Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 06/27/1983 0 AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL • Regular Meeting June 27 , 1983 7 :30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Invocation Roll Call Public Comment City Council Comments 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 13 , 1983 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 2. Minutes of the special meeting of June 14, 1983 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 3. Appeal of Departmental Review R830330 :1, 5425 E1 Camino Real, Anthony Leal (A & D Liquor) to construct a 3, 420 square foot liquor store with a self-service gas pump area (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 4. Lot Line Adjustment LA 830506 :1, 8315 Portola Road, J. C. Hardwick (Twin Cities Engineering) to adjust existing lot lines to create a larger rear yard for Parcel 1 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 5. Lot Line Adjustment LA 830517 :1, 10210 Atascadero Avenue, George and Christine French (Morgan) toadjust existing lot dines to enlarge a rear yard (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 6. Lot Line Adjustment LA 810320 :1, 5560 Nogales, Kendall Gal- langer (Hilliard Surveys) to extend the time allowed to com- plete requirements for a lot line adjustment (RECOMMEND AP- PROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 7. Lot Line Adjustment LA 830513 :1, 9300 El Bordo, Wedco & West- wind Investments & V-5 Enterprises (Associated Professions) to adjust existing lot lines to remove unusual configuration created by a previous parcel map (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLAN- NING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) AGENDA - ATASCADER ITY COUNCIL —JUNE 27 19,8 //d"` I c'l- 'G 8. Acceptance of Tentative Parcel Map AT 810721:1, 8940 San Gab- riel Road, Henry J. Hohenstein (San Luis Engineering) (RECOM- • MEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. Public hearing on Falcon Cable Corportation request for in- crease in rates . 2. City Attorney Report No. 24 C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Ordinance No. 68 establishing Title 9 (Zoning Regulations) of rl� the Atascadero Municipal Code and adopting the City-wide Re- zoning Program establishing new Official Zoning Maps for the entire City and repealing all of Title 22, Chapter 19. 60 of Title 19 and Chapter 1 of Title 8 of the Atascadero Municipal Code second reading D. NEW BUSINESS { 1. Selection of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem and determining term of Of f ice 2 Planning Commission selection procedures 4P Petition for Street Maintenance District - Sonora, Lower Pin- i/ al e<r Res-Aution No. 27-83 approving an Interim Budget for the 4-k„ter 198 -84 Fiscal Year and appropriating funds therefor ` 5. .,.Regulation of certain adult and related businesses P - Resolution No. 28-83 approving application for Historical Preservation Grant E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT Nothing F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4 . City Treasurer 5. City Manager NOTE: There will be a closed session to consider labor relations; no announcement after the closed session is anticipated. 2 MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL • Regular Meeting June 13, 1983 7 : 30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building The meeting was called to order at 7 : 30 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Nelson gave the invocation. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Mackey, Molina, Stover, _Wilkins and Mayor Nelson Absent: None STAFF Present: Murray Warden, City Manager; Ralph Dowell, Finance Director; Allen Grimes, City Attorney; Patsy Hester, Deputy City Clerk; Mike Hicks, Fire Chief; Skip Joannes, Recreation Director; Bud McHale, Police Chief; Larry McPherson, Public Works Director; Steven Rizzuto, City Treasurer; and Larry Stevens, Planning Director. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Frank Trott, resident on Old Morro Road East, asked who is responsible for maintaining Old Morro and Los Osos Roads. Mr. Warden stated that this area consists of private roads in the non-dedicated road system. He commented that the roads were not accepted into the city because construction was not up to standards . 2. Michael Bertinuson, resident on Los Osos Road and neighbor of Frank Trott, stated that there is a problem with the roads in their area. Mr. Warden stated that residents in this area should get together to see what needs to be done for acceptable standards and then pre- sent it to the City. COUNCIL COMMENTS None A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the regular meeting of May 23, 1983 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 2. Treasurer ' s Report, May 1, 1983, to May 31, 1983 (RECOMMEND . APPROVAL) 0 MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 13, 1983 • 3. Finance Director' s Report, May 1, 1983, to May 31, 1983 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 4. Award of bids for weed abatement (RECOMMEND BID FOR PART I AND PART II BE AWARDED TO VINEYARD DRIVE MOWERS AND PART III TO S&K WEEDMOWING) 5. Amendment to Agreement for Maintenance of State Highways (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT) 6 . Resolution No. 26-83 requesting the State Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration to approve a Federal Aid Urban project for the City of Atascadero (REC- OMMEND ADOPTION) 7. Lot Line Adjustment LA 830325 :1, 13820 and 13840 Morro Road, Dick Davis (Twin Cities Engineering) to adjust exist- ing lot lines to allow building sites after dedication for a realignment of Los Altos Road (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLAN- NING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 8. Lot Line Adjustment LA 830317 : 1, 9005 El Camino Real, Harold D. Peterson, et al (Central Coast Engineering) to adjust and remove property lines to form more logical parcels (RECOM- • MEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 9. Tentative Tract Map AT 830304 :1, 6100 Llano Road, Glen Millhollin (Daniel J. Stewart) to allow division of approxi- mately 20 acres of land created from a previous map into two parcels (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEN- DATION) 10. Tentative Parcel Map AT 830401, 8455 Del Rio Road/13600 Santa Ana Road, Leonard C. Gibaut (Twin Cities Engineering) to allow division of 7. 17 acres of land into two parcels (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) ll. ' Tentative Parcel Map AT 830318 : 1, 9805 Laurel Road and 11770 Cenegai Road, Jim Rockstad (Twin Cities Engineering) to allow division of two parcels containing approximately 13. 7 acres of land into three parcels (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 12. Acceptance of Tentative Parcel Map AT 820810 :1, 5600 Cascabel Road, Kathryn Fosmark (Daniel J. Stewart) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) Mayor Nelson reviewed all items on the Consent Calendar. -2- • 0 0 i MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 13, 1983 MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved-to approve Items A-1 through A-12 of the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Council- man Mackey and unanimously carried by roll call vote. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. Ordinance No. 68 establishing Title 9 (Zoning Regulations) of the Atascadero Municipal Code and adopting the City-wide Rezoning Program establishing new Official Zoning Maps for the entire City and repealing all of Title 22, Chapter 19 . 60 of Title 19 and Chapter l of Title 8 of the Atascadero Municipal Code - first reading MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to read Ordinance No. 68 by title only. The motion was seconded by Councilman Molina and unanimously carried. Mayor Nelson read Ordinance No. 68 by title only. MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved that this constitute the first reading of Ordinance No. 68 . The motion was seconded by Councilman Molina and unanimously carried. 2. Public hearing protesting requirement to abate weeds Goldie Carminati asked why vacant lots in the 3F Meadows area had not been posted as this is a fire hazard area. Mike Hicks, stated that lots in this area had been posted. Don Eddy asked about the time limit for removal of the weeds. Mr. Hicks. stated that the abatement process will begin on June 23 and will finish around August 8 . MOTION: Councilman Molina moved to authorize the Fire Chief to proceed with the abatement process. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried. 3. City Attorney Conference Report Allen Grimes presented a brief analysis of the City Attorney' s annual spring conference. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Consultant Report - Charles Paddock Zoo -3- MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 13, 1983 Council agreed to consider implementation of Dr. Chaffee ' s zoo recommendations during the_ 1983-84 budget hearing on June 14. Goldie Carminati of the Zoological Society stated that the Society agrees with Dr. Chaffee ' s recommendations and agreed to commit a minimum of $25, 000 toward improvements. Daphne Fahsing, representing Action for Animal Rights, supported Dr. Chaffee ' s recommendations in his report and considered this as top priority. 2. Consideration of Pismo Beach resolution expressing opposition to language entitled "Compromise between National League of Cities and National Cable Television Association on Federal Cable Legislation" MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to endorse support of the resolution from the City of Pismo Beach. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and carried with Councilman Molina voting no. _ D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Rate increase request - Falcon Cable T.V. Mr. Warden presented a request from Falcon Cable T.V. for a rate increase. Thomas Hatchell, of Falcon Cable T.V. , stated the need for a basic increase of $9.50 per month. MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved for a public hearing on June 27 for the possibility of raising rates for Falcon Cable T.V. The motion was seconded by Councilman, Mackey and unanimously carried. 2. Request for funds from EOC for the Community Volunteer Bureau Sherry Worley, representing the Economic Opportunity Commission (EOC) , requested assistance for the Community Volunteer Bureau. Council agreed to consider this request at the budget hearing on June 14. 3. Consideration of Alvord Field Lighting - Bid No. 83-4 Mr. Warden stated that MK Constructors do not have the proper State of California Contractor ' s License and that the bid should be -4- 0 0 MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 13, 1983 rescinded. He recommended award.-to the next lowest bidder, Lee Wilson Electric Co. MOTION: Councilman Molina moved to rescind the bid of MK Construc- tors because they do not have a qualifying contractor' s license and to award the bid to the second lowest bidder, Lee Wilson Electric Co. The motion was seconded by Council- man Mackey and unanimously carried by roll call vote. 4. Recommendation of Fee Committee for increase of business license fees Mr. Warden noted that the Fee Committee had _recognized that existing business license fees are too low and that there is a need for new fee schedules and revision of business licensing procedures. He requested that Council consider a revenue ordinance modeled after the League of California Cities suggestions . MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved to direct Staff to obtain a draft ordinance of the League of California Cities for revenue business licenses and to bring back to Council by the first meeting in August. The motion was seconded by Councilman Molina and unanimously carried. E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT None F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council a. Mayor Nelson stated that he received an objection from Dorothy Daniels of a business license issued to Mr. Pisenti for a metal works business as a home occupation. Mr. Stevens stated that there are similar home occupations qualifying them under the new and existing ordinances. Doug Lewis commented that home occupations should be permitted. 