The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 03/26/1984 AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting March 26, 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 March 12, 1984 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 2. Acceptance of Tract Map at 820715:1 and Road Name Request 9990 El Camino Real (Lot 6, Block 34), David and Gerald Marazzo (Heim) (RECOMMEND APPROVALOF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 3. Lot Line Adjustment 2-84, 7545 Tecorida' and 7600 Cristobal (Lots 6 and 32, Block OB) , Wally LaFreniere (Stewart) to adjust property lines to increase the size ` of two parcels (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 4. Tentative Parcel Map 18-83 11845 Halcon Road (Lot 18, Block 68) , Jack and Patrick Rodda (Hilliard Surveys) to allow div- ision of 9.2 acres of land into two parcels of 4.6 acres each (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1. Public Hearing on Zone Change 1-83, 6000 San Palo Road (Ptns. Lots 1 and 2 Block 2) Sandra Summers (Hohenstein) to allow rezoning- of property from RSF-Z (Residential Single Family) to CT (Commercial Tourist) 2. Sphere of Influence -' to consider the recommendation to the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for a; sphere of influence for the City of Atascadero 3. Road Maintenance Districts - Progress report by Public Works Director • • C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Amendment to the South Atascadero Park Plan to include Little League ball diamond 2 Transfer of Funds from Contingency Reserve for Contract Ser- vices (Plan Checking) and Overtime in the amount of $5,000 3. Ordinance No. 77 -> Amending the Text of Title 9 (Zoning Reg- ulations) Concerning °Indoor Recreation" Uses - first reading E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 1. Ordinance No. 78 Amending and Repealing Certain Sections of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council 2. Cit Attorney Y 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer I 5. City Manager NOTE: There will be a closed session to considerp ersonnel matters; no announcement will be madeafter the ' closed session is anticipated. 2 MEETING AGr-INIDA MINUTES ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting March 12, 1984 • Atascadero Administration Building The meeting was called to order- at 7 :30 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance. Mel Schroer of the Community Church gave the invocation. ROLL CALL Present: Councilman Molina, Nelson, Stover, Wilkins and Mayor Mackey. Absent: None Mayor Mackey presented _a proclamation declaring March 11 to March 18, 1984 as Camp Fire Birthday Week to the Camp Fire Girls. STAFF: Present: Murry Warden, City Manager;�lph Dowell, Finance Director; Allen Grimes, City Attorney; Georgia Ramirez, Deputy City Clerk; Mike Hicks, Fire Chief; Skip Jpannes, Recreaton Director; Bud McHale, Police Chief; Barbara N is,` CCity Clerk; I-mr— Planning Director; and Steve Rizzuto, City Treasurer. Qom- j PUBLIC COMMENTS Dan Stewart appeared before the Council to discuss a problem with getting a final map approved for a lot split on Cascabel Street. He stated the time period will be up March 22, 1984. He stated all conditions except one (finalsignature on the map) is needed. He stated that he would have that in hand by March 22. Larry Stevens, Planning Director, suggested to proceed with approval under the provisions of the Map Act. Mr. Warden discussed several alternatives and suggested that Council could approve the final map conditional upon the remaining four out- standing conditions being met. Mr. Grimes objected. After consider- able discussion Mr. Grimes felt that 'under the circumstances the Council: could approve the final map subject to the applicant comply- ing with the four outstanding conditions ,if done so prior to the March 22nd deadline.- The Council therefore concluded that the conditions still outstanding j must be met and that the subject would be added on the agenda as item j D-7. COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor Mackey presented Larry Stevens with certificate of appreciation. A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the regular meeting of February 27, 1984 (Recommend approval) 2. Treasurer' s Report, 2-1-84 to 2-29-84 (Recommend approval) 3. Finance Director' s Report, 2-1-84 to 2-29-84 (Recommend approval) 4. Tentative Parcel Map 20-83, 3320 E1 Camino Real (Ptn. Lots 8, 9, and 17B, Block 18) , Lee E. Gustafson (Pults/Vessely) to allow division of 4 .25 acres into two lots of 2. 23 acres and 2. 02 acres each (Recommend approval of Planning Com- mission recommendations) 5. Bid for Alvord Field Fencing, Bid No. 84-2 (Recommend Bid be awarded to the Fence Factory in. the amount of $24,245.60) MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to approve items Al-5 of the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and was unanimously carried by roll call vote. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS None C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Report from Planning Commission on Zoning ordinance _Text • Amendment 2-83 on "indoor recreation" in the CPK and IP Zones. Larry Stevens, Planning Director, reported the consider- ation of concern to the Planning Commission and stressed the following items: 1. Discussion with representatives of other cities indi- cates that many allow indoor recreation uses such as gyms, racquetball facilities, etc:. ,_ within their indus- trial zones. 2. Many of the uses that fall within the definition of indoor recreation can be small in scale with only minimum improvements. As a ;result they can be an interim use from eventually occuring. The discretion available through the conditional use permit would allow each application be evaluated for compatibility. 3. Many larger industrial users provide indoor recreation facilities accessory to their principaluseas part of employee fitness programs. This indicates that such uses are not dissimilar. -2- Bob McGarvey, owner of the gym, stated that it was a locked door situation and felt very strongly that they were not disturbing anyone. There are seldom more than three or four cars in the parking lot at one time. Mr. Baum spoke in favor of the gymHe stated that 800 of the buildings are vacant and thatin larger cities you would find gyms in an industrial area. Mayor Mackey stated that she felt it was a good use. Council- man Nelson stated that he would go along with a conditional use, as did Councilman Wilkins. Councilman Molina urged that the City Council have an exception clause in the zoning ordi- nance for this very reason. Larry Stevens stated that the Council would have to amend the Ordinance. Elliott Stevenson stated he was a strong supporter of McGarvey' s Gym and that perhaps they should file a use permit application. Council- man Nelson asked if other council members were in favor of discussing the exception clause besides himself and Council- man Molina. No other councilmen gave a response. MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved to rescind zoning ordinance text amendment 2-83. The motion was seconded by Councilman Wilkins. Motion was approved by 4:1 vote, Councilman Molina voting no. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Proposal from Elliott Stephenson for improvement of Atascadero Lake. Shoreline. Elliott Stephenson appeared before the Council with a proposed donation of time, equipment and funds on -the part of Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Souza. He stated that they propose to take earth materials from one or more of the lots on the easterly side of Lakeside Drive, presently owned by the City at locations selected and designated by the Director of the Department of Public Works and use it to widen and extend the pedestrial pathway at the lake shoreline. The work would be done at no cost to the City of Atascadero. It is understood that the city has no funds at the present time to pay for the proposed project. City Attorney, Allen Grimes, said that unless the cost re- mained under $5, 000, it would have to go out to bid. MOTION: Councilman Nelson, moved, seconded by Councilman Molina, to accept the donation providing that it does not exceed $4, 500 of labor and equipment. Motion was carried by roll call vote 5 : 0. 2. Chamber of Commerce Lease Agreement MOTION: Councilman Molina moved, seconded by Councilman Stover, to accept lease agreement with the Chamber of Commerce. Passed unanimously 5: 0. -3- 3. Request from Mr. Lea of the Menagerie requesting limited parking. 10 Mrs. Wilson appeared beforetheCouncil stating that she is against limited parking because she _felt it was public domain. Mr. Lea appeared before the Council and stated he felt he is being discriminated against because just ,a half block down the street there is limited parking. MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to direct this matter back to the City Engineer to extend the limited parking to Rosario St. Councilman Stover seconded, passed unanimously 5 : 0 vote. 4. Expiration of terms for Members of the Building and Con- struction g struction Board of Appeals. MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved to advertise for applications to fill the architect/engineer and general contractor positions. Seconded by Councilman Molina. Passed unanimously. 5. Block Grant Program. Alternatives Larry Stevens, Planning Director reviewed the potentials of the following seven projects for receiving a CDBG grant: 1. Simmons/YIP Motel-Restaurant 2. Young Senior Housing 3. Commercial Park Sewer/Road Improvement 4. Sewer extensions to serve residential areas with identified septic system failures 5. Downtown Parking 6. Study to develop economic development strategy 7. Community facilities. He noted that most of these did not appear likely to be funded since the CDBG program is oriented primarily to pro- viding programs having specific economic or demographic impacts as opposed to general city-wide physical improve- ments such as streets, sewer, etc. He also noted that CDBG funded facilities must serve areas with minimum of 51% low and moderate income persons which generally precludes most community projects in Atascadero. Mr. Stevens recommended that staff be directed to prepare a CDBG grant application for the Young Seniors Housing Project for $475, 000-$600, 000 for review and approval at a public hearing on April 9, 1984 . -A- 0 • Doug Lewis appeared before the Council and asked what the medium household income was. The Planning Director gave him the breakdown. Mr. Lewis asked if he could apply as an individual for the CDBG grant or does the application have to come from the City. Larry Stevens replied options are available and encouraged Mr. Lewis to submit his ideas to the Planning Department. MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved to go along with staff recommenda- tions. Councilman Wilkins seconded. Passed unanimously. 6. Temporary replacement for Planning Director Mr. Whitey Ford, appeared before the Council and asked what the chances werethat the temporary replacement would become the permanent replacement. Murray Warden, City Manager stated that they were from the Public Skills, Inc. an organization designed to provide temporary assistance to cities by making people available who have experience in city operations. These people were mostly retired people. He noted that this was a temporary position with no intention to fill it permanently by hiring the temporary - replacement. MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to replace the planning director for the interim period from the Public Skills, Inc. Seconded by Councilman Nelson. Passed unanimously 5 : 0. 7 . Dan Stewart' s request for extenion of time to consider approval of a final map. The Council noted its previous discussion and briefly re- stated its desire to approve the request subject to the approval of four conditions being met that .had been out- lined by the Planning Director. All other provision of the tentative map to be as previously approved. MOTION: Councilman Molina moved, seconded by Councilman Wilkins. Passed unanimously that Mr. Stewart' s application be pro- cessed and approved subject to resolution of the outstanding items needing correction and to be completed on or before March 22, 1984 . E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (Council recessed and convened as the Atascadero County Sanita- tion. District Board of Directors) MOTION:. Councilman Wilkins moved, seconded by Councilman Nelson to recess as Council and convene as the Atascadero Sanita- tion District Board of Directors. Passed unanimously. 1. Audit requirements - selection of auditor The City Manager recommended approval of the Finance Director 's recommendation to hire Moss Accountancy to perform the last two years audit at a cost of $4 , 400. -5- MOTION: Director Wilkins moved that the City hire Moss Accountancy for the sum of $4 ,400 to perform the audit. Seconded by Director Stover. Passed 5 :00 by roll call vote. 2. Resolution No. 17-84 accepting work and giving notice of completion for construction of the Atascadero Water Reclamation Plant - Pacific Mechanical Corporation. MOTION: Director Wilkins moved to adopt resolution No. 17-84 . Seconded by Director Molina. Passed by roll call vote unanimously. MOTION: Director Nelson, seconded by Director Wilkins to adjourn as Sanitation District and reconvene as City Council. Passed unanimously. F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council Mayor Mackey said the dedication of the Administration Building as a historical site went very well and the plaque arrived the following day. 2. City Attorney Reminded the Council about the importance of the bidding process. 3. City Clerk Barbara Norris reported that 8 candidates have returned their filing papers for City Council and one still has to return his papers. 4. City Treasurer Steve Rizzuto, City Treasurer gave his resignation effective May 31, 1984. 5. City Manager Murray Warden reported that he received a letter from the Office of Historic Preservation. This year the grant failed again because the City did not qualify or there was not enough money. The meeting was adjourned to a closed session at 9: 50 p.m. Council reconvened at 10 :50 p.m. and there being no further business , Council then adjourned. Recorded by: GEORGIA RAMIREZ, Deputy City Clerk • DA11 NLuMr___44 ITEM MEMORANDUM : • TO: CITY MANAGER March 20, 1984 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF TRACT MAP AT 820715:1 and Road Name Request LOCATION: 9990 El Camino Real (Lot 6, Block 34) APPLICANT: David and Gerald Marazzo (Heim) On September 27, 1982, the City Council approved Tentative Tract Map AT 820715:1 subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. This map expires on September 27, 1984. The zoning is RMF/16 and the General Plan designation is High Density Multiple Family Residential. Staff review has determined that all conditions of approval '' have been met. The applicant has also applied for a street name for the private street through the project. The applicants have provided two choices: Tiberon Circle and La Brea Circle Either of these names meet the requirements. of road names for Atascadero. The applicants' first choice is Tiberon Circle. Staff recommends approval of Tiberon Circle as the street name in conjunction with this final map approval. On March 19, 1984, the Planning Commission reviewed the matter on its Consent Calendar and recommends approval of the Tract Map and the road name choice of Tiberon Circle. There was no discussion as the matter was scheduled as Consent Calendar, • �T/'r"�'"'�.