 92 , to approximately 0. 99 mile north of Del Rio OC Bridge No. 49-141, Post Mile 49 . 32 ; approximately 7. 40 miles . I TOTAL AUTHORIZED EXPEND. $ -0- 17 • i J. DELEGATION OF MAINTENANCE • The specific maintenance activity indicated below is hereby delegated to the CITY. This delegation of maintenance activity set forth herein does not include areas and functions of which the control and maintenance rest with the local authority under the terms of Freeway Agreements and/or Freeway Maintenance Agree- ments. Caltrans Budgeting Codes (HM) Maintenance Management Program No. (01-ETC. ) Maintenance ROUTE NO. ROUTE NO. Function 041 101 7. 86 Miles 7. 40 Miles HM-11 HM-12 - 01 & 02 Flex. & Rigid Rd. Maint. Prg. Specific Activity* HM-21 - 03 Rdadside Mainte- nance Specific Activity: (3) HM-22 - 04 Roadside Litter & Debris Specific Activity : (1) 2) HM-23 - 05 Vegetation Control - Specific Activit HM-41 - 06 Pavement Delineation - Specific Activit : • HM-42 - 07 Signs Specific Activity: HM-43 - 08 Electrical .Specific Activit : Refer Exhibit A HM-44 - 09 Traffic Safety Devices Specific Activity: HM-25 - 12 Landscaping Specific Activity: HM-31 - 13 Bridges & Pump Maint. Specific Activity : HM-47 - 15 Permits Specific Activity: HM-46 - 16 Electrical Energy Specific Activity: Refer Exhibit A Footnotes : (1) Length of street to be cleaned -0- curb miles. (2) Length of street to be cleaned -0- curb miles. (3) CITY will maintain sidewalks and shall be responsible for any costs therein. • 18 K. SUBMISSION OF BILLS : The CITY may submit bills monthly except that no bill for • less than $100 shall be submitted more than once each quarter. Bills must be submitted promptly following close of corresponding billing period and should be coded according to the Caltrans program or Budgetary Code as outlined in this Agreement. Equipment shall be charged at mutually acceptable rental rates and labor and material at actual cost. The CITY will be allowed to recover overhead and administrative costs only to the extent that such charges include applicable expenses incurred by the CITY in the execution of the work. Said factors and method shall be subject to approval by the STATE. Maintenance services provided by contract or on a unit-rate basis with overhead costs included shall not have these above mentioned charges added again. An actual handling charge for processing this type of bill will be allowed the CITY. Bills submitted to the CITY for work performed by this Agreement will also include overhead and administrative costs in accordance with the State Administrative Manual. Emergency and storm repairs performed by the CITY would be paid for only with prior approval of the State ' s Highway Super- intendent of that specific area. In addition the CITY should immediately notify the State' s Highway Superintendent for the area of any storm damage or other emergency condition affecting • the STATE highway. The CITY shall maintain, on a generally accepted accounting basis complete, and accurate records that support all billings. These records shall be made available to STATE representatives for review during normal business hours for a period of three (3) years after payment of said billings. L. TERM OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall become effective and shall remain in full force and effect until amended or terminated. The Agreement as above may be amended or terminated at any time upon mutual consent of the parties thereto. This Agreement may also be terminated by either party upon thirty days notice to the other party. • 19 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. • CITY OF ATASCADERO By Mayor City Clerk Approved as to form and STATE OF CALIFORNIA procedure : DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION City Attorney ADRIANA GIANTURCO Director of Transportation By • By District Director 20 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APPROVING AGREEMENT • FOR MAINTENANCE OF STATE HIGHWAY IN THE CITY of WHEREAS, the State of California, through its Department of Transportation has presented an Agreement for maintenance of the STATE highway in the CITY of effective as of and to remain in effect until amended or terminated. WHEREAS, the City Council has read said Agreement in full and is familiar with the contents thereof: THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the CITY OF that said Agreement for Maintenance of the STATE highway in the CITY is hereby approved and the Mayor and the CITY Clerk are directed to sign the same on behalf of said CITY. ADOPTED this day of , 19 • Mayor Attest: City Clerk I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly passed by the City Council of the CITY of at a regular meeting thereof held 19 Clerk of the City of M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY MANAGER June 23, 1982 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AT 820108:1 LOCATION: 9365 El Bordo (Lots 18-23 of Tract No. 5) APPLICANT: Don Jensen (Stewart) REQUEST: To allow resubdivision of six parcels into `four lots. On June '7, 1982 the Planning Commission conducted a public - hearing authorizing a Conditional Negative Declaration and unanimously approv- ing the request subject to the Conditions listed in theattachedStaff Report, with the following revisions: 1) Add Finding #3: "Improvements to facilities including roads, waterlines, utilities and hydrants are unreasonable since the reduction in the number of lots, with a correspnding increase in lot sizes, brings the sub- ject property into closer conformance with density-related goals set forth in the General Plan. Imposition of said improvements would discourage achievement of this goal." 2) Delete Conditions 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17 and 18. 3) Modify Condition 3 to delete " . . . .and water lines shall exist at each parcel frontage prior to filing of the Final Map." This matter had been previously considered by the Commission on may 3 and May 17. On May 17, the Commission requested an appearance by the City Attorney to discuss whether this application should be reviewed as a lot line adjustment or as a parcel map. On June 7, the City Manager and the City Attorney appeared at the meeting to discuss this issue and there was considerable discussion on the matter . It was the conclusion of the Commission that this application should be reviewed as a parcel map, but that the improvement requirements were not rea- sonable since they might discourage the applicant from bringing this property into closer conformity with General Plan lot sizes. It should be noted that this determination is being formalized by the Commission either as policy or an ordinance change and, once that for- malization is completed, it will be referred to Council for approval. 0 Tentative Parcel Map AT 820108:1 (Jensen) In discussing the Jensen application, it was the consensus of the Com-19 mission that the improvements (water lines, hydrants, roads) were not reasonable and should not be required since they might discourage bringing the subject lots into closer conformity with the General Plan. Daniel Stewart, applicant' s engineer , appeared and requested that the application be reviewed as' a lot line adjustment noting that the ap- plicant objected to the improvement requirements since he was creating a lesser number of lots. Mr. Stewart did indicate that he did not ob- ject to the parcel map determination if the - improvement requirements were deleted. No one else appeared on the matter . /9,fx- LAWRENCE STEVENS MURW L. YARDEN Planning Director City Manag r /Ps • s euFFF ra�'r.'�� I CITY OF ATASCADERO i9is 1 ` r. 1979 Planning Department May 3, 1982 \�ASCAD�i/ / STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AT 820108:1 LOCATION: 9365 E1 Bordo (Lots 18-23 , Tract No. 5) APPLICANT: Don Jensen (Stewart) REQUEST: To resubdivide six existing lots totaling 6 .3 acres into four parcels of 1.001, 1.007, 1. 205 and 3.00 acres. BACKGROUND 1. Existing Zoning: A-1 2. General Plan: Low Density Single Family Residential 3. Environmental Determination: An initial study environmental de- scription form has been completed. The Planning Director has prepared a Draft Conditional Negative Declaration indicating the project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the envir- onment if certain mitigating measures are incorporated into the project. 4. Site Conditions: The subject property slopes gently from E1 Bordo for approximately 100 feet at which point it begins to slope steeply to E1 Dorado. Existing structures consist of a house, garage and shop. The vegetation on the site consists of natural grasses and chapparal. 5. Project Description: The applicant is proposing to create four larger parcels (1.001, 1. 007, 1.205, and 3. 0 acres) from six smaller lots. Proposed Parcels 1, 2, and 3 will have frontage along and access from El Dorado which is not currently improved. Parcel 4 will be accessed from an existing alley off of E1 Bordo and contains the existing house, shop and utility building. STAFF COMMENTS On Thursday, February 11, 1982 the Subdivision Review Board met to re- view the project. The following items of concern were discussed: i1) The possibility that El Dorado may have to be improved as a condi- tion of the map. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAIPAT 820108: 1 (Jensen) 2) The status of the alley in terms of current use and possible abandonment. 0 3) Percolation tests will be required at the time of building permit application. 4) Question as to whether the creation of undersized lots should be allowed even though there will be fewer of them. 5) Existing water pump. 6) Access to neighboring property from the other side of the property. 7) The number and location of fire hydrants will depend on whether or not road improvements will be required on El Dorado. 8) Road name corrections can be done on Map. 9) Ability to impose any requirements will depend on review of Map Act provisions. On Thursday, April 8, 1982, the Subdivision Review Board met again to discuss the proposed parcel map with the applicant' s engineer, Dan Stewart. Also attending were: Larry Stevens, Planning Director; Fred Buss, Associate Planner; Joel Moses, Associate Planner; Jill Kollmann, Planning Intern; Patience West, Engineering Aide; and Mike Sherer � Planning Commissioner . The following items of concern from the prev- ious meeting ,were discussed: 1) El Dorado will have to be improved as a condition of the map. 2) The status of the alley was determined to be private access to two adjoining properties. 3) The created lots will be of a conforming size according to the General Plan. 4) Fire hydrants will be required at the time of the road improvements. 5) The improvement to El Dorado must be all weather to E1 Bordo. 6) Determination that the application is a parcel map - this allows for the ability to require off-street improvements. FINDINGS 1. The application, if revised as recommended, conforms to applicable zoning and subdivision regulations and is consistent with the 1980 Atascadero General Plan. 2 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AT 820108:1 (Jensen) • 2. The application as submitted together with the recommended condi- tions will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environ- ment, and therefore the preparation of an Environmental Impact Re- port is not necessary. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above Findings, the Planning Department recommends the following: A) Issuance of a Conditional Negative Declaration as follows: 1. Adequate provisions shall be made for drainage and -erosion control; and protection in conjunction with site development and road construction; and B) Approval of Tentative Parcel Map AT 820108: 1 subject to the fol- lowing conditions: 1. A revised lot design which increases the size of Parcels 1, 2 and 3 to a minimum of 1. 5 acres each with a corresponding reduction of Parcel 4 to no less than 1. 5 acres shall be sub- mitted for Planning Department review and approval. 2. Private sewage disposal systems will be an acceptable method of sewage disposal, if reports and design are acceptable. All tests, reports, and designs shall conform to methods and guidelines prescribed by the Manual of Septic Tank Practice and other applicable City ordinances. The following shall appear on the Final Map: "Appropriate soils reports including a percolation test, a test to determine the presence of ground water , and a log of a soil boring to a minimum depth of ten (10) feet shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Where soils reports indicate that conven- tional soil absorption systems are not acceptable, City ap- proval of plans for an alternative private sewage disposal system, designed by a Registered Civil Engineer , shall be re- quired. Depending upon the system, more restrictive require- ments may be imposed." 3. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Com- pany andlwater lines shall exist at each parcel frontage prior to filing of the Final Map.1 A letter from the water company indicating they are willing and able to serve the property shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to recordation of the Final Map. 4. All other available utilities not already in place shall be extended underground to each parcel frontage at the time of building permit. 3 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPAT 820108: 1 (Jensen) 5. One fire hydrant of a type and size specified by the City Fire Department shall be installed by the applicant on E� Dorado. Exact location and manner of placement shall be sub _W to the approval of the Fire Department. A letter from the Fire Department certifying the installation of the hy- drant shall be received by the Planning Department prior * to the recordation of the Final Map. 6. The driveway access shall be improved to at least the follow- ing minimum standards: - an improved width of 12 feet - unobstructed vertical clearance of fourteen (14) feet These standards shall appear as notes on the Final Map. 7. All driveways providing access to building sites shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval at the time of building permit application for each parcel. Plan and profile drawings may be required. If average slope ex- ceeds 12%, paved improvement would be required, otherwise, an all-weather surface would be required similarly. In no event will driveways be allowed which exceed 20% in slope. In the event any portion of a driveway is shared, improvement of the shared portion shall be a requirement made in conjunc- tion with the first building permit. Notes to these effects shall appear on the Final Map. 0 8. Effort shall be made to minimize grading that would be dis- ruptive to the natural topography and removal of existing mature trees. The following shall appear as a Note on the Final Map: "No trees shall be removed without compliance with appli- cable City ordinances. No grading shall commence without an appropriate permit and compliance with applicable City ordinances. " 9. Roof materials for all structures shall be Class C rating or better and a Note to that effect shall appear on the Final Map. 10 . Final grading and drainage plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer for development on each parcel may be re- quired to be submitted for review and approval by the Plan- ning and Public Works Departments prior to issuance of build- ing permits. A note to this effect shall appear on the Final Map. 11. All pipeline and other easements of record shall be shown on the Final Map. A letter shall be submitted from each utility company indicating the nature and extent of any building re strictions. A note so stating such restrictions shall appeal on the Final Map. 4 0 ! TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AT 820108:1 (Jensen) 12. An offer of dedication to the public for road purposes for twenty (20) feet along E1 Dorado for the entire property frontage shall be made by the actual easement owner. Said offer to be shown on the Final Map and be made by certifi- cate thereon. 13. El Dorado Road shall be constructed along the frontage of the property to City standards including a minimum paved width of twenty (20) feet with three (3) feet of graded shoulder on each side of the paving prior to recordation of the Final Map. a. Improvements to be constructed under an inspection agreement and encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. b. Improvement drawings, including improvements to control grading and erosion within the road right-of-way, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 14 . E1 Dorado Road, between the subject property and E1 Bordo, shall be improved with an all-weather surface. Said improve- ment is to be maintained by the property owner (s) . . 15. Improvements required by Conditions 3, 5, 13, and 14 may be deferred for a period not to exceed three years by entering into an agreement. Any such agreement shall include a bond, certificate of deposit, or similar improvement guarantee ac- ceptable to the Public Works Department. 16. El Dorado shall be renamed in conjunction with the Final Map and in compliance with the following requirements: a. All road names shall be of Spanish origin or shall be the names of non-living persons of historical importance. b. Road names shall not be duplicative of nor similar to other road names within the City of Atascadero or the nearby unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo County. 17. A Final Map in compliance with all conditions set forth here- in shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordi- nance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners cre- ated and a Registered Civil Engineer or licensed land surveyor shall submit a letter certifying that the monu- ments have been set prior to recordation of the Final Map. 5 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAAT 820108: 1 (Jensen) b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the Final Parcel Map. 18. Approval of this Tentative Parcel Map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expi- ration date. ACTION The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff as deemed appropriate. a j � REPORT PREPARED BY: -KAMI GRIFFIN Planning Intern REPORT APPROVED BY: LAWRENCE STEVENSx Planning Directorx /Ps 6 :V�cii_ r• _ Oaf j ------------ 00. 'Y r oN ANV X98. 41 CL, Aj 9 c . O 1 ` 1 r • a o ;• r Gai 0 °• - 1 4 . • •• �.1 •: SITE. LOCA-rl0 N • g3Co5 EL. BORDO v A � Ar SZO I O B. �( LOTS l8 -Z3 6L.oc.K S � • ` `- ' • r 30-442-0-4 NN ♦ I - •1 •moi .1+ • •♦ - �.-_ / Q ' ---� • \ ' - 0 Cj • •«�* - �/fib'• `� �: • . -. •' r�� 'Kph' }- A-/ \ • Ro• � � A-1 — --t \\ 4 N N n ti Q -D b Qc C-2 P a � 4 Q R z©NiNC AV 8 �P ,P 93cos LOTS I g-2 3, BLoGK S 30-44 Z-C4 .P P Pt Q W Q m = W y \\ p W �� W !omahh d• �1 4 0 ,a � sY 0 n US N � rosrr M,iF.iC N 6 — u fit V v V ~o eryr - -9- - - - - —� — Wg — \ \V m Q -- 4Ji N - co 96r .4377v AAAT 9 -ti a .1 J M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY MANAGER June 22, 1982 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AT 820401:1 LOCATION: 10320 Atascadero Avenue (Lot 2, Block 33) APPLICANT: Barry and Sandra Clarke (Morgan) REQUEST: To allow the division of 5.30 acres into two parcels of 2.8 and 2.5 acres each. On June 7, 1982, the Planning Commission reviewed the subject matter unanimously approving issuance of a Conditional Negative Declaration and approving the requested division subject to the conditions listed in the attached Staff Report. There was discussion among the Commission concerning a substandard hydrant and cost factors involved with the installation of a new hy- drant as opposed to upgrading the existing hydrant. Orville Morgan, applicant' s representative, objected to Condition 10 (fire hydrant) stating that there would not be any recovery fees in- volved with installing the hydrant since this proposed lot split would be the last to occur within the surrounding area. No one .else appeared on the matter . LAWRENCE STEVENS MUKRAt L RDEN Planning Director City ana er /ps r.flI P r F' r',�If ,W;DE C 79 CITY OF ATASCADERO psis Planning Department June 7, 1982 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AT 820401: 1 LOCATION: 10320 Atascadero Avenue (Lot 2, Block 33) APPLICANT: Barry and Sandra Clarke (Morgan) REQUEST: To allow the division of 5.30 acres into two parcels of 2.8 and 2. 5 acres each. BACKGROUND 1. Existing Zoning: A-1-1 1/2 2. General Plan: Suburban Single Family Residential 3. Environmental Determination: An initial study environmental de- scription form has been completed. The Planning Director has pre- pared a Draft Conditional Negative Declaration indicating the pro- ject will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environ- ment if certain mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. 4 . Site Conditions: The site is generally level, sloping up slightly toward the rear of the site. Vegetation consists of sparsely scattered oak trees and natural grass cover . An existing resi- dence and two large chicken coops are located on the site. Sur- rounding land uses are generally large lot residential. 5 . Project Description: The applicant is propsing to divide 5. 30 acres into two parcels. Parcel A is shown on the tentative map to be 2. 8 acres and Parcel B is shown as 2. 5 acres. Parcel A has frontage along Atascadero Road, and Parcel B will be accessed from an easement on the north side of Parcel A. STAFF COMMENTS On Thursday, May 6 , 1982 the Subdivision Review Board met with the ap- plicant, Barry Clark, and representative, Orville Morgan. Also at- tending: Larry Stevens, Planning Director ; Larry McPherson, Public • Works Director; Mike Hicks, Fire Chief; Fred Buss, Associate Planner; Joel Moses, Associate Planner; and Patience West, Engineering Aide. The following items of concern were discussed: Tentative Parcel Map AT 820401:1 (Clarke) 1. The installation of fire hydrants along Atascadero Road. 2. The possible removal of the two chicken coops. FINDINGS 1. The application as submitted together with recommendations which follow complies to the applicable zoning and subdivision regula- tions and conforms to the 1980 Atascadero General Plan. 2. The application as submitted together with conditions of approval will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment and, therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above Findings, the Planning Department recommends: A) Issuance of a Conditional Negative Declaration as follows: 1. Adequate provision shall be made to ensure proper septi suitability on all parcels created. 2. Adequate provision shall be made to minimize grading and tree removal on the site. 3. Adequate provision shall be made to minimize fire hazards in conjunction with site development; and B) Approval of Tentative Parcel Map AT 820401: 1 subject to the fol- lowing conditions: 1. Private sewage disposal systems will be an acceptable method of sewage disposal if reports and design are acceptable. All tests, reports, and designs shall conform to methods and guidelines prescribed by the Manual of Septic Tank Practice and other applicable City ordinances. The following shall appear on the Final Map: "Appropriate soils reports including a percolation test, a test to determine the presence of ground water , and a log of a soil boring to a minimum depth of ten (10) feet shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Where soils reports indicate that conven- tional soil absorption systems are not acceptable, City ap- proval of plans for an alternative private sewage disposal system, designed by a Registered Civil Engineer , shall be re quired. Depending upon the system, more restrictive require- ments may be imposed. " 2 Tentative Parcel Map AT 820401:1 (Clarke) • 2. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Com- pany and water operable facilities shall exist at each parcel frontage prior to filing of the Final Map. A letter from the Water Company indicating that they are willing and able to serve the property shall be submitted to the Planning Depart- ment prior to recordation of the Final Map. 3. All other available utilities not already in place shall be extended underground to each parcel frontage prior to filing of the Final Map. 4 . Effort shall be made to minimize grading that would be dis- ruptive to the natural topography and removal of existing mature trees. The following shall appear as a Note on the Final Map: "No trees shall be removed without compliance with applicable City ordinances. No grading shall commence without an appro- priate permit and compliance with applicable City ordinances. 5. All driveways providing access to building sites may be sub- ject to Planning Department review and approval at the time of building permit application for each parcel. If average slope exceeds 12%, paved improvement would be required, otherwise, an all-weather surface would be required similar • ly. In no event will driveways be allowed which exceed 20% in slope. In the event any portion of a driveway is shared, improvement of the shared portion shall be a requirement made in conjunction with the first building permit. Notes to these effects shall appear on the Final Map. 6 . The driveway access shall be improved to at least the follow- ing minimum standards: - an improved width of twelve (12) feet - unobstructed vertical clearance of fourteen (14) feet These standards shall appear as Notes on the Final Map. 7 . Roof materials for all structures shall be Class C rating or better and a Note to that effect shall appear on the Final Map. 8 . All pipeline and other easements of record shall be shown on the Final Map. A letter shall be submitted from each utility company indicating the nature and extent of any building re- strictions. A Note so stating such restrictions shall appear on the Final Map. 9 . The access easement shall also be designated for use as a public utility easement. • 10 . One fire hydrant of a type and size specified by the ..City Fire Department shall be installed by the applicant on Atas- cadero Road. Exact location and manner of placement shall be subject to the approval of the Fire Department. A letter 3 • Tentative Parcel Map AT 820401:1 (Clarke) from the Fire Department certifying the installation of th hydrant shall be received by the Planning Department prior to the recordation of the Final Map. 11. A Final Map in compliance with all conditions set forth here- in shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordi- nance prior to recordation. a: Monuments shall be set at all new property corners cre- ated and a Registered Civil Engineer or licensed land surveyor shall submit a letter certifying that the monu- ments have been set prior to recordation of the Final Map. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the Final Map. 12. Approval of this Tentative Parcel Map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expi- ration date. ACTION i The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff as deemed appropriate. TO APPROVE: Adopt findings and set conditions. TO DENY: Set findings for denial. REPORT PREPARED BY: AMI GRIFFI Planning In ern REPORT APPROVED BY: lao� LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director /Ps 4 %0321,. EA E 7,N p i 2 Z v.l OPS CO ♦ + Y J ; • 1, ke Santa.. ¢ ty ~ • •• • •• T,E HOSPITA • o P� - _ • Q • • . \ tel'• • ' � �-�. `_'�'. t l • • R A' b •r s • p'•. l 40 _� • �( 1p "..93 9 --� - v y fe( } 000 36 S T LOCATION \ / 10320 A-CASCA©ERO ROAD 0 St-oc K 33 203' 0 ry: J IL P INJ � -rit I J�' G ti h c_ � T c , 7®' P 'lr � V I , a - AT 8aoA0l.J P io320 ATAScADE R0 Lor a, Z-ocK 33 j CLAIKF-/MOPC AN [ � 1 r O N w -c CD ,Y A� O r ri O 1 N n ' o V � O N B-2 v 1 z c) r, N 1 I �O I O o �o n r— D l71 N V PoUl)qy W0 \�jtv'O� m O W O 1 BAIIq n V o O O � ° O 1 � >OUkrRY I A eARq � n O Qr N6. f d, 4SCA0`PO , 363.80, I ~ 1?0.4D N rn N U _ e q z 1 •a ex,. G nom • U . gs' � g` ,_" •fie �!� le: s M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY MANAGER June 22, 1982 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AT810305:1 LOCATION: Palo Verde Road (Ptn. Lot 7, Block 95) APPLICANT: William Fortington REQUEST: To extend the time allowed to complete requiremnets for the approved tentative map On June 21, 1982 the Planning Commission reviewed the subject matter on its Consent Calendar and unanimously approved a one year time extension to complete requirements of the Tentative Parcel Map sub- ject to the original conditions of approval. • LAWRENCE STEVENS MulkY L ARDEN Planning Director Citt Ma ger CITY OF ATASCADERO r � \ moi Planning Department June 21, 1982 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AT 810305: 1 LOCATION: Palo Verde Road (Ptn. Lot 7, Block 95) APPLICANT: William Fortington REQUEST: To extend the time allowed to complete requirements for an approved tentative map. BACKGROUND 1. Existing Zoning: A-1-B-V-5 2. General Plan: Suburban Single Family Residential 3. Site Conditions: The topography varies across the site with • slopes ranging from 10% and less near Palo Verde Road, to 30% and greater near the southwesterly edge of the property. The site is heavily wooded, with the upper third covered in chaparral. A trailer , shed and 50 gallen per minute well exist on the proposed Parcel A. Access to Parcel A is a dirt driveway off of Palo Verde Road. Some of the surrounding parcels are developed with standard single family dwellings. City sewer and water are not available. 4. Project Description: The applicant is requesting a one year time extension for filing a final parcel map for a land division of 12 acres to create two parcels of six acres each. STAFF COMMENTS On May 11, 1981 the City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map AT 810305: 1. The applicant is now requesting a time extension to com- plete requirements prior to recordation of the map. On June 10 , 1982 the Subdivision Review Board met to review the time extension and in- dicated that there was no reason not to grant the time extension. J 0 0 Tentative Parcel Map AT 810305:1 (Fortington) RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department recommends approval of the time extension sub-0 ject to the conditions set forth at the time the project was original- ly approved. Approval of this one year time extension shall expire at 5:00 p.m. on May 11, 1983. ACTION Direct Staff by motion as deemed appropriate. REPORT PREPARED BY: KAMI • F Planning Wtern REPORT APPROVED BY: LAWRENCE STEV S Planning Director /Ps 2 0 29A 23 60 \\ 4 18 3 'S 18 gss 19 �4 z 2 20 i 19 i P 6 21 v 2 15 0 5 21 16 4 410,y / RO 17 / 3 60 2 16 19 • 5 20 A-1 - BV- 5 6 4 21 3 7 95 2 95 a SAP To AAC-Fz- 36, - os- �` �y '4 'MAII- T. wXES r ` EZ, =A65 P�OPEN RED CwATE t ols I rN 'rQ DAK ° vcRpc`. Ito � , S • � .� �` �-`Q��--�- w H ATE S'I�LD 'F - 35 50 , \ 40 •.x I o I I • I I I L_S2e2j.W � al _ ryr �•i I� Lhl O F �I m Ol 4:1 10 rn .. 3 N - I (TSB C° wl - / - i yO - IO — > fAy I .S_3,9. .w ^ n. ZO to .1`........... _ � o r � m A O o o n W O 7• z w m to D 0 A D c n t. W r— — I 3o,.be-xl -- ---_ - Q w _ I _ I m r---- 93,_36_ _ l ON38.?9 I a �o I a 21 I yy 4 I I � Iq I 0 �V IN C-, 915.82 I I 35 Sp E cu O \ s 2 p � 0 D p OA f 01 LU 4-1__-��9 ?oddly H <� 1 � c ci � 1 l s I i 01 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY MANAGER June 22, 1982 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW R820407:1 LOCATION: 8842 Palomar (Lot 154A, Block MC) APPLICANT: Jerry Noble REQUEST: To establish a lumber storage/retail sales yard On June 7, 1982 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing < on the appeal of certain conditions set forth in the approval of Depart- mental Review R820407:1 and denied the appeal as set forth by the Finding in the attached Staff Report. . There was discussion among the Planning Commission concerning the trailer , which is jointly used by both the lumber business and the adjacent fencing business, and whether or not it is connected to the sewer . Discussion also related to the need for curb, gutter and side- walk noting that "temporary" uses could occupy the site for many years before improvements could be obtained for a "permanent" development. Ned Rogoway," applicant' s representative, appeared in support of the appeal. He stated that the lumber business 'would only be temporary (2-3 years) until the amount of business justified a larger, permanent site. Mr. Rogoway indicated that the applicant was no longer appeal- ing 'Condition 5 (paved parking) , but still objected to Conditions 7 and 14 due to the temporary use. He also stated that such improve- ments were beyond those intended by the Departmental Review procedure and were not reasonable based on the improvements proposed for the property itself. John Baysdorfer , adjacent owner , indicated that the subject property is not connected to the sewer . Mike Bothy, Palomar resident, objected to a business with its in- creased traffic being located on a residential street such as Palomar . He also objected to large trucks unloading lumber in the area since_ that could be a safety hazard. . No one else appeared. Re: Departmental REew R820407 :1 (Noble) You should be awarethat the time to appeal the Commission decision* has lapsed and that the Planning Department will issue a Final Notice of Approval on the Departmental Review upon completion of this review. LAWRENCE STEVENS MUR hnae EN Planning Director City T r r-FF 7— F � . e r 197 ' CITY OF ATASCADERO lyia c Planning Department June 7, 1982 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW R820407:1 LOCATION: 8842 Palomar (Lot 154A, Block MC) APPLICANT: Jerry Noble (Ned Rogoway) REQUEST: To establish a lumber storage/retail sales yard BACKGROUND 1 . Existing Zoning: C-2 2. General Plan: Heavy Commercial 3. Site Description: The site is currently vacant with the exception • of a 10 ' X 50 ' mobile home which straddles the line to the adjoin- ing property. The property is currently enclosed by a six foot high chain link and redwood fence. There is no vegetation. Sur- rounding land uses consist of roofing and fencing contractors , auto repair , and a storage warehouse to the west, and residential properties to the east. 4 . Project Description: The applicant proposes to establish a lumber yard storage and sales operation on the property. Development plans indicate a graveled parking area providing eight parking spaces and approximately 11, 000 square feet of storage space . There will be 200 square feet of office space contained in a mobile home with blue metallic siding which is shared with the neighboring business and crosses the property line. Landscaping will consist of oleanders in front of the mobile home and in the parking area . 5 . Prior Action: On April 30 , 1982 the Planning Department issued a Draft Notice of Approval for Departmental Review R820407: 1 approv- ing the establishment of a lumber storage and retail sales yard. The applicant has appealed three of the conditions (see attached letter) as follows: a) Condition #5: That the parking area be paved. b) Condition #7: That concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk be installed . • c) Condition #14: That the project be connected to the com- munity sewer system. Departmental Review 8820407 : 1 (Noble) STAFF COMMENTS Current policy and practice concerning multiple family, commercial an* industrial projects have made paved parking a condition of site dev- elopment and/or establishment of a new and different use. The current zoning ordinance specifies the required number and design of parking spaces for various categories of uses, but sets no standards for the improvement of parking areas. However , the draft zoning ordinance will require that parking areas containing three or more spaces loca- ted inside the Urban Services Line shall have an asphalt (or similarly paved) surface . In this case, the recommended paving is necessary to minimize dust and similar material which can be transmitted from the subject commercial property to nearby single family residential property. Title 19 (the Building and Construction Ordinance) of the Atascadero Municipal Code requires curb, gutter and sidewalk in conjunction with new construction and certain additions; but, the General Plan states that . . "Curbs, gutters and sidewalks shall be required in all commer- cial land use areas except commercial use areas oriented to highway travel . " The Planning Department has applied curb, gutter and side- walk requirements to both Departmental Reviews and Conditional Use Permits in order to assure consistency with this General Plan stand- ard . Past application of parking, curb, gutter and sidewalk require- ments has not been related solely to development of a vacant site, but also to instances where a change in use was taking place in an exist- ing xis t ing building even when no additional development was proposed. Connection to the community sewer system is required by the Sanitation District Ordinance which requires a building to be connected to the sewer within two years of a line being available to the site . In ad- dition, Section 1101 D of the Uniform Plumbing Code could also be ap- plied since the applicant' s property is within the 200 foot distance of the sewer line . The Planning Commission cannot waive the require- ments imposed by either of the above ordinances. FINDINGS 1. The requirements for paved parking, curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements and sewer connection are consistent with the 1980 Atascadero General Plan and in compliance with other applicable City ordinances. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above Finding, the Planning Department recommends that the appeal of Conditions 5, 7 , and 14 of Departmental Review R820407 : 1 not be granted. • 2 • Departmental Review R820407:1 (Noble) ACTION • The Planning Commission should direct Staff as deemed appropriate. REPORT PREPARED BY: JILL KOLLMANN Planning Intern REPORT APPROVED BY: C WW, Y,M AW41,- LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director /Ps • 3 � A- 1 0 q i � ,s R—A isZ_ L j. -B-Z-o -P -4- D C-2- b F Q C-2 -p ro 3_ ° r -A ry C, 2, p o oc Q N _ ZoNINC� it �� �`,�,�',P Rg204O�:I IV \, �o� v 'Q �\ , PAL.OMAR STREET G - � Lor iS4 A A \\ � �' N w N0I3l,E FOCOWAY g6wvy 241k NOW--41, ARMIFS sm Ift, W41t � -��w-Ertl _ ��►� e� � '.� 0 ������� MA rw#4 Aff KIMM AA • MIA Le M saw, w 4-W RIM, I WO a—OW �41 ap all 4110%'OR ` I. `` � /moi' rim SIM — r - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I — PALOMAR AVE. 1 1 � 1 I F61a 1 - I parKing Ro Cgrav�ted� D ' Z 7 4x8rsl9n—� + -3 g I I 4 y 9 m `chain 1rnK C oast "o --- Redwood Inc. 5 U, oFFtcr< Atascadeno 'c' Morro 153Y — G353-:,anl.tsn Oba P�au.�w9- SIGN DETSIL verww� plecw•dev • cuc�ered Standin Sign W)c b-I 5p.c cot on -the Pyna_.-i%• .� Gr g 9 hi•� een a.Nd Brown on v�! e ymz c:> I 3� 570 p% to,-K ,50, M06•1e F�ow�e locq�� ovn tksz pro pxAy. Zol to be used -Zor dumber 5cles. a Remotnder a� w�ob'�IQ how. ;� T i5 usQd dor eXjstuy buslnds5 pvl rO?Kr1-/. � O buek¢totA llic YtCtni•(y Mo No+e: Lumber unt{5 / W.11 bQ s}x.i�zd m vows not over, rot ,0v 1 u Cur T •o S 5lT PLAN C0a-5T 904Wood, Inc. (09, L-OT 1514 A 6 LO C MC p+QscadexD eoI0>1. . Parce( No. 31- I (a .jerry Ko6le - Dwner. 772-2239 March► R, AS2, Dwn- Nth 6 i NED A. ROG0WAY, A.1.C.P. PLANNING SERVICES 8 PINEWOOD DRIVE,CAMBRIA,CALIFORNIA 93428 PHONE:(805)927-4249 &ir '7, IQ8 z. . scQ �ioavt NtMsS+t'ovi C`t.f 4 ascot ►ro POs-(- C JW" Bole -7K-7 40scd&fc, ell-t 'FoRAAA gsH2t.3 . w� � �, �.w�.tss�e-r• 1 w i3 40 apeal f(w Awtv6l 4t& oVfhc r4-tom rQ�utw:,vo� 1� Q�r4vMta t� ll �,ro To sod 6 be- t ss uecl 4-0 �rr Y 1J o b(Q a w wr a.� cec�s'1' �ecl moo� � l�c , lie l.,c►s ct=�� awd sd�Qs - $gK� RtIO W-6rr Qt-A OSHA f5lecK i►�C,�. Tl� 1�rvtfQ.vu�w� sv esieck 6 -Y av'Q vu.orj'u)oto Q W kWo,.- C&0 s i j ap,&A �o of ' u sR kru�►Cosa( , l�1�. �1 obte i s Ieos�A„o, ., -�,� 4'r %je«r wi+l.. aw• oN V4-v% AM 0 no bWj S or s�twc t}�s are w� Q {� I� er�c�e d esti• 1ha 7k Its tvf bvtidw� �-�- Tl^Q 4 -k is �a.c a zo Woo"i d I t drd ew• 44 10+/ 4150 o W kicl Ly wu. , 1 c-esAclJ t" s wit." arwtz- 6A:-4 aCI-" I Q.cl v,kkcjvj e eoc,d;��a.,,.. 5 : �cP Kw� 4r►¢as s�cnp b►e �� w�+h A 3 Q1�•a tf-. 0-6*41+44. V-oo6 a.►,d �uf1�' a*,.d S;twa I Cw•d� ��.,,. ly : C..a neck- 4o 5wo-W c V# or Qd %�, F-0.0-010-F-0.0-010- c-a�scdlty Ae�,v r� �sf o' � a ptWal a4 You I&U� 'I A�^ Juwwx 7, IRS L LAND USE COUNSELING CITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING �►�' • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 11r L F67��r' r,d CITY OF ATASCADERO M'ft Planning Department April 30 , 1982 DRAFT NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATION REQUIRING DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW SUBJECT: DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW R820407:1 LOCATION: 8842 Palomar (Lot 154A, Block MC) APPLICANT: Jerry Noble (Ned Rogoway) REQUEST: To establish a lumber storage/retail sales yard. BACKGROUND 1. Existing Zoning: C-2 2. General Plan: Heavy Commercial 3. Environmental Determination: The application is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Class 1) . 4. Site Description: The site is currently vacant with the exception of a 10' X 50 ' mobile home which straddles the line to the adjoin- ing property. The property is currently enclosed by a six foot high chain link and redwood fence. There is no vegetation. Sur- rounding land uses consist of roofing and fencing contractors, auto repair , and a storage warehouse to the west, and residential properties to the east. 5. Project Description: The applicant proposes to establish a lumber yard storage and sales operation on the property. Development plans indicate a graveled parking area providing eight parking spaces and approximately 11,000 square feet of storage space. There will be 200 square feet of office space contained in a mobile home with blue metallic siding which is shared with the neighboring business and crosses the property line. Landscaping will consist of oleanders in front of the mobile home and in the parking area. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW 20407: 1 (Noble) STAFF COMMENTS . The applicant has submitted a letter requesting that curb, gutter , and sidewalk requirements be waived. The 1980 Atascadero General Plan makes specific references to the need for such improvements in commer- cial areas. At this time there is no provision which allows Staff to waive these requirements. It remains the option of the applicant to appeal any conditions or requirements stated herein. The fact that the mobile home crosses the property line creates the potential for the two properties to be merged or the mobile home to be moved such that the encroachment problem is eliminated. FINDINGS 1. The site of the proposed lumber yard is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and all yards, fencing, parking, land- scaping and other features required by the Atascadero Municipal Code. 2. Streets in the vicinity of the proposed lumber yard are adequate to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated by the pro- posed use. 3. The proposed lumber yard will have no adverse effects on abutting property or the permitted use thereof. 4. The establishment and operation of the lumber yard for which the Departmental Review is sought will not be detrimental to the pub- lic welfare or be injurious to property and improvements in said neighborhood. DECISION Based upon the above Findings, the Planning Director approves Depart- mental Review R820407: 1 subject to the following conditions: 1. Site development including buildings, aisles, parking, landscap- ing and other features shall be consistent with site plans sub- mitted and be subject to other conditions contained herein. 2. Submit two copies of detailed landscaping and irrigation plans indicating size, type, and spacing of plant materials proposed for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to issu- ance of building permits. a. Raised concrete curbs or similar shall border each planter area. . b. Plant materials shall be sized to achieve a mature appearance within three years. 2 DEPARTMENTAL REVIE%0820407 : 1 Noble C. The type of irrigation system shall depend upon the plant materials used and the watering needs. I* d. Planters are to be provided generally where shown and plant materials selected shall be intended to screen to storage area. 3. Lighting fixtures shall be designed to minimize onsite and offsite glare. 4. All new utilities and utility connections shall be placed underground. 5. Provide a minimum of eight off-street parking spaces. Parking and access areas shall be paved with minimum 211AC on adequate base and spaces shall be striped. Wheel stops or -- approved functional equivalent shall be provided. a. The driveway shall have a minimum width of 20 feet. 6 . Provide six foot high fencing as shown. 7. Install concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk along Palomar Avenue frontage of Lot 154A of Block MC. Said improvements to be con- structed under an inspection agreement and encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. Improvement plans to be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and shall be subject t ie approval by the Public Works Department. (NOTE: A waiver reques has been filed and will be scheduled for Planning Commission con- sideration as a separate item. ) 8. Provision shall be made for a paved and enclosed trash storage area in a location approved by the Planning Department. 9. Onsite signing shall be limited to an aggregate area of 60 square feet for the entire project site, not to exceed the height of the building unless a Conditional Use Permit is secured. 10. The Fire Department may make annual inspections of the lumber yard with adequate notice to the business owner . 11. Storage of lumber and related materials shall be in compliance with the following standards in order to minimize fire hazards to the site. a. Driveways between and around lumber piles shall be 15 feet in width and be free from accumulation of debris, equipment and other materials. b. Any amount of lumber in storage shall not exceed 100 ,000 board feet without first obtaining the appropriate permits from the Fire Department. i 3 DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW20407: 1 Noble C. Stacks of lumber shall be separated by aisles with the width of each aisle to be a minimum of half the height of the stacks of lumber . Each storage 'block' area shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. d. Lumber stacks shall be limited to a maximum height of twelve feet. 12. The operation of heavy equipment shall be limited to trucks, fork- lifts and small saws and noise shall be limited to daytime hours and not be disturbing to neighboring residences. Major milling is not permitted. 13. The lumber storage area may be improved with a graveled surface but shall be maintained in such a condition to reasonably minimize dust disturbance to adjacent uses. 14. The project shall be connected to the community water and sewer systems. Evidence of service shall be submitted from the Atasca- dero Mutual Water Company and the Atascadero Sanitation District indicating they are willing and able to provide service. 