2. City Attorney None 3. City Clerk • None -5- MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 13, 1983 4 . City Treasurer None 5. City Manager a. Mr. Warden stated that selections of mayor and mayor pro tem will be on the next agenda. b. Mr. Warden stated that the terms for Planning Commissioners Lilley, Summers, and Wentzel will expire on July 31. MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to reappoint Commissioners Lilley, Summers, and Wentzel effective July 31, 1983. After further discussion, the motion was withdrawn. Consensus of the Council was to' bring the matter back to the next Council meeting for consideration. C. Mr. Warden stated that the budget hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, June 14 , 1983, at 4 :00 p.m. Mr. Grimes commented that he will be out of town and unable to attend the meeting. d. Mr. Warden stated that the League of California Cities Channel Counties quarterly meeting will be in Lompoc on July 15 and that reservations should be given to him by the lst of July. The meeting adjourned at 9 :25 p.m. Recorded by: BARBARA NORRIS, City Clerk By: PATSY A. HESTER Deputy City Clerk I • MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting June 14 , 1983 4 :00 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building The meeting was called to order at 4 :00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. Present: Councilmen Mackey, Molina, Wilkins and Mayor Nelson Absent: Councilman Stover (arrived 4 :40 p.m. ) It was noted that the meeting had been called for the purpose of reviewing the 1983-84 proposed budget. Mr. Warden presented an overview of the FY 1983-84 Budget, discussing the police facility, personnel changes , a 4-wheel drive vehicle for the Fire Department, and a general purpose vehicle. Council discussed the Budget Summary, Expenditure Summary, comparison of prior budgets , and Revenue Summary. Mr. Warden reviewed and discussed each departmental budget. Kate Johns ,appeared on behalf of Action for Animal Rights • (AFAR) requesting the City' s assistance. Bruno Adamoli felt that the City should spend more money for animal control. Mike Hicks recommended that the request from the Emergency Medical Services Agency be dropped. Council requested Staff to bring back a written proposal for the use of employees ' personal vehicle for city business. Council reviewed the proposed uses of the Revenue Sharing - Funds. Council agreed to continue the Budget discussions to June 27, 1983 , in the Rotunda Room at 6 :30 p.m. preceding the regularly scheduled Council meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7 :35 p.m. Recorded by: BARBARA NORRIS,, City Clerk By: PATSY A. HESTER Deputy City Clerk M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY MANAGER June 21, 1983 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Appeal of DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW R830330 :1 LOCATION: 5425 E1 Camino Real (Lot 2, Block RA) APPLICANT: Anthony Leal (A & D Liquor) REQUEST: To construct a 3,420 square foot liquor store with a self-service gas pump area. On June 6 and 20 1983 , the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on an appeal of the above-referenced Departmental Review by the applicant concerning Condition #7b which required that a revised grading plan be submitted, as outlined in the attached memo and Staff Report. Upon review, the Commission unanimously moved to approve the appeal subject to the four conditions listed in the June 20 memo. • There was discussion among the Commission related to the following matters: - the visual and related impacts of similar projects, especially as it pertains to grading - the degree of design review of projects that should be applied to various projects Anthony Leal and John Kennaly, applicant and representative, appeared and spoke about the various problems associated with the site and pos- sible modifications to the proposed plan. Dave Dunn, adjacent property owner, felt there would not be any signi- ficant adverse effects created by the proposed project. Bruno Adamoli, area resident, felt that such self-serve gas pumps should include air and water hoses. No one else appeared on the matter. 4a'941t, 8 LAWRENCE STEVENS 4RRAY WARDEN Planning Director M E M O R A N D U M • TO: PLANNING COMMISSION June 20 , 1983 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW R830330 :1 LOCATION: 5425 El Camino Real (Lot 2, Block RA) APPLICANT: Anthony Leal (A & D Liquor) REQUEST: To construct a 3,420 square foot liquor store with a self-service gas pump area. Staff has met with representatives of the applicant concerning the grading situation. It is apparent the applicant is only willing to consider the initial proposal and the revision adjusting the retain- ing wall five feet off the rear property line. I do not consider either alternative to represent the best feasible design for the lot. • I do not consider it to be appropriate at this time to require further revisions to the design. The applicant' s representatives indicated they intend to comply with the following: 1) Remove the retaining wall five feet off the rear property line. 2) Provide for adequate landscaping in the rear five feet. 3) Eliminate equipment from the roof of the commercial building. This should result in an adequate buffer to the adjacent residen- tial property. 4) The applicant will talk to the adjacent property owners to the north to see if a joint grading effort would be possible. LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Directot Ps • M E M O R A N D U M TO: PLANNING COMMISSION June 6 , 1983 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Appeal of Departmental Review R830330 :1 LOCATION: 5425 El Camino Real (Lot 2, Block RA) APPLICANT: Anthony Leal (A&D Liquor) REQUEST: To construct a 3, 420 square foot liquor store with a self- service gas pump area. On May 13 , 1983 the attached letter of appeal concerning the above- referenced project was filed by Richard P. Heim, representing the ap- plicant. The applicant is appealing Condition 7B which requires a revised grading plan to be submitted that minimizes the need for ex- cessive retaining walls, and lessens the grade differential between adjacent lots, especially in the rear where it adjoins a residential area. The existing grade of the majority of the lot is approximately five feet above E1 Camino Real. Surrounding properties have been developed at this grade. The proposed grading would bring the grade of the sub- ject lot down to approximately six feet below existing grades on adja- cent properties. The Departmental Review process gives the Planning Director the ability to adjust the use with land and uses in the neighborhood to minimize the incompatible situation that would result from the grading proposal as submitted. There could also be some ad- verse effect on abutting properties due to undercutting of adjacent properties, due to excessive water on the site, and safety considera- tions created by the grade differential from adjacent properties. Concern should also be expressed regarding the negative visual effects of excessive retaining walls. Prior to the appeal being submitted, the applicant did not submit any revised grading plans to try and meet the condition. Staff did speak with John Kennaly, Twin Cities Engineering, about the above concerns. The applicant then presented Staff verbally with a proposal for moving the rear retaining wall forward and grading up to the adjoining prop- erties. This was found to be an unacceptable method alone to meet the condition. Appeal of Departmental Review R830330 :1 (Leal) Staff does not contend that no grading be done on the site, or that no retaining walls be used, but rather that an attempt be made to make the lot fit better with existing development in the neighborhood. There are a number of alternatives which can accomplish this within the framework of the recommended condition. Minimizing unnecessary grading and retaining walls can also reduce the costs of site development. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department recommends denial of the appeal of Departmen- tal Review R830330 :1. ACTION The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff as deemed appropriate. REPORT PREPARED BY: KAMI GRIFFIN Planning Intern REPORT APPROVED BY: ecw� J4� LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director Ps 2 hi — — L A sJ h S G P I N[.1 rr enJ a row[R J ---- _ t _ _ ��— Y �/ �.� N �: G3rJL wa.t �_$iv �' p Y % ,, 4`. I__ _ a 1 ` 4 . 11, _ W Z!•.vr, �,�1 Yr s - ,�%q.;�'� � PROPOSED PRO,P05"Ep �; f L ? Q UO R 1 n : f, S P O EST L N G GOODS j STORE ,_tca r- a.� 1 y "a ' ' S T 0 R E !(� T 2508 Sct FT � . a1 a: 9i2 gQ Fj1. Y L - . Q Mt l+` '' s /ids r £:.�i- -t ,a T-_ t _✓ _;y . .tags ( ✓' - _i t ? .0 % ..5".'�''�f '$ t c ` 'v'l '.Lot�C.,, wP.E.I� ( _;.t '. s ! % � � " - . 1 -�_�I / 11i� ,cs �co`'�a r i 1 5 wl _ r _{ f d - - I_ ss- �..t -" 'd J�'IC'7'� T'' ft 1 t 'yrtt 'Lf .) O Y may, / N �J ..y .[.. f /x. - �` -� 1 2 _ 3 4 i s ? g. g `� ? j ,— .1. . ,- - ., 6 ., � � ,v6 c - �: n O t A '� + r 22 h 1 ! a i J T �O� X15 G�� ; _ � ti - { s. hRi `01 ?�IQtE(T�:,; 1 E 11 c:. �'+�: --i� �4 -; .,.,F "c'; �. --�s �,.�s---'£ s'... PR 3 NI �--1 i 1� ' : .,,,f_,S�t ir:; �� .ice y�"an s 4 ,�.[ i. x t _ `�. ?.(ODD 9ooRg _ 1 `I i '�'` 1 ,as i "'` �" ' ?RASH~h11J i' \ ! "a s4. r ws: --r i 56/4 Y E{ .x i tYn ;s x q E O P G U 1�3Est4w(GCeC--` ...� -- S d -a sa t - WALLS n axe-z.' ti'. s. - <t a 6`� i 5. t-,... M . s,Qxr-_,. 1 �' r v s S - / L { h6wL" - !!llll O ,� 3 ( ,: t i ' >�� 1 G `y, . o iV ` 5� {{ s h `' Q Q71Q ' _4 .'x LJ i 4 r r �r 1. _ j s. o tQ [ r,•, .•.� 1 �i � a .�o GIGZ lYttixPS t'+�7 I r r . cx �' tf► t11. a t s i. 0 X tj kr.t - .-� J t j JU�IREA[�GFIIF�61�5[C� - 3 v. �� �/ ( �' F ti •, F14 -tdOdRnQ7,>ALU, Sv e' F .� a it r ";, f°1 y.: 9 r rr..:,� •1•Pn�ltEBsb >SL.dK P1FE s .. ; �- ' - E 1 *-` e F _ s ,• _, I. n, •i .... \_\ it awl 'Z 411 /J :1 f e} =�\ a[6uEtlT+1 r w z`s� s �? j ,: nr7 �� I �� �� t ti .. 1 l �l 'uPr�Ps,� T,11 � 2 - ,s*'V; " 3 _ ..}(6w [OlL..1W'ti*-`^�N $XSyT Itstf ,,,ss e t - 2i6b7 gosh N9Ro[cV -- '•/ _:PER CnY 5145- •ulC_'�iDE WAIL y_11 `9-�( k, tIEW CdtC 131DC W�.Ik 7 vea-a T.-SIPS 16 s g%ItiI CoaC LA2.b f.(aJ1E�J KN. i� aEw tanC 44Q 6:C G47TER 6 51'fiilw a POW!fl fOLc t? A ��---�- '^^` f - ..� �l `f .-� �_ .tT'•� { •Y[;1..1..t .. ` .ra _rte:. .. .. •:v .,t...:•k�._''»"t": 16 7 s I I �c 14 ! A,A14-A.-C) tnlo WAY I i9 /22 11 - 1 47 6 .Yi11 '"149`.8,7 61541 II 1 C < q \ 9 2� 8 « 151 3 + 2 9 11 tCL 10 a o !? 5l,/ - 2 °0���\ 'J 4 t2 �ti6, 1; i 2 3 4 OV Or 6 - 1 '7-I 5 N 3 77 34 �7 \, ? : 1 , j; 1 t 6 Q I .t' f.S 1 !15 14 1�a ', I7 35� fj -4�j V 225 C�� 1 (22 12` I 13i� 3 %\ / O .aa39 j 2.4 r ; X71 8 9 e 5 37 zi 1 8D r 7 4?3 C3a Q v 7 153 Z. ' 187 I /1 iEt p2�, �2 1a91ec�isit,. i I 2 v ���'�7 y 412 83Y0,11 �� 2 9 s•,5 - I 1 1Zla Lf 10 ✓ t � _ �� 2 �- L/� 42 7 12 38 iP� 11 62 97 1 8 4 2 < S 2 UkA 2 2G 25� i J -2 6 ? 8 �6 Is X18 73 S I �< 5 06 Ito 5$ 171 (I4 t _ _11 h F7,i6 I� t3 t 4! 9 g 6t 20 ` i big —( s3! II l 80 Eta 21A 2't /65 6; 1 3 a ! 22 3 _2 1� 16� ?i� 7+ 1 5: !q 3 �, r,3�nit11 STgTE 2 a i,1i11.1.1 WA Y " 23 24 24!2y,- 12 2 14 1 12, o �8►� 6 0' -4 137 t 13 H a 3t 32 34 15 3 5 .J 13 4 f}� I8 !6 9��ani� 6 B 3 12,1 X29 2 1 25 14 '•2 4 81S 5 � 14 V V y=1l�rafA z J 26 7 5 q`3\r 26 13 4'1 3 ' 2 i '' 1 / 10 7 6 \ U { 1 17 a, IS 17 I g 1120 12J 22 24 gam.- 2 z7t'2 3 R / to I ! 5 18 l6 IS 117 t6 ,i5 �t4/l3 12\ k, ' 13 2 ! e 1 1� 16 17 {g ! 0 VfyA10 O n 59 > 2� 7 e 3 Il 3 i T �17 4 b`°i 26 23 \ 3 15 6 32\ 7 5 �Z 3 tb 27 3 t 27 � 6 2 /1 9 2 5 t3 2 1 18 j/ 2 ' ion 30�i �I 28 ,25a 7 6 1 /4�``_, 14 1 12 19 2 2 8264 LOCATION out Y, 44 11 (,0 9 _ 2 030330- j 43� 42 0 g .q 9 6 2q ' �29(3q LOT,1 6i�CK- e 10 g q 4 r-` t IU I � � 3 5 11 j� �'� 10/ b/ /8 t 5 4 S�f25 Ec CAm•i✓c Ac. 7 10 / •l 1� \ 120 f 6 / !3° 11 68 1v {5 34 5 67f _:�'��-/� - . �11 ��_ � ' C • 1 w s ► ter .1�v� e - � n � t `� 3 �� I y :• ' Vii.. � I I its � �` Cys' �4� • - - ��` JL��u LIQ/FR� ZM Nomm : � '� • 'cup _ �� ' Y c \ �n1 � R. P. HEIMMSOCIATES BUILDING DESIGNER P.O. BOX 489 105 MAIN STREET (805) 434-2888 TEMPLETON, CA 93465 • 1� ESE `J May 13, 1983 A P P E A L City of Atascadero Planning Department Re : Departmental Review R830330 : 1 Subject Project . .A & D Liquor Qr. 5425E1 Camino Real Atascadero, Ca. ' r We would like to app a' 'd' 7B. To minimize the proposed goading any. more `than 'we ave ed proposed with our engineered grading "'pl,an would ri, t be Fiery practical. We are trying to make! a more pleasnig and ""safety" entrance to ,,the pro j•ect not like the" one that exist "At the ;Adobe. Plaza. We are trying to stay'within the." standards' of parking lot ; $ design and have a gentle slope of 51. We are also trying to make the stores easly accessible to the handicap which is a State requirement . We would be more than happy to sit down with the planning department and try and work out a sensible solution. Sincerly; V ` Richard P. Heim RESIDENTIAL o COMMERCIAL • APARTMENTS CALIFORNIA REGISTERED BUILDING DESIGNER M 1071 CITY OF ATASCADERO F Planning Department May 4, 1983 F- � iris 13 C 51 1979 DRAFT NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATION REQUIRING DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW SUBJECT: DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW R830330 :1 LOCATION: 5425 E1 Camino Real (Lot 2, Block RA) APPLICANT: Anthony Leal (R.P. Heim and Associates) REQUEST: To construct a 3,420 square foot liquor store with a self-service gas pump area. BACKGROUND 1. Existing Zoning: C-1-D(511) with the "D" to mean: "Design development review is required to ensure the establishment of uses compatible with the remaining residential uses and to en- sure attractive appearance from the highway by: a) limiting signing to 20 square feet unless approved by Condi- tional Use Permit; b) requiring landscaping covering not less than 10% of lot area including screen planting along lot lines abutting residen- tial uses. " 2. General Plan: Retail Commercial 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 mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. 4. Site Conditions: The site is located between Rosario and San Jacinto Roads on the east side of El Camino Real. The topography of the site consists of a short steep slope from E1 Camino Real to a gently upward sloping surface to the rear of the lot. Vegeta- tion consists of natural grasses with no 'trees located on the site. The site is presently vacant, with the exception of two Departmental Review 8830330 :1 (Leal) P. G. & E. power poles and transmission lines at the rear of the site. Surrounding property is generally commercial in nature, although the site is bounded on the north and east by single family residences. 5. . Project Description: The applicant is proposing to build a 3,420 square foot structure containing a liquor store (2, 508 square feet) and a sporting goods store (912 square feet) . In addition, the applicant is proposing a self-service gas station on the site. There are nine parking spaces including one for use by the handi- capped. Exterior elevations indicate use of exterior stucco with exposed wood fascia and sloping concrete tile roof (front and rear elevations only) . The overhang along the El CaminoRealelevation is supported by stucco-covered columns with a decorative ceramic tile band. STAFF COMMENTS Staff reviewed the project and noted that it generally conforms to applicable development standards with some concern with regard to proper grading. Grading on the site should be kept to a minimum in order to retain the existing character and appearance of the area. If the site is graded as proposed, it will be six feet lower than surrounding properties. FINDINGS 1. The project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 2. The site of the proposed commercial use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and all yards, fencing, parking, landscaping and other features required by the Atascadero Munici- pal Code. 3. Streets in the vicinity of the proposed use are adequate to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated. 4. The proposed use will have no adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof provided all conditions are complied with. 5. The establishment and conduct of the proposed commercial use for which the Departmental Review is sought will not be detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. 