� - (fit'` 0..�,.,,� LAWRENCE STEVENS MU Y ZWARDEN Planning Director Ci y Maer PS • y,: � �Q 1��Ow¢"F a+p O F N N mm�O OOO I^-• t � 1 ��$ �Q �m 4144� F awa+T o`.O V'tl�NMaANNWb tFRv v,Vov 0 1�!�6f r1 N q4 4p yp 0 O O O l4 N OI @ a 4{7 N�K1 4{f itl 4L1 i. xo�.,, m�3;ffi'io, �o`t.�oQ m o4mct 4+44aao,mm ac+m - 3`4W him a119 jigA ti toy i i7 ;- .. lit .ng Alf 3 F5 715 I � 3 �.� � i� - Ilk (d'.Zpicp�/S.ddlti7J H';Od%Ob /s,wow r`. r �, ` (F�'L�p/�c"j ANG �BSA�'�OBd•E ��s� •.7 �. 0``. O � b sses9iai zrsafx�i£i �olsp, �iY /r,/zgdti. ,` �..t� � • - � Zig � � b^3 �� .� •� � � Apt 1 � 4 a t J v i a o. -a�rnr h� 8885 . y 3 i M E M O R A N D U M • TO: CITY MANAGER March 20, 1984` FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 2-84 LOCATION 7545 Tecorida and 7600 Cristobal (Lots 6 and 32, Block OB) APPLICANT: Wally LaFreniere (Stewart) ` REQUEST: To adjust property lines to increasethesize of two parcels. On March 19, 1984, the Planning Commission considered the above-referenced subject on its Consent Calendar, unanimously approving the Lot Line Adjustment subject to the Findings and Conditions as set forth in the attached Staff Report. r No one appeared on the matter. LAWRENCE STEVENS DfURP4Y L. RDEN Planning Director citylmanacfir I Ps r n CITY OF ATASCADERO i 198 ® '- 189 • Planning Department March 19, 1984 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: LOT, LINE ADJUSTMENT 2-84 LOCATION: 7545 Tecorida - and 7600 Cstobal (Lots 6 . and 32, Block OB) APPLICANT: Wally LaFreniere (Stewart) REQUEST: Adjustment of property lines to increase the size of two parcels. BACKGROUND 1. Existing Zoning: LSF-Y(FH) (Tecorida) and LSF-Y (Cristobal) 2. General Plan: Moderate Density Single Family Residential 3. Environmental Determination: The Planning Director has determined the application to be a Class 5 (a) Categorical Exemption according to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. 4. Site Conditions: The sites are located between ' Tecorida Avenue and Cristobal Avenue. Parcel A is 0.46 acres and B is 0.28 acres, and C is 0.33 acres. Parcel C contains a house; the remaining parcels are vacant. A drainage swale winds along the southern property line draining into the low area on Tecorida (a paper street) 5. Project Description: The applicant is proposing to adjust the lot lines of the parcels to increase the size of Parcels B and C, thus equalizing the size of all three parcels. SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD On March 1, 1984, the Subdivision Review Board met to discuss this matter with the applicant, Wally LaFreniere. Members of the Board in attendance were: Fred Buss, Associate Planner ; Patsy West, Senior ' Engineering Technician; and Vern Elliott, Fire Captain. The Board re- quested the 'applicant to show the drainage swale on the map. The Board had no other concerns or comments. • Lot Line Adjustment 03 (Little) FINDINGS 1. The application as submitted has been determined to be Categori- cally Exempt from the requirements of C.E.Q.A. 2. The application as submitted conforms with applicable subdivision regulations. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings, the Planning Department recommends ap- proval of Lot Line Adjustment 2-84 subject to the following conditions 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. ACTION The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff as deemed appropriate. REPORT PREPARED BY: JE IFER bwLcOLm P1 n 'ng Inter REPORT APPROVED BY: � .� LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director Ps 2 3. r y dio Ir 1„ 1/ Olaf.j�``. '�•.►• Sa NUJ .. ,e S ,.p''',� � ,�q ..�,•,� b�3 "� L "a'� 6s�o .SSSw b off' � J s -"„� 'f">•(' i��r �'� �` 1'' v. „vb `P83 ti r o4° i T :vr 94too 68Yo 5 X7.6 ,' tG 9„ 6fs6o 9�5 _ s4<p Ps r b2oJ 0 IF Y. ZEea b 9 mss bbss8 4 h $ y}o4 1 > 3� 3b c Lam* � � � � x �4. �. 67t5 tg o9x k d 4fi? b5so �+y55 ,� -jk'jK i x55 4'A ¢A cl r Ge�O 3t bku, b it1 5 1, y Gals as 35 3 r b ti Wod 5p aa... r.r OG r , yam., ^y r ny _ 7oS_Sy' r__ �•fl �$ �o a19 ��} �w55'" `� .�' 6595�� _ o� o ib 7,0 ` i 050 71 70yG 1�or' ilp`' 14 all 5so ..g + 5 75 k� ,• -b f -00 s S 24... �3p __J ) 7r 1t5g 15 l} 5 P 12fl� fol� s� 7l°S 1 t _ hl ;7 }} 10 a7os 1555 73o s 7z-so �2 s f bo 74 ;a 750 1 A7✓ S �` S mill 72 40 17300 752 7;3 O lie b 65 ��415� it'd 7 73 50 88 7355 b8 �• 7� 8 re. RC 08 7405 4850 •A vi[77.70- 61. * �37YS0 < 7y 54� �YYO+~~'� 78� 7'150 - gSs3A 7500 74 t 900 '.$bBG1 • 1 § ` '•t7 5 737o5S_o 52' # 500 57LAD 7505 x�0 .'668925O55 7 9 7c; 550 r #g� T7(, 7573 � 1, e 55" 3 •y6so 61s y r „r r 7 5� 7S8o �♦.oa � /7 ��'c 7 ��a (''� �s•- ^ tr �+1650 7jZO LSF—' of )i � _ 3 , •.M•g� , 1r n3 y! �.. io' 4 Ss-A 7790 t_ zoo w t 4 t�TO 7665 77 7540 itiF� jO .m 'V � . 77j 2 I78op/ 97775 7�1's2f_ ► s �780078(00 a6'falip `( i£�,. is 78 (� o P 1 a�_'* }lao 37 "� f4� � ��, �.QA. fi°p � r�„� } ss +�'T• o t ,r7' T LING o co54 SC5 COO 5 5 57 S •� S � 5 58 ,7 tt 10 16 G 2� 4 �6 So35 5g 1 b 6��5{fii X601 ^ t 5 76oc� OD 1� r 17 �Q '��` '�=i5 7 ��a t6 YRxt 7 S"T PA, f1 2a 171 19 "Pa.'s �P L.t_=, �,s5 s 5 � f h o� �*x-a 9 Y\?�o� s `,• �:�• � ipl.�c tlr G�� s'-'�•�}`5 l4 r�S6� 3� 1 �`/'�eb'�. .tr � �2�r � \ � v Qom' S+ ♦t v ". . ]Jej�izz 725COR/M AVE R . Njyo . o n r P, - �, h � N•,�•!'-/Gb ODS— � i a' 'A. t� •tis \f g! 7t2QLS/,/o ai$ Pi t lad R� S R w7 MEETING AGENDA ITEM# , ._ M E M 0 R A N D U M • TO: CITY MANAGER March 20, 1984 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 18-83 LOCATION: 11845 Halcon Road (Lot 18, Block 68) APPLICANT: Jack and Patrick Rodda (Hilliard Surveys) REQUEST: To allow division of 9.2 acres of land into two parcels of 4.6 acres each. On February 21, 1984 and March 5, 1984, the Planning Commission conducted pub- lic hearings on the above-referenced-request, unanimously authorizing issuance of a Conditional Negative Declaration and approval of the land division re- quest subject to the Findings and Conditions;as set forth in the attached Staff Report, with modification to Condition #10 to read as follows: #10. The developer shall enter into a road improvement participation • agreement with the City of Atascadero whereby the developer agrees to pay his portion of a residential road. The developer's share shall be determined from a construction cost estimate submitted to the City by the developer's engineer. A certificate of deposit or cash deposit for the specified amount shall be furnished to the City of Atascadero with the stipulation that the money be used to construct an industrial collector road section within five years. Jack and Patrick Rodda, applicants, appeared and spoke in support of the appli- cation. They did express some concern with the road condition but indicated concurrence with the modified condition, and asked for clarification on sev- eral of the conditions. There was, brief discussion among the Commission with regard to the road im- provement condition. No one else appeared on the matter, (tit/ LAWRENCE STEVENS *CitManag(Ir . W DEN Planning Director • CITY OF ATASCADERO is s syg At Planning Department February 21, 1984 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 18-83 LOCATION: 11845 Halcon -Road (Lot 18 Block 68) APPLICANT: Jack and Patrick ,Rodda (Hilliard Surveys) REQUEST: To allow division of 9.2 acres of land into twoparcels of 4.6 acres each. BACKGROUND 1. Existing Zoning: RS 2. General Plan: Suburban Bingle Family Residential i 3. Environmental Determination: The applicant has completed an Ini- tial Study Environmental Description form. The Planning Director has prepared a draft Conditional Negative Declaration indicating the project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment if certain mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. 4. Site Conditions: This parcel has an extremely varied topography. There is a hill in the middle of proposed Parcel A and hills at the north and south property lines of Parcel B. A drainage swale passes between the hills on Parcel B and empties into a basin on the east side of Parcel A. This basin generally contains some water supplied from a pipe that transports water from a springbox on the adjacent parcel to the south. A second drainage swale empties into the basin on Parcel A from the south. The parcel is covered with natural grasses and trees. Rock outcrops of spalling shale appear on some of the hillsides and the basin has become a repository for much of the rock and other debris. Halcon Road is an all-weather base road along the parcel frontage. 5. Project Description: The applicant requests permission to divide his 9.2 acre parcel into two parcels of 4.6 acres ,each. The lots are proposed as almost square in shape with Parcel B behind Parcel A. Access to the rear parcel is proposed via an easement located along the southern property line. 6. Determination of Minimum .Lot Size: The review of the five gener- alized performance criteria (Section 9-3.144) for this specific parcel establishes a minimum lot size as follows: Tentative Parcel Map 18-83 (Rodda) Lot Size Factor Average slope (15%) .75 Distance from center (14-16,000) .50 Access (all-weather, 15% slope) .75 Septic (severe) 1.50 General neighborhood character (5.49 acres) 1.10 Required minimum lot size: 4. 60 acres The lots proposed meet the minimum requirements. 7. Subdivision Review Board: On January 5, 1984 , the - Subdivision Review Board met with the applicants and their surveyor , Ken Wilson, to discuss the project. Members of the Board in atten- dance were: Fred Buss, Associate Planner; Patsy West, Senior Engineering Technician; and Jim Wentzel, Planning Commissioner. Discussion revolved around the pipe feeding the pond in the basin, the location of the driveway, and upgrading the fire hydrant at the intersection of Halcon Road and Viejo Camino. ANALYSIS The applicant- has agreed to a minor relocation of the driveway en- trance to reduce grading and improve sight distance. The adjacent property owner to the south has also requested a lot split. A com- bination requirement of these two maps will be to upgrade the fire hydrant. The applicants have determined that the pipe feeding the pond is supplied from the adjacent lot to the south. In all probabil- ity, there is a springbox at the mouth of the pipe. Staff would re- quire that this issue be resolved prior to map recordation. The only other Staff concern would be to ensure that ,septic leach fields are appropriately located given the extreme terrain and drainage concerns on this parcel. FINDINGS 1. The creation of two lots with a minimum lot size of 4.60 acres on this parcel conforms to all applicable zoning and subdivision regulations and is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The creation of two lots in conformance with the recommended con- ditions of approval will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 2 Tentative Parcel Map 18-83 (Rodda) RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above Findings, the Planning Department recommends: A) Issuance of a Conditional Negative Declaration as follows: 1. Adequate provision shall be made in the design of private sewage disposal systems to minimize effects on natural watercourses and, 2. Grading and tree removal shall be minimized during all phases of site development; and, 3. Adequate provision shall be made for drainage and erosion control in conjunction with site development; and, B) Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 18-83 subject to the following conditions: 1. Private sewage disposal systems will be an acceptable method of sewage disposal if reports and designs are acceptable. All tests, reports and designs shall conform to methods and guidelines prescribed by the Manual of Septic Tank Practice and other applicable City ordinances. The following Note shall appear on the Final Map: "Appropriate soils reports including a percolation test, a test to determine the presence of ground water, and a log of a soil boring to a minimum depth of ten (10) feet shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Where soils reports indicate that conven- tional soil absorption systems are not acceptable, City ap- proval of plans for an alternative private sewage disposal system, designed by a Registered Civil Engineer , shall be re- quired. Depending upon the system, more restrictive require- ments may be imposed. Sewage disposal systems shall be de- signed and located to minimize deleterious effects on natural watercourses. " 2. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Com- pany and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each par- cel or its public,,utility easement 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 other building or other restrictions related to the ease- ments, 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. 3 Tentative Parcel Map 18-83 (Rodda) 5. Drainage and erosion control plans, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer , shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits in conjunction with installation of driveways, access ease- ments or structures. This shall appear as a Note on the Final Map. 6. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways and driveway easements shall be submitted for approval by Planning and Public Works Departments in order to determine average grade and appropriate improvement requirements. This shall appear as a Note on the Final Map. 7. The applicant shall verify the source of water filling the pond on Parcel A. If this is a spring, then appropriate mea- sures shall be incorporated into the driveway plans to accom- modate continued use. If a springbox is not found, the Plan- ning Director shall make a determination as to the appropri- ate action. 8. The proposed driveway/public utility easement to Parcel B shall be rerouted around the high relief area at the south- west corner of Parcel A and this shall be reflected on the Final Map. 9. The applicants shall upgrade the existing fire hydrant at the corner of Viejo Camino and Halcon Road. The applicants may desire to enter into an agreement with the owner of the adjacent parcel to the south to share the cost of the upgrade in conjunction with Tentative Parcel Map 16-83. 