HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 06/11/1984 AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
June 11, 1984 7:30 p.m,
Atascadero Administration Building
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Invocation
Roll Call
Public Comment
City Council Comments
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are considered
to be routine and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed
below. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If dis-
cussion is required, that item will be removed from the Consent Calen-
dar and will be considered separately. Vote may be by roll 'call.
1. Minutes of the regular meeting of May 29, 1984 (RECOMMEND
APPROVAL)
2. Treasurer' s Report - 5/1/84 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, Brock 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 60) , Donald Auten (Twin Cities Engineer-
ing) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND-
ATION)
6. 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 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION)
7. Lot Line Adjustment 5-84, Arnold Hoffman (Hilliard Surveys)-- ,
to
urveys) _—
to adjust property lines around existing buildings to conform
to setback requirements. (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COM-
MISSION RECOMMENDATION)
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS
1. General Plan Amendments - Cycle 2-84, Land Use Element and
Text:
9 0
a. General Plan Amendment GP 2A-84: High Density Multiple
Family Residential to Retail Commercial; located south-
east of corner of El Camino Reap and E1 Bor'do, addressed
as 9955 and 9975 E1 Camino Real - Wilson/Planning, Commis-
sion. 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
mobilehome 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 Residential and Retail Commercial Land Use desig-
nations 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 con-
sidered.
2.` ZONE CHANGE 1-84 -" Request by Atascadero Limited to prezone
128 acres from Agriculture (SLO County) to Residential Sub-
urban, 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.
3. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT 3-84 - Request for a renis- •
ion 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 Nega-
tive Declaration to the provisionsofCEQA to be certified.
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -
1. Consideration of appointment of City Treasurer .
D. NEW BUSINESS
1. Consideration of appointment to Recreation Advisory Board
2. Animal Control Contract
3. Dial-A-Ride Connector to Fair
F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION ANDZOR ACTION
1. City Council
2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk
4. City Treasurer
5. City Manager
MOTE: There may be a closed session to consider potential
litigation; no announcement after the closed session
is anticipated,
MP ���G AGENDA
0 ITEM 4-
MINUTES ATASCADERO CITY .COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
May 29, 1984
Atascadero Administration Building
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor -Mackey. The
Pledge of Allegiance was recited and the Invocation was given by
Robert Stephens of the Assembly of God Church.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilman Molina, Stover, Nelson, Wilkins, Mayor Mackey
STAFF
Presents Murray Warden, City Manager; Ralph Dowell, Finance Director;
Allen Grimes, City Attorney; Mike Hicks, Fire Chief; Skip Joannes,
Recreation Director ; Jerry Linenkuge-1, Acting Police Chief; Wayne
Loftus, Interim Planning Director; Barbara Norris, City Clerk; Sandra
Sans, Secretary to City Manager; Steve Rizutto, City Treasurer.
PUBLIC COMMENT
1. Donation of an Olympic-size swimming pool.
Mr. Stan McDonald appeared to inform the Council of a possibility
of a donation of an Olympic-size swimming pool which will be used at
• the Olympics. Mr. McDonald indicated that he does not have a lot of
information at this time, however, he feels that this pool could be
considered a North County Pool and would be available for the swim
teams in the area. He stated' that when more information is available,
he will again appear before the Council.
2. Petition for reconsideration of Sphere of Influence decision.
Rex Hendrix appeared to state his case supporting his request
for the Council to reconsider its Sphere of Influence decision. He
indicated that a petition had been circulated in the area across the
River and those people are concerned that they were being included in
the Sphere. There were also others from the south part of town at the
meeting who spoke against the Council' s previous decision.
The Council indicated that there seemed to be some misconception
regarding the intention of the Sphere of Influence. Wayne Loftus ex-
plained to
x-plained `to the audience the general idea behind a Sphere of Influence
and also noted that the City is required by State law to establish a
Sphere of Influence,
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved, with Councilman Stover seconding,
that the Sphere of Influence issue be readvertised for hear-
ing and have it 'placed on the June 25th _ Council meeting
agenda. Motion carried by a 4:1 vote, with Councilman Molina
voting no.. I -
Atascadero City Council Minutes, May 29, 1984
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilman Nelsonaskedthat the City Clerk/Tape incident be
discussed during this time. He asked why the Council was not informed' •
as to the incident before the District Attorney was called in. Mr.
Warden explained the incident fully and requested that the Council
allow for an investigation by an impartial party, such as Judge
Harris, Retired with full sworn testimony by all involved parties.
Council felt that the District Attorney' s Office was an impartial
party and that since they had already done an investigation, their
report would be sufficient. Mr. Warden noted that the City might
not receive a report and that the District Attorney's report would
not address the allegations made against the City Manager.
MOTION: CouncilmanNelsonmoved, Councilman Molina seconded that a
report be done by the District Attorney's Office and pre-
sented to the Council members. Motion passed unanimously.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of the regular meeting of May 14, 1984 (RECOMMEND
APPROVAL)
2., Lot Line Adjustment LA810320 :1, 5560 Nogales Street, (Ptn.
2" and 3, Block OA) ,' Kendall Gallanger , to extend the time
allowed to complete requirements for an approved lot line
adjustment (RECOMMEND' APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION REC-
OMMENDATION)
3. Tentative Parcel Map at 810.305:1, Palo Verde Road (Ptn. Lot
7, Block 95)`, William Fortington, to extend the time allowed
to complete requirements for an approved tentative map (REC-
OMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION)
4. Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 2-84, 7454 Tecordia
(Lot 32, Block OB) , Wally La;, Freniere (Stewart) (RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION)
MOTION': Councilman' Stover moved, Councilman Wilkins seconded that the
above consent calendar be approved. Motion passed unani-
mously by 'roll call vote.
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS
1. Recreation Department Quarterly Report
Skip Joanne' s, Recreation Director, reported on the progress of
the Recreation Department. He discussed the revenues vs. expendi-
tures, employees that have been Working on the programs, and the ap-
pointments for the Parks and ,Recreation Advisory Board. The Council
commended him for the department's ability of becoming self-suf-
ficient.
•
2
Atascadero City Council Minutes, May 29, 1984
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Ordinance No. 81 amending Map No. 18 of the official zoning
maps of the City of Atascadero by prezonin_g certain property
on Gabarda Road (Sewer Treatment Plant) to P (Public) -
second reading
MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved, Councilman Wilkins seconded that
Ordinance No. 81 be read by title only. Passed unanimously.
Mayor Mackey read Ordinance No. 81 by title only.
MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved, Councilman Wilkins seconded that
this reading of constitutes acceptance of Ordinance No. 81.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
D. NEW BUSINESS
1. Annual ratification of the San Luis Obispo County and Cities
Area Planning and Coordinating Council JPA Agreement
Mr. Warden explained that the San Luis Obispo County and Cities
Area Planning and Coordinating Council has requested that the annual
JPA agreement be ratified. Mr . Warden stated that there are two
issues regarding this agreement, one being the change of the name of
the Coordinating Council and the other being the inequality of voting
members.
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved, Councilman Nelson seconded to
ratify the agreement but express that the Council wants
to see the name remain as it now exists and also make
the voting distribution more equal. Motion passed
unanimously.
2. City of Pismo Beach request to protest PG&E rate increases
The Council considered a request by the City of Pismo Beach
to protest the rate increases from PG&E due to the Diablo Canyon
Power Plant.
MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved, Mayor Mackey seconded that a letter
be written on behalf of the City of Atascadero protesting
a rate increase. Motion was voted down 3 :2, with Councilmen
Molina, Wilkins, and Stover voting no.
E. ATASCADERO 'COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved and Councilman Nelson seconded that
the City Council recess and convene as Board of Directors
for the Atascadero County Sanitation District. Motion passed
unanimously.
1. Discussion regarding City of Atascadero' s request to the
Local Agency Formation Commission for sewer annexation fee
waiver
Mr. Warden explained that LAFCO has requested that the . City
3
Atascadero City Counc0 Minutes, May 29, 1984 0
pay for the annexation request in the amount of $1,500. He expressed
his concern as to paying this fee and informed the Council that he had
presented the City' s views to LAFCO, but that they had deferred a
decision until their June 21st meeting. He asked Council' s approval
to allow him to continue to get a waiver of the fee.
MOTION: Director Wilkins moved, Director Molina seconded that
the City Manager proceed with obtaining this fee waiver.
Motion passed unanimously.
2. Revision to agreement for Treatment Plant design services
Mr. Warden explained that a revision of the existing agree-
ment with Engineering-Science, which was originally entered into by
the County, was needed in order to pay for additional work.
MOTION: Director Wilkins moved, Director Stover seconded that
approval be given in order to authorize the additional pay-
ment the County will make to Engineering-Science. Motion
passed unanimously by roil call vote.
3. Discussion of Treatment Plant transfer procedures
Mr. Warden discussed that there are six areas of concern
regarding the transfer of the sewer plant to the City of Atascadero.
The first step will be the absorption of the existing personnel from
the Plant and how this will be handled. Mr. Warden told the Council
that some of these people have bumping rights and are interested in
knowing just what they will receive from the City. Mr. Warden re-
quested that personnel with higher salaries than City positions be
Y-rated but will be offered all the benefits that the City' s employees
now receive.
MOTION: Director Stover moved, Director Molina seconded to
offer the Plant personnel Y-ratings where applicable and to
offer the same benefit package that the City' s employees now
receive. Motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Director Molina moved, Director Stover seconded to
accept the following five other steps involved with the take
over. Motion passed unanimously.
2) Start processing purchase requisitions for the Plant
during the week of May 20.
3) Be prepared to receive late sewer payments after June
30.
4) Be prepared to pay any Atascadero Sewer Plant invoices
received after June 30.
5) Provide insurance coverage on the equipment to be trans-
ferred to the Sanitation District on June 30.
6) Have a selected representative, sign the attached EPA
successor in interest agreement, in the transferee sign-
ature block, and return the document to Jim Jonte no
4
Atascadero City Counci1Minutes, May 29, 1984
later than June 7, 1984.
MOTION: Director Stover moved, Director Wilkins seconded that
the City Manager, acting as Manager/Secretary for the Dis-
trict, be authorized to sign all necessary documents to
accomplish the transfer of the Plant. Motion passed unani-
mously.
MOTION: Director Wilkins moved, Director Stover seconded to recess
as the Board of Directors for the Atascadero Sanitation
District and reconvene as City Council. Motion passed
unanimously.
F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
1. City Council
None
2. City Attorney
None
3. City Clerk
None
4. City Treasurer
Steve Rizutto discussed the vacancy that will exist due to his
resignation.
5. City Manager
Mr. Warden presented a pian to have Dial-A-Ride provide a con-
nector to the Fair in Paso Robles. Council felt this was a good
idea and suggested that this item be placed on the next agenda.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned to closed
session at 10 :00 p.m. Closed session adjourned at 10 :31 p.m. and
the meeting adjourned at 10: 31 p.m.
Minutes recorded by Sandra Sans.
BARBARA NORRIS, City Clerk
i
5
rE� ,: , 5� ITEM#
CITY OF ATASCACERO
• TREASURER'S REPORT
MAY 1, 1984 TO MAY 31, 1984
RECEIPTS
TAXES
Property Tax 78,179.38
Cigarette Tax 3,948.75
Motor Vehicle "In Lieu" 30,434.43
Sales & Use 74,000.00
Occupancy Tax 11,443.92
State Trailer In-Lieu 2,727.9$
LICENSES/PERMITS/FEES 36,957.17
GAS TAX 18,398.47
TRAFFIC SAFETY 4,348.47
RECREATION FEES 13,958.00
RETURNED FROM LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND
AND MATURED TIME DEPOSITS190,000.00'
INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 916.67
• TRANSPORTATION SB-325 -0-
REVENUE SHARING -0-
MISCELLANEOUS
Rents/Concessions 697.29
Sale Maps/Publications/Reports 484.10
Special Police Services 39.00
Fines & Penalties 742.68
Dial-A-Ride Farebox 2,101.89
Bails/Bonds 636.50
Reimbursement to Expense 1,297.65
Wil-Mar Disposal Contract 3,470.60
Rebates 4,138.12
Refunds 5,944. 51
Weed Abatement 1,431.91
P.O.S.T. .,-Reimbursement 2,353.45
Reimburse Narcotic's Officer 2,499.21
E.D.D. Job Training 261.30
Storm Damage Emergency Services 22,092.00
Street Assessment District 3,298.00
Miscellaneous 2,626.78
_TOTAL $ 519,428.23
1
CITY OF ATASCADERO
TREASURER'S REPORT •
MAY 1, 1984 TO MAY 31, 1984
INVESTMENTS
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND _1,390,000.00
TIME DEPOSIT, SANTA BARBARA SAVINGS
11.00% INTEREST, MATURES 06/15/84 100,000.00
TIME DEPOSIT, CITICORP SAVINGS
10.125% INTEREST, MATURES 01/22/85 100,000.00
TIME DEPOSIT, CENTURY FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN
10. 25% INTEREST, MATURES 01/24/85 100,000.00
TOTAL INVESTMENT DEPOSITS $1,690,000.00
Ralph" H. Dowell, Jr.
Finance Director
2
•
AGENDA
IT
0AJFjk=J-1- rL1 EM
CITY OF ATASCADERO
FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
MAY 1, 1984 TO MAY 31, 1984
BALANCE AS OF APRIL 30 1984 14,08`9.27
DEPOSITED BY TREASURER, SEE RECEIPTS,
TREASURER'S REPORT", PAGE 1 519,428.23
TOTAL 533,517.50
HAND CHECK REGISTER DATED 05/31/84 190,852.26
CHECK REGISTER DATED 05/03/84 13,817.49
CHECK REGISTER DATED 05/11/84 85,556.57
CHECK REGISTER DATED 05/18/84 40,796.33
CHECK REGISTER DATED 05/30/84 42,140.17
EXPENSE LISTING 154,495.76
TOTAL 527,658. 58
BALANCE AS OF MAY 31, 1984 5,858.92
PETTY CASH 200.00
• TREASURY INVESTMENTS
SEE TREASURER REPORT, PAGE 2 1,690,000.00
TOTAL $1,696,058.92
I,RALPH H. DOWELL JR. , do hereby certify and declare that,
demands enumerated and referred to in the foregoing register
are accurate and just; claims ;against the City and that there
are funds available for payment thereof in the City Treasury.
Dated: June 5, 1984
Ralph Dowell, Jr
Finance Director
Mu ay Warden
Ci y Manager - 3
I J �•
it IL -it it qk
(Ei`t �.� w -.• f^v ( ^,��a .mss .-.O a� ,^�J.I:� 'J 3 Z ` �
7c -13
G : COto
..n s1:�.,� '� :> .^c-.? r I Z r I SRc 7.r 7[>
J z ri r
-s s I z1 ^I �P
TiZf T z— ^C
i C3 nr c. ...�.o. a�c+ c a a l•=.actio _ :> i
a aI ao O J 3=la
Ui
xt t
t \ \ \ \ \ \jam �ti \
{ { Po
N2CO Cc
a tt3 _i
.�.co�
I. a a o1 c c oda
:> •
1 0 ' ,
a
+I ,�to c la •.�- J s.A
I Va a a a c c , a 1
I I I f r � f i 1 1'•' �
..:; •�".a.K is c� ,j .ai ..IVtl I s E o ,.
Ltsl F -' c '� c 1 V7>
�'
i
_ c. �J 31 a a3 f�J Ia aiPOu � a
C-11.gin hl r .s c w a
1 a j
,4
a
3
wyvhd � `^ r i3 ..� a 1 ^.ryl a .:! �✓ a.s,.J- '^.. {C. ,w ^J v"., y7 a aa� \
.J
I{_
IX Y•.,.N. Y�,:.y C'." XI x X. { x X
It
{
iJ J,
-a —i x _ •alp _ 1 CO
j I
I -I
`!r b for
-(W---
"W 6. (W L 4 L
:
I .
1= f
i
I
I
r I (
I
0
i
6ww .
I ! Ej � � : r� D D
N rJ J rJ rJ J J 'c
M mff -c
i:Ti 1 w w f w E.i 1 fJ r., J rJ J rJ r t -
V v I N N r:, N ! ; rJ
a c c 10 v , c? 10 10 1 ' 10 10 tk irti.. Li
A 1w rJ J c ,'0 !co i I^ Cn A iw Ir•J Imo' c 'le10
t
1J IJ J p J J J Q J !J J 'a O O =:,.
�
iro Z Q o �rJ ! w •+f-f I
W L,: c N J V ice+ Icr- I,d A 0c, �-' rJ ' i m;-- t i
!c Ul l e o m 1 r• i s w w 1 r,3tri a t"• a i "
k -t m t" c') 10 Isn ;W. D D
13 m e M. -o m I-{ C-1, iz a ID D �D D
r n F-0 {Tj ,
� -t -+ - ,,t m sn 1 a) t c
i m o v. m 0 10 --qi t --{ �r ;an k c3 C')r � i { o
,
'b ,t3 !C i
-c r Cf-{ I r m c T. t c m m m rr m z,
m m f z c 0 z c: z ;az3 i {
c -t r �-i :xc -t Ir P{ �- to �o Ic �a �o
x m '
x N ,- !-c j a o -n € mi
c D m v m ro (c; C ,to
.. v z M m :9 i"i{ . S I• `z Im ;{S
m !m �m r �+ it
z a -i I3> rn. I
z z I rl
l cC-3
to ;o -4
a € 0 ll in
m ,' € j
a ;O z I j r I !rte'. I-D-i -z-€
� c; I sze i {
I� I
c o I m o zi
o z , k Lii z t i
cr'0 '*i, z cl 0 . F-0 n.-0n-J ^.0 r n-0 c7-. n!-0 C7<• 1 m �I
"'c -*•^ Sc c c T-^u '^.O is =.0 0 TG
:^• i T"3 t -{ ria r 1 r"{ € Pill M ; Zi-n
[':c "^.: 7 a is C%'� s c ^ a i ti a:.`�. w :ti, C.m
xo ;c :.ia y.
Cs ,ya. w a ,,;, -• e` ,o ,_�", I G o .c ,:: € a o
W u -t CA -i c -a w -{(A -•t m -s c -i w V -4 co u --{'c -I'c ,,,ij o -{'a 1 til:z -(.
0 x 0a 0w 0c '=Ll 0 0m 0c C.,w 3w IIC'! o\ G'v '\: O 0
-{A -{A -j J -i"J -!w, -4 C•'. -t a -4 c -{CA A -8 J -t V -413 -€C ..{i'.3' .0 1 m i 7
C" r'€ r r r r; r r r� r! r! i z v
'o �o -,-} a
t J n �A •+ J J .+ � T. -?
rn
'
i7 �m D j
c A o -o £:' o 0 0 `p i >�,^ y G) i
r^�- j
�z V; ,.
n a a c a o a o O c o a to c a { m ,
Q {{a c n c a a Ic c to 'o p
c tc o �c a p a (a a
i s t t i , t i ! t { ! 1 € I i { !i i ,� iF t')
[J N rJ N rJ ![il i rJ !CJ ,w rJ ;N N W ra t ,Gi "I
+' N .+ - - � IJ w n J J J m
O fJ !fie , 3 ! ! :L7 0.. D
0` C 0` � c .e� i a o 'a :a i V .01 �. ! r+'.:-s W;.
i p a ra a rJ - •c3 'a N w a
a 4fo o J
03
a
CD ko a is �o a a is ;o la o !a Ic co a to i 0-- j
as o 'a
{ I ! I ! € € I t f O Q
G1 m ._ 0, ir, Cl m 74 E0 .ol 7o m �m IG, io 0 '6 i �z I j
rX r r r X c r jr c {x X r �r r- , �, 1
Q G is 'a Q is !C :a IC 'a is !c �O Io
p
!er
m m ItV r v Irn �� is co 'i m fn � m
m Ul Im w Ie, !m m m m m ;m
S D I w I� c 'r D t7 1 3 :D 0 C ClMl z i 4 rri
O I'd .o a 1-; !� !o I� a o Q o f M I
U! m la A w SA I-! -{ iT IA 'A ? A 1 rt
I \ (M Ie` i\ e` I`... !D i\ �Cr a:
rJ 1 w ru S j L7 r N \ N m N N rJ N
j \ .7 ,-i --{ 'V !N -0 3 r `3 V V V € cx
DO k m . �v jv iv
4f I C A CF: 1 A i A m --f !u) ? I A , i J-
i
E
L i �
v
j J
D
yi j :T C` p:. CA L', N rJ a A M is1 w w •o•O �w +A "-"` W
rJ rJ A A J... v w' `.e. ..-.. ril:'� V�; ,.+.+ ;;t::� ..A A A L7 L� A? \�\t A A i C r
AA ca 0.O` C'!G4 oa W W oc Oa N. c�0 0.0` 03Co oc NrJ r.Jr e. m
E1,. .^.' ^. rp 03 ,O`0 CD C= OO V!1-1
�"i. w rJ N �]% a •0 "" rJ .. c c rJ rJ A A P W W o n c
n
J
iI
6
IL i t —a _ t c a t i c t l t t
fJ I J
j o o a r1 j'
I i i C14 I Eli
l Yx
x j a a £ o
I I y I m I r
f
Iul f i 'a
Y: i n - z !
m --q
0- i � I
tv t i
I ;
r t f
tjt { z i
:? -41
£ >7
T I> D i I ^
i I - - M =o
� rrs � o c i o lin-ti
0 ':> mD'
I
IA i W ! � 3 �� Z C7U ';i
tp
fJ j m V }+ W I
X x �z
z i A w £ j
I I I t* µ m i z
I _ w
f I z
C) j tv , 711
I I i
I I I 43 z i V ;
CJ
rn
I j w
I co
i C7 iA 1 ~ I
i
i
a N
III i i u I LJ LJ W W .W r
j C ^ I 3 u W fil i4 a- i -C c
Ll ci d
W N 4 fJ W 1 "l u
v7 111 3 I {
(n x
CF] L'� •'s7 . Q r
C3 , :J {� i7 C7 1'f{ y { a
X T, 3 :> D M �J - j (r- E
tv u ! a � ca z n I� f3> 170 rn
i
,=1 I
D ! Q Q I to 0 a H 3> r{
"� j`�' r•{ � I
l r ? a z I
i 1
z z La 7 a 3: C7 I IV I,, 1
D D ;Q i H I :K
£ j _ i z
II r+
{F j Voli I -Tt 4 { ,t
Q
—D G `GrCG `GG G D �D
c " -a 2
s.c j o a
W o 4 a s n c .� -} •-i I
A r `Q a?' ^�' G� I { �`• co
C{;:W EA W W -{,.. ! ,.<:. -{,.,f -:W -..i.+ -?L.i -i.{} -?W .�w -i L- 1 r j Z {
a co-M D W Q ial O cr, Q- rj Q ^
Q'v-•Ls> W ..{' i -i a -4 fJ a� _.: -.. --4y --4 -{a ti -1 {a f=i Y
J � ��: Det
D
1 -� n .
a s c oc d 4 r ci as j I a 1
G c c c c i j a s OJ c c3 a
A ! W.A A• .� t,,:,.D ..'� W •� Ld a� L1 W 3i �7'(3 A i,p 1 t✓- c:� -i`7
w w W > vi LA Ll Ll L9 - -}
c I f (Z
II a Ic i -+ I-im>
L,
a
cj
fil E fc. -S r -� {,.. rJ r fJ �. J fJ fJ f. .'J f{5 r.3,'a
[ v1 u Lq c4 W _ Nf N f f:1 E "J f 3343f .fil I:i .+ { *~r.:. D
*7 F f::x o f rJ
c 4 c a .....•. I a a s � q Y a a a .� a { "' .; � >�
I iv.
o f a W I W&i taI C G7 W a c v a t I A fr{
a f a c v v a a s G} C O ^y 4 I o V { 7i
c a c a
I i i -. _ {:..
