Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 06/25/1984 AGENDA ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL • Regular Meeting June 25, 1984 7:30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Invocation Roll Call Public Comment City Council Comments RECOGNITION BY MAYOR MACKEY OF COUNCILMAN WILKINS AND STOVER'S TENURE AS CITY COUNCILMEN CERTIFICATION OF ELECTION RESULTS BY PRESENT COUNCIL 1. Resolution No. 27-84 reciting the fact of the General Muni- cipal Election held in Atascadero on June 5, 1984 declaring the result thereof and such other matters as provided by law 2. Appointment as Acting City Clerk of Supervisor Jerry Diefen- derfer appointed for purposes of conducting the installation of new Council members • 3 Presentation of Certificates of Election to the City Council 4. Oath of Office administered by Supervisor Jerry Diefenderfer ELECTION OF OFFICES FOR NEW COUNCIL 5. Conduct of election of Mayor by the Acting City Clerk 6. Conduct of election and seating of Mayor by Acting City Clerk 7. Conduct of election and seating of Mayor Pro-Tem by Mayor 8. Comments by newly elected Council members if desired REGULAR BUSINESS Public Comment A. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will -be no separate discussion of these items. If dis- cussion is required, that item will be removed from the Consent Calen- dar and will be considered separately. Vote may be by roll call. f AGENDA - ATASCADERO Y COUNCIL - June 25, 1980 1. Minutes of the regular meeting of June 11, 1984 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 2. Lot Line Adjustment 6-84, 8375 Los Osos Road, Brian - Estes (Westland Engineering) to adjust 'a common property line be- tween two parcels (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 3. Tentative Tract Map 4-84, 10710 El Camino Real, Eric Mich- ielssen, to create 30 residential condominium units. (RECOM- MEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 4. Tentative Parcel Map 7-84, 1650 Traffic Way, Patrick Meissner (Tartaglia) to create two 2. 51 acre parcels from a 5.02 acre lot (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS l Hearing to consider public comments relating to a proposed recommendation to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) concerning the Sphere of Influence for the City of Atascadero C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Ordinance No. 82 amending sections of the Zoning Ordinance • text regarding setbacks, fencing, parking and trash en- closures on flag lots (Sectons 9-4.110 (e) , 9-4.106 (a) (2) and 9-9.102) first reading D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Discussion on filling City Treasurer ' s position 'I 2. Discussion of filling City Clerk' s 'position 3. Consideration of holding a special election in November 4. Consideration of Resolution No. 29-84 approving payments of operating costs until adoption of a FY 84/85 Budget. E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1 City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5. City Manager- _ i AGENDA ATASCADERO City COUNCIL June 25, 1984 NOTE: There will be a closed session to consider personnel • matters; no announcement after the closed session is anticipated • • 3 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL June 25, 1984 FROM: CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Procedures for Installation of New Council Members The following is offered as an outline of the steps involved in in- stalling the new City Council members: 1) The old City Council must certify the election results by adop- tion of a Resolution to that effect. 2) In order to allow Mr. Diefenderfer to act in installing the new Council and because the present City Clerk cannot install her- self, it is suggested that the old Council accept the resignation of Barbara Norris tendered only and solely for the purposes of allowing Mr. Diefenderfer to execute the oath of office. The City Council can accept this resignation for that purpose and simultan- eously appoint Mr. Diefenderfer, Chairman of the County Board of Supervisors, as acting City Clerk for purposes of installing the new Council members. This can be done by motion. • 3) The present deputy City Clerk can sign that Resolution attesting to the election results: 4) Mr. Diefenderfer should sign the certificates of election for the new City Council members. 5) The old City Council members should call forth the newly elected members and the Acting City Clerk can then proceed to administer the oath of office and present the certificates of election. 6) Mr. Diefenderfer will then administer the oath of office to the three new Council -members upon completion of which they will assume their seats at the Council table after the outgoing members have heft the podium. 7) Mr. Diefenderfer should then chair the meeting for purposes of electing a new :payor. It is assumed that the new Council will continue the same policy as the previous one in having the Mayor's office for a one year term. The election of Mayor can be either by secret ballot or by voice vote. 8) After the Mayor is elected, the new Mayor will chair and conduct the election of the Mayor Pro-Tem. Upon completion of the elec- tion of the Mayor--Pro-Tem, the new Council could, if it is de- • sired, consider any other Council organizational matters such as committees, if any, etc. The only one of immediate concern is the appointment of a Council member and alternate to act as a delegate Procedures for Instafation of New Council Members to the Area Planning Council replacing Mr. Stover. Any other appointment to commissions or boards should be done at a subse- quent meeting ubse-quentmeeting when terms of office require although you should be aware that all member of commissions or advisory boards serve at the pleasure of the Council. 9) The City Council may then proceed to conduct their regular bus- iness as presented on the agenda. If desired, new Council members might wish to make statements prior to proceeding with the regular business. MUR AY L./WARDEN City Man ger PS i • 2 RESOLUTION NO. 27-84 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL RECITING THE FACT OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN SAID CITY ON JUNE 5, 1984, DELCARING THE RESULT THEREOF AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW WHEREAS, a regular municipal election was held and conducted in the City of Atascadero, California, on Tuesday, June 5, 1984, as re- quired by law; and, WHEREAS, notice of said election was duly and regularly given in time, form and manner as provided by law; that voting precincts were properly established; that election officers were appointed and that in all respects said election was held and conducted and the votes cast thereat received and canvassed and the returns made and declared in time, form and manner as required by the provisions of the Elec- tions Code of the State of California for the holding of elections in cities; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 3-84 adopted January 9 , 1984, the County Clerk of the County of San Luis Obispo canvassed the re- turns of said election and has certified the results to this City Council, said results are received, attached and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A" and "B" . NOW, THEREFORE, THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL DOES - HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That there were 11 voting precincts established for the purpose of holding said election consisting of 35 of the regular election precincts in said City as established for the holding of state and county elections. Section 2. That said regular general municipal election was held for the purpose of electing the following officers of said City and to vote upon the following measure as required by law relating to cities in the State of California; to wit: Three (3) Members of the City Council of said City for the full term of four (4) years; Measure "B" "Should the City of Atascadero provide a police facil- ity separate from the Administration Building, at a cost to be determined later , possibly using voter approved financing?" Resolution No. 27-84• Section 3. That the whole number of votes cast in said City (ex- cept absent voter ballots) was 4,953. That the whole numberofabsent voter ballots cast in said City was 439, making a total of 5,392 votes cast in said City. Section 4. That the names of persons voted for at said election for Member of the City Council of said City are as follows: George Molina Barbara Norris Wayne Handshy Donna Williams Russell C. Goodrich Mike Cox Steve Rizzuto Robert Lilley That the number of votes given at each precinct and the number of votes given in the City to each of such persons above named for the respective offices for which said persons were candidates were as listed in Exhibit A attached. Section 5. The City Council does declare and determine that: Wayne Handshy was elected as Member of the City Council of said City for the full term of four (4) years; George Molina was elected as Member of the City Council of said City for the full term of four (4) years; Barbara Norris was elected as Member of the City Council of said City for the full term of four (4) years; Section 6. That the number of votes given at each precinct and the number of votes given in this City to the Measure identified as Measure "B" were as listed in Exhibit "B" attached. Section 7. The City Council does declare and determine that Measure "B" failed to pass. Section 8. The City Clerk shall enter on the records of this City Council of said City, a statement of the result of said election, showing: (1) The whole number of votes cast in the City; (2) The names of the persons voted for ; (3) The measures voted upon; (4) For what office each person was voted for : 2 Resolution No. 27-84 (5) The number of votes given at each precinct to each person and for and against each measure; (6) The number of votes given in this City to each person and for and against each measure. Section 9. That the City Clerk shall immediately make and deliv- er to each of such persons so elected a Certificate of Election signed by the City Clerk and duly authenticated; that the City Clerk shall also admnister to each person elected, the Oath of Office prescribed in the State Constitution of the State of California and shall have them subscribe thereto and file the same in the office of the City Clerk. Whereupon, each and all of said persons so elected shall be inducted into the respective office to which they have been elected. Section 10. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter the same in the book of ori- ginal Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute of passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council of said City, in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. On motion by Councilman and seconded by Councilman , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its en- tirety on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: MARJORIE MACKEY, Mayor ATTEST: GEORGIA RAMIREZ, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney D AS T NT NT: RRI . WARDEN, City Manager 3 CERTIFICATE OF COUNTY CLERK RESULTS OF CANVASS OF ALL VOTES CAST AT 44, PRIMARY ELECTION JUNE 5, 1984 CITY OF ATASCADERO + COUNTY OF SAN LUIS us x' STATES OFF CALIFORNIAOBISPO j ss. ' , P} Pt I, FRANCIS M. COONEY, County Clerk-Recorder of the County + � of San Luis Obispo, do hereby certify that pursuant to law, I did canvass the returns of the votes cast at said Primary Election w a held on June 5, 1984, in the City of Atascadero, and that a xerox copy of the Statement of Votes Cast (the original of which is on file in the Office of the County Clerk), to which this certificate is attached, shows the number of votes cast in said City for and against each candidate for the office of Member of the City Council, and that the totals shown for and against each candidate for the office of Member of the City Council in said City, and in each of the respective precincts therein, are full, true and correct. WITNESS my hand and Official Seal this 19th day of June, 1984. r - FRANCIS M. CONEY, Cou rk-Recorder i 011T A R _ I _ � �. .- • e i v � S _ _ 2. 'T nn n n n C A a o c O e{i fzi n n y y tzi y n n n m sy:^ 4 Y xk�£`a�.