10. Halcon Road shall be improved to City standards along the frontage of the property including a minimum paved width of 20 feet with three foot graded shoulders prior to recordation of the Final Map. a. Improvements are to be constructed under an inspection agreement and encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. . b. Improvement drawings, including improvements to control grading and erosion within the road right-sof-way, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 11. All drainage swales shall be indicated on the Final Map and a Note shall appear on the Final Map which states: "Any modification of the ground during site development with- in 50 feet of any drainage swale shall be subject to approval by the Planning and Public Works Departments. " 4 Tentative Parcel Ma883 Rodda P - ( ) 12. All conditions herein specified shall be complied with prior to filing of the Final Map. 13. A Final Map in compliance with all conditions set forth here- in shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordi- nance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners cre- ated and a Registered Civil Engineer or licensed land surveyor shall submit a letter certifying that the mon- uments have been set prior to recordation of the Final Map. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the Final Map. 14. Approval of this Tentative Parcel Map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expira tion date. ACTION The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff as deemed appropriate. REPORT PREPARED BY: FRED BUSS Associate Planner REPORT APPROVED BY: a �✓�' cC._� ` LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director 5 - t it "-�` ZZ CC 1 _w 7 1 � $q Y/ It tit LB it 25 A ro o, rA NOR7n !!R.9Z'`M e° w2 i 2 Q \\ w li N eu•o /'� � s � /l�A • Lit NO•F!'10 3,6.53'M N O.11''00"E R N 0.16'08•E R-1 ro , vi w w - mu O C pct C v m a ;41 31 - m ^p AAT s m goo C—r� o=o�mI ooRv co �� L 4. �� At102yO u W m 2 Z MO °.s 1.9 di a v ji'rCtP� co � c � kn O ; - 2•r - 1 F Q te)_ $Wb z �} CD H SOhb -a 3 Sic r :n o £££b m- r - O e . o G Ods MEED ING AG7NDA • CI&XF ®ITEM ,! , M E M O R A N D U M • TO: CITY COUNCIL March 19, 1984" FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 1-83 LOCATION: 6000 San Palo Road (Ptns Lots 1 and 2, Block 2) APPLICANT: Sandra Summers (Hohenstein) REQUEST: To allow rezoning of property from RSF-Z (Residential Single Family) to CT (Commercial Tourist) . On January 16 and February 6, 1984, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on the above matter adopting a Negative Declaration and approving the rezoning from RSF-Z to CT as set forth in the attached Staff Report dated January 16, 1984. The attached Staff Report dated February 6, 1984 contains a revised Staff recommendation for the rezoning using a planned development overlay zone • Discussion of the proposed rezoning by the Planning Commission included the following: impact of commercial development on adjacent residential property adequacy of roads,for commercial traffic including designs to discourage through traffic by commercial users - possible need for,increased buffers through additional setback and land- scaping requirements Minutes of both meetings are attached for your information The applicant and her representative, Henry .Hohenstein, appeared and indicated concurrence with the Planning Commission's action. Mr. and Mrs. R.J. Rentschler, area residents, and;their representative, Robert Jones, appeared and indicated their concerns and oppositions to the proposed rezoning. No one else appeared on the matter. LAWRENCE STEVENS MdRJ L. WPADEN' Planning Director City Managek p s 4 W CITY OF ATASCADERO 1979 tt i,^^ • 4 Planning Department January 16, 1984 ' CADER�/ STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 1-83 LOCATION: 6000 San Palo Road (Ptn. Lots -1 and 2 Block 2) APPLICANT: Sandra F. Summers (Henry J. Hohenstein) REQUEST: To allow rezoning of property from RSF-Z (Residential Single Family) to CT (Commercial Tourist) BACKGROUND 1. Prior Actions: On July 25, 1983 the City ,Council passed Resolu- tion No. 31-83 granting an amendment to the Land Use Map of the Atascadero General Plan- redesignating this property from Low Den- sity Single Family Residential to 'Retail Commercial, in concur- rence with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. 2. Existing Zoning: RSF-Z (Low Density Single Family Residential) • 3. General Plan: Retail Commercial 4. Environmental Determination: An Initial Study Environmental De- scription form has been completed ,for the project. The Planning Director has prepared a Draft Negative Declaration indicating the project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment. 5. Site Conditions: The site is located on the side of a large hill with an overall slope of approximately 20%. The site is bounded' by a gasoline station on the northwest, San Palo Road on the north and east, and residential property on the south. The site was initially graded for a motel between 1958 and 1960 which accounts for the terracing on the northen end of the site. Most of the frontage along San Palo Road is elevated or depressed from the road grade. The site is overgrown with natural grasses, shrubs and trees. The siteis inside the sewer improvement district. 6. Project Description: The applicant requests rezoning of the sub- ject property from Residential Single Family (RSF-Z) to Commercial Tourist (CT) . This requestwould change the zoning designation to comply with the previously approved General Plan amendment. Zone Change 1-83 Surs ANALYSIS The Commercial Tourist zone is one of four of the zoning district des- ignations which is consistent with the General Plan designation of Retail Commercial. The other three zoning designations are: CR (Com- mercial Retail) , CN (Commercial Neighborhood) , and CP (Commercial Pro- fessional) . Of these four designations, Staff agrees that the CT zon- ing is the most appropriate for this location (as indicated in the General Plan Amendment report) . Since the abutting commercial uses are zoned CT, this is a logical extension. The CT Zone is intended to serve the traveling public on Highway 101 with limited commercial uses. Examples of such uses would include: restaurants, service stations, motels, amusement services and other recreational uses. As reported in the Staff Report for the General Plan Amendment, use of this site will have some minor impacts that will need to be addressed when a specific project is proposed. It should be pointed out that the en- vironmental review process does not end with approval of this zone change. Any commercial project proposed would be reviewed for speci- fic environmental concerns including, but not limited to, buffering to the residential zones and circulation. FINDINGS 1. 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. 2. The proposed zone change is a logical extension of the existing zoning that allows for limited commercial uses on property that is approximately located to serve the traveling public on Highway 101. 3. The proposed zone change would encourage development which is con- sistent with policies set forth in the Atascadero General Plan. 4. The proposed zone change will not have a significant adverse ef- fect upon the environment and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above Findings, the Planning Department recommends: A) Issuance of a Negative Declaration; and, B) Approval of Zone Change 1-83 to rezone this site from RSF-Z (Resi- dential Single Family) to CT (Commercial Tourist) . 2 Zone Change 1-83 (Suers) ACTION The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff to prepare an ordinance to approve or deny this request. REPORT PREPARED BY: RED BUSS Associate Planner REPORT APPROVED BY: �/" wU'-zA'X— LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director Ps 3 C *+ s � r hyyjjf///{{{/,•,•,•' a 9( h / ?r' y., . •P�•t ' v7t♦AS. 7t5 S7 '� 2t9� 102 A2r ,, o 103 Y Az' s t oy Ad6 '•\ r, ply* As° h l o- rem * Ae9 p °4 K7` Pv n*►a �` �' 1 zs Y '' o�ySaAAaf+vIa. y ,�\ T ytn /f. A.O". �s/i Ae N �t A'1•�. "1p 1A 105 tM2\s 2'" O G,"'4H 4' J[Z \� �\ ....1 4A'�'`., A� ,♦A,tp�' ,.y'N �._-eu `v °� o Aw�ryS F Tt' -f ° i o .� 1hD- 'AASS N--9q'�r t i5a 6 + 9 3 O �b A 53 W 4 ♦\: p�A °I., „?r wh �. f 1T4 _ 202 ' N / oo N D+r �. ` '�` i'0. 'e.-- m is �`R•rmpp Taa lrtL%."' t yam- c� a+�J 'r�i y r = �t •S '; t S .rygS`. tiO� N •` Q ncS � ��b'^t �S'"oN.�' -21 1. ,�• 9v 44` 0'`. 0\ "so t9-Q 'sc {� •I•`LT��i� 'Y nj tnt� {06 `� �'j,. A <o t+•^,,. z �„•'�,."�O 4'ti'r�F�,9° � c __ ��so?.d w '/ ♦ � ' A ti'o �3 �� P� � A, 0 .,,,.,�., r - m P t ,....,. a'gSl�i S , � / f IS h. �rlnln '• oQ. (k 0 Apr-.N :v'n J s 201 PIS r 20 to y /,♦ 1f/fv O � }• 4 V}1 � 1 -•. t 15'o)5't i r ry (,� / � � 0 vi ) ��-+x7J.s"�' per% .y� "pi qo �l p. -�'P ` =e '°• 9 33 <4 t y 1 ^\ r0'0 4.� ;g' 'ssys -i.'`_,�A. AK' F,Q' ,.P ct�' ,�—t ;`'a ♦/ ! 4 �.-. 3iSo �A 3 0 X595 ,v'yo"s' P �^. .� 775y• J(, P (•n F T m'_°iZ1 x /„�. rSoCp ntrn p A . LO rn 'h0 {err r , q� 1h a sy/�v ''s'r y►1�y';` '*t l `. ``1't r`. \ �,,e 2 O NO �� v.pw°Sve � tfiy`�j'Y®YS/O :` P ►P r,�, yC ,♦9- 6?'��S•�11j_� '�'ojr/}^7r '''.''� i� �� t�i 21 !n PhK\L t7\R\t 1�� {1 .�,d,q0 y ,��;,►".'6sr_f��f°/.�i`.. �K`�vCr-pa/r;Sisb�/�`P�b,�,/�s9ia�a'�4"1�[6�r(�"1r•% Sf�'�C':«/DA��.�,"�_A��a,��♦�,•� �pbSS�A��ttJo,�-�.•Q,ars�r s4�4 22 INA., :4 l �J(^ t.20 Qi..�•-^^^ ,/�`� } y'- ��t'� /y X41 \ sy3a 58SS r a 1 AA 6 ' s S 1 42 d Y (� f/JCID I' t>ti sr°°g. 1. 2410 .o° \AA �" o ^ti T o/d x. a 'S` a a .c r" �.♦.�''..\, i6 �Y}�•s �,,:.- -24-A eY A$, �'4�,:...-;r,� tria;�5 5� � �s 4 fie! Via. S5 S ggo<A 'G r,-•- 1 oA+ P1 !/!! 6• ,\ht.�a'!' _ o � '.�d��ze . f�.'p�y....�<�a y��.��GY=' �4ej��Y{''rn♦`'m.._. t M ! P r TPtiy Ge/ 27 o Rte.,,- ,t�.. yr,�.�i+-�D, .....4i•� k. 4 v \. \a4 � / ° ?/ Zr9/ / hh G° l ib r 9L �',\ r4.cs.• s, iD ! y t ♦♦ 4-o !i, `2jy.r X39!/ `e hp 6y ♦♦ ,s3Ano6y.P 4.A r ` ry '� \� f p Q a`Aq. w �4S `r♦e�j J'` ' ! -\v�ipo0"� 4 �A ` sQ ♦ ,b 9i _ •>y! �z{/ X Gr`♦pL �• / 0.0 �� e5° .A°156a•`'\- y4 • `'!� ,�1,.,p6 / f�. / W --3 / / / L.� qbp *y�3- to O,JS \ 1 �,q �: Tci ♦ S ",�o s. ♦ t't' \-•y t'.�♦Gi: Z V' t /I S �4•!e �� / y 1S/ L� ./ 13 �/4 tf3 \\ �� 1�sJ 1'�0`«°. e`io\ '1(�`m�,• /�AGt /ya,,_-. 16 ;�� / 416 ,♦ ,�� 6 ^ �, ��, ^� t 14 / ooa �y �Pl m A\ AS 63 6106' �0.1t 14 17 3 6205 4%1*0 Z - 5 ♦t y O 7 0 so 17 20 V ti 0 26 p /! a m ' ♦♦y rn t X 3ofi ' f Y e, / Jt° Y21 ! 1S' r vM'1 1 'ut h P - N ati 0 o- I 14 44, 16 °hCP t a� �p b ppb N t0 $ hh ^ H i�i, r .�3 �� 16 b W�°�oZ , r,10 M4.4 � 3 �� 25-A t+` t 22 0o t��ryg ,"7tF 19 4i� / �/ M � r>v r \ h t 1 s A �t7VtD / t ♦ °° v / yti yp co � r n ♦ � t cl L 1 4 �� Plytc,♦ : H ♦ « y � C )T- t t t M M t { \ \ �/ pt0 co•Trw♦ T. �~ e 21 t'Aa>9p0 14,h y1 My 6 hA ICf 3; �14i 5 t, 15 YL 0p ier. ti 14 y5 1 o \ 3" o (� y ah 4 nh 6 f`'`c.+` 6\ ♦0 hN 13 E3�p a as ay4 T\ �•11tR2� { o�l�S Opti 12 E< GI o y%LQ LG Ca / fr>Z ��`f�4 r 1✓ A 1 f. .. 0 6° 9IO 25 m 03 \`.42, i o O n F. i m tit17 o Ir 74 m D 7 \ A 101 A � ; I 0 r Y� O N .o It ° 3 -" i it O rl in r 1 C) m c CD r a O a o ° n o M I' 1, ��.�. CITY OF ATASCADERO 1918 ® 19 9 Planning Department February 6 , 1984 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 1-83 LOCATION: 6000 San Palo Road (Ptn. Lots 1 and 2, Block 2) APPLICANT: Sandra F. Summers (Hohenstein) REQUEST: To allow rezoning of property from RSF-Z (Residential Single Family) to CT (Commercial Tourist) PRIOR ACTION On January 16, 1984, the Planning'Commission conducted a public hear- ing on this project. Staff recommended rezoning the project site to CT. Several citizens from the area voiced concern about the future impacts of rezoning this area. Staff made several suggestions on how to mitigate these impacts including the possibility of a Planned Dev- elopment (PD) overlay zone. The Commission moved to continue its review of the project in order to allow Staff time to review alternatives. ANALYSIS Staff still recommends the CT zone as the base zoning designation for this site. However, due to the specific concerns raised by several surrounding property owners and the characteristics of the street in this location, it may be appropriate to place a Planned Development (PD) overlay zone on this particular site. A PD overlay zone is used to identify areas where development standards or processing procedures are different from those established by the underlying zoning district as necessary to promote orderly and harmonious development and to enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area. The development standards, special use standards and processing requirements of the underlying zoning district apply in a PD overlay zone unless specifically modified by requirements contained in the overlay zone. In this case, specific standards dealing with circula- tion and residential buffering may be necessary to preclude any future incompatibilities in this region. San Palo Road is currently constructed to collector road standards along the freeway frontage of the site. At the bend beyond Rent- schler ' s driveway, the road changes to a narrower local street width.. (San Palo Road is a City maintained road) . It appears that most of the concern related to traffic deals with the ability of a vehicle to Zone Change 1-83 (Summers) turn around once it is realized that San Palo Road does not go through. Providing a total cul-de-sac would cut off a means of egress from the residential areas to the south which could create alternate impacts of equal significance. A turnaround area with appropriate signing wuld allow throughh traffic to pass while permitting other traffic to turn around without having to back up. This arrangement t would solve the concerns of the residents without causing undue ex- pense to a developer for a double cul-de-sac and without closing an access route. The turnaround area would be essentially a half bulb which would be incorporated into the street improvements required of the first development on any part of the property. Specific plans would be reviewed at time of development to ensure that driveways onto the site are located on the San Anselmo side of the turnaround. Residential buffering refers to attenuation of light and sound from a non-residential source into a residential area as well as reduction of undesirable views. Measures such as walls and/or berms and additional landscaping are appropriate to accomplish these goals. In conjunction with these requirements, additional setbacks are necessary to move the source away from the residences and provide enough area for required screening. The front setback along the residential property adjacent to the south of the site is 25 feet. Any development on this site, unless it was extremely small, would still receive further environmental review under a Precise Plan ap- proval which could result in further requirements. It is Staff' s opinion, however, that the requirements suggested would mitigate any further incompatibilities without causing other impacts. FINDINGS 1. The proposed zone change will amend the zoning map to be consis- tent with the Land Use Map of the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code. 2. The proposed zone change is a logical extension of the existing zoning that allows for limited commercial uses on property that is approximately located to serve the traveling public on Highway 101. 