!{ { .: m.'I m R {n-t :'! i'1 111 17'1 tis fry n r 'r r{ E W Z
! - X XX:XXXXXXXX X I x >t X X X >5 XX X X { ..�
o a c c a O a o 0 o cs c
I
4 �1
eJ T,
1 ` w w v --t --y 2a Q -i Z -7!
I t r, { Z i
i r;3I Ul i fJ- _r7 D G Z a T E Li It 00 G
fll ill -1 L 3
f \ w c u T m Q>1 ! L ;oi ��, j t
f3 G"3 2? I z F 1 M
r ;6-1 e-i -4 4i I ty I
4 �• �{ _ !r'r+/J z N
L s^ I 3 z GI M L7 v c M. � m
I w �r �zj z -4 z { rj
W tl1 ' y
.,.J D A ra
fJ_ r i i t M �J J as N ... Cl
0
W L.i J al .7 iv. v Y ^.. := A:�. �7 a f� Cn .: .r_- I �- ! fl
0- -`Lr 0 4 ._ti fj.., fs o o _. ..� o r r
c o +->o c r .^ �L>•.0 4 ^J' ,-. o a o o c a v c c c c o r. o i,d i*t 1 I '�,
o
l
r `� _-� wr yr • yr v w n W yr esr w vlr
i I 'J I r• C N. 1 PC t'J I ('J I J I .a j rJ it C
L II 'vi Ci: "x Cad !Ti "t j Gi CA r > rJ
i i Cx Ca<. !4 i3 j 7'J `' J IN - fN !i T-7 7,
i f ^ .^.. �: q •ii W I c - c c c ;„s i
?T r_. f
n - Ca. 3 D :-+ i is im = v
� 0 I i
Iz Ct't , 1
m f C i -0 [ rn t-'' I z {
C ,ri `G ^ 2t�1 co
3 ti r ZI z G - T { it 3
i W La ti I D z� I C-) D
0 D _
D0; C G C z I
..y m
'
fD I -i D I i'1 : f i
p . 3 -0 I t r j E II
z I I v � + s-+ ry I
m 1 Z
-i CI !!
tv
jz 1
"i
G. 1 ✓GJco Tr; T"
I I m _'GII "3 C27 C CC-j CG-o I C': C7 3G ^G.: T<"•
.I a F7
I •�; I M.y - : d =•T; I
c o i o - ,^o c ^;c C- 0 1 o c -•3 !
C^ a,:3` cr, C-^-^ 011 1 C, 00 CO 0. I C^ C, W C3
-i I v C` -I,A I -i •C3 Cl'u ti-L u Lie - -!w --s v -+ w kr ^ -d
G Cal\: G iu i G to V•' G"o G c O a rJ 00- rJ u..C• - 01-43 G A G D I
i tl W -i CA t -< `�+ "'j• -4 Co A �C,.: - .+ -1..0 ,,,; .�, --? ti W .c,m ,
D
I - I - � r' � _ I i•- r s- t r sem; -:�,
:—r.c.ij � „'' a-. O r+ :y as a.> •,j I V •.l s+ .+ .P a+ g C T� ^�
: G
c.-oat c cc _ ds c -a is � ..rc c a c ���
o c o c o c c^ CP c a c c c c c _ t=1X
i a t f S D m D
a,'�.�Co. o ! d^+A•� o W w CAl A W [ai t .da PJ .? .> C
W.r 1 Ln 1 A W C>t '' W C
C C
I o o
a
c V c ^ I V c M ^
C? ^
� c _ _ 1 l oc i c c c
i i i I v i i i i t i D
CJ V N ° ! rte ^,:rU -; r3 re. N C'C ',}i'J 11 i) t J r,. 3 3 i'J W ra 0 \
A fJ:-.=.: •C:>< fN ti :•- i',:i J PJ " i d ro t G En X.
CD •Et
o c c o o I o o c c c c l o a
o c c z c c c c o f o
I i t j t 1 I c •3�i o t Ca. .r o f t g t7
I I 51 m,C S m R to iT u T Ef ii m-i ii fr -t s F T
i I
X X X X XXX x X X X X X j X X X X X X [ -•'.
I I �
X C C
O�
.A W r •c(A W t 1 :Z ! .s 1 q r r
•,�Lrd. v w "_ v ...i Cr r Lr z G C
ifi C C I ,4 J LR Q• Nu A Vi^` -' z z A V co C C 1
:•.'fT C.w ..°• W C w W y L:%u C _: LT C I
M 7 A i t-+ i
tv D D t3 a 13
Cr.ds D iJ ;IT (A 'f!=; CR i. " +-t1 3 C'3
Gi:w 0 z Ct`-3 Cn ' X-J -1 :*a - -n y I -i --s I. M C7 D e
Its 1 n i -M1 L--; ! i
Tri
co s
1 £D 7u
I. tl
f f ! z
I
co t... ! =�
CO x
caft;C O'er ti:
W LI Ln J. `J o G, o.o A .p a c ric ? = I
--+
vS:,,d c V AA ,rd W .... .. t
7 t'3
9
I rJ {r3 :'l 1 i ru r:: i3 no r:,I i i.i ru C y
c i. M.
W ;,J LJ I W i W Lj W ✓i W CA !I i= r u
i A A I I A A A W cri I w CA ! L W [i m r :i, L"
1 I F I•
.>r
Lill
A ✓ y js ! u i or, 1 0 It
!
c r c r! m rt m m i o
-! { 3 3 0 x 3> m m - 2 £ i z i�Z
-j tv -i -i n 3 C z i 0 i a- ! M M G IG
z
E , j z Fy !
i' Li ' { m L'J t.. I i, 1 ti i I !!z
m m I z {'4 I ri r' , l
CIO 0 r.1
i
z
1 m i
H C-1
� I
F` 9
el u iI'v .. 7 'D I , _ I 7 .. 1-7-1 �r; 7 �••n
c
,
.�.._+ I IO -t'C = -_
V ' - I
c z 1 C L?3 I v... I CCDco - .tri i CO
-i -i -•i a -s L -i W -3 �v -+W .T,to CA -1 L-4D � --1`�. -i C4I-4 coi..{ w` .�r'4 Z
D 0 0 L d Lil. D.. D 'W O
^ : { -
--i -4 -4 C,4 -i Li -?W -- CO _, -, \ v
a a i Tcco jia i a a ac ' a o c a -n ^:^
j a s a j a s a ,.v o a ^ a a a c
i ! ! iI 1 C' T
A N r;A:,,i c>J c i W A A.+.� A A A r.3 ro A I A c I A € W G 0 :^,
tl W W W W = =,;,i••-t: IJ9 A + A a ,+ ff C4 i i :--!
G
••'
a Ia a o c c V a c f 3 -�
a c a a o a s a c a o a I m
I LA
a s c o a � { a. a a i 1• a
r [ rJ ;ai wr-3 1 r:3 r3 r i J r3 r:3 3 t3 ru P3 f-` { r3 r:3 k ?'J ! (11 \
CA A a Ln I .+ A a a s 13 LA "0 W V i a I •' Lq A ! + •'
i:3 c a ij \ C3
i co
a c a W I o c a a f: o a c l a , a a L W il ; A sk
z:3 i
I m f a (` mm i m - - ;;, m; m a mm ilw
' x x l xxx is { x xxxx + xx x x , x l x c i x x
o, o
o c oca { c Ica ,Jc ca c I c j c { c i �
a
i c a a a c a ( 3
I i I I a
i G3 1 is:.W t-4 ;u {f? ••• r-.3 `.7 Y -7 r:3 i vi
y., m I G ..•i "o 0 CA C O i r+ r;j CA 0 1( z �
I i J D �,.s D m f z W �i W ^' :.:s r-, fw'7 z !! <
C4•+W C -f L4 rJ A LA A \r e v CO i H i W I Lill i C i _ti I -i !I C
v z 7 1 I A ti;�cil c £s � I Z. 3 H
{ r 7 L G j D { i. -4'.`:.."J G^ V A r,:(A L . : n I at G
>Cm C u; ("3 i. C G A T m t C r F, m I
D 11
^ \ LQ C D { I vU,
' 3
to a1 -O,..+ C-4
;,; ` \ ' a ,,w Ln Y t� w W
.; = cn -•+ r� .3 a o A o is z m
`a Ll -j �.. ri
Lill �. ..
r ::: ..
i0
Lill L•: j L,: Lill
j L?
j v3 V A I j 1i I LOQ` Li Lill I { u m t'. >^
C . I t j
z
co
S. i w
f Thi - �.. Ln G.
Cm X, P tv
Mi sr £ I z t
! ITE — ; Vi
Sl
C in 00 C
..
C
Cwj '^ A w 3^`O^ T + La? .
10L Lr L "Zzµ Ll 0 Gi _ Iz- ^
C4 0
--4 I^y Im
D D D E D i j D :> J D D D = —
�Ij
r�
t t t.. t l t t I 13 i . I i t t 3 - DmZa
j CA I L`i L710 L
a
L'3
: 3
Lfl A J rar rrJ r
ri w lu ,., 0i •�•-
D
` V 12"i A A Ll v .
I c c l c j 1
M
c ov c � c o 0 1
tTt..,rr'4 fi 'S m s_'1 rr---, t`•', r.; .-;X �
M ! Sc, i
X X � XXX 1 X XXXXXX XX xX., XXXX. X � x X I X X i
i t l i t i t I t t i i t
X
- ( o o v ^ n ,.. c ... -
as o�oa a I C^
L'S LI w LJ ii .!r3
TZ; 5 l C`CA C-3 COCO0 rit -3 ( 0 1 { C I
�?!w
Ci coa a C
I D ]v W t L.:C, EnLl L' j —I t?' I `
7 Lr Wca s a`0 w 4a w :, i f t: i
_-4�J ! :, -;-�c- _,^n �3 I � � �— � � 7 z 1 Cyt
C-1
v LII J'3 t T•.M T L I ,T, tti,: u ti t D
-C ^• J:L Q- :.'I FJI Pei a < . 0Go
I js CA
I a
n 3 ea t
ro _ ,.. L. ,_,l
o rel CO — w o W 'J rJ o �; V _ri > Ll `.. :t'.V L'?V .a�t .� 1 fr,
co ;'o:h L,4 ...a L.", D _: C a ..r I
I
Iz T
rJ J I J , r,; Ili I
i L-4 (t J, v W c x Ii
`
i Y I i
1
1 i ry , Iti
z f
z
j I I Ire: I :1 10 ,r co I W 3'J .)
` W f C` v v^ fz, I L'< W
{ I 3 � � 3 � 1 3 +-t r L'l i D � '0
Itrl !,z
D� M. i D I mI� f ti
z 3> I
- rc ..
k - ty D i z iTl r
z 3
I .. > im z !z ID c I'm
mn_ o cr z I j
z z z m m im z r0 r-
i z -j E
n
! z 1 I i1 f
� G rm
v { ti ii
it
111 { I E I
F
C" r I 'fr ;'} C— Cl a
0G Tq I— .2 C?
C-;:
_O uG..M ca
_ �t _ _ i..
--t c..(.W. i '; J.W CT! y -{.0 -i -i -i -i Y' -2 v7 t "+-'.> I.-i � -+ li
p, _ m
o"Opp r.3
M
1
--q W . --i .. -i Cn -i ru "? -{v --i W'-. -i W "i Cl -1 n i l m 0
D
c c s
w
e,1 e,.! (>, .i p a W
wI
0 o c c a f I Ln
Z b �:
C c I C a C G G a a G ` C i. :rl• N
V o cc a c � c (o Ica 1 c c C _ -L7
rei r�: - [ I;: ; w(,y W r:s I:i- r'3 ru i J F%) .2 U rJ r \
C4 .: r:: rei
CTE A I LP,LA t b r q I
.-.
1 -G o c Ic o o � a o
1 - a t
f c c { a f c .s ru Ica a c 11
I v e r l i i ! i 1 I ! i I I i i i O
f
TXXX1-1 r m rsS i I �, I m I m 1 m m '� '"! i-7 I
XXXX X XXX C X X iG X X XX X X X !1 -i
W r- 4�,dA a p I C7 { 7 I W D j W W p a N
N 1:7 rJ _rJ....i n,�;-ia i..- I + t t V f V m { L1 •r +'� m I �'
" :1 .. _I ur. i z I -,I � rJ x - p i i. I '� cc C
jD D r r D D, D..{-<D v .e: z I r i i i I m W I'
i f y_i--i...:--"! ..a --i ^ C" r i, I �, I m\ 1-j- i -� -! +I m
"" m i £ --! J.'i 3 3 £ G
r;
W l p\ A H M ai M cou>< M
p y C.t V C` W C' rn._.OJ
w ..'q:,i Lr=^ c� .w CC ..r c _ p p p ru :'. rM� � .� Ln : m
rJ CO a i'J K N µ-M a O W W OO G a `v G .e^j a-= O O a s
41 CA
O N r:i
UI
1
(I • • • • • • • a • a a • a i • a a a
{ ilz
i r r
ri rO
{ aI :x:,i iTi I I i.Y C.x CY i v. '_';
i
I
j Y j j I z G I
r`•I u i
I
z iw M F c I
v I L j D 1 j O i-i rsi
f Ci t� ^• i7 I j j Ti C7 w i U7 0 Z ;
I 1 t-F r a i D i rn ( D f Ej .7c I
f( z ' Z '=F I I I ' Z j D i 3 rm is Z i
. . j CS - 3 S 6}- ! rM i C7
r.V -i';'', I, O £ 3 -i"f„C _
0 D rti 1 m it
G f -c j c ! a
=> m f r
x i z r s il i
to m
In
PII ( zy ,
cr, , I ;
i G G I G .-. 1 - 1 O G n a G , 3 4 -tt -•�
.�' u j w u .a , h ~ ::i 'y'• '�\ { co !w,•3 a
{ -!,:,r ti C { C,i -i w ti Gi -f .i ! ., w w•'s:: .1 -t (:. .i -i C .y r u .i -4 -i V a r z r -t
' pAa O V j Oi,i k: �+ ' C' L'A A pa.� i+ o ^ GA ,3u o
C-iC a u c -�CO il .; - CA -•i Ctt A j - _,, --� :3
r r r F i N
f i , , i i v � i F I i , i i ? '•3 �m D
A A .DA W , oc 1 oc co ds .A
CA-3 A A ' 114 i .A "' i CA
f - G o Goa G c G a 1 m
c a o o c G G c l c o 3 { x-
� E a o G 44( c ..•
t i lz
tj 1 ., ra <,-J [[ r:i r l t� r .� ` �'.� ,i: 1 („i L CJ 3 I r
Cq i:' \ ' 3 r:i a : c o j o "i \ C7
I i i i i i f i j i i i i F iCO
Z>
j a o c c cI a G c a i m -•E
�
x x x x x r r G C r X X x x x x x x X x x •;�
Lr
I o I oa Gc c t Go ..J as ! o f G c i
j i
un v Q` u^ 'L*"J ( -.jo a -f -! AGA r+ r) ix' '",d cl Cn i .•-F
W W rr c �, �., r..^>u Z I , i ,--E z ? G
F.+ CNJ�j 0v. ' r^ .. t1V _ -i. WC 1 \ t-= .a i i ti a 1
r+ tai^.♦ j 1 ;: sZ` I i I, A r:i w v N ,u : -f J - 3 !•-F
w io,••+ y ! Ly j ti r? i -I..
:> 1 j z rr•r F f"clz C71 V D "•1 , •y i fwf
Dui .. -< -f i iA 'F'Ti I. \'-.\ u I D 3 Z 9 i \
Ui Z
to n
C? Ln
A L�
Co
.^:.1a
.+ ....,.I s+ p W ..+.. W u.� W Ap�L u Q,
. .. tic c J .•,• A i u rj. J :; W ,-. .v .3.0 00 w 1
i
13
® '® ® A A m —i -® ® A A ! a A ! ! ® ! ® --® !
• • • --• • ___! ! ! _ +� ! Q ! � • � iii ! ---
rY Iro rJ rJ r-3 I I ? s
I mss% I ti € Y + .: J Ico C3 ice.'-€ M cCi
k I €
i
Lft I f V ^a ^t3 { r' i ' + L-4 L4 ci w 1 tw.
v U. j -,7 I t-, I L4 Ll .410 10
{ I f 1
r7 m i C tp. I m ; -0 c
€ i D i G ,t'I. 1 i=f D I C i rr,
Lo
^ m '-i I i•"i Z' € G'+
Vl)
G Z 1 Li z i7 3 €TI
F'? :-i j N D j D tJ Lt3 €
Z r i £ 1 ) s'•'• I Z 11 I i
D D 0 W Z i r, a-€ n3
{ ;oi Z ' riiN ril t
` [ r z o m It }
1 D a m I :-•i
u°I D I t7 j i-•t €
I 1 T I £7 €
I It z z
T "�'O i 7'D �; 7. i: m n
17
n L
Ef
r4J L'I W € i L€ :V
VD W r4 L 7 ^ JQ.Ti J N -d Lrl -i -! r.) -I W -i ci € 0 !
+I
D a D i
C3 ij -'t jC'I i-
c c c , c c c ; c ii a cic oc ^.D
c 1 a I o c c c ca a c cacc i -{ t3 .77 !
N i W 0 a ! r3 c c N ^CI r.7 t. j, it O --i
- a LS Ll .:y.� .A W L.€ W 1' i--; -€
+� f I IT ti L i) 1j ! + t- I ;I Z C% Cp
M D
c c I a c c c v c o c a a a
a o f o c a a c o f o o I Gcm v-,
c a c a s o
i I i i , i i. II D Lr •'7
rJ r' !3 ri r:i ril rJ N0 rS,u N N rJ Is
t iJ:u . •l \ '
' I •1 N rJ r,..s Pu r:i W Cil D
C W :ta Lt! v o V r ,A G,, td , L r ->
coO
a cm
1 ! a a a c ! C C W Ili CP
Gi 4 a a
is €!
iii t ! 3-E €i- m flM Gfil :+"i n ST'1 ! i€€'1M i ;I ,`, G L7
I x x x x I x I x l x G j x r:, X x ?4 X ^cxx x .I -4 i
a s
c c c a a { c ! c ! o c a c a a c a o c ry
c a I c c c c a I c c o a a c a a
i I i ii
£ 'O rJ` Ci £ { tii D � ! (� i S: •"� � -h r� n r LZ:�� ij � +
D 0 I I - D I — � - r - r � c � � „Ja Z
-i f-.; I o I -I a Ti i 3 D D L7 P" o y
C 3 r r •-q rte-
C r Z I r --tom D ! C� C3 . -0 -
U, I t") j z j G I t3 Z I .� .s -c '+i (r€ A ,� V V c ,0 r; j
`
V .�
I --! � N I � i ..s t'J '�•-i i t'i t'i j i•i'r;' p D .{ y V €"!
G m m f r D .Z z 7 ;C1
r l D C ✓ D j -€ 0 I D Z i
Z D p CA I0 m 7 z U) €
Zif1 13 ( IIEpI 1
I I � i I i i I f it raj- o
€ z w
\
I
D 7
w w r •• yt �, ua r, 3
w ,.. Ln _ - ayw ro W
C CO CO+-. t;V 1
C O` N) C o C a - a o CD i U! r+ L i! "` C o O W r.-j
0 0 . i:"s ca .ra o o _ � �.