+pT 2.z Z. "5 cd`^� 1 +� .'S�SI-..c '^f .' � 'a i � ~ O N d m y P D a b V P U d d d d ^ r d'O �/ • O d m V . M N • O O r a n " N r N O aW mP NAT�O< OTDmrNrOTD i N T N O W J O f • ♦ �., f W J O d s P m'P'N � u V ® rN>n NrerrsR u O WP MO O' a N V N V f > ). D O N a O N-N N d N 'KOSDCv rCr. v D cxmosn�Mrs +�c --n ,p rrnzcon ..n Amm:m: c a ¢ O N N O N ► ► �" i N >Srr02 mCDOmO �p 1•• V ym` N N ♦, U N r �•' �' f O O D P 6 0 V d G b r d r O V V J V m N r J y V toN W W N• O W N d d m d N O�+G.1rNrD 2 ZTST�N N r r ► N N N -_ d N r r r r '. r N r r �p r q W •. O C O ■SNp2>S IA>I�:ml mZ t>f n � ♦ V � �' O r r • • b ♦ N a N •V r b m W W W N N W H N •t M �. r r ► r z r r ► V P O c V p d V 6 d O-Mwo2 ►A>Q•D>6 T d P d O d D d V • N R • ) N O N. r P N O P 1 �" W r h:N O m ~ d �► N r P 'N ) feCn L Tm>Snri O T m r r A ti>m002 O ♦ � r N ♦ d b r O W b Q D N W SrrpOCOn n rrmNNCA - _ N O r d W b V d b P 0 N m P ) N V • V P V O d m TACN►m2 OAmCRnN>'�1► K,_r..ns+. nrres .. • N Y r R •r A,n r d.N V V b 'N d ♦ V d P Nm1 ' V N d W • d W r NO ♦ V N N W O V N U • V' i .` �. • W r �. N N N 4 d ♦ O COY s. O,d O a .f. 4 ti d n v O • .n O P • w ♦ � � L 'w 4 Y a C S S G O d O O m ¢ A C T N N N V T T 9 O O T V N O D T T y .{.�'F•-'Z,�.fA e{! tb d_ f D 9 > P A 9 ` 9 T if Cz1. T T � . y� r P y A o 0 0 D D A ) P r ► .F. .A.. ^ F r _ p N N O N N N N NDTtiOK DTPTti1n�a1TA T, � W W d ♦ y. T 1 N N D a d d ♦ N ..N>A NK]rr>m f P P V M p P r VCOZA CV N r O � 3COr A AT6=�wZ C d W N d d P = - e i ♦ a � ♦ a ♦ Nis�rrK s >zz co N = I N N N N �3 Sa 4 `uf4 a N P .p v ^' ! )zrros Tn ac er �S e �k� _"i�� V � ♦ W W W � O O W P O O CVChh�p = ZT�IIf.N � �T M �;. I' ��� 1 O a M ♦ �F N.N KSND2)2 1 A►fl`61 T2K>f P F N W W W p y y N xOfi ![ rT>SM�.i [t P O P O D O W W O A W W O W W N N d W N N ♦ N 2n�A000Cf� rr TNN CP p p TaCKy^z OATO►AN>�► i e o `s i s ♦ NTK X u N O N M M W O Y .i CERTIFICATE OF COUNTY CLERK n RESULTS OF CANVASS OF ALL VOTES CAST AT " PRIMARY ELECTION JUNE 5, 1984 s; 7 � - CITY OF ATASCADERO MEASURE "B" YZ �� - Y COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) as. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) #.• I, FRANCIS M. COONEY, County Clerk-Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo, do hereby certify that pursuant to law, I t did canvass the returns of the votes cast at said Primary Election held on June S, 1984, in the City of Atascadero, and that a xerox copy of the Statement of Votes Cast (the original of which is on file in the Office of the County Clerk), to which this certificate is attached, shows the number of votes cast in said City for and against said Measure, and that the totals shown for and against said Measure in said City, and in each of - the respective precincts therein, are full, true and correct. MEASURE "B"; "Shall the City of Atascadero provide a police facility separate from the Administration Building, at a cost to be determined later, possibly using voter approved financing? WITNESS my hand and Official Seal this 19th day of June, 1984. FRANCIS M. COONEY, -Count Recorder n; i s 4 . .,>i � r ♦ y, x amu+ � xa � �xi«� ��; onx'K x .Nvj�h T N N N 2 Z T L < D Tc c G c c n n > y ► r c c F O O �t O 2 G N N O N N N N NDT�O< pIA]011••NA�Cf T9 = V W d ♦ y: „ N T N N O N N N d W N N N N M N N M 2 `K029C< N O r O a a W u d d 6, �3a'g ♦ ♦ ♦ d f w d i Nss►rr..r 2 s22 Co m '. MMavbM.'Yv ;}f ]s 'n4S` N W r N N M r 5 �.'L✓' ,OaJR`,'�f'!•,.L' �; :� ,�� d N O N N d � _ >S.�r01 TORO n+c O J • W W f b W W ~ � D 0 W P O O � b CyGNN�A = ST<m tin O I L Guo VAµ d a r d a j. u0i. <SN02>S IA>m¢1 m2K>r R N N N N N N V N N N P P Nr9FC2 >9>bp>b T I > r P V 4 W O W W N x0n K rm►sn«s n b O P O O O W W > O A N N W N N W ~ KTrr�I' tiT m¢�•9p ++ .1 N xn�x000c. n rrmu.Nc9 . - 6 TDC N>T= DATD>n N3�► • +. .G0 � b D b b • V W NmK is sg�'s;'3 b D ♦ b i � O) .z 5 m b b N m N-m H m N m10 N�2z z Y"22'22222z 2 • m T T T m T T- y,Y z y 2 y Ym;.O O "�•L^.e 'Y.t.ajkaytF ',1 v�� �.��3'qS{�� '�+�gti1,:. ti •! V 1 �1 V �I�P:P P P P;P'm P A A *{���+ �5-•1{1 e��'�° '"!�k�'��x�2�+� �4' T:T T m T T�m m T T T� m T,m mT' T T m - Y i'i-a z z .2 z2n e o c;0 o'O'O.z 2 Y20 e c2 Oi ezil�+'n n y,n�n y n y 2 ' . z.V.� V'V ..• m A d d d d r d a d a r p • O p • O N n N 0', aW N m O r NPm.•O< OTPm�•n•.OTA O vPN V W'O N a N b S N O N' O r r 0 ♦ b J N OV.W'P N U� O'P V ♦ J a N > N NN M N i NJ J N W M z -+cOZPc- N _ O _ M CATO>,ConnNf V> OC <-r L V d m o Nzs.-rr..c x >zzoo m N >z►roz mCmca o O r r r W d N a W N m aO N N d p+CNN�A 2 2T<T�N O V P g y d O m V N V O W r o m N. N d •, r Nr F r NC N O <IN02>S /A>T.O/ mSK>•. n J r b r r P b • J N a N V r ¢ ¢ W W W N N V N K C N r r r r O N•+APGY fA>6A>6 W W r r N"O'.A. d N h• D N J Icr•n ( rT>Snr2 r'+ D O O a.y p d a J W r,M ♦ V J J m J m P P > D p r O W p r a b N • m P a O N W V O P d y V a t J KTrr••r VPTODA N r J d m N O W b ¢ O N W In+AOC On n rrTNNCA N P M d W m V d ¢ P d N b P J N V V P L O d p •�ACKTIz'r/'•►T01>i./n•••N-t>'cm b. • Y r p A' ► d N V N P Ma ♦ ma y ♦ NTr, N r • N r r N N 4 'N N N '• N M N L a i d nY OOOdOOV O ► VG6fO Q > V ♦ • rLM *ETING � +� AG- NDA — ITEM r MINUTES ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting 6 n 11,. 1984 ascadero Administration Building The meeting was called to order at 7: 30 p.m. by Mayor 'Mackey. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. ROLL CALL Present: Councilman Molina, Stover, Nelson, Wilkins and Mayor Mackey. STAFF Present: Murray Warden, City Manager; Ralph Dowell, Finance Director; Allen Grimes, City Attorney; Mike Hicks, Fire Chief; Skip_ Joannes, Recreation Director; Jerry Linenkugel, Acting Police Chief; Wayne Loftus, Interim Planning Director; Barbara Norris, City Clerk; Georgia Ramirez, Deputy City Clerk; and Larry McPherson, Public Works Director. PUBLIC COMMENT Sarah Gronstrand of Friends of the Library, Ilene Cunningham and Lois Williams spoke in support of the Library and asked for a commitment from the City Council in the amount of $`55,000 so that they could tell the County Supervisors of this at the June 20th meeting. It was pointed out that there is no way that such a commitment could be made at this time because the next council meeting isn't until June 25 and there have been no budget sessions as of this �me. Bruno Adamoli asked for a special permit to shoot squirrels on his property. Murray Warden, City Manager, said that there is an ordinance for special circumstances to control pests and asked Mr. Adamoli to come to the City Manager' s office so they could look it up. COUNCIL COMMENT Councilman Nelson presented a gavel to Councilman Wilkins for 5 years of ser- vice to the City Council and 3 years as Mayor, of the City. Mayor Mackey con- gratulated the winners of the council election. A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the regular meeting of May 29, 1984 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 2. Treasurer' s Report - 5/l/84 to 5/31/84 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 3. Finance Director' s Report 5/1/84 to 5/31/84 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 4, Acceptance of Tentative Parcel Map 3-83, 3120 San Fernando Road (Lot 9, Block 26) Bob Kelley (Twin Cities Engineering) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 5. Acceptance of Tentative Parcel Map 15-83, 11085 San Marcos Road • (Lot 4, Block 50) Donald Auten (Twin Cities Engineering)' (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL—MINUTES June 11, 1984 &. Tentative Parcel Map 7-84, Robert Stoddard (Daniel J. Stewart & Associates) , to create two lots of one acre and 1.`04 acre each from a 2. 04 acre parcel. (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISS RECOMMENDATION) 7. Lot Line Adjustment 5-84, Arnold Hoffman (Hilliard Surveys) to adjust property lines around existing buildings to conform to setback 're- quirements. (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION'° MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved, Councilman Molina seconded that the above consent calendar be approved. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. General Plan Amendments Cycle 2-84, Land Use Element and Text: a. General Plan Amendment GP 2A-84 : High Density Multiple Family Residential to Retail Commercial; located southeast of corner of El Camino Real and El Bordo, addressed as 9955 and 9975 El Camino' Real ' - Wilson/Planning Commission. Negative Declaration of the provisions of CEQA is to be certified. c. General Plan Amendment GP 2C-84 : Amend the Land Use Element - density provisions for the development of `mobilhome parks Initiated by Planning Commission. Negative Declaration of the provisions of CEQA to be certified. d. General `Plan. Amendment GP 2C-84 : Amend the Land Use Element by placing the Recreation, Suburban, Single Family Residentiao and Retail Commercial Land Use designations on property at the Salinas River near Santa Cruz Road north of the 'current northern City boundary - Atascadero Limited (Rogoway/Bethel) . Draft Environmental Impact Report previously certified, addendum to be 'considered. MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved, Councilman Molina seconded that Resolution No. 28-84 be adopted. Motion passed; unanimously by roll call vote. 2. ZONE CHANGE 1-84 - request by Atascadero Limited to prezone 128 acres from Agriculture (SLO County) to Residential Suburban, Commercial Tourist and Recreation located adjacent to Highway 101 at the Salinas River near Santa Cruz Road. Draft Environmental Impact Report previously: certified, addendum to be considered. MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved, Councilman Molina seconded to direct staff to prepare necessary documents for an ordinance. Passed unanimously. 3 . ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT 3-84 Request for a revision to the Zoning Ordinance text modifying the setback requirements on flag lots to allow parking, six foot fences and trash enclosures within the front yard setback. A Negative Declaration to the provisions of CEQA to be certified. • -2- ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL &UTES • June 11, 1984 MOTION: Councilman Molina moved, Councilman Wilkins seconded to refer back to Planning Department for revisions to be brought back at next Council Meeting. Passed unanimously. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Consideration of appointment of City Treasurer MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved, seconded by Councilman Nelson to appoint Ralph Dowell, Finance Director, as Interim City Treasurer until new council is seated. Passed unanimously. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of appointment to Recreation Advisory Board MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved, seconded by Councilman Stover to extend terms of current board members to allow new council to consider the appointments. Passed unanimously. 2. Animal Control Contract MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved, seconded by Councilman Nelson to extend current contract for 30 days in order to give time to bring back the full contract for the new council' s consideration. Passed unanimously. 3 . Dial-A-Ride Connector to Fair MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved, seconded by Councilman Wilkins to approve use of Dial-A-Ride to the Fair. Passed unanimously. F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION . CITY COUNCIL Councilman Nelson asked about the progress of the new Planning Director. City Manager, Murray Warden, stated that there were 46 applicants, and Mr. Sherer, Mr. Wentzel and he would be going through the applications on June 12 to pull out the ones who do not qualify and try to get it to a range of 15 for interviewing by the new council. CITY ATTORNEY City Attorney, Allen Grimes, made the statement that there is no law that requires anyone or any institution to tell the so called truth, other than in court proceedings or in a deposition. CITY CLERK Barbara Norris, City Clerk, thanked the citizens of Atascadero for their support of her as City Clerk the past two years and also thanked the council -3- ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 11, 1984 CITY TREASURER None CITY MANAGER Murray Warden, City Manager, discussed the map showing the work being done on Lakeview Drive by Elliott Stevenson. He also discussed the use of a corporation called ESGIL who does building department plan reviews. MOTION: By Councilman Wilkins, seconded by Councilman Stover to enter into an agreement with ESGIL for plan checking for 800 of the plan check fee. Passed by 4 : 1 vote with Councilman Molina voting no. NOTE: Tape of council meeting, side 3 did not work at the beginning of the . tape, per Ralph Dowell, Finance Director. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned to closed session at 9: 20 p.m. Closed session adjourned at :10 : 15 p.m. and the meeting adjourned at 10 :16 p.m. Minutes recorded by Georgia Ramirez BARBARA NORRIS, City Clerk Am AG �O A PATE t= -_ M E M O R A N D U M • TO: CITY MANAGER June 19, 1984 FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 6-84 APPLICANT: Brian Estes (Westland Engineering) LOCATION: 8375 Los Osos Road (Lots 14 and 15, Block 37) REQUEST: To adjust a -common property line between two parcels under the same ownership utilizing minimum lot size adjustment data to reduce the size of one parcel by 20 % below the minimum required size in the RS Zone. On June 18, 1984, the Planning Commission considered the above refer- enced matter and unanimously approved the lot lineadjustmentsubject • to the findings and conditions contained in the attached Staff Report. Bill Rebik, representative with Westland Engineering, spoke insupport of the request as did Brian Estes (property owner) . These was considerable discussion among the Commission concerning utilization of the adjustment procedure as compared to a set 'standard being applied for minimum lot sizes. No one else appeared on the matter. WAYNE LOFTUS AY I WARD EN Planning Director ty M• ager Ps STAFF REPORT Planning Commission - City of :Atascadero Dater June 18, 1984 Item: (C-1) Lot Line Adjustment 6-84 A. LOCATION: 8375 Los Osos Road (Lots 14 and 15, Block 37) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request To adjust a common property line between two parcels under the same'' ownership utilizing minimum lot size adjustment data to make one parcel as small as possible under the RS zoning. _2. Applicant Brian Estes 3. Engineer Westland Engineering (Orton) 4. Site 'Area' 52 acres (Lot 14) and 5.3 acres (Lot 15) 10.5 acres total 6. Zoning RS (Residential Suburban) 7. Existing Use Lot 14 - single family res. • Lot 15 - vacant 8. Adjacent Zoning and Use North: RS S.F.R.s East: RS - S.F.R. s South: County West: RS S.F.R.s 9. General Plan Designation Suburban Single Family , Residential 10. Terrain Hilly Il. Environmental Status Categoricallyexempt C. SUBDIVISION REVIEW_BOARD On May 3, 1984, the Subdivision' Review Board met with the appli- cant and his engineer to discuss the proposal. Members of the Board in attendance were: Wayne Loftus, Planning Director, Mike Hicks, Fire_ Chief; Bob Lilley, Planning Commissioner; and Fred Buss, Associate Planner . Discussion centered around the policy for determining the minimum lot size for lots and its application to determine the feasibility of a lot line adjustment. The appli- cant had not submitted any 20% lot size adjustment - data at that • time. The applicant indicated the data would be forthcoming. The Board informed the applicant that the policy of using the 20% Lot Line Adjustment 6-84 (Estes) reduction information to determine a minimum feasible lot for a lot line adjustment would be discussed further at the Planning Commission meeting in order to determine policy. D. ANALYSIS Staff requires some policy clarification regarding the 20% adjust- ment to the minimum lot size. An application for a lot division on Halcon Road (Calkins) brought this issue before the Planning Commission previously with no resulting direction by Commission. In determining the feasibility of a lot line adjustment, for ex- ample, Staff computes (in the RS Zone) the minimum lot size for the lots in question. This is to determine to what extend a line may be adjusted so that lots will remain basically equivalent in area without going below the minimum lot size. For lots which are already below the minimum lot size for their location, the recom- mendation is typically based upon a determination as to the logic of the minor change or the resulting equalizing of parcel size. In this case, the five performance factors (measuring both lots together) which determines lot size procedures in the following information: Lot Size Factor Average Slope (25. 76%) 1.00 Distance from center (12-14,000) .40 Septic (severe) 1.50 Roads (paved, 15% slope) .40 General neighborhood character (3.16 acres) .63 minimum lot size: 3.93 acres The above calculation indicates that applicant could add slightly more than one acre to one of the lots and stay within the limits prescribed for minimum lot size. However, the applicant desires to reduce one of the lots by utilizing the 20% reduction adjust- ment data to allow transfer of slightly more than two acres be- tween the parcels (3.14 acre minimum lot size) . The Planning Com- mission should determine the appropriateness of allowing this use of the adjustment process, especially in recognition of the fact that the larger parcel could be subsequently split. E. Director Comments Utilization of the adjustment procedure for the convenience of the applicant regardlessofthe merit of the proposal seems to be counterproductive to the intent of establishing a development standard. Unless an adjustment procedure is applied in cases of hardship or unusual circumstances related to the property as op- 2 Lot Line Adjustment 6-84 (Estes) posed to the desire of the applicant, no useful purpose will be served. Staff and Commission time, as well as that of the appli- cant, is wasted with the outcome likely to be known before the decision is made. A more productive approach may very well be the elimination of any adjustment clause and the implementation of a standard that is recognized and uniformly applied. In the case of lot sizes, the conclusion may be to reduce the size of the lot which could well be more equitable and appropriate than the present approach. F. RECOMMENDATION Determination by Planning Commission of the appropriateness of utilizing the adjustment procedure for lot sizes with boundary adjustment requests. Should the Planning Commission decide to approve Tentative Lot Line Adjustment 6-84 , the decision should be based on the Findings that follow and subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "A" . G. FINDINGS 1. The application as submitted has been determined to be Cate- gorically Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. The application as submitted conforms with applicable subdi- vision regulations. Attachments 3 I • 0 Lot Line Adjustment 6-84 (Estes) Exhibit "A" - Lot Line Adjustment 6-84 Conditions of Approval June 18, 1984 1. The lot line adjustment as generally shown on the map attachment provided herein shall be submitted in Final Map format to be ap- proved by the Planning Department prior to recordation by the County Recorder ' s Office. 2. The proposed adjusted lot lines shall be surveyed and monuments set at the new property corners prior to recordation of the Final Map. 3. The location of all improvements and easements shall be delineated on the Final Map. 4. 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. 4 ' u ` REV! Dr1TF 1 1a°O 10 _ 11 9 fg3o . gdys 11A 2�4 ���5 8 .48 _.. 4 .- 3 94850 7 y 1M1 �0 0 6 101% A 0 0 �f' 1 / BAR• ,k E 2S PI►R.I B g. $ s YPR s / tit x,0'!_6 QF" 18A 18 F �o ^5 ` 25� *,`--••S7° __;`'`.,. J) G, / e F'2 s \Pioq � 1 8�ar'�� 39 I 8120 s 17i X77 ' . r G , `e�o7y q jr 1pGl �_ty t44 2 jv IOo 600 A ° :F t0gP4. C *Atl $ Gn�5 �1b ` A P.2 3 q/S' t3aC t d�,��� `t9 rie 2 op ' �� o 0 ,moo TAK 4k 3 \`�S pyo \0� ao 4 \ s cp '$ 13 C 13 \ Z 32 ?Olt. p \�2 63� �ry 13 3 t 12 �0 1 Z 2titi 8$3 8 zaa .9zao e��h t 23 8 to l 30 g5 8ti 50 - yam• R+r•�^�,.( Par.B y5 2 �ZoS 19 �� 24; I Rr A��0 13 11 cs 202a v 8l Belo DO 21 2`�° PAR.B 28 . 75 14 $ZUZ 18 0 Q7 76 � By61 6370 8375 8loZo z fAK-A / - 17 gzTS 20 21 g2/� 27 15 JJ%" 10 18 82oA 8315� p 17 1 6 m19 CPI �:61b 22 �' J a l-T£ 0 , 01#° Zors /4,9IS, b`ve�37 �s 05 aS©s -- 15-5TE91WE6tTLAf1119 R £ ti $ -r, ,e-, i,.'. '.� -�•' r `+:x e Vis'. � L i Y i. .( z C• .� _, h } F' ti� a �"n t Y '❑ od' S :.91 y`y11' >� Qgp4 .' •',0. _ h W � $ $ng i nr, H u e p n,,yy TT F a n W w O ' �V[ zF W'. FmJrTi chi H Z H = 4 2 L� - lL b ❑ No ZZH $ w„ oW ¢ �gwr c -. $�$ to `m o . x„ny =smg ¢ uzi »B $ Big d Y � N .. C _ L J� � l _-. t ... �...:....�-.,.t w'-'+ ..'^'.:.^^. � f j KAW '3et IL ml 14 � o� -sols. 9 MEETING J AG-:-NDA DATE ITEM# -� M E M O R A N D U M • TO: CITY MANAGER June 19, 1984 FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 4-84 APPLICANT: Eric Michielssen LOCATION: 10710 E1 Camino Real REQUEST: To create 30 residential condominium units on approximate- ly 1.9 acres of land contained in two lots. On June 18, 1984, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above-referenced application and unanimously approved the Tract Map application subject to the Findings , and Conditions as set forth in the attached Staff Report. • Eric Michieissen, applicant, appeared and spoke in support of his re- quest and noted his agreement with the recommended conditions. John Nelson, E1 Camino Real resident, commented on the project and noted his concurrence with the recommendation. There was only brief discussion among theCommissionconcerning this matter. No one else appeared on the matter . AYNE OFTUS M Y L. WARDEN Planning Director C ty Ma ger Ps • STAFF REPORT Planning Commission - City of Atascadero Date: June 18, 1984 Item: B-5, (Tentative Tract Map 4-84) Notice of public hearing was Public Hearing Case:TTM4-84 printed ih the Atascadero News Public hearing to create 30 res- on June 8, 1984 and all owners idential condominium units on of record property located with=- approximately 1.9 acres of land in 300 feet were notified by contained in two lots in the United` States 'Mailon that same RMF/16 Zone. date. A. Location: 10710 El Camino Real (Portion Lot 6, Block 35) ` B. Situation and Facts: 1. Request. .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To create 30 residential condo- minium units on approximately 1.9 acres of land contained in two lots, 2. Owner/Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . .Eric Michielssen 3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.9 acres (net) 4.- Streets. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .El Camino Real is an undivided arterial with a 100 foot wide right-of-way. 5. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMFjl6 (Residential, ,Multiple Pam- ily, 16 dwelling units per acre) 6. Existing use. . . . . . . . . . . . . .One single family residence with accessory structures. 7. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . .North: RMF/16, S.F.R.s Eases RMF/16, S.F.R.s South: RMF/16, S.F.R.s West: Highway 101 8. General Plan Designation. . .High Density' Multiple Family Residential 9. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Generally level with 'less than' a 5% slope from Highway 101 down to E1 Camino Real. Tentative Tract Map 4-84 (Discovery Investment) 10. Environmental Status. . . . . . .Categorically Exempt from environ- mental review (but previously reviewed under Precise Plan 3-'84) C. Site and Development Data: 1. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.9 acres in two lots 2, Required Minimum Lot. . . . . . .0.5 acres 3. Number of Dwellings Proposed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4. Density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Permitted - 16 dwelling units per acre. Proposed - 15.79 dwelling units per acre. 5. Shape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The existing lots are sited in tandem and shaped rectangularly. As one lot, the parcel has a 127 foot frontage and average depth of 648 feet. D. Subdivision Review Board: On March 1, 1984, the Subdivision Review Board met with the prop- erty owner, Eric Michiellsen, and his associate, Jim Sachs, to review a proposal for a 22 unit project on this site. Members of the Board in attendance were: Vern Elliott, Fire Captain; Patsy West, Senior Engineering Technician; and Fred Buss, Associate Planner. At that time, discussion centered around the design of that project. Particular attention was paid to circulation, park- ing, site layout and the use of the PD overlay Zone. The Board encouraged the applicant to meet with Staff and redesign the pro- ject to conform with zoning ordinance standards. The Board saw no reason to require the applicant to return to a later SRB meeting for an airspace (condominium) subdivision after redesigning the project. E. Analysis The project was redesigned by the applicant in close association with Staff and has subsequently received a Precise Plan approval for a townhouse sytle apartment project. The applicant now de- sires to change the ownership of the approved 30 units into con- dominiums. This will allow individual ownership of a dwelling unit and the land it sits on and common ownership of the parking and recreation areas. The property is currently contained in two lots (Parcels l and 2 of Parcel Map No. CO 76-572) . This map will effectively merge the two lots into one and resubdivide the prop- erty into 30 individual lots and one common lot. Since the pro- 2 Tentative Tract Map 4-84 (Discovery Investment) ject has already been reviewed and approved under the Precise Plan approval process, this ownership change would appear to be of little consequence. F. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map 4-84 based on the Findings that follow and the conditions contained in Exhibit "A" . G. Findings 1. The application as submitted conforms to applicable zoning and subdivision regulations and is consistent with the Gener- al Plan. 2. The application as submitted is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. II 3 0 • Tentative Tract Map 4-84 (Discovery Investment) Exhibit"A" - Tentative Tract Map 4-84 Conditions of Approval June 18, 1984 1. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and Restric- tions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control of nuisances and architectural control of all buildings. a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney and Planning Department prior to approval of the Final Map. b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by a Condominium Homeowners Association. 2. All conditions of approval herein specified are to be complied with prior to the filing of the Final Map. 3. A Final Map in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a Registered Civil Engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate by certificate on the Final Map that corners have been set or shall be set by a date specific and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit- ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the Final Map. 4. Approval of this Tentative Tract Map shall expire two years from the date of this approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. Ps 4 J NTArll P. P v P EL,SS-,5�kJ ?y cs' 'Pso o 1D''fg0 - . : .. LoC�/ �LaCK �2r10N ) 3� tea0 .` - .y �y��4 ys 15s no 110 fo.7iv £ C R 41 � a DATE BY �p o { Sa 7� w s+ �0 \ _ j ;ooho \b RMF 0 12 4 . yb�\\so \� 10 t 9a � ?• `off 54. RS 53 \obo� y 17 S 3512 i ; 0 9$�\ �° r1�. s42 ..} 8113 9 ,, 34 Q7 - A 4 to x`51 `, i' 4uoo s �.-\o � 010 28 33 � 14 29 49 19 , 2 \°'t� o O 0 36 30 �o i s \ \o , o� .�� 15 '-� eo-72-a12~ D ?17 ,•' 1`P � X37 8 4\ "S t6 5y �o� a 46 20 L 139 38 45 6 9 40 i 41 21 42 o i? 43 ,o8yti 44 o„� 0 19 X04 r23 �S �� 22 20 2 90` 23 /t" o 21 66, 25 24 11� CG 56 tjrz2 F ,1R 2 3 26 27 �h 3 9r pow 42 -4 29 +n , i! 2 111&0 \\ ph goo — l \ ` �� PAR.3 A _ cl 4 30 Co 7{0-309 41 6p ii�s i 5byo 90� 6 3tiy � 32 1� $AR.2 \ MR.C 40 'el iPae/ - t I c T a a JWS O o i+ n � y � 3 I �2 qMM V ,PEAL MIRINGAGtir NOA / DATE_ -2 ELATE i —4 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY MANAGER June 19, 1984 FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 7-84 APPLICANT: Patrick Meissner , (Tartaglia) LOCATION: 1650 Traffic Way REQUEST: To create two 2. 51 acre parcels from a 5.02 acre lot util- izing the minimum lot size adjustment. On June 18, 1984, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above-referenced application and unanimously certified a Nega- tive Declaration and approved the minimum lot size adjustment and land division request subject to the findings and conditions- contained in • the Staff Report. Patrick Meissner, applicant, appeared and spoke in support of his ap- plication indicating his concurrence with the recommendation. There was only brief discussion among the Commission concerning this matter. No one else appeared on the matter . �c WAYN LOFTUSU Y L !WARDEN Planning Director C' y Ma ager Ps • STAFF REPORT- • Planning Commission - City of Atascadero Date: June 18, 1984 Item: B-6 Notice of public hearing was pub- Public Hearing :Case TPM 8-84 lished in the Atascadero News on Public hearing to create two June 8, 1984 and all owners of 2. 51 acre lots from 5.02 acres record property located within _300 utilizing the minimum lot size feet were notified by United adjustment in the _RS Zone. States Mail on that same date. A. Location: 1650 Traffic Way (Lot 3, Block 49) B. Situation and Facts: 1. Request. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .To create two 2.51 acre parcels from a 5.02 acre lot utilizing the minimum lot size adjustment. 2. Applicant. , . . . . . . . . . . 0 .'. . . .Patrick Meissner 3. Engineer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Robert Tartaglia 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.02 acres 5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Traffic Way is an undivided arterial with a 40 foot right- of-way. 6. Zoning. . . . . . .. . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban) 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. .. . . . .Northwest: RS, vacant Northeast: RS, railroad tracks Southwest: RS, S.F.R.s Southeast: RS, S.F.R.s 9. General Plan Designation. . . . . .Suburban Single Family Residential 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Terraced into two levels with an average slope of 8%. 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. Site and Development Data: 1. Site area. . . . . . ..... . . ._. . . .... . . .5.02 acres • 0 0 Tentative Parcel Map 8-84 (Meissner/Tartaglia) 2. Required minimum lot size. . . . . Lot Size Factor Average slope (8%) .50 Distance from center (12-14000) .40 Septic (moderate) .75 Roads (city road) .40 General Neighborhood character (2.89 ac) . 58 Required minimum lot size: 2.63 acres 3. Minimum lot size reduced by 20%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 50 acres 4. Proposed lot size. . . . . . . . . . . . .Parcel A: 2. 51 acres Parcel B: 2.51 acres 5. Access. . .. . . .". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Parcel A is a-flag lot with 25 feet of frontage on Traffic Way and Parcel B fronts on Traffic Way. 6. Slope. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .The lots wil be located in tan- dem (one behind the other) , with a diagonal lot division line between the two proposed parcels. 7. Average slope of building site and leachfield. . . . . . . . . . .Parcel A: 12.5% Parcel B: 11.7% 8. Earthwork and size of pad. . . . .Parcel A: 660 cubic yards of cut/694 cubic yards of fill Driveway: 115 cubic yards of fill only Parcel B: 395 cubic yards of cut/70 cubic yards of fill Driveway: 35 cubic yards of cut and 10 cubic yards of fill. 9.Maximum Slope of Driveways. . . . .Parcel A: 8.2% Parcel B: 11. 8% D. Subdivision Review Board: On May 3, 1984 the Subdivision Review Board met with Patrick Meis- sner, the applicant, and his engineer, Bob Tartaglia, to discuss the project. Members- of the Board in attendance were: Wayne Lof- tus, Planning Director; Mike Hicks, Fire Chief; Bob Lilley, Plan- ning Commissioner ; and Fred Buss, Associate Planner. Discussion centered around the minimum lot size adjustment information and 2 • Tentative Parcel Map 8-84 (Meissner/Tartaglia) the necessity to upgrade the existing fire hydrant at the west corner of the lot on Traffic Way. The Board had no major concerns with the project. E. Analysis Before an Adjustment can be granted, Section 9-3.144 (c) (2) re- quires that specified Findings be made by the Planning Commission which justify the use of site specific information over the gener- alized performance criteria. Since creation of the two lots is dependent upon the Adjustment, Staff review must consider each Findings. Review of the submitted material clearly indicates two feasible and well located building sites. Grading is minimal in each case and standard septic systems will probably be able to be used. There is no reason to believe that either proposed site will have a detrimental effect on any surrounding persons or property. This is the largest lot in the area with other lots having been prev- iously divided or originally created at a smaller size. The re- quested lot size is within the range of the Suburban Single Family Residential designation and less than the full 20% reduction al- lowed by the RS Zone. It is Staff' s opinion that granting the Adjustment will result in better utilization of the property. F. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of an Adjustment to the minimum lot size and, therefore, recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 8-84 to create two lots based on the Findings that follow and the con- ditions contained in Exhibit "A" . Additionally, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission certify the attached Negative Dec- laration as a complete and accurate document consistent with the provisions of CEQA. G. Findingp 1. There are circumstances applicable including shape, topo- graphy, location and surroundings which warrant use of speci- fic site information rather than generalized area information in determining lot size. 2. The specific site information submitted clearly demonstrates that the adjustment in lot size is warranted. 3. The granting of the adjustment will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons, be materially detrimental to the public welfare,--- or be injurious to nearby property or improvements. 3 0 Tentative Parcel Map 8-84 (Meissner/Tartagiia) 4. The granting of the adjustment will result in better utiliza- tion of the affected property. 5. The granting of the adjustment is consistent with the General Plan. 6. The creation of two lots with a minimum lot size of 2. 51 acres on this parcel conforms to all applicable zoning and subdivision regulations with the granting of the adjustment. 7. The creation of two lots in conformance with the recommended conditions of approval will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment and preparation of an Environmen- tal Impact Report is not necessary. 4 Tentative Parcel Map 8-84 (Meissner/Tartaglia) EXHIBIT "A" - Tentative Parcel Map 8-83 Conditions of Approval June 18, 1984 1. This tentative map approval is granted for the creation of two lots with neither lot to be smaller than 2. 51 acres. 2. Private sewage disposal systems will be an acceptable method of sewage disposal if reports and designs are acceptable. All tests, reports and designs shall conform to methods and guidelines pre- scribed by the Manual of Septic Tank Practices and other appli- cable City Ordinances. The following Note shall appear on the Final Map: "Appropriate soils reports including a percolation test, a test to determine the presence of ground water , and a log of a soil boring to a minimum depth of ten (10) feet shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Where soils reports indicate the conventional soil absorption sys- tems are not acceptable, City approval of plans for an alternative private sewage disposal system, designed by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall be required. Depending upon the system, more re- strictive requirements may be imposed. 3. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel or its public utility easement prior to recordation of the Final Map. 4. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines and other easements are to be shown on the Final Map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the Final Map. 5. Grading that would be disruptive to the natural topography shall be minimized. Removal of existing, mature trees shall also be minimized. The following shall appear as a Note on the Final Map: "No trees shall be removed without compliance with applicable City ordinances. No grading shall commence without an appropriate per- mit and compliance with applicable City ordinances. " 6. Drainage and erosion control plans, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Plan- ning Department prior to issuance of building permits in conjunc- tion with installation of driveways, access easements or struc- tures. This shall appear as a Note on the Final Map. 7. Plan and profile drawings of- proposed individual driveways and driveway easements shall be submitted for approval by the Planning and Public Works Departments at the time of building permit re- quest in order to determine average grade and appropriate improve- ment requirements. This shall appear as a Note on the Final Map. 5 9 ! Tentative Parcel Map 8-84 (Meissner/Tartaglia) 8. The applicant shall upgrade the existing fire hydrant located at the eastern property corner to the standard required by the Fire Chief prior to recordation of the Final Map. 9. All conditions herein specified shall be complied with prior to filing of the Final Map. 10. A Final Map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a Registered Civil Engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate by Certificate on the Final Map that corners have been set or will be set by a date specific and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit- ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the Final Map. 11. Approval of this Tentative Parcel Map shall expire two years from the date of Planning Commission approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expira- tion date. 6 T., TARTAGLIA-HUGHES CONSULTING ENGINEERS 7360 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE E • P. O. BOX 1930 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 PHONE (605) 466.5660 r X 11 City of Atascadero May 30, 1984 P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, California 93423 File: 84-15 Attention: Mr. Fred Buss — Associate Planner Subject: Tentative Parcel Map 8-84 Dear Fred: Attached hereto is the revised Parcel Map and a preliminary plan and profile for the tentative driveway locations. The following information is a list of data as required in your letter dated May 7 . 