3. The proposed zone change would encourage development which is con- sistent with policies set forth in the Atascadero General Plan. 4. The modification of the development standards is warranted to pro- mote orderly and harmonious development. 5. Modification of the development standards will enhance the oppor- tunity to best utilize special characteristics of the area and will have a beneficial effect on the area. 6 . The benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be reasonably achieved through existing development standards. 2 0 1 i Zone Change 1-83 (Summers) 7. The proposed zone change will not have a significant adverse ef- fect upon the environment and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report isnot necessary. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above Findings, the Planning Department modifies its pre- vious recommendation and now recommends: A) Issuance of a Negative Declaration and, B) Approval of Zone Change 1-83 to rezone this site from RSF-Z (Resi- dential Single Family) to CT (PD5) (Commercial Tourist - Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 5) with the addition of Section 9-3. 649 to read as follows: 9-3. 649. Establishment of Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 5 - PD5. The Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 5 is es- tablished as shown on the Official Zoning Maps (Section 9-1.102) . The following modifications to development standards are established: (a) A turnaround shall be constructed along the frontage of San Palo Road in conjunction with required street improvements at time of first development on the site. (1) The turnaround shall be in the form of a half-bulb cul- de-sac with a minimum 35 foot turning radius and shall serve traffic moving southeast on San Palo Road. (2) Appropriate signing shall be incorporated into the de- sign to direct traffic in a safe and legal manner. (3) Exact location and design of the turnaround and street improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Plan- ning and Public Works Departments. (4) No site access driveways shall be allowed easterly of the turnaround. (b) A minimum setback of twenty five (25) feet shall be provided along the entire frontage of San Palo Road. (1) This setback shall be landscaped and shall incorporate appropriate walls and/or berms in the design to mitigate noise and glare. (2) This setback shall contain landscaping only and shall not be broached by structures, parking or driveways, except for site access driveways located westerly of the turnaround. 3 Zone Change 1-83 (Summers) ACTION The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff as deemed appropriate. REPORT PREPARED BY: FRED USS Associate Planner ' REPORT APPROVED BY: lazvw /4,-em LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director Ps 4 Minutes - Regular Ming - Planning Commissior* 1/16/84 Stevens explained that the intent of the condition is to make sure that there is at least a minimum level of improvement based on the number of lots that may be split. MOTION: Commissioner Lilley moved to continue the hearing on Parcel Map 17-83 to February 6 , 1984 for further review of the private road improvement standards. Commissioner Carroll seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Commissioner Sherer took his seat back on the Commission. Chairman Summers called a recess from 8:50 to 9:OO p.m. Fers, . Public hearing on Zone Change 1-83 to change the zoning from RSF-Z to CT for Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2 at San Palo Road - Summers (Hohenstein) r. Buss presented the Staff Report on this matter recommending pproval of the zone change request. obert Jones, representing the Rentschlers, adjacent property own, spoke in opposition to the rezoning and addressed some con- cerns which included adequate buffering from the residential neighborhood and impacts on access and traffic and hours of operation of the proposed commercial uses. There was discussion among the Commission concerning the feasi- bility of a planned development overlay zone which could perhaps mitigate some of the concerns raised. MOTION: Commissioner Wentzel moved to continue Zone Change 1-83 to the meeting of February 6, 1984 in order for Staff to prepare a planned development overlay zone. Commission- er Lilley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 5. Public hearing on Conditional Use Permit 6-83 to allow sign- ing in excess of standards for a portion of Lot 29 of Block JA at 7317 E1 Camino Real - County Savings Bank (Brady) Mr. Stevens made the presentation recommending denial of the request. Mike Brady, representing the applicant; spoke in support of the project noting a previous approval for a sign at the Adobe Plaza and asked for consideration in approving the request. There was only brief discussion among the Commission. MOTION: Commissioner Wentzel moved to deny Conditional Use Permit 2-83. Commissioner Sherer seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 4 Minutes - Planning ission - Regular MeetinS 2/6/84 Commissioner Moore expressed her objection to granting the variance. MOTION: Commissioner Carroll moved ' to approve Variance 1-83 subject to the Findings and Conditions as listed in the Memorandum dated February 6, 1984. Commissioner LaPrade seconded the motion and it carried with Commissioner Moore dissenting. 2. Continued public hearing on Tentative Parcel Map 17-83 to al- low creation of four parcels from 72. 7 acres from a portion of Lot 3 of Block 41 at the terminus of Laurel Road- IDM Enterprises (Twin Cities Engineering) Commissioner Sherer stepped down from the Commission due to a pos- sible conflict of interest. Larry Stevens briefly explained the reasoning behind the required access improvement condition for the parcel map and noted that a minor modification to the original condition had been made. Allen Campbell, representing .the applicant, stated he had met with staff in an effort to resolve the access improvement condition. The applicant had no objections to the revised condition, but in- dicated a desire to bond for the improvements. MOTION: Commissioner Carroll moved to authorize issuance of a Conditional Negative Declaration and approval of Parcel Map 17-83 subject to the findings and conditions as set forth in the Staff Report dated January 16 , 1984, with modification to Condition #8 to read: "8. A paved private driveway with a width of 18 feet shall ' be constructed along the access easement from the terminus of the paved portion of Laurel Road to the frontage of Parcel D prior to recordation of the Final Map. " Commissioner LaPrade seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Commissioner Sherer took his place back on the, Commission. 3. Continued public hearing on Zone Change 1-83 to change zoning from RSF-Z to CT for Lots l and 2 of Block 2 at San Palo Road - Summers (Hohenstein) Mr. Stevens pointed out the primary issues discussed at the prev- ious meeting which included the access to the property and buffer- ing concerns. He briefly reviewed a proposed planned development overlay zone for possible consideration. 0 2 Minutes - Planning- ission Regular Meeting 2/6/84 rsHank Hohenstein, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the rezoning and expressed concern that there was too much re- trictiveness in the proposed PD Zone. backs. Robert Jones, representing the Rentschlers, adjacent property owners, stated that the road is not suitable for the amount of commercial use it would receive and objected to the proposed turn- around. He also felt that there should be more specific setbacks required in that he did not feel that the 25 foot setback would provide a sufficient buffer There was considerable discussion among the Commission concerning the appropriateness of the planned development overlay zone for the subject property. There was also discussion concerning the proposed turnaround and what types of traffic impacts it could mitigate. The Commission also discussed possible commercial uses which might be compatible with the area. Commissioners LaPrade and Moore concurred that the road improve- ments may be beneficial because the road would be widened and could improve the traffic situation. Commissioner Carroll also felt the site was a good piece of property for commercial uses and was in agreement with the proposed turnaround. Commissioner Moore further stated that the setbacks required would lessen the amount of land that could be developed. She proposed that ten foot setbacks be allowed. MOTION: Commissioner Sherer moved to approve Zone Change 1-83 PP g to CT without the planned development overlay zone. The motion died for lack of a second. There was further discussion concerning other possible alterna- tives without requiring the planned development zone. MOTION: . Commissioner Sherer moved to approve Zone Change 1-83 to CT subject to the Findings and Conditions as set forth in the January 16, 1984 Staff Report. Commissioner La Prade seconded the motion and it carried with Chairman Summers dissenting. Chairman Summers called a recess from 9:05 p.m. to 9:19 p.m. 4. Public hearing on Tentative Parcel Map 19-83 to allow crea- tion of two parcels from 3.11 acres from a portion of Lot 1 of Block 15 at 8600 San Marcos Road - A.I. Jones (Hilliard Surveys) Mr. Stevens presented the Staff Report recommending approval of the requested land division subject to certain conditions. Grigger Jones, representing the applicant, indicated his concur- rence with the recommendation. 3 N3 AGENDA • ME .MORANDUM : TO: -CITY COUNCIL March 16, 1984 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE APPLICANT: Initiated by Planning,.Commission REQUEST: To consider the recommendation to the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation:Commission (LAFCO) for a sphere of influence for the City of Atascadero. The San Luis Obis Count LAFCO is in the process of establishing a sphere of Po Y P g _ p IIIA influence for the City of Atascadero. As a para of that process, LAFCO has requested data from the City. Included in that data is a recommendation from the City showing what it thinks the sphere should be. The Planning, Commission has reviewed the matter in three meetings and has rec- ommendeda sphere of influence that takes in the entire Atascadero Colony and • areas to the east beyond the Salinas River along with areas to the north to Paso Robles Creek. Copies of reports have been 'attached along with the proposed sphere of services and sphere of influence as proposed by the Planning Commission. Based on the previous Staff Report and Findings (attached) , the Planning Depart- ment would still recommend approval of the ,Sphere of Influence and Sphere of Services as shown on Exhibit A of the original Staff Report (excluding the area to the east of the Salinas River) , LAWRENCE STEVENS MU L. RDEN Planning Director Cit Manager Ps t7i y �--- • H tl 10 ir } \ si'/ \, �, ATTATCHMENT A •� {-,��-�s ,,�" \� *fig r� r�—;/I � �l� �s �� 1i PROPOSED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE FOR THE CITY OF ATASCADERO Td 71 -r r` • ` SPHERE OF INFLUENCE i••0000 SPHERE OF SERVICES I � -.�� ' �� ,.� � CITY LIMITS ,_ '\�'s_� L,o'o �' � � r�. sl � /�1/f rFy \ �,. �..`-'��,� r ..�/ it��,.1�:.�� :'�, y�Lam- Il��'/,L�� 'la• }�g. 1•� '� �.i � c .ao � � t '—' /� moi. l ��`—� 4" [•- k �; p A_� � 1«�� ' �--,��..�. _ aI,- �.- I I��.. i� �fC:�� A�S� -��J � Y -•,'� � �o,.� ,�i'\. � � - suAaw ...\ ,,...� _ i�73a` t+'�-'„ `/\,,\ ��`J rl"1,�'� •�-Yt �_ .�\ 17, .4� 1. e� � �_;�avnclon .\ 1 ��f � (, ,-� O y /•� i� .� . ��/ f� �' \S' \�. �` � ' a` h� `=�� \- -�'1. � _ ,�.J `4' s�� LL'• .` i4�, ` ;S�� Wl C_ '\'e` C`�'\"'` `�'9�s�: %�C�`i''"' ` .1�, •zj. �"Y_ ( .r,5r--Z� .L ll .a , X74 �C' �J i s-X.� A, 'i'1 •-c`^.�o.�:� a`/ _\\ .t•-�- I. e 2 r < r.._� r�� n`�-„� Rj .�(�: b bac �\� \ �' .`\�� II \ ��.a z�� "� •''<° vz � � ,as,. �!, �� 1 iIa �'� �V '�, fes,%: � 3'v:�;'� !'f l "7�� ate. .A Y •z• i \ :a �` F. /JRA 7 $G� , . i� _a.rnr ✓ •_F. Y�- F �^ \�`�-�-� '��- r 1�� j�+1 �f e � 35 z.' a '<r •�� y it I •�'s / ui-� \ � \oti cx n� ` � ''�\��t. 5}`�_//3��.� J-�L�i� a^`i, pD !., \• e�� r (�`�:�. ] �� )` 1 f1;� 'l eT\ �, \e °�" co-,. �',�57' / t�'Z t - \o��t \ .oz i,�f1 •"� , \ �' r '�� 2° �' 's �1\. �,.. , '=",L�,�� }_ �°•'i jt_�;�,� a tT-r".�, a �:/� �i+v,� E! \ '��\W�t .�.; �I �\ 1 1/ 1 !� r\ ✓ i" �`�� \' 2 �"�w� �1 / �'`/�J(`\. g o\..I k �,_� �/oeCs./'q 9 � s� F?J,,� p ��•�('�F y,�; S/ ''�a ��E' ,�i)� - 4. �P-__"I 1•. .�' Ste\ <r/b.C�•i"`,y\ i \.GN.At.3 0 Y i �,} J�, F�= ,� � \ I y� '`�` �,1 1 y(. �� j.{ i� \ Q �T �� i S• R F t .\` \ ' t _/ � . � /.� -h-� \�/; •t 4 '� • � 1 r ',�fyy—_ Wil` : � --�' --- 1 Nq •� \\ � 'R° � ��. _. +I wL..,E -h, d1 rk. — � I ( 'i. '�._ �\t:o iT o,'i \ s ��rd"_"'1%;nr.•'x s e. �� 4 -L1- f ,\\Vg L; ' _`�\,� -Y�e,� saa - \l I ��\�.`h '%�� jln' '�"L� _Ic'u'L '`^ 1.�/ ^'••\'�/� sal .. r. . ! 30 WX � _ �✓ � 1v�• �\ -�.�.mow 3z,- ° f // 1 -_ ATTATCHMENT B -�',�`� ._N`�-�,�,\ /�r' - �/ to x_o// �'J /1 �• .37 `- PROPOSED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE FOR THE CITY OF ATASCADERO EAST OF THE SALINAS RIVER ---tom! � ,��.1/J �{ • , `�`;t, ;'�'-�,sz V )/ -'�-' - - - - 62 o , SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ••s♦• e • SPHERE OF SERVICES CITY LIMITS 4�0 +� M E M O R A N D U M TO: PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 1984 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE APPLICANT: City of Atascadero REQUEST: To consider the recommendation to the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for a sphere of influence for the City of Atascadero. At two of its previous meetings, the Planning Commission has re- viewed recommendations for a sphere of influence for the City of Atascadero. Areas of concern have centered around the inclusion of areas to the east of the Salinas River. In reviewing the area to the east of the River, Staff has considered development pat- terns, automatic fire response areas and existing agricultural preserves and has prepared two alternatives. Attached is a map showing the two alternatives and Staff' s recom- mendation that could be considered as part of a sphere of influence. Also attached is a copy of previously considered reports LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director OPS �.,�"1��7//� � may, -/'�\/f rt' � �- •.' �� e-."tr Wit- ./ t •1�� vl,�,;s j1� \�`�-�"_t i.t 775, Alternative #2 M, _231 ( -`-1`�� a .i�-l•�i•�1. l-��..� �,'.fiyC rt `; _, j ` _ LQI--' `-Z ,1'/ ,�� -i,"�\�,�LY-. •(: ` / �\ � -� �Y.� f-•� ��.1� -. I � f �- .= il( 'u �"•�'..: ��?i/';! !'Jig sg 1 ✓jam w ./� 'r ,, 't'' t i � 'ter--a" 0 �.1- ," s �� '_ �(�� 4!� b � i,•t''�x_,.'��";�.-��""-� rYrr- >'��'':`" SC�F�2(-0 ,�a y ti�ro ( e?� � �,l�, � �� \�• � F _ - \' %�^ t;� Alternative #1 �cwn,, x z5 _ -., vin '; �' o w r nso �Ory ear• r� Com` I ��J Q-•j \'a �i a`'tri a, W 1 .s[ ` _- - _j� ? f ��(!' ,�.•�c��t:'�,F�(:(\. �/3�9 f"" �� ^� E,j:� ✓ �: ailx� 'e z��\ Cn 12 7\ t [i-"-I O- \'e � �\. / � '> -t=1��+(q � r� f"` � f•-r v ..c vl { :../ Ni S 26 . � • � t y L Y \ \�' ?, i •� \V - '6t T� sJca aP>L /vc '�i-e9. `' �.\/,'.l ,'��FQ' 1 \' �7k�1. * _ _ Sj••�' s li _\:_ Cbb A"-�-efi"�14E 9 • C -J 9' 1 t :�fY ? 