C4I Lt:, a ao. ... :... ''
cc I'
14
I
IN
L-4 cq
j i-4 I .'t. L9 11
Li< 17
1
01
as z z i kk i
1 I I X I >-i
j z i z {f(
t
t„
I € I .
z
-n t-1
co co Ll a, rn
i -4 CA -4.li -i -i s . z ! e
00 u 11 00 is,' a W
D c�
f Gtu3 p. i w :r€ s C7 --€
z C L?
C
a
I j iYi ro 4,i'.3 ., j tJ ra I 3
j 4 I i u J ,ep,.a. , P a 1 µ D
•r� A W
Ii I :AC.,4 fA m
{ I I ( M, X X '[X l{, X i X X
!. I r
L
a a
IM
( o rJ ! m , z
' z z a -- rJ r, m e j
x m a £ �
t i j I i i I J J.' 3> r' iJ� i W
r I i
z _ m
! Z n
j 4
s �
Ln La 3 V V € z f•1
Ll
I is i:,).
— --- —- - 15 _ —
® ® _ it _® • ' --f w • • 0 0 0 to -49 0
1(
1
r ' 1
r'.. i 0, Li. ' 's.1 L7
I z iA � !.C C. C
Z 11 {Tg ; ;;N3 M.I 1
� , �
Z 71
tv , D 1
_ I -' I � � ` I i I�
y c p z z f I
-z i m C7
i { z _ 1
z �r
77 �
1 c T .� c , v t G I l� -'� .c lG R,,c
a
% E
i :� ._7 ? d. Cn a a
- -j� 3 i
rJ N, V riLq 0 tri Ll
t { o d a •a l^ tV �
All
1-0
P-1
i 1 t l a v f i i ^!v i
M. "7 f'7 r -i i f`t I0 n rn --'1. 1
' x x x l X x +"I X X x.X if 3 h Ji
a a Q I G P C Q
i^, I "E i I rM
> ti
I ( o z 12 z' j
i' lzCA \ - e 1- �I
> I r:
1
Ln
i d
1 ! 1 \
co rl
16
s o db • _A A ® m ® s is db . r o 0 0 ! — s
3 .-t -C
r.7, r
czI f I< o!
-53 k (tcCA
iY
.� 'L I:a:1 CD •+� Q3 � I w I <. I A
1t I i I
:�z IZ G I. D C D r-.! �� i D. I 3 1 r-
--i
-i I-1 11 z
Mn
z —�'
i y it:3 z ty1z ! f t.r D I Z. D
I -€ {I L•1 � � �
I. t
_i7 IG's 3 tz3 i I i !
G i
- r, k n H I� I I-+ � � � � � -•1 , I i
c `s z € Iz I
ED •C r'
CO, I .
I I ij i
r IZ z I I y. I D ,
uc i
-4 tv
--' -3,-0 0— ,^,i'3 .�..a ��7'a � � r; 'D� �7 r+i '+ 'i'a I•^.� ,'.,' �rT— �
Cl. jo
lc,.i -�I �Io o I-•I J '-•t 1-< +rr s.J �--{ -I ',--I :--t ,;,f
0 C, O, :. 0-3 CI a C Ira 3 o G Cc o � C o Co C o Eli
1 rl I.;. o -•sly' ,..I-vA cn ;y 13 . a _ -c S.^ a
j`M1
1
r P€�
1 V (. rJ CD v1 lial W W ! a 3 1i,
"i1�1 i r f 1 1 f 1 f
Di
CD
I o la � �C p I�o o_ i c c'= � I � c � •3 �, � It a v,�
C3 r, :'s rJ rz Irs r3 ru r-a ro to, R1, PilPO
I ..� CR s ? A A A A i C.-
,t
o [ `� w
I o acli ILJ W G a ,..f 1A ,.I
IA-D CA
i I I a I� I OI
(^ I m r'''ix ;:i; '-i m M i r' r-1; 7'1� x I I M I I.
x x x — x x < X x x
I'
O Ev O t 10 Ir IJ 1 a I I O p �Y' I I
I I 10 L H �.7 t 1 -4 i � I � C4,N. f:T
L�
..
G c II `-C z D Z :. r p ! z u1 ZAI ,
I I-, PJ ILrf z_. t i T D D. 3;,-. lu G tiI�
A X -i I � z z7U M , p: %% Ni
W I:^ I_ z r IMI a C I r
! Z1r:'? �` _ .'�v `� rFi
o to- j �-i-i ! C_ _ \
f ILLO 0
I
i I I CA
CO
7
\C ;40
c
17
ab a is At ® -® ® A a s s " ® ® a a - _as -_a _ob - 0 :
( llo
CIA a
( I \ L< W u >a V I C='s N I '.Mi.= (.J o f�w
A V f:i I 10i .. I j
<_
i7 77
fi ( ri 17 V 0 ,b I z I'-'1 i 7
y E D j Dj
pz : rr rn _MI
{{
I D I
t
c.
z ' I z {
:, n i z
f
" I I
o c v m
E — j — ° i :
C14 -.1 wj
0_
D 3>
(C to
'tv
t
A A € fJ I f { [ i
CA ' � IC Srr
W
tC7 -4
'i c) , ru I r: I,r. ,^_ rj
I I I a { a.- L,4
! IA ;r
^ c
1 X X l X { X X I� i< i< 3C 3 I X X I G i<x n ;X I X X X X`G —f {
i G .^J U:I rJ '3 i I n I L'3 CAI _ C .2.C i
EJ o { 3 r v +� \u AAA-�� t
m'tea I N CA i v ' Lri I is I i W I z W
m CM
z _
I ti, \
_
i
j � •ice i
z 0,
I i I w
0.
�I
F4
till
co
L7. rjJ -j — rJ rJ ' rJ .� .� t L .� s� v^ J C a V Ci co
rJ w J o f
:
18
• E1 t v • # v 1 O • • • a e _ I W__ Of M --- w ----y-
t i `-, i i a I CAI t
z <-:
E c �I I> o � ! '� �I '�• j
1 LI1 rJI 4• "i) L �v I .' ! l>i .n
cc X
M. 'i
I s f 'eTi �. :�.° O I v• # F` i
CD b, fJ I to is o iv t v3. a 3a I.i i I -
i }` f
^I z
iv va ac.l s , u t^• .,Til PS; #
X} i ^:i I j t': n
j z i zm m Q i V ,�� I. z Lr10 7f
g' Q Z' i~, I _ F f i
L �l
+±}
U. L. t s 7:f e
L) L4
I
O
I m
at
VI a i \_I ^ Imo? ,•� L r :." '� _ L.' I
I O } TI r Q: ` A ,^?. IQ�+ p '.a� G O _t
w i `.
ul f 11
I a �! .i)� Gi Lr,tai# 'a.r` �v a ..i
' l -I I{( { I #il I i✓ I :xi LJ O I "J j ! "x;3 c
rl
Cil F"J I :, CJ� r I C:: rJ I'•' ICJ'• :J I CJ f Ci+ro
v( y J Itt^ of LA
aI c c� is+l
EkCA ;CO r5!
i
X X X X' X. X: x X !x +X I-- x x x X ' r— X' i 1
r'S: z . rJ 7 u F 1.G
{ CI iil Iii '..^a r I
D' tv 7n,
wl >~f C ;1; I �O _ x, } ^ 3, ;+FTF t
- L CD
i t4
tea W _ tea.
ri W i Y- L \ V
mac::O -, �.. ....... :., t•� Ln _ .� ti.•J G' `. .� O .� ... —ti :.�
• -�— r—__• � _'� __ �_ � ---vr s v v - `r � �iI a si -vr----•-- � •
Ili N�l
Cll
ir I Ul I
E ,. I ! f JIJ
111 ! _ a.
!. � r aj
=; R I z
M n I zz MI
c 7U
L'3 _ z
I � f
f
fl
E
E I I I jj
C
G CO I=, O (�G G ...j..l ^� ....C. � ... GI ' I� .^ -•fI
c,4a ;.3 4 �^.. :� ;.� _ �I^-' y Imo._
O`0L Ir-0 k.^i. w ^V`I OVV A..::. A Ip ro.± 3 � Q.-'� O_"` _
Cai
D! I r E� — ! r I T - > �
zt
L71 Ll
.W .ta. W 'i" u+ L. Lr •;I r;L:I i;a; "E
i�
D lo
J � o a c... � G c, IG -•E .y D.
�!
r1lo 4[ I':: J no f c7 3 u' ! J
EG I
r
. t � CJ•^� G i v ' i�l� {..+ � .r^, I ��
i :E I - I 3-: 11 S ::m mi ir,
I
X I `C. xx.X <x. X X x X'. X� XX
I ;VG Illi .=G J c �^ I
v Zt� a V v : i z
ins LqcL, • 3j It�
D: fco
!z I j ( -73 tj 7 Ull1 I{? I
Dc 3T \ n cl m?v J 1 W ^ •\,Lr L3 f
D -.v .y tv:r IM =:`. ! .dam. r:, -4
z I i
T; rr171 z \
f ; - =7> _
I i
t I I
4 h -
Ln
S
V v v G - � �4�n..,, Li ,,a v - v. a.� a w
LTI
20
®
is s • e -• w -d w ® • • ® e 0 _0 0 -0 ._
i
A
1-4
ri
In I t-
Z z r C
z
f ; 1
x X r WCl
r
1
�i ti r j 1
I
Z r 1
o C- T
I_r1 -ei iJ o I:K T
.�. !� i� {� I , I� -,.G`v .3 c ^' O �b C=l r`^' IIS r I
I D
" .� I,• ! ' .,,, J� .j i ^_� I. \ v`3'. `' .�"..s, i Int z ^-E
LO,7, .s c �f�? —
Ii I _
y fy ' r MD
Itv
C
Z IC 'C 7 i f I t I a:l tl� !. L IF Z Cyam,.
L'J ,�.t IY J
71
co
{J I s'? ^{f{ v `� I I .^ I C4 .�-I ^3 O J ! I,a'�
I �I O O O ^ice v i.
¢ - •-j
'J .i p.. o '� �
O,
7 N z •., j E —f I t: .i m m �t i'1 :. I.'Fc � I f
a X I X x Xx xxxxXxx I� i
y -Zi r ;I z ` I y c CO c: r I v �•, R
c ( I 'a c I A C.' _r 4
(r I E Eu t .z.
i7 Z E^E ',Z I i G<_
7-1
mi
CD
Ll
Co
h'it 3. - µrj
✓ ., Y I
rJ
f
Li
_ •.
21
a - f o I CJ 70 N FJ r4i_ I i o i iv -
Cal ,;j C V i
>S
G r•1 D D D D M I D I7 _
0 Z z z 0 r .Z- 1 =
G'3 C r r
c c D
r_.. r r
Cz = D i{ z
_j. t it
F + z i
x. C1 H II t- z
z
Ci io 7 {
M
Z
in
€V
'Q "3 jIZ { a ! .� r G` Emu 1 .a r c I
O O r L"3. O.p O
fraJ L' '«1 vi f3 i..i,� 'j '"t:.
E E
jr-
CDf _
1f e
a x o o c c
c a c o f o
'. " a a
tJ'J �3 i3 3 is
CD
o yCD
C7,
a c c
F3-71 7, a
D G C G C C G G I < C C
s � _
ocs •�ca � a � � a I o n "'
3u a c Go r ! o c ff c a r
L l3 ^ co V A r c
G'I v CA .. 1 iJ M,En
£ I a
rl 7 W
-
--i _ -4 r _
r-. _ i V {
Sts
I I i I
I I I
I
C., I
a `." -a a o to cn cn cn !,-0 "C' o ^ c c _ =
LA u ,w �7 �L,�n
. c jac oc ao
22
1
-i---___�--_ _. _.__ .-'-- -- `--.-_._♦ - t - r r --` t c t __♦IL ------N-
I i I
I I I I i � i I
z
II ! NG I
r+- Y Y M.
CA cc
PJ r^:
li ry c V L: I fJ� I.D �D \ �v
�
z I f, c: Dt I� IW �
M
rte-,.
ice ;
rr I �I ; -n
Fri
c c x o 0 -771
'^la -aco co
`..fl I. iGs
-t --i
m -•i '�
. ��-+
�`.
IY Imo, Y7j } Y
�_ '
ICA
1 W
Y _ Iv z rsi
a _ -
�
M I
CA t A A A `•.ii ,v sa
c o cz Ci
I^ c �I�
Ir m M.
x x x ix c x X x x: XI x x Xx x !x x Ih y
Ir.
�17 CD
J Et�i I� z �' .z ' .I Y' 1z, CZ'.7 I..ti s7 .Z fID c
iz
C4 D
._)
-23-
w s __w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w __w w
Lil
U Ll
` ik
�. C, Ell I_ E I d
a v a ;w a s rJ r
D , 7Y I y O
Iz C I z I
i 3 I, j ii i G'
_.3:' ,S '.yam
DO
I it i E 0
(D
1
z
_ 03
qrl
{ :A t I 44. > -s a 11 a,
Ll
tco 7,
�� � m:
w . -
V. - - _, ��
cl
CZ
F rf' a [� f J ?1 N f'.i ?�
�
CR
cz
a d I o o .a c J>✓ I I I
c I < x < x < (xxx xcz
xx c 1
1
rT: ��ti ri alp � -z I i
C. .7 S- rJ
Z t � -
1 ( {
-i ?T y 771 - I j
In to
i
CO m .:a q .+ W cJ ) -..7-D CO _T .... ;.l J l _
-
j _
j I i
24 --- -
-__• _® _ • •_ __ ® ® ® • __• ill • • • �! • • ---• ---r �' �
cni
co CA
u V w
1 W Cr E"i Lei co i1i o I Z" I .., 1-4 Gi c ...
{ _ Iz q 0l,-i i C I M. r V C
z z i
-Ij t 1
m I IM 1 m ztv
1 I
- C F ^ .- f✓ s
-r 1 I -{
i
j
4 ► E l
�_ , Y _
ixt=
ico
_� f� a.DI --t 'moi a.�, -.t�•� ,�,a: -.•�.� �i�;. '-� <: �? �-a I.rt.A --i -! A � Z I�` j
til. LAEO L J L L OI
f.,3 i I-p, I i �`. c tv
^•"� I D
v
=
73
cz
1 " fr.) ':i sal i'uI�I ^ V! 3 , (.� tv j 4: �� 1 � rJ � E':.: C:i ` > �� •i
a - ,u C
I D L-i
1 � c
i .:
-i
AI S C,- rh'4 I u: L� .,r.! Y D t C4 c c 1 !
fx XIX x X X x c I X x I c
1 t :
cz s I
I E� JI ci -=� c aic fc Ic I�
E — c I
7-r EL: r
_'£t ic-:
CJI d
C;
Iit0 {I I
- I
i I
N
k.. tilLl A A
25
• ----`� -=to
`• `4r `v i `• ® - • • • • • • •
I Lti i i ! LUl _ {
I I
Tj
Cj 3
CFN
U { 1 1 3 t
J I 3.3 z E i r z ~f ; - 1
i F rm
z
i
j z z I f f
Ci
Ci
i-• --� v "o -p 'S s "+i. I 7 I _ 07z cz
rn
c3 CD
Z, 1_5 I .^1 -•9.� --4v I-{ .t,•
I o IN IJ r. J N u �0 '.Q 11
t i u
>t \ 0 UT
! L3 tCA W
LQij
CD C-1
ro
ro
t - in
X`S '! X?C X -. .X X X X X X X x l= I X .G X X G X X. j {�
7t Q^
it
W'ae�� ,� j J J � ".i,'.?w � � F:3 I .J •-• " �i � Js<1.' ';�z i I
it
I -{
w CA CA 3 • J -J 'v^ 3 � � 7 3 � t � � cli
CO i �•t
I ;
Cl
11 I I' I
I j i
i I I I
NrJ
Ln
26
II
i-n
-
w ..3 E ... 1, `s I "
f f
D DI D ..s, f1R 0 D -G 0
tet( `{(_ I` z t
z -
tf� Ii ID E:I Z Z r; s
I- < cr, M.
Mw
13
z
t^s f
F'
rill i
7-1
1I
_
c` O fa..- i,- C ': C.'E�'>` c,^ `r, i0 r.3
Cn. �_v
f{t
'w vj t r �{ .^ t t — I—i
Iw �j Ic I > a c [
E
t _ 07
LFj ^
PY fJ r e' r3 rNt ,r J J. fJ is It'J I i i\
Pzl
ri
I C;
X ?.XX X X. `CI'x :X X nl r X XIX X I X G X '�X i X X i X (X X. f[ X —4 I
ZZ
-
Eca
sl ( u N 3 a 3:rrn:fJ .y r. �a iii .^- lC^ CA co J q
_< k
Mi
rq
..o ^J fJ .moi i"'s - t 1� I •• I
foo ,1,u -�1+ n cn v,c �� -�.-:..... ✓..-. .� ... cn fJ- C,.� cs _ ;i
fJ .J'. co :1
2 - --
i 'UI • • • a s r v v s v Afi • i • _s
i IC3i t
j I t I f c.J � :Y � � i � �•I y—
I — f a z
ry j
LO 'd
I l
f73
i k
o
J --f
iW Z. .'s J• a A..�-. .o [I; _ ---s "3
c=P a: c=i 0
o o ai
c i co ^ o o cc�c oLl
! F f
t' { fJ f�'.)y :a f`:� ._3 J t i Cif PJ J !tJ i yi T r.0
` c o CA
a.
1cz c3
i
--E e"i.... I �'k -i ['�M I - f^n n •- t t I I.v I
X
i ' X X X`/v X �^ < i X X X < 4 {.i'X:X X.�C
I C:3 c� a, czcD
NI
14 ci
f-i Ln Lrf A= .+U o J
:.:s=
L9 C4 A Lrl ._
28
i i I
I
O�
i of{jf C £`iI .� } vi c, ! �. i>.:! Z^ .moi k ri ;� ftp
z1 Z IZ z I
I rel Z i r-
z z � �
v I u? z
1 F ; 0 z� i-e j I L
z' ,
Mi I
{( - n
I
i C
z
COCD
CD m MI in L'. --
2.:+{ -i?: -i i -I D. 9 .� a ;-i i_si -•k -4 _{ I.;^, I`
14^I - 1 a- 0 I-Li rj n ;. gCil L-4 N! ~.
CD
jCAI v rut tn. I.:, t W I :x 1 3a .i+}- t� I C
y; x L -_i
y j T
' � r I rJ I N :I ril r.l r�xl^ fry i� "I
is a
G? 1
G
I x c! { <x x x x x>c c; xl x; c . < x x x x c x Ix ,t i
1 I
zp
_ ,3.a la i IC
- Ico MI -01M
MV
CEA
-1^! ;.' L"i. i 75 i 0,i :+..> I z
1 v `} I •i I I I i I� I I
Lrl
tp
i
.> _
Yw
CA 1
CA
.'� �_ r it.i .�C ti � � ... � •.l J o c o iJ Cho u , .
29
-0 db f g W A ® db 0 0 0 -,o __o d
ap '40
I I _ Z> 71
a -
I1 _y l l 1 1 Ll
Ll = ;
1-4
jm Cl
tij S> I I D a
cl
zn
zcj
` � I
?' i I r
CD
E ktr } jf
i }9 it M. :IM il }' }
^'! ^o ;-'� ' c{ q � d a i n s I G It'• :- c :'} r I
it
�� -i� -i i.� -1 1 -i� �..- ^,a i3 -},?a " � h I 1 w -f a t.-: •:.: Z -f i
+
+ � 'J p � as f � •'? E A � 3
i d c{ c d d o t ! } j
d G o c
.: it1 i ivaro
3'
cn
=1 q o Cz q o a o a i I i
_ CDIM rlrl, €t_
JQ \ <?4 X JQ >4 X �•:G .< < rc X I X X
o vel a o o 1 jly I j
cq a O ^. Q G G '
a�
v t J 7 J D i \
I rT I
a a I J}} 3 }
}
i•e? 11 1
rj
LJ
r-i 14
30
C�. Li
ca CD U,
CA co
I z
FIC m o
rJ Q a CA o
z
CP _U C'3
<
z
z
Z
0 z
cl, :K iW
m
71 71
Ic
X
z
Z
z
m i
C-1ko ^icl
W M
L4i m z 2
03 C5 0- :L? cq C- 4 0 W '"i .� ) s i 1
im
P-1
c=:
CD0. '173 1
71 IM i�
z jr-0 z ci o
tv m
C3
3 r tr
ri 7 r�3
"-:a 1
10
cc
7
N
cz
Oi
7--
2> cCcic c c C Ic
0
ro z
-4
"i col 1�3 m C-4 C-4-.4 0 w co i C
0 cl� r 4 C4 L,4 LrI,
Cl
CA 7-
ZI r- V I. i C im
I
r7l z C-1Ol
T, 73 1 Z
m
rz
X
q 71 7, mo--Cz m
.0 C� 7u ZD i--i X, I ;U
m
Cn 7-7 3 M I z !:7,
i>IZ Ql! 1� �iZ Lq
I ,�� I I � , l l i W;
C
co
03 L4 �-r
�'
ra L4 Z m m
co -4 Ll aI a _Q i
CA
131
9b eb db is a is Ab a ob ob db ts A
0 0
CITY OF ATASCADERO
FINANCE DIRECTOR' S REPORT
MAY 1, 1984 TO MAY 31, 1984
EXPENSE LISTING
PAYROLL DATED 05/05/84 CHECKS #31062-31146 51,012.47
PAYROLL DATED 05/16/84 CHECKS #31147-31238 50,937.17
PAYROLL DATED 05/30/84 CHECKS #31239-31322 52,654.15
VOID CK420149 CK. REG. DATED 04/24/84 (60.00)
VOID CK#20293 CK. REG. DATED 05/03/84 (48.03)
TOTAL $154, 495.76
32
MEE`t'iNG AGENDA
OTE ITEM
M E G R A N D U M
•
TO: CITY MANAGER June 5, 1984
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: Acceptance of TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 3-83
LOCATION: 3120 San Fernando Road (Lot 9 Block 26)
APPLICANT: Bob Kelley (Twin Cities Engineering)
On October 10, 1983, the City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map
3-83 subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recom-
mendation
ecom-mendaticon of the Planning Commission.