1. Gross size for each parcel is 2. 51 acres 2. Average slope of the proposed building sites are: a. Parcel "A" - 12 . 50 b. Parcel "B" - 11. 70 The excavation quantities for each parcel (pad and driveway) are shown on the Driveway Plan & Profile plan. Sincerely yours, Tartagliatl-Hughes Consulting Engineers Robert C. Tartaglia RCT/sh Civil Engineer Enc. II • P \ -�yl 07-3 • 4r s. 9v5 tom• T'?� tTL - ` FH) -- - y1 i oft%'� ct d3L $G Q. 4100 IV t _ 4z0o !� �- •� i 4300 ��f41s- ` /J RMF/16, yF1.11 14 3S ,/ / s 3 0 t \ ♦,%O ty� .'fir •� •\ '/ ,S l� , fid ."aF j:, y .95, ��; •tO� ` �' a 3�e`G�S/° �' z� F J! ty05 \ t�. 4 < \ A^5 \L ,S Sa s s� s i Sop! \ LG 2oyi \ \ i5 v 27 \j, lb ., 34 9e0Ng50 3 `goo '� 1 .� 33 1 ran ��✓� 4y°` ,✓ -GN •; ; ,� � � /� � 3 3 �..> `�� --_...c--- 'ten•.. .3 v \ Q, s; - 1 -- _ *' ,• 2 \ 35�„ yr ' GI z. L gar s ^ /f Ile ,IA a t ►, � 1 0 1 �^aa � a a• \ � as ` e w a � A n Ci DOS, Hy41e no. \ a ���� N _--7a- 0 Nk Lu 44 co u // \ _71CAP IS Xt OFF— T�71 '_ - i � \ g`� ter-.`-'_.. —"i o�s =� �•st-- ( A 7, --_ �tlNG p(,,�iVDA ITEM M E M O R A D U M TO: CITY COUNCIL June 25,, 1984 FROM: CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Included in your packet are copies of the Planning Director ' s report dated June 25th concerning the Sphere of Influence question. The Council had previously heard this matter and had approved the Planning Commission's recommendation. ' Subsequent to that action, the residents of the area, asked the Council to reconsider its action. Accordingly,- the Council directed a rehearing which is the matter be- fore you tonight. The Council can, if it wishes, change its previous decision or can reaffirm its previous action. MUR Y L. ARDEN Cit Man ger PS M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY MANAGER June 25, 1984 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Hearing to consider public comments relating to a proposed recommendation to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) concerning the Sphere of Influence for the City of Atascadero. Situation: At their regular meeting of May 29, 1984, the City Council, after receiving a petition and public comments from several individuals, agreed that the previously designated Sphere of Influence would be reconsidered on June 25, 1984. The emphasis of the comments made by the speakers was to delete the areas east of the Salinas River and areas of the original Atascadero Colony south of the current City lim- its from-the-Council recommendation. The Sphere boundary which is the subject of this reconsideration P Y 7 was established by City Council at their meeting of March 26, 1984 and subsequently sent to the Local Agency Formation Commissionforreview. The boundary line suggested by Council crosses the Salinas River near Paso Robles Creek on the north side of the City and proceeds generally along Templeton Road to South El Pomar to the crest of the foothills beyond Homestead and connects backintothe existing City boundary where Halcon Road crosses the Salinas River (See exhibit -"A" , p.2) . On the south end of the City those areas which are part of the origin- al colony but presently outside of, the City are being questioned (See Exhibit "A" p.1) . This boundary dine was submitted to LAFCO along with other information as they had requested to facilitate a decision concerning a Sphere of Influence boundary which can be made only by LAFCO. The City, like any other resident, group or organization, can only make a recommendation to LAFCO. The need for a Sphere of Influence for all governmental agencies has existed for some time under the Knox-Nisbet Act (Government Code Section 54774) but has been recently emphasized with a date (January 1, 1985) given to all" LAFCO's throughout the State to complete the task. ' As .a result of this direction by the State Legislature and the request for information from the San Luis Obispo County LAFCO, the City submitted its recommendation which resulted from a Planning De- partment Staff Report and considerable discussion by the Planning Com- mission including -three- public meetings held by Commission and one • public meeting at the `Council level. • 0 Re: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE To facilitate an understanding of the implication of any recommen- dation to LAFCO, it seems appropriate to define several terms, as follows: "Sphere of Influence" as a legal definition means "a plan for the probable ultimate physical boundaries and service area of a local gov- ernment agency." From a practical standpoint, other factors must be considered when establishing the Sphere boundary, such as: 1. The Sphere boundary consitutes a comprehensive detailed plan- ning tool. 2. A sphere boundary should be used as an inventory of the maxi- mum service area. 3. Consideration should be given to the social and economic in- terdependence and interaction between the governmental agency and the area surrounding it. 4. Projections as to the future population, density and growth are important factors. 5. Consideration should be given to future service capabilities as well as existing capabilities. 6. Adequacy of existing services and who provides the service. 7 . Existence and influence of agricultural preserves. In addition to the above considerations that lend substance to the decision making process, the SLO LAFCO includes factors such as: 1. Provision of necessary urban services. 2. Effect on the County government and other adjacent districts. 3. Need for services and alternatives to these services. 4. A jurisdiction' s ability to cope with the demand for urban services and its policies in relation to adjoining land. The end result of information imput relating to both the legal definition and practical aspects of a Sphere Boundary should be a reasoned and informed decision as to the placement of this line of influence. Realistically, it is a mutual influence of one jurisdic- tion to another because of factors such as transportion needs, poten- tial for air and water pollution, economic consequences, and health and safety considerations such as mutual aid for fire and police pro- tection. Is 2 Re: SPHERE OF INFACE • The Staff Reports previously prepared for this Sphere of Influence recommendation have been attached and provide additional detail for considera- tion. Additionally, several maps are included which illustrate the alternatives which were presented as part of the March, 1984 decision by City Council. Recommendation: Determination by the City Council of a Sphere of Influence boun- dary to be recommended to LAFCO for the City of Atascadero. Attachments: Planning Commission Staff Report/Minutes - 12/19/83 2/6/84 2/21/84 City Council Memo/Minutes - 3/26/84 44M44 1,41 Ut-g- WAYNE V. LOFTUSY L. RDEN Planning Director Cit Man er 3 J7� 17 hi Ti, , g - .`t:/�,)i'3 �.=\v...�_ � 1 1 -''� 7'-1�"l�~.•�/!��-,.�%"�� 3a .d-R t�y rI j3�•\ Lf�i � �', %, -- rH• LV � �3 •. -i .a. j i w F _ 1-3 tm tQ OD H t1i1. i�v - r1�g 1 �. N h3 / f3 col ntri 1� ji i o,; �t %�„�-r C L,y � -��/ ._� 1 ��” Jr' � �:.\ - c-� � �.l,l� �--1/ i l�t, /�^� `J`,•� l ��JJ s 1 —.11 ^8 �t �j i Jhn �,s•^t\1 Z�` i' •4; J J^�• r �•� ) y'• 1• l � Ci f 0*4 • -b• 1 w, :� 'b a� nr/ -4-. � � '.e I r ��f�y: � '••..—j `•'- J �<�f �/ 1 �V f r\. I� .! yn�^ I\ � ''{s��_. 'I pp'�����L.v- F\�I. .� `\ f��-+ t f A1Y ✓'/.-�/`�/ �,.lin s /' r r / ✓� CITY COUNCIL DIVISION 3/26/84 �} w_, "•�' "� /�/"��.:'�`-� _ c;.l�.� __ ��1 mac' > F-a'mf.a`�\I /�: d �% �.r-} ,f tl• Q \��, o, CITY LIMITS ��i.. "1 '�-�� \ ,':��1' ��.�t 2-�i'l+\x,v �\, \ J ///41- ` �" �//!(� '• �lt� 1. N.l�� YT \` v�' `� \..\ ��coti (` ^'\°ys •�. r.+ -� .!. % r-E1�1 �. ��:' \1 \'tl;"-� 1.�,;l�;\7/.may'-•`'"'Z��.�'l�`1\'���`..�c.\�r ��\ ; �.-�..1 '\ ""i >�. L /� /� � _ �-�(1�-�i ' ».5. 1 ? \- ,�[,' j l• ' t\,�:/ �•'a'�tir \�\�t=� I/` /� rr,� �.r ,1 C� moo///i-- �`a-�. 1 `'1"�t'• �. -LSSC.7(h1'0 !�,;.�\. �•.'-:,y :,r �� -(: �, -� �"'`, r�� r.-,��. 1�-�-zr 'r'a ��7// �J �..`,�l f '� •l.. -.%/ !\ ` j I i .� �j, 2 i>�� ,�• ,� ( sem. �) �c�= �) /'�: � �1� -i"2\ zvl - �^ ;"�//.'•Y,\ —'9'J4/{_ - S 1 (.' ° �/Ct J{_. \` :>\,� '. ` \�'\`j t "J_i�F•a r.'-�T.)�.. s- {�'aCA Psj Rh ,•� --` i A`t`�\ \. �,,� � , �O? � r�_,t����;{�i! ��Sc.a � '6 w/ '/�S :, �-,.• \ ",�;c_,. '�?.t 1 ® - �,,,i/� i. i��-�. jCl}.�•;T ���� a . /f z_u' /�� v�i . CIA 11�/ , /{ --�� o \� � �� \ ��� -[�j.-'G j\ /3 r ,c•r !�/�. � y! '' \is asst� ,,, � \�-- ,� � j: zu l't�E .f �/-�\�.�z �`4••' � �� \\I^'•y,..,�b�. --f � a}- `\\:�% /� � p e„,�, \` r O' r•�_ I -' i -� Z i•k / 1 a� �F \ .fit ( ( ?.... \ �I _ /z roe t�`F`ii ``�: 1 •k\ ,`-'>rc'\Ec.wj •� .M�,`\• C� ,a,..+�\\`'J'F'\u.s,�7/i.i / .,,� �a 6 sq�r.^.G"'dNgc'za .� l- - •,�\ 7-1• s J,.•\ s � � '`%�._�r s�l�� �y"t,`�- ,� r 7g* �_. � '• S �-: - `,, :,� �`- % \' .3 of � _ ✓ F t,y `g _�. `.,,� \ s„ f „/\ i^L`• �' 1, �- - \ /,, Y, 4-$ � � � '• 1 � �- ..4�,�\;tea`. �II e�' ' t alA�'� �,c , 1�' J'' (��r � �'� ', , "/. !i'. i.\..:f: \* `G,�' •.H :':r. \ / - �, STAFF RECOMMENDATIOrd�. x` 2/21/84 ^�'\ "la .� '1. ./- \y” q J 1 .az ✓/ 'dam_ .. .�'�4'•. J � �;�,_ _�, � 1\1' `'z'zs• it, r\" � \ .� J.t. 1�� .`� .osa. \\ �. �'� \\1a ��C tt•�4 �,i, .:`--yys�/ ` j �l.` ;;7. ,�,,t_iv\ u?ctrLu '\Qh� r� � �,.�: ��� a ' w�,� � .�:�c;`19 `'.' -s-") M1r�'• �/ �� �e�t .%. "� '/`-( ;t1 ae'� I .�)//�•.;k� v �a,o .�(/� / /S-•��'. �1 _ rJ - \ 1 k'T^a,w �J7 •`lJ / �PI�I l I ! O //1` N 66\ �;V�\ /l� ` � �� A. • /� - � � r`.+.=� /'�� � "\r- L - � K EXHIBIT "A" — Page =a •Ili. l `� k1r� E°�'' \: ``\\ 6/25/84 4 . Tentativk*eParce1 Map 18-83 11845 lacon Road (Lot 18, Bloc 68) , Jack and Patrick Rodda (Hilliard Surveys) to allow div- ision of 9 . 2 acres of land into two parcels of 4 .6 acres each (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved to approve items A 1-4 of the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Councilman Wilkins and was unanimously approved by roll call vote. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1. Public Hearing on Zone Change 1-83, 6000 San Palo Road (Ptns. Lot 1 and 2, Block 2) Sandra Summers (Hohenstein) to allow rezoning of property from RSF-Z (Residential Single Family) to CT ,(Commercial Tourist) . Joel Moses from the Planning Department made the staff report. Hank Hohenstein, representing Sandra Summers, . asked the City Council to support the findings of the Planning Commission for a change of zoning from a RA to CT. Mr. Jones, representing Mr. & Mrs. Rentschler, spoke regard- ing the need for a buffer between the commerical and resi- dential zones. MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to concur with the Planning Commis- sion recommendation. Seconded by Councilman Molina. Motion was carried by 4 :1, with Mayor Mackey voting no. 2. Sphere of Influence - to consider therecommendationto th 4 San Luis Obispo CountyiLocal Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for a sphere of influence for the City of Atascadero. Joel Moses of the Planning Department gave the staff report. Rex Hendrix said he is opposed to any extension of city in- fluence or control east of the Salinas River. Chris Jesperson said that they have kept this area clean themselves, that they are opposed to the proposed Sphere of Influence, and that the river has been a clean cut dividing line and should remain so. Councilman Wilkins said he believed the cut off line should be at the river. Councilman Nelson said that the sphere of influence is not a negative thing, it can pro- duce positive results in keeping over building from occuring and that the city has to look to the future. Councilman Stover said he thinks the river is a good place to stop. Mike Cox said he didn' t think that everyone really understood what the sphere of influence really meant and asked staff to explain it again. MOTION: Councilman Molina moved, seconded by Councilman Nelson to adopt the planning commission's recommendation attachment B. Motion was carried 4 : 1, with Mayor Mackey voting no. -2- . o / AGENDA *E_F-j1k-f4 ITEM M E ,M O R A N D U M TO: CITY COUNCIL March 16, 1984 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE APPLICANT: Initiated by Planning Commission REQUEST: To consider the recommendation to the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for a sphere of influence for the City of Atascadero. The San Luis Obispo County LAFCO is in the process of establishing a sphere of influence for the City of Atascadero. As a part of that process, LAFCO has requested data from the City. Included in that data is a recommendation from the City showing what it thinks the sphere should be. The Planning Commission has reviewed the matter in three meetings and has rec- ommended a sphere of influence that takes in the entire Atascadero Colony and areas to the east beyond the Salinas River along with areas to the north to Paso Robles Creek. Copies of reports have been attached along with the proposed