1. �... \ -. �� B- 1 ,./ r-' --1 �-�. s ? 1 av1�� •f � \ J.7� ,�'fri1�•/� � 'tet,- )t� %`� � � ..�J �-, �c% `..� - ��.$�•y`G� �J'G4Et\1 , �: '��L \(� \;qaJ xi-� �'�+r,ry �z'. f 1' / ,s-J° \ 1."�/L' �. �'4�� 4 �y✓-�r ( 'y-1 � � �'� 4' � ` �\f}��.r"."lue r�:' o' � � � e� \ '� y � r� \ ". >. �'�-._lit\ �9 i f /[�(.,Jr f.J' 1��. - ,�f j / / `� •t� �� , \ h\ t G \ i- \-- �- zP:/ `v^\<. �'\. 'o\•,I .1 �� 'r 9e . ':-tom...: e-/.:•}ko tom''\: �.��i \'a. 'j��® 1 r�-�- >,- O� C•n Rt,l Staff's recommendation r OOP: F' - � ;:1-��?s i ,f S• �. F r�1 I Y �c fc/c -:y� ` �: i ��, � a �.,lr`�� j0� ` t s >: D s,` :�f�/� Ya _ _r �� .��j \•1.i_�-�- f.\ �C�.�--. . :9i'/� �\ t\�2'.f ��> �i �\` { �s * o' t, / / 4z "� ` \ � �� F„�: �\ -,� .S � ,� .� •__ _moi �. �� sse ��. .-��J.\ .'% / �'� 1-1r �✓i yt-.erLu "`�L- < ;rR:�+,.,,�y� �rK . \.•:�e"� .��' r f A�, JJ�' � ri 1 f, � ,` � Ls j�-��`��a i !\��/\ �♦ Via,, tfi;0134 ��'• � \ _ �: 1. isem—'T � :-�\(�'o�"tel- I °� J''. \ '«-!� ' �. as � � �p \�. :\ �•i i, �'�'�i \n \'" � I � ^' �\ Y •!''\t�"�/ -.��\.,�'�\ �g'r y�� l�;, \i �x?:.;-�.\ 3 ��s.• s j -- -,L �:)-" >.��``r• �, � /I�r>-`--� w� 4 /;1 � 1�,`-1�� g � ! > — � '. / aQ 's' �• :a�oty� l/ o � ��/ \��, t 3 /�" %ri be �� `` ✓: J 71 �z �1:..--.--t -•r ,,t ?^YYYY/ ,ff�.\� T Sphere- � - -- -�- --��/--- ,. �/ `G�i-sYr:_(,_� ,;--.. p of Influence \ f Alternative East of _�_- ✓/� `�' ,, Q Salinas River r-- CITY OF ATASCADERO r 1,9s q � ` xS7a Planning Department February 6, 1984 \ f1 CAD �// ! STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE APPLICANT: City of Atascadero REQUEST: To consider the recommendation to the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for a sphere of influence for the City of Atascadero. BACKGROUND At its December 19, 1983 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the attached Staff Report reviewing a possible sphere of services and sphere of influence. The Commission asked the Staff to review two specific concerns: 1) Adding areas to the east of the Salinas River to the Sphere of Influence. 2) Eliminating areas to the west of the present City limits along Highway 41 from the sphere of influences. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff has examined both of the concerns relative to the existing and potential level of services, land uses, and logical boundaries. Both areas were considered in Staff' s previous recommendation. The east side of the Salinas River was not included because the river represen- ted a logical physical boundary. The area to the west of the communi- ty along Highway 41 was included within the sphere based on :historical and social ties to the City. The area to the east of the Salinas River is presently designated un- der the County' s LUE/LUO for agriculture (320 to 20 acres and residen- tial rural (5 to 50 acres) . - Existing uses in the area are predominan- tly large lot residential and agricultural. The area also includes several small Williamson Act agricultural preserves. Land use pat- terns in the area shows a majority of the large lots are developed with single family homes and agricultural farms. Density in the area as designated by the County when built-out would seem to be substan- tially lower than the City' s lowest density. It does not seem reason- able to expect a urbanized scale of development or City-type servicess in the foreseeable future. i • Sphere of Influence At the present time, services provided by the City to this are emer- gency in nature. The Fire Department provides automatic fire response to the area during the dry season. The remaining time the City is under a mutual aid commitment to the Department of Forestry to assist when requested. Police services are limited to mutual aid calls from the County Sheriff' s office and are on a case-by-case basis, without any territorial limit. The Atascadero Mutual Water Company provides no services to this area and has no plans to provide such service. The areas to the west of the City limits along Highway 41, as previ- ously noted, where included in the Sphere of Influence in the previous Staff recommendation due to the area' s historical, circulation, and service ties to the City. Presently the areas are under Williamson Act agricultural preserves. The preserves are due to expire within the next 13 years if they are not extended. This would tie up the potential development so that development would not occur within the time period envisioned as being within the sphere of services, but it would be within the 20 year period used for a sphere of influence. LAFCO policies do show a preference to have agricultural preserves outside of the City' s spheres, but it should be noted there are three agricultural preserves within the City limits. A discussion of the services required by these areas, if and when dev- eloped, would be the same as now occurs for surrounding parcels within the City. At the present time, police and fire operate on a mutual aid basis while the Water Company can now serve the area. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS 4. Areas adjacent to the City' s west and southern limits contains several large Williamson Act agricultural preserves that terminate within the next 13 years. These areas are, however, an integral part of Atascadero with important historical, cultural, circula- tion and service ties to the community. 5. The area to the east of the Salinas River is presently developed with large acreage lots with agricultural and residential uses and contains several Williamson Act agricultural preserves. RECOMMENDATION Based on the previous staff report and findings, the Planning Depart- ment would still recommend approval of the Sphere of Influence and Sphere of Services as shown on Exhibit A of the original Staff report. 2 Sphere of Influence ACTION The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff as deemed appropriate. REPORT PREPARED BY: JO MOSES Associate Planner REPORT APPROVED BY: LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director Ps 3 CITY OF ATASCADERO o � isi F� r � ivaR.a*ro p ' 197a Planning Department December 19, 19.83 STAFF REPORT j SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE APPLICANT: City of Atascadero REQUEST: To consider the recommendation to the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for a sphere of influence for the City of Atascadero. BACKGROUND The City of Atascadero has received a request from the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for information as background for establishing a sphere of influence for the City of Atascadero. As a part of the information requested, LAFCO requested that a proposed sphere of influence be included. The Planning Depart- ment has been collecting the information requested and has prepared a draft proposal for a sphere of influence. Before submitting the in- formation, the draft proposal is being submitted to the Planning Com- mission and City Council for review. The City of Atascadero, like all other cities in the State, are re- quired to have a Sphere of Influence as provided by the Municipal Or- ganization Act of 1977 (California Government Code Section 54774) . The Sphere of Influence is officially adopted by LAFCO and all annexa- tions to the City are then reviewed as to their conformance with that Sphere of Influence. During the past year, a court decision requiring that a city have a sphere of influence prior to the annexation of land caused a change to be made in MORGA. LAFCO is now proceeding with the establishment of spheres of influences for the cities and special dis- tricts within the county. STAFF ANALYSIS The establishment of MORGA by the State and requirements for having spheres of influence is aimed at avoiding "leap-frog" development and at encouraging the development of logical jurisdictional boundaries. The sphere of influence is meant to be a guide and planning tool for local communities to help better plan for public improvements and pub- lic services. In developing a sphere of influence, MORGA provides that the following factors should be considered in the establishment of a local jurisdiction' s sphere of influence: Re: Sphere of Infl&ce Study a. The maximum possible service area of the agency based upon present and possible service capabilities of the agency. b. The range of services the agency is providing or could provide. C. The projected future population growth of the area. d. The type of development occurring or planned for the area, including, but not limited to, residential, commercial, and industrial development. e. The present and probable future service needs of the area. f. Local governmental agencies presently providing services to such area and the present level, range and adequacy of ser- vices provided by such existing local governmental agencies. g. The existence of social and economic interdependence and in- teraction between the area within the boundaries of a local governmental agency and the area which surrounds it and which could be considered within the agency' s sphere of influence. h. The existence of agricultural preserves in the area which could be considered within an agency' s sphere of influence and the effect on maintaining the physical and economic in- tegrity of such preserves in the event that such preserves are within a sphere of influence of a local governmental agency. Along with the State' s list of items to be considered, the San Luis Obispo LAFCO has developed an additional list of ten criteria for spheres of influence within San Luis Obispo County. These criteria are centered around an ability to provide necessary urban services, the city' s ability to cope with the urbanization of the area within the possible sphere, the effect on the county governmental structure and other adjacent districts and communities; effects on existing agricultural preserves and open land; the prevention of the creation of islands or corridors within the ultimate city boundaries; the need for services; alternatives to providing services; population charac- teristics and locations; location of publically owned property; and the communities' policies and plans, in relation to adjoining land. A copy of LAFCO' s general polic:les and criteria have been attached for your convenience. In establishing a sphere of influence, a community will set it' s own limits for its potential incorporated boundaries. In viewing the po- tential limit, several other limits or areas are established in a the- oretical concentric circles resulting in several sets of rings around the City. Attached is a theoretical map showing: 1) the existing city limits; 2) the sphere of influence; and 3) the general planning area. Each of these areas have their own criteria and meaning. The existing city limits are pretty much self-explanatory. It is the area where the City provides services and holds legal jurisdiction. 2 Re: Sphere of Influfte Study The Sphere of Influence area is the next ring out and would cover all areas that would ultimately be considered as part of the incorporated city, using an ultimate twenty year planning period. The last ring is the General Planning Area and includes those areas that surround a community and that will impact it. This area is covered by a commu- nity' s general plan which expresses the community' s desires for the different types of development that will surround it. In addition, LAFCO also provides for a Sphere of Services, which is inside the Urban Services Boundary and is an area where city services _ may now be provided or planned to be provided for within the next ten years. This area would be considered for annexation within a ten year period. In recommending the sphere of services and the sphere of influence, Atascadero is somewhat in a unique situation in that the City and sur- rounding area was preplanned and subdivided making historical, popula- tion, and land use similarities easy to identify. Services and ulti- mate service areas are also easy to identify in that urban type ser- vices like water are pretty much set by previous commitments to pro- vide water through the Mutual Water Company and by mutual aid areas for police and fire. Additionally, the City presently has some easily identifiable topographic features that perceptually identify the City' s ultimate and present limits. Those features include the Sal- inas River, Paso Robles Creek and the coast range summit (Frog Pond Mountain) . The City' s General Plan makes reference to Urban Reserve Lines estab- lished in 1968 and 1977. A copy of the map showing these lines has been used as the base map for Staff' s recommendation. The General Plan also contains Sectin VII, entitled "Public and Quasi..-Public Ser- vices" . A copy has been attached. The Element reviews existing con- ditions in 1980 and has no real policies for expansion of existing services provided by the City. In general, the Urban Services Line (Sphere of Services) should close- ly approximate the existing City boundary line with certain minor additions, including: - the sewer plant, golf course/regional park and State Hospital area which is bounded on three sides by the City and on the fourth side by the Salinas River - properties on both sides of Highway 101 near the Santa Cruz interchange generally to Paso Robles Creek since these proper- ties are on the fringe of developed property and rely on Atas- cadero roads as their sole means of access In general, the Urban Reserve Line (Sphere of Influence) should be the same as that shown in 1977 which includes all of Atascadero Colony. In addition, consideration might be given to extending the Urban Ser- vices Line slightly beyond the City boundary in the Santa Barbara Road area and the Frog Pond Mountain area (Summit Hills project) which are served by the Mutual Water Company. It may also be desirable to ex- 3 Re: Sphere of Infl*ce Study 9 clude agricultural preserves from the Sphere of Influence. FINDINGS 1. The City has logical physical boundaries along its eastern and northern limits in the form of the Salinas River and Paso Robles Creek. These physical boundaries form access breaks and barriers to the extension of urban type services. 2. The preplanned nature of Atascadero is unique in that the Atas- cadero Colony was fully subdivided in the early 1900 ' s, and thus has set a historical pattern for circulation, social and land use relationships. 3. Most development type services provided by the " typical city are not provided by the City of Atascadero. The Atascadero Mutual Water Company provides water to lots within the City and within the Atascadero Colony. Other services such as sewer services are are not planned to cover the entire City. a RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above Findings, the Planning Department would recommend approval of the Sphere of Influence and Sphere of Services as shown on the attached Exhibit A. It would also be recommended that the City initiate General Plan Amendments to cover potential services and land use designations for those areas within the Sphere of Influence not now designated on the General Plan. ACTION The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff as deemed appropriate. REPORT PREPARED BY: �� A----.