The zoning is RS and the General Plan designation is Suburban Single
Family Residential. Staff review has determined that all conditions
of approval have been met. On June 4, 1984, the Planning Commission
considered the matter on its Consent Calendar and moved for final ap-
proval of the Map.
WALOFTUS Y L WARDEN
Planning Director City Ma ager
,Ps
•
Q liio I�
�-4f� m o�
�o O o. \ Q� N j LS
Q o��>gTo-o'A
3�tiYx�4� h 4o ec
, Lt,� 2 Cd m
W
w_ o
mu,h
gQ ciQ ws
RIO
81
1 Wao�oo3�a$ Wwy ` dugyo VwQ co
�`wov 2 v4 ..; Rocm� Q g Mr�3:c w • ,lyomN
F� lih sw94 A p4�'ativ i zz ^� vmia
5R� �
V Z 22'Va��so4�. �.�.h tip r1► ac� Q � @W'O � L1 '�2vv 4' .
I
_5�R ll
,...,,� 4oc `^ 1R i� $wz 'ty`z �. M• a > cc �. '��.?�� �...
< . `-Zo���w wh r� � . h5�,,�,i,W � V �o ><•, " fir, � �w�N ��?
�
`yt.:uaQ��aca' �
wy�2 g3 `�
C51 i�373� wgg�� vet
.Rti�2iw �v $ v`T ��'s
CA
Nq :Nw �ti.. Q .. gw W zy 3'Ew2 $ c. CraOW W
e
�w
R17.^�lZo w tii woc2 � tuR d wv r. �` oc t(7 ��Rcc� 3 •ti 0� ,w�
ovi45v`,aw o�'� 3ar:�r...y � ohm ` a woo y�2o
��¢m" g5, Qyx� W_
ao �4i Ww�titi � �ao��
4 xa�0�°�r:• wa ��:o¢ Q m ti �r"2 V �""..�$. ty Wo.���
x2ooti Q�wm�+ b>�ua 3w
0
hw�y,
p.�3 �'.w .Si �'Q 411w
tiW wgC3W zw ''t��i4qo 3 W. RL> 2 W q4i m� •$�. 7 gc,v�2
3 `.W`^.�o3���4. m Ywro W yo-a vV .�yq,000 'C� ��rowZ,:� S�
4vi�`...vQ�w:ti X04¢ �vr"�,�o�'2.Ro`3`i¢2,. g•• 2¢ W. o-. c>v. ?. `.R h�Z
w ..
{ Qa$.Tss Za`vh $'a $ a W¢�lS �ti 4o c3� W a iq �0 �2
- V FuSQ $
$y,
Nt
,12 6261 3„1Z,pZ.a N
!Q �ryty,Ls rem 9 q'N o Z�
f5 995 �1 :lh'.11 L6% ,�W
c
R$4 x
ti �b1�IY,91 1611 x.95,£S o8£N
kg
d < s
v 2 0.L 2 w�
'
x q AGENDA
REM# --
M E M O R A N D U M
•
TO: CITY MANAGER June 5, 1984
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: Acceptance of TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15-83
LOCATION: 11085 San Marcos Road (Lot 4, Block 60')
APPLICANT: Donald Auten (Twin Cities Engineering)
On October 10, 1983, the City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map
15-83 subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recom-
mendation of the Planning Commission.
The zoning is RS and the General Plan designation is Suburban Single
Family Residential. Staff review has determined that all conditions
• of approval have been met. On June 41 1984, the Planning Commission
considered the matter on its Consent Calendar and moved for final ap-
proval of the Map.
WAot LOFTU "MUPRAY Y. WARDEN .�-"�►
Planning Director City m Mager
Ps
at,���noxgtn >: o
cY
o �$ � ..,-, Via✓ �
0
FA
ZZ
iL
Y" 4�Cho,moi 5i
j V a p64 og y%l�q X64 a <m
N• d, x a o om <o y
b
0
^1., It t115��1,� "°. �A � $ -N-� a�� ��
ti a e� � Zo a e T
y '� R
'r � a^�� �`Soe"'�irnja �a�„£„A � m.. ,�,��=.a,tL�„ ti*�+i a���"
< ca �a2o � " k^? �o w3� o � o aa< 8 who rTt
zo�T 4 "'13 � Zoog$
p� ti2h, O G Gnc„ -.,L�
Rl o mA a.E�£ o ^~i Aa
mry2 `�' 2 baS:cR:� hr+ ' cki V1
`aaari ^ F' aa
a"�,i^'a
R^n T
-umi<c„a �►f yyagm n ��m5�„ a eiorno'o�^ $2�� '~nrn�"i ��� ������ �
.. � .. aDrnNvx ya Z, ^i°'2$ ti.
b Z2. n awotn.<�.o ti V�b•`, -� 'Y
.�`cn �j ti ��'� .�.. tia n Ty mono �t ''Zvn^ `',,
T`-,7, ,
LLVL y gao y rn4^ ,oaan;ao .v,= z rn �e.
^`ai�icn ,-moc�i.�RRau
mao soaa `c�j :'L"' " ^.�" ,
gz
ZA za^n
t= c*S^oa snooZ` oyM� 'm°��mo vQazm T ie a
a 2� � r' u.�..��ao�oo�a,
�.a�� cAli=am s✓ � oaA a � :ate<'Z+,csi,v
�`'
• cR - � gala � �� a� rn-mv���Sztmn ��'� �£ �nYp- m ^�naoZ�'a
ryt `�R Ty ---T�o,` ��--_ � ���x..., y g--a� „` ^.,a'.omaa
�x ?y m a��,
o ^rn nil ao nz i Tae�� �c 'C'
�
y
� zon2 Z` <ab�n��g
c„ � ao.^„sA in oM'4z ..e Vmatiy"Al
g SC',vm
zaf=11 a na m �7 '' gin S o oma. ~ ?a�anNoo y
'0� o°Q"W a ^y1c 2n 2nr H 3?a� mm n1 l Q � 0,
V t�r� yc xYy�Ttt u � � � Yx�rym •�,
�a"a�ca��
cTi
v s A mil i o m
e Trny z2 o� � i n ^;�sJ �ra�vK r` 4
v G OZ
n�'� £ y2 � T � Z � ���� -• iFr� i aD i
n75 a f+ i ��°U�i ai7n'•' I
hgETINO AGENDA
ITEM#
M E M O R A N D U M
•
TO: CITY MANAGER June 5, 1984
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 7-84
APPLICANT: Robert Stoddard (Daniel J. Stewart & Associates)
REQUEST: To create two lots of one acre and 1.04 acre each from a
2.04 acre parcel.
On June 4, 1984, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on,
the above-referenced application and unanimously certified a Negative
Declaration and approved the landdivision request subject to the
findings and conditions contained in the Staff Report.
Dan Stewart, representing the applicant, expressed concern over Condi-
• tion #2 requiring an $850 in-lieu connection fee and asked that this
fee be paid at the time of building permit instead of recordation of
the map, however, the Commission did not grant the request.,
There was some discussion among the Commission concerning the differ-
ence between an in-lieu fee and assessment fee.
No one else appeared on the matter,
4
WAYNE LOFTM RAY . WARDEN
Planning hector City Manager
Ps y-
•
STAFF REPORT
Planning Commission City of Atascadero
Date: June 4 1984
Item: B-6
Notice of public hearing was in Public Hearing Case TPM7-84
the Atascadero News on May 25, 1984 Public hearing to permit divi-
and all owners of record property sion of 2.04 acres into two
located within 300 feet were noti- lots of one acre and 1. 04 acre
fied by United States Mail on that each in the 'LSF-Y Zone.
same date
A Location: 7505 Carmeita Avenue (Ptn. Lot 5, Block UB)
B. Situation and Facts:
1. Request. . . . . . . . .` . . . . . . .To create two lots of one ;
acre and 1.04 acre each from
a 2.04` acre parcel.
2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Robert Stoddard
3. Engineer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Daniel Stewart & Associates
4. Site area. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.04 acres
5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Carmelita Avenue is a 40
foot 'wide local street.
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .LSF-Y (Limited Single
Family - one -acre)
7. Existing Use. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .Vacant
8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . . . . . .Northeast: LSF-Y, S.F.R.s
Northwest LSF-Y, S.F`.R.s
Southeast: SL(FH) , S.F.R.s
creek
Southwest: LSF-Y, S.F.'R.s
9. General Plan Designation. . . . . . . . .Moderate Density Single Fam-
ily Residential
10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Slight slope (9%)
11 Environmental ,Status. . . . . . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration
0 i
Tentative Parcel Map 7-84 (Stoddard)
C. Site Development Data:
1. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.04 acres
2. Required minimum lot size. . . . . . . .One acre
3. Proposed lot sizes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Parcel A: 1.04 acres
Parcel B: 1.00 acre
4. Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .Both lots front on Carmelita
Avenue
5. Shape. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Both lots are somewhat
wedge-shaped
D. Subdivision Review Board:
On May 3, 1984, the Subdivision Review Board met with the appli-
cant' s representative. 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 was minimal except to note an $850. 00 sewer assessment
fee on the lot and that connection to the community sewer system
would be required.
'�■� E. Analysis:
Staff review indicates no concerns with this project. Individual
sewage pumps will probably be required since most of the site is
below the sewer line in Carmelita Avenue.
F. Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 7-84 based on
the Findings that follow and the conditions contained in Exhibit
"A" . Additionally, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
certify the attached Negative Declaration as a complete and accu-
rate document consistent with the provisions of C.E.Q.A.
G. Findings:
1. The creation of two lots with a minimum lot size of one acre
on this parcel conforms to all applicable zoning and subdivi-
sion regulations and is consistent with the General Plan.
2. 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.
2
•
Tentative Parcel' Map 7-84 (Stoddard)
Exhibit "A" - Tentative Parcel Map 7-84
Conditions of Approval
June 4, 1984
1. Provision shall be made for connection of both parcels to the com-
munity water and sewer systems at time of development. This shall
appear as a Note on the Final Map.
2. The applicant shall pay an $850.00 in-lieu connection fee to the
Atascadero Sanitation District prior to recordation of the Final
Map.
3. 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.
4. 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. "
5. 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.
6. All conditions herein specified shall be complied with prior to
filing of the Final Map.
7. 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 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.
8. Approval of this Tentative Parcel Map shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted
pursuant to a written request submitted prior to the expiration
date.
3
0
r �o
5940
25
lb
to it lilt
a
F® 7FYi //
N N N OQ L S
16yk4 13 �f �. - 6eao D
7
rSS o 6900
�y v
P4� ti5gi �,� ^ �p qo
�7r
11p
1 h70 o
43
0
e 87 gi41 no �IYP o x$70 >
66'
T 92006355 40 . B3� .52 ? !qw
1Y _ 3 8s 9-T 4+S '3t ^3in
3 8� 30 9305 w
S 64 B D8 h 49 '" 9
'' 31 S X46 h 48 AN E5
,0 6� 8�63 ` 4 ° �� alt _ ^1 rsa.�� 9F
61 s S� L _ LSF-
45Y( f-
� . t2 _o
d; 7y5�,. 7ooc,
� �` _ S 5;
3.3 N b'iy A& 39 2P -24
c b D b3ia e8 gst Yt P3 70
55 L(F-H
4 wo- 7075 ..
t J4L$ �� tS< ?s /0 f� t
,9 ?d 72ot� 9 v 726
S
L (FH)
�275 $ 13
r
$ g 2�'° , •'d'r � pyo! 7 !J 5p
QQ sz qi� � P 3�c ` ;
' Se o1 b6 `gw ib d g 4 f3 JP - S u
J: yzs L.S F-Y
A Ay �.1i:l 9 , 4_8 ID 33 3QS60
'S5o
S >
30
� t �[ 1 � � A 34
; i Z wQ� 39 0 77'55 Son
O Q 20� 40 P25e d 4�177
bN p
Ila
79Sp wT: il
`.4 tr ' 'v,
Crr tAT7 UX- 44
STADDl/zp/S7WR,�T f= �." r + - .
7:5 05 COr
Q
�.�„ �. �� `�Y;•�+ tit ' r.
a'Mi'.�►� +ritbd't'.id'rS..`r"Sr�`ws�r_'-•
o
Q
J s
Q N kip Q
i
o Q �
m p 4,
S
s
a
Z
s d
a
AN
Sa.6BI �
(1044)F;i� y lcYt�s 3
s W�
0
�
az'az
0
NePty 1
/V1S:LTl.4iV 7 rt�vs.1♦a,i�
EM
M E M O R A D U M
TO: CITY MANAGER June 5, 1984
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 5-84
APPLICANT: Arnold Hoffman -(Hilliard Surveys)
REQUEST: To adjust property lines around existing buildings to con-
form to setback requirements.
On June 4, 1984, the Planning Commission considered the above-refer-
enced request and unanimously approved the application subject to the
Findings and Conditions contained in the Staff Report.
There was no discussion as the matter was considered as part of the
Consent Calendar.
• No. one appeared on the matter.
WAYN OFTUS yity
WARDEN
g4
.Pl Hing Directornager
Ps
y
STAFF REPORT
Planning Commission - City of 'Atascadero ,
Date: June 4, 1984
I tem -4
Request to consider adjustment of a property line around existing
buildings to conform to setback requirements.
A. LOCATION:- 2974 Ramona Road (Lots 16,17, and 14A, Block 18)
B. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Request To adjust property lines around
existing buildings to conform to
setback requirements. .
2. Applicant Arnold Hoffman
3. Surveyor Hilliard Surveys>
4. Site Area 2.98 acres (gross)
6. Zoning RS {Residential Suburban)
Family, 16 units per acre)
7. Existing Use Lot 14A single family res.
Lot 16 metal building
Lot 17 metal building
8. Adjacent Zoning and Use North: RS - S.F.R. s
East: RS - S.F.R.
South: RS - S.F.R. s
West: RS - S.F.R.
9. General PlanDesignation Suburban Single Family
Residential
10. Terrain Level
11. Environmental Status Categorically exempt
C. ANALYSIS'
Staff review indicates no problems with this project. The appli-
cant is moving the lot lines out from under the existing chicken
coops and residential accessory building. Appropriate sideyard
setbacks have been complied with.
•
0 0
Lot Line Adjustment 5-84 (Hoffman)
D. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the Findings that follow, Staff would recommend approval
of Lot Line Adjustment 5-84 subject to the Conditions found in
Exhibit "A" .
E. 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
2
Lot Line Adjustment-84 (Hoffman)
Exhibit "A" - Lot Line Adjustment 1-84
Conditions of Approval
June 4, 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.
3
-
��«fix
J J J J M♦p pcog .[� � , N
�. �R �b• = Z t2 yyCa t , A C `} (1 QQ.`pg ~
Err
;� Ap�.Aj�p N �. �qe 'Q C70� �Rei r^�.� < �.JG WQV N J• � �.
Y.O w w0 m20 1
VZ
« • Oao pe? `�1 �Y BCW) tUy1tu3yra�QN58 i
w r q 2
00"t?I,'t C-i BEV V
LAO ik
em
OVi =2222 x Y,rd `y' « •i ';i
aY a;QC •�c a '� + w4
�ieuawraz` � �p�p�m�� ak~ fib► �+�� .� �.:
1'b YQ J
W16
Q +o
_ w •Z •teaAW
.. ` � -,�`'.¢ off;r, � g� �<� � w� �-� '� .•a r
V
•f. -�l r it I _
� .00 I �
N
'`•�. fi 6p �V P s�i� �VVJ
RRo.
m
z = q 3
Lu
1n i• V C "�J Y: ; Yl�f q
V1 M cr_ m
i
1.6
4 4 6 \ m Weo
A'2doi. n p
it
•?yeti � � A •
3
t� \• Lf) $ffiT2E
¢9 O o LT J l
§AJ KJ�p •� A / -
I �
'J _ .,
its12� corM1
5100 yo �6 0 .t�ss4 S 240 �y rsd `ni
gt`� s�Jl G �:ss +'ice5s :as
!44
a
43 So Ta m
32Ca 5 E29
Itd o PssyS 242 fl�,
It 3�
95
NO
C, oy
0 9T
,100 ,
0�
h
��s J 9/ Jol 102 hA Sc
L4 14 �' '� m�
j 8 9a h 103 =,
H
/ 14-A
A 'V
13 b I711 �a
0 OT&NE &cTtiSr- </3� iy0�o, 3\ry11 ti /, 31/ 10600
IV
v.
t - ITiL ce, M
a
As
kp
ti t FA!`/�� /7�7�lD
17• M1 y q/'Y fj �w <
/f7 6 .� x325 •n" 20 to N.
"' 19•D - A 3
L-Ts 14p, 16,1? c ���� 3
EOUc - � "rzee LO-A
2
QPRP/ dIr
/-7�A _l 3990 n�� ( a00go ljoa
21
by t rR 1 i *j
y t9r
ON ry ,h'19$ 22
10
24
m / a Ao1. ,,r. �.
ti
fz- 1A
9 n��/i '`•�', 7�v°��pr 4\//,//Y 6 ",�y t�ryht��? 2T
/ bL. 25 Aqo�
y °n � - •/ � • .�/ •Lr9/ � hy �\ Geo I'
Je
` ` °
r' 12 1 CA����zj v r` � ,,• coy IV
° ` 26 G/co
w ' 13 y3 a_-ti sg / 4.A
[,
4
z
' may ` / �9d.��ry `` �A\ � a°
31 ' X60 �, / Z p -4 ; cid c
77
14 Z h° +•�ti
13
b t 4
rwxy yi�VY
0 A / '
A
16 `a 14
°/ ` t/
0 not �,os
g"1r! ,yyS / 1'J� 17 63�
/ 29 � / Lot d'1 1 \
� spa. ig G400 MM'
4 Leak �s +• 28%/
27 X05° phh � 20 �?
q
CD
40 3 � \ 26 7 ft) n i P f •a m< #
44, s ,11h d:) a
\ \ ' \ < S
1
♦♦ ' 43 �, i \ A rs j M -5�� 050
s� 42 < r \ ' ,�28- 1 1'22 3
Rr t.. iii\ n \M
J r r-24
In
w•�
WE
_ AGENDA
0 ITEM
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: CITY MANAGER June 11, 1984
FROM PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: Public hearing to consider General Plan Amendments, Cycle
2-84; Amendment to Map and Text for the following:
1. Parcel A is property located at the southeast corner of El Camino
Real and El Bordo, addressed as 9955 and 9975 E1 Camino Real Re-
quest change from High Density Multiple Family Residential to Re-
tail Commercial. Negative Declaration to the provisions of CEQA
is to be certified. (GP 2A-84)
2. Proposed amendment to the Text of the Land Use Element of the
General Plan concerning density provisions for the development of
mobilehome parks. Negative Declaration to the provisions of CEQA
to be certified. (GP 2C-84)
3. Parcel D is property located adjacent to Highway 101 at the Sal-
inas River near Santa Cruz Road north of the current northerly
City boundary. Request change of Land Use Map to include desig-
nations for Recreation, Suburban Single Family Residential and
Retail Commercial. Addendum to Final EIR to be certified. (GP
2D-84)
Situation:
At their regular meeting of May 21, 1984, the Planning Commission
by a unanimous vote (Commissioner LaPrade absent) recommended to the
City Council approval of those amendments to the Land Use Element of
the General Plan as described above. Two of the amendments will be
applied to the Land use Map with the third relating to the text of the
Land Use Element.
The attached Planning Commission reports evaluate each proposed
amendment separately which will also be the format for the balance of
this report.
To facilitate the publichearingand decision process concerning
these General Plan amendments, Staff would suggest that each item be
heard and decided separately with the adopting resolution (attached)
printed in a format suitable for recordation of votes for each
proposal.
Discussion - GP 2A-84 - property located at the southeast corner of
El Camino Real and El Bordo
• Subject property is currently designated as High Density Multiple
Re: General Plan Aodments - Cycle 2-84
Family Residential, however, applicant (Goldie Wilson) has requested a
change to Retail Commercial to provide for expansion of the existing
hotel which is now a legal nonconforming use because current zoning
does not permit a motel. An adjacent property (Hoover ' s Hacienda)
was added by Commission and Council because of its commercial nature
as contrasted to its current multiple residential designation.
The Planning Commission held only a brief discussion concerning
this proposal with no one speaking either for or against.
Recommendation;
It is the Staff recommendation that the Negative Declaration be
certified as a complete and factual document consistent with the pro-
visions of CEQA and that Resolution No. 28-84 be adopted changing the
Land Use Element of the General Plan (MAP) from High Density Multiple
Family Residential to Retail Commercial for property located at 9955
and 9975 E1 Camino Real as shown by Exhibit A attached.
Discussion - GP 2C-84 proposed amendment relating to density pro-
visions for the development of mobile home
parks..