sphere of services and sphere of influence as proposed by the Planning Commission. Based on the previous Staff Report and Findings (attached) , the Planning Depart- ment would still recommend approval of the Sphere of Influence and Sphere of Services as shown on Exhibit A of the original Staff Report (excluding the area to the east of the Salinas River) . LAWRENCE STEVENS MU Y L. RDEN Planning Director Cit Manager Ps Minutes - Regular Meeting - Planning Commission- 2/21/84 C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Consideration of Staff Report on Sphere of Influence Associate Planner, Joel Moses, reviewed the proposed boundary lines and the alternative boundaries that could be considered. Chairman Summers noted her agreement with the original Staff rec- ommendation to use the Salinas River as the boundary for the sphere. Commissioners Sherer and LaPrade concurred that it maybe benefi- cial to have a larger area for the Sphere by including areas along River (or Rocky Canyon) Road and South El Pomar Road. MOTION: Commissioner Sherer moved to adopt Alternative #2 as outlined in the memorandum. Commissioner LaPrade secon- ded the motion and it carried with Chairman Summers dissenting. D. INDIVIDUAL ACTION AND/OR DETERMINATION 1. Planning Commission There was nothing to report 2. Planning Director • Mr . Stevens noted that arrangements would need to be made for agenda pick up for the March 6th meeting due to the upcoming Planning Commissioner ' s Institute. . Meeting adjourned at 8: 55 p.m. MINUTES RECORDED BY: PATRICIA SHEPPHARD Planning Department Secretary MINUTES RECORDED BY: LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director 4 M E M O R A N D U M TO: PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 1984 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE APPLICANT: City of Atascadero REQUEST: To consider the recommendation to the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for a sphere of influence for the City of Atascadero. At two of its previous meetings, the Planning Commission has re- viewed recommendations for a sphere of influence for the City of Atascadero. Areas of concern have centered around the inclusion of areas to the east of the Salinas River. In reviewing the area to the east of the River, Staff has considered development pat- terns, automatic fire response areas and existing agricultural preserves and has prepared two alternatives. Attached is a map showing the two alternatives and Staff' s recom- mendation that could be considered as part of a sphere of influence. Also attached is a copy of previously considered reports. A?1�4 �� LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director OPS Minutes - Planning mission - Regular Meeting 2/6/84 missioner LaPrade seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 2. Consideration of Staff Report on Sphere of Influence. Mr. Stevens presented the Staff Report and reviewed the two con- cerns raised at the previous meeting. Chairman Summers noted her concurrence with the previously recom- mended boundary lines. MOTION: Commissioner LaPrade moved to continue the matter to the meeting of February 21, 1984 to bring back a revision to the boundary lines including property easterly of the Salinas River . Commissioner Moore seconded the motion and it carried with Chairman Summers dissenting. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of a request to amend the Zoning Ordinance to revise setback requirements on flag lots. In presenting the Staff Report, the Planning Director noted that Staff recommends that an amendment be initiated. MOTION: Commissioner Moore- moved to direct Staff to initiate a text amendment concerning the use of front yard set- backs on flag lots including but not limited to parking, fencing and trash enclosures. Commissioner LaPrade seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. • 2. Consideration of Staff Report to annex and initiate prezoning for approximately 80 acres of land owned by the Atascadero Sanitation District. MOTION: Commissioner Moore moved to direct Staff to initiate a prezoning. Commisioner LaPrade seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. E. INDIVIDUAL ACTION AND/OR DETERMINATION 1. Planning Commission There was nothing to report at this time. 2. Planning Director 5 CITY OF ATASCADERO 17s9 �s1 s l� ei r ° Planning P Y Department February 6, 1984 STAFF REPORT .SUBJECT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE APPLICANT: City of Atascadero REQUEST: To consider the recommendation to the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for a sphere of influence for the City of Atascadero. BACKGROUND At its December 19,1983 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the attached Staff Report reviewing a possible sphere of services and sphere of influence. The Commission asked the Staff to review two specific concerns: 1) Adding areas to the east of the Salinas River to the Sphere of Influence. 2) Eliminating areas to the west of the present City limits along Highway 41 from the sphere of influences. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff has examined both of the concerns relative to the existing and potential level of services, land uses, and logical boundaries. Both areas were considered in Staff' s previous recommendation. The east side of the Salinas River was not included because the river represen- ted a logical physical boundary. The area to the west of the communi- ty along Highway 41 was included within the sphere based on historical and social ties to the City. The area to the east of the Salinas River is presently designated un- der the County' s LUE/LUO for agriculture (320 to 20 acres and residen- tial rural (5 to 50 acres) . - Existing uses in the area are predominan- tly large lot residential and agricultural. The area also includes several small Williamson Act agricultural preserves. Land use pat- terns in the area shows a majority of the large lots are developed with single family homes and agricultural farms. Density in the area as designated by _the County when built-out would seem .to be substan- tially lower than the City' s lowest density. It does not seem reason- able to expect a urbanized scale of development or City-type servicess in the foreseeable future. Sphere of Influence At the present time, services provided by the City to this are emer- gency in nature. The Fire Department provides automatic fire response to the area during the dry season. The remaining time the City is under a mutual aid commitment to the Department of Forestry to assist when requested. Police services are limited to mutual aid calls from the County Sheriff' s office and are on a case-by-case basis, without any territorial limit. The Atascadero Mutual Water Company provides no services to this area and has no plans to provide such service. The areas to the west of the City limits along Highway 41, as previ- ously noted, where included in the Sphere of Influence in the previous Staff recommendation due to the area's historical, circulation, and service ties to the City. Presently the areas are under Williamson Act agricultural preserves. The preserves are due to expire within the next 13 years if they are not extended. This would tie up the potential development so that development would not occur within the time period envisioned as being within the sphere of services, but it would be within the 20 year period used for a sphere of influence. LAFCO policies do show a preference to have agricultural preserves outside of the City' s spheres, but it should be noted there are three agricultural preserves within the City limits. A discussion of the services required by these areas, if and when dev- eloped, would be the same as now occurs for surrounding parcels within the City. At the present time, police and fire operate on a mutual aid basis while the Water Company can now serve the area. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS 4. Areas adjacent to the City' s west and southern limits contains several large Williamson Act agricultural preserves that terminate within the next 13 years. These areas are, however, an integral part of Atascadero with important historical, cultural, circula- tion and service ties to the community. 5. The area to the east of the Salinas River is presently developed with large acreage lots with agricultural and residential uses and contains several Williamson Act agricultural preserves. RECOMMENDATION Based on the previous staff report and findings, the Planning Depart- ment would still recommend approval of the Sphere of Influence and Sphere of Services as shown on Exhibit A of the original Staff report. 2 Sphere of Influence ACTION The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff as deemed appropriate. REPORT PREPARED BY: JO MOSES Associate Planner REPORT APPROVED BY: LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director Ps 3 Minutes/Regular Meeog - Planning Commission 702/19/83 C. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of Staff Report on Parking Study for the Down- town Area The Planning Director noted that the material contained in the re- port was quite lengthy and since the Commission did receive it at a later date, he asked if it would not be better to continue the matter to the next meeting. Chairman Lilley and Commissioner Summers concurred that they did not have adequate time in which to review the material and felt that the matter should be continued. MOTION: Commissioner Moore moved to continue the Parking Study for the Downtown Area to the meeting of January 16, 1984. Commissioner Wentzel seconded the motion and it was car- ried unanimously. - 2. Consideration of Staff Report on the Sphere of Influence in the City of Atascadero Mr. Stevens noted that LAFCO is currently involved in a two year program to complete all Spheres of Influence in the County of San Luis Obispo as mandated by State law and that only two major spheres remain. He then proceeded to present the Staff Report on ( .. . the Sphere of Influence and the Sphere of Services, and reviewed the Staff recommendation. Commissioner Wentzel inquired about city review of projects out- side of the city limits and previous spheres of influence, if any. Commissioner Sherer asked about the need for areas such as Frog Pond Mountain and areas west of the City to be contained within the City limits. Discussion ensued among the Commission concerning the sphere of influence to the west of the City and including in the sphere of influence areas east of the Salinas River. MOTION: Commissioner Sherer moved to table the matter. Com- missioner LaPrade seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. 3. Consideration of Staff Report on a request to initiate a Zoning Map Amendment at 9115-9185 and 9245-9395 Lake View Drive Chairman Lilley stepped down from the Commission due to a possible conflict of interest. The Planning Director presented the Staff Report on the matter recommending that a zoning map amendment be initiated for Lots 3 CITY OF ATASCADERO isiR Planning -Department December 19, 19:83 \ moi STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE APPLICANT: City of Atascadero REQUEST: To consider the recommendation to the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for a sphere of influence for the City of Atascadero. BACKGROUND The City of Atascadero has received a request from the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for information as background for establishing a sphere of influence for the City of Atascadero. As a part of the information requested, LAFCO requested that a proposed sphere of influence be included. The Planning Depart- ment has been collecting the information requested and has prepared a draft proposal for a sphere of influence. Before submitting the in- formation, the draft proposal is being submitted to the Planning Com- mission and City Council for review. The City of Atascadero, like all other cities in the State, are re- quired to have a Sphere of Influence as provided by the Municipal Or- ganization Act of 1977 (California Government Code Section 54774) . The Sphere of Influence is officially adopted by LAFCO and all annexa- tions to the City are then reviewed as to their conformance with that Sphere of Influence. During the past year , a court decision requiring that a city have a sphere of influence prior to the annexation of land caused a change to be made in MORGA. LAFCO is now proceeding with the establishment of spheres of influences for the cities and special dis- tricts within the county. STAFF ANALYSIS The establishment of MORGA by the State and requirements for having spheres of influence is aimed at avoiding "leap-frog" development and at encouraging the development of logical jurisdictional boundaries. The sphere of influence is meant to be a guide