2 . _ '. Departmental Review R830330 :1 (Leal) 40 DECISION Based upon the above Findings, the Planning Director approves the following: A) . Issuance of a Conditional Negative Declaration as follows: 1. Adequate provision shall be made for drainage and erosion control in conjunction with site development. 2. Provision shall be made to minimize unnecessary grading on the site; and, B) Approval of Departmental Review R830330 :1 subject to the follow- ing conditions: 1. Site development including buildings, driveways, parking, landscaping and other features shall be consistent with plans submitted including modifications included herein. 2. Submit two copies of detailed landscape and irrigation plans indicating size, type, and spacing of plant materials 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 where it abuts parking or driveway areas. b. Plant materials shall be sized to achieve a mature ap- pearance within three years. C. The type of irrigation system shall depend upon the plant materials used and their watering needs. 3. Building architecture shall be consistent with the elevations submitted. a. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from adjacent streets and properties in a manner ap- proved by the Planning Department. 4. Provision shall be made for a paved and enclosed trash area in a location generally as shown on the site plan. 5. Provide a minimum of nine (9) parking spaces. Parking and access areas shall be paved with a minimum 2" AC on adequate base. a. All parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 ' X 20 ' with a 24 foot turning radius, except for the handicapped space which shall be 12 feet in width or adjacent to a five foot wide access aisle. 3 Departmental Review R830330 :1 (Leal) b. All driveways shall be no less than 25 feet in width and no more than 30 feet in width. 6. Install concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk and street paveout along the entire El Camino Real frontage. Said improvements shall be constructed under an inspection agreement and en- , croachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. a. Improvement drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for approval. 7. Submit two sets of revised grading and drainage plans indi- cating grade of building pads, flow lines at top of curb, etc. , for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to issuance any permits. a. Drainage from the site shall not be allowed to flow di- rectly to adjacent properties or across any public sidewalks or driveways. b. Revised grading plans shall be submitted that minimize the need for excessive retaining walls and the large grade differential between adjacent lots, especially in the rear portions of the lot. 8. The project shall be connected to the community sewer and water systems. Submit evidence from the Atascadero Sanita- tion District and the Atascadero Mutual Water Company indi- cating that they are willing and able to provide service prior to issuance of building permits. 9 . Lighting fixtures shall not project above the roof of the building and all lighting shall be designed to minimize on- site and off-site glare. 10. All new utility connections shall be placed under the ground. 11. Underground gasoline tanks shall be installed in a manner approved by the Fire Department. 12. A fire hydrant shall be installed generally along the E1 Cam- ino Real frontage. Size of hydrant, exact location, and manner of installation shall be subject to the approval of the Fire Department. 13. In the event that archeological resources are discovered on the subject site during construction of this project, said resources are to remain undisturbed after discovery and con- struction activity shall cease immediately. The Planning Department is to be notified so that proper disposition of the resources may be accomplished. Construction may resume only upon authorization by the Planning Department. 4 Departmental Review R830330 :1 (Leal) 14. Outside storage and display of materials and/or equipment shall be prohibited. 15. Onsite signing shall be limited to an aggregate area of 20 square feet for the entire project not to exceed the height of the building unless a Conditional Use Permit is secured. 16. A six foot high solid fence shall be placed on the rear (res- idential) property lines. The height shall be measured from finished grade on the higher side of the fence. 17. This Departmental Review approval is granted for a maximum period of one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted by the Planning Director pursu- ant to a written request filed a minimum of ten days prior to the expiration date. 18. All conditions of approval established herein shall be com- plied with prior to occupancy. 19. This Departmental Review and environmental determination shall become final at 5:00 p.m. on May 13, 1983, unless an appeal has been filed prior to that date. REPORT PREPARED BY.. rI GRIFFIN nning Intern REPORT APPROVED B LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director Ps 5 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY MANAGER June 21, 1983 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT LA 830506 :1 LOCATION: 8315 Portola Road (Ptn. Lot 10, Block 6) APPLICANT: J.C. Hardwick (Twin Cities Engineering) REQUEST: To adjust existing lot lines to create a larger rear yard for Parcel 1. On June 20 , 1983 the Planning Commission reviewed the subject matter _ unanimously approving the requested lot line adjustment subject to Conditions 1-4 as listed in the attached Staff Report. There was no discussion as the matter was reviewed as part of the Consent Calendar . No one appeared on the matter. LAWRENCE STEVENS ®RRAjI . WARDEN Planning Director yager PS • CITY OF ATASCADERO t 1918 q � ® - 1979 , Planning Department June 20 , 1983 . STAFF REPORT r SUBJECT: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT LA 830506 :1 LOCATION: 8315 Portola Road APPLICANT: J.C. Hardwick (Twin Cities Engineering) REQUEST: To adjust existing lot lines to create a larger rear yard for Parcel 1. BACKGROUND 1. Existing Zoning: R-A ' 2. General Plan: Moderate Density Single Family Residential 3. Environmental Determination: The Planning Director has determined the application to be a Class 5 (a) Categorical Exemption according • to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. 4. Site Conditions: The site is located on Portola Road near the in- tersection of Mountain View Road. The site topography is rela- tively flat with a small swale running across the upper third of the lot. The site is covered with natural grasses and scattered oak trees. Parcel 1 has an existing residence located on it. 5. Project Description: The applicant intends to adjust the existing lot lines between two lots to provide a larger rear yard for the front parcel. STAFF COMMENTS On Thursday, June 2, 1983 the Subdivision Review Board met to discuss this application with John Kennaly, the applicant' s engineer . Also present were: Larry McPherson, Public Works Director; Fred Buss, Associate Planner; and Planning Commissioner, Shirley Summers. Staff discussed the following item: 1. What is the reason for the adjustment? Staff had no concern with the expansion of the rear yard. 0 0 Lot Line Adjustment LA 830506 :1 (Hardwick) . FINDINGS 1. The application as submitted has been determined to be Categori- cally Exempt from the requirements of C.E.Q.A. 2. • The application as presented conforms with the applicable subdivi- sion regulations. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above Findings, the Planning Department recommends ap- proval of Lot ` Line Adjustment LA 830506 :1 subject to the following conditions: 1. The lot line adjustment as shown on the map provided herein shall be submitted in a Final Map format to be approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation by the County Recorder ' s Office. 2. The proposed adjusted lot lines shall be surveyed and monuments set at new property corners prior to recordation of the Final Map. 3. The location of all improvements and easements shall be delineated on the Final Map. 4. Approval of this Lot Line Adjustment shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless a time extension has been granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. ACTION The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff as deemed appropriate. REPORT PREPARED BY: KAMI G IF IN Planning Intern REPORT APPROVED BY: /awwx 14441VII LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director 2 J w ai ANOWANO N � v Z G GR_4_B 2 �Q N ^ u o l c -E{ -� U P ` P f :PT N C-C F o g • ,_ T z�N cq I 1\ \ k 4• a N2 17 a �'- h .� 1 � 126 a l - yl/J `ItsS X28 t 'ltlj 3�' 42g a � 164 6 '- i� 4n3 iJt'129 463\ 13 .3 y N Z oY 2 10 , X13'4\3 gg � 160 1 7 r 69 28 6 3C 24 5, > 13' a i ^ SS4,i4'v ;560 11 23 t 2 6 ° b 7 2 1 r 25 6 8 /l3 U 20 I3 2 226 34 3 14 1 ' 3 > 6 15? 19 25 i4 2 33 } 7 3 6 Q fo 1 '� !> !8 ! rR r' 50, 2 26 3 / 5 + n Z9- 4 j r�' \ �,,��2 q / 31 • b 13/ / ! i ,''iC -r_V r 1 2 3 4 \ 1 gild/!fi / 2 �Ib i '�=�J 1 7 4 t//1•Z4 14 e /60 ;5b1 ;` 35 7 5 6 2 > 0 5 4 P ;15�; / i3 4 b 34 3 2 / 6 18 —1 9 t i 25 %` 27 ' m 9 18 a 9 l`��i f 260/ 10 17 5 28 29 32 P 17 50 31 11 16 6 ii 7 5 f t 1� '112 13 14 6 ° 101 8 23 a I _�_ 3 1 15 i 39y,6 �r 4 12 13 4 1 lam- 7 89 i0 lC 4 d p if 21 t 3 11 100 P' S 2 to 1 � f f0 11 20 l2 - d 10 21 0 I 3a I �� 12 19 3 Ar' �� 5 10 4 I to 13 6 /��3/i 4 3 1 7 � r "Q 51 t3 4/i5 to , r., g f�- 38 5 15 14 1 / 5 o r!p/1 5 4 18 t5 (j 3�( ` 4 55 19 /` 37 7 1 b6 Sg' 22 3 16 ABl9/}27,� v , rte, Iso 3617 5 ; 8 34 8 _ ��4 51 5049 U 33 �,_ 55 79 1 a 46 ' rip 4? 12 .-• 3G � � (:j 19 9 17Ie1 14 T 1 29 10 \2�7 14 16 15 �YN L�j- 10 6L-OCIV-l0 T r' 18\7 , 41 1FO12Td1 . 21 f s. 5 \ 19\ 40 �©G•,�T l d til moi'; i0 6 aa 24123 38 2 ' Zl'• \\i637 ' 9 / y T I ti may`" 6 T > W Joj go Izz k4 ��no � r • M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY MANAGER June 21, 1983 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT LA 830517 :1 LOCATION: 10210 Atascadero Avenue (Lot 3, Block 33) APPLICANT: George and Christine French (Morgan) REQUEST: To adjust existing lot lines to enlarge a rear yard. On June 20 , 1983 the Planning Commission reviewed the subject matter unanimously approving the requested lot line adjustment subject to Conditions 1-4 as listed in the attached Staff Report. There was no discussion as the matter was reviewed as part of the Consent Calendar . • No one appeared on the matter . LAWRENCE STEVENS M R Y L. ARDEN Planning Director City Mana er Ps CITY OF ATASCADERO rou.w.1918 ® A 19 9 Planning Department June 20 , 1983 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT LA 830517 :1 LOCATION: 10210 Atascadero Avenue (Lot 3 , Block 33) APPLICANT: George and Christine French (Morgan) REQUEST: To adjust existing lot lines to enlarge a rear yard. BACKGROUND 1. Existing Zoning: A-1-1 1/2 2. General Plan: Suburban Single Family Residential _ 3. Environmental Determination: The Planning Director has determined the application to be a Class 5 (a) Categorical Exemption according to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. • 4. Site Conditions: The site has a natural depression running from south to north, and several mature oak trees. There appears to be a shed on the site, but otherwise it is vacant. Parcel B fronts on Atascadero Avenue. 5. Project Description: The applicants request permission to adjust lot lines to add to the rear yard of Parcel B. STAFF COMMENTS On June 2, 1983 the Subdivision Review Board met to review this appli- cation with the applicant' s engineer , Orville Morgan. Also present were: Fred Buss, Associate Planner ; Larry McPherson, Public Works Director; and Shirley Summers, Planning Commissioner. Staff had no major concerns to discuss. FINDINGS 1. The application as submitted has been determined to be Categori- cally Exempt from the requirements of C.E.Q.A. 2. The application as submitted conforms with applicable subdivision • regulations. Lot Line Adjustment LA 830517 :1 (French) RECOMMENDATION - Based upon the above findings, the Planning Department recommends ap- proval of Lot Line Adjustment LA 830517 :1 subject to the following conditions: 1. The lot line adjustment as shown on the map attachment provided herein shall be submitted in a Final Map format to be approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation by the County Record- er ' s Office. 2. The proposed adjusted lot lines shall be surveyed and monuments set at new property corners prior to recordation of the Final Map. 3. The location of all easements shall be delineated on the Final Map. 4. Approval of this Lot Line Adjustment shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless a time extension has been granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. ACTION The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff as deemed appropriate. REPORT PREPARED BY: '7 GREG, FUZ -. Planning` Intern REPORT APPROVED BY: ru � /j4v�m LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director • ps 2 + d / ID O .01 mLl i• — \ \ \ N �' M Ir I 141 I I O .ri rnm ' i M M In r 1 n m I rn O N a n N 0 P M {O OD OD I + i n co O \ IN M N,I N i N N �n M /M N t0 P Of P �` / '$ ' M M P -J, .P NK) P m O — M /:, O co r _ - - N M OD r_ O N /( ' / /'7y/ 1A N C\j m In p . v, `\N i / - / ip � O :n � i - j m N N y N/ N a W) i / N N N N N/ N O N N N � N 10 \ / o ..C4, rn P ip _ N N m N P J N � m _ M � N It m C Nt co 1� N if m , '^ •C�/+ / O Q rNi`M -r-- It M p m T N �.