This proposed amendment to the text portion of the General Plan
would provide the opportunity for mobilehome parks to achieve the same
density provisions for the number of dwelling units as conventionally
constructed dwelling units. Current provisions include a maximum num-
ber ( l) for dwelling unit density on a peracrebasis.
The proposed chane will achieve consistency with provisions of
P 9 y P
the Zoning Ordinance and reflect a more appropriate concept of dwell-
ing unit density rather than type of construction of the unit itself.
Recommendation:
It is the Staff recommendation that the Negative Declaration be
certified as a complete and factual document consistent with the pro-
visions of CEQA and that Resolution No. 28-84 be adopted to change the
language in the Land Use Element Text to allow mobile home park den-
sity to be the same as allowable for other residential dwellings in
the respective zoning districts as indicated by Exhibit C attached.
Discussion - GP 2D-84 Request to amend the Land Use Map to include
propertyadjacentto Highway 101 and abuting
the northeasterly City boundary with the
designations of Retail Commercial, Recrea-
tion or Open Space, and Suburban Single Fam-
ily Residential.
The subject property abuts Highway 101 and the current City boun-
dary near Santa Cruz Road and is being proposed - for> annexation. ; Com-
prised of approximately 128 acres, the property is bisected ;by Graves
Creek, the Southern Pacific Railroad and bounded by the Salinas River.
Proposed land use includes only commercial and residential land uses
with designation of 69 acres for Recreation or Open Space; 49 acres
2
Re: General Plan Ame&ents - Cycle 2-84 0
for residential development of 2. 1/2 to 10 acre parcels and ten acres
for Retail Commercial designation with emphasis on tourist-oriented
uses.
Proposed land uses would appear to be both consistent with the
existing development pattern and capable of creating an acceptable
interface where the Retail Commercial and Residential will meet. Im-
plementation of appropriate site planning techniques at the time that
an actual project is proposed will allow the coexistence of these
otherwise dissimilar land uses. Other aspects of the proposed desig-
nations when compared to physical constraints of the site such as
waterways, Highway 101 and the railroad should also serve to minimize
adverse impacts onsite and in the surrounding neighborhood.
A Final EIR for this property is on file, however, the addendum
included in this package should be reviewed since it serves the pur-
pose of modifying the EIR to reflect the current proposal.
Recommendation:
It is the Staff recommendation that the Addendum to the Final EIR
be certified as a complete and factual document identifying the re-
duction in impacts and prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines and
further, that Council adopt Resolution No. 28-84 adding the subject
property to the Land Use Element Map as Retail Commercial, Recreation
and Suburban Single Family Residential as depicted by Exhibit D
10 attached.
WAYPE LOFTUS p #RA; . WARDEN
Planning Dir"ector ager
Ps
Attachments: City Council Resolution No. 28-84
Planning Commission Staff Report - Minutes -
Resolution No. 6-84 (May 21, 1984)
0
3
RESOLUTION NO. 28-84
A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING SPECIFIC ACTIONS FOR GENERAL PLAN
CHANGES: GP2A-84, GP2B-84, GP2C-84 AND GP2D-84.
WHEREAS, requests to amend the City of Atascadero General Plan
have been received as follows:
1. General Plan Amendment GP2A-84 - Request to amend the desig-
nation of the Land Use element of the General Plan from High
Density Multiple Family Residential to Retail Commercial;
property located on the southeast corner of E1 Camino Real
and E1 Bordo.
2. General Plan Amendment GP2B-84 - Request to amend the desig-
nation of the Land Use element of the General Plan from Sub-
urban Single Family Residential to Public; property located
on the northwest corner of Del Rio and San Benito Roads.
3. General Plan Amendment GP2C-84 - Request to amend the Land
Use Element of the General Plan concerning density provisions
for the development of mobile home parks.
4. General Plan Amendment GP2D-84 - Request to amend the desig-
nation of the General Plan by placing the Recreation, Subur-
ban Single Family Residential and Retail Commercial Land Use
designations on property located adjacent to Highway 101 at
the Salinas River near Santa Cruz Road north of the current
northerly City boundary.
WHEREAS, such amendments to the General Plan were considered by
the City Council during a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65323 provides that a General
Plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and,
WHEREAS, the following findings were made:
For GP2A-84:
1. The existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation on
the site are inconsistent with the existing land uses on the
site.
2. The area is within the urban services area and are served by
sewer.
3. The proposed General Plan Land Use revision is consistent
•
Resolution No. 28-84
with the policies of the General Plan Land Use Element..
4. A revision to the Zoning designation on the site to CR (Com-
mercial Retail) would eliminate the non-conforming status of
the existing uses.
5. The reduction of the potential twenty four units would be
insignificant.
For GP2B-84:
A request had been received withdrawing the request.
For GP2C-84:
1. Inconsistencies in the General Plan exists with regard to
allowable densities for mobile home parks in residential
areas and in the allowable densities in multifamily areas.
2. An inconsistency exists between the Zoning Ordinance and the
General Plan Land Use Element regarding allowable densities.
3. No impact on ultimate buildable sites will occur due to the
proposed revision or due to the densities which would conform
to those of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
For GP2D-84:
1. The proposed General Plan Land Use element map revision is
consistent with the policies of the General Plan. ,
2. The proposed zoning is consistent with the General Plan Land
Use designations.
3. The proposed project promotes commercial activity in the City
of Atascadero.
4. The proposed General Plan Land Use designations and zoning is
compatible with all surrounding land uses.
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will not result in any signifi-
cant adverse environmental effects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero City Council
does hereby approve General Plan Amendments GP2A-84 , GP2C-84, GP2D-84
making changes to the 1980 Atascadero General Plan Land Use Map and
Text as shown on the attached Exhibits entitled "General Plan Amend-
ment GP2A-84, El Camino Real and El Bordo from High Density Multiple
Family Residential to Retail Commercial "General Plan Amendment
GP2C-84 , Land Use Element Text concerning density provisions for the
development of mobile home parks" and "General Plan Amendment
GP2D-84, Highway 101, Salinas River near Santa Cruz to Recreation,
Suburban Single Family Residential and Retail Trade land use
designations. "
2
r 0
Resolution No. 28-84
GP2A-84 on motion by Councilman and seconded by Coun-
cilman , the amendment was approved by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED•
GP2C-84 on motion by Councilman and seconded by Coun-
cilman the amendment was approved by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
GP2D-84 on motion by Councilman and seconded by Coun-
cilman the amendment was approved by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
MARJORIE MACKEY, Mayor
ATTEST:
BARBARA NORRIS, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney
3
0
Resolution No. 28-84
0 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Manager
4
5 890C
�pJ =" � , U EXHIBIT A - FOR CITY%NCIL AND COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS
°y8I' WOe9s� ' � GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP2A-84
�' 90Z5 El Camino Real and E1 Bordo
r - -f6- -- - - 1
^ gobs (9955 c' nd 9975 E1 Camino Real ) from
3y I High Density Multiple-.Family to Com
9100 P --14.114
++o_ ci al Retail
j 8 P.S 19125 Z � L
Lj C 9(60 Co JJ 32 t a
.�_ 9120 9155 c+ �
CO 7/� 79100� 92ss
!O-A 9500 L . , c' 28
\. o X121 i ww, 10
SR
t 905 lJ /,9iD o \ G \ ,14 )3 N u
27
AVE �sy P\ X13
20 16
ir 0.1
r3 7 9225
a�11-.1?3
30 �'� �o •' �! �>
c
c i F_Z 1r
X50
OL
c Tqbq/ PAR Z
CO
34 '.
T)FAW',",
1
r
rti•--3
GO-7j-Lf4
R 2 A � 2
4 .-. cs, — - RM
---
Y
\ -
-
i i\� � ,� �_ � -�-,\3 -�'�1�- •fir - %�_93 ''�� f
.r - c•J � � _ - � `'•. ra►x � I-� %. . ,jam_ .
.AeV
1193
i • \o A � � 4 �b ,, 05 y,
10
RM
AT i
la' 019
10
A 5 1Alt
\okoo
A
�..
23,
2 S- is here!:-'r
Revise Page 61 of the Atascadero General Plan Land Use Element
Paragraph #6 to read as follows:
A site proposed for a mobilehome park shall be a minimum of one
acre. Mobilehome park density shall be the same density as is
allowable for other residential dwellings in the particular zon-
ing district.
EXHIBIT B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
2C-84
Mobilehome Park Density
Revision
- /• 1. ' ice- —_
. r
1. • fl
i
Z > o t
W •r N O O } ) r
C'
r fA
r cL5 O t/1 -40
Ip cr-I O s _ J
cr- 4-) A-o _ - 1 i - A�
LLJC .: 1ZOci �J
Z rt3 cp
IV 'r r6
Lo
DSU V-•
O ttS
-
=
-)
co
S N O 41
Cff
i
1
53N,
OOOP
000oo tccL
y N is9co G r
b ,o c
ul ,
i
J
d0 0
STAFF REPORT
Planning Commission City of Atascadero
Date: May 21, 1984
Item: General Plan Amendment 2-84 (Item A)
Notice of Public Hearing General Plan Amendment GA 2A-84
was published in the Atas- Public hearing to consider a request
cadero News on April 27 , submitted by Goldie Wilson and ex-
1984 and all owners of panded by City Council to amend the
record of property located designation of the General Plan
within 300 feet were Land Use Element from High Density
notified by United States Multiple Family Residential to Retail
Mail on that same date. Commercial property located at the
southeast corner of E1 Camino Real
and E1 Bordo and addressed as 9955
and 9975 El Camino Real and more
particularly described as:
A. LOCATION: Southeast corner of E1 Camino Real and E1 Bordo
Drive, 9955 and 9975 El Camino Real (19th Hole
Motel and Hoover ' s Hacienda) . See attached
location map (Exhibit A) . (Hoover ' s Hacienda)
B. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Goldie Wilson, Property
owner and expanded by City
Council to include adjacent
parcel.
2. Type and Purpose of Request. . . . .Amendment of the Land Use
Element of the General Plan
to change the designation
from High Density Multiple
Family Residential to Retail
Commercial.
3. Property Owners. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30-461-15 30-461-16
A.S. Carey Goldie Wilson
9177 Ash St 7955 Morro Rd
Atascadero Atascadero
4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0. 26 acres 1. 21 acres
TOTAL = 1. 47 acres
5. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . restaurant motel
6. Existing Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF/16 (Residential Multi-
Family 16 units/ac)
General Plan Amendm* 2-84 (Item A) 0
General Plan Zoning
7 . Surrounding North: High Density Multi-Family RMF/16
Land Use and South: High Density Multi-Family RMF/16-
Zoning: East : High Density Multi-Family RMF/16
West : High Density Multi-Family RMF/16 Is
and Retail Commercial CS
8. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gentle slopefrom east to
west to El Camino Real
9. Development Potential. . . . . . . . . . .24 multi-family residential
units and/or uses listed in
the RMF zone as an allowed
or conditional use (See
Exhibit B)
10. General Plan Designation. . . . . . . .EXISTING: High Density
Multiple Family Residential
PROPOSED: Retail Commercial
11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . . . . .Mitigated Negative
Declaration to be Certified
C. BACKGROUND
At the end of the deadline for receipt, General Plan Amendments
(Cycle 2) the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed application
from Goldie Wilson. The proposal was to change the General Plan Land
Use and Zoning designation for property owned by her on the southeast
corner of E1 Camino Real and El Bordo. Upon recommendation of the
Planning Staff, the Commission expanded the area to include the
adjoining property that was commercially developed.
This proposed amendment and relating zone change were initially
scheduled for public hearing on May 7, 1984 but was continued because
of the addition of another property for consideration of General Plan
Amendment.
D. ANALYSIS
The basic thrust of this proposal relates to an application of
a land use designation which accurately reflects existing land use. A
second consideration may involve the question of expansion of strip
commercial development, however, it would appear that the basic pat-
tern of use ha.s been well established in this area.
The two properties subject of this proposal (Hoovers Hacienda
was included by Commission and Council) are presently developed as
commercial and as such the uses are termed "legal non-conforming" .
This term is applied because of the zoning which does not permit
motels or restaurants. Previous General Plan and Zoning Hearings
eliminated motel and hotels as uses allowed within the Multi-family
areas, thus establishing the non-conformity status for the 19th Hole
Motel. Hoovers Hacienda a restaurant, was constructed before the
County Zoning Ordinance, subsequently made it non-conforming.
2
General Plan Amendmen0-84 (Item A) •
One purpose of a General Plan among others is to establish
community goals and provide for a means of achieving them. Frequently
existing development patterns are consistent with those goals, how-
ever , sometimes they are not and as a result, decisions must be made
which alter either the goal or the existing situation. Applicant has
indicated a desire to upgrade and enlarge the existing motel which
would require commercial zoning. A set of preliminary plans have been
attached for your information (Exhibit D) for the proposed 60 unit
motel. Previously a departmental review was approved for the project,
but the approval lapsed on September 29, 1981.
The General Plan includes several policies which relate to the
location and expansion of commercial areas. The General Plan notes
areas of concern associted with strip development as follows:
1. Parking areas on shallow lots, especially near the
Central Business District, are inadequate..
2. Vehicular movements on, off and across E1 Camino
Real severely limit the capacity of the roadway.
3. Each business requires a separate sign large enough
to be seen by the motoring public; this can create
a condition of visual chaos and confusion.
4. Pedestrian crossings of strip commercial streets can
be difficult.
5. Shoppers area required to use their automobiles to go
from one business to another.
6. Commercial uses shall be developed in clusters to
encourage concentrations of compatible retail trade
service. Each cluster shall be developed in a coordin-
ated architectural design. The signing and identification
of the stores in each cluster shall be combined, thus re-
ducing the confusing clutter.
7. Commercial uses outside the Urban Services Line shall
be examined and reviewed, on an individual basis, to
insure that there is no conflict between the intensity
of the land use and minimum parcel sizes. Sewage
disposal shall be a prime factor for consideration.
Recently adopted General Plan Cycle 1 (84) Amendment of the Land
Use Element text includes working intended to emphasize certain kinds
of commercial and industrial development at appropriate locations
that would tend to justify this particular proposal. Additionally,
this property is within the sewer district and the proposed changew
in use would create a minimal impact. Loss of potential for multiple
family housing is minimal with this change amounting to approximately
24 units at current densites. When comparing all factors that relate
to this neighborhood, the general plan, and the existing land use a
change of the desj_gnation to Retail Commercial would seem to be
appropriate.
3
'General Plan Amendm* 2-84 (Item A)
E. RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff recommendation that this proposal to amend the
Land Use designation from High Density Multiple Family Residential
to Retail Commercial be recommended to City Council for approval
with the Findings of Fact indicated in Paragraph F, and further
recommend for Certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
as consistent with CEQA requirements.
G. FINDINGS:
1. The existing General Plan Lane Use and Zoning designation
on the site are inconsistent with the existing land uses
on the site.
2. The area is within the urban services area and are served
by sewer.
3. The proposed General Plan Land Use revision is consistent
with the policies of the General Plan Land Use Element.
4. A revision to the Zoning designation on the site to CR
(Commercial Retail) would eliminate the non-conforming
status of the existing uses.
5. The reduction of the potential 24 units would be insign-
ificant.
4
\BZ 4 9000
903 5
S - - - -f&
gN ^ 9ob5 -
9100 PA 74-It?
�1I o� A4c.
l)� C 916Q 9182Q 10 77-3L,t i
CO 7;i,3d79zoo"t 9zss slss o } 01
io a A �' o-�r 2s 25 -
9300 ---- 8 eo 0o i l cam)I lo
R r 9275 3 w N
H A YF
23
3 _A
10 d5S1 9So5 9225
77:273C)555 rp `
30 Z
31 T qtd�
F
ati a
', ,� Quo. gba5 `•,_��3 �� 1 ._ • ,�p5 � � tS � � ,�• .� S`�
. isL
K 5
_ ti
61
gash—'� -
t� -7F-e04
61
- s
n�
v �
__ --
� A C o RMF/ - - ;
o- _PA+CAr t"_ ^�•�o,�``�`Ps `
tri-s�, � -- -- ..__ —3 _ —y� -- \ •;�'-�s -
oll
FA X
tr J
per v (Clt
n r \
AAI
-jI�l��
16
°5 'ro �►'
Y o A � ' O
--
6 ar 711-041 `ppb° �00
0Aev
�•" „n�Q 101 -I y9 '$,
Yt$ A Q- \ GitK Jsy \0��0
to i ' A p
1 � \ _ r 7 I ,J�SC\` c�9�'�1Y97 ; •o�Lo ,,G. ..
23
\ 3
� ��� .._ °� `Z?��'�,.._ '!to-rJ.ur-.c"ti- iii T^'�-ves r.. r•..c.... .T-.w::
r
g A \ 22 Y
:t in horecy_-cart Sa,w:.K.`.ar wj4
i
E B O R D 0 A V E,
w
-
i -
I
1 rdi'JTii wIDE�J I�G �- �f9.ap a--
I
I
i
TOME OJ0 SCAF144 :AkPt4AP
I r i
I I
� ta. s�� a L � ' / Eua P.K�4 T.�W11 D�.U4 ' � •
•FA' KI 4 i
a
Z will. 'e•Iff.-A 1-twiT .TMtS_..y T--_---�
v K *PA is --- —
' i
Z m
TP e o f t P �dtA Tat.
It
toy
17
1p
r _—
q,
ttti� Nf 4gF� it F
9 p -a' O IIGl S
1
y... F
8
d S
o
. a
> 1 0
�•.� n A j n• a R
IFTI
;a
r �1
a I1 )i
IIi
, wlii0lal�s
y III�III
"Molm".-•A.MtW->rn•.++'Ar.e•.ww. wrMw I ll
/ RE: 9955 El Camino 1 Goldie A 'Milson N rh 30, 1984
I bought thils property with zoning R4 by county. At that time I
had an existing motel and applied for a name cha nge with the county
and they issued me a new license to operate a motel (1977) .
In 1980 I was approved by the county with a departmental review to
build a new 60 unit motel.
In 1981 the City of Atascadero gave me a 6 month extension on this
approva 1.
Due to the rise in interest rates I was not able to build the motel
and have recently discovered that my property has been rezoned and
I no longer am zoned for a motel (I am still operating the 19th Hole
Motel) . I am now zoned only for apartments and I wish the general
plan to be amended and zoning changed so that I can continue my project.
• •
'"AFF REPORT
Planning Commission - City of Atascadero
DATE: May 21, 1984
ITEM:
Notice of Public Hearing was pub- PUBLIC HEARING CASE 2C-84
lished in the Atascadero News on A proposal to amend the Gen-
April 26, 1984. eral Plan Land Use Element
Text regarding the maximum
density allowed for the dev-
elopment of mobile home parks.
Negative Declaration to the
provisions of CEQA to be cer-
tified by Planning Commission.
A. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Requested by. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Initiated by Planning
Commission
2. Purpose of Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The purpose of this amend-
ment is to revise the exist-
ing General Plan Land Use
Element Text to remove the
maximum of 11 units per acre
and to allow the individual
site's zoning to establish
the maximum density allowed
within a mobile home park.
(Exhibit A)
3. EIR Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration to be
certified by City Council.
B. BACKGROUND:
The existing General Plan Land Use Element contains the following
section that sets a maximum density of 11 dwellings per acre for
mobile home parks:
"Mobile home parks may be permitted in single family resi-
dential areas at the same densities as if they were stick
built structures and may be permitted in multiple family
residential areas as a maximum of 11 dwellings per acre. "
C. ANALYSIS
The proposed revision is being brought about to try and remove
what apears to be inconsistencies within the existing policy it-
self, the Land Use Element, and between the General Plan and Zon-
ing Ordinance.
General Plan Amendment 2C-84
The existing policy sets a density for single family areas equal
to the maximum allowed within those areas, but within the multi-
family area, a maximum density of 11 units per acre is provided.
This will lead to projects in areas allowing 16 units per acre to
be developed only to a density of 11 units per acre. The poten-
tial also exists that property allowing only 10 units per acre may
be allowed to have 11 units per acre based totally on the type of
unit or development that is proposed for the site. Ultimate den-
sity and numbers of units would thus vary widely from those en-
visioned in both the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
These two inconsistencies within the General Plan are also com-
pounded by the text of the new Zoning Ordinance. Section 9-6.143
(a) states the following:
Minimum Site Area and Density= A site proposed for a
mobilehome park shall be a minimum of one acre. Mobile home
park density shall be the same density as is allowable for
other residential dwellings in the particular zoning dis-
trict.
The Zoning Ordinance is then, text-wise, inconsistent with the
General Plan. In reality, the Zoning Ordinance allows mobile home
parks within the residential zones with the approval of a Condi-
tional Use Permit, at which time the density could be set. This
could be higher or lower than the maximum 11 units per acre due to
some recent court decisions allowing conditional use permits to be
approved without being consistent with the General Plan.
D. RECOMMENDATION
It is the staff recommendation that the Text of the Land Use
Element of the General Plan be amended to include the above Paragraph
concerning site area and density with the Findings of Fact indicated
in Paragraph E and further that the Negative Declaration be recommend-
ed for certification as complete and consistent with the provisions of
CEQA.
E. FINDINGS
1. Inconsistencies in the General Pian exists with regard to
allowable densities for mobile home parks in residential
areas and in the allowable densities in multifamily areas.
2. An inconsistency exists between the Zoning Ordinance and
the General Plan Land Use Element regarding allowable
densities.
3. No impact on ultimate buildable sites will occur due to the
proposed" revision or due to the densities which would conform
to those of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
2
! •
STAFF REPORT
Planning Commission - City of Atascadero
Date: May 21, 1984
Item: Public Hearing Case GP2D-84
Notice of Public Hearing was Public Hearing Case: GP2D-84
published in the Atascadero Public hearing to amend the
News on May 11, 1984 and all General Plan Land Use Element by
owners of record property inclusion of 128 acres of land
located within 300 feet were currently outside the City
notified by United States Mail limits. The applicant requests
on that same date. that 49 acres be designated
Suburban Single Family Residen-
tial, 10 acres be designated
Retail Commercial and 69 acres be
designated Recreation.
A. LOCATION
Adjacent to Highway 101 at the Salinas River near Santa Cruz
Road beyond the northerly limits in an unincorporated portion of the
County of San Luis Obispo (Exhibit B) .
B. SITUATION AND FACTS
1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Atascadero Limited
2. Type & Purpose of Request—Addition of land to the Land
Use Element of the General Plan
which includes designation for
Suburban Single Family Residen-
tial, Retail Commercial and
Recreation.
3. Site area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128 acres
4. Exiting Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Agriculture and three residential
trailers
5. Existing Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . .Agriculture (County)
6. Surrounding Land Use
and Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .North: Agriculture (County)
vacant
East : Agriculture (County)
• 0
Public Hearing Case: GP2D-84
Salinas River
South: RS, single family
residences
West : Highway 101
7. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Terraced level
8. General Plan Designation. . .EXISTING: Agriculture (County)
PROPOSED: Suburban Single Family
Residential, Retail
Commercial, Recreation
9. Environmental Status. . . . . . .Submitted addendum to previously
certified Environmental Impact
Report
C. BACKGROUND
The applicant has previously submitted for Prezoning of his
property in an application tht went before the Planning Commission
on May 7 , 1984. Staff review indicated that the City has no General
Plan designation for this site since it is outside the City limits.
State law (Section 65860 of the Government Code) requires tht a
finding of consistency between the General Plan and proposed zoning
be made before such a legislature act can be made. Therefore, staff
recommended that the current General Plan Amendment cycle be delayed
for one meeting so that this item could be included. The Planning
Commission concurred.
D. ANALYSIS
Refer to the attached prezoning application for a discussion of
General Plan consistency. As indicated there, staff agrees that the
new project with reduced scope is consistent with the General Plan.
However , staff has not received any modified copies of the addendum
as requested at the May 7 public hearing.
E. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the addendum
to the EIR and if it is found to be adequate, certify it as consistent
with CEQA requirements. Staff recommends that after certification of
the addendum, this proposal to amend the Land Use Element map of the
General Plan to add the Suburban Single Family Residential designation
to 49 acres of land, Retail Commercial designation to 10 acres of land
and Recreation designation to 69 acres of land be recommended to the
City Council for approval. Staff also recommends approval of zone
change 1-84 to prezone the property to RS, CT, and L (respectively)
including an FH (Flood Hazard) Overlay zone (See the map exhibits) .
.r 2
• •
Public Hearing Case: GP2D-84
F. •FINDINGS
1. The proposed General Plan Land Use Element map revision is
consistent with the policies of the General Plan.
2. The proposed zoning is consistent with the General Plan Land
Use designations.
3. The proposed project promotes commercial activity in the
City of Atascadero.
4. The proposed General Plan Land Use designations and zoning
is compatible with all surrounding land uses.
3
Adlk
W / a
a0OU 1/
E+
'CSU
O 4
U O
UU) /N�
M ^ I
-) W
� 3-I
a �
v wx w � w
" w CO
co o
U) z z �r
i N p O
W
W N W
rJ � J
., x O U
L a cn cn
C_
H
H z
� H
C4 a
A a
aP1" w z
- :D � v a
� zw
� a
�� a
.L_ w
s -
h
-.: a
CIO
� ` 2-9so
A s i ■
�,UM WwA
j r e
?W, l
^
J UJ V)
CO Cc Fa
EL O
U
E-1
U k
00• �\ cA H �
Cr O
i 4S v z
• U b �
U O
• N to N
C; m N
o -P N
Q1
a
J
w
W _
W F"
p �
Z o
Z C)
ce) J w 1
r CV W O
--' r
U) W
v
CL, CC J
O O U
".. u.. CL 0 cn
�i
F—I
Z
H
a
Q
a
s �
1 r :
w
-�`
2-9
MINUTES - ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Monday, May 21, 1984
Atascadero Administration Building
The regular meeting of the Atascadero Planning Commission was
called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Summers. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Commissioner Lilley.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Commissioners Moore, Carroll, Wentzel, Lilley, and Chairman
Summers
ABSENT: Commissioners LaPrade and Sherer
STAFF PRESENT: Wayne Loftus, Planning Director, Fred Buss, Associate
Planner, and Patricia Shepphard, Minutes Clerk
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment at this time.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Acceptance of Lot Line Adjustment 2-84 at 7545 Tecorida
LaFreniere/Stewart
2. Consideration of Staff Report for Time Extension on Lot Line
Adjustment LA 810320:1 at 5560 Nogales - Gallanger/Hilliard
3. Consideration of Staff Report for Time Extension on Parcel
Map AT 810305:1 at 13505 Old Morro Road - Fortington/Hilliard
MOTION: Commissioner Wentzel moved to accept the Consent Calen-
dar as presented. Commissioner Carroll seconded the mo-
tion and it carried unanimously.
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. General Plan Amendments - Cycle 2-84, Land Use Element and
Text:
a. General Plan Amendment GP 2A-84 :
Request to amend the designation of the Land Use Element
0 of the General Plan from High Density Multiple Family
Residential to Retail Commercial; property located at
Minutes - Planningammission - Regular Meetirt- 5/21/84
the southeast corner of El Camino Real and E1 Bordo,
addressed as 9955 and 9975 E1 Camino Real Wilson/*
Planning Commission (continued from May 7 , 1984) . Neg-
ative Declaration to the provisions of CEQA is to be
certified.
7:45 p.m. - Commissioner Sherer took his seat.
Wayne Loftus, Planning Director, presented the Staff Report on
this item recommending approval of the change in land use
designation.
There was only brief discussion among the Commission on this
matter.
MOTION: Commissioner Lilley moved to certify the Mitigated Neg-
ative Declaration as consistent with CEQA requirements
and to approve General Plan Amendment 2A-84 based on the
five findings contained in the Staff Report. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Wentzel and was carried
unanimously.
b. General Plan Amendment GP 2B-84:
Item 2B-84, request by Atascadero Unified School Dis-
trict for a change in Land Use Designation for an exist-
ing school site at 4507 Del Rio Road was withdrawn on
April 17, 1984.
It was noted that the request was withdrawn by the
School District so no hearing would be held.
C. General Plan Amendment GP 2C-84 :
Proposal to amend the text of the Land Use Element of
the General Plan concerning density provisions for the
development of mobile home parks Initiated by Planning
Commission (continued from Planning Commission meeting
of May 7 , 1984) . Negative Declaration to the provisions
of CEQA is to be certified.
The Planning Director, in presenting the Staff Report, pointed out
inconsistencies within the existing Land Use Policy concerning
maximum density for mobile home parks.
MOTION: 'fCommissioner Moore moved to certify a Negative Declara-
tion as complete and consistent with the provisions of
CEQA and to approve General Plan Amendment 2C-84 based on
the three findings contained in the Staff Report. Com-
missioner Sherer seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously.
d. General Plan Amendment GP 2D-84 :
Request to amend the designation of the General Plan
Land Use Element by placing the Recreation, Suburban,
Single Family Residential and Retail Commercial Land Use
2
Minutes - Planning Afmission - Regular Meeting* 5/21/84
designations on property located adjacent to Highway 101
at the Salinas River near Santa Cruz Road north of the
current northerly City boundary Atascadero Limited
(Rogoway/Bethel) . Draft Environmental Impact Report
previously certified, addendum to be considered (Contin-
ued from May 7 , 1984) .
Mr. Loftus presented the Staff Report recommending that the adden-
dum to the E.I.R. be certified as consistent with CEQA require-
ments.
Commissioner Moore expressed concern over what she felt were un-
mitigated issues which included surface water runoff and the noise
level for the proposed motel and housing and asked how these
issues should be addressed.
Chairman Summers asked about the agricultural land with regard to
whether there would be any type of loss by this land being re-
zoned. Further discussion ensued among the Commission concerning
different types of impacts on the land that could occur.
Ned Rogoway, representing the applicant, noted that a scaled down
version of the original E.I.R. had been presented for the Commis-
sion' s consideration and commented briefly on several of the
points contained therein.
Commissioner Moore asked if the Planning Commission had to choose
one of the three alternatives proposed.
Gene Watson, San Ramon Road resident, noted his opposition to the
proposed commercial area for the site and expressed concern over
the traffic and circulation impacts that would occur if the pro-
ject is implemented.
Sherrell Beadle, Santa Cruz Road resident, stated that there are
two different site plans in the original addendum and urged the
Commission to only consider the 2 1/2 to 10 acre minimum lots for
the residential portion of the project.
Mr. Rogoway addressed some of the issues raised by the previous
speakers.
MOTION: Commissioner Lilley moved to certify the Addendum to
the EIR as consistent with CEQA requirements. The motion
"was seconded by Commissioner Wentzel and was carried
unanimously.
Chairman Summers called a recess from 8 :48 to 9:02 p.m.
2. Zone Change 1-84 :
To prezone 128 acres from Agriculture (SLO County) to Resi-
dential Suburban, Commercial Touist and Recreation located
adjacent to Highway 101 at th Salinas River near Santa Cruz
Road beyond the northerly City limits - Atascadero Limited
(Rogoway/Bethel) - Draft Environmental Impact Report, prev-
3
RESOLUTION NO. 4-84
A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING SPECIFIC ACTIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
FOR GENERAL PLAN CHANGES: GP2A-84, GP2B-84, GP2C-84,
AND GP2D-84.
WHEREAS, requests to amend the City of Atascadero General Plan
have been received as follows:
1. General Plan Amendment GP2A-84 - Request to amend the desig-
nation of the Land Use element of the General Plan from High
Density Multiple Family Residential to Retail Commercial;
property located on the southeast corner of E1 Camino Real
and El Bordo.
2. General Plan Amendment GP2B-84 - Request to amend the desig-
nation of the Land Use element of the General Plan from Sub-
urban Single Family Residential to Public; property located
on the northwest corner of Del Rio and San Benito Roads.
3. General Plan Amendment GP2C-84 - Request to amend the Land
Use Element of the General Plan concerning density provisions
for the development of mobile home parks.
4. General Plan Amendment GP2D-84 - Request to amend the desig-
nation of the General Plan by placing the Recreation, Subur-
ban Single Family Residential and Retail Commercial Land Use
designations on property located adjacent to Highway 101 at
the Salinas River near Santa Cruz Road north of the current
northerly City boundary.
WHEREAS, such amendments to the General Plan were considered by
the Planning commission during a Public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65323 provides that a General
Plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and,
WHEREAS, the following findings were made:
For GP2A-84:
1. The existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation on
the site are inconsistent with the existing land uses on the
site.
Resolution No. 4
2. The area is within the urban services area and are served by
sewer.
3. The proposed General Plan Land Use revision is consistent
with the policies of the General Plan Land Use Element.
4. A revision to the Zoning designation on the site to CR (Com-
mercial Retail) would eliminate the non-conforming status of
the existing uses.
5. The reduction of the potential twenty four units would be
insignificant.
For GP2'B-84:
A request had been received withdrawing the request.
For GP2C-84:
1. Inconsistencies in the General Plan exists with regard to
allowable densities for mobile home parks in residential
areas and in .the allowable densities in multifamily areas.
2. An inconsistency exists between the Zoning Ordinance and the
General Plan Land Use Element regarding allowable densities.
3. No impact on ultimate buildable sites will occur due to the
proposed revision or due to the densities which would conform
to those of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
For GP2D-84 :
1. The proposed General Plan Land Use element map revision is
consistent with the policies of the General Plan.
2. The proposed zoning is consistent with the General Plan Land
Use designations.
3. The proposed project promotes commercial activity in the City
of Atascadero.
4. The proposed General Plan Land Use designations and zoning is
compatible with all surrounding land uses.
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will not result in any signifi-
cant adverse environmental effects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero Planning Com-
mission does hereby recommend approval of General Plan Amendments
GP2A-84, GP2C-84, and GP2D-84 making changes to the 1980 Atascadero
General Plan Land Use Map and Text as shown on the attached Exhibits
entitled "General Plan Amendment GP2A-84 , E1 Camino Real and E1 Bordo
from High Density Multiple Family Residential to Retail Commercial" - •
"General Plan Amendment GP2C-84, Land Use Element Text concerning den-
sity provisions for the development of mobile home parks" - and "Gen-
2
Resolution No. 4
eral Plan Amendment GP2D-84, Highway 101, Salinas River near Santa
Cruz to Recreation, Suburban Single Family Residential and Retail
Trade land use designations."
GP2A-84 on motion by Commissioner Lilley and seconded by Commis-
sioner Wentzel, the amendment was recommended for approval by the
Planning Commission by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Moore, Carroll, Wentzel, Lilley, Sherer, and
Chairman Summers
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner LaPrade
DATE ADOPTED: May 21, 1984
GP2C-84 on motion by Commissioner Moore and seconded by Commis
rsioner Sherer, the amendment was recommended for approval by the
Planning Commission by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Moore, Carroll, Wentzel, Lilley, Sherer and
Chairman Summers
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner LaPrade
DATE ADOPTED: May 21, 1984
GP2D-84 on motion by Commissioner Lilley and seconded by Commis-
sioner Wentzel, the amendment was recommended for approval by the
Planning Commission by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Moore, Carroll, Wentzel, Lilley, Sherer and
Chairman Summers
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner LaPrade
DATE ADOPTED: May 21, 1984
SHIRLEY SUMMERS, Chairman
ATTEST:
WAYNE LOFTUS, Planning Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney
3
I-A 00
EXHIBIT A - FOR CITY UNCIL AND COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS
� ��r;i -64
\dl s95� C GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP2A
9015
E1 Camino Real and El- Bordo
sods t6 i (9955 4nd 9975 E1 Camino Real ) from
;gJ High Density Multiple .Family to Co>r
9160 f'A 14•t t+ �
,(01` ,�, . ciai Retail
� C 9160 9720 Co 77-32 t 9t5S N �.
CO 7,.,�7 s ss
10-A 9500 �' °11�t 2S 25
q15� 9275-----y�r- \ ��}0 -ail �II � 10
14
R 9
,p 0 . AVE J9 � �t5 `
16
9so 5 9Z'5
77.12 3 95 r_ s s �; ►� },�
\ y \ as
R 9�5 3 /1 , F -Z
I' 7417
5
�� • / SS q1.• "ter- t�/ d.
i I �otb �` q�j5�/ w �� �}„
c 1 c° r 910 9� S 0
P 3141
A
oINS 3
RMF
o !3 0, 0
co s Q 3
�! • - � �. _�„� --
--FAXtp
\ f\ ,� �Q\'' 1r,•,� _d\fir,~ -— - s'-j� , .. �j�\\'\
.J \
aAt�, 04J ' ot, RMF 5
p- 4'd
A a- 6 \0
\0\� bj,
z 6
23.
�� �/•� _. \ - ----==--amt y,C\`. �Y,`�(` ,T�4��Y\�'��'■��-- A
.\\\ 22 s--+ `•�, ! ` `-" .-, �/ Z,`T -�_-
•
Revise Page 61 of the Atascadero General Plan Land Use Element
Paragraph #6 to read as follows:
A site proposed for a mobilehome park shall be a minimum of one
acre. Mobilehome park density shall be the same density as is
allowable for other residential dwellings in the particular zon-
ing district.
EXHIBIT B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
2C-84
Mobilehome Park Density
Revision
°' . ►\
r
zm r
> � a �
W casco t u
n +' ! '
N C:
Pro O [G
r r6 a N •4a X55 f �A FYI
Q fn 3_-Cf
.••„� O.' W Vf i
J O
W
t:3 S=
SV W 4J `%
~-+ CO (/)co
to V
n/
W Nl° q8 /
0000 Q0
000
711 yam.
u
LI
A
VID
.!G
wlim AGENDA
'TINL f/ �ITEM
MEMORANDUM
TO CITY 'MANAGER June 11, 1984
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to consider a request for prezoning of prop-
erty located adjacent to Highway 101 at the Salinas River
near Santa Cruz road north of the current northerly City
boundary. Request for change from Agriculture (San Luis
Obispo County designation) to Residential Suburban, Commer-
cial Tourist and Recreation. Addendum to certified EIR to
be reviewed for adequacy and certification. Rogoway/Bethel
and Associates, applicants (Zone Change 1-84),
Situation:
At their regular meeting of May 21, 1984, the Planning Commission,
by a unanimous vote (Commissioner LaPrade absent) , recommended to the
City Council approval of a request for prezoning of 128 acres of land
• located adjacent to Highway 101 at the Salinas River and presently
outside of the City limits. this prperty has previously been approved
for submittal to LAFCO for consideration of annexation. The prezoning
designation will become effective only if the subject property is an-
nexed by the City.
The proposed zoning designations are consistent with the land use
designations proposed by General Plan Amendment 2D-84. Both the- zon-
ing and land use reflect the current proposal by the applicant for a
Mixed use project involving residential and commercial use's. The CT
zoned portion of the site comprises approximately ten acres and would
allow development of a motel, restaurant, gas station or other similar
uses to serve primarily the traveler. The balance of the site is des-
ignated for either open space or residential development with 49 acres
designated for single family development (RS Zone) with lots ranging
from 2 1/2 to 10 acres. A total of 69 acres is designated as Open
Space (L Zone) and is located primarily in the riverbed area. Addi-
tionally two - acres of this total is currently designated for picnic
grounds, walkways, etc. , if developed as proposed.
The subject property which is bisected by Graves Creek in a north/
south direction and the Southern Pacific Railroad in an east/west di-
rection has been extensively evaluated for several land use options
with this current proposal appearing to be the least impacting. That
area abuting current residential development in the City is proposed
• for large lot development and will be zoned accordingly. The Commer-
cial Tourist area is located for frontage along the freeway with no
ingress or egress through residential areas thus minimizing the impact
to circulation in adjoining residential areas.
Re: Zone Change 1-84 (Atascadero Limited)
Recommendation:
•
It is the Staff recommendation that City Council certify the ad-
dendum to the Final EIR for this property as a complete and factual
document identifying the reduction in impacts prepared in accordance
with CEQA Guidelines and additionally approve the request to prezone
subject property to the Commercial Tourist, Residential Suburban, Open
Space and Residential Suburban with Flood Hazard Overlay Zones consis-
tent with the Planning Commission recommendation as shown by Exhibit
A to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6-84.
WAYN LOFTUS MURRAY L. WARDEN
Planning Director City Manager
WL:ps
Attachments: Planning Commission Staff Report, Minutes and
Resolution No. 6-84 May 21, 1984
(Refer to General Plan Package, this agenda for EIR
Addendum)
•
2 '
CITY OF ATASCADERO
X918 � ' ,W� �� is9 .. Planning Department May 7 , 1984
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 1-84
LOCATION: Adjacent to Highway 101 and the Salinas River near Santa
Cruz Road (at the northerly City limits)
APPLICANT Atascadero Limited (Rogoway/Bethel and Associates)
REQUEST: To prezone 128 acres of land from Agriculture (County) to
Residential Suburban (RS) , Commercial Tourist (CT) and
Recreation (L) .
BACKGROUND
1. Existing Zoning: Agriculture
2. General Plan: Agriculture
3. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission previously
certified an Environmental Impact Report for this site. The ap-
plicant has prepared an Addendum to the E.I.R. to address minor
modifications to the project.
4. Site Conditions: The subject property has gently rolling to mod-
erately sloped topography and is covered with grasses attributable
to grazing and crop production. The site is bounded on the north
by the Salinas River, on the west by Paso Robles Creek, on the
south and southwest by Highway 101, and on the south and southeast
by rural residential and light agricultural uses. The property is
bisected by Graves Creek in a north/south direction and by the
Southern Pacific Railroad line in an east/west direction.
5. Project Description: In conjunction with an annexation request
that has been filed with the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) , .the "applicant is seeking a prezoning to allow: 49 acres
for single family residential (RS Zone - 2 1/2 to 10 acre minimum
lot size) ; 10 acres for motel/restaurant use (CT Zone) ; 2 acres of
recreational uses including picnic grounds, walkways, etc. (L
Zone) ; and 67 acres of open space mostly in the dry river bed (L
Zone) which could be used for equestrian trails. Other changes
from the previous project on this site include access to the pro-
ject from E1 Camino Real with no direct connection to Santa Cruz
Road and elimination of the industrial and general retail zones in
the project. Effluent disposal is still planned using a sequence
batch reactor and two filtration ponds. The disposal operation
will be used for the motel/restaurant complex only.
Zone Change 1-84 (Albascadero Limited)
6. Prior Action: On March 2, 1981, . the Planning Commission deter-
mined that a full Environmental Impact Report was necessary for
the project. On April 19, 1982, the Planning Commission certified
the Environmental Impact Report as adequate based on four Findings
contained in the Staff Report of that date, and recommended denial
of the prezoning request based on six Findings. On September 27 ,
1982, the City Council approved the prezoning and E. I.R. and di-
rected Staff to prepare appropriate Findings and an ordinance to
grunt the request. On October 11, 1982, the City Council directed
that work on the ordinance for approval of the project be stopped,
that the prezoning request be rescheduled for reconsideration, and
a resolution for denial be prepared. On October 25, 1982, the
Council directed that the Planning Commission review the project
again and clarify reasons for denial as they pertain to the Gener-
al Plan and evaluate possible land use alternatives. On December
20, 1982, the Planning Commission again reviewed the original pro-
ject and an alternate proposal submitted by the applicant for
multiple family residential, highway commercial, agriculture (fu-
ture industrial) , and open space. On January 5, 1983, the Plan-
ning Commission reaffirmed their previous decision to deny the
prezoning application and indicated that they could not support
the alternate proposal. Finally, on January 24, 1982, the City
Council approved Resolution 5-83 which denied Prezoning Z810119:1.
STAFF COMMENTS 0
The original Initial Study identified six areas of concern for primary
consideration in the Environmental Impact Report including: access
and circulation, proposed intensity of development, loss of agricul-
tural uses, method of sewage disposal, impact on water resources, and
public services impacts. The E.I.R. then identified seven impacts
that could not be mitigated including: traffic congestion, loss of
prime agricultural land (could be considered low yield) , conflict with
general plan policies regarding residential densities, aesthetic loss
with open space reduction, increased demand for public services, vege-
tation loss, and air quality degradation. Most of these unmitigated
impacts were caused by the types of uses proposed for the project.
This new proposal has a substantially reduced scope. The project has
been redesigned so that access is from El Camino Real and no longer
from Santa Cruz Road. The single lot on Santa Cruz road is no longer
part of the project request since it is already zoned Residential Sub-
urban (same as requested for the prezoning) and located inside the
City limits. The original plan called for a 112 unit mobilehome
subdivision on 21 acres (5.33 units/acre) , 1.6 acres of tourist com-
mercial, 6 acres of general retail, 2 acres of recreational area, 30
acres of industrial and 46 acres of open space (Salinas River) . The
new proposal calls for 10 acres of tourist commercial, 49 acres of
suburban residential (2 1/2 - 10 acre minimum lot size) and 69 acres
of open space— The redesign and reduced scope of the project has
fairly mitigated the traffic congestion conflict with the General Plan
Policies regarding residential densities, aesthetic loss with open
space reduction, increased demand for public services, vegetation loss
2
! 0
Zone Change 1-84 (Atascadero Limited)
and air quality degradation. For the most part, loss of agricultural
land has also been reduced, though it can never be fully mitigated.
Traffic congestion is significantly reduced with the reduction in in-
tensity of development and redesign of the access. Access is now pro-
posed on E1 Camino Real and not on Santa Cruz Road. The access to the
residential lots will be common with access to the motel site, how-
ever lacking specific detail, additional environmental review may be
necessary.
The residential suburban density (2 1/2 to 10 acres per lot) does en-
courage "home gardening under E.G. Lewis' original plan for farm
lots. It, therefore, appears that loss of prime agricultural land is
an impact that still cannot be fully mitigated.
The new proposal is no longer in conflict with most of the applicable
land use policies contained in the General Plan (pages 57 through 71) .
The residential portion of this site is to be zoned a residential de-
signation that can be evaluated for lot sizes based on the 2 1/2 to 10
acre suburban range (Land Use Policy Proposal #3) . The proposed zon-
ing for the residential area preserves the large lots and ensures "el-
bow room" for present. and future generations (LUP Proposal #4) . The
large lot zoning maintains the private open space and the L zoning
preserves the public open space. The residential density involved
will protect and preserve scenic areas, watercourses, hazard lands,
hilltops, etc. , that add to the quality .of the rural atmosphere of
Atascadero (LUP Proposal #6) . The General Plan does not require in-
fill development before the outer areas of Atascadero are developed
(Residential Policy Proposal #1) . The proposed residential density
accomplishes the policy of graded increase in lot size and graded de-
crease in density by use of the Residential Suburban zoning and land
use designation (RP Proposal #5) . The tourist commercial property is
located near a key freeway access with connections for traffic north
and south on Highway 101. Exposure to the traveling public is ade-
quate and realignment of the site access reduces the traffic impact on
the adjacent residential lots (page 65, #4) . The size of the parcel
and type of commercial use proposed is adequate and compatible with
this location. The package sewer treatment plant minimizes the sewage
disposal concerns. The location of the commercial use on the site
allows buffering from most of the surrounding residential uses (Gener-
al Retail Policy Proposal #4) . The tourist commercial use is located
at the intersection of major intercommunity routes where permanent
access is constructed and high aesthetic value is attainable (Tourist
Commercial - Page 71)
Aesthetic loss due to open space reduction is mitigated by the Resi-
dential Suburban densities required (2 1/2 to 10 acres minimum lot
size) . These large lots ensure private open space providing benefits
to the general public as well.
Reduced density created by the larger lots reduces the demand on pub-
lic services required. This area is already served by City police and
fire under mutual aid agreements. Only a no project alternative would
preclude any increase in public services to the site. This impact may
be mitigated by the offsetting revenue generation of the commercial
3
Zone Change 1-84 (A£ascadero Limited)
activity.
Vegetation loss may be mitigated through the lower densities of hous-
ing, the policies of the City regarding retention of trees, and the
"home gardening" effects of the original "farm lot" idea. However,
the loss of agricultural crops will affect some vegetation loss with
the addition of roads and houses. Mitigation will be a change in the
diversity and location of plant materials through the introduction of
the man-made landscape environment.
Air quality should no longer be adversely affected beyond its present
state. Motor traffic past the general project area will remain essen-
tially the same with or without the project. There will be an inauto
emissions on the motel site related to the comings and goings of cars
to the complex. The industrial portion of the proposal has been
dropped so that static emission sources are no longer a relevant
issue.
The above analysis tends to support the proposal as it is now presen-
ted. Staff recommends that the environmental document presented by
the applicant be considered an "Addendum" to the original Environmen-
tal Impact Report already certified (Section 15164 of the State CEQA
Guidelines) .
Staff agrees with the applicant's proposal for prezoning the site for
Commercial Tourist, Residential Suburban and Recreation (open space) .
However , there is a portion of the proposed residential area at the
riverbank along the easternmost portion of the site that is within the
100 year floodplain. This is an area of approximately 1.3 acres con-
tained in a large gentle swale that dips down to the river . This por-
tion of the project should include an FH suffix on the base zoning.
The FH (Flood Hazard) overlay zone is an additional designation that
is added to a base zone (in this case the RS zone) to identify areas
where terrain characteristics would present new develpments and their
users with potential hazards to life and property from potential in-
undation by a 100-year frequency flood or other known flood hazard.
This zone sets standards that are intended to minimize the effects of
development on drainage ways and watercourses. Therefore, it would be
appropriate to attach this suffix to the L zones that include the Sal-
inas River (beyond the bank of the river that is northeast of the
lower residential area) , Paso Robles Creek and Graves Creek.
In addition to the waterways being zoned Recreation, the indicated
recreation area should be so designated and the open space area north
of the railroad bridge and Graves Creek that would contain the sewer
plant should receive the L designation. The recreation area to the
northwest beyond Graves Creek and between the railroad and Highway 101
is to be used for recreation purposes related to the motel. This is
to be kept .as natural as possible to provide picnic areas and nature
walks and trails that will tie into the theme of the motel.
The tourist commercial area would, of course, be appropriately zoned
CT (Commercial Tourist) . It should also be pointed out that only
8 1/2 to 9 acres of the commercial area is currently proposed for the
motel complex. The remaining area is scheduled as an expansion area
4
0
Zone Change 1-84 (Atascadero Limited)
for one additional motel structure to contain additional rooms and
area for parking, etc. Staff notes that the plans presented are con-
ceptual in nature at this point. Further environmental review and
adherence to mitigation measures may be required when precise plans
are submitted for review and approval. The conceptual plans do serve
as the starting point for future development and deviation from this
general layout would probably result in additional environmental
review.
FINDINGS (E.I.R. Addendum)
1. There are no changes proposed in the project which require revi-
sions of the previously certified E. I.R. die to involvement of new
significant environmental impacts not considered in the previous
E. I.R. since scope and identified project impacts have been
reduced.
2. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circum-
stances under which the project is undertaken which will require
revisions in the previously certified E.I.R. due to involvement of
new significant environmental impacts not covered in the previous
E.I.R. because of a reduction in the scope of the project.
3. No new information indicating a substantial additional impact
from the project has become avilable; rather impacts related to
the project have been reduced.
4. No minor technical changes or additions, though permitted under
the Guidelines for CEQA, are necessary to make the previously cer-
tified E. I.R. any more adequate under CEQA since scope of the pro-
ject has been reduced through elimination of industrial retail
commercial and high density residential development.
�. There are no changes made to the previously certified E. I .R. by
the Addendum that raise important new issues about significant
effects on the environment.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Department recommends that Zone Change 1-84 be continued
to May 21st- to allow advertisement for a General Plan Amendment to be
processed simultaneously with the zone change request. General Plan
consistency is required by Section 65860 of the Government Code.
5
I
_ .
sNix
O J'w
Qmw / a ,
CL OV
c` �^
• ��` W •1-1 Cf)
a0
ss 0
Ma0iz
0 0
(U U) N
s~ � v
0
Nva
IF J
W
Wx c �j
"J W = m
W NCi
O
to z
�i CqCj O
V ui
r
U) 6i
O U
.. � 2 it J
O = O U
U- a w N
v � �
a
P-17 4
2
H
{ , a
A
a
tp a,
U
2-9 .
u
fF �
LO ' u
H - awry -71, 4 �' � ,�.F �. y♦?��/ �\ y ___,
00 -rA
CCD
rl -H rl
W
,'t Q) N
a vm1 (0 r�{�
ca
s ,� tr10
a �¢tw f �•'� t !.� ti N COiI U
. uit
Ix
L /
�!
ryes .•Q�bn j /
o j - ,� � y �� � Im ��• !! �y!is l�fy a.
W _ t
{h
LU
! fi:K! tar
�. ssa,• `y f�� llry�. .�I�ylvU
'W OC
j �
� W
oaz
al%• II lr Z O <
t=
1
lot Olson.o",
Y / Ory x
-------------
------------
\\ ✓ u i
co 'ri vJ
i 13) O rs �
_ Sty,
4 I rQO ,r4
EJ ca 0
ti4
bb g r.�b U 0
�.Q0 �
c^-Y- '
is w M i I e rw
PENN
�.w..xu..�ie<F.,.'r.'y+T. 3,�..
\ t
a' \
_ 4 N
7 �
Minutes - Planning (emission - Regular Meeting• 5/21/84
designations on property located adjacent to Highway 101
at the Salinas River near Santa Cruz Road north of the
current northerly City boundary - Atascadero Limited
(Rogoway/Bethel) . Draft Environmental Impact Report
previously certified, addendum to be considered (Contin-
ued from May 7, 1984)
Mr. Loftus presented the Staff Report recommending that the adden-
dum to the E.I.R. be certified as consistent with CEQA require-
ments.
Commissioner Moore expressed concern over what she felt were un-
mitigated issues which included surface water runoff and the noise
level for the proposed motel and housing and asked how these
issues should be addressed.
Chairman Summers asked about the agricultural land with regard to
whether there would be any type of loss by this land being re-
zoned. Further discussion ensued among the Commission concerning
different types of, impacts on the land that could occur.
Ned Rogoway, representing the applicant, noted that a scaled down
version of the original E.I.R. had been presented for the Commis-
sion' s consideration and commented briefly on several of the
points contained therein.
Commissioner Moore asked if the Planning Commission had to choose
one of the three alternatives proposed.
Gene Watson, San Ramon Road resident, noted his opposition to the
proposed commercial area for the site and expressed concern over
the traffic and circulation impacts that would occur if the pro-
ject is implemented.
Sherrell Beadle, Santa Cruz Road resident, stated that there are
two different site plans in the original addendum and urged the
Commission to only consider the 2 1/2 to 10 acre minimum lots for
the residential portion of the project.
Mr. Rogoway addressed some of the issues raised by the previous
speakers.
MOTION: Commissioner Lilley moved to certify the Addendum to
the EIR as consistent with CEQA requirements. The motion
. was seconded by Commissioner Wentzel and was carried
unanimously.
Chairman Summers called a recess from 8:48 to 9 :02 p.m.
2. Zone Change 1-84:
To prezone 128 acres from Agriculture (SLO County) to Resi-
dential Suburban, Commercial Touist and Recreation located
adjacent to Highway 101 at th Salinas River near Santa Cruz
40 Road beyond the northerly City limits —Atascadero Limited
(Rogoway/Bethel) - Draft Environmental Impact Report, prev-
3
Minutes - Planning ammission - Regular Meeti - 5/21/84
iously certified, addendum to be considered (continued from
May 7, 1984) .
Associate Planner , Fred Buss, in presenting the Staff Report, ex-
plained the difference between the general plan amendment and the
prezoning request. Mr. Loftus explained the purpose of the Flood
Hazard Overlay zone on a portion of the property.
Dennis Bethel, representing the applicant, spoke on the Flood
Hazard Overlay zone and indicated there was no problem with the
designations as shown on the map.
MOTION: Commissioner Lilley moved to approve Zone Change 1-84
as recommended in the Staff Report based on the Findings
therein and to accept the EIR addendum which indicates
that minor changes to the project retain consistency with
CEQA and the certified E. I.R. Commissioner Wentzel sec-
onded the motion and it carried unanimously.
4. Zone Change 5-84:
A request to rezone property at the southeast corner of El
Camino Real and E1 Bordo from RMF/16 (Residential Multiple
Family, 16 units per acre) to CR (Commercial Retail) . Prop-
erty addressed as 9955 and 9975 E1 Camino Real - Wilson/Plan-
ning Commission. Negative Declaration to the provisions of
CEQA is to be certified. (continued from May 7, 1984)
Mr . Loftus presented the Staff Report on the zone change request
recommending approval.
Commissioner Moore and Chairman Summers felt that a CT designa-
tion would be more appropriate than CR.
It was noted that no one appeared on behalf of the applicant.
MOTION: Commissioner Wentzel moved to continue the hearing for
Zone Change 5-84 to the meeting of June 4, 1984. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Lilley and carried
unanimously.
4. Conditional Use Permit 4-84:
Request to approve a master plan of development for addition-
al classrooms on Lots 2, 3 and 4 of Block EB at 6225 Atasca-
dero Avenue - North County Christian School (tauter) . Nega-
tive Declaration to the provisions of CEQA to be certified.
Mr. Buss presented the Staff Report and pointed out a concern
Staff has regarding the 8-10 year time frame for the master plan
because of possible development changes that could occur in the
future and felt that a five year period would be more appropriate. -
Richard Jensen, principal of the North County Christian School,
spoke in support of the request and noted his agreement with the
recommendation.
4
RESOLUTION NO. 6-84
A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 1-84 AMENDING
MAP NO. 4 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS OF THE CITY
OF ATASCADERO BY PREZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED
ADJACENT TO HIGHWAY 101 AT THE SALINAS RIVER NEAR
SANTA CRUZ ROAD BEYOND THE NORTHERN CITY LIMITS TO
RECREATION, RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN, RESIDENTIAL SUB-
URBAN WITH A FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY AND COMMERCIAL
TOURIST.
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the subject matter; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed Zone Change will amend the Zoning Map to be
consistent with the Land Use Map of the General Plan as required by
Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed Zone Change will not have a significant ad-
verse effect upon the environment and the preparation of an Environ-
mental Impact Report is not necessary; and,
WHEREAS, after a public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted
the following Findings:
1. There are no changes proposed in the project which require
revisions of the previously certified EIR due to involvement
of new significant environmental impacts not considered in
the previous EIR since scope and identified project impacts
have been reduced.
2. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the
circumstances under which the project is undertaken which
will require revisions in the previously certified EIR due to
involvement of new significant environmental impacts not
covered in the previous EIR because of a reduction in the
scope of the project.
3. No new information indicating a substantial additional im-
pact from the project has become available; rather, impacts
related to the project have been reduced.
4. No minor technical changes or additions, though permitted
under the Guidelines for CEQA, are necessary to make the
previously certified EIR any more adequate under CEQA since
scope of the project has been reduced through elimination of
industrial retail commercial and high density residential
development.
Resolution No. 6-84
5. There are no changes made to the previously certified EIR by
the Addendum that raise important new issues about signifi-
cant effects on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero Planning Com-
mission does hereby recommend approval of Zone Change 1-84 as shown on
Exhibit A.
On motion by Commissioner Lilley and seconded by Commissioner
Wentzel, the foregoing resolution is adopted in its entirety by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Moore, Sherer , Carroll, Wentzel, Lilley and
Chairman Summers
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner LaPrade
DATE ADOPTED: May 21, 1984
SHIRLEY SUMMERS, Chairman
ATTEST:
WAYNE LOFTUS, Planning Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney
2
4. x
b
.46
yopG q0
q L6 ASV
o ..
m
r
t N-100 98°5
V � f
CC
V c_
I O o '000,
/
-----------
J
M E M O RAN D U M McE �`- AGrNDA
DA 1�ffEM :ial—
TO:: CITY MANAGER June 11, 1984
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
• SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Ordi-
nance relating to: setbacks, fencing, parking and trash
enclosures on flag lots. Negative Declaration to the pro-
visions of CEQA to be certified. Initiated by the Planning
Commission (Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 3-84)
Situation
At their regular meeting of May 7, 1984, the Planning Commission,
by a unanimous vote (Sherer, absent) , recommended City Council approv-
al of changes in the Zoning Ordinance relating to development on flag
lots. The proposed changes relate to setbacks, parking, trash en-
closures and fencing provisions.
The basic thrust of the Commission in amending standards for flag
lots is to create more flexibility for development while retaining
some practical control where neighboring properties could be affected
in a detrimental way. The Planning Commission Staff Report dated
May 7, 1984 is complete in its explanation concerning the proposed
changes, however, a summary is herein provided:
FLAG LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Subject Current Standard Proposed Standard
Front Setback Front setback (yard) Front yard (setback shall be
(9-4.106 (a) (2) is measured where ac at the direction of the ap
cess drives meet body plicant. Other setbacks
of lot. will relate to the appli-
cant' s selection in same
manner as currently defined
as follows: side opposite
front yard is the 'rear` yard
and all other yards are side
yards.
Projections in- Height of fencing in Height of fencing increased
to Required front setback limited to six feet as a maximum.
Front Setback to three feet maximum.
(9-4.128 (c) (2)"
Trash Enclosure Not allowed in front Allowed in front setback ex
in Front Set- setback, cept within five feet of ad
back. (9-4.129 joining property line or
(b) (1) access strip.
Parking in Required parking not NO CHANGE.
. Front Yard allowed in front set-
9-4.106 (b) (1) back.
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 3-84
9 0
There was significant discussion concerning the standards out-
lined above between Commission and Staff.
Mr. Bob Benson was the only person from the audience to speak to
the issue`, indicating that a five ;foot setback on all property lines
was sufficient.
Recommendation
It is the Staff recommendation that the City 'Council certify the
Negative Declaration as a complete and factual document prepared in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines and approve and introduce Ordinance
No. to amend the Zoning Ordinance in a manner consistentwith the
changes outlined by this report.
WAYpE A. LOFTUS MURRAY L. WARDEN
Planning Director City Manager
Attachments:, Staff Report, May 7, 1984
Commission Minutes - 3/19, 4/2, 5/7/84
Commission Resolution - 5/7/$4
2
STAFF REPORT May 7, 1984
CITY OF ATASCADERO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT 3-84
APPLICANT: Initiated by Planning Commission
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE: Notice of Public Hearing was published in
the Atascadero News April 27, 1984
A proposed revision of the
Zoning Ordinance Text modify-
ing the setback requirements
on flag lots to change the
required setbacks, definitions
requiring open space and park-
ing, and to allow six foot
fences and trash enclosures
within the front yard setback.
Environmental Determination:
The Planning Director has prepared a Draft Negative Declaration
indicating that the project will not have a significant adverse
impact upon the environment if certain mitigation measures are
incorporated into the project.
Existing Ordinance:
Section 9-4.106 (a) 2: Section 9-4.116 (a) :
Flag Lots: The front setback for Use of front setback: Re-
a lot with a fee ownership access quired parkng spaces are not
strip extending from a street to to be located within the re-
the buildable area of the lot shall quired front setback, except
be measured from the point where as provided by Section 9-4.
the access strip meets the main 106 (b) (1) .
portion of the lot neares to the
street.
Section 9-4.128 (c) 2: Section 9-4.129 (b) (1) :
Location: Fencing shall not be Location of Collection Facil-
located within any required front ities: The solid waste col
setback except where such fencing lection area shall be located
is three feet, or less in height. within 100 feet of the dwell-
ings or buildings served, but
is not to be located in any
front yard setback (Section
9-4.106 - Front setbacks) .
Past Actions:
The Planning Commission, on March 19 and April 2, held public
hearings to review proposals to amend the Zoning Ordinance text
concerning flag lots. Subsequently, Commission desired to expand
the list of alternatives to deal with the subject and a new hear
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 3-84
ing was noticed to include definitions of setbacks, and open space
as well as allow parking, six foot fences and trash areas within a
required front yard.
Analysis:
The attached Staff Report reviews the question of modifications to
the Zoning Ordinance' s requirements regarding the allowing of
parking, six foot fences and trash areas within a required front
yard setback area. The Commission has previously indicated a de-
sire to approve the proposed revisions with regard to fencing and
trash enclosures so an analysis of these modifications will not be
repeated. A further evaluation of the parking conditions will be
included. The Commission has also requested additional analysis
of a potential modification allowing the establishment of setbacks
at an applicant' s request. Additionally requested is a potential
parking modification to allow parking in the required front yard
setback while maintaining some type of required open space.
Under the present Ordinance, all residential zones require the
same basic setbacks: 25 foot front; 10 foot rear; and 5 foot side
yards. The Ordinance does make special provisions for adjustments
to these required` setbacks for shallow lots, sloping lots, vari-
able setback blocks, corner lots and double frontage lots. Of
direct note is the double frontage lot. Rather than requiring two
25 foot setbacks, the applicant may select what frontage the set-
back will have with some exceptions (Section 9-4. 105d) . The pos-
sibility of allowing the required setbacks to be selected by an
applicant would not be a novel approach and could be accommodated
within the Ordinance. The impact of adjusting the setbacks would
be minimal in that the same setbacks would be maintained, but
flexible as to location. Also, proper open space would still be
maintained along with building code requirements. Adjoining set-
backs could be a minimum of five feet and proposed minimum set-
backs on any flag lot could also be five feet.
Implementation of variable setback designation could be done under
several procedures. The simplest would be the requiring of set-
back designation at the time of building permit. Other alterna-
tives could include the use of an adjustment procedure or condi-
tional use permit, both requiring further review.
The allowing of required parking within the required front yard
setback has previously been reviewed with the Commission. As a
part of the proposed revision, the Comission was concerned about
an amount of required open space. The existing Ordinance requires
an amount of landscaping and screening for parking areas through
the following sections:
Section 9-4.119 (f) Section 9-4.119 (g) (1)
Landscaping: A minimum of ten Screening From Residential
percent of the interior of all Areas: Parking lots that abut
parking lots shall be land- a residential zone shall be
scaped, in addition to any peri- separated from such provi-
meter landscaping required by sions by a landscaped strip
2
i
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 3-84
Subsection (g) (Screening) . with a minimum width of five
Shade trees are to be provided feet and a six foot solid
at approximately 30 foot in- fence or wall.
tervals along parking rows.
These landscaping requirements
do not apply to parking lots that
are underground or within
buildings.
To change from the existing requirements, several possible solu-
tions could be employed to try to guarantee open space. The most
common is establishment of a maximum lot coverage. The present
Zoning Ordinance has a definition for coverage: Coverage: Site
or lot coverage means the extent of a lot of record occupied by
structures and paving (Page " 9-5) . The existing Ordinance uses
maximum lot coverage only in Mobilehome Parks. Typical lot cover-
ages may run from 50% maximum coverage and up. In most other jur-
isdictions, this coverage only covers the building footprint and
not paved areas. It would appear that the figure of 75% maximum
lot coverage would be consistent with the existing zoning ordi-
nance and would maintain 25% open space on a site.
Another method ofproviding for open space involves a ratio of
minimum square footage of open space per: unit; size of lot; or
person. In all cases, a specific square foot amount would be re-
quired. The Staff has no specific knowledge of any other communi-
ty using this method.
open space.
A review of multi-family plans that have been reviewed by the City
shows that normally developments will have provided 20-25% of the
site in open space. This number will fluctuate. Larger develop-
ments tend to provide more open space than smaller ones.
As previously noted, the proposed revisions for fencing and trash
enclosures in the front yard setback pose no problem. The pro-
posal for variable setback designation would pose no special prob-
lem and could allow for a flexibility in the Ordinance that could
take into account individual site conditions. As to the potential
of requiring an open space standard, the easiest method for deter-
mining a good basis would be a standard percentage. But it would
appear that the ordinance has sufficient landscaping and parking
requirements to provide sufficient open space without changes. As
to the proposal to allow required parking in the front yard set-
back, Staff still feels that the proposed revision would reduce
open space and reduce the potential for covered parking, and would
provide an advantage to a flag lot over a normal lot which results
in an unnecessary inconsistency within the Zoning Ordinance.
FINDINGS
3
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 3-84
1. Fencing requirements on flag lots are presently illogical allowing
one owner to build a six foot fence while limiting the other to
three feet.
2. Existing zoning regulations prohibiting required parking to be
located outside the front yard setback, protects the options for
future development of covered parking, and provides a visual open
space and setback area needed to preserve the rural atmosphere of
the community.
3. The inclusion of trash enclosures within the front yard setback of
flag lots will not create any new structures in a setback area and
would conform to a logical progression if fencing is allowed to be
six feet in height.
4. Appropriate setbacks (5 foot minimum from property line) should be
maintained for trash enclosures trash enclosures so as not to
cause any perceived problems such as odor or flies.
5. The proposed revisions for fencing and trash enclosures will not
have a detrimental effect upon the community' s health, safety and
welfare.
6. the proposed revisions would be in conformance with the General
Plan and its policies providing for adequate open space and set-
backs as per California State Code Section 65860.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the above Findings, the Planning Department recommends as
follows:
1) Issuance of a Negative Declaration; and,
2) Approval of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 3-84 as follows:
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 yard setback areas 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
4
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 3-84
of the applicant.
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
access strips where applicant may determine that portion of
the site to constitute the front yard.
ps
5
Minutes - Planning lommission - March 19, 1984
Associate Planner , Fred Buss, presented the Staff Report on this
matter and noted a couple of deficiencies related to the fencing
and circular traffic pattern and suggested modification to park- NW circulation and landscaping.
John Yocum, applicant, spoke in support of the project and ex-
pressed concern regarding the circular drive arrangement as he
felt that possibly up to two parking spaces might be lost in
the design. He also commented that he would like to be able to
retain privacy for the caretaker ' s quarters by providing appro-
priate screening from the veterinary hospital.
Commissioner Lilley asked if the existing residence would still
be able to be occupied prior to compliance of the conditions for
approval.
There was discussion among the Commission with regard to adequate
screening around the residence and concerning the access to the
hospital.
MOTION: Commissioner Moore moved to authorize issuance of a
Negative Declaration and approval of Conditional Use Per-
mit 5-83 subject to the Findings and Conditions as listed
in the Staff Report, with the following modifications:
#4-b to read: The parkng lot design shall be reviewed
to consider circular drive-through circulation util-
izing both driveways.
- #4-d to read: The parking lot design shall be reviewed
with the applicant with final design to be approved by
the Planning Department prior to issuance of any
permits.
- #5-b to read: The landscape strip and six foot fence
proposed between the two parking areas and separating
the residence from the hospital shall be reviewed with
the applicant in accordance with the final driveway
design required in Condition #4 above.
- Deletion of Condition #5-c.
- Condition #5-d to become Condition #5-c.
--dice Chairman LaPrade seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously.
2. Public hearing on Zone Change 3-84 to revise the Zoning Ordi-
nance text modifying the setback standards on flag lots for
parking, fencing and trash enclosures - initiated by Planning
1 Commisicn
2
Minutes - Planning Comission - March 19, 1984 0
Commissioner Sherer stepped down from the Commission due to a pos-
sible conflict of interest.
Associate Planner , Joel Moses, presented the Staff Report on the
amendment request and explainedseveraldifferent considerations
involved in the various modifications.
Commissioner Lilley expressed concern over strips of land that
could be created that would be nothing more than dead zones.
Commissioner LaPrade felt that the recommended 25 foot setback
requirement proposed would be excessive in that the area may end
up as a wasted area.
Larry Stevens explained the reason for setbacks and noted that
setbacks for flag lots are to provide a buffering between a use
developed on the front lot and the use developed on the back lot.
There was further discussion among the Commission with regard to
a parking space being allowed within the front setback of a flag
lot, as well as covered parking. There was also some discussion
relative to parking that would be affected by sloping lots, and
the need for adequate open space for the lots.
I
Don Messer, area resident, spoke in opposition to requiring a 25
foot front setback for the flag lot.
After further discussion, it was the Commission' s general consen-
sus that there could be some sort of trade-off for open space be-
tween the front lot and the flag lot with regard to setbacks.
MOTION: Commissioner Lilley moved to approve issuance of a Neg-
ative Declaration and approve the recommendation to add
Subsection (e) to Section 9-4.110 (Projections into Re-
quired Setbacks) , and to continue the hearing to April
16th to allow for further Staff revisions as to modifi-
cations of the setback requirements itself. Commissioner
Wentzel seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
Commissioner Sherer took his place back on the Commission.
3. Public hearing on Zone Change 4-84 to prezone approximately
80 acres containing the wastewater treatment plant to the P
(Public) Zone at 8005 Gabarda Initiated by Planning
Commission
Mr . Moses presented the Staff Report noting this application was
part of the annexation procedure involved in annexing the property
because of the treatment plant' s location, and recommended ap-
proval of the Zone Change.
Ken Marks, South River Road resident, asked for clarification as
to what the "P" Zone would allow and expressed concern over recre-
ational uses such as dirt bikes in the River .
3
Minutes - Planning ommission - April 2, 1984
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Continued public hearing on Conditional Use Permit 9-83 to
allow development of mini-warehouses with a caretaker/mana-
ger ' s quarters in the CS Zone on Lot l of Block 11 at 9175
San Gabriel Road - Cary (Whitley)
Associate Planner , Fred Buss, reviewed the past actions taken on
this matter, and noted that after meeting with the applicant' s
representative, a major revision to the site design occurred.
Jim Whitley, representing the applicant, indicated his agreement
with the recommended conditions.
Commissioner Lilley noted he was pleased that the applicant de-
cided to consolidate uses on the site.
MOTION: Commissioner Wentzel moved to approve issuance of a
Conditional Negative Declaration and approval of Condi-
tional Use Permit 9-83 subject to the Findings and Con-
ditions as listed in the Staff Report, with modifica-
tion to Condition #8a to include the word "approaches"
after driveway. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Carroll and carried unanimously.
2. Continued public hearing on Zone Change 3-84 to revise the
Zoning Ordinance text modifying the setback standards on flag
lots for parking, fencing and trash enclosures - Initiated by
Planning Commission
Commissioner Sherer stepped down from the Commission due to a pos-
sible conflict of interest.
Associate Planner, Joel Moses, presented the Staff Report on the
matter.
Commissioners Wentzel and Lilley stated that what was before them
for consideration is not what had been asked for at the last
meeting. They indicated that the Commission had been fairly
specific in requesting that modifications be made with regard to
setbacks for flag lots so that flag lots would be exempt from
parking requirements concerning setbacks with six foot fences.
After further discussion, it was the Commission' s general consen-
sus that the minimum open space requirements be preserved but it
could be in an area at the discretion of the property owner, and
that setback requirements for flag lots would be exempt as long
as the open space was still in conformance with applicable
requirements.
MOTION: Commissioner Lilley moved to direct Staff to prepare
appropriate language to modify the present ordinance as
,*it pertains to any flag lot development to waive the set-
back requirements but mandated that the open space areas
2
Minutes - Planning COmission - April 2, 1984 •
presently required in the ordinance be retained but left
at the discretion of the property owner and not be man-
dated to be in a form of a particular setback on the
property and would allow parking to the property line
with appropriate fencing. Commissioner Moore seconded
the motion and it carried unanimously.
MOTION: Commissioner Wentzel moved to continue the hearing on
Zone Change 3-84 to the meeting of April 16 , 1984. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner LaPrade and was car-
ried unanimously.
3. Public hearing on Conditional Use Permit 3-84 to allow a
residential density bonus for a 95 unit congregate senior
citizen housing and to modify the parking requirements on a
portion of Lot 3 of Block 7 of Eaglet No. 2 at 10165 E1 Cam-
ino Real - California Lenders (Young)
Mr. Moses presented the Staff Report on the Use Permit noting that
the applicant has applied for a Farmers Home Administration loan
in conjunction with the proposed project and commented .on the re-
quest for a reduction in parking for the project. Mr. Moses also
noted that there should be modification to Condition #10 as the
units would be rentals only and not purchased condominiums.
Chairman Summers inquired as to what the City' s role is with re-
gard to the Community Development Block Grant application. Mr .
Moses proceeded to explain the process for this type of
application.
There was discussion among the Commission concerning what role, if
any, the Housing Authority would have in administering qualifying
certificates for the low and moderate income people.
Bruce Frazier, representing the applicant, asked for clarification
on Condition #5 pertaining to the location of the trash enclosures
in that this could present a design problem and asked for flexi-
bility by interpretation by the Planning Department. Mr . Frazier
also asked that the parking requirements be lowered as requested.
He also noted that Condition #ll should be modified as the units
would be rented and not purchased and asked for clarification for
the offsite improvements in Condition #16.
Mr. Moses noted that in conjunction with the C.D.B.G. program, the
offsite improvements would be required and specified that these
would be worked out with the Public Works Department.
Mr . Frazier further requested that 1000 feet of street frontage be
allowed for purposes of the FmHA loan and elaborated on the need
for the reduced parking.
3
t
• •
MINUTES - ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Monday, May 7, 1984
Atascadero Administration Building
The regular meeting of the Atascadero Planning Commission was
called to order at 7:38 p.m. by Chairman Summers. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Commissioner Wentzel.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Commissioners Moore, LaPrade, Carroll, Lilley, Wentzel, and
Chairman Summers
ABSENT: Commissioner Sherer
STAFF PRESENT: Wayne Loftus, Planning Director , Fred Buss, Associate
Planner, and Patricia Shepphard, Minutes Clerk
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment at this time.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of regular meeting of April 16, 1984
MOTION: Commissioner Moore moved to accept the Consent Calendar
as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Wentzel and carried unanimously.
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Continued public hearing on Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
`4 3-84 to revise the Zoning Ordinance text modifying the set-
back standards on flag lots for parking, fencing, and trash
enclosures - Initiated by Planning Commission
t
? Wayne Loftus presented the Staff Report and provided background on
the matter from the previous meetings.
Commissioner Moore expressed concern with wording contained in the
front yard setback definition of the recommendation.
Minutes - Planning C&ission - May 7, 1984
Bob Benson, area resident, felt that a five foot setback along all
of the property lines was sufficient.
MOTION: Commissioner Moore moved to certify a Negative Declara-
tion as complete and consistent with the provisions of
CEQA and to approve Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 3-84
as outlined in the Recommendation of the Staff Report.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wentzel and car-
ried unanimously.
2. Public hearing on Tentative Parcel Map 16-83 to allow modifi-
cation of Condition #9 requiring road improvements of Halcon
Road on Lot 17 of Block 68 at 11875 Halcon Road - Calkins
(Twin Cities Engineering)
Mr. Loftus made the presentation noting that the parcel map was
previously approved and provided the Commission with the reason
behind the modification of the road improvement condition.
Gary Calkins, applicant, indicated his concurrence with the mod-
ified condition and asked that applicants have some type of in-
volvement in the :participation of the road improvements.
MOTION: Commissioner Wentzel moved to approve Staff' s recom-
mendation contained in the Staff Report of May 7, 1984.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Carroll and
carried unanimously.
3. Public hearing on Departmental Review R820405:1 to allow
modification of Condition #15 regarding a bridge across the
Atascadero Creek at the northeast corner of South Mall Ex-
tension and Mercedes Avenue on a portion of Lot l of Hotel
Tract at 6905 Capistrano - Bank of America (Richmond, Rossi,
Montgomery)
Associate Planner, Fred Buss, presented the Staff Report on the
matter and provided a background on the bridge situation.
There was discussion among the Commission concerning the traffic
study that was done to evaluate the need for a bridge across the
Atascadero Creek.
Keith Gurney with Richmond, Rossi, and Montgomery, stated that
Staff has covered the various issues adequately and that the Bank
of America was very willing to pay their fair share of the assess-
ment for the bridge.
There was considerable discussion among the Commission concerning
a fair assessment among the affected property owners and the
feasibility of a foot bridge across the creek. It was the Com-
mission' s general consensus that there is a definite need for the
bridge and that the matter should be continued in order to eval-
uate the uses of the property on both sides of the Creek.
2
RESOLUTION NO. 5-84
A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT
AMENDMENT 3-84 REVISING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT
MODIFYING THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ON FLAG LOTS
TO ALLOW PARKING, SIX FOOT FENCES AND TRASH EN-
CLOSURES WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the subject matter; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Ordinance text change will be consis-
tent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the Calif-
ornia Government Code; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Ordinance text change will not have a
significant adverse effect upon the environment and the preparation of
an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary; and,
WHEREAS, the following findings were made after a public hearing:
1. Fencing requirements on flag lots are presently illogical al-
lowing one owner to build a six foot fence while limiting the
other to three feet.
2. Existing zoning regulations prohibiting required parking to
be located outside the front yard setback, protects the op-
tions for future development of covered parking, and provides
a visual open space and setback area needed to preserve the
rural atmosphere of the community.
3. The inclusion of trash enclosures within the front yard set-
back of flag lots will not create any new structures in a
setback area and would conform to a logical progression if
fencing is allowed to be six feet in height.
4. Appropriate setbacks (5 foot minimum from property line)
should be maintained for trash enclosures so as not to cause
any perceived problems such as odor or flies.
5. The proposed revisions for fencing and trash enclosures will
not have a detrimental effect upon the community' s health,
safety and welfare.
6 . The proposed revisions would be in conformance with the Gen-
eral Plan and its policies providing for adequate open space
setbacks as per California State Code Section 65860 .
i
Resolution No. 5-84
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero Planning Com-
mission does hereby recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Text Amend-
ment 3-84 as shown on Exhibit A.
On motion by Commissioner Moore and seconded by Commissioner
Wentzel, the foregoing resolution is adopted in its entirety by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Moore, LaPrade, Carroll, Lilley, Wentzel, and
Chairman Summers
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Sherer
DATE ADOPTED: May 7, 1984
SHIRLEY MOORE, Chairman
ATTEST:
WAYNE LOFTUS, Planning Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney
2
Revise the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to
Flag Lot Development:
1. 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 conecting the re-
quired front yard setback areas 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 with-
in the access strip.
2. 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 discre-
tion of the applicant.
3. 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.
EXHIBIT A
ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT
AMENDMENT 3-84
Flag Lot Setback
Requirements
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 Zone Change will amend the Zoning Map to be
consistent with the Land Use Map of the General Plan as required by
Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed Zone Change is in conformance with Sections
65800-65863. 8 of the California Government Code covering modification
of zoning and particularly Section 65859 covering prezoning; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed Zone Change 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 additional
public 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 yard setback areas 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
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
2
J
• TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: TREASURER REPLACEMENT PROCEDURE
DATE: APRIL 5, 1984
MEMORANDUM
With reference to the process for to replacing the
Treasurer as a consequence of Mr. Rizzuto' s resignation, the
State statutes are quite clear as follows:
The Council must, within 30 days from commencement of the
vacancy, either fill the vacancy by appointment or call a
special election. The election must be held at the next
regularly scheduled election, which in this case would be
result in November 1984.
In either event, if the vacancy is filled by appointment of
special election, the person filling it will hold office for
the unexpired term of the former incumbant. In this case
until June 1986. It is the Council' s responsibility to make
these decisions. The City Treasurer cannot appoint his own
successor.
IiRRAY L. WARDEN
ty anager
m._
',i7cT'NG AGENDA
s= L-. `' ITEM
•
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATIONOF APPOINTMENT OF CITY TREASURER
DATE: JUNE 7, 1984
M "EM0RANDU' M
Because of Mr. Rizzuto's resignation as City Treasurer, effective '
May 31st, we have no authorized person for handling surplus funds
in our investment portfolios. I am .assuming that you will wish to
put the election of the Treasurer on the November ballot, a `deter-
mination which will have to be made in late July or early August.
At that time you will have to request consolidation of election with
the County and do the usual resolutions nailing the election.
Incidentally, I also assume you will be doing the City Clerk election
at the same time. Insofar as the Treasurer is concerned, it will
necessitate your immediate determination as far as whether you intend
to appoint for the unexpired term, and for the interim period before
the November election and who that appointee shall be. In the
absence of any person known to me and assuming only an interim
• appointment, you might want to consider appointing the Finance
Director. This action should be taken as soon as possible since '
we have some certificates maturing in the near future and will need
to be able to handle these certificates for either reimbursement
or cash flow purposes.
RRAY WARDEN
ITY MANAGER
s-
AG-1NDA
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO RECREATION
ADVISORY BOARD
DATE: JUNE 7 1984
M E M O R A N D U M
As you may be aware, four Recreation Advisory Board Member's terms
expire June 30, 1984. We have advertised for interest in these
positions and have received five new applications and two incumbents
who have evidenced an interest in being reappointed. We have received
no information from Ms Baum or Mr. Iv You may wish to contact
these incumbents to see if they are interested, we have done so.
In any event, because of seating of new Councilmembers, you ;may
wish to merely extend the current terms of office by 2 weeks or a
month in order to provide time for the new Council to consider these
appointments.
oe
RRAY WARDEN
1ITY AGER
•
AG2NDA
TO: CITY CO NCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
• SUBJECT: ANIMAL CONTROL CONTRACT
DATE: JUNE 7, 1984
M E M O R A N D U M
The current Animal Control contract will expire on June 30, 1984.
These are several major revisions being proposed for next year's
contract. As a consequence, the Animal Control Director has
requested that the current contract be extended for thirty days
in order to allow time for cities and the Board of Supervisors to
consider the revised provisions.
It is my understanding that the new provisions pertain primarily
to worker' s compensation and liability responsibilities, as well
as omitting some provisions from the previous contract.
At the request of the City Managers group I have been asked along with
two other managers, to meet with the County Administrative Officer
to discuss this draft which we will be doing within the next two
weeks. After that meeting, we shall be in a better position to
present this new contract for your consideration.
•
RRA L. WARDEN
CITY NAGER