and planning tool for local communities to help better plan for public improvements and pub- lic services. In developing a sphere of influence, MORGA provides that the following factors should be considered in the establishment of a local juris-diction' s sphere of influence: Re: Sphere of Influence Study a. The maximum possible service area of the agency based upon present and possible service capabilities of the agency. b. The range of services the agency is providing or could provide. C. The projected future population growth of the area. d. The type of development occurring or planned for the area, including, but not limited to, residential, commercial, and industrial development. e. The present and probable future service needs of the area. f. Local governmental agencies presently providing services to such area and the present level, range and adequacy of ser- vices provided by such existing local governmental agencies. g. The existence of social and economic interdependence and in- teraction between the area within the boundaries of a local governmental agency and the area which surrounds it and which could be considered within the agency' s sphere of influence. h. The existence of agricultural preserves in the area which could be considered within an agency' s sphere of influence and the effect on maintaining the physical and economic in- tegrity of such preserves in the event that such preserves are within a sphere of influence of a local governmental agency. " Along with the State's list of items to be considered, the San Luis Obispo LAFCO has developed an additional list of ten criteria for spheres of influence within San Luis Obispo County. These criteria are centered around an ability to provide necessary urban services, the city' s ability to cope with the urbanization of the area within the possible sphere, the effect on the county governmental structure and other adjacent districts and communities; effects on existing agricultural preserves and open land; the prevention of the creation of islands or corridors within the ultimate city boundaries; the need for services; alternatives to providing services; population charac- teristics and locations; location of publically owned property; and the communities' policies and plans in relation to adjoining land. A copy of LAFCO' s general policies and criteria have been attached for your convenience. In establishing a sphere of influence, a community will set it' s own limits for its potential incorporated boundaries. In viewing the po- tential limit, several other limits or areas are established in a the- oretical concentric circles resulting in several sets of rings around the City. Attached is a theoretical map showing: 1) the existing city limits; 2) the sphere of influence; and 3) the general planning area. Each of these areas have their own criteria and meaning. The existing city lieni.ts are pretty much self-explanatory. It is the area where the City provides services and holds legal jurisdiction. 2 Re: Sphere of Influ nce Stud • P Y The Sphere of Influence area is the next ring out and would cover all areas that would ultimately be considered as part of the incorporated city, using an ultimate twenty year planning period. The last ring is the General Planning Area and includes those areas that surround a community and that will impact it. This area is covered by a commu- nity' s general plan which expresses the community' s desires for the different types of development that will surround it. In addition, LAFCO also provides for a Sphere of Services, which is inside the Urban Services Boundary and is an area where city services may now be provided or planned to be provided for within the next ten years. This area would be considered for annexation within a ten year period. In recommending the sphere of services and the sphere of influence, Atascadero is somewhat in a unique situation in that the City and sur- rounding area was preplanned and subdivided making historical, popula- tion, and land use similarities easy to identify. Services and ulti- mate service areas are also easy to identify in that urban type ser- vices like water are pretty much set by previous commitments to pro- vide water through the Mutual Water Company and by mutual aid areas for police and fire. Additionally, the City presently has some easily identifiable topographic features that perceptuallyidentify the City' s ultimate and present limits. Those features include the Sal- inas River , Paso Robles Creek and the coast range summit (Frog Pond Mountain) . The City' s General Plan makes reference to Urban Reserve Lines estab- lished in 1968 and 1977. A copy of the map showing these lines has been used as the base map for Staff' s recommendation. The General Plan also contains Sectin VII , entitled "Public and Quasi-Public Ser- vices A copy has been attached. The Element reviews existing con- ditions in 1980 and has no real policies for expansion of existing services provided by the City. In general, the Urban Services Line (Sphere of Services) should close- ly approximate the existing City boundary line with certain minor additions, including: - the sewer plant, golf course/regional park and State Hospital area which is bounded on three sides by the City and on the fourth side by the Salinas River - properties on both sides of Highway 101 near the Santa Cruz interchange generally to Paso Robles Creek since these proper- ties are on the fringe of developed property and rely on Atas- cadero roads as their sole means of access In general, the Urban Reserve Line (Sphere of Influence) should be the same as that shown in 1977 which includes all of Atascadero Colony. In addition, consideration might be given to extending the Urban Ser- vices Line slightly beyond the City boundary in the Santa Barbara Road area and the Frog Pond Mountain area (Summit Hills project) which are served by the Mutual Water Company. It may also be desirable to ex- 3 Re: Sphere of Influence Study udy clude agricultural preserves from the Sphere of Influence. FINDINGS 1. The City has logical physical boundaries along its eastern and northern limits to the form of the Salinas River and Paso Robles Creek. These physical boundaries form access breaks and barriers to the extension of urban type services. 2. The preplanned nature of Atascadero is unique in that the Atas- cadero Colony was fully subdivided in the early 1900 ' s, and thus has set a historical pattern for circulation, social and land use relationships. 3. Most development type services provided by the typical city are not provided by the City of Atascadero. The Atascadero Mutual Water Company provides water to lots within the City and within the Atascadero Colony. Other services such as sewer services are are not planned to cover the entire City. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above Findings, the Planning Department would recommend approval of the Sphere of Influence and Sphere of Services as shown on the attached Exhibit A. It would also be recommended that the City initiate General Plan Amendments to cover potential services and land use designations for those areas within the Sphere of Influence not now designated on the General Plan. ACTION The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff as deemed appropriate. REPORT PREPARED BY: w, Associate Planner REPORT APPROVED BY:C4�� LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director 4 10 jWQW 13 h!(- z.�J Lu a o mQQ �'- � � ❑ WW W U Q Q 44 Ut > W Q z Z P� WQ 6LeG 0 N m In >, to N m a i f � L,-A dtYW _- rp_ e 12 lg.1 IG F \- n "• -_ IY1 \f�.l�F,y r�&�.-, yNNN{f� �-,Fll---. \�f/X���r;• y k-7---,! �' d r.%,�� 'tet � - i i at h . �•_�j�"r ��,��"'�+;a�.�"y� �. �,a- �.�f y�' �'�* "- row.`fit .�a' tri 0,7 er 40-1 - �� � •�L� ,i./"/ `1�``�,fir ��'.� .'� ,\ � - 40 14 I ✓ f�t a:r�. T I��{ ���e1t ATTATCHMENT A rl •;: PROPOSED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE 1 _— ` s4• FOR THE CITY OF ATASCADERO �a / SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ******* / �� •��• v '� • SPHERE OF SERVICES CITY LIMITS '�G I `-•• T {.rte\, l / -n-11 1 t /' ` \t.^ �, i /.;,�.///�/f\ �,�--f'. ` `'L7� ..!=r.=: ��>i� �\� 1 z_�^ ` Ins-.• � J� \ —��.-�_S 77 J�/ �� \ `,���,I' \�//�� ��zo ��� .s - ��s�l �5.. °�i"�t•s-.'e za�"u��- nu /��+:'� � I \�f'�� /� � �j ��s- ` �' -�>7_y Tim/�' � �' C •,=n—� � �c+�W -� >r' �''� L '`�`-- }/ � ° � �' lC'�� r �1�� � �, tom, � / �1v � / � �„ �• v� r�-- �• , _� „ ,�� � .{Ity� \�' -� \ ly�.>.,'� I��.:, -�1; '`lam r� \ \. �'C�_ 1..\l��o / / 5 f I'• ?� sc ' lero 1 ,:r.4✓ -; � r Via'/ \.� c/�- � L =�✓ }rl,l cl �� .,. \ g "'c`An �1\�`Jt -_-� C \L` `�.� �(`ca �' rl � {�fr✓y/rt„-t l��i �'F i :`Y fog/ `-�.,•J • �. -�1 _rn _ �f�/P_`i' 'w\ -'•Y• F r.�` _. / �. `� .�`i ! � C/�.�'� � s„ / o //JY 2b �rz �'t�'a. z ,7 \',l?s -_. � ��~ �\ � �,2� .�Y k�.I\ J �yf K j� 'y,�,ti�,'� QO '1 �✓ � a/ �ax E s \`\. II \• �.\•i'�^7 12 r•/ y. \''\ h, OJ 6 ��\ \ 9 6 ,J��-</ ° Cyd \ I °'.'�� / 2�i-:'ri \ ,\y� �,\:• >c \ � ✓, � � v.�/ � V / �r /r,• ' \e b1 }- \ ti -r' � �/ Ste' c� � _ ^� ! ��y,._'\ `. � �� r �'.• ��� ��� d��5 Y�} l :)'F t.• � \fir\t\/t�?/ �>\E� �V? � — ��\ _�> , •1\- ti a ,y'� � \\ ��� °! 1 .� 1. oma. - i / / s \ / <% - f/ "�� r\ \ �, - /f,�"i'`\ \�� rt � i=, •F� f \ � - moi, \ �\••:�� ti •�_ _��'` ' .^ 2 `:� i ✓ \\ -„ ItYsCc �F �. ,,\ � / > \ o /,iit t- i °- �Frs \` ° > _ Q r✓o ,1 i�f._ / 34. r1. �� 4oc ,; 'CY -� •}` /tet �, ��� 7 -N, •�. - a4 I `I-`I l `—• \ ATTATCHMENT B ” 1 PROPOSED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE FOR THE CITY OF ATASCADERO EAST OF THE SALINAS RIVER ts- vim �! �- 1 v �� -l• - ��i��� _ r` SPHERE OF INFLUENCE • •••• • • SPHERE OF SERVICES OMENS ,L ,:.` l CITY LIMITS ��s• �■��• • x vy/ o _r L-t db tTj tri \00- • �s�'� - � S,'� �� � ,/--, ���``�'�'�� t ��. ��-tom �' �E, � � "��C�'����.�/� L 1, � • �% , y r �" � •�<�� �;,' ' i r ATTATCHMENT A \/ • t= = PROPOSED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE +� � � '•� f- ` �-- _• FOR THE CITY OF ATASCADERO j �• r • ` SPHERE OF INFLUENCE 0460040046 / �• SPHERE OF SERVICES-­­ CITY ERVICES -•CITY LIMITS 49 / ^J \� -` � ',��� - % �� ' �t� � �'� •:��% � Alternative 2 / 5 \ •� /�y I'� �:a. -�//�e//� R t_�'.'.`.t--� r, -.; s -z r 2�s�c e,�no(►'� ✓•z � � �,�ir� � �:, �•/�� lVV/ ���, �,�V ///,< \,l t�, c •-_ _ �t,..'bl^c-T ��'�4 ".s L'if�• )': �_��'t✓��sir�j G 4t j "� i�a '7�y�r�'� �/7 a-.//�/ i'� �� �uc s as_ �\ v,� /,�d--_— C��/• \� ��...T��! •���[ 1!• -SY� ,\ o/h'< yi'_%,F _ C �� �"?'vnrtVn s- j{^ <� � Q s -�"rl�\ I �'� .'�.�.)��\IY�,.,... 1( z� .� r=1�:.•V'c, .� ..�x,\p `�`-t�' _�o.. �! �/- �: F w\�t�,���c �a1 -��i( � '.. , y,- �L'. � n� •!,�,•� Alternative #1 f- ,.meq'. 1�j'•�`a: � //'e. z ' c, ':J / \ e� taJ '� `?rc t'l�\� z�;t JJ'"� �.� `.. . \• i • y/ - >.; '� — z 5..� SX: OY -� s t r< � /rV `�•�� � s '�.1 � y j:v�la�`�'\�� �,,� � .•c a ';� � L i_.. I p���'c �°•� �`'\. r.'2.'•eb�4�}��lib � r;C �"^• A •�, ,¢�- ..f` r� v �•_ v�.:..i �j /� - �.-- \ Z� `-J 6� q ��`2-t � -� {I?arc•\ II �" /zza e / t • n 1 r�'F< �\� 'i ! �'3�Our.'w, / \� �.,�`� •%�\ ��a/ �+► //�'t� � Y - my a'e 'qL f � , � � C ; �.T EA` ...� `•,t 37' ��:•'�< .e awl's''_ "` C•e.., it ..�"-� ;C.` c',Zr ��'S.\�\.. ' ;01 �..�.�,11�-,�`-'�4� �el a�$ ' L F '� „�'', a�r f✓ fie +^ �'., '`,.,•��. T � / ':��• `� uc% � � ��.a- /�� 3CREt\1 r 1 :.�, � \�F \%[�{[� '� ayj tJ"i. � � � ? � / `\. $ o\ ( w 4 � .m , � v Jam; el::'/�q. i, /.� • �- ,• Staff's recommendation 1 N S g D P alb , �i .-• � �'��"' �.�.��9 ��w. ��c ` ` C e`c ��a� •. � � °`�J - -lire it •��� ��� -� _ !� ..,.� °� 3 \ !�_ L is \`�-� /'S2`' c f \ F" ,� 1/ —°n civ J c�_ zz . ��(\\\1 •� _ moi- .z ./ i�i! .1 3t\ �>rrlu � '\�� aQ \ ��;�,s��"✓'`Pe�;. mt, _. 34. .' .c i'L" —,i 11 rO.R .oi 1.�r,k�``� ,(,\' /• \``\".��.y ^ih (��OT3� a;i•• \.�.. — i� _ ' 1 � �.'^8 � �� f t 1.�. �rl� /•�/ �� '+j l '� � '' X ��.- :1; �Y\ ; 61 72 Y f Is Sphere of Influence Alternative East of Salinas River ATING AG"NDA DATE -2 - ITEM #. M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY COUNCIL June 25, 1984 FROM: CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 82 (Amending Sections of the Zoning Ordinance Text Regarding Setbacks, Fencing, Parking and Trash Enclosures on Flag Lots) Ordinance No. 82 is returned to you for first reading per your instructions of the last meeting. The necessary text modifica- tions have been accomplished and the matter is now ready for your approval. pLy • AMURjtAY L.LARDEN Ci y Man ger ps • ORDINANCE NO. 82 • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING 'SECTIONS` OF THE ZONING ORDI- NANCE TEXT REGARDING SETBACKS, FENCING, PARKING AND TRASH ENCLOSURES ON FLAG LOTS {SECTIONS 9-4.110 (e) , 9-4.106 (a) (2) AND 9-9.102) WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning ordinance Amendment proposes stand- ards consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and, WHEREAS, the proposed Code Amendment is in conformance with Sec- tion 65800 et seq. of the California Government Code concerning Zoning Regulations; and, WHEREAS, the proposed Amendments will not have a significant ad- verse effect upon the environment and the prepartion of an Environmen- tal Impact Report is not necessary; and, WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission has held several pub- • lic hearings and has recommended approval of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 3-84. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Text Change. a) Add Subsection (e) to 'Section 9-4.110 (Projections into Re- quired Setbacks) as follows: (e) Flag Lots: Six foot fences shall be allowed within the front yard setback area, but in no case shall a six foot fence be allowed within an area connecting the re- quired front yardsetbackareas for any adjoining lots. Trash enclosures may encroach into the front yard set- back area but shall maintain a five foot setback from adjoining property lines and shall not be located within the access strip. b) Revise the wording of Section 9-4.106 (a) (2) to read as follows Flag Lots: Determination of that portion of the site to constitute the required front yard shall be at the discretion of the applicant. ORDINANCE NO. 82 c) Revise the wording of Section 9-9.102 to read as follows: Setback, Front: An open area without structures, extending across the front of a lot between the side property lines. The front of a lot is the most narrow dimension of the lot parallel to a street and adjacent to that street, except as provided for flag lots with both fee title and easement ac- cess strips where applicant may determine that portion of the site to constitute the front yard. Section 3. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this Ordinance and shall cause this Ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and ef- fect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. The foregoing Ordinance was introduced on and adopted at a regular meeting of the City council held on AYES: NOES: ABSENT• DATE ADOPTED: MARJORIE MACKEY, Mayor ATTEST: BARBARA NORRIS, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney AP D AS T ONTENT: M RAY . WARDEN, City Mana r 2 1 !ING AGN2 DA DATE ('.2 - ITEM • M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY COUNCIL June 25, ,1984 - FROM CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Appointment of City Treasurer If you will recall, the 'City Attorney advised you at the time of -Mr. Rizzuto's resignation that within 30 days of the effective date, you had to decide whether you are to hold an election for the City Treasurer in November (and consolidated with the General Election) or whether you are going to appoint a treas- urer to fill the unfulfilled term. Since 30 days is upas of the 30th of this month, you should, tonight, decide how you wish to proceed. You had previously ap- pointed Mr. Ralph Dowell as interni City Treasurer pending the seating of the new Council. i MU RAY L WARDEN` C ty Ma ager ps WING AG'NDA M E M O R A N D U M TO CITY COUNCIL June 25, 1984 FROM: CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Vacancy of City Clerk' s Office With the election of Barbara Norris to , the City Council and the resulting vacancy in the Clerk' s office, you are faced with the same decision as prevailed with the City Treasurer ' s posi- tion except that the 30 day period starts June 25th. If you do not wish to make an appointment to the Clerk' s position tonight, you should at least appoint an interim City Clerk to act in the capacity for the next 30 days or until you have made your decision as to how you wish to fill that office. MU Y L. ARDEN city Ma ger ps I • ��TfNG AG�tJA .. � ITEM • M E M' 0 R A N D U M TO: CITY COUNCIL June 25, 1984 FROM: CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Special Election in November You have considered the problem of filling the vacancy for the Treas- urer and for City Clerk. If you have decided that either or both of the positions should be filled by special election in November, then you must enact the necessary Resolution calling for a special elec- tion and request consolidation with the County. The County must re- ceive our Resolution no later than July 19th which means you must act upon them at your next meeting, July 9th. If you wish to proceed with the special election, please indicate your desire to do so and I shall then return toou the necessary documents y Y for your consideration on July 9th. Incidentally, preliminary costs for our recent election for that por- tion payable to the Elections Company is $3,500.00 There will be some additional costs payable to the County which will be determined short- ly. You can anticipate roughly the same costs associated with the special election in November. MRAY WARDEN ity M ager ps • �►G�TdDA q� IAG>�aZ -' ITEM i M E M 0 R A N D U M • TO: CITY COUNCIL June 25, 1984 FROM: CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 1984-85 BUDGET Due to a lot of factors, I have been unable to get the proposed bud- get completed. I hope to have it within the next few days: In any event, we will not be able to have an adopted budget by July lst and must, therefore, adopt an interim budget or at least have your authorization to proceed with payment of ordinary bills as well as the payroll. Accordingly, I recommend your consideration of the attached Resolution which will give us the interim authority to continue City operations until you have had an opportunity to consider the Fiscal Year 1984-85 Budget • There is one item which, in order to preserve our advantageouspur- chasing position of police cars through the State bid system, should be addressed. We had sought proposals from ten local dealers to re- place four of our 1982 vehicles. We received only one proposal from Atascadero Ford, at a price of $12,084.96 per vehicle totaling $48,339.84 as opposed to a State bid of $,10,758.08 per vehicle for a total of $43,032.32 from which we can deduct $500 per vehicle if the balance is paid within 20 days. This will give us a total cost, through the State, of $41,032.32, a net savings of approximately $7,000. Because of this, I request your approval to proceed with the police vehicle purchase with your authorization to allocate $43,032.32 for this purchase. Additionally, I would request your adoption of Resolution No. 29-84. NURPAY L. RDEN Ci Man . er ps 0 RESOLUTION NO. 29-84 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO PURCHASE CERTAIN ITEMS BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Atasca- dero does hereby authorize the Office of Procurement, Department of General Services of the State of California to purchase 1984 police vehicles< to >current specifications for and on the behalf of the City of Atascadero pursuant to Section 14814, Government Code, and that Murray L Warden, City Manager, is hereby author- ized and directed to sign and deliver all necessary, requests and other documents in connection therewith for and on behlaf of the City of Atascadero. 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: ADOPTED: MARJORIE MACKEY, Mayor ATTEST: BARBARA NORRIS, City Clerk ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT ALLEN GRIMES,_ City Attorney • RESOLUTION NO. 26-84 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING - AN INTERIM BUDGET FOR THE 1984-85 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, an Interim Budget is hereby approved for the City of Atascadero for Fiscal Year 1984-85 to the extent that certain annual totals contained in the FY 83-84 Budget are extended into the FY 84-85 Interim Budget for the purpose of con- tinuing Salaries and Benefits, expenditures for Services and Supplies and certain limited Capital expenditures 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 1983-84, will continue during Fiscal Year 1984-85 as listed under "Expenditures Classification - Personnel" within each Department of the FY 83-84 Budget. Salary and benefit adjustments for Fiscal Year 1984-85 will be retroactive effective to July 1, 1984 upon adoption of a Final Fiscal Year 1984-85 Budget. Salary adjustments based upon salary negotiation settlements and approved Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) will be retroactive to July 1, 1984, providing negotiations and MOUs are completed by no later than August 1, 1984 unless further extended by City Council action. b. Expenditures for Services and Supplies, as listed under "Ex- penditure Classification - Services/Supplies" , within each Department of the FY 83-84 Budget, will be held to an absolute -2- minimum commensurate with mantaining basic City services by management review of all Purchase Orders. Authority is granted to proceed with the lease or purchase of four (4) new police vehicles. C. Expenditures for Capital Outlay, as listed under "Expenditure Classification - Capital Outlay", within each Department of the FY 83-84 Budget, will be restricted to those lease-purchase payments which were obligated prior to Fiscal Year 1984-85 and are listed in the Budget for Fiscal Year 1983-84. d. All references made within this section to the FY 83-84 budget as a basis for expenditures and limitations will be replaced by the Proposed Budget for FY 84-85, once such budget is distributed and placed on file of record. Section 2. The City Manager, upon recommendation of the Finance Director, may transfer funds within, but not between, each of the functional appropria- tions of the Fiscal 1984-85 Interim Budget as required 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 warrant in payment of a proper demand or demands therefor. Section 4. This resolution shall become effective and be in full force immediately upon its passage. -3- 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: MARJORIE R. MACKEY, 14AYOR ATTEST: GEORGIA RAMERIZ, DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO CONTENT !s ALLEN GRIMES, CITY ATTORNEY 17 AY L. ARDEN, CITY MANAGER 0 • Tentative Tract Map 4-84 (Discovery Investment) 10. Environmental Status. . . . . ..Categorically Exempt from environ- mental review (but previously reviewed under Precise Plan 3-84) C. Site and Development Data: 1. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.9 acres in two lots 2. Required Minimum Lot. . . . . . .0. 5 acres 3. Number of Dwellings Proposed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4. Density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Permitted - 16 dwelling units per acre. Proposed - 15.79 dwelling units per acre. 5. Shape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The existing lots are sited in tandem and shaped rectangularly. As one lot, the parcel has a 127 foot frontage and average depth of 648 feet. D. Subdivision Review Board: On March 1, 1984, the Subdivision Review Board met with the prop- erty owner, Eric Michiellsen, and his associate, Jim Sachs, to review a proposal for a 22 unit project on this site. Members of the Board in attendance were: Vern Elliott, Fire Captain; Patsy West, Senior Engineering Technician; and Fred Buss, Associate Planner. At that time, discussion centered around the design of that project. Particular attention was paid to circulation, park- ing, site layout and the use of the PD overlay Zone. The Board encouraged the applicant to meet with Staff and redesign the pro- ject to conform with zoning ordinance standards. The Board saw no reason to require the applicant to return to a later SRB meeting for an airspace (condominium) subdivision after redesigning the project. E. Analysis The project was redesigned by the applicant in close association with Staff and has subsequently received a Precise Plan approval for a townhouse sytle apartment project. The applicant now de- sires to change the ownership of the approved 30 units into con- dominiums. This will allow individual ownership of a dwelling unit and the land it sits on and common ownership of the parking and recreation areas. The property is currently contained in two lots (Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map No. CO 76-572) . This map will effectively merge the two lots into one and resubdivide the prop- erty into 30 individual lots and one common lot. Since the pro- 2 Tentative Tract Map 4-84 (Discovery Investment) ject has already been reviewed and approved under the Precise Plan approval process, this ownership change would appear to be of little consequence. F. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map 4-84 based on the Findings that follow and the conditions contained in Exhibit "A" . G. Findings 1. The application as submitted conforms to applicable zoning and subdivision regulations and is consistent with the Gener- al Plan. 2. The application as submitted is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. 3