��'-j N t l ' -—_ N_N ,a?e , 1 Will 2 R-2-b-Z-D aA ��.diC�Q�' rofy. � M R C_ LD N P `a c-H c- \ ' J n P G -I-p N P It M a 55- _ " ` -- N 01 20,co,W 1300.00, . \t y w - 4 ra - x _ f, ►f I 3 - - N 4 shy C 1 ,t _ } Q Y.x at - ,�'1i _ ♦ J � ` J R, ,Cj x # .Alas C #k _ .,��1�. i} "-W �µ ��* 4 ... � .1 rA ; t &i`c i s a 0 11 f i s :s �. t qa .� f r�' • t `' .tt s y Y JA.,. 0 ~ '~ . u 3,soa , :R r "' "� 4 S .-. v a > s s c� . Q ti . .td.�}�,l . ] k. t 'x ® X"1`.y,.�• - y S z,t F, o z y:� r4^��e+ 'S= `,< .� r '•�� r L i 'y _ `ll ,� +, tix ,x .ti„ i `,s �+(ri k.F. +, ,t;, _lit ,, *� •.t.' ++ `''. „�'* r^'� °-^?+ i "r t i ,.r' t i. tr t n a �{�i # w 11"t pr y_ r $,}fi i V ' a r- .� 4 x ..d.1 'e ti a .x., s : } kFd f{ -y � . 3A $ r y �;: >. 'a F...a F... > ., . r'4; 0,w �` "'. ' � a r S i 1' Ft#i` , a y6 a1 3« ' t i t' a n t s Q W 1. r �i � :e+ss. ,., �w..`+`�+if V. - '�. + : .,E".4 � 'u� s�-y .� '.t `" ,�511 x3 '.r�3,ti'� "P`t.asAt..r •3` r-k �.e,. I f' F . x x a, - .. -:� o,.-1 _ F t r n :� "24 ^ea�1.• "a,''t;wt s: + 'A 2' ,,,,,3.?t- +C" - 7t. 41 �� t *�` � � a'r ;}. }p a ;' <;` .V► x sr s;tij � �4.tl a i`^ ` i - i ;.� •u r * ]y a'�t�S"1R� r a 3 '. 1't "°c*i!",I�-3�-r 'T�- T x '-. :i y.,ks {, £� '' ' '( i�v..+f ks ! -.++, _ `' 3t-s-. - „ r`',s '' a3 1 3 s f S "�+ZVI-,-�,..s�• r aS,+k u�ra+ ;_j,�a""' k "�a.s s+'.1v,C- i:'�t'�: ss.-42o'x '•swrz -"2< Ze- 2,. t w zti 2 aF,ry' s u;<k� s s Y°' x. ' -Y �� - '` as fat,,`�'i' ,.� •0,' L.-# # ".,r _a 1 l{ #t' �' ?c.y t 4 'L 4y. •.ice 3�r @ a S = -.�' .ri �."'-x 2 S ,Jtlll .±--!..'•fin- .+ .,yr -+',a'-, ,"';� a '. v�,r - % �:: s t t e y b ��r Y e u :. ;-'sem M. r' v >�f + r �` f `vsa %a� 6 k� 5+ a r.F s'- 9 .5-•r r } %�`-''� y �„ a s, P -: f + g, - U, �?4 ti'ut�� > '3 �'ip R`D,,;-3'. `:'c 3� .f i t.-L".,t- 'S,. } ('yx - r �{.c'�y,a.L t'f ,?' .t G" t"a. y, a y R ,fi .Jew ;yj, -„gyp i'tYySta aS.it --:rtes-a'?��� �a . �a �~ f `` Tt'� yv�[ix �_ (w` 'Yr< YFy ,y''t' c--- t: MYe' a t;+ „�- �-' � � x . #,r -, '���a ' ' Ai -?,a -ten. c„ s '�. ;• z,4� =,F ."6 i t� ,, �' )�.r.:..�„ z g ,, "s- 8u fr ' s 4x' `.- 'G"1 z , �+..r'S""' Y 4'�► .;t' ?� < at.. `a i;.,i�Rid ;x '0,3 �£ `` s+- t t. } �a a r:si`"x.*t '�" rh'�3.. ty '}':C' f a.r .g m- '�. w. � 'a �a.�'k ♦ ♦ + r" s k a'a>r 5���a .1'. Y ^a"'2' •fir 'r'i�`•� } 'i. 8 � iP"�z `,�i�t .,i.'.' M 44'�1�4 s�; �-,c`s s F34-'fi�4'}a '?.°�'i�*t t'� x:j ` #,_- -.fes" c ' <p :Q `za w.- �, -tet: ,aby 7, '" t,a.��"a;' ' t�,'F.ya., i -11 "''fit r_`• 't"S 2'..2''i ' `,v`• `' .i•F/�' ,r� �` x §r t` ' r` --gG�i_-'�+. -f2.`. Sa '3{ �,r �r a>;. •� ?-a> .y -}�u�.,x at'3'°�" .s-f" 3 'k '�7' may. F� 4 sr +- �_r 14" I - k ; _ +._ a .. X r ''` rz --. .3}d t--'�A s '�S" 3?'t; y, es'�''- s$e � r$'^f x' `�'. ,mag. - _:.,,,,so- '.. ,N, �L-`'. 1L tC' „`xa +_ 7#�';.. `� .h �'?' .5,g, -3 +a'§�-.�z} T` `g',�E,a ay�..4.-- ,.,v G 1 .` t 7 r 'o. ter' , y�+�.x, a, r,sk, -b .`- , 3 "r' t , .+�v^`d-C R>S�, ,:+ y1� s -�,.;\,: .'P y-. .µii et � ' `i `'S 4^'S - i X#. '»' T`4 1. �,- 2 !"y J 'k 'i',th y'r it }�s•' t.,r .y fin. ..�` } +ss y . '- . ," '+ ,.. ,{a s 2.' $SaY`',a. R -a n�--"f.�es .��� ••„ ,e � >~ '.�`�(' 7+. -C +. aa, e r�-w - s.,- ry a.. ,. ,�,,..,4- r..tir „ `r i 'r fit'' h +a- $ ' i h x t x ! a s x S t T a '#' y,y k � .t��w_ 3 SY * k r s"z„ rn.. T. z�+ratc-.,y4 ''++ '`Pc q' ws` "'x'.` '� ,,'� a k - v�'"" _: `�,.,, `.- - R,�' ' zx '- -.,•.- ''i- f `•'� � �' 'i`e"�` - a`; ,g est 3 S ! tx.. 1 p s^' J ,."'z'y,� ;gy..t a � ''.,V`. m'r• ty, �e' slt ; '' �`t ^' .i s 0 '�i s �.-. - -g �.1r.m".r.�. .l"3i" '`3.'r r- s'fir. 14 i�'mak.11 `' :. 'tk` �" ''• .E .�M�-''f Y _�'' ms s'- $a { �,,9 't ;�t : S'4 �'a'n�''@f'`' '2 2.'r �-�E^*' y `F ��TM t-r x+Z alp `' -- 2 A °'"i r ,, i f `-' n �' � --.r � v:k. .*�`�uzlh a 4 d�„�'i .; '' °"'' 't' ;r N � �t?.«a t' S r}` `�£:a- , Y r�',i, zE.r-`i 5e s 4 r � ia„f 'a.i ->ER,»s r- �h` ''"'4 s '' as..a y7�'.,;:pac y 3,'tz+'�i 1lfs k 7'%' ^4 Y s.�F �- «.t �h y''p.l.' c N �Y =«T�<, rte, s 2 r t >'i21 -`; `7 -~" "'v`�t'tr '.a t F -: � ,. �nt y�'` f X, k `':'`i.;.�*r s .: �''�., '+Sy Y 44r � a� '• }.`. �`�.a- z `^n r }•t }'" a z r E . a -» .'fit '- - - t 1t t�, _ 't_-�- _ .'+mea s " r 'x F r ,:, s s .� 3 w a.� : . t"'`a - d' _F / '*. i .� i" '' ''r s-t alk 'fC. t3 a� e '4 -�. `.c f , ,;�t '@• .a y o,. Y � 7 w� b �F_,�, ? v a a � ., 4 a w. Es+ �-' n g t.r s> �.� 'i.�} .}j 4 u-ar"y" K 7s r. r er +^ �a t „� EI ,c�`Y4 .;nx. +.� #E,-'� a z.i u: iy r c�•s��F �:ir� •# p, r 't" e ...* �+a: >r' 15.� y i * a . i. t f �. ;a,3 r y s , c. tf t n S ! c r 'te,.,w`tr ♦ Z«T '$v'. "i , i. '< �. C kr r.,.,14 y �' ` t } *' '� .z •+ f +,r `1 . -;' eb(�.}'-- ,W W'-'1Ll .. a kxR' , l- z4.4 �.'— F 'e -y ,�-+,q, d ,p r tom.; .r<-i+.r3- T«; '"v .d' .,, t, .'a" -, =s S^,�... si f F s� eke r3 { .x,<.. ' 4 rz.t ? t y .•Y;' e.. ? A k R,. L ''"�S w f „y 3s. t �R. i�� TL a;7�# }; Y., r � r' -, - 'r ` c a'r Z 3 ° r 1 G° N }� t 3• + a �, r, c. --tY ��.>3, q S Zz'�' .{ i'F '� a'f+ ! t t rl y` r ita k S s :k s a h, h ? d t L a� t ti r N s +fit , t � -- " fi n ; 14 '.- �-Ne ° , /✓.�'* WOO"i4t � pry p KS rw— Iti z e .r`-.t"= 7 t 3 �.., P e _w� a .1. a`'" ft t i k4 . �,?,,. AH'Si vs ;•-t k t4.t Y t..j t 7... r N .,r .-xr°�R �'.F` i "k ,; ,M�"r 6 '`' � " < 'r .L'Y S j 1 P n 0 Y _ ti y Srt a �k"`t ;p'r to = e1i�,� (3" '�• �A� f-.a"Y"P f `t t v'i.p !vn aY � ...t�F s e '`�. tt' .y 3+ �, c'. qY P'— iL r ti11 x 'y,Yr .r',- si ? t '` 'moi s -'�. �441„i..•k~ s}!v c#+ir*,,,� =.v t... �%� S -'' .7= _ t }y •-b < A�;zxi s. ': � t u.• \ 1 q; W �fT 4 t ..� ' kf M .X�. sP •. n}Tw. , j i-s, 7 -' fb. �400 f �.� ` , s :1 +”" { r L _ k fi _ �j .s '+fl, 5 �q �.y > tee!`+ f t ti}-. d+. ♦,a r.'rw. Y to '--. ..:,� 1.e�. y,q..�„ Q ,�"� �7 ,�.. '.A tyi _,4 a u j } f 'r [ ttrey s K t») y Sy e n� . Z I I'll'.a � � w'"`w t t�.4 R'. �s k�;. r`c st t .. Qt �. n� rA' 4 "--'l"'-"-� y�� , - - 11 I ono, aR�i� .t - \ Ti-� •..f?Fy.r`z+ '�s I . 0- _ac a*.. i�.i `.:4{' . -` `y t 'Vas ��,�� ,-p,r— M 1. n 4 �'t.S sY i Y .. w Al— � 4 .•. } t v r + _� .-' .. • M E M O R A N D U M i TO: CITY MANAGER June 21, 1983 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT LA 810320 :1 LOCATION: 5560 Nogales (Ptn. Lots 2 and 3 , Block OA) APPLICANT: Kendall Gallanger (Hilliard Surveys) REQUEST: To extend the time allowed to complete requirements for a lot line adjustment. On June 20 , 1983 the Planning Commission reviewed the subject matter unanimously approving a time extension to April 27, 1984 subject to the conditions set forth at the time the project was originally ap- proved. Therewas no discussion as the matter was reviewed as part • of the Consent Calendar . No one appeared on the matter. LAWRENCE STEVENS ALYWAY L. ARDEN Planning Director Ci y Man er Ps a aara�f ._ Fn,- - CITY OF ATASCADERO � al 99 6F • i9is Planning Department June 20 , 1983 _. CADF,Rp% STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT LA 810320:1 LOCATION: 5560 Nogales Street (Ptn. Lots 2 and 3 , Block OA) APPLICANT: Kendall Gallanger REQUEST: To extend the time allowed to complete requirements for an approved lot line adjustment. BACKGROUND 1. Existing Zoning: R-1-B-3-D 2. General Plan: Moderate Density Single Family Residential 3. Site Conditions: The site is generally flat near the front to steeply sloping in the rear . Both lots are presently developed • with single family residences. The lots have frontage on Nogales to the west. 4. Project Description: The applicant is requesting a one year time extension for filing a final lot line adjustment map. 5. Prior Action: On April 27, 1981 the City Council approved Tenta- tive Lot Line Adjustment LA810320 :1 subject to certain conditions. On July 12, 1982 the City Council approved a time extension to April 27, 1983. On June 2, 1982 the Subdivision Review Board dis- cussed the second time extension request with the applicant and indicated that this would be the final time extension that could be granted under the current lot division ordinance. STAFF COMMENTS There does not appear to be any reason not to grant this extension, but it is the last possible extension of the approval. • • Re: Lot Line Adjustment LA 810320:1 (Gallanger) RECOMMENDATION The PlanningDe recommends Department p approval of the time extension sub- ject to the conditions set forth at the time the project was origi- nally approved. Approval of this one year time extension shall expire at -5:00 p.m. on April 27, 1984. ACTION The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff as deemed appropriate. REPORT PREPARED BY: KAM! R / Planning Inter ' REPORT APPROVED BY: c� /A4414 LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director Ps 2 X�. ,': _n 2 v 3• 6 ,, Y � w,y,, l'' x x 4 E `l k F r4 ` % '• _ 1. i ''�` f <a -a�r4 F g 2Illl y r-,.t \1 t, r. Tia-11 ,; 5 .f s S +-s r ,s-5'S -"` „ ....� I `"".. a Y.. f'�-.5* 4 r4 T2 a r$.£ �r� slr. '''� .113 w 3 ,'S T`a.{a 2 } w n �,.,.; t ,,.,r a+ t». '";' "'h "":`..au kv { `' _ a x °.: ».'_-''`rr K '��•-r } ?`-.p ,,,� y a t s , tfi r F .fi•�. 7 - � � r w 1 r .n a'4'L"k` a +. '`'"'.,a te�S`,.a t t` `s` ,.:c,: ` +?f F 4 I.u...,.h*1 3s�r F.ear . '�?a».. ' w'hr TMC r> 2"'F% ,� ". ''",.rtx b.; Y,.,''"t'` S1t�'.`�`. `i' r r+x . &� " 7 -. -" ` ,_ t...� o-L.r:.. >- _ �+ FivO.'/'-'`/.R pAEN "'w. v:. ,F -z,; �- �, itis -P.�cae0;AccFr/e0 w:. €'-.. a :�. �i ,;y, - - ', t. 1. �::� ..'' FOG P-P CRz¢. - ,rR,- "Ill _ 11 FiYO./ Q"E.v �_� �� W.ejM /Z9 57/1. "- ` - &+ S Oq OO s i I.P."-No .PEtPRp N 604 Gb�✓'�• �/ y� .. � ]� GTQ/6-vAt LOT UNE y . ,\ 7_ - `� .C-./17aVE-Q BI CO 13 IOd : h t "ti t z n 0 �> a h � 0 L �.t r P. y s/ y t ` £ 1. �} A.ed5 _O 609 A NFT M tee, - tr? -i a \- s �V ' Q, a. .. r Fein i %!t'OPGirIV i m 1- e- _ _N�RE^/ .1'_ c _..;.::Va,Pecozo A•Cc�-v?Ev `) O y F/vo. /-/.P. OPEN Fa¢Pc'c�COE',:; EO ,�_/,F2Q f3''I P CO.$'` '" _ � FO.2 P.e%1v Cae N � Zo.00" '�'r ? �,` .� � � �` / t 1. s 3s r ' \ a r _ .. t� .,� QCE.L., el # x,- ) I .11"- q eEf+ O 25 9 AG ♦ s< ]� /9aer N A .?F�ov�v l� Yl a , /.z,o, mor '!1. v = �t _ L �11� - i - ao- _O .Ycn ' V � YY i. A 4 K n T �y 1 ,( F _0 Q 8 �wsr = _ .� �� O\ c _ r,". ,•h¢.y� O \ 0 .�.' tl,NA}Q4�1� : .iVj`y 1�11 Q 0.� y '--� c x w 'r. 1" Q.'. ,. b -- r e oQ4 I a _ Z ,t t " 11; :'0.. Fn o"'-2-Z vo�F c 0. 4; DI _ '- wzh i 3 0 0 ^o -cae0,AUFyrFO rae t -�,. i' \ P Ca.Q .Pr5E7 S/8.PEfs}9e ,. '. H - %;r . .11 ry «P� 1//, ...L 976TH Q"?�f0 •.Qe/B9O B ??�s,..�, I -o CO.wEGL f L.:a 2'57'35 �P=/89083- �s� - Z z+t; '/9 L5./9s,v.� A so' 3,vc D sw x ' D4 iy -1+G .202.29 N ` 3525 .4-61o3'-s-6- a i9ia es 'Na Z' s 9i ¢_l9f0 B3 /_ 99 65'tr�--✓9 66 iy J s D 4 v 3 v�qqC /9/O.B .-_O. �CO.wE,t�_ ` a_q�2v/5` .e=/q/o 63 1, i50.O8 e, ..,,�y= �� /''v.EE7 s/B R G o9'3o"_- -e fa.B3 M •. d=919.59�.. .e /9�0.B-3 /O.B•3y 7 ,/.� f't�f1�N • .2/ .� `V - '08 i ` - - /Y,OGA[.ES - . :s d=.Z/�09'00• - „e: /9/�.B`3 2 pC 2 = T t t d./'33 34 ,e=/9iO.63'4�SZD/''N � T _ .W ..e Z. ._e . _ d c .I 0 C O=o•3s's9" Q=/9iD.B3' , 4 `�7(7���<Q L=.ZO.oo-,'e d=O'36'a e=/9iod3'1-..W.OZIoIX - pN ,/ . �.4=2'093,3"R=/9/O e3',L;= 7Z.0/�H KTOlA4) e o _ - b $ ���/ T�/i,G- 0 0 _ k [� -. - ^A� CD CD g 6 3r 0 by c o /N D t V - 6` J` °•V 1- 6a •S2- /\ p',\ ac5s 4 s >1 1 na v c meq S 9 o d q CD ZY 10 �� 26 , 3 3� ' A m 70 'rF N /3, -� — \ U7 iC>"1—v PA'(2 •fl ii� 7J 3j py -. � 4u1 = � 9 � CD to \\Q\ c O >y (Lo tD d V o. _ 2 `P_• /2 / W 1 � /may ! Cw ;off' �••ur E r.�" y o'A V" ,`/rU � ("'J �a I `� 0 �'. NJ W w ..� Uj • �N p a�� N O `� � V of � N (0 N roti a — OD _ N O N•.... �% •R jg' ~ni — __ N !w d %kh lir lP ` rn ro ;0.4 � r }/ 4Z,4307 4b G N a T R, 'u/�/ p' rod• V •'.r w V I A� A w , A. O roc" N,': lb ► O �41v ro p` ''� ,tib db31-A O p `. 0 ° S� zotirwl 4 z v �'�' d u J _ 1<40Y J ° o v-. i r\ ". • 1 e'4 '� i -�tse_,a-£ i i76-!S•'� 1 qtr 1 .a T` 1 ar n tit V� Z ,s t. M• If 1Ott*'l<!let ,� �i� I•` "�({� �� 4 j;� t -':� r -.�.. _" lip ^k lot o r ; M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY MANAGER June 21, 1983 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT LA 830513 :1 LOCATION: 9300 E1 Bordo (Lot 1, Block 7, Eaglet #2) APPLICANT: Wedco & Westwind Investments & V-5 Enterprises (Associated Professions) REQUEST: To adjust existing lot lines to remove unusual configura- tion 'created by a previous parcel map. On June 20 , 1983 the Planning Commission reviewed the subject matter unanimously approving the requested lot line adjustment subject to Conditions 1-4 as listed in the attached Staff Report. There was no • discussion as the matter was reviewed as part of the Consent Calendar. No one appeared on the matter . LAWRENCE STEVENS MU L. W DEN Planning Director City Manager Ps • CITY OF ATASCADERO 19i`s Q '� �. 1979 Planning Department June 20 , 1983 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT LA 830513 :1 LOCATION: 9300 E1 Bordo (Lot 1, Block 7 , Eaglet #2) APPLICANT: Wedco & Westwind Investments & V-5 Enterprises (Associated Professions) REQUEST: To adjust existing lot lines to remove unusual configura- tion created by a previous parcel map. BACKGROUND 1. Existing Zoning: R-4-B-2-D 2. General Plan: High Density Multiple Family Residential 3. Environmental Determination: The Planning Director has determined• the application to be a Class 5 (a) Categorical Exemption according to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. 4. Site Conditions: The site is relatively flat, and has vegetation consisting of natural grasses and several large grees. It is lo- cated on El Bordo Road across from the intersection with Las Lomas. 5. Project Description: The applicant intends to adjust the lot lines to eliminate the jagged edge of eastern lot lines created by a previous parcel map. The parcels will not change from the previous acreage of 0. 5 and 2.9 acres each. STAFF COMMENTS On Thursday, June 2, 1983 the Subdivision Review Board met to discuss the application with one of the applicants, Wally Dunn. Also attend- ing were: Larry McPherson, Public Works Director ; Fred Buss, Associ- ate Planner; and Planning Commissioner, Shirley Summers. Staff had no comments or concerns. • s � Lot Line Adjustment LA 830513 :1 (Wedco, et al) FINDINGS 1. The application as submitted will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment and the preparation of an Environmen- tal Impact Report is not necessary. 