�OEL- SES ssociate Planner Awvl- REPORT APPROVED BY: LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director 4 W aww 422 Q 0 zJJ \ / N 7 W W Lu m 11 Ir / \ - - zLL \ m ❑ W W W Uww QQ 7 a W M22 / \ a Lu QQ Nm¢1 � / \ !�'• � ATI ' _,. �-� _ /' N Q Q Q 277 / U di: G f m m r .. in w a [,-A dVfW 73 1 2 6n ILL- \ ; � ;i its��'�� ' � ��,�y,� '� •• '. ,�, � / ,. ••i` �l, ^ f-.tri "'7 Lf .^ �. .\ /�. The Naiture, Content, and Structure of the General Plan 15 The Plauung Area Theoretical Relationship Between a Cityls Planning Area and Sphere-of-Influence ......: r:{....} r v. .r:{•: tib:$:•::}:;:$:� •+:} t v •�::r;•.. x. •v. C1Y t s : Hca::. «•.u}L r: a City's Planning } Current City "Sphere of Area Jurisdiction Influence" -:' adopted by.:$.. }r:::.:::::::• :� { '• h 4. ..L.. • 'r"4':v r•r r:.+ +:.Q;f• .}.. �`��.•}'''rot'+•..`:};;}'f}ti$:::$x .t l �v}J'•1:,lrM1+r?r oM1 a.•'�'::L•:LL'{; t K , n• 1. incorporated Territory: land use controlled by the city. 2. Unincorporated Territory: to be ultimately annexed and served by the city. Land use controlled by county in formal consultation or by joint action with the city. 3. Unincorporated Territory: not to be annexed and served by the city, but bearing some relation to the city's planning. Land use controlled by county in consultation with the city. The issue ofI.Aanning areas underscores the need for intergovern- mental cooperation. Local governments face a major problem in coordinating city and county actions in unincorporated, fringe areas. While state law offers no clear guidance, cities and counties ought to work together in clearly delineating planning areas and developing formal agreements for processing development proposals within the cities' planning areas. I AUTHORITY 4 Under the Knox-Nisbet Act (Government Code, Section 54774) are the following statements: 1 . "Among the purposes of a local agency formation commission are the discouragement of urban sprawl and the encouragement of the orderly formation and development of local governmental agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances. One of the objects of the local agency formation commission is to make studies and to obtain and furnish information which will contribute to the logical and reasonable development of local governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of each county and its communities." . . . 2. "In order to carry out its purposes and responsibilities for plan- ning and shaping the logical and orderly development and coordi- nation of local governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the county and its communities, the local agency formation commission shall develop and determine the sphere of influence of each local governmental agency within the county.. As used in this section "sphere of influence" means a plan for the probable ultimate physical bound- aries and service area of a local governmental agency. Among the factors considered in determining the sphere of influence of each local governmental agency, the commission shall consider: a. The maximum possible service area of the agency based upon present and possible service capabilities of the agency. b. The" range of services the agency is providing or could provide. C. The projected future population growth of the area. d. The type of development occurring or planned for the area, including, but not limited to, residential , commercial, and industrial development. e. The present and probable future service needs of the area. f. Local governmental agencies presently providing services to such area and the present level , range and adequacy of services provided by such existing local governmental agencies. g. The existence of social and economic interdependence and. interaction between the area within the boundaries of a local governmental agency and the area which surrounds it and which could be considered within the agency's sphere of influence. i PP DIX A EN A SAN LUIS OBISPO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION SPHERE OF INFLUENCE GENERAL POLICIES AND CRITERIA s F i 10. Urbanization: The individual or cumulative development causing a rural , less populated area, to change into a more densely populated urban area: (See Urbanized Areas) . '• n: 11 . Urbanized Areas: a. Incorporated areas of 2,500 inhabitants or more as enumerated in the most recent census. b. An unincorporated area of 400 or more inhabitants, or a chain of unincorporated areas in a closely settled area, which are adjacent to an incorporated place of at least 4,000 inhabitants shall be considered urban. C. Unincorporated enclaves within an area defined as urban shall also be classified as urban. 12.. Urban Services: Those services which are provided to an urban area including, but not limited to police, fire, water, sewer, drainage, street lighting, park, solid waste, streets (improvement, maintenance, trees) , ambulance. 13. Urban Service Line: A line that delineates the area presently receiving urban services and/or areas proposed to be provided with urban services within a 10 year period as indicated in a local agency's adopted Capital Improvement Program and reflected in the Land Use Element of the County General Plan. III GENERAL k 1 . It is the intent of LAFCo to support the viability of local govern- mental agencies providing essential services. Local agencies should be so constituted and organized as to best provide for: a. the economic and social needs of the county and its communities, b. efficient governmental services for orderly land use development, C. controls required to conserve environmental resources. The public interest will be served by considering "resources" in a broad sense to include ecological factors, such as open space, wild life and agricultural productivity, in addition to the commonly accepted elements of land, water and air. 2. LAFCo intends for its sphere of influence plans to serve as a master plan for. the future organization of local government within this county. a i h. The 0-stence of agricultural presere in the area which t could be considered within an agency's sphere of influence and ` the effect on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of such preserves in the event that such preserves are within #' a sphere of influence of a local governmental agency. 3. "The Commission shall periodically review and update the spheres of t influence developed and determined by them." 4. "The spheres of influence, after adoption, shall be used by the commission as a factor in making regular decisions on proposals over which it has jurisdiction. The commission may recommend governmental reorganizations to particular agencies in the county, using the spheres of influence as the basis for such recommendations. . .. II DEFINITIONS t 1 . Agricultural Preserve: Means an area devoted to either agricultural use, recreational use as defined in subdivision (n) , or open space use as defined in subdivision (o) , or any combination of such uses, and compatible uses a•s designated by a city or county, and estab- lished by resolution of the governing body of a city or county after a public hearing. (Govt. Code Section 51201 . (d)) 2. County: San Luis Obispo County. 3. Essential Services: Those basic services necessary to protect the health, safety, and general well-being of a community, including but not limited to police, fire, water, sanitation, etc. (could include irrigation) . 4. Local Government: A City or County government. 5. Local Agency: A City or a special district. 6. LAFCo : San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission. 7. Regional Agencies: Central Coast Regional Coastal Commission, etc. 8. Sphere of Influence: A plan for the ultimate physical boundaries and service area of a local agency. 9. Sphere of Service: The area around a community, city or special district within which short term growth (10 year period) will be allowed and within which urban services are planned to be provided as indicated by an agency's Capital Improvement Program. k .. 1+- 3.: ':TlY Q�'�2sYYYlO{C�3s ._.._ A. •._,d.�wa"fkrai2S_�„� Jz-• . ti9.p.. .` `. '.r c. .. 3. It is an intention of LAFCO to- use spheres of influence as' a tool to discourage urban sprawl as well as to encourage orderly changes of organization of local governmental agencies, including annexa- tions, consolidations, formations and reorganizations. LAFCo recognizes the inter-relationship of spheres of influence, annexa- tions and other changes of organization, market values for land, and pressures for the premature development of undeveloped land. For example, annexation to a local agency of territory outside that agency's sphere of influence will inevitably increase property values and assessments of similarly-situated territory, thus artificially creating pressures for premature development. 4. The Spheres of Influence adopted by LAFCo will delineate the ultimate limits of a local agency as reflected in the general plans of the various cities and the County by the Urban Reserve Line. 5. LAFCo recognizes the limited usefulness of long-term projections. The accuracy of projections decreases with an increasing number of years from the date of the projection. Consequently, a line which represents the short-term growth area of an agency for a 10 year period and beyond which urban services will not be extended will be designated as the Sphere Service Line (reflected as the Urban Service Line in The Land Use Element of the County General Plan) . 6. Once established, the Sphere of Influence and the Sphere of Service lines shall be a the of policy which shall be a primary guide to LAFCo- in the decision on any proposal under its jurisdiction. Any such sphere of service may be amended from time to time and its t application in any particular case shall depend upon its applica- bility under the precise facts of that particular case. If LAFCo approves a change of organization inconsistent with the adopted sphere of service of a local agency, LAFCO shall amend the sphere of service of that local agency at the time of approval . 'I 7. LAFCo discourages the proliferation of local governmental agencies and the existence of overlappingl` public service responsibilities. The formation of new special districts within existing city or f special district spheres of influence is to be discouraged, as well I, as formation of single-purpose special districts. 8. It is the intent of LAFCo to encourage the local structure of localI government through the elimination or consolidation of small , single-purpose districts. Wherever the full range of urban services is required, general-purpose governments are preferred to s ` districts for the provision of services. special 9. LAFCo recognizes that some political boundaries may be artificial , if dividing what may, in fact, be a single community or communities. Existing local governmental agencies are encouraged to investigate the feasibility of political and functional consolidation (in implementation of LAFCo spheres of influence determinations) . �i 10. An existing local agency may be allocated a zero sphere of influence which encompasses no territory. Such may be the case where LAFCo determines after due consideration of all factors that the public service responsibilities and functions of one local agency should be re-allocated to some other unit of government and that, ultimately, the'local agency which has been assigned a "zero sphere of influence" should cease to exist. 11 . LAFCo recognizes that there may be significant inter-dependency among service decisions and other aspects of policy determination. In urban areas requiring the full range of urban services, services should be provided and decisions made by a single, general purpose government rather than by overlapping local agencies. 12. Community identity will be recognized and LAFCo will encourage political and functional consolidation of local governmental agencies to preserve it. In this process, community needs for governmental services will be considered and individual districts serving the area will be evaluated as they relate to a total and reasonable local government for the community. 13. Any areas in the county not included within a city sphere of influence should not be subject to urbanization until such time as a complete study can be made by the appropriate planning and admin- istrative departments of the county, adjacent cities and LAFCo. 14. Areas within the county not considered eligible for urban services shall not be assigned to the Sphere of Influence of a local agency. These include lands designated for agriculture, rural lands , rural residential and recreation where urban services are not to be provided. 15. The San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission shall adopt, amend, or revise spheres of influence or spheres of service after a public hearing called and held for that purpose. At least 15 days prior to the date of any such hearing the Executive Officer shall give mailed notice of hearing to each affected local agency and the County, and to any interested party who has filed a written request for such notice with the Executive Officer. In addition, at least 15 days prior to the date of any such hearing, the Executive Officer shall cause notice of the hearing to be published in a newspaper of general circulation which is circulated within the territory affected by the sphere of influence or sphere of service proposed to be adopted. LAFCo may continue from time to time the hearing on any sphere of influence or sphere of service. At any such hearing, LAFCo shall F hear and consider oral or written testimony presented by any affected local agency, the County, or any interested person who f wishes to appear. k IV CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF CITY SPHERES OF INFLUENCE AND SERVICE 1 . Among the factors to be considered by LAFCo in determining spheres- of influence are those more fully enumerated in Section 54774 of the Knox-Nisbet Act. (See page 1 , section 2, subsections a through h.) 2. Before assignment of an unincorporated urbanized area to a city is made, the city should be able to demonstrate that it has the financial capabilities to adequately provide the necessary urban services (i .e. , police, fire, water, sanitary, recreation, and storm drainage, etc.) ; or that the required services are already being provided by private companies or larger multi-purpose special districts. 3. LAFCo will consider which city will logically or most likely inherit and can best cope with the problems resulting from urbani- zation. Along with those problems LAFCo may consider the following factors: a. The source of automobile, bus and truck traffic causing con- gestion and plans for compatible circulation. b. Impacts of residential , commercial , and industrial noise and artificial lighting. C. Methods available for the preservation and development. of a stable economic, social and ethnic balance. d. Policies and practices of the local agency which can provide for the preservation and development of a balance between residential , commercial , industrial , agricultural and open space land uses. e• Topographic factors. 