15. Evidence shall be submitted indicating that the mobile home was legally established and that it meets the Uniform Building Code requirements for use as a commercial office. S16. This Departmental Review approval is granted for a maximum period of one year from the date of final approval unless an extension is granted by the Planning Director pursuant to a written request filed a minimum of ten days prior to the expiration date. 17. This Departmental Review approval shall become final on 5: 00 p.m. on May 10, 1982 unless an appeal has been filed prior to that date. 18 . All conditions of approval established herein shall be complied within 30 days of final approval since the use has already been established. REPORT PREPARED BY: JILL KOLLMANN Planning Intern • REPORT APPROVED BY,-,,<.2 LAWRENCE STEVEN /_._../ Planning Direc or !` 4 • i M E M O R A N D U M • TO: CITY MANAGER June 22, 1982 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP820331:3 LOCATION: Morro Road between Pismo and Santa Rosa APPLICANT: Norman P Klowgard with expanded area if .tinted by ?1ann ng Commission REQUEST: To change General Plan land use designation from High Density Single Family Residential to Recreation On May 17, 1982 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the subject request unanimously approving the general plan amendment as listed in. the attached Staff Report. On June 7, 1982 the Plannning Commission adopted Resolution No. 8-82 affirming its action of May 17, 1982. There was brief discussion among the Commission with regard to the two types of recreation uses designated in the draft zoning ordinance and what category this application would fall under. Norman Klowgard, applicant, spoke in support of the request and indicated his agreement with the Staff recommendation. Robert Payton, E1 Parque resident, expressed hisobjectionto the re-- quest since he felt the area was already too congested and any further recreational uses would only contribute to this factor. No one else appeared on the matter. LAWRENCE STEVENS N Y WARDEN Planning Director City Ma ager RESOLUTION NO. 8-82 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF MORRO ROAD BETWEEN PISMO AVENUE AND SANTA ROSA ROAD INCLUDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP 820331:1 (KLOWGARD) WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the subject matter; and, WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65323 provides that a general plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and, WHEREAS, the proposed land use change would create logical transi- tion from Highway 41 to the residential areas; and, WHEREAS, the proposal is compatible with surrounding land use and zoning; and, WHEREAS, the proposal is consistent with the policies of the 1980 Atascadero General Plan; and, • WHEREAS, amendment to the Land Use Element Map of the 1980 Atas- cadero General Plan as proposed will not result in any significant ad- verse environmental impact. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero Planning Com- mission does hereby recommend approval of General Plan Amendment GP 820331: 1 (Klowgard) making changes to the 1980 Atascadero General Plan Land Use Map as shown on the attached Exhibit Map entitled "Recom- mended General Plan Land Use Map Changes to the South Side of Morro Road Between Pismo Avenue and Santa Rosa Road. " On motion by Commissioner Wentzel and seconded by Commissioner LaPrade, the foregoing resolution is adopted in its entirety by the its entirety by the following roll call vote: • Resolution No. 8-82•lowgard) AYES: Commissioners Lilley, LaPrade, Carroll, Summers, Wentzel and Chairman Moore . NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Sherer DATE ADOPTED: June 7, 1982 SHIRLEY MOORE, Chairman ATTEST: / LAWRENCE STEVENS, Planning Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney • 2 CITY OF ATASCADERO Planning Department May 17, 1982 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP 820331 :1 LOCATION: Morro Road between Pismo and Santa Rosa APPLICANT: Norman P. Klowgard with expanded area initiated by Planning Commission REQUEST: To change General Plan land use designation from High Density Single Family Residential to Recreation. BACKGROUND: 1. Introduction: On April 19th, 1982 the Planning Staff presented the Klowgard request to the Planning Commission. The area under consideration was expanded to consider the remaining Morro Road frontage to Santa Rosa. 2 . General Plan: High Density Single Family Residental. 3. .Zoning: R-4-D (532) . 4. Environmental Determination: An initial study environmental description form has been completed for the project. The Plan- ning Director has prepared a Negative Declaration for the project indicating that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely to occur if the project is implemented as proposed. 5 . Project Description: The applicant' s request is intended to address the issue of an existing non-conforming commercial use which would remain non-conforming once the Draft Zoning Ordinance is completed. The area in question consists of a retail rock, gift and souvenir shop, one single family residence, and a VFW Hall. The surrounding area consists of single family residential and public recreational uses. STAFF COMMENTS The applicant requests an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to change from an existing High Density Single Family Residential designation to a Recreation designation. This will allow his existing tourist-oriented commercial business to conform to the General Plan. Current zoning on the subject property is R-4 (Multiple Family Residential) and is not consistent to the current General Plan designation. i 0 GENERAL PLAN AMENDIMENT GP 820331 : 1 (Klowgard) Additionally there is some merit to allowing some form of light commercial activity along Highway 41. A use of this nature serves as a buffer between the traffic and the residential area behind. Eliminating a nonconforming land use is probably merit enough to suggest that the applicnat' s request be approved. It should be noted that a discrepancy exists between the use section of the draft zoning ordinance for the Recreation Zone and the equivalent section of the 1980 Atascadero General Plan. The General Plan allows for indoor or outdoor retail sales with- out a priviso that it be related to a reacreation use on the . site. It is suggested that the Planning Commission explore the possibility of changing the wording in the draft ordinance to be consistent with the General Plan. Should this wording not be changed, a nonconforming use could again be created on this lot at the adoption of the new zoning ordinance. FINDINGS 1. The proposed land use change would create logical transition from Highway 41 to the residential areas. 2 . The proposal is compatible with surrounding land use and zoning. 3 . The proposal is consistent with the policies of the 1980 Atascadero General Plan. 4 . Amendment to the Land Use Element map of the 1980 Atascadero General Plan as proposed will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings, the Planning Department recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration and approval of General Plan Amendment GP 820331 :1 changing the land use designation for the entire study area from High Density Single Family Residential to Recreation. -2- GENERAL: PLAN AMEND,1W GP 820331 :1 (Klowgard) ACTION The Planning Commission should by motion direct Staff as deemed appropriate. (Note: Adoption of a Resolution is required. ) REPORT PREPARED BY- S ,frRED BLS S f Associate Planner \1 REPORT APPROVED BYE LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director • /gk -3- - SY E Q Ya I CID C 'v Res ''SO JC c It� LY \\ lo 9 e- 34 v., •-"iry+�; �... •a v xN GR j6 \ �"�'asTy} - iX�YPC� q^' >ZISas ,' Q ,�%W a�•�.o z a - � - A''Y9 i C61 16 ni� v{I tI sor k h zza9 , r_ a c N o X11 v,l j N O•i° 3O o ;rnj 1 iyv' ;�t 9 0 s3.a3 7 t blzs l: 193.og 1 42 a �I 3 m R, ~ l+!'• J 5J3 o5O 26 E .' 819 2 7 F6J49 B7 "� 2 k 28 ^ i a N arr3- / as K K a .4s4e K4 v sF•'ao-n p/�;� a - 19 123 77 t x-R -'t - '• ISA s .7f7AG 11 9 Q IWAc. 53. e gg I 36 44 a 1 19 FR. v 1 a Go 13 ti Go S ,• 1 13 214 'r V Aa. 20 q n 0 23 ^ 1 22 aOo 485AG. 4.78AG. N'OZQ3 44e 8 .."4,tl 39�(r3 40t` 1 37 3�' ro 37 0 6P8,Z0.331 1 7 / oq ro Ic 1 I ;� 33 i3O L0�11r/ a /J DSL/N 8�.-- '.k''"q'°:_. F.'nt-'•i`.r -.a�2 x5n"k"...nz..r-�jfi '_7W -�.._/ 1 >✓-'' .?7.i>� .. _ — i'.:t." ,v-.n- '.'•'kyr.� Y a 1�`u.yc. -. G m d Fa); 9 .¢�•'-Ft+mi.�.7k."'w:t`r _ ! a. ,362 .� �� �� 6 = -- .. _ _ s f""s• Qscyoe9 ,o,.'a •ee.y4,. .. i •u +. = C '6 t J :O. an [e a O 9 "r'[ ,,..,asx• t�.c.,.: Is !! J ,.: "p " �� ,.a, >-a-`=.� ".....•+,w,.-- w+- Oye•]s .b' s]�] I Yed� &�. ao�' •, - i- - 54 _ ,TyY � nITA [Q roe 8 � Q O 56 'b'"`•oO l _ sl ' _ • 1. ]5'Si' - /.Zp_ qnC - O p 6_[W IJul -59 n r .y 13Z3.4l'3�Gf7•4�..62sii�,�leos.SoRa. 2 6E . yol!�43/6se9 D�1YI�I gd7+ 130wQ' O4 ,9 3 .5. _ (p 999 35 49 _i.,(.si K ♦ 7b� IVVV H 123 17 rb,an[`v,R 51 Beiwc::. 74046 } 2 w 15A o 4 50 21 1.024C. 1. F e. 4 cu P..M.28p 01,7 u 678.89 Q 183.35 M a,.62 I ' — 240 36 44 a Z o". 19 FR. i .6 ° 151 �. Is°290 Rloo.l3 4 w tf+ aeuzs4 a 13 2 t 1 346 45 0 y.r '6 1 �•- Lr4A•. a a% 20 ` M o 23 24 su _ b M1 Ij 22 a0o 485AG. 4.76AG. o y44 � �w ioE3 ro q0 _.4 a ' 39 11 { 3.t 40�t ! . leo O �G tP J r l a� 1 37 1'- z � n Ll 82 33 I �j ,666' K'//�,u /\/L,'✓ -- :r'Y.-_ __ S4r1TA R05A RD I c -- �� '1 T O°O•Y 9 es _a.- -4:J \�� O ORO ., _ 40 ..•z2:.fs A oa��? � �? �q� on e3 42� •m� wee �. `3�°' �, �\\ X.`'.�3y+'ao- _ W O 28 O9 r • •x. 56 aY .w C•'• r � `73 ��>92 g+-K zz e _ .:. ryif ss \ --��-,'"�°•!r#'zr3.eaNY��`.A`'�++E�,+-r�...a�.Y r ', -a=•u=.� a-�a�,-OSx= ., a-- 7y' ,_ r f � ! r' R 56• �•"•'pO•"l �•n/O- w Z ,.. 1 1 � _ ° �2v� Q a 86 /.1• swot � �2 S4NT4 �- '•t� ^ >r _ ,�.. �^ i, '' q�e ✓ za. as. S 2g f 16 J) aN+ i 30 pi - vl� .� /9Of.= ,�'16CSr Ot-Y•9f .e. -t =v.+k+:-9i _ X IS3.`}43 7 4 6251 193.Og Nl. " 92i'1; 3 m _ n ia�Ndr 3'"2➢�ai3 osa. 26 E..' 619.2 7 /6.fa9 97 X 49 4 28 \ - /Iv A 3I' esaa ^99'sr_o Yv 4,ib n 19 a�. 123 17 M b 99.41, 77 �� Ig N.58 W ` � u NEP o ..740.46. alo.eB 4 47 h P rs6.2.z rs �A�l - S50° 6'E K.✓/ii N 1 I wl.�z f53. 8 , 6 8.09 a 41.62 240 183.35 M 1 1 r.aO• k'^s x. 19 FR. "'3"! ii .r'G•.,'SWM d .':"sq 4'Y" '. y 13 11 `•'<L* r' >° V ° ° 2/.9 f5! I 290..7 W 14".i3 4 1.94 2"6 1 20 a z +� 22 L*A.10 VSF— C�ANu-esEv M o 4 " ' /!O zr 607.93 i 39�13 40�l O 3"Gs' I1 I C reo lao 33 J'1I 1 C7PO�V3�l x��[^'V>/F✓/ /' / -78-82 b�dl7k FL-)A RD M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY MANAGER June 22 , 1982 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS GP820204 :1 and GP 820325 :_1 (E1 Camino Real-Montecito Study Area) LOCATION: Area bounded by El Bordo Avenue, El Camino Real, Montecito Avenue and Las Lomas Avenue, including lots on the northeasterly side of Las Lomas APPLICANT: Maxwell, Eddy, Hixson, Pflum, Lilley & O'Farrell, Williams House of Carpets, Forsman and Ward; expanded area initiated by Planning Commission REQUEST: To consider certain General Plan map amendments for Retail Commercial and Low Density Multiple Family Residential in the Study Area On May 17 , 1982 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing • on the two _amendment requests and, (with Commissioners Sherer -and Summers objecting and Commissioner Lilley abstaining) approved GP820204:1 and denied GP820325:1 as requested. However, a change for GP820325: 1 in the land use designation to Moderate Density Single Family Residential was approved. The Staff Report is attached. On June 7, 1982 the Planning Commission adopted Reso- lution No. 9-82 affirming its action taken on May 17th. Don Eddy, one of the applicants , spoke in support of GP820204 :1 requesting a retail commercial designation. He noted that the three lots (Maxwell, Eddy, Hixson) already have commercial uses so it is highly unlikely that any multi-family development would occur. Ernestine Ward, representing the applicants involved in the Las Lomas portion of the amendment request, spoke in support of their request for a multiple family designation. She felt there should be a gradual transition of single family with multiple family development uses in the area and commented on the sewer main that runs along Las Lomas noting that sewer would be available in the subject area once they were allowed to annex to the Sanitation District. Rex Hendrix and Dennis Bethel, adjacent property owners on El Cam- ino Real , asked how these amendment requests would affect their land. Page Two Re: General Plan Amendments GP820204 :1/GP820325 :1 June 22, 1982 No one else appeared on the matter. AVOW LAWRENCE STEVENS *ciy L WARDEN Planning Director ger /Ps RESOLUTION NO. 9-82 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP WITHIN THE MONTECITO-EL CAMINO REAL STUDY AREA, INCLUDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMEND- MENT GP 820204: 1 (MAXWELL, EDDY, HIXSON) AND DENIAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP 820325:1 (PFLUM, LILLEY & O'FARRELL, WILLIAMS HOUSE OF CARPETS , FORSMAN AND WARD) WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the subject matter; and, WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65323 provides that a general plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and, WHEREAS, amendment to the General Plan as proposed will not re- sult in any significant adverse environmental impact as long as ap- propriate mitigation measures are introduced; and, WHEREAS, establishment of multiple family residential areas out- side of the Sanitation and Improvement Districts should be discour- aged; and, WHEREAS, expansion of the commercial cluster in the Santa Rosa intersection area with E1 Camino Real is appropriate in light of ex- isting uses and the small amount of additional commercial land being created; and, WHEREAS, existing lot sizes on the northeasterly side of Las Lomas indicate that a higher density single family designation is ap- propriate; and WHEREAS, modification of the Land Use Map as recommended is con- sistent with policies set forth in the 1980 Atascadero General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero Planning Com- mission does hereby recommend approval of General Plan Amendment GP 820204 : 1 (Maxwell, Eddy, Hixson) and denial of General Plan Amendment GP 820325:1 (Pflum, Lilley & O'Farrell, Williams House of Carpets , Forsman and Ward) making changes to the 1980 Atascadero General Plan Land Use Map as shown on the attached Exhibit Map entitled "Recom- mended General Plan Land Use Map Changes to the Montecito-E1 Camino Real Study Area. " On motion by Commissioner Wentzel and seconded by Chairman Moore, the foregoing resolution is adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: • • Resolution No. 9-82 AYES: Commissioners LaPrade, Carroll, Wentzel and Chairman Moore NOES: Commissioner Summers ABSENT: Commissioner Sherer ABSTAIN: Commissioner Lilley DATE ADOPTED: June 7, 1982 SHIRLEY MOORE, Chairman ATTEST: LAWRENCE STEVENS, Planning Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney i t 2 s s ..o. Cr .�:„ CITY OF ATASCADERO 1918�9r .Rn ��1978 CAD " Planning Department May 17, 1982 A, STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS GP 820204:1 AND GP820325:1 (E1 Camino Real - Montecito Study Area) LOCATION: Area bounded by El Bordo Avenue, E1 Camino Real, Monte- cito Avenue, and Las Lomas Avenue, including lots on the northeasterly side of Las Lomas APPLICANT: Maxwell, Eddy, Hixson, Pflum, Lilley & O'Farrell , Williams House of Carpets, Forsman and Ward; expanded area initia- ted by Planning Commission REQUEST: To consider certain General Plan map amendments . BACKGROUND 1. Prior Action: On April 19 , 1982 Staff presented General Plan Amendments GP 820204: 1 and GP820325:1 to the Planning Commission for consideration. These requests, representing seven different property owners, are located in close proximity to each other on Las Lomas Avenue and El Camino Real. Both requests seem to sug- gest that an evaluation of the types and location of residential and commercial land in the area is in order , and that a transition area between the High Density Multiple Family on one side of Las Lomas and the Low Density Single Family be evaluated. Based on these concerns, a study which combines these requests was deemed appropriate. 2. Existing Zoning: R-4-B-2-D, R-A, A-1 3. General Plan: The General Plan land use designation for the prop- erties on the northeasterly side of Las Lomas is Low and Moderate Density Single Family Residential. The designation for other properties in the Study Area is High Density Multiple Family Residential. 4. Environmental Determination: An initial study environmental de- scription form has been completed. The Planning Director has pre- pared a Conditional Negative Declaration indicating no significant adverse environmental effects will result if certain mitigating measures are incorporated into the project. 0 General Plan Amendments GP820204: 1/GP820325:1 5. Project Description: a) GP820204: 1 (Maxwell, Eddy, Hixson) - The applicants request a change from High Density Multiple Family Residential to Retail Commercial in order to assure that existing uses (ve- hicle storage lot, pest control business and chiropractic office) will not become nonconforming when zoning ordinance changes become effective. b) GP820325: 1 (Pflum, Lilley and O'Farrell, Williams House of Carpets, Forsman and Ward) - The applicants request a change from Low Density Single Family Residential to Low Density Multiple Family Residential to facilitate future development of multiple family units and to create a better density transition between multiple and single family uses in the area. STAFF COMMENTS The area surrounding the applicants' properties is largely residential in nature including both single and multiple family dwellings. The only commercially used properties are the vehicle storage, pest con- trol and chiropractic office along E1 Camino Real near Montecito. Specific concerns with regard to changing the properties on the north easterly side of Las Lomas from Low Density Single Family Residential to Low Density Multiple Family Residential are as follows: 1. Only one property on that side of the street is currently within the sewer district. Potential development of the remaining prop- erties would be more appropriate if they were in the Sanitation District although there is no prohibition on using a private sew- age disposal system for multi-family project. 2. The surrounding land uses on the northeasterly side of Las Lomas are in relatively large lot (generally one acre with some slightly larger or slightly smaller) , single family residential develop- ment. It may not be appropriate to introduce multiple family development on these properties although high density multi-family uses are directly across the street. 3. The intent of the General Plan is to provide land for this type of development in the appropriate areas, based in part on sur- rounding land uses. The 1980 Atascadero General Plan states as follows: "In keeping with the desired character of a low density residential community, development of each multi-residential area in the future needs to be considered in light of such specific factors as the topography, the traffic circulation, drainage, fire protection and the general level of use intensity at that 1oca- 2 0 • General Plan Amendments GP820204 :1/GP820325:1 tion. " The northeasterly side of Las Lomas is somewhat steeper than the remainder of the study area and, due to the sandy soil, has some drainage and erosion control problems. Common access to Las Lomas with a multi-family area reduces concerns for traffic and intensity impacts. Specific concerns with regard to changing the properties on E1 Camino Real near Montecito from High Density Multiple Family to Retail Com- mercial are as follows: 1. The applicants' primary concern is to assure conformance of ex- isting commercial businesses with the General Plan and Draft Zoning Ordinance. Under the current zoning (R-4) , the offices are a permitted use. When the new Zoning Ordinance is adopted, only temporary offices will be permitted in the Residential Multiple Family zone. Therefore, unless the proposed Amendment is ap- proved, all three of the applicants' businesses will become non- conforming uses. 2. Since there is still quite a bit of commercially designated land which is undeveloped along El Camino Real, it may be inappropriate to designate additional commercial land. There is a Retail Com- mercial cluster in the Santa Rosa intersection vicinity. This could be viewed as an expansion of that cluster . In considering the above comments on the applications that have been filed and applying them to the Study Area, the following factors should be evaluated: - desirability of expanding commercial opportunities (Note: most of the commercial uses are existing) - need for multiple family residential land - effect on area land use patterns - applicability of various General Plan policies The amendment of a general plan should also consider City-wide influ- ences on the Study Area. The principle questions to be answered in this analysis are: Should the General Plan be amended to allow existing commercial businesses to become conforming? Should property outside the Sanitation District be designated for multiple family use? It seems evident that the southwesterly side of Las Lomas and the E1 Bordo frontage are High Density Multiple Family Residential in char- acter and should so remain, but expansion of any multiple family land use designation to include property outside the Sanitation District 3 • ! General Plan Amendments GP820204:1/GP820325:1 seems inappropriate. However , in light of existing lot sizes, higher density single family designation (i .e. Moderate Density Single Family Residential) could be appropriate. FINDINGS 1. Amendment to the General Plan as proposed will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact as long as appropriate mitigation measures are introduced. 2 . Establishment of multiple family residential areas outside of the Sanitation and Improvement Districts should be discouraged. 3. Expansion of the commercial cluster in the Santa Rosa intersection area with El Camino Real is appropriate in light of existing uses and the small amount of additional commercial land being created. 4. Existing lot sizes on the northeasterly side of Las Lomas indicate that a higher density single family designation is appropriate. 5. Modification of the Land Use Map as recommended is consistent with policies set forth in the 1980 Atascadero General Plan. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above Findings, the Planning Department recommends: A) Issuance of a Conditional Negative Declaration as follows: 1. Adequate provision for drainage protection and erosion control; and B) Approval of General Plan Amendment GP820204 : 1 and denial of Gen- eral Plan Amendment GP820325: 1 as submitted with the Study Area to be changed as shown on the attached map entitled "Recommended Land Use Changes in the Montecito-E1 Camino Real Study Area. " 4 General Plan Amendments GP820204 :1/GP820325:1 ACTION Direct Staff by motion as deemed appropriate. (Note: A Resolution is required to amend the General Plan. ) REPORT PREPARED BY: Q ,,�LI , JILL KOLLMANN Planning Intern REPORT APPROVED BY: laeoizt Aelo LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director /Ps i 5 04 14 41) \y Q �1 �° r------- - ---- ---- — -- ------------------ --------------- If --- --------- ---- -- --- ---- __ - =- ---- Q @ i J, iIq ti Na •y .M 5 �-- - ----- --- .. - ij .bOT - a a cc i .15 i C" , tN q. h CL Jw 4\,Is _ :.. m ' R.M.ST` PM.S-4 �R.�ir1 •�� LAS g LOM AS AVE. N EZ'fd! �..: �."+£"+Rt-,: MI. u.)d i471 .:ci.1t -i."'.•ZOO= .. N N h CV Tel. h C� W - - •� n O O O h '1 T .. y 41) cc Q- Q CL O ty My+e — - � ,! Lu 10 1 N h I-• •� ba bm .f 1330 �. N1�^JO SO�E J30. It fit'. 1 9 E O ' O ' REAL o EL C4MINO (OLD HWY. 101) REAL $ 2L iA.JJJAMINO +CO ' CxISTlNC ZoNI Ncl CP820329: C P8202.04: Y STUn'f A R EA 611 h 3451 ai' �I - w b a `c+ ------ -------- - —— -- — -- - y , i q77CVO `. \ A ��• Al J. CV e a V �+ - a _ a 0 4: - - •` k b .1 FAMILY Q n00a O l LAS °a LOMAS X5-4 _ AVE_`. 00, 1 1 IX oor\ 01 o t I; Q 1 (p 2000, O Q "� P�zOPOSEQ ° °° CL Pr�oPOSED CoMp,1ERCIAI- M_w COMMERCIAL W M1 — •i ,p0blz_' �,� C -f X44^50'50'E 330 _ 12 at' ° . REAL "p ; EL C4MINO (OLD HWY. 101) REAL $ //�'.{]'{/ O - .¢0000 C irr.N 0/ Q lit.!!!+00 NJI�.►i)O"IV 1NJiv �. —� EXISTING, C7cNERAI_ PLAN LOW DEN S lTY C hg 2b325 I SI NGLE r-AM 1 L.Y OU ER T— -D ENS IT GP8z02a4 : 1 SINGE MIL 0:1 HIGH -DENS IT`(STU-D'( AREA MOLT f LE FAMILY r ' -y 1 3451 ry 40 ------------------- N � _ J 22 5= . --- -_- ---- T -------------_.. _— —.-.-----_--_--_- --_----_`•--- -� -- ---•-- .. ".'•_ In SGIRI > -7N\ :Z` n •✓S o _ N 00 ^_-a - 1 r to " k t qf IVi Olt h . yQ'9 9 R.M.S-1 M 5-1 d9\ LAS h LOMAS eM.s-a AVE_ A-. .y N •: .. __-'---EZ'f Z/ -; ,......:. 1. .,..y,.y u 1 c.>J -: .N- -..,-: . 00., BJ: h s l a re.- NO h Z , > 1 Q I.1J 91.7 9l DO r ` PEST CDNT l--�0L a YEH ICLE. `' °� Q * STORAc,E " a C91RDPRACTOR a " µ _ h W 1 h N - N * - - - NIi^lO yJO'E 350 If IY' vc 20,e REAL "� °o EL Cl,LMINO (OLD HWY. Ioi) REAL $ C ,Qeppo L III.N 17 AMINO � � - _ 3TA.!l3F00 EXISTING, LAND USES VACANT �P820325 1G�'82o204:1 SINGLE FAMILY STU D\� ARE/-\ OFs=IC E MULTIPLE FAMILY Y� COMMERCIAL PCX, M � 69 Pop /xv L A 5 «M� (DPAM � z 0 EL CAM/,,Vo KrAL ()AC CHA Noe 3 M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY MANAGER June 22, 1982 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN ADIEMDMENT GP820419 :1 APPLICANT: Initiated by the Planning Commission REQUEST: To consider text amendments to the Land Use Element which would eliminate specific standards for the keeping of . . animals and replace them with general policy statements On May 17 , 1982 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the subject matter unanimously approving a change in the text amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan as listed in the attached Staff Report. On June 7, 1982 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 6-82 affirming its action taken on May 17, 1982. There was only brief discussion among the Planning Commission. No one appeared on the matter. V ao��Zkl(/w *14t^l &4161� LAWRENCE STEVENS M R Y L. RDEN Planning Director City Mana er • RESOLUTION NO. 6-82 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP 820419 : 1 (PLANNING COMMISSION) AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN ELIMINATING SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS WHEREAS , the Atascadero Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the subject matter; and, WHEREAS , Government Code Section 65323 provides that a general plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and, WHEREAS , the project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary; and, WHEREAS , the General Plan is intended as a general guiding policy statement for the City. Technical development standards should be ad- dressed in the zoning ordinance which is the manual that sharply de- fines the physical requirements necessary to comply with General Plan policies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero Planning Com- mission does hereby recommend approval of General Plan Amendment GP 820419 : 1 (Planning Commission) amending the text of the General Plan Land Use Element to read as follows: 1. Change the text of the Land Use Element on page 59 of the General Plan under the heading "High Density" eliminating: " . . .The keeping of poultry and other animals is not a per- mitted use on lots of one-half acre or less. " 2. Change the text of the Land Use Element on page 59 of the General Plan under the heading "Moderate Density" eliminating: "The keeping of poultry and other animals, excepting swine, may be a permitted use. The keeping of hoofed animals shall require a minimum lot size of one acre for the first animal and an additional one-half acre for each additional animal. " 3. Change the text of the Land Use Element on Page 59 of the General Plan under the heading "Low Density" eliminating: " . . .The keeping of poultry and other animals, excepting swine, may be a permitted use subject to the same acreage provisions as listed above . " Resolution No. 6-82• 4. Change the text of the Land Use Element on Page 59 of the General Plan under the heading "Suburban Single Family Residential" eliminating: " . . . the keeping of poultry and other animals, excepting swine. . . " 5. Change the text of the Land Use Element on Page 62 of the General Plan under the heading "Residential Policy Proposals" eliminating: "8. In cases where animals are desired, a minimum of one- half acre is required for keeping poultry and small ani- mals, of one acre for a single large hoofed animal, with an additional one-half acre for each additional animal. " 6. Change the text of the Land Use Element on page 62 of the General Plan under the heading "Residential Policy Proposals" adding: 118 . In keeping with a basic goal to retain the rural atmos- phere of Atascadero, appropriate densities, minimum lot sizes, setbacks and other development standards for domestic animal raising shall be established in the Zon- ing Ordinance. " 0 On motion by Commissioner Wentzel and seconded by Commissioner Summers, the foregoing resolution is adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Lilley, LaPrade, Carroll, Summers, Wentzel and Chairman Moore NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Sherer DATE ADOPTED: June 7, 1982 SHIRLEY MOORE, Chairman ATTEST: LAWRENCE STEVENS, Planning Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney 2 CITY OF ATASCADERO Planning Department May 17, 1982 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP 820419: 1 APPLICANT: Initiated by Planning Commission REQUEST: To consider text amendments to the Land Use Element which would eliminate specific standards for the keeping of animals and replace them with general policy statements. BACKGROUND 1. Introduction and Reason for Study: During the course of public hearings on the Draft Zoning Ordi- nance, public discussion centered on establishing standards for Domestic Animal Raising (Section 9-6 .111) and Livestock Spec- ialties (Section 9-6. 114) . Since there were specific standards for animals in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, discus- sion centered around the possible conflicts between what may ap- pear in the draft zoning ordinance and what is already written in the General Plan. Additionally, "the Legislature (of the State of California) intends that the general plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compat- ible statement of policies for the adopting agency" (Section 65300 .5-California Government Code) . Since these specific stand- ards should be correctly addressed in the zoning ordinance and not the General Plan, Staff has been instructed to remove them from the Land Use Element and insert a general policy statement. 2. General Plan: See attachments: Pages 59 and 62 of the 1980 Atas- cadero General Plan - Land Use Policy Proposals 3. Environmental Determination: An initial study environmental de- scription form has been completed. The Planning Director has is- sued a Negative Declaration indicating the project will not have a significant adverse environmental effect and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. FINDINGS • 1. This amendment is consistent with the intent of State Law - Section 65300. 5 - California Government Code. GENERAL PLAN AMENDM*T GP 820419: 1 0 2. The project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 3. The General Plan is intended as a general guiding policy statement for the City. Technical development standards should be addressed in the zoning ordinance which is the manual that sharply defines the physical requirements necessary to comply with General Plan policies. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above Findings, the Planning Department recommends de- letion of those sentences on Page 59 of the 1980 Atascadero General Plan (as underlined in the attachment) that refer to minimum required lot sizes for animals and deletion of the wording of Residential Policy Proposal #8 (page 62) of the General Plan (as underlined in the attachment) which shall be replaced with the following wording: "8. In keeping with a basic goal to retain the rural atmosphere of Atascadero, appropriate densities, minimum lot sizes, setbacks and other development standards for domestic animal raising shall be established in the Zoning Ordinance." ACTION The Planning Commission should by motion direct Staff as deemed ap- propriate. (Note: Adoption of a resolution is required to amend the General Plan. ) REPORT PREPARED BY: f.- �;l/'/✓' F- D BUSS ssociate Planner REPORT APPROVED BY: LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director /Ps 2 Land uses sh 1 be limited to single-fa y dwellings, accessory buWings and uses, home occuions, public parks and playgrounds , schools, libraries and board and care facilities. Minimum lot size for the creation of new lots shall be one-half acre. This is greater than the one-quarter to one-half acre recommended in the 1968 General Plan. High Density Minimum lot size for the creation of new lots shall DELE_ iIONS be one-half acre. The keeping of poultry and other animals is not a permitted use on lots of one-half acre or less. Moderate Density Minimum lot size for the creation of new lots within the Urban Services Area shall be one acre is served by sewers and 12 acres if not served by sewers. The keeping of poultry and other animals, excepting swine, — may be a permitted use. The keeping of hoofed animals shall require a minimum lot size of one acre for the - � — first animal and an additional one-hal acre or eac — additional animal. U-) Low Density Minimum Lot sizes within the Urban Services area shall range from 12 to 2, while the minimum lot size outside C/ the Urban Services Area shall be 22 acres. Determina- tion of appropriate lot sizes should be based upon such factors as slope of access road to the building site; availability of services, especially sewers; distance from the center of the community; general character of neighboring lands; percolation and the area needed for \_. access roads to the building site. -- -J The keeping of poultry and other animals, excepting swine, may be a permitted use subject to the same acreage pro- C'- — visions as listed above. Suburban Single-Family Residential U. Land use shall be limited to single-family dwellings, j accessory buildings and uses, home occupations , truck gardening, orchards and vineyards, the keeping of poultry and other animals , excepting swine, rest homes, public p parks and playgrounds, animal hospitals (large and small animals) and nurseries (plant) . Lot sizes shall be 22 acres or more. Smaller lot sizes may be allowed in con- junction with planned residential developments provided -- that the overall density within the project is consistent with other density standards contained herein. Determina- tion of appropriate lot sizes shall be based upon such factors as slope of the access road to the building site, availability of services, distance from the center of the community, .general character of neighboring lands, percolation and the area needed for access road to building site. 5 9 .! 4. High doity residential land usesWall serve as a buffer between commercial and single-family residential areas where appropriate. 5. Residential density shall decrease "as one moves outward from the core, in order to maintain the rural atmosphere of the community. This can be accomplished by a graded increase in lot size and a graded decrease in the per- mitted density of population. 6. Multi-family residential use areas shall have a minimum building site of one-half acre. Smaller lot sizes may be allowed in conjunction with planned residential devel- opments, including planned mobile home developments and subdivisions, provided that the overall density within the project is consistent with other density standards contained herein. 7. Multi-residential density areas shall be considered in light of such. specific factors as topography,, traffic circulation, drainage, fire protection and general level of use intensity at that location. 8. In cases where animals are desired, a minimum of one- half acre is required for keeping poultry- and small animals of one acre for a single large hoofed animal, -- with an additional one-half acre for each additional animal. 9. Hazard areas (geologic, land slide, flood, etc. ) shall have appropriate development standards . 10. Lot splits shall be thoroughly evaluated and be in accordance with community plans and principles. Strict adherence to the lot sizes defined in this Plan is essential in order to retain the desired character of the community. Creation of lots smaller than those recommended must not be permitted if the maximum popu- lation of approximately 30, 000 is to be maintained. 11. Attention shall be paid to the aesthetic result of land division. Building sites shall be encouraged on natural slopes, with minimal disruption of native vegetation and watersheds, and efficient layout of access and utilities. 12. P_ program shall be developed to encourage the preserva- tion of trees , - watersheds and natural slopes and other natural amenities .from abuse and destruction resulting from Poo Poor_ design and development Practices 13. No - n confor ming uses located in residential areas shall be relocated. 14 . Where all factors are favorable, exclusive mobile home areas could satisfactorily be developed in designated neighborhood areas. 2 . M_E_M_O_R_A_N_D_U_M TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Halliday appeal from Appeals Board decision Attached is the information developed through tibe�Appeals Board hearing concerning the Halliday appeal on the location of a disposal system for their building project. Please note that your action is to hear any presentations the Halliday's wish to make and to consider the actions of the Appeals Board. You should confine your considerations to those matters that were brought before the Appeals Board and make a judgment as to whether the Appeals Board decision was a correct one. . If you consider its action to be correct based on the evidence presented to it, then you should deny the appeal. On the other hand, if you consider their actions to be incorrect, then you must support the appeal of the Halliday' s and make findings of fact supporting that conclusion. During the conduct of your hearing, you should allow oppor- tunity for Staff presentations to be made as well as any comments from the Halliday' s. The appeal process is different from that of a public hearing process in that comment from the general- pub- lic is not appropriate unless they have presented evidence before the Appeals Board. The issue is whether the _Appeals Board prop- erly made its findings based upon the evidence presented to it and that is your judgment to make. RAY WARDEN MLW: ad 6-24-82 • 0 0 M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY MANAGER June 23 , 1982 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PRIVATE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS LOCATION: 7900 San Clemente (Lot 12, Block YB) APPLICANT: Edward Halliday REQUEST: To determine that an existing watercourse is not a stream necessitating a 50 foot distance separation between it and a proposed private sewage disposal system. On May 18 , 1982 the Building and Construction Board of Appeals con- ducted a public hearing on the appeal and, with Board Member Walters dissenting, denied the appeals based on the Findings set forth in the attached Staff Report. In discussing the matter , the Board made a number of inquiries to the applicants, Planning Department Staff, Terry Orton (Westland Engineer- ing) , and John Kennaly (Twin Cities Engineering) during the course of the hearing . Mr . Orton and Mr. Kennaly appeared at the request of the Planning Department to provide any technical assistance needed on the issue before the Board. Those inquiries related to the following concerns: - past practice by the City in similar situations - past practice by the County and other cities in the County - existing percolation rates and soils type on the property - ability of system to function in the proposed location in a saturated soil condition It was the consensus of the Board of Appeals, as set forth in the adopted Findings, that the stream determination was appropriate in order to assure adequate provision for health and safety (The Board also reviewed UPC Section 1-1 (g) in its deliberations) and to assure reasonable operating conditions for the private sewage disposal system. Edward and Dave Halliday appeared in support of the appeal. They pre- sented material from the State Resources Agency which would define the subject watercourse as an ephemeral draw and not a stream. They also noted that United States Geological Service maps for the area did not Appeal of private stage disposal system requi�ments identify the watercourse as a stream. Other supporting data was also presented regarding various definitions of what a stream is . There was discussion concerning the amount of drainage in the area and con* cerning the effects of watering lawns located above septic systems. At the hearing the Hallidays presented a private sewage disposal sys- tem design which they claim was prepared by an engineer.. (Note: The plan was drawn by Mr . Halliday and was not signed or otherwise autho- rized in writing by the design engineer . The design engineer did not appear . ) The appellants also discussed the operation of a septic sys- tem under saturated soil conditions. Terry Orton, Westland Engineering, did not make a presentation, but in responding to various inquiries, noted that there were many other ac- ceptable and safer alternatives to the proposed location. Mr . Orton expressed concern that the system would function adequately in the proposed location, especially in a saturated soil condition. Mr . Or- ton also indicated that it was his experience that the building offi- cial should make the stream determination based on his knowledge of local conditions. John Kennaly, Twin Cities Engineering, did not make a presentation, but in responding to various inquiries, discussed the health impacts of various disease organisms associated with septic systems if not properly designed and located, and the impact of drainage infiltration on the operations of systems. Mr . Kennaly also noted that he would call the watercourse a stream and would not recommend placing this system closer than 50 feet to the subject watercourse unless the en- gineer ' s design incorporated certain mitigating measures. No one else appeared on the matter . ixtu LAWRENCE STEVENS M R A DEN Planning Director City Manag r /ps • 2 CITY OF ATASCADERO 1918 Gr : Gr 1979 • Planning Department May 18 , 1982 ���.SCAYDERp i -STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Appeal of Private Sewage Disposal System Requirements LOCATION: 7900 San Clemente (Lot 12 , Block YB) APPLICANT: Edward Halliday REQUEST: To determine that an existing watercourse is not a stream necessitating a 50 foot distance separation between it and a proposed private sewage disposal system. BACKGROUND 1. Applicable Building and Construction Ordinance Regulations : The installation of private sewage disposal systems is gov- erned by the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) and the Manual of Septic Tank Practice (MSTP) . Required setbacks are estab- lished by Table I-1 of the UPC (copy attached) and by Table • 2 (copy attached) of the MSTP . In addition to other setback requirements both tables specify that the building sewer line, septic tank and disposal field be a minimum of 50 feet from any stream. The text of the MSTP also states as follows : a) "Septic tanks should be located where they cannot cause contamination of any well , spring, or other source of water supply. Underground contamination may travel in any direction and for considerable distances unless filtered effectively. Underground pollution usually moves in the same general direction as the normal move- ment of ground water in the locality. . . . It is necessary . . . . to rely upon horizontal as well as vertical distances for protection. Tanks should never be closer than 50 feet from any source of water supply; and greater dis- tances are preferred where possible. " (p. 27-8 , copy attached) b) "A safe distance shall be maintained between the site (of the soil absorption system) and any source of water sup- ply., Since the distance that pollution will travel under- ground depends upon numerous factors . . . .no specified dis- tance would be absolutely safe in all localities . ordin- arily , of course, the greater the distance , the greater will be the safety provided. " (P . 9; copy attached) • Neither the UPC nor the MSTP define a stream. In addition, there is no definition provided in other adopted City ordinances . • Page Two Re: Appeal of Private Sewage Disposal System Requirements • (Halliday) May 18 , 1982 2 . Site Considerations : The subject property is approximately 17 , 000 sq. £t. in size and is located in a single family residential area of similarly sized parcels . The site slopes upward from San Clemente at an approximate slope of 15% and is traversed by a natural watercourse across its frontage near the the roadway. The watercourse continues along and across San Clemente to San Marcos towards Atascadero Creek. (See attached area map) 3 . Project Description: The applicant proposes to construct a single family residence on the property. A grading plan was submitted and, in conjunction with its resubmittal, the loca- tion of the private sewage disposal system was shown (see attached site map) . Those plans indicate the septic tank to be approximately 20 feet from the watercourse and the leach field to be straddling the watercourse with one trench on each side of it. 4 . Prior Action: a) On November 9 , 1981 , grading plans were submitted. A plan • check was made and corrections given to the applicant on November 16 , 1981. One of the corrections stated "This lot is in an area known to have a high water table. Sug- gest you have a percolation test performed and a design for a septic system before spending money to develop lot. Show proposed location and layout on site plan. " On December 22 , 1981 revised plans including a private sewage disposal system design were submitted. The attached letter dated December 30 , 1981 was forwarded to the applicant ad- vising him of the 50 foot setback requirement. It should be noted that the letter suggested discussing the matter with the engineering firm that performed the percolation test to consider an alternate design . b) On February 4 , 1982 , a letter of appeal was filed objecting to private sewage disposal system requirements related to the 50 foot setback from a stream. The letter indicated that it was not in the applicant ' s interest to have his appeal heard by City Council and he requested to be advised when the Appeals Board was appointed and seated so he could file an appeal. Page Three Re: Appeal of Private Sewage Disposal System Requirements (Halliday) May 18 , 1982 c) On February 26, 1982 (approximately) , the applicant sub- mitted a Stream Alteration Permit (copy attached) to the Planning Department. The permit issued by the Department of Fish and Game states , in part, that the applicant " . . . .intends to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of, or use material from the stream bed of, the following water: tributary to Atascadero Creek. . .. " d) On March 18 , 1982 the Planning Director, by certified mail, advised the applicant that the 50 foot requirement applied to the natural watercourse based upon his own ob- servation and consultation with the Game Warden and an engineer with Twin Cities Engineering (all of whom had individually visited the site) .. The applicant was ad- vised of the 15 day appeal period (copy of letter attached) . e) On April 2, 1982 , a letter appealing the above determin- ation was submitted by the applicant. The applicant requested additional time to prepare supporting materials before the appeal was scheduled (copy of letter attached) . f) On May 6 , 1982 , a letter scheduling the appeal was sent to the applicant after he verbally indicated that he was pre- pared to have the matter heard.. The letter requested that the applicant submit any supporting evidence for inclusion with this Staff Report for review by the Board prior to the hearing, but none has been received to date. DISCUSSION The application of the setback requirements hinges on the "stream" determination. As has been noted previously, there is no defini- tion provided in adopted City ordinances. In practice, this term has been applied to all natural watercourses from Atascadero and Graves Creeks to smaller watercourses such as this one. It should be evident that the primary purpose of distance separations is to mitigate the pollution effects of effluent from private sewage disposal systems on these watercourses. The validity of that purpose is equally applicable to both large and small watercourses. • • Page Four Re: Appeal of Private Sewage Disposal System Requirements • (Halliday) May 18 , 1982 It should be understood that distance is not the only factor affecting the pollution of watercourses by private sewage disposal systems. Other factors including soil type, slope, and system lay-out and design also can enter into the picture. However, standards such as those set forth by the UPC and the MSTP repre- sent averages based on years of testing and practice and are commonly used unless adequate justification for use of alter- native standards in individual cases is provided. In this case, an alternate system (i .e. lined systems) seems possible based on discussion with the engineering firm that performed the percola- tion test. These alternate systems must be designed by an en- gineer. Staff has reviewed and approved a number of these private sewage disposal systems. The "stream" determination made in conjunction with this project was made after careful review giving due consideration to the following factors : - past application by the Planning Department of the 50 foot setback to similar watercourses - review of the drainage characteristics of the particular watercourse - consultation with an engineer from Twin Cities Engineering who is an expert in private sewage disposal system design and who is knowledgeable of the particular site (Note: Twin Cities was hired by the applicant to do percolation tests but not to do any system design) consultation with the local Game Warden for the State De- partment of Fish and Game who, at the applicant ' s request, visited the site and issued a stream alteration permit de- fining the watercourse as a tributary of Atascadero Creek In analyzing the above determination, the Board should be aware that the Planning Department 's only objective is to assure that public health, safety and welfare are adequately protected by the prudent application of established standards. It seems that this judgement is also well supported by other persons who are both knowledgeable in this field and familiar with this particular site. Page Five • Re: Appeal of Private Sewage Disposal System Requirements (Halliday) While it is conceivable that "stream" could be better defined, it nevertheless seems apparent that the setbacks have been properly required in this case to the overall benefit of the general public. It also seems that there is a reasonable oppor- tunity to comply with these established standards or to design an alternate system which complies with their intent. In evaluating the characteristics of this particular watercourse, it is evident that past actions have resulted in impediments which reduce some of its efficiency. These include some illegal grading and fill, fencing, and road improvements with no (or inadequate) provision for drainage. Nevertheless , it is evident that the watercourse, although impeded by some development, naturally empties into Atascadero Creek. As a result, efforts to mitigate potential pollution effects to that source of water supply are both prudent and necessary. FINDINGS • 1. Evaluation of the drainage characteristics of the subject area and examination of the stream alteration permit issued by the Department of Fish and Game indicates that the subject water- course is a stream which is a tributary to Atascadero Creek, 2. It is both necessary and proper to prudently apply setback standards for private sewage disposal system from natural watercourses such as this one in order to adequately mitigate pollution effects which could be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 3. Existing impediments which reduce the efficiency of the water- course in reaching Atascadero Creek do not justify ignoring the detrimental pollution effects which can occur if the Uniform Plumbing Code and Manual of Septic Tank Practice standards are not adhered to. 4. Design of the private sewage disposal system as proposed on plans submitted to the Planning Department is not in compli- ance with adopted standards set forth in the Building and Construction Ordinance. Page Six Re Appeal of Private Sewage Disposal System Requirements (Halliday) May 18 , 1982 RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above Findings, the Planning Director recommends that the appeal be denied. ACTION The Appeals Board should, by motion, direct Staff as deemed appropriate. TO APPROVE APPEAL: Make motion setting appropriate Finding. TO DENY APPEAL: Make motion adopting recommended Findings . REPORT PREPARED/APPROVED BY: • LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director /ps i 4 i BINE PRIVATE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS 189 /el of the top c c c otic tank, or a ° )rtion of any __ _ __ a o I :h premises,ions of this j E EEEEEE EEE >, � `U a, 31 V al--tn Mt—� Ln LO CY) C (6 10 C L o v C\L60--c-i ca ° 2!t Department a `" " a 3 ° ccaa aaaa aa s -2 3 m o sequent to aQE ) ittee making Ow000"Lo `)LOO ai oa)on o aired by the cu•n t onnectingto `��° >°° o E EEE EE EEE C° ° � �� to tnN C:V tnN ��C7 ? _ m Lo O a) • N E �� �..� N r E aY cO - 0 O N cc "ui -0 _ a _ cu z E E _ r W aLL 0 LO000 U)v LOU)o � o o v `� >- _ c N U c a> ° o E .E U Q > N N 3 c T 216 cz a CL Cn ANN MLO Cn 0 M 'O N N N U L6 a) M U X L - O �� o f .8 W `-T T -CO a c m -jU `—'Y - a�aa�a�mz a� I a rn4 �a mo). o 3 �� M U0000L0L0 � o a� ° 9 a a s°. • w > ° baa) N °w ° y a) a) -0 �. cnO� OC.LO— 7 Z E EE E Ev �y oL a`LrEi o O CO N N MO n 3 t' LO LO 76 vim-. a) tq d CL ;�.. a) cd (D«, O cc O c I a�� � E 3 ° ca m . O a_ 3 a�w III a °' �— N c C: O� I I I ,— I O _N L a)'o U 3 O .U) m .a- L cz Nom~E -6 O dO LN ECO -0 U O M_ 3 CTO -tet 0 aa)a) N Q a3 a ca a) Hca tL U ° U CC 8 C N'O cd Ncn — 0 -0a UmN U °. -: N - ° E o c a), -c�- --a p o (n 0) oa d m 0) `° a (n a) Eo(6D ` U�14 - �a-0 ami 3 L ca o ; 'c C6- -0 m o� °ray U ° 3 m `O v oar ai�TO x U E N. .ac w U �.�" N cncaa3 ° N o - ° aY�w- a� a' arc— a ni U1 t y,�` `� oQ soff' YZE=cz) N � 03cnro3 �'�o� 1 =� °baa :K.-- 0— oa nm E� ..E � � c° E C> a) :3 a)roman)- a) n '0 (v �L 3 �U) � Hca c� m a�.� � mac_ a �A�pa E� � Q.> a`� roa) `° Q i� U, > aa�i� v a) c5 w I4P�'s� c_U o am_� a) a)v r_n � �L 0 c ou)< a�0i acncoU- > t0 — U ((t C CO CL �(n�woo 0d Z7co <T U)CD 1 -- x e=` k 4""�w. �x^e; .,r u.v-' '`i � ;. ,r-• T�'�'+.� '+-" t�'' „�.''`�" �°,a�'.'�fi �n, T��''"�a �'�r;�fis, �.r�'s ,""+�*s„�" "`?'�#� .r<.. � .__� y.;;xs�,wgt�:. �.yq�c'.�we��m`-k�iez•„ a~£'�'�`�*F`"�.a._.._. �''`^a�s. Y 'c •'St�'-r°+ .�s,•-., h ,`.,(� d+y..-< �" 'T�<.^+�+c ,�" ,a,.yjt�` �°'4,.',.. •c%ss �:�". `R Vic', •f' !v '. Table 2.—Minimum distance between components of sewage disposal system s Iy, Horizontal Distance (feet) • r Component Well or Water of suction supply Stream Dwelling Property ' l line line i System line (pressure) v. 9 t' Building sewer......... 50 10(a) 50 .... Septic tank................ 50 10 50 5 10 f ' Disposal field and Seepage Bed......... 100 25 50 20 rs Seepage Pit.... ........ 100 50 50 20 10 Cesspool (b)........... 150 50 50 20 15 (a) Where the water supply line must cross the sewer Iine, the bottom of thQ water service within 10 feet of the point of crossing, shall he at least 12 inches: above the top of the sewer line. The sewer line shall be of cast iron with leaded or mechanical joints at least 10 feet on either side of the crossing. (b) Not recommended as a substitute for a septic tank. To be used only when found necessary and approved by the health authority. s / epage pits should not be used in areas where domestic water sup i plies re obtained from shallow wells, or cohere there are 1' estone y� formate s and sinkholes with connection to undergrou channels through ti ich pollution may travel to water sources. Details p -twining to local water wells, such as d th, type of con- st tiction, on-struction, vera 1 zone of influence, etc., togeth with darn,the _ geological format ns and porosity of subsoil s ,ta, should consid ered in determinin lie safe allowable dista a between wells and sub- surface disposal systei Absorption Trenches A soil absorption field cons is a field of 12 inch lengths of 4 inch A.. agricultural drain tile, 2 to 3 t lengths of vitrified clay sewer pipe, or perforated, nonmetallic pe. In reas having unusual soil or coater characteristics, local ex rience shou be reviewed before selecting piping materials. The ' idividual laterals referably should not be over ,g 100 feet long, and e trench bottom and a distribution lines should be level. Use of t ore and shorter laterals is pr erred because if some- ._ thing sfrould l peen to distin b one line, most of ie field will still be serviceable. rom a theoretical moisture floc%, viec%•p hit, a spacing of twice the epth of•gravel would prevent taxing Jthe pert _alive capacity of the djacent soil: r A .mv different designs pray be used in laying out subsurfac isposal ds. The choice tray depend on the size and:shape of the ac a' ble S l2 10 t' i r i i x ; d1 9 MAN)VAI, 0� C)WOL fPcN,L pfLA6J(Gf, ��a. �; rts"ffi.�Y *.. :-. _ F?s�t Ea"�'!?°xa�` -d?1'�` Z'��—ick. "'y'!.'''�q,.�R'.7.'•�.as-i •P' '� z= g ! ,t 1: ,Il ablIlty of the subsoil. Three functions take place t :K :o provide this protection. 1 i 1„lids.—Clogging of soil with tank effluent N•, ies )t c"x amount of suspended solids in the liquid. As s vage a ,ewer enters a septic tank, its rate of How is duced )r t solids sink to the bottom or rise to the surfa . These 's �! t:nt'ct in the tank, and the clarified effluent is ischarged. i Treatment.-Solids and liquid in the t k are sub- 1 :sr,O,itiun by bacterial and natural pro sses. Bacteria ! tarietV called anaerobic which thrive in the absence ;s d I Ili% decomposition or treatment of se vage under anae- :,t )n+ termed "septic." hence the name E the tank. Sewage 1 !+ "ern ,u )jected to such treatment c,lius s, less clogging than (ol taining the same amount o' suspended solids. y w?i 1tora,re.—Sludge is an a -umulation of solids at s _ r::!• t:ulk, while stunt is a pa iallNsubmerged ntat of 0 :h.tl nl:ly t ,-m at the Sur of the fluid in the tank. i llln to a less r cle7ree, will e digested and compacted r (,)lute. Howe er, no mat r how efficient the process is a n:ert solid neater it evill main. Space must be provided r : ) s tnre this residue earl the interval between cleanings; ke and scum will o ritually be scoured from the tank the disposal field. t i1 s lcsignc(l, const,- cte maintained, and operated, septic cc!rile in accompli ting eir purpose. s \(' position of it optic tan in a typical subsurface disposal tl:l;ed in Figi -e 11 (page 5). The liquid contents of the 1) ate clisch lged First into t e septic tank (13), and finally urt:lce .lbs ption field (C). Ik i PT ,c\v.l I • soli(ls settle to the b tont of the tank, forming t a l iud�e. I h lighter solids, incluc 'ng fats and greases, rise g utd urin a lager of con 'derable portion of the f lit1 g uetied ill]( h dcconll )sition ot-digestion. hber:lted flout the Sludge, Cal'1'}111” :1 portionl:u uu lacc. wllcre [hey acc urllulate wit the scant. Ordi- 1 { n .cl,u fu,-ther di,gestiort in the scum layer. :uul a portion s 1 ;,) ;ilc slut?fie bl..nket On the bottol)1. This action is re- (:r IS much �lea,t in the scant layer. The sett 'ng is also c ut ;�a,ihratoll in the sludge bianket. Fart e-more, I ? ;i:clt tvi(Icr Ouctuatlolls of Ho1i in small tanks t an in elfcct has Even reco t n ze(1 in Table 5 (page 'p), ;x • + :( ic• Mllulended mill;n.ttnl liquid capacities of ho�tsel t a ' :w � ,) —�clatic. t.utks shunld 1)r luca:e<itvl;^ t `,. re thec cannot cause 1 ps �rllrsr`t, !! Of .lii1 tCll. ,pl'lil<� O,' other i011rCe 01 \(aloe' supply. !} Coll(;,Ill i tl;l t loll 111:11 - ` crave, iu aril direction and for con- 27 vo �� pip siderable distances, unless filtered effectively. Under ground pollution usually moves in the same general direction as the normal movement of the ground N+•ater in tile locllity__Ground water moves in the direc- t._.---- - tion of the slope or gradient of the water table, i.e., from the area of higher water table to areas of lower water table. In general, the water x table follows the general contour of the ground surface. For this reason, septic tanks should be located- downhill from wells oi. sp-ings; Sewage ---- --- from disposal systems occasionally contaminate wells having higher surface elevations. Obviously, the elevations of disposal systems are almost always higher Than the level of water in such wells as may be f located nearh%; hence, pollution from a disposal system on a lower ns surfacr. elevation nlxy still travel downward to the water bearing stra- tum as shown in Figure 12, below. It is necessary, therefore, to reh is awthee is reproduced at,,tlle ort b� �aifferent }. back of -rep _ ��qde reproduction—method—to—p better-detail. _ Le " /9F -- . NOS UK K M N +r Y �.p[aGIiOIMD _ - Figure 12.—Pollution of well from sources with lower surface elevations. M, upon horizontal as .+•ell as vertical distances for protection. Tanks should never be closer than 50 ,feet from any source of grater supply; and greater dttirtnces :nc preferred where_possible. n The septic tank should not be locate c] within 5 feet of :ul}' building, z as structural damage• nlay result during construcuoil or seepage may enter the basement. '1-he tank should not be located in swampy areas, 1 :v nor in areas subject to flooding. 1,',"'genelal, the tank should be located where the largest possible ;rrea will be available for the disposal field. Consideration should also be given to the location from the standpoint &` of cleaning and maintenance. Where public sewers may be installed at a future date, provision should he Made in the household plumbing system for connection io stich sewer. 28 ,._. MANQNL- 0f "G 1At1 k P�PcG�6C � I 350 o Gl3r ; f . a c 400 _ W 250 A OC d W a 200 W OC ` Q Z 150 _ Lb I i Q W I 100 W I I I i DC I 0 50 i • 0 I 0 10 20 30 4' 50 60 .4 PERCOLATION RATE IN MINUTES P INCH i Figure 3.—Absorption area requirements for pr4ate reside es. tVh a soil absorption system is determined to be use ble, three t)'pe of design may be considered: Absorption trenches, seep ae beds, an seepage pits. A modification of the standard absorption tr ch is scussed onz p.ge 20 giving credit for more than the standard 12 in es «' of gravel de th in the trench.- _ The selection of the absorption system will be dependent to some extent on the location of the system in the area under consideration. A safe distance should be maintained between the site and any source y of water supply-• Since the distance that pollution will travel under- ground deics pends upon numerous factors, including the of the subsoil formations and the quantity of sewage di chargedstno specified distance would be absolutely safe in all localities.Ordinarily, Of course, the gu•eater the distance, the greater will be the safety ro- vided. Ing p eneral, location of components of sewage disposal systems should be as shown in the following table. 9 • i i AANMI "Ir V T��� 100�i V fI- F ROBERT J.WILKINS,JR. CITY ATTORNEY MAYOR P. O. BOX 749 WILLIAM H.STOVER ATASCADERO.CA 93423 MAYOR PRO-TEMPORE (805) 466.5678 GEORGE P. HIGHLAND � . � f MARJORIE B. MACKEY INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 POLICE DEPARTME ROLFE NELSON � (805) 466-8600 HURRAY L.WARDEN ADMINISTRATION BUILDING '. - A ".CITY-MANAGER/CLERK POST OFFICE BOX 747 ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93423 FIRE DEPARTMENT PHONE (805) 466-8000 6005 LEWIS AVENUE ATASCADERO. CA 93422 (805) 466-2141 December 30, 1981 Mr. Ed Halliday 7900 San Clemente Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Mr. Halliday: In reviewing your grading plan, I find a problem with the location of your proposed private sewage disposal system. The "Manual of Septic Tank Practice" and the "Uniform Plumbing Code" requires the leach field to be located a distance of 50 ' from q natural water course. • I have taken the liberty to discuss the problem with John Kenally the engineer who signed your percolation test report. May I suggest you take your preliminary plans to him for a review of your proposed septic system layout. He may be able to suggest an alternative to the plan you propose. Sincerely, !�- L- O. D. SMITH Chief Building Inspector ODS/dc 210fication :To. lI j - L "I J -S-) ST;rLZ Pr RLGAI'DL:G S`rP2;u Z3 :D AVI'LRATIOiT iTOTIFICA'1IO1: • THIS is a statement by the-State of California, Department of Fish and Game, hereinafter called the Department , regarding streambed alterations ro osed b State of �� = �,_ _, hereinafiter caller: the operator. VMREAS, pursuant to Section U(_:) of the California Fish and Game Code , the operator, on the day of ��N ��___ -, 19+,t, notified the Department that he intends to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change the bed, channel; or bank of, or use material from the streaiabed of, the following; water: 'I ;;�,.,;-•�c cti__in the County of 53� E�__;_c ���r�, State of California. -- - -,-- _ WHEREAS, the_DepartneAt.hereby Certifies that an inspection of subject area was made on the day of �— /-vz�� I-; , 19Yz, by .the following Department personnel: _� t=',1 �: 1;•� / _ and it was determined that existing fish and wildlife resources will not be adversely affected by such operations. THEREFORE., no measures -to protect fish and wildlife during the operator's work are proposed. , If the operator's work changes from that as stated in his notification specified above, this statement is no longer valid. The • operator shall submit a new notification of his proposed work to the Department pursuant to'the-California Fish and Game Code. Pothine in this statement authorizes the operator to trespass on any land or property, nor does it relieve the operator of responsibility for compliance with applicable federal, state or local laws or ordinance-.. Department Representative i _ `! Title %._--- Department of Fish and Game State of Cali fornis- Date_ ------- 1 _ • FG 1053 'f,�•h Ate' 9 f w K 178 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE 132 and Administrative Authority so finds, no building permit shall be issued and no private sewage disposal shall be permitted. Where space or soil conditions are critical, no building permit shall be issued until engineering data and test reports satisfactory to the Administrative Authority have been submitted and approved. (g) Nothing c in is ppendix shall e construed to prevent the Administrative Authority from requiring compliance with higher requirements than those contained herein,where such higher requirements are essential to maintain a safe and sanitary condition. 1-2 — Capacity of Septic Tanks The liquid capacity of all septic tanks shall conform to Tables 1-2 and 1-3 as determined by the number of bedrooms or apartment units in dwelling occupancies and the occupant load or the number of plumbing fixture units as determined from Table 4-1, whichever is greater in other building occupancies. The capacity of any one septic tank and its drainage system shall be limited by the soil structure classification, as specified in Table 1-5. TABLE 1-5 Required Sq. ft. of Maximum Septic Tank Leaching Area/100 gals. Size Septic Tank Capacity Allowable . (m2/m3) (m3) 20-25 (4.7-5.8) 7500 (30) 40 (9.3) 5000 (20) 60 (14) 3500 (14) 90 (20.9) 3000 (12) 1.3 — Area of Disposal Fields and Seepage Pits l The minimum effective absorption area in disposal fields in square feet (m2) of trench bottom, and in seepage pits in square feet (m2) of side wall, shall be predicated on the required septic tank capacity in gallons (m3) and shall conform to Table 1-4 as deter- mined for the type of soil found in the excavation, and shall be as follows: 1. When disposal fields are installed, a minimum of one hundred and fifty (150) square feet (14M2) of trench bottom shall be provided for each system exclusive of any hard pan, rock, clay or other impervious formations. For large specially designed and approved system, side wall area in excess of the required twelve (12) inches (304.8 mm) and not to exceed thirty-six (36) inches (914.4 mm) below the leach line may be added to the one hundred and fifty (150) square feet (14 m2) trench bottom area when computing absorption areas. 2. The minimum effective absorption area in any seepage pit shall be calculated as the excavated side wall area below the t a •3 .a . SUB-E IM S � Asr v I C ,C• S C Ss r*. 1�� ' '' rte' _''` •w�"'' L T 10 ;e 19 - b - a H CARME_IT _ Sp o O 5" 6 AIA >S• r �` a rr .1 fin, <-.�"G_�.-mow-^a j '� � \y F i.x ♦ � - r •.c _;j.._ k r 4 •.�- 3•i.-lir. ��.. �•; a �^••e'`r•L.�"�i'.' -t :i^•."``+' _ w{.. �-' r s '`�.'� s tier i � F'p..sca ti .aT• ut, Y` ...a.:�'r,. '+,a• - ,ai 1.�: �1 ' ���i!t,�ti x F Jt�� �� �?��� •w'{. f C.F.4 r��c-�."3-�" �`"s ``�' -�?� ',xr'!`<*'<=r����� '>.. {`r`( � s" � '�� i P!r�,•'`r "• '' 7.�.- �' . �� x �a � 4 .�'Ti 't .`'. ,y.��.'r,°•f';� •�. �-�7°a S/.n e >- 27 - ��d 1 .Y � i -'-f.'� :�� - .� yp. � •t r� to �.. "3. •,. �F ,qi > Z L:fF.,•- �: -J tr�" � ��.zrZ �c�,.�� �a�w ;,i, �.� E -#�'.r L _ i �a' y. - t'S k^ �7�..A` l K.,iS }`.1 {� •1R A ? t.�9a+ " $.• ' �' x � 111_i.:.-( yrr c'�.3'�ci z ts. 3+r r..- w` - Ji NN' ,-c 'x' a.k `"'._.�. i a'�5�� r .:3'�� r�.,,� 3 w� -w r. - � r•;L MA TA`a . �..: rf. `•"i•5 i : kj t.'.c �-a� '^�•�'' '� A^.S A yy p4 n & �� ..�'c.Y^7a, ♦ -r `� �""� ec. r• +. ! fit.��3v NO '-��xtl' � ;?y• ice• .r � �--lt /r .��'Q t-r �� .' �F TDF OF F Y -r .r SEP7 fc W max , RE T-A NIR S t_i h`-- _ --��\ ,o \� TELE W..y /.\ �.-^'/�•\' J.S.. � 1��\ ' ROBERT J.WILKINS,JR. . \y- MAYOR .\J WILLIAM H.STOVER MAYOR PRO-TEMPORE � s� eiC® GEORGE P. HIGHLAND MARJORIE B. MACKEY INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 0 ROLFE NELSON ADMINISTRATION BUILDING MURRAY L.WARDEN _ CITY MANAGER/CLERK POST OFFICE BOX 747 ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93422 FIRE DEPARTMENT. PHONE (805) 466-8000 6005 LEWIS AVENUE ATASCADERO,CA 93422 . (805) 466.2141 REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY For the Council Meeting of June 28, 1982 No. 20 • 1. REPORT OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES LEGAL ADVOCACY COMMITTEE The report of the. League Legal Advocacy Committee of May 17, 1982 revealed that the committee found three cases of significance involving cities for which it recommended amicus participation by consenting cities: a. City and County of San Francisco v. San Francisco Municipal Court This case involves the determination of the standards to be followed in the issuance of inspection warrants in connection with San Fran- cisco`s-mandatory inspection portion of the rehabilitation assistance programa The city was granted a writ of mandate against the municipal court to vacate its order quashing inspection warrants previously issued in conjunction with the inspection program. The case is now pending on appeal. b. Zavala v. City of Glendale This case is pending on appeal by the city following an award of dam- ages based on a finding of a dangerous condition of public property resulting from the inadequate lighting of a city street where the plaintiff as a pedestrian was struck by an automobile driven by a drinking and speeding driver. The trial court held that such a driver is a foreseeable use of a public street for which a public entity be- comes liable in the event of an intersection accident. It is noted that there was overwhelming evidence available of the adequacy of street lighting at the site of the accident. Nevertheless, the city was found 100 percent negligent. REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY No. 20 - Page 2 c. Canon Investment Company v. The Permanent Rent Control Board of the City of Santa Monica, et al. This case is pending on appeal after the grant of a writ of prohibition against the city's enforcement of charter amendments establishing rent and condominium controls on the grounds that the regulations were an unconstitutional exercise of the city's police power. Time wise,- the charter amendments were adopted between the grant of a tentative map and final map to the plaintiff. Among the issues on appeal is whether the approval of a tentative map pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act for the conversion of an apartment house into condominiums precludes any subsequent regulatory requirements under a city's police power. Other cases of interest called to our attention by the committee include: d. Cedar Ridge Associates v. County of Nevada, et al. This case is pending on appeal and represents a challenge to the con- stitutionality of Government Code section 65956 under which a develop- ment project is "deemedapproved" if the responsible public agency fails to act to approve or disapprove it within one year from the filing of the application therefor. The appeal follows a ruling by the trial court that the provision is unconstitutional under prior case law requiring a due process notice and hearing where land deci- sions will constitute a substantial or significant deprivation of the property rights of others. e. Baker v. City of Santa Monica In this case, the Los Angeles Superior Court approved the revised regulations implementing the city's rent control ordinance, finding that those regulations provided for a just and reasonable rate of return as required. As described by the court, the principal charac- teristics of the regulations are: "In determining 'fair return', the net operating .income or 'return on value' approach is used. . . .The net operating income (NOI) equals the gross income less operating expenses. Gross income equals the sum of gross rents, interest from rental de- posits, income from miscellaneous facilities, and all other income received from use or occupancy of rental units. From this is sub- tracted uncollected rents due to vacancies and bad debts. Operating expenses include real property taxes, utility costs, management ex- penses, normal repair and maintenance, owner-performed labor, license and registration fees, and capital expenses (at a total cost of less than $100 per benefited unit, and amortized portion of capital expenses otherwise allowed by regulations) . Operating expenses do not include avoidable expenses, mortgage, principal and interest payments, penalties or fees incurred for violations, certain legal fees, depreciation, or any reimbursed expenses. . . .The rent control board may permit individual petitioners to increase rents so that the landlord's NOI will be in- creased at 40 percent of the increase in the Consumers Price Index (CPI) over the base year 1978." REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY No. 20 - Page 3 f. Building Industry Association, etc. v. City of Oxnard By memorandum opinion, the Ventura County Superior Court granted the city's motion for summary judgment in an action challenging as viola- tive of the "special taxes" provisions of Proposition 13 the city's waste water connection, water service connection, and growth require- ments capital fees. 2. RECENT DECISIONS OF INTEREST a. Stock Cooperative Conversion Ordinance Unconstitutional The C.A. 2nd has held that a municipal ordinance regulating stock P cooperative conversions was unconstitutional as applied to a conver- sion project that was unable to comply with it. The court held that the ordinance deprived the company of its property without due process of law in violation of Article 1, Section 1 of the State Constitution. The court said that the requirements were "arbitrary, with no real and substantial relation to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. " The ordinance was "the functional equivalent of a blanket prohibition of plaintiffs' lawful use of their property," said the court, and such a prohibition was not "reasonably related to the health, safety, and welfare of the public." (Shelter Creek Develop- ment Corporation v. City of Oxnard, C.A. 2nd, May 26, 1982.) b. Local Agency Held Subject to Arbitration The C.A. 3rd has held that a city metropolitan transit district may be required to submit to arbitration under a federal act when it re- ceives financial assistance from the federal government. The district received funds under the Urban Mass Transportation Act. (Stockton Metropolitan Transit District v. Division 276 of the Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, C.A. 3rd, May 25, 1982.) C. Age Restrictions are .OK for Condominiums The C.A. 3rd has upheld the legality of age restrictions contained in the regulations of condominium projects. Plaintiffs bought a unit and agreed to be bound by the covenants, conditions, and regulations restricting occupancy to persons 18 years of age or over. Thereafter, their son was born. They were given notice of the violation. The court said the age restriction was a reasonable equitable servitude that "clearly violates no statute" and was "not subject to attack as being either arbitrary, discriminatory, or contrary to public policy." (O'Connor v. Village Green Owners Association, C.A. 2nd, May 25, 1982. ) d. Posting of a Termination Notice Held to be a Violation of the Right of Privacy The C.A. lst has ruled that the public posting of a termination notice of a city employee amounted to a prima facie violation of the right • of privacy guaranteed by the California Constitution. The employee REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY No. 20 - Page 4 was discharged. He alleged that a notice was posted in a common work- room detailing the reasons for his termination and that he subsequently learned it was posted by or at the direction of a city employee acting within the scope of his employment. The court held that the complaint alleged facts amounting to a prima facie violation of the right to privacy and therefore was not subject to demurrer. (Payton v. City of Santa Clara, C.A. 1st, May 25, 1982.) e. Condominium Development Upheld The C.A. 2nd has upheld approval of a condominium development in West- wood by the Los Angeles City Council. Opponents contended that the city had failed to comply with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. The court held that the city had complied with both statutes and that opponents had received a fair hearing. (Markley v. City of Los Angeles, C.A. 2nd, May 12, 1982.) f. Condo Conversion Ruling Reversed The C.A. 2nd has held that in a proposed condominium conversion case, vacancy rate is "merely a consideration factor" in determining the reasonableness of a relocation assistance plan. The council had turned the plan down after the planning commission had found in accordance with the applicable ordinance that less than 50 percent of the dwelling units were occupied by persons over the age of 62. Basis for the coun- cil's disapproval of the map was "lack of available comparable rental units." The court reversed, holding that there was no support for the council's finding that the plan was unreasonable because of the low vacancy rate in the area. Nor did such a finding support the council's decision to deny plaintiff's tentative map application. The court de- termined that the ordinance did not require a finding of unreasonable- ness when provision was made for the tenants pending the availability of housing. Since a lack of comparable rental units would thus cause no harm to special tenants, the low vacancy was not considered a con- trolling factor as to the "legitimate concerns of those tenants." (Krater v. City of Los Angeles, c.A. 2nd, April 20, 1982.) g. Sewer User Fees are Not Taxes The U.S.C.A. 9th has held that user fees charged by a county sanita- tion district were not taxes and therefore were not claims entitled to priority under the Bankruptcy Act. (Bankruptcy of Lorber Industries, U.S.C.A. 9th, April 28, 1982.) h. Spa is Not a Swimming Pool The C.A. 2nd has held that a contract to construct a spa is not covered by the statute regulating swimming pool construction contracts and thus need not comply with its requirements. The court held that the term "swimming pools" was unambiguous and was not intended by the i REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY No. 20 - Page 5 legislature to be covered by the statute. The court stated that the legislature had not defined the term, assigned it a meaning other than its ordinary meaning, or indicated that it intended a broader meaning to apply. Thus, the court concluded effect must be given to the plain meaning of the words chosen by the legislature. (California Pools, Inc. v. Pazargad, C.A. 2nd, May 10, 1982.) i. Use of Impasse Procedure The C.A. 1st has ruled that a city discriminated against members of an employees organization for resorting to impasse procedures outlined in a municipal ordinance. In this case, the city reneged on a commit- ment to make pay increases retroactive. (Campbell Municipal Employees Association v. City of Campbell, C.A. 1st, May 4, 1982.) j . EIRs and Zoning Amendments The C.A. 3rd has held that Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) prepared for use in considering amendments to a county general plan must compare the environmental impacts of the proposed amendments to the existing environment and not to the existing plan. (Environmental Planning and Information Council v. County of El Dorado (Citizens for Sensible Growth) , C.A. 3rd, April 30, 1982.) k. Police Use of Lights and Sirens The C.A. 3rd has held that the duty on police officers to exercise due care for the safety f others during a vehicle pursuit may include the duty to sound a siren or flash a red light in warning. The court said that "police officers pursuing a suspect have no special exemption from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of others" but merely from the presumption of negligence that would arise for the violation of a safety rule. " (City of Sacramento v. Superior Court, C.A. 3rd, April 30, 1982.) 1. LACTC Sales Tax Does Not Need Two-Thirds Voter Approval The Cal.Sup.Ct. has held that the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) may impose a "retail transaction and use tax" in Los Angeles County with less than two-thirds voter approval. The court concluded that the LACTC was not a special district within the meaning of Section 4 of Proposition 13, since it said such special districts were those authorized to levy property taxes, and this commission wasn't so authorized. (Los Angeles County Transportation Commission v. Richmond, Cal.Sup.Ct. , April 30, 1982.) 3. PENDING LITIGATION a. City of Atascadero v. Daly, et al. The litigation remains on appeal. REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY No. 20 - Page 6 4. PROSECUTIONS a. People v. Richard Russell This is a pending prosecution for violation of Municipal Code section 19.08.01 tree removal without a permit, and section 19.08.050, grading without permit. Respectfully subm tted, ALLEN GRIMES City Attorney AG:fr M E M O R A N D U M TO• City Council FROM: Larry McPherson SUBJECT: Halliday Appeal of Drainage Calculations - 7900 San Clemente At the meeting of June 14, 1982, Council heard the second . appeal of Mr. Edward" Halliday, protesting conditions imposed by the City in conjunction with the sizing of a driveway culvert for his lot at 7900 San Clemente. Council instructed Mr. Halliday they had no intention of discussing engineering calculations at such an appeal and instructed Mr. Halliday to present any cal- culations to my office. As background to this issue, Mr. Halliday presented calculations to this office performed by an employee of the Soil Conservation Service to satify the requirement of providing engineered drainage calculations to size the driveway culvert for his lot at the subject address. This office could not verify the results of those calculations since we were not familiar with the methods used nor the assumptions made in the calculations. Requests for clarification did not result in this department receiving the requested information. At this point, a member of my staff performed a rough cal- culation of the runoff and pipe size requirement. and presented the results to Mr. Halliday in order to aid him in resolving the pipe sizing problem. ' Mr. Halliday rejected the results of this work and was verbally abusive to the employee trying to assist him. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Halliday filed an appeal of the culvert sizing requirements with the Planning Department, even though this issue was still unresolved. The appeal was scheduled before Council on two separate occasions, with action being deferred pending receipt of any engineering in- formation from Mr. Halliday for staff review. On June 16, 1982 , Mr. Halliday brought in calculations performed by Central Coast Engineering. I reviewed this information and re- sponded, in writing, to the engineer on the same day, expressing disagreement with information and assumptions made in their cal- culations. A copy of that letter is attached for your information In my letter of June 16, 1982 , I also included a copy of the drainage calculations performed by Twin Cities Engineering on May 24 , 1982 at the request of this office. This work was contracted at City expense for the express purpose of verification of the • Memo to Council: Halliday page two various calculations made by the City and by the appellant. Twin Cities Engineering arrived at a design flow of 15. 4 cubic feet per second while Central Coast Engineering had 7. 2 cubic feet per second. My reason for including the Twin Cities calculations in my letter to Central Coast was to allow the engineer the benefit of the information I already had in reconciling the differences between the two calculations. On June 22, 1982, I received a letter of response from Central Coast Engineering indicating that the engineer felt the results of his original calculations were valid. A copy of this letter is attached. At this point, the only disagreement remaining centers on the selection of a proper runoff coefficient used in the design flow calculation. I have attached a copy of the table of runoff coefficients that are a part of the Standard Drawings and are widely used in this County:- As you can see the values are based on the following variables: type of development, soil type, and average slopes in the drainage runoff area. I feel the value used should be at least 0. 40 while the original value selected by Central Coast Engineering was 0. 10. The engineer, in his letter of June 21, 1982, has revised the drainage coefficient to 0. 20, in response to my suggestionthat the drainage basin was less than 15 acres and not the 30 acres he showed in his original calculations In light of the fact that the only area ofdisagreement apparent is the value selected for the 'runoff coefficient selected to determine the design runoff, it is my recommendation that this determination is properly made by the Director of Public Works and not subject to appeal to the City Council. The selection of the coefficient is strictly based on engineering experience and judgement along with a careful review of the field conditions and cannot properly be made by a non-technical board. This recommendation would have been made at an earlier date, however I was unsure of what the appeal issues were until re- ceiving the information from the appellant on June 16th. �r zyf g RENCE McPHERSON Director of Public Works a LM:vh 6-24-82 att. Revisions Approvals Descrip/lon Approved Dole County Engineer Recommended by De"Co. $ZQ 7S TALE OF COEFFICIENT 2UNOFF CHAiZT COEFFICIENT OF RUNOFF FOR* TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT TYPE OF SOIL** SLOPE-<2%; 2% to 10%; X10% ri 0,000 sq. ft. C .35 .40 .45 S .25 .35 .40 0,000 sq. ft. C .40 .45 .55 5 it S .30 .40 .45 z 6,000 sq. ft. C .45 .55 .65 it S .35 .40 .50 APARTMENTS C .50 .60 .70 " S .40 ; .50 ; .60 INDUSTRIAL C .55 .65 .75 it S .45 .55 .65 COMMERCIAL C .75 .80 .85 S .70 .75 .80 I-DENSE VEGETATION C . 15 25 .35 ait S . 10 . 15 . 20 a MODERATE VEGETATION C 20 30 40 - a S . 15 .20 25 SPARSE VEGETATION C 25 .35 .45 S .20 .25 ; .30 IMPERVIOUS; PAVED, ETC. .85 .90 .95 * Note: These values are intended to be a minimum; higher values may be required by the County Engineer. ** Note: Soil Type C = Clay, Adobe, Rock or Impervious Material S = Sand, Gravel, Loam or Pervious Material SpecifiCotion Ref. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Scale.' ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT T &E OF COEFFICIENT Drowing No. ,C'000FF NACT 0-2 rows: Ir le:g.3.7.� CENTRAL COAST ENGINEERING } 396 Bucklev Road San Luis Obispo June 21 , 1981 California 93401 City of Atascadero P.O. Box 747 Atascadero CA 93423 Attn: Lawrence McPherson Subject: Halliday Project Dear Lawrence, Concerning your letter to our office, I feel that our recommendation for the 18" pipe is correct and that 2:1 gross planted slopes will provide adequate erosion control . The drainage area has extremely dense vegetation and the 0. 10 factor should still be close. In addition the underlying ground is shale in nature and provides good percolation. If the adjustment is made for the 13.8 acres of actual area instead of the 30 acres we used, this effectively increases the runoff factor to 0.217 which should be more than adequate. Using the calculated runoff of 7.2 cfs and the method utilized by Twin Cities Engineering for required head for the 18" CMP, I calculate a required entrance head of 0.72 feet. We initially called for 1 .0 feet of entrance head. According to the I.T.S. pipe flow charts , the 18" CMP will flow full on 1% grade. The nomograph used for the full flow condition was correct. In summary, we feel confident that the initial recommendation of the 18" CMP is correct. The 50% reduction of drainage area in effect increases the runoff factor to 0.20. For half acre lots with dense vegetation this is very conservative. Using our runoff of 7.2 cfs and Twin Cities approach, 0.72 feet of entrance head is required. We initially called for 1 .0 feet. Thank you for your letter and please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Very truly yours, 1 1 Ben L. Maddalena cc: Mr. Halliday Telephone(805) 544-3278 -/rROBERT J.WILKINS,JR. lllY CITY ATTORNEY .+ MA�oR P. 0. BOX 749 • \YILLIAM H.STOVER ATASCADERO. CA 93423 MAYOR PRO-TEMPORE + (805)466.5678 GEORGE P. HIGHLAND " t1 MARJORIE B. MACKEY INCORPORATED JULY 2, 1979 ;. R= - POLICE DEPARTMENT ROLFE NELSON - (805) 466.8600 MURRAY L.WARDEN ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ` CITY MANAGER/CLERK POST OFFICE BOX 747 ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93423 FIRE DEPARTMENT PHONE (805) 466-8000 6005 LEWIS AVENUE. ATASCADERO.CA 93422 (805) 466.2141 June 16 , 1982 Central Coast Engineering 396 Buckley Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA Attention: Mr. Ben Maddalena Dear Ben; Mr. Edward Halliday presented your calculations to this office today in order to arrive at a properly sized culvert in connection with a grading plan he has submitted for his property at 7900 San Clemente. In reviewing your calculations, I find I cannot agree with the values assigned in the following in- stances: 1) The value you used for the runoff coefficient was 0. 1, which according to County Standard Drawing D-2 , is the value assigned to rural land, with sandy soil, average slopes of under 20 , with dense vegetation. This property is located within an area that allows acre single family development, with average slopes within the drainage basin approaching 100 . This office considers the ultimate development of the drainage basin in assignment of runoff coefficients . 2) You used 30 acres for the contributory drainage area. A field review by Twin Cities Engineering indicated the area to be 13 . 8 acres. ` 3) You used the nomograph for a submerged outlet culvert flowing full to calculate the pipe size. I feel the proper calculation would utilize the nomograph for C.M. culverts with entrance control . I have attached a copy of the culvert design cal- culations performed for the subject property by Mr. Kennaly of Twin Cities Engineering, which is one of the basis of our consideration of the drainage improvement as proposed by Mr. Halliday' s grading plans . Mr. Ben M alana page two As discussed with you by telephone today, I am requesting you review the calculations accepted by the City and perhaps you can respond to the items mentioned in this letter. We discussed the possibility of using a smaller diameter pipe under the driveway with provision for some overflow during higher flows, assuming that proper measures are taken to protect the driveway fill from erosion or washout. This solution and a number of other alternatives have alreadv been dis- cussed with Mr. Halliday and I would be happy to discuss with you any proposal you feel is reasonable. Please be aware that this item is subject to appeal to City Council, has not been resolved to date, and any findings or recommendations you may have will likely be presented by Mr. Halliday to Council to support his appeal . By a copy of this letter Mr. Halliday will be made aware of the disposition of this drainage calculation review. Please feel free to call if you have any further questions, and be assured I will make every effort to resolve this matter. Sincerely l/LAWRENCE McPHERSON Director of Public Works LM:vh cc: Edward Halliday City Manager Planning Director att. El 044 Culvert Design for E. Halliday - Lot 12 Block Atascadero Q = CIA C = 0.10 tc = 15 Min. I o = 2.9 A = 30 Acres Q = .10x2.9x30 = 7.2cfs From Norrograph using 1 ' head. Use 18" CMP or 18" Conc Pipe The pipe entrance and erosion control design assumes 2:1 slopes planted with grass CENTRAL COAST ENGINEERING 396 BUCKLEY ROAD SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF. �r /w` BEN L. MADDALENA RE 12545 s Ct\t I\, or CAu� ' Revisions Approv,. Dot c ID lion Aporoved Dole Count Dpvi",rr hkc,asrrarrindro' tr . i - AREAS OF A7"RAGE ANNUAL RAINFALL OF 18 TO 22 INCHES ' i I I I ij l: " . l• 1-11! hl L .i 1 1. 1411;t1 Lit i I I i� .{I�il, ilt(��'f�llll�!'1 rr"tnll11� I" X1:::: :1.1 '1( l l 11 i•i t�ll ll.�l li) 11 J It likl: �� t ? 1 �t1 .i, {. i�';ii[h��h; i i.i�t = - _` - '� _ t..� c .�i�'t•-r'��'I... �� �--:i: • 'iZ 111[t t a '!:., %7 i� — _ jig!! c I f n kTG -1~� j o :I: %r r . rH ti r Y, n tit,.++ y•�• ,, �-^ •[ ` ( t �� .1'? 4' I I�' l iT(Y.7't(4+ T''S+"i-r i- �"_,-; , a '('^a .,1 �rl 1' i1, �' 1 !" -:� r� }t�r �}:��I t 7�T�' T.1 � . -} f - 1 -• �• T� _ } r , t• id �I {, �r t 'i I ' t -+ ,� r+ '�. ' ' t' N*�•;ftT.-r-t''T li _x .• 1. � I'Ii 7 Tt t• rt� *• t' ! i t �: ri :- U I i� I I 1 i 1��, I ','i III -` - --j !.( I L, � .•. I :i .l.i ! t1 1 ' t�ll P_ECUR2ANCE WTEZ L!j ri�I - :� I t I 11 n: .1�!�' � f ,.'� r, ��I � Ifi'II I'��I �:;�� 'tn t - - -i ") ,I� � � Illr _ � �.► . iii,i { j 1t 7 yf k� fir" r ^z7 r , r1 .TlTi _K t i flT! a i � }+•-t�ti! �1_�t -;.-e'-'..�..._ ��� r!'�L��i I•r r {�:.1'-.? U7�1I:i I W - I E~ 1 .!- �.. T�_ :� �' rl i TI I• i+� r !4 it myti �1� t 'ri lj'�tTkrr ,ut_ C _ _ -r u , u t Uf��l 't r(' , �ayrM� 41 n; r� < _,� T t} 1 _ a �.. _ y+ r +tTitr' Im , r " -1-1-•._. '-It t"'-r1t^* I 'r'..i PT 1^1 7rrt t l * 1(ijit 1t TT Ti- Irr 1 t 11 t1 t1 nl1�l t r�ll;�i l I ��•'�� t '�� 1��tYj' i�� 4t'i Minutes Hours t Speuf;cOLon Ref. cOUNry ^r SAN LUIS OBISPO A£/NG/NECRING 1�D/£PPARRrucmr� IN fNL�l/ r Ororin� N0. , !�� lP.lTln,A f ri ivi/z- n 7 2000 -'- .4 u IM 1000 = ,, HW --��r- a no 5 800 J �'.�v� T7llT» $IODt $p—+ �ilR[77Y«C7lltC� 6 SUBMERGED OUTLET CULVERT FLOWING FULL 600 120 Nw H•no-LSo 500 108 Foroufttl cro-ft nol submerged, Compute- HW by 8 Intl nods descrrbtd ;n tM daugn procedure 400 96 LO I 300 84 O a % ,�s O , 200 72 S O _ .. _66. w 2 _ •,� y 60 w - N U. 54 b y 2 z_100 w 4% x 3 48 O v 80 L 0 Q W Za2 •/9 0 a l� 60. z < -50 0 36 / -200 5 0 4 o0 w 33, /� 300 6 . EXAM 30 UJI �0=2� lE moo t* 7.5 a 27 o g• 20O 10 24 • AO 2 1 500 • g00 • 10 Ig —20 6 15 ' S 1 4 L . 3 2 HEAD FOR STANDARD C. M. PIPE CULVERTS FLOWING FULL BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROAD$ ,L4N. 1963 n = 0.024 I � APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER DATE t r>r' x- � i Y 3_c 1- g �' CULVERT DESIGN CHARTS {. '—'::VISIONS BY (' AFP I DA T C UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE - -- CALIFORNIA � CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS 587-A - STRUCTURE FOR WATER CONTROL CORRUGATED METAL PIPE CONDUIT For: Owner FI) N�� �11�4 Y Job Location ,¢ti' �X 1:J,7 ,,� FA cr,a/�r�'rs I, S County S.J.��` Farm No. Referral No. Prepared by vDate -rt IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER TO OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS AND/OR RIGHTS, AND TO COMPLY WITH ALL ORDINANCES AND LAWS PERTAINING TO THIS CONSTRUCTION. Construction shall be in accordance with the following requirements , specification No. 587-A attached, other listed and attached construction specifications, and as shown on the listed and attached drawings and as staked in the field: 1. M a t e r i al s Ccs A F7,�) PIP 2. Water Control Gates Eo h,ec ,,,Fzf=p 3. Other Specifications, No' s_I 6�,1/7 > 4. Drawings, No' s 5 . Special Requirements /� (r,�1P h�i'T/ Cl'i'�,<' GC' /s' 0�Jp h�/7tf /Z/ '1 + U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ll.S-319 A (3-611 • SOIL CONSERVATION C,;SIVICi < HYDROGRAPH COMPUTATION WATERSHED OR PROJECT STATE J fin,e1� STRUCTURE SITE OR SUBAREA-2-el 4LL_64/V , ,3d AC, DR, ARFA LD';TSQ. MI. T,Q_;?SHR. RUNOFF CONDITION NO _.._ RUNOFF CURVE NO-LV STORM U+STRIB CURVE_ __. /�_- -_. HYDROGRAPH FAMIL' NO. STORM DURATION �•D--HR. RAINFALL: POINT 114. AREAL + 4 `_IN. /� � � f Q-SL L_IN. COMPUTE[ T,_04 .HF _--------- -- To _�.-H$. (To+Tp): COMPUTED ' USED__ REVISED Tp qp= 484 A = T CFS. Q% ._— CFS. REY. T, t(COIUMN)=it/Tp) REV. Tp. q(COLUMN)-(q .-+;)Gv LINE t q LINE t q LINE t q NO. HOURS CFS NO. HOURS Cl S I NG. I HOURS CFS _ 21 2 _ C�1S� _ 22 3,CJG� Vic'_ 42 4 24 31�J 44 I — -- 5 D 5 C:C�--- 25 3. Y3 3:Z A5_�---_ a a+ _ 7 v 26L` 46 8 _ _ 7,-3 28 F - - (3,67 49 - -- 10 i 30 11 ' 3 j' 31 I 51 +--t{- - -- - -- --- -- -- - - - 1 2 y 32 52 I - --- - ------ -- - 13 -33 - --- - I 53 - - - - 14 _ 3." 34 54 15 i-- -- - 35 - _ - SS �.b / 36 56 i - --� - -- 17 ? 37 57 18 j7 38 Sts 19 �, 5 �: Z 39 59 20 ?, / 3:Z- 40 60 CA-587- CONSTRUCTICU SPECIFICATION STRUCTURE FOR WATER CONTROL V. Water Control Gates CORRUGATED METAL PIPE CONDUIT Water control gates, when required, I. Scope shall conform to the details shown o the drawings and shall be installed The work will consist of furnishing and according to the manufacturer's recc placing of circular, arched or eliptical dation. corrugated metal pipe and the necessary fittings to the lines, grades, and ele- vations as shown on the drawings. Backfill material shall contain no r II . Materials greater than 2 inches. Compaction s be accomplished by means of hand tan- Pipe amPipe and fittings shall be of the size, or manually directed power tamper, o shape, and kind of material shown on the plate vibrators. Fill shall be plac drawings. Zinc-coated iron or steel in approximately horizontal layers. corrugated pipe and fittings and coatings Hand compacted fill shall be placed shall conform to the requirements of layers not more than 4 inches thick Interim Federal Specification WW-P-405 before compaction. Fill shall be pl for the specified classes and shapes of in a manner which will prevent damag pipe. Aluminum corrugated pipe and the conduit. The height of the fill fittings and coatings shall conform to adjacent to the conduit shall be inc the requirements of Federal Specifica- at approximately the same rate on al tion WW-P-402 for the specified classes sides. Water shall be added o the and shapes of pipe. material , if necessary, to in th proper moisture for compacti ,; the III . Excavation material shall retain a ball shape v. squeezed in the hand. Excavation for the conduit shall conform to the lines and grades shown on the VII. Vegetative Cover drawings or as staked in the field, and as necessary for safe installation. Unless otherwise specified, a prote cover of vegetation shall be establ = IV. Installation on the disturbed area. The plantinc vegetative materials shall conform t The pipe shall be installed in accordance the requirements of Construction Spc with the manufacturer' s recommendations fication 342, Critical Area Plantinc unless otherwise specified. Field welding of corrugated galvanized iron or VIII. Special Measures steel pipe will not be permitted. The pipe sections shall be joined with Measures and construction methods st standard coupling bands unless otherwise be incorporated as needed and pract- specified. The pipe shall be firmly and that enhance fish and wildlife value uniformly bedded throughout its entire Special attention shall be given to length. Backfill shall be accomplished protecting visual resources and mail in a manner that will not displace the taining key shade, food and den treE pipe from the design grade or elevations shown on the drawings. Damaged coatings shall be repaired by acceptable methods. r, - in icn CA-58?-;;-�, r IX. Construction Operations Construction operations shall be done in such a manner that erosion and air and water pollution are minimized and held within legal limits. The owner, operator, Contractor or other persons will conduct all work and operations in accordance with proper safety codes for the type of construction being performed with die regards to the safety of all persons and property. The completed job shall be workmanlike and present a good appearance. 3-92 ao 10,000 168 8,000 EXAMPLE t l) 156 6,000 D-36 inches(3.0 feet) 6 (2) 5,000 0.66 cf s !3) -- 144 4,000 HW* HW 5. - 6. l 132 3,000 D (feet) 5 6. (1) 1.8 5-4 - - : 120 5. UJ 2,000 (2) 2.1 6.3 4. -t (3) 2.2 6.6 108 a - 3. 4. � "p in feet a 1 - 96 1,000 3. j 600 ---- - 3. - 84 w 600 2. 500 400 --� - 72 2. 2. LJ 300 / �f -- ---- - --- _ 1.5 LL z Z 60 - Z 200 �/ 1.5 1.5 54 0 w - t- w 100 cr r, a > 48 80/ o Q 60 v 42 N 50 = LI.0 O F- O / O 40 W 1.0 30 HW E RANCE fr w 35 D SC E TYPEUi .9 a C 33 20 (1) Heodwall .8 .8 O s - $O ( Mitered to conform Q W f to slope2 .8 ci - -- p 27 I (3) Projecting .7 ,7 Z 24 LSA 7 F 6 N 5 To use stole(2) or(3) project - 21 4 horizontally to scale (1). then 6 -- I use straight inclined Zine through •6 ►. .. 3 0 and 0 stoles, or reverse os .6 16 illustrated. 2 - --t= .15 .5 II I.0 t75 I 1 . 12 A 15`' Cu�ucR1 u'eL1LU Rcc�u��'� lS� 1fcADI 5>oV6TOP C:r nr�E> ( ;t - 3, n �}�° i ''cL'%Uc�j i1�'Ltu1ll RrgvlRs 3`fl4�ADLIgOiI- TGr' Cr f''iPc Exhibit 3-10 Headwater depth for CM pipe culverts with inlet control (Ref. Hyd. Eng. Cir. No. " , USBPR, 1965) 0 '�-�2'�''.CF7f ♦'g .�a°E.Tb t .s�- •C i1. [a t g..,. i �: �` *.S e '+.... \ i � • �Vr-' /.crk► ;.,3 ' p,f r +`.r. �✓ ��x �y,ti Q aea "'�.� s - ray �.. -J r r +!- ��'-, �'er- + .,� �.�,4 • t'''' t 'y+'./..l C !a .: >'� J )r ,. *"�& ` `ry a �' ,�'iE� '�"`- �tIr ' 'F-+F.:�` t�'_tL°i •°,e , /'-d." 'fr •/ �''�ti{p -i.,As''a.`C-a_•�f� -� � )`` 'M, . �.r..'0!`+< s.a s L• �,,s � ,+.c'�'. `._yt. C) w,!Y�', :Sr -{1`• r r„a :F ,+.7 V"s,•t s z w"c^ yF'`'. _`F= }%Y � .a.a .3' --,r.i' 1 -'a N r` f'o-��'cP ` .t i ap'!tea t'"tv`'°2 'L '�T�z'sb` �."'!"''",� f .t"S i `€rab^f-APs s E '-' Lr .. 'Il . �-' J\ / [Sr•' 4 f+5./sou. \l U,v - zt`- .,•�.�t.< "3•�.t++T-... Fi. 6 �"w'lYa ,a .£x' l •1 ls.' Z .' ss,�an�� vy' F\ f '^w !'1-1 ,e,"'" sva,�a7. 'Dr r..yi .? iq'. 'y .j r�D I /c""� , r;a+ei�' wt`n°,*�';:t.",s� 3C '¢'<j a/r�£ w- ' >"` -W F�i< z;.7y+�'t I iy� .•'tom' �Fr'l l,..._.l _�s,, . �+ f'_r./ - >z 11� $,•,. v +•"•[ _ ^' 3,a -t5 'a°.7.:-YYeL'•. ti� Ri,»,..•• F�„R.,.�" t;,/ `.assS++ (�fi.r !j� `�, , �� t a+ l"'.'.."I'.rs "F-'�.F4 d1 'Y e: .- ,ww,;-�&�� k`C � (� 3 qA :r>" d F rG ti �.s -� s'i+ t�S.c '�i1 xis.. , ;.fa°'3. y-•'«.r�/h_ "..;; a s '•�S`y n``y" y/ 4 .-., hSe t...� `d ,,.5 Tf�'+.'.e..�F-•5� '♦"+. ,�.t .s`1{',�...-'' �y � srY AsZrT' $9• "i. �J �"T t \.� :.�{�` L3a+�q"I_ ay.�.[/�+f3A� rvl * h a �h4'• [� -'-5" ..�1:' t n. rD '�° G1. r. I..�'1 .f rrs .Z ,_i 4 ,2t'x tiq R t S . :. w „ 7-- v f ` ? ro-1�6 ` Q,r g ,..�, Y:..r'� +- -'hCi t r F S f r-�q .r-' s� .w._. .t S`` ,r � t < - ` F- ba ^^ wxc`"�,a k ~J � 6:.� ;4 'X 2c',"�...'i T `A.,.g,3,y 6: Y .t 'T, v�<ssr{, ... FSt. 1 ,u• ,s`,'���.+k -• w• 3'�..k:,i �, *�y-C�' .is •� �'.o-, lr �:_ .a'-1' at.} -A•t 7LY�.'Ic Fkaja�..�.1 u rNt •M. .hr •� f .� . ' +, -y'K! � f�"" = p.ilt ,_ S,, [ �.- 1 .4.a J" "a.- .' j ; i;' ;'Y�;,drY'.a�i t.6.`v Y-a"4""q�1. �� _� �" �' 1. .V;, fi.3!n...... G - --: /T .x•.. �y 4j ="�_T. •'-�Q`.y `L' "�4, ".. - �r*t`' -*,y�,�,, -•� ra p,F,c.w-..s. erev .s-• t"°'.-fr '�..^ •-`,j'sP F•` s s=-„P' r a ���! trlf{ t !>j o- �a2S,� ;�a..Jt'`�� r �'Y rz t Y.".+�•a`a >"�,.tgr � t, z.�+.` } l ..Y �r_ bz 'r,y•�' `• f � 'chh z .�, :i°"k r t' '"«dad.-rSjr �:: s4 €;`'$ Zr`Y�;' y. 's< :# '^ . �C}v,t- '� 1''+ '1 . s • J fI }f I:3�\ :.� g`t�t e ryt'•.•.. '.. sem/ r 4 ..-'> .:a : b sS+{=-- `.... { ��lt+.- :H. 6 - r. .� l t tom' �-..i SSJ w.r _ a - •a-. <, •'� �`M ''V P.K aw s :s-' F Gf.,. / a t w w - _ c:^ er*. 7�,, �. -. 4 y `-A'tea. f` > / r twF r4 �3C � r xa_ ' J. y • i1 ' ` `�sJ \ " v' l fit. .. abZ 3 T �'.., +. C .1' -y, y M..is4 i ;.. " . t :x f r r '.� (I:�$i ✓L^S / �''�"• < 1.9e'.- [� l < >T, � 3 rt c _ \\N _- '' `r' +s» >.' C';- ,{,,c° '•,, rN � ; F. ;I t�<`` a c z,_,,- ,{ `,t�.`r `' - -7�t a /�h •v'1`` y,5n.iw ^a` -"' .w: a. j f ,;. >3;til ro r�*ru -` f, r jc .)�' �r C ,-,+�°^,;.<�'- �." ;41`� y -` r s�v, k � �, E 1 u, - r #-- m x-r tee,. ,. ..'•3''�' > ♦`.,'j-h,� d \ �. �� G;,,� 7- c x :,at' - .0.� r�. S '. 'tea 4 k L ,s;,y 'rs Y � 'C.Z �,y,. < a ` ' - +�..E�z .S+,''. E1! r-- -:.,, `' �_^F. t a'-r' » P .r.,,,� y t. 7 ''.n""j ,v- � .'1 v. t u-. ':+ , C' < �.' y., a` s Z.. g 4' � t,:4 t ��P vL r r ' '�u11 f {�µaq G^ __ ij, tip .,.3,e. 1,555 ,P:� ?' '#t, ,_,.,,�K' -`dt `�-- ;,r•, "'+' t� >`'.`'"�� Y * 4� '' }.q'1 i^1d�. •,�1 t'"'> ,� `' a- '^ '- - /�.rf{�J � ".` Ffj J >�, a 4.r`{ 4"�O`SR S ?t1 Sb. S F.f.-(t9F 6s 3,'iyF, �,,5 '�EfG YrY F H- % ' i S y.�! r Y.� [�"'�- `.r' s �e°.�'.4i ?7,- i': ,r a �r4• .���,h.._�.e r�Ti�, - t fa�:a�- .e>'�: i'�i,, -•�a. t _ V ;r , Y �- �.._ -.-r -,..r• 's 9K• .Yr ti+.x S 't' ��t, ,:fit . 7rrp '�. �_xs'"1<c3, y l,r c,z- a �x�tit I -t^'� ca z t�;,. �i`SS�. L-r 7�i;*•u� � \�,.. �IS +%.-�,. s s F,' +' a _ _ •' jz r - c n `'•`*sx,2.:.0 F `r. �- ,*. T.;a'i'r. 3 r f s • t _ S a- ,e s L .� 1-:.^ L�= + .x/ -..b: ..R. "u �°'��„r..R �+A?f' -`¢9'�s.^'d ,; ? 8 x.�r. /�1 e. ti:t"'�"a',+rs. s. S'S�_i x. Kip' .dS'Tl *r r."�k'i� 1 +r-a,� + '�.>8. jrt i �!ta4c as e� 1. nuc'} {'•A.`s " , �, r < a' Y .•T 4 c :`fs t' -ab .Pb."T" �'"+- dZ�,- '� C i>{/ �,?d.•-"i.r <9� •h,,,red r: Yl �". s. :.4 i �+"�k_s ti.yf e� ,1 .�e.s* �,< „t -.ems.. •+ .y tiS f .epq�,n{��s'R3 ��s 4 ' ..�3"`�,r .'\ � t. ;u' ,Sysyt' V x�� air 1 1\Z Y 'ra `n!is ..+..s'f` 'i2+c s.��4^..r = !•4.m< �a � siP ,�'s.�P.\ t 1 \k^ f+- .r.A yam, a`s, ��, + rc -,.��•t ...+yrs _a` 2 ' by - �- z w E x' ,..,� t +►cam, acs:,,u-3 c',€.'b o "" `1 r> -''r. y� t.��, r{r q .�, " �' � Cs+ ray,1�.:. �-�' i \�. C"�:..T; ''^`tares -cs-..r••st- ,. tiy. Y�: f- 1 r r'S' ,a,c,� rl`rs, .e` s., ' <; - �3 '-'S o,qs; ;.'t : ,-< A \ ,��...aaa 1� /<e y .x' -"�� /`. i�;• :.s `r M1' $a: _ s-" y: h F,.:L.g S 'd _ .�. f ttF rT"`ti, pry sw +-'S: .. H ,-t7 0�.. ,, a @ , A. ,L _ r+ ,.i @r+h I rw -x' 4.. �•T ., }� A .'t.k"t• s. .�a.r :' .. .^" �, ;1`.rcS,">~ 't.F"`!s� >� 1r s t .a:�^ ;7 . D' yk S"' t''1a Vii- "t .5.c ii t-.e `1- Y' Sys;? .d6ro 4s#. vt.Le F, -y"e'..14ii j .dais r 'ys k 'fr l!lli r�+�-,�r ^I t.,,. 4.: V.3'.r t�rC- t;'9•"..[ .ce�ia -va 's C`: b MTr �4c , tj x .cY +yl r V�°f'<� `3t 1C +I�f� .� t Y Js4l yam-ter.- -;g*?* {. i s. ,. -� r�, 'St.-e'�`'�` �` <�r L+ , a - i"< ��_,.�e�-'l+''9 4+c_r.a-,+t .:St ss+h .ice;. z h`s }i's`-.rd 4, F !x 1. I,:� -. .5;lssFX`Y'.' .,..< .st'e 'Y r o ,� [ L P ^.'�3}s 4�" .3ate R-�e w J.rs. �! ,,;,y,-,y, s.7F on-. +zr R,. _ ,_ - �, � . -1. FTS'� [' - .-.; w't pr'_��d r ',r-,,-R�\x i a,•y_..,-*.. _.,•.'q'cyka 'Sa 1'c. F1ygc ,2 1.. r �r )2 - .� >. i� Ca.x �' `y r'� fa _ aa? 3;t*. - t c. I Y F .`�k-� : 59.d gra�+� r 4.t,x �af i : t �x �+;s is i ►i ,t i'r t �*` ' ,'3 ,i w fi i `a'` " � '�� rx :E'a3s � -:v .`4, fy-� - •e r '1 V..A` - * q .cx ~ �_ " +a m* �ari� ..Ufa s,,, r'. r-+ .vr L xF�..i fi i �r�'�g Atu "*,...;L- � -s S£ts a �..-+.s.P ? t-�' --. "� .Y':'t t°'a„h�.t �L b♦'' Iw' t ++.... '-.11< ;fir `,T `" il9 \ TIT g ' ka c a` F .7 cs aV C. t N.� A,.` s $ ter �aa`i art tPs_. a ,, w. ,�' f.'iv "` -C n •*}.. �i'I. � ',,p < t y r .,3'a r..Zr. ' spa'"s a.t`' >t.Y �r� e -�•.ice -, c s,t< �w *xR ,rim �Z. .F t ..m.Ty' t- �e%sr ;;C '..tom-. W �•- A`h 4 ,¢� .�a'- -Ft b{ 4 X4;'+ti- � -ay„�--._'f'r ns'Y. -S"- :'.i 6 ,,�z"�Yydf 'j,.t 4`i T ♦ !`' :.. -'€'r. ry„°'•i''tc [` -, -�f 'ae�Lr e- ��s -y�,.,:::°L.y',r-.-Yi` ,.l.a,._�''t '¢"'''�'' -`.-.i"<t1:'<�r++.. �ic -: �4^+a •c e�•t2�,5,..'J� ' cam, a--ri'^ St `=�Y"..r>~= -'' .:4; '."<��,d'o-/- .<t e•- �aT `/4 �. X.n t 7 `fit't' yk L u�. ,yp^'• +.r s - s ..E C.r x z'�i�,°j, h y -. 't f . `� � - 'w..'- a,+`+s` r •mac?. '.rte ..z . •.�::;,. °• k_= A�.ui. ;a -..y@ Sa .. a h�- .,pv.,e ir^ e`'Sa. Y*c � s. .�'i�, 'L^'a4+'3n .0 6 -• �'*..<K&s-�y rpats.• ,P��T'� 4v §f �, t'.y`}Ls< �`.« �`r .f _ o-�'�1.i_- �$9�1^.: t 1 6-' -.'�{ h t� T'M�ii "' ..f�t A } T vF N Y -'-,"�'F 1. /�n4 '{r� ;�.ti .c Sc 1� :ir,,A r 'r rz / !"k. us 11 e ,� ,<, 9 -sr4 1 4 �'.'a �,2.$?2...f,a � §.P.f- t s,'I. t .d': `3' w,. a s-�e.?,a'.LK' x. -= t ,/+t� Rra},,,,s .h •_ ,.r -''pY .t� - - °@--?.✓ -1 L d. e s .'F.t-r 't` ` `o „\t ys, €` 4•`� < ,tt_! g.> rr 3,i .,y. .-%.t'a."Op,�`.... f r a a �R �"� a.° A s{ t z :t v 4 di a f. f . s+ r N' cx ,,. - ._e,, -ai e. u E �F �' a t T 4 c t ..}"�l 01� v." • �,�. ,� >ti - z~ _ �^c. C -E L ' '' 'y. . - s:,xr, ,•.v`t.8=< <.- �S l s 1 < >S y h{ - '\\ tri V- i h" 'i��f i l a+a. -.7 ,> �' tf F t '[iss ,1,. ,r i�' .,bd. 'l`+- :J.$`.� '� ' " j- -F a a� .r 1 : L;y f K t 9 / t L 5 i ,,u�. "@'• "''r*Sc:. t a1v F,'r I-iy.z c,. .,t c,c�`�-�: i� 'o`�`�'a t ss s F_:I d rarer ' � `� „X �"'� ",, ,�'; � E..,�. L 11, .:X mor el' -.. L�.'. 4'F i x 7 tr. v`a.4 .y- (� • 1 Gi a i�E�Li y= K `�E t +t p ^N s• ; ` .xz �i c .x'�p f t :>� -s-'-.t�.'.. p,. Q ,-`} c+,JX {�^��' �r -,"K r tt3` Y Ste,i;,,,..,X;F••�• i -`� S +� µ:` s.`c iu r -t 'M� ? a Q a?:ZsA rs eay 7� i tr o - c. t,, y_.:tV �'. iZ * `r =•`e'�p •t'2 +k'+'3�e _ �T`'^ "r-L �. F^i y„fre'`h'�,,;p`�a1'w' `* ` i k �f`3::s �..e,t` r ,+fie: '4"' ,w,a.:. i�t`;'''�' �'`dl ..a s y,`je"'q, o .'„=-� - - { .'b 14(., y }1"`• r i "t.,,b:; N 4.{`f (�? Y�•-'a a t �T< t „# ir3`�"i +, a 0�� �C3 e e vti- -�=., �-ss >�, r �. l�' { C•.a a Y s .s' e r < �- ,�,'Ci Y w .r ,'w f t�s- w+ ti ♦ s.s t '3'e+ 1(� {5,9` -i».. .. �.x��. Ci1r �:t§c ;s F.i at_` 1• q,.M �o,zs,r c�-tr 12P ,�r C a --`:� t<,k r i.'`Lr' K '�la.}.'.r`t., 4 b..,,r.__,. k'S._`�6 °. ,3 -� z `'• T,�y4..�rtt'^' +:�?sN u, ^l o r ',,�,� ..✓' ai+.'°z _+ "�" ,��w.�.,,y,,i b , `�_- yeas= ei � �. ,Ih.1 sf� two ,,, ; g.-r Y �. ro r 3. �' g �; w! tz� ',.,I .,v �a - t�!t G.- ..^1 w-'3 ' --, ,oq�-, �..Rfx tE 4c .K7 ir'.�z "a. a %P �'. a1 Y � ?e ' ?.0 a e., mac ,.. y fi"...'" ,.,`,�.,,;�J e' s ` r "�..,e :` '' yx�- ' ...t }br i q h - .s�+aa I- c �-•. [.,p T' , Com,.�'-' J s,4• -y_*a'.R*♦"'F'6 u 4 Jx � % ✓.. r •` : r`F..e P ''"','may" ". ,6j '�,+ i:.z{' i'a F -4L�, '�" �, :: ,w.ar ,.y R Z. -?ss r '"9 -� �, v Grt...c°�e a, s: x r.•y Y.y ,� �,.. a#-bT ,`=y,,� •?t-^� :., a x s �v -. 1 ,,c .f< .a ""?rt y n-t ,fi , c• '�<"�.- �: S � - tr s} n,ao"' ,In. -:z, q c .,zi,"4 .Ph'.t..+. '. �- \ Y t `i. n.,�y�L is -0 rr3�, «4a`4 2� f' pF n *' . 1 a�` l n 9 to�� i. e t 3 i f l + y S a ; a� t xf�ts /:.? 1 p f `h 1.t� n� k��+ � } :. .A - t .1 +6} � � •- .', . 4p y+r *i •a fc ' t 7.F §�s>7T' 6a "R ,y, s Lam- �� cc -- x} wR •, 6„'.✓"c ,r-..� t„t 4,. ,., ,,.g7ra-:! .,* >< *�^r 5 9-'g r _ t;� > i +C g-- � MF�r. y� ,rl?. "t. �r,A C4 y/�. ,r 2 ti+�„ i+J f t S R n'4�wt k>'�•t-'i f ¢ .} i�"q r - ,�►. _ e1. 'ti; -, +i" eJ. f R = 4 ,-r ,Y.a ' �>' -, -Fr,... �, ��4�4F+� k <.v- �t `e�,ea P -.r; s c�• r R. -v., .M,t� �' � :r,c s�,.,.1, r�� `1L Y tiiar3-. .�d ai.`♦'�'1. �^'���I 'O ,..".: -rtes A:n� +�z <+�r ^s w,t.' �d{��. ': t��[ _ �1.. h -�yt -4 .L kV'. ',44, 'l 1. ��':E� Y1 ,-a 2 ..� 4 ', `t is S 'Pkv i ,.. rip \ f� y. •6 a l "e $ ;'�T• C R r • C^a� 'e .,5 v.1 t#. �/a► ' ,:+ A y.ti! fir-.,^ 311{{ R 3.�,es't _ s as P '',.y 't,�`�� k. �!` r s 1° < r r a>n Ft t x ♦.. .' ♦ 1'> a e is S ,j t•' A �'d 7 r- ^` --2'c `i- „/-.! - -b i.L sp. r+-f `�" /.w - '3 t - V. ( '�S � ✓{s=' t, ''t •`Sy. V. - < '1L ,.y } "A -(".1' a• t= b M, i �li ._ 1 4 .� - •_ ,::: ni% ,' �.-fi•Yi '4F` a:r r .,t. _ ^ti>:+. "<} i .�`�.� Ld- >�'�� r ��'" -.�`tt t t+ 7.'q ,:,F.." t:`�4 ^•Z y cc r+,'aGt N w,_l '; sit_. ,Ct t.i *' C9 > t^: -y �i •_, • 'J ,e-^ <- cam' o'' -,� z r rx u - '1 pe r�,i+� A 'r~ <' zi� --,,Zi . !P T y P `iL= -S S� 'Som s f+•�l 5;� / n a,•\ e a ,4 _t.4.' +xP .y� .G 6r}, 1 r S Y°Y,:: -fi"4"W♦�' ��- ?+a' - *•C jj• "Rl HX. �t • .3`$ r a K-. f''ya t'R�,ya• a d' tom' :..`4 s i 1. ,,t.�. <�,'` "`'4- .x%y, 7`r.`.i +r A e.��� 'z"" vy 0 a+.a^'.MS a ..;, r rty.motif 't C -'aP '. . 4 +t� �%i z,�.} *, 'C { �-r . Fai{ �F , << �o � �� v! 4a " sS w sl,� �t5 rC �ys r�� 9i > ;�M � w _<< c. '2taC A re,� � d_ "S: . „ i<*c .- @ o1l"`kraa } i k. ,i�4'. �'"y g'ii .s `-S n R, a. -:.c t^ t,J ' -1.i .. .,{ e - 'f c r . . `_ k`r ",r rIrz �' vY <f'N- t tk�`t i ,,`-'-.v ' F q .epi �' ��f ` .:k 9 ,.sem e y .>/ a *a.a,aL f h n-, sP^�ti d -kt i;Z t J Fd-1 K C.. .� J � ' ,ir•�F"9 ; rf a w ,v w-moi y `ti K'i { F-- 4 s... i.,f•4 O� �� M.R` r.-J � CL a CZ .�tA-;P ! •r.. °$. txa r';an`.lA•.. -,•yam ; + >, •p*�'"� ` r "Y.� /`,;r�is`04 1 11�, I �a s a :cgy."a � t� .tie*2•_ `' y,r te•�".- :•" a.. >�t �}�$ Prs �� t e g v ,� r� ��l�.�a 3� .. yam, * -Y a, 451 ; !? ,-�._c•.yc�%. -,. - Li l _ `i`'%,. +1` v''�. , •.�1' C�'� r �I r "ic3" -L a'.t``..�.i ori b.��aay��► �L�:n, 31` �` " '�i f` 3 c-J "?Y�`v�y s `r'�r t ' r 1. `i rt.,;--,," .'� , r �� )-4'% �`' i s` F�-Ptd . .,). }. �3- , ,"-"s 't- R �p:t/1'} c r �•_- �� ;c "'�P -.:.,'at m=om''. ! t r�•a "•'�YtI eA "` 1.r:::.r• .�-i 9^` 7 d 1. - �' f�L.a.i„� '':air .a' V '�Z --iwA �ti .R i;c d: a -, ,`s`s.. -'1_ r, r,y. �: �'" ,• ; � !.' ..+ � 3 r 4 ', ,`- •'Gt �''.-: - '".", : r 30 =4 c •`9 vzP. Pmt r;,y:y,�v'�AY �, ,y�• ^/',.h �� q� `F?',.`+c ty- �.,�� w �.t•,��-?l v £ -yr }` ..'"1�- „v...�ti.' .r y t >,Yti�9a. %. ,...V y_,....r .� ,. .Y *! -J „�. " "•pit a 1b n �1 ,meq „< q-C '4 v?� n s 'ta.s �4 -� ., F t- - j"� y'12i;1.7�7v• (�/ '1� _ ..,:.7 �-.ts '�� 4 �' �' ���' r'' � "r ►" � . �'� ' ,� ; � 3�'��, � -� v� . d' �r. , 't tr • , e'er} • i' ,p •.r � . •,� ! •t.,. � � � F ,7 . r Or It....'•'` l'1 I t t f,�a A T 1•' jf�. .�•`5• , •T - $ q ��. i'1 r Ia e, ,y {a.'�!{; �;_ �1, --.i.. ,�..,T���1�._•r x, r. �.�:?�' + 'w� �-'`�d�"r''�)� �•.w } sr ��. .fit•:, • 6'• ' it '�T 3r a S~ • t `� . v`y"-r �' • i i �-1 A 1 i `�_ � *• svr• •� _:,3j i�-• ,���1-. �- � '"t �. Y :�y _ ♦ _ !Tame. . a, a')=,.�• •' �;_, T�.• >�� -;�i:,e , . {{." .,� ,y�}} yrs.. d�''L•.`�'� ;j „�/ r ,�Q, r , .,ti � � > d-.J���. � �'��-,�- .+.• �i� •r' Cb, , It - cGyha:� , •�• oaf �' •a,+�ry�ff•�mss_f'�;�~�, �•� a � • ` y, 4. \ . •� V1 � •4 L•-.�' •' �a '�- 'o • !�`�y}•w�,, `• � �. - y 'eKn 1 '. ,.Lv�� �^-,r �`�.,w.�J �a►"F� j�- • t ��"�•� s�� � � �: - $• .1'•, �b�• r.'s. A 'Y' � vSr a � f�.r� 4`t�•�` �./ �d f�-;�^l pr, ` ,fa �. . �.Y. S 5 S '� � t Ed w . �Paoa'`,��a• . �' ��'� '��Y""'.1 .2:�� �4�3 ti . �t+.� s`.. �•-. �• t .L �• �,�t 4`�i �' Y I t'� •"•J'�/,�:•''~,^�' s�•'�'.� '+-�a:.ir,. � �� � ��'vi ti,}3"'Ca'• .�-:� _ ��� '� 't, a r.. . • :•• � ti'.. � .� 1��•K�r y�{4••�• 'r'�� 1• _-'-,r���a o• y�.(d`� w •V-4 q -"V �T("-�� f .7 �• 4. t. 4� 'r � '� `sem `1`V (g� '-t'-n.��rb'+1•�j � '�x� �� �k�.t•-•� { O• �. i x` „- '� S �=�'•�r>Ix."•'•s.� ��car��%"y. -.+•..7.- -.-_: tr4 d j �2y ``j `�' ( O Y �-. � � -a r3r r s•s.'bXy ��' r -3, �.a '•� b �•et ,: y �,[•' �i i rt�.+v8. f •t- �� t. t •, .A - i_ 2,- a .;a9+..'.,�" -e r .�; �j� ..!� fF}$ w l .r•f��t7-e-d"'Ob,� - 'T VA �� F♦�'.^I �,'y c� +• e'��� "'^7'�Z4"'•a4'a r (��t .� �-' //,�r� t �1 :•�':3�z��,.1 �f�f'`�/ �. .. ;-J. � v•-L �` � � tt - '� t r V- � :." '� p r fir' w �N• ®.• � .r�.yR'3r t �,'-may,ti :•• ..,.+r t -Y� - �.. �z. f L� ."'. ::� � j°••`: �..-d dl _ aF�)• y.-. � �./ ifs •{.` 4 f.x..` 4� _ .r -.'s-{.'3- 'Yr R�• brr e }E�'f i1 •�. ,"tom. r .aZ L q.q7.L:�♦ �• �1 !— 'r. �- � `��s s e �_ �i �?.� 3 ,• g 1 q �ry 1 � e`ji .f�_ y. �,.t o�K.,t,�. •��,$ :�- ti?:� }� 't;•rs'-i�3 tt,+si's r �."�,�,..®gt;,�.� � ..�. " j a t r��f ,,_®: si;, , sl•�sx'.°'�i'-0c..j��s "�? v •'•p_}�Ta •p � r— d' �-�.< �' Y`tist-�` n.J r .q•• _ , r;�•� It �`�' ! '• F �f t ,..,�ti z-cg�e �.':;•' fit .'s•-�.4.�. t _:!�• ••,��'.r-'P r •%P�, •� _ r~\ 4 I a4 h^ ��. yi+'•.. =" •.r.. --�-r^ 3� ! +t`: x�'�-Fa+ I�l1, 21 sj :'r) �: •J+ fit �� '�: ..i Vii.�'�•� •t/: r� ;•s•- r'"!s 5,9 .Entp - ;t1� y,tf�` f '-.Zr r� � a% 6: {� #� • '�',b . J �• } ,l•" jZ P.JT/ �,... tr' •-- x •.. _ - fl c .•.• ��..fL •'rF 'K y ,�. V - n �"�`" '�, '`�!f .� '.y 'F °-"•a � $ 1, y �r. •.. .eta' w 0000 :\a^a: <R • 'f'( r� £r} .:A•`� , '_- � e �9+ •! �'c-•�a �� � J�: ei;��.rZt{� t :♦ •r'�✓' ` ��� ' ••::'''Zj-;.'``.n 1.2 7'M. •'-t-1 'L� ,T ,yp •+, i . f f~ 'a t req r ' , ',��6� '�` ���:�;3 '"J,si'C r�.t�"1.-:9� .s5�� .J '�• ,� ` ! ``Y �� .:sg�•`� .�'- �{,���':.--r�� �-? �!' .' -3�. j i KD :.1 �+: •rT �• 1 �, rpt F t?EL 'fig. ,1�,., � ��• y ?s '�t.' � .,( ` ��rt��-".1'. ��r ^ _�,-:rk3.4•]Y�€ 1i����i�;.°�Y •j, vT�tfl-� � ��4e� S�!.s�� }��+T:`/�` '.H �- .��.+�?s'�•..w � �( �"+!'Y-`�E-�i�r �', s`•. ,r�,�^." k:xs = �'�y' 'YK i ''�' {' !•,. � :.�'.`av' s�• 'rpt•;` r,`'•.4+�f a of p• Tom' Y - •. 'y'� �� 1 ,�„§��� �Y'�v Y'`F'i�-'` l�s->G��>vy,a +`i ��♦� E' �r `.�4�1 �'m .y rt bE`-.��a ��.••+ • � j�� 4L`'k.'.� �+"' 'a� �( �- � '.. "4e`� 'J� �'f�.-Y^_�.K'R.FH:�L�""'•''2}}9 Jr �,• • 7�f "f` �.gq�'I s'sj 57 -.r► • -<••h1 .\ :. _`tom F� ^ - \. 4• c-yaii s'�}.p x!I!. tfr - � r tQ ♦iq�s ``� .''� yds A �r : ,�`'f-� •r.�� ��"'1���+ *i�_t' t � �•7L A-�'..,�..r•'•y'.U'8;f�:.3�°'�= ��t`�4°•�\� ��`e:. �'�g _'ti � r �C•�t•a•'A�-°'k. �:aa#� 1'w(S t t A I 4t ay DV • i L ) $. ♦.. 1 �' �e�a. •� fr a $� w- �y p wr rtr rvxr{ •R. f _4''r� .3Q! 9S0 y 'S ~•r,d R.'d T- ..! ,Q ,,},.,' r a*� 1'.T ,..se•.��`�w ..� c.�"'Y `�`„=dFr rr�ayi a`,,.��.'�yas� �, ��j jh� ��_�f i.,a ''2°.�. •! '� -a`�'. r:-: •r„^r `• „ ♦s+ b• 1 `3 ��Jr..- .?"t 9' 3 i S 3���-e��'�3_''.�.{�k a i sv� w..y ” �,nj'� 'b� � ;�,. R}4, +•. •..';'p, �}�`•.$ c/1 -t• e C �t-�. - :-`- -�'Y•.� ..� �� y ;!'$ •y �'�" d � "•.S �'y a k 3,.� z� ' +:T� 3r•s'-n'„ ,yoa.-.. a V' i •n'1A ! � . mak' c,� -a > i ®• � y,y. t �.., •S••, v • arta!t•a• ss•i Las,;��' • � y y�,,,�•. Ci t - `��` , ;, � � � r-°�..>•''�rx..+.1,•,,. �ar. ;,Aa x�'��`a'��,rR. .�'�, '' u� �t �,•t�`-•` < '� . s.�.^-„ C�az••t• L, .t �. .:'"�"'Y, c."T`_�• rC 4'?t � �a? EP r� -"�'! � ;.`4� �r'r•s" Y' .''•rt` Z .,�y,♦ s►t •c $ `; �+�� ` 1 + 4s. '��3 r�nti.�"yi6i. .,ti d t •ts'} �'�� �v !a •r�r`� ?�^^�� :/. � � �• � t ���� ''i' ,i�81 • • �� a �,.s.' �.r••i '�• a t i • lt �y, _<�.•. �,. 4 �l ryA l'�1�•� ' .,.gL �, ♦ • t• .•••• • e ac Y ♦' • ''y x ri • i fY Y9 c�sST7 ,esy Y ..y>. rr t If("k 9' P' h�• -t ..L ` �; . • -. t L 4t 6..�.•ia ti: . .`n 7 ¢' b r.�•}'C ..•i.a� 'Ry'LL. ;w.•s•'' ,'t--'• r�,''�' fl �"�l V . .,,, .` - •.d-��'�. spa"-`-t'i4 T1�+(�J '•,, •4.'.r��^ �,,r�" .af.� {r`7 "11 �•?'tV�(S+' (� 0 yp s'�i..} '�T`���Y `a• t ._��.•� .' •`A . �- �Cr�+' � Yii.4ar .i• ra • 3. f1 •�y.� �j n T�?d Ira S -� �h� r -f.'rS a �qr-. V S.�r .'=a '..t T �,.'e}TPT �i•R�•* G.1 r ,�r,•,,., r t•ad�.e O' Y w 'C •�, t..'�-L r'0.' �...•�, '+!3+`'*}{ 3 S 4 .Q � r � S� �It �• -a 'R �� .��1 •T�:r • � ,t( -°�'`t,: r tip• + ha'`�a•, +,. . '• /Fy ,1 `.i .a C"`� r ' •h.:�.. a'�'-1. �• • 'i`'r' :moi.. ?c Z .r. i a � �f,.'ti'�a w:,- to 41 »•y.� r�. STT9a3', *.�.. `�1!_j � • h - `fir'f�- -•• t "iZ4•,•y'�.'� 'a, V� • •' - T 1.�,�,r���.,�.� c'•�,�* r ,,� a ;;i j.,aa � •.!� ,. S ✓3��� �"°�� a3 •�ti � 'sr Q �•;� _ Ll j r� _ . L's.4. f:.' s . .b.,�r, ✓+� • � 7 :is �•0 *t' j�'� �•��. a..i'`��rap.t'��l�a. � o. �{ .• } -t- Y �e!y' r? dt yfiy•�yr� / • -�1 4 ✓ - •�` � �' f i �- ,,{ `r3 ♦ T.i�. • 9't • JI�-a.t ♦ s • ,T �'• / k t$•. •7t • .rte. ay / +F y .• '�.•-r1 _T �. ,, _ ate;; ' �/�• to • Y � ` r � c r� A.✓• a w^ i 1 � 1 ��. �A_. : `1� Q� � ti `t_f �,,ay.:•+I�r � E. Ali 1 I �� R� ? ry yr.t 'j a '.. ..•.t• • ' Vit! .l •'' ° a r��-� t1e�` • �ryyY p� • , i, Y.,. y• i .7`i •'� `-i- ly �''• vas„L�” uo':,• •r l;1 ^fes• •{ ;L • ', 'Yv0 �• J�, - r .�....�. 3'� r�- a -s'>•.'}y`• •,22 1�`. "•.•S - �! a•a tllit•4i i:�.e:•.f�• �'a3 �� .• •-� ''�j ✓..� �. Y,� '� !• l/r• S 3 _ '� , _ Paso Robles Area \1 Page 1 of 2 Sc F2 Santa Lucia-Lopez complex, 15 to 50 percent slopes This complex consists of moderately steep to steep soils on hills that are between elevations of 600 and 1500 feet. The mean annual pre- c;nitation ranges from 12 to 20 inches and the mean annual air temperature is about 600F. The average frost-free season is about 200 days . This complex is about M percent Santa Lucia soils and 25 percent Lopez soils. These soils are so intricately mixed, or so small in size, that it is not practical to separate them in mapping. _�. Included in mapping are about 15 percent Gaios shalt' clay loam, >r 5 percent Calodo clay loam, 5 percent Linne shaly clay loam, 5 percent Zakme clay, 5 percent is a soil similar to Santa Lucia except it is 40 to 60 inches to bedrock, 5 percent Urban land and 5 percent small � j areas of Lockwood shaly loam and Rock outcrop. Also small areas have ,Y 9 to 15 percent slopes. >F�; The Santa Lucia soil is a moderately deep, well drained soil formedYr''. in material weathered from shale. Typically the surface layer is dark gray shaky clay loam about 4 `� inches thick and dark gray and dark grayish brown, very shaly heavy clay .*y 4•. - loam underlain at 21 inches by hard shale. This soil has a moderate permeability. The effective rooting depth :.r is 20 to 30 inches . The available water capacity is very low to low. The surface runoff is rapid and the erosion hazard is high. The Lopez soil is a shallow, somewhat excessively drained soil formed in material weathered from shale. • - rF Paso Robles Area . ; ScF2 Page 2 of 2 Typically the surface layer is gray very shaly clay loam underlain , j�.t , at 14 inches by hard shale. =� This soil has a moderate permeability. the effective rooting depth is 10 to 20 inohes. The available water. capacity is very low. The surface runoff is rapid and the erosion hazard is high. xJ ; These soils are used for range and urban land. Both soils are poorly suited for range. They have erosion hazardr, .l' . and woody species as limitations. Erosion can .be controlled by proper. r �rcan + ;t6 grazing use. I� orsdy' species canbe econornically managed to create �F , , '�,•J Y51�`ts open areas, these soils will produce .a fair cover' of-desirable grasses ?, ' - - ,F-01 01 and forbs. When these soils are barren, the finer materials erode ,;Y.k leaving a layer of shale fragmenis' on the surface. This tends to retard ' seed germination and seedling growth. ' err•�id �°' Santa Lucia has soft chess,'wild oats, filagree- and live oak as key V. �$ . ! forage and browse species on this soil. '; Lopez has chamise, buck brush, purple needlegrass and red brome as1. the key forage and browse species on this soil. Slope and erosion hazard severely limits these soils for building sites, roads and streets . Soil erosion can be controlled by minimum , s 4 grading, runoff and sediment control structures and establishment of g permanent plant cover on side slopes. Slope and depth to rock severely limits these soils for septic tank absorption fields and will require on-site investigation to determine proper method of disposal. In highly populated areas, sanitary facilities should be connected to commercial sewers. (Land Capability unit VIel (15) nonirrigated) '"' M E M O R A N D U M - - - - - - - - - - - TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Budget resolution adopting interim budget The attached resolution is proposed for your consideration in order to adopt an interim budget. This interim budget is based upon Budget "C which you considered during your study ses- sion and would allow the City to continue its payroll and day-to- day activities. Please note that no new capital outlay expendi- tures will be authorized and that any other expenditures will be kept to only those necessary to keep the City functioning. No hiring or other changes in personnel status or salaries or bene- fits would occur. Please note that under paragraph a. you will have approved retroactivity for any salary agreements resulting from an ap- proved MOU provided that such agreements are reached no later than August 1, 1982 unless that date is extended. The purpose of this is to establish Council' s legal authority to pay retroac- tively and is justified on the basis that we do not have our bud- get figures yet from the State and, therefore, cannot conclude our salary negotiatins That problem is not of the making of the employee groups who, in normal circumstances, would have expected to have completed MOUs by July 1. Because of these circum- stances, it seems reasonable to permit retroactivity. We do have some contracts for lease-purchase and for services such as Dial-A-Ride which must be paid after July 1, 1982. The interim budget will permit such payment. In the case of Dial-A7 Ride, there is an increase in costs as indicated in your copies of the proposed budgets. I have made arrangements with Dial-A- Ride to continue this service on a month-to-month basis until you have adopted a budget. This is necessary in order to keep the bus system operating. Your approval of the interim budget will permit payment on the basis of the new contract for the Dial-A- • Ride, but only on a month to month basis until you have approved the budget. ;RRA_ L. WARDEN MLW:ad • 6-24-82 RESOLUTION NO. 30-82 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN INTERIM BUDGET FOR THE 1982-1983 FISCAL YEAR AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED by the Atascadero City Council as follows: Section 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 37208 of the Government Code, that certain document entitled "Preliminary Proposed Budget for the City of Atascadero for the Fiscal Year 1982-83," dated June 28, 1982, on file in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby ap- proved 'as the Interim, Budget for the City of Atascadero for the Fiscal Year 1982-1983 to the extent of the totals set forth under the column entitled "FY82-83 Max Reduced," for each function in the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Enterprise Fund, Reserves and totals set forth for each capital project with the following stipulations: a. Salaries and benefits, as adopted for Fiscal Year 1981-82, will continue during an interim period for Fiscal Year 1982- 83 as listed under "Expenditures Classification Personnel" within each Department of the Preliminary Proposed Budget. Salary and benefit adjustments, including merit increases, for Fiscal Year 1982-83, will be retroactive effective to July 1, 1982 upon adoption of a Final Fiscal Year 1982-83 Budget. Salary adjustments based upon salary negotiationle settlements and approved Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) will be retroactive to July 1, 1982, providing negotiations and MOUs are completed by no later than August 1, 1982 unless further extended by City Council action. b. Expenditures for Services and Supplies, as listed under "Ex- penditure Classification Services/Supplies within each Department of the Preliminary Proposed Budget, will be held to an absolute minimum commensurate with maintaining basic City services by management review of all Purchase Orders. C. Expenditures forCapitalOutlay, as listed under "Expendi- tures Classification Capital Outlay," within .each Depart- ment of the Preliminary Proposed Budget, will be restricted to those lease-purchase payments which were obligated prior to Fiscal Year 1982-83 and are listed in the Preliminary Pro- posed Budget. d. No hiring actions will be accomplished for those additional classified positions suggested in the Preliminary Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 1982-83. Section 2. The City Manager, ;upon recommendation of the Finance Director , may transfer funds within, but not between, each of the functional appropriations of the Fiscal year 1982-83 Budget as re- quired to achieve the orderly and efficient functioning of the City. Resolution No. -82 - - • �0 1982 83 Budget Section 3. The Council, from time to time, by motion, may approve . and authorize the payment of non-budgeted demands and may appropriate funds for budgeted or non-budgeted . items, and any such appropriation for a non-budgeted item shall constitute an approval to issue a war- rant in payment of a proper demand or demands therefor . Section 4. This resolution shall become effective and in full force immediately upon its passage. On motion by Councilman and seconded by Councilman , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its en- tirety on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: BARBARA MORRIS City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: UR Y7LAWARDENa, C=ity Man er • 2 i C ORDINANCE NO. 55 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING SECTION MAP 12-0-33 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO BY PLACING CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE R-4-D ZONE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. Council Findings. After conducting a public hearing, the City Council finds and determines that: 1. The project will not have a significant adverse effect upon` the environment and the preparation of an Environmental Im- pact Report is not necessary. 2. The recommended rezoning is consistent with the Professional Commercial designation of the 1980 Atascadero General Plan. 3. Adequate provision has been made to assure that the transi- tion between the commercial and residential areas will be buffered in an appropriate manner, 4. The Planning Commission, after conducting -a public hearing on May 3, 1982, voted to recommend approval of the zone change from R-1-B-2-D (532) and R-4-D (532) to R-4-D. Based upon these findings,• a .change of zone from R-1-B-2-D (532) to R-4-D is warranted with the "D" to mean:` 1. Development of the property shall be limited to business and professional offices, single family dwellings, public utility offices, parks and playgrounds, personal services and home occupations. 2. Provisions shall be made to develop a suitable screening buf- fer which may include landscaping, fencing or similar- between an office development and surrounding residential uses 3. Access shall be provided to the property only from Morro Road 4. Six foot screening fencing shall be required on all interior lot lines abutting single family districts. 5. A 25 foot setback shall be provided along Navajoa provided, however, that buildings (s) not exceeding one-story and fif ORDINANCE NO. 55 teen (15) feet in overall height and offstreet parking maA encroach into said setback not more than 12 1/2 feet if ' ap- propriate landscaping, building architecture, and site design is utilized to minimize visual impacts on adjacent residen- tial properties. 6. The 'front yard setback on Morro Road shall be fifteen feet. Section 2. Zoning Change Map 12-0-33 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero on 'file in the City Planning Department is hereby amended to reclassi- fy the following described property from R-1-B-2-D (532) and R-4-D (532) to R-4-D. Section 3. Zoning Map Map 12-0-33 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero on file in the City Planning Department is hereby amended as shown on attached Exhibit "A 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. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 55 i • The foregoing ordinance was introduced on and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on AYES NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: BARBARA NORRIS, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: • /s/ Allen Grimes ALLEN GRIMES , City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MU Y L GARDEN, City Manager 3 i • • z►� f xK R-6 VAMILY C Dom` R- Lp-r 11 t3� rc� tA'r ►Z��' ' Zone Change 2820309:1 from R-1-S-2-D and R-4-D(532) to R-4-D with the "D" to mean: 1. Development of the property shall be limited to business and professional offices, single family dwellings, public utility offices, parks and playgrounds, personal services and home occupations. 2. Provisions shall be made to develop a suitable screening buf- fer which may include landscaping, fencing or similar between an office development and surrounding residential uses. 3. Access shall be provided to the property only from Morro Road. 4. Six foot screening fencing shall be required on all interior lot lines abutting single family districts. S. A 25 foot setback shall be provided along Navajoa provided, however, that building(s) not exceeding one-story and fifteen (15) feet in overall height and offstreet parking may encroach into said setback not more than 123= feet if appropriate land- scaping, building architecture, and site design is utilized to minimize visual impacts on adjacent residential properties. 6. The front yard setback on Morro Road shall be fifteen feet. I M E M O R A N D U M — — — — — — — — — - — TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Health and Sanitation Ordinance - The attached pages should be inserted in your copy of the proposed Health and Sanitation Ordinance. The changes were nec- essary because of some textual changes as _indicated on the copies provided to you. Because these affect the original introduction, the matter will be brought back for second reading and adoption at your first meeting in July. M RA L. WARDEN MLW:ad 6-24-82 j _M E M 0_R_A N_D_U_M TO: City Council FROM: City. Manager SUBJECT: Occupancy tax increase The City of San Luis Obispo, supported by other cities in the County, is seeking a unified city approach to increasing the ex- isting 6% transient occupancy tax to 9%. In order to do so, the matter must be placed on the ballot for the November election If you wish to support the San Luis Obispo request and wish to place the matter on the ballot for Atascadero voter considera- tion in November, you should indicate your support and the in- crease you consider appropriate. I will then return the appro- priate resolution for your consideration and adoption at the July 12th meeting. U Y WARDEN MLW:ad 6-24-82 :III ON LUIS OBISPO COUNTY ARV COUNCIL OF NEW GOVERNMENTS San Luis Obispo County A G E N D A REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, JULY 1, 1982 1:30 P.M. SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 990 PALM STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA The San Luis Obispo County Area Council of Governments an exofficio governing body of all other agencies and authorities for which suh council so acts, including the Regional Transportation Planning Agency and Transit Authority, is now meeting in regular session. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 1. President and Vice-President. MINUTES 2. Approval of the minutes for the May 6, 1982, Regular Meeting of the Area Council CONSENT AGENDA These items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by the council in one action. If any person requests an item be removed from the Consent Agenda, it will be addressed at the end of all other scheduled agenda items. 3. A-95 REVIELV Consideration of A-95 Clearinghouse Review. Recommendation: Submitted at Area Council meeting. 4. Annual consideration of the by-laws for the Citizen's Transportation Advisory Committees. Recommendation Consider CTAC suggested revisions and ratify attached by-laws. 979 OSOS STREET 0 SUITE B 0 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 • 805/549-5710 5. Annual consideration of the by-laws for the Technical Transportation Advisory Committee. Recommendation Consider proposed revisions and ratify attached by-laws. 6. Notification of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research response to proposedfederal modifications in the A-95 clearinghouse review process. Recommendation None, information item. 7. Status Report on the Annual Ratification of the Joint Powers Agreement creating the San Luis Obispo County Area Council of Governments. Recommendation None, information item. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 8. Consideration of a Negative Declaration on a proposed amendment to the 1981 Regional Transportation Plan, Bikeway Section to include`a bikeway on Ocean Boulevard, Cayucos. Recommendation a. Consider any public testimony, written comments and committee recommendations. b. Issue a Negative Declaration finding the proposed amendment to the Regional Transportation Plan will not cause any significant environmental damage. C. Certify that the proposed Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Area Council Guidelines and that the Area Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration. 9. Consideration of an amendment to the 1981 Regional Transportation Plan, Bikeway Section to include a bikeway on Ocean Boulevard, Cayucos Recommendation a. Receive public testimony and input on the recommendation. . e t b. Authorize the President to sign the attached resolution, adding a proposed bikeway to the Regional Transportation Plan, along Ocean Boulevard at its north and south intersections with Highway 1. C. Designate Ocean Boulevard in Cayucos as an alternative bicycle traffic route to Highway 1 for the length of the proposed bikeway. TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS 10. Consideration of including a Hazardous Materials Transportation Element addition to the 1982/83 Transportation Planning Overall Work Program. Recommendation ` a. Add a hazardous materials transportation work element to the 1982/83 Area Council Transportation Planning Work Program, (OWP) with five man days of supervision/overhead apportioned from Caltrans subventions. b. Authorize the President to execute the resolution approving the OWP as revised. • 11. Status Report on the Pilot Paso Robles Community Transit System. Recommendation Information item. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 12. Consideration of -an annual contract and resolution for professional services between the Area Council and: a. Ronald L. DeCarli, Administrative Planner b. Victor Kamhi, Transportation Planner. Recommendation Approve and authorize the President to sign the resolutions and annual contracts for professional services between the Area Council and Ronald L. DeCarli; and between the Area Council and Victor Kamhi. 13. Consideration of a contract award to perform fiscal, compliance and performance audits for the Regional Transportation Planning Agency and recipients of Local Transportation and State Transit Assistance Funds. • Recommendation Consider the recommendations of the Contract Review Committee and approve the resolution and contract for professional audit services. +� 0 y F 14. Consideration of the following requests for State Transit Assistance Funds (STA) : a. Regional Transit Manager request for $31,601 for increased operating costs on the Regional Handicapped System. b. County of San Luis Obispo request for $79,000 for the startup and operation of the South Bay Dial-a-Ride System. C. Pending request of the South County Area Transit System for $84,000 as a local match for three (3) replacement transit buses. Recommendation Approve and authorize the President to sign the attached resolutions allocating $31,600 to the Regional Handicapped System and the remaining STA funds (approximately $77,800) to be allocated to the South County Area Transit System. 15. Consideration of an Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Section 8 Grant request in the amount of $10,000 to provide transit development plans for the cities of Morro Bay and San Luis Obispo. Recommendation 1. Approve the contract and resolution to apply for $10,000 in • Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) Section 8 funds -for transit development planning; and 2. Authorize the Executive Secretary to enter into contractual agreements with the cities of Morro Bay and San Luis Obispo as specified in the adopted 1982/83 Overall Work Program. (Attachment A) ANNOUNCEMENTS 16. Notification of vacancies on the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee from the cities of Atascadero, Grover City and Pismo Beach. Recommendation Area Council encourage the applicable cities to appoint new CTAC members. OTHER BUSINESS 17. Request Area Council policy direction to include the following elements in the Regional Transportation Plan: a. Transportation control measures from the Air Quality Attainment and ;Maintenance Plan for San Luis Obispo County. • b. Applicable sections of the San Luis Obispo County Social Services Transportation Coordination Plan (AB 120) .