2. The application as submitted conforms with the applicable subdi- vision regulations. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above Findings, the Planning Department recommends ap- proval of Lot Line Adjustment LA 830513 :1 subject to the following conditions: 1. The lot line adjustment as shown on the map provided herein shall be submitted in a final map format to be approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation by the County Recorder ' s Office. 2. The proposed adjusted lot lines shall be surveyed and monuments set at new property corners prior to recordation of the Final Map. 3. The location of all easements shall be shown on the Final Map. 4. Approval of this Lot Line Adjustment shall expire two years from the date of approval unless a time extension has been granted pur- suant to a written request prior to the expiration date. ACTION Direct Staff by motion as deemed appropriate. REPORT PREPARED BY: AMI GRI - i Planning Inter ' REPORT APPROVED BY. 4:5L LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director 2 T: SA L1 i i Z1, 0 4 > J C -2 4 N -D C p �� k ;q Q' .v Q C -1-1 C a - o T Q' Li a ti tOL Lo-c I '8c�c�t�-7 I ZB\ 1ti5 1' g 103\t31 .29 163 16; t/4l OY% 2 10 2 g' 12/13 4 3 �` ar '99 � 160 t69 2 9 6 9 C u+r l56 3C - 8 —"� �! y.}.} 145 560 f i, I1 23 4 1 0 . 2 w l 2 21 2B 6 8 !8 C%' 20 = 6 31 t5O 32 �• 11,, G/ 3 14 5 s I$ 19 2,3 !4 2 J 3.3 1 I 01,9 2 t is 26 r a, g 7 6 ; Q I 3 / 1> 18 5a/ ID 2 $ 28 5 4 •.b l3/3 2 rvi 1 �r �, L 4 r b /3? Z 3 4 �lldif3 / Ib 1 —aJ 1 , � e 6 a i5b( , ash „ 5 6 7 L ,2 J150"�c3 5 / ° 5 14 4 39 t r4 15c � 1 /171 /3 3 5/3 4 �a34 I \I � 16� 3 2 v� 1 9 .. 1/25 �J 27 "' 9 17 18 ° 2 1 260! 28 29 t 32 P 10 t7 a Ila ,I 9 g 31 II 16 5 6 I 1 5� 7 .6 10 / 12 13 ° 14 , 4 3 i I . 15 7 ,. IQ `? 8 23 1 39. 6 i 7 14 8 22 is T 12 3 4 l•. 9 i0 IG 1 �g ',p; 3 2 10 21 11 9 10Ipa 5 to I 10 II 20 12 g Ot I1 3a I ^� 12 t9 6 1 I a 1 13 4 i 1 i/ 4/1: 7 Ip, 38 6 5 / 14 15 14 l6 t9 7 4 18 15 1 3913 < 544 55 5g �E`f 22 37 3 : 16 b 7��*r! ` 7 3 � C 60/ 36 \\ � a 72 17 52 0 297 [_ 35 53 / 1 �� C 3 e 34�\ 8 lf— 5 4 5I 50 49 33 _ 55 79 10 32 � / 46 IL 7-:7 �v19 12 , \9 / 17 IQ 14 13 19 4 25 14 12 L� �S3 6 S 13 1 , 16 4? L-0 I LDG 7 20 \17 1 , \ 41 9 Sao �L- aoa-.Po ! 21 SAN ' 20 19 9 140 42 �GI'(� 1 yo "6 37t5 24123 ?1` 3` 5° 4 d 2 \16 • Pte. .._ - ____._. i a I i t H 3 �•✓i IN CTO 111, MOV! �y LA•' CS j b� :r t. i' _✓ � i n k A�� � v:i ` ; � �,�♦ ?°� � � to _ ( 'G% � � , \ 14 I � 1 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY COUNCIL June 21, 1983 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Acceptance of TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AT 810721:1 LOCATION: 8940 San Gabriel Road (Lot 8 , Block 33) APPLICANT: Henry J. Hohenstein (San Luis Engineering) On September 14, 1981 the City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map AT 810721:1 dividing 11.96 acres into four parcels ranging from 2. 50 to 3.44 acres, subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with _ the recommendation of the Planning Commission. On March 14 , 1983 a time extension was approved. • The zoning is A-1-1 1/2 and the General Plan designation is Suburban Single Family Residential. Staff review has determined that all con- ditions of approval have been met. On June 20 , 1983 the Planning Com- mission reviewed the matter on its Consent Calendar and recommended acceptance of the Final Map. LAWRENCE STEVENS MUR Y L. ARDEN Planning Director Ci y manager Ps • M E M O R A N D U M • TO: PLANNING COMMISSION June 20, 1983 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Acceptance of TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AT 810721:1 LOCATION: 8940 San Gabriel Road (Lot 8 , Block 33) APPLICANT: Henry J. Hohenstein (San Luis Engineering) On September 14, 1981 the City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map AT 810721:1 dividing 11.96 acres into four parcels ranging from 2. 50 to 3. 44 acres, subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. On March 14 , 1983 a time extension was approved. The zoning is A-1-1 1/2 and the General Plan designation is Suburban Single Family Residential. Staff review has determined that all con- • ditions of approval have been met. LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director Ps • ��~'"h'ri -1�*'°'c%�'�,: �a^� � tiv �-.�.�ec,x �� a �����,."�jam, �t�"��C" "w' �. x., r" �s i •: .�ta.���a �'t�+-�•s, �„„ �R \ „ „ Fd.l"IPinpvmt �' .°.� .{: �� -s�i^#,1�'_��.,� \\Vo• �a SCALE�1"=20' �Iy -fr• s,�-'�'* Z 7 Ftr> .v 2 R2I ss • f. �~ FO g10M& Scale L s IM x P\ /�R 6572 5'Offer to p� \ Dedicate zd Private Access&�M N62'10'12"E 5.76M E utility Easement � .1 M&a\ \N to Parcels 2.3&4 s \65-'' M \=p, p / o (Conveyed ioPT.CT \ 'F R 1662.30 � '" ( I1 I© 5�Y I ter 2470 OR 9r. a L-99.84 7 d m G=0'24'27" \� yt� I i 4 e t � GGsr m d : L-15404' bra N�°°° g ,. (PP 7) PARCEL I �N � L IfQ76x Fd.1"IP buried a' in pvmt per R-I. , b 2.5�Ac. - I ;n^ h�—tt . t=87.96s cow f"`'- -309 3354 LS per R-2. / 6' of _ pt1 ' p vy r CD iJ 1/:�d 1 �N PARCEL 2 �\ ' 25 �Pp� 3.44 Ac, T °�° `r 201.5 d� 1J "' Nor - 5 5 N7 . • �� 5 00'. 2 Z•3�j to}or Probability4200, ;,APP-7, and igen curves; v• •~ ' Private Access 7i w4 3 p � � &Utility Easemen+ o PARCEL 3 to Parcels land 3. f *_r R t bdween °' c (conveyed to PT N � F M ac 2.92 Ac. n, per 2470 0R 94 tprorot'on € f: Z Pon PARCEL/4 on of the a W �d ndicafes fhot a '" ` to a Q N6d16'2I"W 24.84'M m 2.64 Ac o ` Poles: However w o ? ' t: CO w N60°16'Iv 24.83R 1 N � ears old nor - PARCEL it 4?'3q. a - fs* Ir Pc: } STM, W=t I ��••' 7/••fin' 261 `' Z .-. 540 A - v.:=-�'k�'.i-r.t"'� y� t:.• eQp o^ 137.07• Y� n s'•.. '�Y. '•. N84'29'2!" 50.00. �• t!Z'�1e', r.� a.ac�+�- ,` � � co:••.•N g4. W 187'' /(( Fd.-WrPw/tog PP-2 43 4;1 LS 3354 Per R-2. INV s t��;z���,�� f N o� n 4'1 •''••. 17.70 , + rf5 i oMi,Wao D od4 °J/ N60'24'21"W 0.43' Coo N60'24'W 0.43'R-1 s '4 cca UI �a ` z Fd.I"TP&nail .93'''• �' o -r•.a-s.- e* r�'-r'�„ ` in pvmt. pex R-1. 37n .• +- �'y4oa'4. £fittl R- _t;6 " $AN RAFAE L_ROA p� P T NT ( f c'ooa 7777, UN L0T ABLE �EASEME S `7���' • �s"�tT. a� #'€-.hr� �+ice#' �,�'^��4 Tom` ��°F:*`s .(,�;:_r z a'>r�•L-� ��. _ -'�*r a>�-� .,ate xr �:s'""y ? �. F '•:'s.. -3Tdk"S'.v'x,,�^$Fn F f-S 1'�.�� .r'�k a&'� *S.+t!M>S.i•E` - � �h Such rights or easements in favor of Aiascadero x; ft y r T' Mutual Water Co.r per 113 Dds Sr..Vr „ `a 1 1.�.�•. "r An easement for'poles,'condwts d Irrigation difehes . ' ems a affecting oll of Lot 8 per 84 O.R.255,Oscar W111ef 1u.s5�P4a� •k.•a�='� . "D`i a,,. . . Y- "'` 4% ''Y' ;"rye.``' a „” .L w .i 0 M_E M_O_R_A N_D U_M_ • TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Falcon Cable Corp. hearing on rate increase DATE: June 23, 1983 Please bring information previously provided to you with regard to this matter. ,Z,u r Ci td MURRAY L. WARDEN MLW:ad r �a � l • PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Atascadero City Council will consider, at their meeting on June 27, 1983 , at 7 :30 p.m. in the Rotunda Room, Administration Building, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atasca- dero, Californa, the request of Falcon Cable Corporation for an increase in rates for residential cable television service as follows: Existing Proposed Primary T.V. outlet 8.50 9. 50 Additional outlets (ea. ) 2. 00 2.50 Reconnect 10.00 20.00 Relocate outlet 12. 50 15.00 Converter maintenance - 2. 00 `dot zens of tascadero are invited to attend said meeting and provide either written or oral comments regarding the proposed increase. Dated: June 15,1983 PATSY ' ESTER, Deputy City Clerk City of Atascadero, California 4 • • , 1 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Murray Warden FROM: Larry McPherson SUBJECT: Rate Increase Request Falcon Cable T.V. DATE: June 7, 1983 On April 14, 1983, Mr. Tom Hatchell, the General Manager of Falcon Cable T.V. of Northern California, submitted a rate increase request to the City Council. Each Councilmember hag a copy of that request. The request goes into detail in explaining Falcon's position con- cerning the proposed rate hike, as well as explaining why the company did not enact the previous rate increase approved by Council last year. Staff must question the motive behind Falcon's decision to withhold their approved rate increase. Enacting the rate structure when it was approved would certainly have improved the financial picture presented by Falcon. It should also be mentioned that in Staff discussions with Mr. Hatchell, it was suggested that another rate increase should be supported • by a substantial upgrading in services available under the basic rate. While this seemed acceptable to Falcon, their proposal did not specify what additional basic services may be offered. A survey of current basic cable T.V. rates in the County was made on June 7, 1983. The results of that survey are as follows: San Luis Obispo 8.85 plus 5% user tax Morro Bay 8.95 Cayucos 8.25 Arroyo Grande 8.00 Pismo Beach 8.00 Grover City 8.55 Avila Beach 8.25 Oceano 8.25 Nipomo 8.25 Paso Robles 8.50 Los Osos 8.50 Cambria 8.50 Atascadero 7.20 'm `Cable Rate Increase • page two Although Falcon has a rate increase in the County area pending, to date none of the areas within the County have approved a basic service rate in excess of $9.00 per month. It is, therefore, staff's recommendation that the consideration of a rate increase by Falcon Cable T.V. to $9.50 per month, be withheld until such time as Falcon shows specific additions or upgrading of basic cable services to warrant such a request. OWENCE McPHERSON ' LM:vh att. • • t s t Mayor Rolfe Nelson April 14 , 1983 Members of the City Council City of Atascadero P. 0. Box 747 Atascadero, Ca. 93423 Dear Mayor Nelson and Members of the City Council : Please find, attached, Falcon Cable T.V. of Northern California' s proposal to change the existing rate structure for cable T.V. service within the city limits of Atascadero. I would like to take this opportunity to address some questions that staff and some of you members of the council have indicated to me. 1. What is the average rate for cable T.V. service in the County of San Luis Obispo? Ile at Falcon do not feel that this is a fair evaluation as there are many variables in determining what is a fair rate. One very good one is that when we incur capital expenditures related to all of our systems we can spread the cost over approximately 11, 000 customers; whereas, a neighboring company, spending the same amount of money, could spread that cost over approximately 25 , 000 customers. Thera are presently pending and/or about to be submitted numerous rec,uests for rate increases at several franchising units within the County. Some of these rates will be established under new state legislation permitting rate de-regulation under certain circumstances. These pending requests are in the $9 . 50 per month range. 2 . I•Jhy wasn' t the $8 . 50 rate , as approv_--d by the council last fall, enacted? I-,'e had discussions with council and staff re,_�ar �? i ng this Tatter. The $8 . 50 rate %,.,as gr-anted on a $9 . 00 _qu .st that was over 2 years old . Ile felt that c ;.e i_ncrease in rates �•:-ould be more palatable to our suiosc,-i i--ers r.a`_her I_han 2 increases within a very short time . T:noth�--r cr_,nsideration to Falcon was the possibility and effect of :,ossible cualiiication for rate de-regulation ,.T,der rc_c,_nt state legislation. r:ALCION CA-2LE CORPORATION � _, C _ 5'_22 LAI 1V L 1 �,��ril 14 , 1983• pg . 2 3 . Will Falcon offer additional programs on its basic service? As part of the proposal, we are requesting a $2 . 00 per month convertor maintenance fee. This fee is necessary to allow us to add additional services as a part of basic cable. Since no additional services could be added to basic without a convertor being provided to the customer, the company would be required to incur significant additional capital expenditures at the cost of $50 . 00-$100 . 00 per convertor per subscriber. Without the existence of this monthly charge, which would be enacted only when services are added to basic, the company cannot project the economic viability of additional services being added to basic. Prior to the addition of the new basic services we will prepare a proposal outlining the total capital costs (AML microwave , head-end electronics , satellite receivers, convertors , etc. ) and programming choices that will be provided to Falcon subscribers Hopefully, this has answered those areas of concern that council and staff have indicated to me. Ile, at Falcon, stand ready to answer any further questions and thank you for your timely consideration and action upon this proposal . Respectfully, :r nomas J. Hatchell Vice President ' - General Manager Falcon Cable T.V. of northern California CC : 4urray VTarden T,-:rry McPherson Frark Intiso c,nc . ADMINISTRATION BUILDING • POST OFFICE BOX 747 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 - PHONE: (805) 466.8000 CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK CITY TREASURER 1I.M%Mdei Ce CITY MANAGER INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 • FINANCE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT : - --- -- - ----- - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT RECREATION DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 ...�-. PHONE: (805) 466-2141 REPORT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY For the Council Meeting of June 27, 1983 No. 24 1. REPORT OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES LEGAL ADVOCACY COMMITTEE • The League Legal Advocacy Committee reviewed some 40 cases of significance to cities at its last meeting. The committee urged city attorneys to con- sider joining as amici in the following noted case: , a_, J. W. Jones Companies and Housing Partners, Ltd. v. City of San Diego This case is now pending in the Court of Appeals. It represents a challenge to the use of special benefit assessments to finance new public facilities in a developing area. The trial court found that the improvements proposed would not confer a "special" benefit on any of the properties within the assessment district because the developed properties not subject to the assessment would receive the same bene- fit. From this the court concluded that the proposed assessments were invalid as a "special tax" under Proposition 13. Other cases called to our attention by the Legal Advocacy Committee include: b. Armstrong v. County of San Mateo This action, which is pending in the Appellate Court, involves a ruling by the trial court in favor of plaintiff's contention that Proposition 13 does not allow for the 2% per year inflation adjustment to begin until after the 1978 assessment year and that, therefore, individual property taxpayers are entitled to refunds reflecting the inflation figure which had been computed at the 1975 value. REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY No. 24 - Page 2 • c. County of Butte v. Bach This case is pending on appeal following a jury verdict which awarded Mr. Bach, an attorney, $400,000 special damages and $250,000 punitive damages based on alleged federal civil rights violations. Originally, the county brought an action against Mr. Bach to enjoin him from using his single-family home as his professional office contrary to zoning laws. Mr. Bach cross-complained against the Butte County Board of Supervisors, et al. and several named individuals who resided in the subdivision in which Mr. Bach's office was located, seeking damages for an alleged violation of the Civil Rights Act. d. Tom Hudson and Associates, Inc. v. City of Chula Vista, et al. This is an action recently filed in the Southern District of the U.S. District Court, challenging as a violation of state and federal anti- trust laws the garbage collection agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vista Sanitary Service. The city entered into a five-year franchising agreement with the existing sanitary service without first conducting competitive bidding. Plaintiffs claim that this action gives rise to numerous antitrust causes of action. This case is similar to City of Camarillo v. Spadys Disposal Service, now on appeal. The antitrust aspect of this case is similar to that in- volved in Kelly Gearhart v. City of Atascadero. e. City of Portola, et al. v. County of Plumas, et al. This is a Superior Court action wherein the City of Portola seeks declaratory relief and injunction against the county to compel the county to provide police services to the city comparable to those rendered to other unincorporated communities in the county. The city has no police force and, for more than ten years, it has contracted with the county for those services. The contract terminated in 1982. The city claims that the county must provide basic police services without compensation, and to not provide those services is to deny the residents of Portola equal protection of the law, because the residents pay a share of the property taxes used to fund these county- wide police services. (The outcome of this case probably turns on the ultimate resolution of City of Los Angeles v. County of Los Angeles, which is now pending in the Court of Appeal. ) f. Wells Fargo Bank v. Town of Woodside` This is the Supreme Court opinion that found that an order made by a court pursuant to Probate Code S 661, under which the Probate Court set aside from a decedent 's estate a probate homestead for the sur- viving widow, was exempt from the provisions of the town's subdivision ordinance. • REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY No. 24 - Page 3 g. Affiliated Capital Corp. v. City of Houston In this ease, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals imposed a $2.1 million antitrust judgment against the former mayor of Houston and a cable television company involved in a 1978 franchising arrangement with the city. The decision is probably not final. 2. RECENT DECISIONS OF INTEREST a. Severance Damages Awarded for Reduction in Land Value The U.S.C.A. 9th has held that owners of condemned easements were entitled to severance damages representing the reduction in value of the properties served by the easements. (U.S. v. 57.09 Acres, U.S.C.A. 9th, May 16, 1983.) b. Police Officer Improperly Fired for Criticizing City The U.S.C.A. 9th has ordered a police officer reinstated after finding he was fired for exercising his First Amendment rights after he joined a labor union. The city did not contend that his remarks had disrupted the close working relationships within the police department. His pro- bationary status was irrelevant to the constitutional issue. (McKinley v. City of Eloy, U.S.C.A. 9th, May 9, 1983.) C. City Clerk Did Not Fail to Perform Duties The C.A. 2nd has held that Santa Monica's City Clerk did not fail to process requests for absentee ballots in a proper manner for a city election just because there were so many ballots as a result of a campaign for absentee ballots that they didn't all get processed. (Jelly v. Superior Court, C.A. 2nd, May 10, 1983.) d. L.A. Rent Control Measure Held Facially Constitutional The C.A. 2nd has upheld the facial constituionality of Los Angeles' rent control ordinance. The court held that provisions for automatic and semi-automatic rent increases, and the rent adjustment commission's power to grant further increases with respect to certain classes of rental units, were features of the ordinance that were reasonably designed to ensure landlords a just and reasonable return. The court thought the "maintenance of profit" approach to setting a just and reasonable return was constitutionally adequate. On the other hand, the trial court held the measure was unconstitutional, as it provided no standards for determining what constituted a just and reasonable return on the property of affected landlords. (City of Los Angeles v. Palos Verdes Shores Mobile Estates, Ltd. , C.A. 2nd, April 26, 1983.) REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY No. 24 - Page 4 i e. California's I.D. Statute Unconstitutionally Vague The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down California Penal Code § 647 (e) as facially unconstitutional. This statute required persons who loiter or wander about the streets to provide "credible and reliable" identi- fication and to account for their presence when required to do so by a police officer. (Kolender v. Lawson, U.S. Sup.Ct. , May 2, 1983.) f. State Law Did Not Preempt Trailer Park Rent Ordinance The C.A. 4th has held that state law does not preempt local trailer park rent control ordinances. The City of San Juan Capistrano enacted a rent control ordinance applying to trailer parks. The ordinance permitted trailer park owners to pass on increased operating expenses measured by a percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index plus another 10% of that increase. The owner was allowed only one increase per year, but could petition a review committee for an increase in excess of the limit. (Gregory v. City of San Juan Capistrano, C.A. 4th, April 20, 1983.) g. Landlord Awarded Fees for Arbitrary Rent Board Ruling The C.A. lst has awarded a landlord attorney's fees incurred in ob- taining a reversal of an arbitrary and capricious rent control board ruling. (Campbell v. Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board, C.A. lst, April 21, 1983.) h. Blind Intersection Not a "Dangerous Condition" The C.A. 2nd has held that a blind intersection is not in itself a "dangerous condition" exposing a municipality to tort liability. (Mittenhuber v. Herrera, C.A. 2nd, April 19, 1983.) i. Damages Recoverable in Inverse Condemnation Action The U.S.C.A. 9th has held that landowners could maintain an inverse condemnation action even though they did not submit a plan for the development of their property to the relevant authorities, and that they could obtain damages in the action. (Martino v. Santa Clara Valley Water District, U.S.C.A. 9th, April 14, 1983.) j. Ruptured Storm Drain Prompts Inverse Condemnation Suit The C.A. lst has held that a person could sue the city in inverse con- demnation to recover for damages caused to his property by a ruptured storm drain. The City of Sausalito's storm drain ruptured and allowed water to seep into the soil of the adjacent property causing subsidence. (Yee v. City of Sausalito, C.A. 1st, April 15, 1983.) • 0 REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY No. 24 - Page 5 i k. Contractor Did Not Pay General Prevailing Rate The C.A. lst has upheld a judgment that a public works contractor paid workers less than the general prevailing daily wage rate. (Finelli, Antuzzi, Bonacorsi Painting, Inc. v. Santa Clara Unified School Dis- trict, C.A. lst, April 6, 1983.) 1. Inverse Condemnation; Zoning Ordinance Case The C.A. 3rd has overruled a demurrer and permitted the plaintiff to offer proof that a zoning ordinance unconstitutionally deprived it of any beneficial use of its property. (North Sacramento Land Company v. City of Sacramento, C.A. 3rd, March 7, 1983.) m. Termination of Employment The U.S.C.A. 9th has held that due process requires an employer to afford employees an opportunity to confront charges against them before termination. In this case, the employee was a police officer at Pierce College in Los Angeles. (Jones v. Los Angeles Community College Dis- trict, U.S.C.A. 9th, March 25, 1983.) n. County Employee Wrongly Denied Notice and Hearing The U.S.C.A. 9th has held that a county employee who transferred to a position from which she subsequently became terminable at will was entitled to notice of the new rule and a reasonable time in which to decide whether to stay on or seek to return to her old job. (Gabe v. Count of Clerk, U.S.C.A. 9th, March 9, 1983.) o. Age Discrimination Statute Applied to State Government The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Age Discrimination in Employ- ment Act of 1967 is applicable to employees of state and local govern- ments. (EEOC v. Wyoming, U.S. Sup.Ct. , March 2, 1983.) p. Government Agency Sued for Approving Shoddy House The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a woman could maintain a suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) for approving a defective house built with the assistance of a FmHA loan. The builder refused to honor the builder's warranty, and FmHA declined to pay for certain defects. Plaintiff sued the FmHA under the FTCA for failure to properly inspect and supervise construction of the house. The Supreme Court agreed. It held that the FmHA failed to properly supervise construction of the house. (Block v. Neal, U.S. Sup.Ct. , March 7, 1983.) i • 0 REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY No. 24 - Page 6 q. County Liable for Failure to Put Sign on Private Road The C.A. 1st has held a county liable in a wrongful death action for failure to post a warning sign on a private road. The court said that the owner of the private road was expressly forbidden to post any signs on the private road by Vehicle Code § 21465, while several provisions of the act make it the responsibility of the local authority to post signs directing traffic, whether at the entrance to private roads or elsewhere. (Huckabee v. County of Sonoma, C.A. 1st, Feb. 14, 1983.) r. Drug Paraphernalia Law Held Unconstitutional The U.S.C.A. 9th has held that Montana's drug paraphernalia law is facially unconstitutional. (Stoianoff v. State of Montana, U.S.C.A. 9th, Jan. 7, 1983.) s. Prostitution Ordinance Preempted by State Law The C.A. has held that state law preempts the field of criminal sexual activity and, accordingly, a municipal ordinance which made it a mis- demeanor for a person to "remain or loiter in or about any public place for the purpose of soliciting an act of prostitution or lewdness" was preempted by state laws and therefore invalid. (Gates v. Municipal Court (1982) 135 C.A. 309.) 3. PENDING LITIGATION a. Larrison v. City of Atascadero This is a petition in mandate filed by nine police officers to obtain merit increases in their salaries since completion of their probationary periods. The City's demurrer to the first petition was sustained, and petitioners filed an amended petition. The City's demurrer to the amended petition was also sustained, and petitioners were given 30 days to try again. b. Gearhart v. City of Atascadero This is a petition by Kelly Gearhart to force the City to grant him a permit to collect solid waste. The City's demurrer to his amended petition was sustained with 30 days leave to amend. 4. PENDING PROSECUTIONS a. People v. Brimage This is a pending prosecution for violation of zoning regulations and the Building Code. The property in question is being sold and is cur- rently in escrow. The trial of this case has been continued to Tuesday, August 23, 1983, at 8:30 A.M. in the Paso Robles Municipal Court. 0 ! REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY No. 24 - Page 7 b. People v. Russell This case involves violations of grading without a permit and cutting trees without a permit. The defendant pleaded no contest and was sen- tenced a fine of $250 and probation for one year. The continued hearing on the proceeding to revoke the probation of defendant Russell came on the Municipal Court calendar on Thursday, June 16, 1983. The judge decided that the ten days in jail previously handed down for violation of probation would not undo the damages and, thus, translated the ten days in jail to the value per day in jail, amounting to $300 to be paid by the defendant to the City. A hearing to determine if the defendant has complied with the court order is set for Friday, Sep- tember 16, 1983, at 8:30 A.M. in the Paso Robles Municipal Court. C. People v. Pledger This case involves a violation of exhibition of speed on private prop- erty. The trial has been set for Friday, July 1, 1983, at 3:00 P.M. in the Paso Robles Municipal Court. Respectfully submitted, ALLEN GRIMES City Attorney AG:fr l f • ORDINANCE NO. 68 I AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING TITLE 9 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING THE CITY-WIDE REZONING PROGRAM ESTABLISHING NEW OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS FOR THE ENTIRE CITY AND REPEALING ALL OF TITLE 22, CHAPTER: 19 .60 OF TITLE 19 AND CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE 8 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE. The Atascadero City Council ordains as follows: -Section 1. Council Findings: After conducting public hearings, the City Council finds and determines that: 1. Zoning regulations proposed in conjunction with the estab- lishment of Title 9 and zoning maps proposed in conjunction with the Citywide Rezoning Program are consistent with the purpose and intent of the 1980 Atascadero General Plan and support the goals and policies contained therein. 2. The regulations set forth in Title 9 are intended to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare. 3. The general public will be assisted by these regulations and ,the zoning maps since they provide a better understanding and clearer identification of regulations and other standards af- fecting the development and use of land within the City. 4. Procedures established in the proposed regulations are inten- ded to streamline the development review process by elimin- ating unnecessary and duplicative review and hearings. 5. The proposed standards and regulations are necessary to im- plement the California Government Code and to minimize ad- verse effects on the public resulting from inappropriate cre- ation, location, use or design of building sites, structures, or other land uses. 6. It is necessary to protect and enhance unique and significant natural, historic, cultural and scenic resources within the City by providing appropriate tools to accomplish these goals. 7. It is necessary and desirable to provide for different zoning districts for agricultural, residential, commercial, indus- trial, recreation and public uses to assure that incompatible land uses are appropriately separated. Ordinance No. 68 8. The four Planned Development overlay zones shown on the zon- ing maps and the regulations applied thereto are warranted • to promote the orderly and harmonious development of the af- fected properties and to enhance the opportunity to utilize the special characteristics of each area in a beneficial manner. 9. Approval of this project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and the preparation of an Environ- mental Impact Report is not necessary, especially since one was previously certified in conjunction with the Atascadero General Plan. Section 2. The Atascadero Municipal Code is amended by repeal- ing the following designated provisions: CHAPTER TITLE All of Title 22 Zoning. Chapter 19.60 of Title 19 Miscellaneous and General Requirements. Chapter 1 of Title 8 Development standards intended to protect new structures and additions to existing struc- tures from flooding hazards occurring on certain property in the Amapoa-Tecorida area. Section 3. Zoning Regulations. Title 9 (Zoning Regulations) is added to the Atascadero Municipal Code as set forth in Exhibit A-1 which is hereby referred to and made a part of this ordinance as if fully set out herein. Section 4. Zoning Maps. The Official Zoning Maps on file in the City Planning Department are hereby replaced in their entirety by a new series of maps, at a scale of 1"=4001 , numbered consecutively as Map Nos. 1-25, inclusive, upon which is emblazoned the designation "Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero. " The new Official Zoning Maps amend the zoning classifications for every property in the City as shown in Exhibit B-1 which is hereby referred to and made a part of this ordinance as if fully set out herein. t 2 Ordinance No. 68 Section 5. Zoning Regulations - Summary Form Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65854. 5 (b) , Title 9 (Zoning Regulations) shall be published in summary form as set forth in Exhibit A-2 which is hereby referred to and made a part of this ordinance as if fully set out herein. Copies of the full text of Title 9 (Zoning Regulations) are available for public review at the following locations: 1) City Planning Department, Administration Building, Room 103 , 6500 Palma 2) Adult Library, Administration Building, Room 104 , 6500 Palma 3) Atascadero Chamber of Commerce, 6550 El Camino Real 4) City Clerk ' s Office, Administration Building, Room 201, 6500 Palma Section 6. Zoning Maps - Summary Form. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65854. 5 (b) , the Official Zoning Maps shall be published in summary form at a scale of 1"=1000 ' as set forth in Exhibit B-2 which is hereby referred to and made a part of this ordinance as if fully set out herein. Copies of the full series of Official Zoning Maps are available for public review at the following locations: 1) City Planning Department, Administration Building, Room 103 , 6500 Palma 2) Adult Library, Administration Building, Room 104 , 6500 Palma 3) Atascadero Chamber of Commerce, 6550 El Camino Real 4) City Clerk ' s Office, Administration Building, Room 201, 6500 Palma Section 7. 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 8. 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 pasasage. The foregoing ordinance was introduced on and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council on 3 Ordinance No. 68 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ROLFE N. NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: BARBARA NORRIS, City Clerk Approved as to f r ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney Approved as to content: _ M RRAY WARDEN, City Man ger 4 EXHIBIT A-2 ORDINANCE NO. 68 TITLE 9 . ZONING REGULATIONS Chapter 1. Enactment, Administration and Amendment. Chapter 2. Applications - Content, Processing and Time Limits. Chapter 3. Zoning Districts. Chapter 4. General Site Design and Development Standards. Chapter 5. Reserved. Chapter 6. Special Uses. Chapter 7. Nonconforming Uses. Chapter 8. Enforcement. Chapter 9. General Definitions. Chapter 1. Enactment, Administration, and Amendment 9-1.101 Title and Purpose 1- 1 9-1.102 Official Zoning Maps 1- 1 9-1.103 Open Space Zoning 1- 1 9-1.104 Applicability of the Zoning Regulations 1- 2 9-1.105 Compliance with uses set forth in Zoning 1- 2 Districts Required 9-1.106 Compliance with Standards Required 1- 3 9-1.107 Fees Required 1- 3 9-1.108 Administration of the Zoning Regulations 1- 3 9-1.109 Rules of Interpretation 1- 3 9-1.110 Public Hearings 1- 6 9-1.111 Appeal 1- 6 9-1.112 Adjustment 1- 7 9-1.113 Variance 1- 8 9-1.114 Text Amendment 1- 9 9-1.115 Zoning Map Amendment 1-10 9-1.116 Prezoning 1-11 Chapter 2. Applications - Content, Processing, and Time Limits 9-2.101 Applications and Procedures 2- 1 9-2.102 Determination of Completeness 2- 1 1 Ordinance No. 68 9-2.103 Waivers of Content 2- 2 9-2. 104 Review by Other Agencies 2- 2 9-2.105 Consolidated Processing 2- 2 9-2. 106 Business License Clearance 2- 3 9-2.107 Plot Plan 2- 4 9-2.108 Precise Plan 2- 6 9-2.109 Conditional Use Permit 2- 8 9-2.112 Approved Plans 2-11 9-2. 113 Permit Time Limits 2-12 9-2.114 Substantial Site Work Defined 2-12 9-2.115 Project Completion 2-13 9-2.116 Occupancy or Use of Partially Completed 2-13 Projects 9-2.117 Occupancy with Incomplete Site Improvements 2-14 9-2.118 Extension of Entitlement 2-14 9-2.119 Lapse of Entitlement 2-15 9-2.120 Applications Deemed Approved 2-16 9-2.121 Applications Deemed Withdrawn 2-16 9-2.122 Guarantees of Performance 2-16 Chapter 3. Zoning Districts 9-3.101 Purpose 3- 1 9-3.102 Zoning Districts Established 3- 1 9-3.103 Overlay Districts Established 3- 2 9-3.104 Symbols Used 3- 2 9-3.121 A (Agriculture) Zone 3- 4 9-3.141 RS (Residential Suburban) Zone 3- 6 9-3.151 RSF (Residential Single Family) Zone 3-11 9-3.161 LSF (Limited Single Family Residential) Zone 3-16 9-3.171 RMF (Residential Multiple Family) Zone 3-20 9-3.201 CN (Commercial Neighborhood) Zone 3-23 9-3.211 CP (Commercial Professional) Zone 3-25 9-3.221 CR (Commercial Retail) Zone 3-27 9-3.231 CS (Commercial Service) Zone 3-30 9-3.241 CT (Commercial Tourist) Zone 3-32 9-3.251 CPK (Commercial Park) Zone 3-34 9-3.301 IP (Industrial Park) Zone 3-37 9-3.311 I (Industrial) Zone 3-39 9-3.401 L (Recreation) Zone 3-41 9-3.411 LS (Special Recreation) Zone 3-43 9-3.421 P (Public) Zone 3-45 9-3. 601 FH (Flood Hazard) Overlay Zone 3-47 9-3. 611 GH (Geologic Hazard) Overlay Zone 3-50 9-3. 621 HS (Historic Site) Overlay Zone 3-52 9-3.631 SR (Sensitive Resource) Overlay Zone 3-55 9-3. 641 PD (Planned Development) Overlay Zone 3-58 9-3. 701 Land Use Descriptions 3-62 2 • Ordinance No. 68 Chapter 4 . General Site Design and Development Standards 9-4.101 Purpose. 4- 1 9-4.102 Applicability of the Standards 4- 1 9-4.103 Setbacks 4- 1 9-4.104 Exception to Setback Standards 4- 1 9-4.105 Use of Setbacks 4- 2 9-4.106 Front Setbacks 4- 2 9-4.107 Side Setbacks 4- 3 9-4.108 Rear Setbacks 4- 5 9-4.109 Interior Setbacks and Open Area 4- 6 9-4.110 Projections Into Required Setbacks 4- 6 9-4.111 Heights 4- 7 9-4.112 Measurement of Height 4- 7 9-4.113 Height Limitations 4- 7 9-4 .114 Parking and Loading 4- 9 9-4.115 Off-Street Parking Required 4- 9 _ 9-4.116 Location of Parking on a Site 4-11 9-4.117 Parking Design Standards 4-11 9-4.118 Required Number of Parking Spaces 4-14 9-4. 119 Parking Lot Construction Standards 4-24 9-4.120 Off-Site Parking 4-26 9-4.121 Off-Street Loading Requirements 4-26 9-4.122 Drive-In and Drive-Through 4-27 Facilities 9-4.123 Driveway Standards for Single 4-28 Family Residential Uses 9-4.124 Landscaping, Screening and Fencing 4-29 9-4 .125 Required Landscaping 4-29 9-4.126 Standards for Landscaping Material 4-30 9-4.127 Landscaping Plans 4-31 9-4.128 Fencing and Screening 4-33 9-4.129 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal 4-36 9-4.130 Signs 4-36 9-4 .131 Purpose 4-37 9-4.132 Applicability of Sign Regulations 4-37 9-4.133 Measurement of Sign Area 4-41 9-4.134 Sign Design Standards 4-41 9-4.135 Sign Construction Standards 4-43 9-4.136 Sign Maintenance Required 4-43 9-4.137 Exterior Lighting 4-44 9-4.138 Grading 4-44 9-4.139 Grading Plan Required 4-45 9-4.140 Grading Permit Required 4-45 9-4.141 Grading Permit - Application 4-45 3 Ordinance No. 68 Content 9-4. 142 Grading Permit Review and Approval 4-47 9-4 .143 Special Grading Standards 4-48 9-4.144 Grading Standards 4-48 9-4.145 Sedimentation and Erosion Control 4-49 9-4.146 Nuisance and Hazard Abatement 4-51 9-4.148 Drainage 4-51 9-4.149 Drainage Plan Required 4-51 9-4.150 Environmental Determination 4-52 Required 9-4.151 Drainage Plan Preparation and 4-52 Content 9-4.152 Drainage Plan Review and Approval 4-53 9-4 .153 Plan Check, Inspection and Approval 4-53 9-4.154 Drainage Standards 4-53 9-4.155 Tree Removal 4-54 9-4.156 Tree Removal Permit Required 4-54 9-4.157 Tree Removal Standards 4-55 9-4.158 Street and Frontage Improvements 4-55 9-4.159 Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks 4-55 9-4. 160 Streets 4-57 9-4.162 Archeological Resources 4-58 i9-4.163 Exterior Noise Standards 4-58 Chapter 5. Reserved Chapter 6. Special Uses 9-6.101 Accessory Uses 6- 1 9-6.102 Establishment of an Accessory Use 6- 1 9-6.103 Accessory Storage 6- 1 9-6.104 Caretaker Residence 6- 5 9-6.105 Home Occupations 6- 5 9-6.106 Residential Accessory Uses 6- 8 9-6 .107 Residential Uses in the Agri- 6- 9 culture Zone 9-6.108 Agricultural Uses - Specialized 6-11 9-6.109 Agricultural Accessory Buildings 6-11 9-6 .110 Animal Hospitals 6-12 9-6.111 Kennels 6-12 9-6.112 Farm Animal Raising 6-13 9-6.113 Interim Agricultural Uses 6-18 9-6.115 Livestock Specialties 6-19 9-6.116 Horticultural Specialties 6-19 9-6.117 Roadside Stands 6-19 4 0 Ordinance No. 68 9-6.118 Cultural, Education and Recreation Uses 6-21 • 9-6.120 Churches and related Facilities 6-21 9-6.123 Outdoor Recreation Services 6-21 9-6.124 Rural Sports and Group Facilities 6-22 9-6.125 Schools and Preschools 6-24 9-6.126 Industrial Uses 6-25 9-6 .128 Food and Kindred Products 6-25 9-6 .129 Fuel Dealers 6-25 9-6.130 Collection Stations 6-25 9-6.131 Recycling and Scrap 6-26 9-6.133 Medical and Social Care Facilities 6-27 9-6.134 Skilled Nursing and Personal 6-27 Care 9-6.135 Residential Care Facilities 6-27 9-6.137 Outdoor Commercial Uses 6-27 9-6.139 Sales Lots and Swap Meets 6-27 9-6.140 Storage Yards 6-29 9-6.141 Residential Uses 6-30 9-6.142 Individual Mobilehomes 6-30 _ 9-6.143 Mobilehome Parks 6-32 9-6.145 Organizational Houses 6-40 9-6.147 Resource Extraction 6-33 9-6.148 Resource Extraction Wells 6-34 9-6.149 Drilling Permit Requirements 6-34 9-6.150 Development Standards 6-34 9-6.151 Surface Mining and Reclamation 6-37 9-6 .152 Surface Mining Practices 6-38 9-6.153 Permit Requirements for Surface 6-38 Mining 9-6.154 Reclamation Plan 6-39 9-6.155 Guarantee of Reclamation 6-41 9-6.156 Public Records 6-41 9-6.157 Periodic Review 6-41 9-6.158 Nuisance Abatement 6-41 9-6.159 Underground Mining 6-41 9-6.160 Permit Requirement 6-41 9-6.161 Surface Operations 6-42 9-6.162 Retail Trade 6-42 9-6.163 Auto and Vehicle Dealerships 6-42 9-6.164 Automobile Service Stations 6-42 9-6.165 Building Materials Sales 6-44 9-6.168 Automobile Repair or Services 6-44 9-6.172 Temporary Uses 6-55 9-6.174 Seasonal or Temporary Sales 6-55 • 9-6.175 Temporary Off-Site Construction 6-56 Yard 9-6 .176 Temporary Dwellings and Offices 6-57 5 Ordinance No. 68 9-6.177 Temporary Events 6-58 9-6.180 Recreational Vehicle (RV) Parks 6-59 9-6.183 Vehicle Storage 6-61 Chapter 7. Nonconforming Uses 9-7.101 Purpose 7- 1 9-7 .102 Nonconforming Use Defined 7- 1 9-7.103 Right to Continue a Nonconforming Use 7- 1 9-7 .104 Issued Building Permit 7- 1 9-7.105 Nonconformity Due to Lack of Entitlement 7- 1 9-7 .106 Nonconforming Uses of Land 7- 1 9-7.107 Nonconforming Use of a Conforming Building 7- 2 9-7.108 Nonconforming Structures 7- 2 9-7.109 Nonconforming Signs 7- 3 9-7 .110 Destroyed Structures and Signs 7- 3 9-7.111 Nonconforming Parking 7- 4 9-7.112 Substitution of Use 7- 4 9-7.113 Nonconforming Lot Defined 7- 4 9-7.114 Use of Nonconforming Lots 7- 4 Chapter 8. Enforcement. 9-8. 101 Purpose 8- 1 9-8.102 Enforcement Responsibility 8- 1 9-8 .103 Citation 8- 1 9-8.104 Enforcement Hearings 8- 2 9-8.105 Revocation of Approval and Forfeiture of 8- 3 Bond 9-8.106 Nuisance Defined 8- 4 9-8 .107 Abatement of Nuisance 8- 4 9-8.108 Interference Prohibited 8- 7 Chapter 9. General Definitions 9-9 .101 Purpose 9- 1 9-9 .102 General Definitions 9- 1 Apartment House of Multiple Dwelling Unit 9- 2 Building Face 9- 3 Commission 9- 4 Council 9- 5 Density 9- 6 Exploration 9- 7 Frontage 9- 8 Junk Yard 9- 9 6 Ordinance No. 68 Lot Depth 9-10 Non-Residential Use ; 9-11 Person 9-12 Public Utility 9-13 Rest Home 9-14 Setback, Interior 9-15 Sign, Monument 9-16 Sound Level Meter 9-17 Structural Alteration 9-18 Use 9-19 Zoning Approval 9-20 7 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Planning Commission selections DATE: June 23 , 1983 The attached resolution outlines procedures which you adopted for the selection of committee, commission and board members. While Section 2 is not absolutely clear as to whether it prohib- its your re-appointing without opening the entire issue for re- view and interview, the language does seem to say that you in- tended do so. Should you wish to clarify the language to allow the proce- dure for re-appointment without interviews or advertising, then you certainly can change the resolution by majority vote. If that is your desire, you can instruct staff to return with a new resolution to include the clarification; or if you can agree to amending language, you could amend the resolution by motion and re-adopt at this meeting. *RRALA. WARDEN RESOLUTION NO. 35-81 RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROCEDURES FOR THE SELECTION OF • COMMITTEE, COMMISSION AND BOARD MEMBERS The Council of the City of Atascadero hereby resolves as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this resolution is to establish procedures for the City Council to follow in recruiting, selecting and appointing members to the standing committees, commissions or boards created pursuant to statute or by action of the City Council. Section 2. Recruitment and Eligibility. Announcements of openings for any committees, commissions or boards to which members are appointed by the City Council will be through the local news media. All ,electors of the City of Atascadero, over the age of 18, and meeting any announced additional criteria as established by the City Council shall be eligible to apply. Section 3. Interviews. All candidates meeting the criteria established in Section 2 will be interviewed by the City Council during a properly noticed meeting. Section 4. Selection. a. Council members will vote for the candidate (s) of their choice by placing their name and circling the name of their selection (s) on a ballot form provided by the City Clerk. Candidates' names will be placed in alphabetical order on the ballot form. b. After the City Council has had an opportunity to make its individual determination, the City Clerk will col- lect the ballots and will announce first the Council member ' s name and second the name (s) of the candidate (s) of that Council member ' s choice (s) . C. The candidate or candidates rec.eiving a majority of the votes of the Council members present shall be appointed. In the event that no candidate or candidates receive a majority vote or in the event of a tie vote, then a run- off ballot or ballots will be cast, following the proce- dure of sub-paragraph a. above, until a majority is reached. The run-off candidates will consist of all candidates receiving at least two (2) votes and if no candidates have received at least two (2) votes, then those receiving at least one (1) vote will participate in the run-off balloting. - This procedure shall be con- tinued_until a majority vote is cast. • Resolution No. , Co ssion Selection Procedur On motion by Councilman Mackey , and seconded by Councilman Nelson , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilman Highland, Makey, Nelson, Stover and Mayor Wilkins NOES: None ABSENT: None ADOPTED: November 9 , 1981 ROBERT J. 'WIL INS, JR. , Mayor. ATTEST: fAT RAY /L. WARDEN, City,-Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney 2 0 • 03 M E M O R A N D U M - - TO: MURRAY WARDEN It 7V- m /Y7fC1�$d FROM: -LARRY McPHERSON SUBJECT: Petition for Street Maintenance District - Sonora, Lower Pinal DATE: June 20, 1983 Attached are the petitions to place certain properties on the above stated streets into a Street Maintenance District for the purposes of paving and maintaining said streets for access to the lots in those areas. A majority of the affected property owners have signed the petition for Sonora Avenue and fifty percent of the affected property owners have signed the petition for lower Pinal. Due to vacancies and the transition of ownership, only fifty percent of the affected property owners have signed the petition for lower Pinal. It is my recommendation that lower Pinal be included in the Street Maintenance District. If during the protest hearings a majority of the property owners file a protest, then the Council may terminate the proceedings unless Council overrules the protest by a four-fifths vote. The attached map shows the areas to be included in the proposed maintenance district. As background, I have had several conversations with affected property owners, outlining options available to the residents enabling them to have their private access roads paved and maintained. About a month ago I met with some of the residents and again outlined the available options. It was the consensus of those attending that they wished to pursue the main- tenance districtproposal since it would allow the construction of a less than standard road section, which would be maintained by the property owners through the district process. I have estimated the cost to construct a paved access road with a width of twenty feet to be the following: Sonora ,Avenue — $6400, with an annual fee of $200 to cover ongoing maintenance. Lower Pinal - $5430, with an annual fee of $200 to cover ongoing maintenance. Under the Maintenance District proceedings as outlined in Section 5820-5856 of the Streets and Highways Code, if the district is approved, the City could levy a one time assessment to have the road improvements installed and levy an annual maintenance fee to cover ongoing expenses. The one-time road construction cost would be approximately $711 per lot for Sonora Avenue and $543 per lot for lower Pinal, with an annual main- tenance cost of $20 per lot. page two I believe the residents may wish to have the City advance funds, to allow immediate construction of the roadway paving,with repayment made, through the collection of the future assessments. No specific terms have been mentioned, however, some property owners may also wish to pay-off the assessment in one payment. Section 5835.5 of the Streets and Highways Codes does provide for a loan of funds by the City to a Maintenance District. The loan interest rate is fixed by the Council and the maximum term is for 10 years. It is my recommendation that Council accept the petition for the formation of a Street Maintenance District and proceed with preparation of a Resolution of Intention to order the formation of the district. Specific recommendations concerning the possible options available to finance the work can be dis- cussed and decided on at the time the resolution is considered. The formation of the district requires certain notifications to property owners, postings, protest and rate-setting hearings. If the Council wishes to proceed with the district, then those steps will be outlined. LAWRENCE McPHERSON LM:pw • o;, of t 5P TV 04 �C. � A_ g j • ... (7� 0 � _ �1 ,�' .few ', O O ,z.aa.� � aF ��' v 1 Z�. 1 O ,f• '/ •af�-I.f/ i Y O f i/at• �`Z e , JJJ.J r1 � • _ 4r syn 1 � ti r° PETITION FOR IMPROVEMENT OF SONORA AVENUE As enabled by Section 5820-5856 of Streets and Highways Code, we the undersigned property owners hereby petition City Council to form a - Maintenance Assessment District to improve and maintain the roads on this petition. lie understand the estimated cost for initial improvement will be approximately $711 per lot, $356 per lot for either APN 29-181-52 or 29-171-21, with an annual maintenance cost of $20 thereafter. if, after the improvements are in, the property owners elect to terminate the District, the City will be under no obligation to continue maintenance of said roads. Assessor's Parcel Number Address Property Owner (signature) 29-181-45 7295 RB & M Wiley; t � 29-181-16 7335 MA & G Silva; v 29-181-51 7355 HF & DC Cardinale; ca -vb- C "�" " X4 29 181 52 7375 0 Etal•,Vogt, , 29-171-21 7370 GA Rachunok; 29-171-03 Vacant FE Calkins; 29-171-02 7330 JF & DC Garnett; T�ka,--¢, '+ 29-171-01 Vacanta CT Willis; 29-161-04 7290 CE Derby Etal; �c-. ,Q, ,,,� J 29-161-09 7270 BR & JM Rogers; / N. W. z17:" Sr Ci-O lY or 3 3i L 'ii F l L. s PETITION FOR IMPROVEMENT OF PINAL AVENUE (Lower Section) 47 ~� .a As enabled by Section 5820-5856 of the Streets and Highway Code, we the undersigned property owners hereby petition City Council to form a Maintenance Assessment District to improve and maintain the roads shown on this petition. We understand that the estimated cost for initial improvement will be approximately $543 per lot, with an annual maintenance cost of $20 there- after. If, after the improvements are in, the property owners elect to terminate the District, the City will be under no obligation to continue. maintenance of said roads. Assessor's Parcel Number Address Property Owner (Signature) 29-181-06 D. Theriault Etal; 29-181-05p' L. Castellano Etal; , 29-181-41 NE Scott; 2 �t -181-40 E•R�I 'sr t k �Q,��'wu(l�'� � � C9 TM f. PA Pyrnn 29-181-02 1 0 DE & PM Caudill; `�( o 29-181-46 TL & LR Miles; » y C,9SS ec 29-121-03 i R D hrm_n j__Etz1_; 29-121-02v = � BE & MM Ratcliff; • 29-121-01 (Lot 5) �,r / i P{ l LB Dohrman, Etal; 29-121-01 (Lot 6) t;• _. re ', '` " LB Dohrman, Etal; FFA c;.it a o z ti F o r 00 V.t- t 0 i _ 4 M E_M O_R A_N_D_U_M • TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Adopting an interim budget DATE: June 23, 1983 The attached resolution is provided so as to permit continua- tion of payment of bills in the event that the budget is not ap- proved by July 1, 1983. It also permits any retroactive salary adjustments which may be necessary as a consequence of current negotiations which may not be completed until after July 1, 1983. This is the same procedure we followed last year and conforms to the statutory requirements. Recommend your adoption. RRA L. WARDEN • RESOLUTION NO. 27-83 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL • APPROVING AN INTERIM BUDGET-FOR THE 1983-84 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 "Proposed Budget for the City of Atascadero for the Fiscal Year 1983-84 , " dated June 10 , 1983, on file in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby approved as the Interim Budget for the City of Atascadero for the Fiscal Year 1983-84 to the extent of the certain totals set forth under the column entitled "FY83-84 Max Recommend, " 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 1982-83, will continue during an interim period for Fiscal year 1983- 84 as listed under "Expenditures Classification Personnel" within each Department of the Proposed Budget. Salary and _ benefit adjustments for Fiscal Year 1983-84 will be retro- active effective to July 1, 1983 upon adoption of a Final Fiscal Year 1983-84 Budget. Salary adjustments based upon salary negotiation settlements and approved Memoranda of Un- derstanding (MOU) will be retroactive to July 1, 1983, pro- • viding negotiations and MOUs are completed by no later than August 1, 1983 unless further extended by City Council ac- tion. 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 for Capital Outlay, 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 1983-84 and are listed in the Preliminary Pro- posed Budget for Fiscal year 1983-84. 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 1983-84 Budget as re- quired to achieve the orderly and efficient functioning of the City. 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. � • RESOLUTION NO. 27 -83 7 -83 Section 4. This resolution shall become effective and be in full force immediately upon its passage. On motion by Councilman and seconded by Councilman the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ROLFE NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: BARBARA NORRIS, City Clerk APPROVED AS T FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MU RAY WARDEN, City Manager i 2 • • J s _M E_M_0 R A_N_D_U_M TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Regulation of certain adult and related businesses DATE: June 23, 1983 Subsequent to enacting the moratorium on game arcades, the City Council also indicated a desire to review other adult-type businesses as part of the study now underway in the Planning De- partment. This study deals with businesses which might require closer review than occurs through the current business license/ zoning process. These businesses were not included in the mora- torium ordinance. The Planning Department has had an inquiry by an individual concerning the establishment of an adult book store. Under our present ordinance, if a license application were to be filed (for an appropriate location) , the license would be issued if the applicant successfully passed a background in- vestigation by the Chief of Police. With these concerns in mind, the Council may want to expand the moratorium to cover the other businesses now being studied. • If that is the case, the following businesses should be con- sidered: - adult book stores - adult movie theaters - card rooms - fortune telling and palmistry shops - "head" or paraphenalia shops - massage parlors and similar "encounter" studios - bingo parlors - pawn shops - billiard parlors - escort services Should the Council concur in these concerns, it will be nec- essary to amend the moratorium ordinance. I am, through this memo, seeking your views. We can handle any applications for businesses for this type on the basis of your motion stating your intent pending revision of the existing moratorium ordinance. We will submit suggested revisions depend- ing upon your reaction to this memo. .RAY WARDEN