4. Consideration will be given to the effect of growth of the cit and the extension of urban services on count y str as well as on adjacent single and multi-purposeodistrictsl anducture adjacent cities. 5. Consideration will be given to the existence of agricultural pre- serves and open space lands in the area and the effect of growth of the city and the extension of urban services on or adjacent to existing open space lands, agricultural lands and agricultural the physical and economic impacts on such lands and the possibility preserves. Such consideration shall include but not be limited to of maintaining viability and economic integrity of lands in an agricultural preserve. t f S 6. Ultimate city boundaries shall not create islands or corridors_ unless these areas are designated or reserved for open space or regional facilities which would be best left unincorporated. i 7. An analysis will be made of the need for established community, ` city and special district services; the present cost and adequacy j of governmental services; probable future needs for such services; probable effect of the immediate and long range development within the proposed sphere of influence. 8._ . Consideration will be given to alternate courses of action for providing urban governmental services, and to their fiscal and economic consequences. 9. Consideration will be given to population, population density and proximity to other populated areas; land use and land area; per {` capita assessed valuation; and per capita income. E 10. Publicly owned properties, other than city facilities, which ! require urban services such as police and fire protection (conven- tioncenters, airports, race tracks, regional parks) will be wt analyzed on an individual basis before they are included or excluded �s from the corporate limits of a city. If the facility is to be included, consideration will be given to alternatives by which the public agency owning the property can pay the subject city an equitable sum in lieu of taxes to offset the cost of the urban services. 11 . The intent of each city's prezoning policies and plans will be reviewed in relation to the areas designated for non-urban land uses by a regional agency or the County General Plana LAFCo will call attention to inconsistencies among city, county, and regional general plans and endeavor to achieve a reconciliation of these differences. VI , • URBAN SERVICE AREAS ] I�I 1 . , orp ,An "Urban Service Area means existing developedundeveloped,i agricultural land, either incorporated or unincorporated, within a city's sphere of influence, which is currently served by existing urban facilities, utilities, and services or are proposed to be SII served by urban facilities, utilities, and services in the first five years of a City's adopted Capital Improvement Program. 2. The boundary around such an "Urban Service Area" shall be called an "Urban Service Area Boundary" and may be adopted by mutual agree- ment of LAFCo and a City in accordance with Sections 54774 and 54774.5 at the time the Commission considers assignment of a sphere of influence for that City. jC 3. The Commission shall consider the adoption of an "Urban Service ! Area Boundary" after a public hearing called and held for that purpose. At least 15 days prior to the date of such hearing, the Executive Officer shall give mailed notice of hearing to each affected local agency and the County, and to any interested party who has filed a written request for such notice with the Executive !' Officer. In addition, at least 15 days prior to the date of such hearing, the Executive Officer shall cause notice of hearing to be , published in a newspaper of general circulation which is circulated 1 within the territory affected by the "Urban Service Area Boundary" proposed to be adopted. I ( 4. LAFCo shall not consider any area for inclusion within an "Urban Service Area Boundary" that is not addressed in the General Plan of y' the affected City, or is not proposed to be served by urban facil- ities, utilities, and services within the first five years of the affected City's Capital Improvement Program as adopted by the County of San Luis Obispo, 5. This addition to the Commission's "General Policies and Criteria for the Development of Spheres of Influence" shall remain in effect until January 1 , 1988. I V SPHERES OF SERVICE 1 . Spheres of Influence adopted by LAFCo delineate the ultimate physical boundaries of each governmental agency as reflected in the general plans of the various Cities and the County. In order to preclude occurrence of urban sprawl within a sphere of influence, urban growth should be compact, thereby enhancing efficiency and economy in provision of services and preserving future land use options. Within each sphere of influence, a Sphere of Service (Urban Service Line) shall be designated by LAFCo. Spheres of Service will consist of territory now served by urban facilities, utilities and service agencies -- or capable of receiving such services within the next ten years, and include: a. Urbanized Areas -- these are all existing areas, either incorporated or unincorporated, developed to urban densities. b. Urban Expansion Areas -- these consist of vacant land, incorpo- rated or unincorporated, which is capable of holding urban growth expected within the next ten years. Territory included within Spheres of Service will be considered by LAFCo as eligible to be annexed for receipt of urban services within ten years. Consideration will beiven to 9 the ability and inclination of cities and special districts to provide needed services and to do so in relation to timed schedules for planned expansion of services. Consideration will be given to evidence of the resource capability of a city or special district to provide service beyond that required for its own internal needs, prior to service within an urban expansion area. Cities and special districts are encouraged to develop Capital Improvement Programs and other plans for the phased extension of services to assist LAFCo in determining logical spheres of service. 2. Transition Areas -- Transition areas consist of the residual lands between the designated Spheres of Service and the ultimate Sphere of Influence boundary. It is anticipated that these lands will be utilized for urban expansion within approximately ten to twenty years. LAFCo disfavors and seeks to discourage g pressures for the premature, sprawling development of land within transition areas. Therefore, territory included within transition areas, but not within Spheres of Service, generally will not be considered eligible for annexation to receive urban services within ten years. 1 1 y4�s /lig � �� • 1 MMInMANOW Owe A y Mw AN FOWsio/im"01,11 ME ax Al FOR—, Owr WAR sill M .1 ME SOM IN Lvv .y .— i .0"filli%%1i��'' MEETING AGENDA DAIS%9 �-e,4 ITEM M M E M O RANDU • March 19, 1984, ,3 2.4 L TO• CITY COUNCIL FROM: RECREATION DIRECTOR SUBJECT; AMENDMENT TO SOUTH ATASCADERO PARK 'MASTER PLAN Dear City Council Members, At the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting dated February 9, 1984, a presentation by the Atascadero Little League organization was reviewed by the Advisory Board. The Little League proposed that the open space area on the North side of the creek be developed as a Little League field to be used by the youth of Atascadero. The Little League organization has indicated that they understand any development or improvements concerning a Little League field will be made by their own organization, at; no cost to the City of Atascadero. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, after forming; a committee and reviewing the project with City Staff, has recommended the approval •. of the addition of a Little League field at the new park site. I concur with the Advisory Board's recommendation. Currently, the City does not have a legitimate Little League facility, but has over 400 children participating in the program. I am sure that the Little League organization will develop the proposed field as they have in- dicated. The Little League is also aware that the field would not be for their exclusive use, but be availabe `to the rest of the community as scheduling allows. Therefore, I ,recommend that you approve the Park and Recreation Advisory Board' s recommendation to allow the Little League to develop a Little League field at the above mentioned location in the new South Atascadero Park. Skip Joannes Recreation Director • i., 4� { I EL 4 roposed Little League Field - r .I ol iy { Facilities already approved in the Master Plan include: • Two softball- fields- with lights, two soccer fields , a' concessionstand, irrigation system, fence, backstops, landscaping and parking area. ....,.................. ... ...... CITY ATTORNEY POST OFFICE FOX IA POST OFFICE a=749 ATASPHONE:,CALIFORNIA 93423 ' ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93423 PHONE: (!OS(166-1000 PHONE: (WS)466-6678 CITY COUNCIL ..s. CITY CLERK CITY TREASURER POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY MANAGERPOST OFFICE&M 747 INCORPORATED JULY*. IlTY ATASTADNRO.CALIFORNIA 93423 FINANCE DEPARTMENT 00 PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT _ -r.. •. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT RECREATION DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE 1 ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93422 i r i February 17, 1984 To: Mayor Marge Mackey and members of the Atascadero City Council. The Atascadero Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Members and the South Atascadero Park Development Committee, recommend approval, in concept, of a Little League ball field being included in Phase 2, adjacent to Paloma Creek. The local Little League organization has proposed to utilize their own resources, both materials and labor, to construct the field. We feel this will fulfill a need for youth baseball facilities not presently provided, as well as maintain the integrity of passive recreation proposed for .that-area. We would like to see that the city review all plans relative to construction of the field. We thank you in advance for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Mark B. Jense , Chairman Atascadero Parks and Recreation Advisory Board ayCou, Chairman. Sout Atascadero Park Development Committee MBJ:re R E C V E MEE3IN;37 AGENDA �ATE r �' ITEM•A MAR W4 M E M O R A N-D UtTY MGR. • TO: CITY MANAGER � March 19, 1984 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR G SUBJECT Transfer of Funds from Congengency Reserve for Contract Services (Plan Checking), and Overtime " A substantial increase inpermitactivity in the Building Division (see attachments) has created a higherdemandfor plan checking and inspection services. Initially, comp time and overtime were used to offset this `demand. However, unacceptable increases in processing time indicated that it was nec- essary to use contract plan checking to a much larger degree than was planned when the budget was adopted. As a result, accounts have been overspent. It is my recommendation that $5000 in funds be transferred from contingency' reserve as follows: $ 750 to 01-20-1040 (overtime) $4250 to 01-20-2240-0014 (contract services-plan checking) LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director LS:ps • _.� le I •3 we w...s �s�'c- w Z N■■moH■■■■■■H■■mNH■■■■■■■■■■■r1■■N C■■■N■■q■■N■■■■ n■q■■■! N■ggHNH■■■N■■■■■■■■■■■N■■■■■■■■■■■NH■■■H■■■■ ../■q■■ ■■N■■■N■NEn■■mmN■■m■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■N■■u■ ■E■■N■ " ■■■■H■NN■E■■KNm■■■■■■■■■■■■■s■■■N■■■■■■■■■NNN■ mono■■■■■■■ ■qm■nm■■■mmnm■■■■■■■■■■■■■moH■H■m■omNN■oE■HHN■ mmmmo■nmm ME■u■■■■■■■■■N■■■q■o momm��om MM ■.N■N■m■sm■N■■um N■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ _ ■ �, �■ ■ ■■■■■N■■■q■■N■ nqum■■ggn■t:::: .err � � a.e� - � ® - �■■■■i■■■q■■u ME NONE= ME ■o■ENK■mHEE■mmN:�■�ii ■■iii■ m■E■NN of■ EMISSIONS ■NmmNN NEN A'°■ NH■■H■KNEE■ ■■■■■ mo■■N■■nm■N■■■ q■ou■■m■nmo■mononm■mr MENMEN ■ N■HN■■■■■o■q■■mmmm■■■■H■■■■■■HN■■HgH■ � ■Non■ ■SH■EHE■■o■■■■■■■HHm■■■■■■N■H■■m■N■■■N qN r.n■N■■H■H■HH■■■■H■E■K■m■■■■■m■q■■m■■H■ g m■■■qq■gE■H■■■■m■■■■■■■■■■gm■■■■■mHN ■ ■ ■N m■EH■mN■■■■KNmmNH■NNE■N■N■ ''C■NNm ■ m■■H■ ■■■■E■H■■E■■■uH■■■EN■■■ fi ■u■■■N ■■■m■q „ ■m■■■=H■■m■■■mNE■N■E■muHENE , . Emu■ ■nmq �mm■NNm■■■eHN■H■■■■mNENEgm■ HEmH ■■■■■■ ■■mH■■■■q■■■■■K■N■■■N■■m■■m■■■■■■ Hu■■u En N■■■E■NHmmmN■■■N■■■■■■■■N■■E Nm■mm■■■■■■ ■n■■nN■■■■■N■■■■n■■■■n■q■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ } } N■■■qN ■■■■■■H■qmH■■■■■■K■■mN■■N■■N■■H■■m■■E■N■ ■■■■■■■H SOME �'N■■■mqm■mooN■NH■HN■gmmNN■H ■m■H■o N■MM EHNNN■■NNE _ ; ■Nommo■■mmomm■m ■m■ ■■■N MEN nN■■■■■N■■■■ � n ■nn■■■■■■■! ■■ ENm m■■■■■■N■■■EN EENH■E■E■■■■ ■NN■■ NoEm■ ' ■■omm■■■■ooNH E■E■EE ■■NHg � ''t; ■ NN "NEH ■ ■■■■N■■■■■■■■ }v aMOMMEMME �■mN■HN ■mnm■HH■■ ■■■■■m Alk � ., N■u■ "ME N■N■■■N■■■H■■ K`� m■um■ � � ■■ ■nH■E MORE moH=Mmmmm�•■ c.. ■MERE■ 0■1 "' ■N NE ■■■a NHH■N■m■ SIEMENS ■■ ` h ® �■N ■ wONE m■■N q■■■ -IR fi NNEn ,; MMEMMEM MEN EN ■■ f E■■■■■■ MEMEN MISSION ME No NMI ommmm lima MEN Ems MENNONN ME MEMEMEMEMIN SEE IN ME ME ■■n■ ■■ � rpt= � �"#, N ' ■ :'■: ,�; MEN No MEMENME MEN ME ME MERMS No ■EouE■N■q u= ■�� ms's ■ !■ .OEM so NoMEMEMEME .r ` ` ■■■■■■■■ MEN mom NMI ® ■� ■ MEoN MINOR= ■■■ ::coq /■.. ;+ Nu■■■ KEEN ® ,- t,'T ■■ �::: r: H ONE No 8rz.: ... ■■. o■ MECuomo ME an No son NONUNION FIN MM— NO o'o lawa �u■ /u■r �■u ... ,, a■. ■s■ { ■NSA■ ; ■� q �, ■ m■■nN■gN � s / � :► r i MEN � i ■ --=--- -------- --�.�-------- - l ~AD 567 - ------ - - 1981 : w - 30, /980 293 ) � � � J — — 1 j— -- ------ _ 5 - - - JAw gg .. wwR APR, M4y . ._:J . _ JUL ik.G .... SEP oc1' ...n/°v pEG _ M o NT I o . � - ISSUANCE MOMct 3 \ MEN 0 SO I SOMEONE ■■■■uuu■S u■■■1-- � u■ ■■■■MUS■SESE■■ SSSS ii ► EE■■M■EEEE■E■ =�_s� � • � SSSS ■■■ ��a�►s� u � Eii■■i■■t■■E■MUNu■E ■ NISM o ....... E■■MUEEE■EE■MU■EEE■■E■■SIMM ■a■■SEE■E MINESE \ OO■■■■nn■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Mu ■■■�■ ■ESE■ ■■■■■S■u■■EE■■MUM■ � :}a.� � ■■E■■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■M■■O■■■■M■ :r/r SO ■E■■■E■■■E■■SSE■■■■■■SEE■■■■■■E■■■■■■E■ �`� ,. ■■MESE■E ■■MU■■■MUEEE■■MM■■■EE■■■■ MISS -T - - llife' 1!' 1� ��l�IHit�i�lr/s�t [wiitliitiitl�iiifiiassBf[iaserakit�►itese}iir�ri.IFiWitelr.eifi�99r \ E■■EEw■■■EE■E■■■■ESE E ■■u■■u■■u■SE■E■■■■ E■■ ■■ODMS■■■E■■■EE■u■ e �iu�EESIMENSIMENNI ■■EEE■EE■■■Ed■�i ia\ �, ■■■E■MUM■■■■E -�:�. � SMUSIS ` SE■■Mu - :.:.: MUSE ■E■■■■MU■■MUM■EE■uEWEESSIMEME ME MESS ■■EE . SEE ■ MUiMU■C■ ■ ■■■ CO.0 ■■NESIMENN■■E■E■ OEM ■■u■■■ No SESSIONMEN `t SESq■■■■■■■■■■■■u■■E■■■■MONMESEE■■S Y; .i■■■■SE�� ■v■■■uNOSESES■■■MISS SE■ES■ESESEu■■MES SE u■■EEu■■■■■■■■u■n■ESSE■u■ i■ SEEMS M IS � INS■iE■iiiMU■EEi--■■INS■ ®r ■ BEEN NONE ME p=N WRIBEEMMUM N■■■M=MMM■■■■ul■■■N�►►o\ ■N■n■■■■NU■■■■■N■ SURE t� \ ■■■■■■■■■■■=N■■■■■ woos ■puu■ ■ MNMMMM■M■MENUMi■MM /W E=NO■■N■nn■■n ■EN ENO ■■■■■NMN■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■n■uN■■■■■■■■■NN■■■■■■■■■■■■■u■■■N■N ��-� � � NNNu ■E■Em■■EMM■■EMMEMN■MM000N■ NM■■■W■W■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■N■NUN■w`aw`�.� MENMM■M■=■=■■■■■MMOEEM■=OE=MMM=MMM■RM _ EMMME ■iii ■■ ii■■n■■■■s■i■■n■iMn ■■ om ■■in En= ■■:Nn■N■nn■■NNn■ hY IMMEMMIN ■■�N ■�■■■N■■■■■■n■■N■■■■- -- aha N ■■ ► O■MNE■uMNMN■■=M■■■M NOON■ ► ■N■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■NOON■ ■ � NOON■■ ■MMNNw■■MMEME■■■■■■■■WE= ISMISIMEMOM NN \ NM■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ MEMO ■■■■■MMM■■ ■■■■■■ ■ NOON■■N■■■n■■nN � ■ ♦ NN ■■■NM ■■■■NON■■NN■■■NONE■ONE ►�►0�\\� ■ NNE ■■■=■N■■■■N■U■NN■■■■MINIM ■ =■■M M N■■E■MO■O■■■■■■■■■■■■ E■■1■ N■■E■■■■E■u■■■■■N■■ �" ""• f!lttuf. ■NON M■MM■MNE■■■nENNEME ■M■= ■■n■■NNN■■■■■■■ONO■■■■■ ■■■ ■■■■■w■■Nn■■■E■NMEMIS ■ ■M■ VENN ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■®■■■■■■■■ : - MEMO= MNM■N■■N■■Nw ■■ ■■EOM■ ■■■■■■■■■n=■■a■a■■U �� ■■■ ■ ONE `' NOO■■■■Nn■U■N■■ ■ENO■■N EEE■O■ O■NO■■OOOEN■EN EO■NNN ■U ■■■O■■■■■■■■■M ■■■N■■E■ ■■ ■ N ns ■N■uE■■■■ON■EO■■■MEMO= O■ ■M � .". `' ■■n■i■NiE■iiiMmi■i■■iEwiM�■■■NE �►e N■n■■■■NOON■UN■■N■O=■■■■■O■O■■M■==■M■■ MINE MNNMM=MMN■MMMM?MOEMEMMNeMM■■■■M■N■M■■■ME MINE NOON■ NEHMEN■■N■EMM■EENEMM■E■ ■■ ■OO■■■■■■NO■■N■ ■O ■■ - ■n ■Un■■�■ ■EE■NEMMMM■■ME■N■MEM■ MM EM M ■■■■NN■=M ■NEON ■E■■UU■■■■■■N■■■■■■■■� ■■ MEN OEM ■■NE■■■■■■MMMMM■■N■■MMM w � � � M■Mu■ONUN � NEN■NN■MON■MMONENn■ ■■■■■E NOMMiN■� on SUMMERS! i MiuN�MNui■i■iMNiiiiii■iiiiyaNn�U■N■■M=MUNNNNM i■■iipi■Mi■Nsu■ii■iiEwi■ ■i�i■■i■ii■iiiuM ■■ ■MM■■w■■M &%EEi=Nv AG DA I?ATEJL a26-JP4 ITEM#�Zz..:.�,_. • ORDINANCE NO. 77 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF` ATASCADERO AMENDING THE TEXT OF TITLE 9 (ZONING REGULATIONS) CONCERNING "INDOOR RECREATION" USES WHEREAS, discussion with representatives of other cities indicates that many allow indoor recreation uses such as gyms, racquetball facilities etc. within their industrial zones, and WHEREAS, many of the: uses that 'fall within the definition of "indoor recreation" can be small in scale with only minimum improvements.. As a result, they can be an interim use which would not preclude a more appropriate industrial use from eventually occurring. The discretion available through the con- ditional use permit would allow each application to be evaluated for compatibility; and WHEREAS, many larger industrial users provide indoor rec- reation facilities accessory to their principal use as part of employee fitness programs. This indicates that such uses are not dissimilar_; and • WHEREAS, "Indoor Recreation" type uses are compatible with the allowable uses now permitted in the CPK (Commercial Park) Zoning district in terms of intensity of uses, needs, and other requirements; and WHEREAS, "Indoor Recreation" type uses may be compatible with the allowable uses now permitted in the IP (Industrial Park) Zone if conditions are applied to the size, location,, and func- tioning of the uses. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment. The text of Title 9 (Zoning, Regulations) is hereby amended to modify regulations governing "Indoor Recreation" uses as follows. 1) Section 9-3.252 (allowable uses) of the CPK (Commercial Park) Zoning District is modified to add Subsection (dd) entitled "I`ndoor Rec- reation" . • Ordinance No. 77 2) _ Section 9-3.303 (conditional uses) of the IP • (Industrial -Park) Zoning District is modified to add Subsection (r) entitled "Indoor Recrea- tion". Section 2 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 and 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 Ordinance of this City. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall go in to effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. The foregoing ordinance ws introduced on March 26, 1984 and adopted at aregular meeting of the City Council held on AYES - NOES: • ABSENT: MARJORIE R. MACKEY, ;MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT ALLEN GRIMES, CITY ATTORNEY MURRAY/L. WARDEN, CITY MANAGER ATTEST: BARBARA NORRIS, CITY CLERK 2 • ITEM ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT • COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STATE OF CALIFORNIA ORDINANCE NO. 7$ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REPEALING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE' ATASCADERO, COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT ORDINANCE CODE The Board of Directors of the Atascadero County Sanitation District ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 3.3 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ond- - inance Code is amended to read as follows: ' "3.3 When a public sewer becomes available to a building served by a private sewage disposal system, said building shall be connected to the public sewer within twenty-four (24) months after said public sewer is available and said private disposal system shall be abandoned in • accordance with the 1982 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless a variance is granted by the Board of 'Directors." SECTION 2. That Section 3.6 of the Atascadero CountySanitation` District Ordinance Code is repealed. SECTION 3. That Section 4.4 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amended to read as follows: "4.4 The following fees shall be charged for sewer permits: (1) When the work to be performed involves the connection of a building sewer to the public sewer, the 'fee shall be five (5) dollars, (2) When any portion of the work to be performed is within the limits of a public right-of-way or public sewer easement, an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department of the City of • Atascadero." SECTION 4. That Sections 4.5, 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code are repealed. SECTION 5. That Section 4.6 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amended to read as follows: "4.6 Permit fees shall be credited to the District's general operating account." SECTION 6. That Section 4.8 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amended to read as follows: "4.8 A connection fee in the amount of Two ,Hundred and Fifty ($250.00) Dollars shall be charged for each connection to the public sewer except that. (1) No charge shall be made when the owner of the lot has already paid for lateral sewer installation by assessment or otherwise: (2) No charge will be made when a "T" fitting has already been installed • in the public sewer at the property owner's expense, and the lateral sewer is to be installed from said fitting. (3) Each parcel which was assessed during an improvement district assessment proceedings for a collection system, but on which the assessment was not paid because the parcel was deeded to the State- for non-payment of taxes, shall incur an additional connection fee equal to the particular assessment involved for that parcel. SECTION 7. Section 4..12 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amended to read as follows: "4.12 For sewer service to any lot within Assessment District No. 1 created by a lot split or ,subdivision of a parcel previously assessed, the connection charge for the added lots shall be Two Hundred Fifty' • ($250.00) Dollars for each lateral connection plus one of the following: a. Eight Hundred and Fifty ($850.00) Dollars for a single family lot; or b. Seven Hundred and Twenty Five ($725.00) Dollars per living unit for a multi-family lot; or c. Six Hundred and Sixty ($660.00) Dollars per mobile home unit for mobile home parks; or d. Twenty-Six Dollars and Thirty-Five Cents ($26.35) per plumbing fixture unit, as defined in the 1982 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, for commercial and industrial uses. SECTION 8. Section 5.2 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amended to read as follows: "5.2 The District may approve a refund agreement with persons who have paid for public sewer extensions. Said agreements shall provide for reimbursement of the excess cost borne by said persons, at such time within fifteen (15) years as money is paid to the District for service from said sewer extension. The District shall require the applicant to file and have approved by the City Engineer a reimbursement map showing the method and amount of cost spread to each future connection to the sewer extension. SECTION 9. Section 5.3 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amended to read as follows: "5.3 No sewer service shall be provided to any lot by lateral sewer connection to a sewer extension until the owner of said lot has paid a proportional share of the cost of said sewer extension, or has entered into an agreement with the District to pay said share of the costs. SECTION 10. Section 7.1 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amended to read as follows: "7.1 Every building in which plumbing fixtures are installed or located shall be separately and independently connected with public sewer or septic tank, except that the City Engineer may approve the connection of more than one building to a public sewer by a common building sewer. SECTION 11. Section 7.3 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance is repealed. SECTION 12. Section 7.10 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordnance Code is added as follows: "7.10 Installation, maintenance, and replacement of the building sewer shall be the responsibility of the connecting property owner. SECTION 13. Article 8: Annexations, of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amended to read as follows: "Article 8. Service Extensions: Outside of Improvement District No. l Section 8.1 Service to areas outside Improvement District No. l (1) When a service extension outside of Improvement District No. 1 is requested, the applicant shall have an estimate of the cost of extending sewer lines and otherwise providing sewer services to the lots included in the request prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California. These estimates shall not include the cost of building sewers. This estimate and the pro- portional share to be borne by each lot shall be furnished to the owners of the property effected by,this request. (2) Applicant shall submit improvement plans of the proposed extension, prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California, for approval by the City Engineer. (3) The applicants of the sewer extension shall execute and file an agreement with the District as provided in Section 5.1 (3) of this Ordinance Code. (4) No hookup to the public sewer shall be permitted until all improvement work has been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and all charges have been paid by the applicant in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance Code. Inspection costs shall be paid by applicant as set forth in Section 5.1 (3) of this Ordinance Code. (5) The District may approve a refund agreement with persons who have paid more than their porportional cost of the sewer service extension. The agreement shall provide for reimbursement of the excess cost borne by said persons at such time within fifteen (15) years as money is paid to the District for service from said sewer extension. The District shall require the applicant to file and have approved by the City Engineer a reimbursement map showing the method and amount of cost spread to each future connector to the sewer extension. (6) No sewer service shall be provided to any lot by lateral sewer connection to said sewer service extension until the owner of said lot has paid a porportional share of the cost of said service extension as well as the appropriate sewer connection fees as outlined in Section 8.2 of this Ordinance Code. Section 8.2 Sewer Extension Fees For sewer service to any lot where sewer service has been extended beyond the boundaries of Improvement District No. 1, a connection charge of Two Hundred and Fifty ($250.00) Dollars shall be charged for each lateral connection to the public sewer, plus one of the following: a. Eight Hundred and Fifty ($850.00) Dollars for a single family lot; or b. Seven Hundred and Twenty-Five ($725.00) Dollars per living unit for multi family lot; or C. Six Hundred and Sixty ($660.00) Dollars per mobile home unit for mobile home parks; or d. Twenty-Six Dollars and Thirty-Five Cents ($26.35) per plumbing fixture unit as defined in the 1982 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, for commercial and industrial uses. Where a "T" fitting has already been installed in the sewer main, at the connector's expense, then the connection fee of Two Hundred and Fifty ($250.00) Dollars shall be waived. It is the intent of this Article that fees shown in Subsections a, b, c, and d approximate the cost of expanding the present sewer treatment plant to accommodate those additional connections brought into the sewer system by the extension of the service area. Section 8.3 Disposition of Collected Funds. All fees collected under this Section for the construction of sewer service extensions shall be credited to the Sewer Facilities Account (Article 10) . SECTION 14. Article 10: Sewer Facilities Fund, of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amended to read as follows: "Article 10: Sewer Facilities Account "10.1 A Sewer Facilities Account is hereby established, to consist of revenue obtained from connection fees, sewer extension fees, and designated revenues from the monthly sewer charges." 10.2 The Sewer Facilities Account shall be Drimarily to finance expansion and replacement of the waste water treatment facilities, and the replacement or enlargement of trunk sewer lines or other sewer lines. "10.3 When monies are available from the Account, the Board of Directors may utilize these monies to construct public sewers in streets or easements to extend service to previously unsewered areas when the costs of such sewer construction are to be reimbursed by the owners of the properties requesting such sewer extensions. Before monies from said account are so used, the Board of Directors shall enter into an agreement with the owner or owners of the properties to be served. SECTION 15. Section 11.7 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amended to read as follows: "11.7 The District hereby elects to have current and delinquent sewer service charges collected on the County tax roll in the same manner as its general taxes, as an alternative to other methods of collection prescribed herein,` pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 5473 through 5473a. SECTION 16. 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 this District; shall certify to the adoption and publication of this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of publication to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of this District. The foregoing Ordinance was introduced, adopted and ordered published at a meeting of the District Board of Directors held on by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: i ATTEST: BARBARA NORRIS, City Clerk MARJORiE R. MACK Y, Mayor APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO F MU Y L. ARDEN, City Manager ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney