Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 02/12/1985 • AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting February 12, 1985 at 7:30 P.M. Atascadero Administration Building Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Invocation Roll Call Public Comments City Council Comments A. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE 110 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 discussion is required, that item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and will be considered separately. Vote may be by roll call. 1. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 28, 1985 • 2. Minutes of the Atascadero City Council and Planning Commission of January 28, 1985 3. Tentative Parcel Map 30-84, 9755 San Marcos Rd, Idler/ Biathrow (RECOMMEND ACCEPTANCE OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 4. Final Lot Line Adjustment 15-84, 8800 Santa Rosa Rd (lots 17 & 18, Block 10 AT84-286) , Molina/Kennaly Engineering (RECOMMEND ACCEPTANCE) B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1. Report of Committee for Reorganization (Verbal) 2. General Plan Amendment 1A-85, 8942 Palomar Road (Lot 160 Block MC) , John and Becky Bunyea - (Amending the Land Use Element Map Designation from Moderate Density Single Family Residential to High Density Single Family Residential) • 3. General Plan Amendment 1B=85, 1875 El Camino Real (Lot 31 Block 49) , H.L.S. Properties Ltd./Associated Professions - (Amending the Land Use Element Map Designation from Suburban Single Family Residential to Retail Commercial (Neighborhood Commercial) 4. General Plan Amendment 1C-85, 8800 El Centro Ave (Lot 24, Block 4) , Michael Yeomans/Joseph Lindsey - (Amending the Land Use Element Map Designation from Moderate Density Single Family Residential. to Low Density Multiple Family Residential / Amend Zoning from RSF-Y Single Family Res- idential to RMF (6) PD Multiple Family Residential Planned Development Overlay (6 units per acre) 5. Public Hearing of Proposed Building and Construction Fee Schedule 6. Police Facility Committee Final Report (Verbal) 7. Review of the Masonic Building Structural Evaluation Proposal and Costs Thereof (Verbal) C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS • 1. Evaluation of Hazardous Conditions at 4511-19 Mananita 2. Fund Transfer Request - Expenses Related to City Manager Recruitment D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee Appointment F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5. City Manager i NOTE: There will be a closed session to consider property acquisition. An announcement is not anticipated after the closed session. • • COCI L MEETING : 2/12/85 MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO, : A - 1 Regular Meeting anuary 28 , 1985 ascadero Administration Building - age 1 The regular meeting was called to order at 7 :30 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Invocation was given by Joel Paul of the Covenant Church. ROLL CALL Present: Councilman Molina and Handshy, Councilwoman Norris and Mackey and Mayor Nelson. Absent: None STAFF Ralph Dowell, Acting City Manager and City Treasurer; Allen Grimes, City Attorney; Grigger Jones, City Clerk; Georgia Ramirez, Deputy City Clerk; Bud McHale, Police Chief; Mike Hicks, Fire Chief; Henry Engen, Planning Director; John Wallace, Contract Engineer; and Bob Best, Recreation Director. PUBLIC COMMENT None SUNCIL COMMENT Councilman Molina suggested a committee on reorganization be formed to keep_ the different commissions better informed and to look into their enabling ordinances. Councilwoman Norris agreed that such a committee was warranted at this time. Mayor Nelson appointed Councilman Molina to the Committee and said he would work with Councilman Molina as a member and would report back to the council with more information in the near future. A. CONSENT CALENDAR Ralph Dowell, Acting City Manager, stated that on -page 3 at the top, second motion down, last workd "abstain" should be changed to read "excused" . On page 8 first motion, first sentence should read: by Councilman Molina, seconded by Councilman Handshy. 1. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 14 , 1985 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL 2. Treasurer's Report- 12/1/84 to 12/31/84 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 3 . Finance Director ' s Report - 12/1/84 to 12/31/84 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) OTION: By Councilman Molina, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to approve Consent Calendar. Passed unanimously by roll call vote. -1- t MlNualhb - L- TAbUA1) XU 1.ITY UUUNUIL Regular Meeting January 28, 1985 Page 2 B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. Consultant Study on Masonic Building Structural Feasibility as Police Facility John Wallace, Contract Engineer, gave staff report. Staff will come back to the Council with a proposal from the consultants for a more adequate evaluation of the building for public use. Mayor Nelson asked that this item be included on the next agenda. Terry Graham from the audience spoke regarding the City Council and the Police Chief making do with the police facilities that the city now has and that 54% of the voters voted against a separate police facility. Russell Goodrich said that Mr. Graham misread the election results. The people were asked to vote against it, because they wanted it turned over to the City Council. Mayor Nelson said what the Council is trying to do now is to cover as many alternatives as possible and to come up with the best deci- sion for the people of the community. That is why they are inves- tigating all types of ways to improve the service that the city is providing for its citizens. 2. Report Addressing Fire Truck Purchase Utilizing City of Morgan Hill Bid Process Resolution No. 7-85 Ralph Dowell, Acting City Manager, gave staff report. MOTION: By Councilman Molina, seconded by Councilwoman Norris to adopt Resolution No. 7-85 . Passed unanimously by roll call vote. 3 . Appearance of the Friends of the Library Committee Requesting Augmentation of Matching Funds for a Potential Federal Library Grant Sarah Gronstrand gave a presentation for the Friends of the Library. She reported that through a bill signed by the President in October of 1984, monies had become available for libraries. California' s share is $2, 114 . 000 . The expected cost of the new library for Atascadero, as determined by County General Services, is $865 ,380 plus donated land. For purposes of grant application ours and County' s share is $432, 690. Unfortunately state regulations this year do not permit the use of land as matching funds on the state level. Since Friends of the Library only have about $37 , 000 in pledges and actual cash on hand, they decided to approach the County Supervisors for hlep. They requested an additional $200, 000 from the County which, added to the $420, 000 they set aside for the Library last .year and the Friends of the Library ' s own $37, 000 would meet the basic requirements for matching funds . The supervisors with whom the Friends of the Library talked were receptive but were insistent that the Atascadero City Council parti- cipate actively in the venture by means of a pledge of $80, 000 to $100, 000. The Friends of the Library asked the City Council for a $50, 000 pledge. -2- MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting • January 28, 1985 Page 3 The exact matching half is $432, 690. The supervisor' s pledge of $400, 000 plus the $37, 000 and the $50, 000 from the City would be $487, 000 . This is $54, 210 more than equal match, and hopefully, a substantial edge over the other applicants. The City' s investment of $65,000 (last year's pledge and this year' s pledge) would make it possible for Atascadero to have a library worth $1, 000,000 and have it now. This is a 16 fold return on the money in- vested. This is a chance of a life time to get a library which, will effective- ly serve our growing population. Ilene Cunningham reported on the fund raisers that the Friends of the Library have been having Sylvia Key, librarian at the City of Atascadero Library reported there are 10, 131 patrons including 6 , 477 adults. Mayor Nelson g.,ave a copy of a draft letter that he would like sent to the Board of Supervisors regarding the library. In it he expressed his concerns and those of the council of paying for a facility that is really the county' s. The Council discussed the fact that the City of Atascadero is being asked to pledge $65,000 for the library and has not been contacted by the County Super- visors. Also the Council felt there is an inequity in the amount of support which is expected from the City when it only receives 120 of the County tax dollars. MOTION: By Councilman Molina, seconded by Councilman- Handshy to send the letter to the Board of Supervisors. Passed unanimously by roll call vote. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Status on Elimination of Hazardous Conditions at 4511-19 Mananita Staff report was given by Henry Engen, Planning Director. He stated . that everything is coming together. Two inspections have been made and approval from abbuting property owners for off-site pipe installa- tion seems near. He indicated that he proposed letting pending- building permits proceed once the adjoining owners approve a written agreement for the off-site improvement and that installation is in- spected and approved. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Housing and Community Development Agreement Staff report was given by Henry Engen, Planning Director. He said staff has rejected the agreement suggested by the state and proposes to re-write it to include language that is typical of the zoning requirement for affordable housing wherein we allow a 25% density bonus to assure low rents. We don't want to get into the landlord business. Alden Grimes, City Attorney, said this puts the City as the midd man between the two- parties. Mayor Nelson said that staff will continue working on the agreement, and it will be returned to the Council at a future time. -3- MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting . January 28 , 1985 Page 4 Judy Young said she doesn' t care how it is resolved, and will work any way she can with the Council or staff but she does need it resolved due to the high cost of her loan. Mayor Nelson said he agreed that this should be expedited as soon as possible. Ralph Dowell, Acting City Manager, responded that it appears or sounds like the City is building up, a brick wall that is causing this problem. The state has changed the rules in the middle of the game. Staff worked overtime through the holidays to get the housing element out but with regard to the draft agreement, the City Attorney won' t sign it, and the Acting City Manager doesn't under- stand it, and he won't sign it. Mayor Nelson asked Judy Young to meet with Ralph Dowell to work together to get this done as soon as possible. 2. Wil-Mar Disposal Company Proposed Renewal of Solid Waste Collection Contract Ralph Dowell, Acting City Manager, gave staff report. MOTION: By Councilman Molina, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to go along with Option 2 with a hold harmless clause for 5 years. Passed unanimously: 3 . Recommendation addressing Dial-A-Ride Service Status Service in Atascadero Staff report was given by Ralph Dowell, Acting City Manager. He recommended for the rest of this budget year to authorize those 5 hours and some telephone time for a total of $2 ,000 transferred from SB325 monies now in streets over to the Dial-A-Ride Contract. Councilman Handshy suggested that a Public Hearing be held to get input as far as complaints. This meeting will be held on Friday, February 8, 1985 at 1 : 30 p.m. in the Rotunda. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey, seconded by Mayor Nelson to have a public hearing scheduled for February 8 , 1985 at 1 : 30 P .M. The amendment to the motion which included to allow the release of funds with the concurrence of Wayne Handshy and, Barbara Norris who will be at the public hearing. Passed unanimously by roll call vote. 4. Proposed Building and Construction Fee Schedule Staff report was given by Henry Engen, Planning Director. He has been advised that recent legislation requires a public hearing on this matter and so it can not be acted on this evening. He 0suggests that it be rescheduled for the February 12th meeting. OTION: By Councilwoman Norris, seconded by Councilman Molina to go along with staff recommendations . Passed unanimously. -4- y.F MINUThb - 1ATAbUALJLKU UITY WUNUI.L Regular Meeting January 28, 1985 . Page 5 5 . Fund Transfer Request for Personnel Functions 0 Staff report was given by Ralph Dowell, Acting City Manager to transfer $5, 000 to cover $3, 500 for advertising and $1, 500 for Co-operative Personnel Testing booklets. MOTION: By Councilman Molina, seconded by Councilwoman Norris to transfer the $5,000. Passed unanimously by roll call vote . MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey, seconded by Councilman Molina to recess as City Council and convene ,as the Atascadero County Sanitation District Board of Directors. Passed unanimously. E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 1. Ordinance No. 96 - Sanitation RateAmendments - Dry Cleaners/ Laundromats (SecondReading) Staff report was given by Ralph Dowell, Acting City Manager. MOTION: By Director Molina, seconded by Director Mackey to read by title only. Passed unanimously. Ordinance No. 96 was read by President Nelson. MOTION: By Director Molina, seconded by Director Mackey for adoption of Ordinance No. 96 . Passed unanimously by roll call vote. MOTION: By Director Norris, seconded by Director Mackey to adjourn and re- convene as the City Council. Passed unanimously. F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION CITY COUNCIL Councilwoman Norris asked why the Recreation Department did not receipt their own money. Ralph Dowell, Acting City Manager, responded that it was done so that all fees were collected in one central area therefore eliminating cash boxes at different locations. -These procedures are in complicance with the auditor' s desires. Councilwoman Mackey asked about the loading zone across the street. It takes up three to four parking spaces. Ralph Dowell said that he has informed public works that this should be accomplished as part of the street stripping project and we are eliminatinar it by removing the paint. Councilwoman Mackey reported that she is donating $100 to the Friends of the Library in memory of Palmer Putnam. Councilwoman Norris said she just given them $100 also. -5 MINUTES - ATASCADERO CI COUNCIL • Regular Meeting January 28 , 1985 Page 6 . CITY ATTORNEY Allen Grimes , City Attorney, stated that Chapter 5 of the Atascadero Municipal Code relates to the City Attorney. Section 2-5 . 02 specifies his functions . The first subsection provides the functions of the office of City Attorney shall be to a) advise the council and all city officers in all matters of law pertaining to their offices. All city officers include the Planning Commission. CITY CLERK Grigger Jones reminded the Council and staff that their conflict of interest forms are due. CITY TREASURER None CITY MANAGER Ralph Dowell, Acting City Manager, reported that bids were opened today for the administration building renovation. The bids are somewhat higher than the engineer' s estimate. We are in the process of evaluating and will be meeting with the low contractor on February 8th to discuss his bid and go through the itemization of it. He hopes to have details back . in time for the Council at the February 12th meeting. He also stated that we need an appointment from the City for the San Luis Area Coordinating Council Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee. This will be brought back for discussion at the February 12th meeting. There was discussion of Bill Avery' s proposal, dated January 17, 1985 , to the City regarding the scope of his services in the selection of a City Manager. It was agreed that Mr. Avery would participate in the prelimin- ary candidate interviews scheduled for February land 2, 1985, and that he would do so without compensation, except for reimbursement of out of pocket travel expenses associated with these interviews. Council agreed that any additional services provided by Mr. Avery would be compensated at the rate of $75.00 per hour, not to exceed $1, 5000.00 excluding reimbursement of out of pocket expenses. Services approved by Council included: 1) a review by Mr. Avery with the City Council of basic City needs and a discussion of related desirable qualities in the next City Manager. Council authorized its Selection Subcommittee, Mayor Nelson and Councilman Handshy, to cover this with Mr . Avery prior to the start of the preliminary interviews on February 1, 1985 . 2) assistance in the development of a Council interview format and scoring process -6- MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting • January 28, 1985 Page 7 3) preparation of a list of suggested interview questions . Council deferred making a decision in the, following areas: 1) preliminary and/or final reference checks 2) assistance in the development of a mutually acceptable compensa- tion package with the new Manager. .Council declined services relating to Mr. Avery's attendanceatthe full Council interviews of final Manager candidates. Council instructed panel members for the preliminary interviews to present to the Council an unranked slate of candidates, narrowed to a range of six to eight individuals. Council also agreed that its Manager Selection Subcommittee should talk with Mr. Avery regarding his recommendations for the payment of final candidates ' expenses, and that based on the outcome of this discussion, the subcommittee was authorized to approve such payments or portions thereof. Councilman Molina added that he thought candidate expenses should be paid by the City. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9 : 50 F.M. RECORDED BY: �GR_IG GE J NES, Czty Clerk ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL 4W PLANNING COMMISSION WKIL MEETING: 2/12785 Study Session January 28 , 1985, 6: 00 p.m. - 7: 15 p.m. AGENDA ITEM NO, ; A-2 Atascadero Administration Building 19sent: Councilwoman Norris and Mackey, Councilman Molina and Handshy and Mayor Nelson. Commissioner Lilley, Carroll, Sherer, Moore and Chairman Summers. The meeting was called to order at 6 : 00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. Commissioner Carroll said that a meeting like this at least two times, possibly four times a year would be very good for a lot of reasons . The Planning Com- mission has made mistakes on the signing in the past, but they didn' t intend to hurt anyone by the signing ordinance. They did it so that a small businessman would be allowed to have a sign as large as the large businessman but it wasn' t sold well enough. The commission needs direction from the City Council on what they want. Mayor Nelson said that he agreed that the signing ordinance had been a problem.' Henry Engen, Planning Director, said that a key problem was resolved with the tenant sign amendment that passed recently. Chairman Summers said that meetings like this are very beneficial for the whole community. The commission needs verbal direction from the council. Councilwoman Mackey said that she feels that we have a good, balanced planning commission. emmissioner Sherer said that he agreed with Councilwoman Mackey. The Commis- sion seems to be lacking some information from the Council. He feels that the commission wants to be put to work, keep them informed, and they will assist the council and take the load off the council. Councilman Molina asked the commission what this council is doing different than the first council. Commissioner Lilley said there isn't a change in communication, but what has happened is the first council had the benefit of the "honeymoon" call "incor- poration" . The "honeymoon" is now over and it is time to evolve a line of communication between the two bodies. The Council and Commission need to coordinate very closely. Commissioner Moore stated that the major difference between the old council and the new one is, lack of communication. If the Council is unhappy about the route that the Commission is going, just call individuals. The Commission expects direction from the Council. Councilman Molina handed out Resolution No. 41-84 to the commissioners reflect- ing Council direction on affordable housing and commercial development. He said that he gets copies of the Planning Commission agenda and minutes . If he has a question, he listens to the tape. He feels that if he would call a commissioner it would be taken as a lobbying effort. -1- Study Session January 28 , 1985 Page 2 Commissioner Lilley asked what is the policy that this commission takes when developer wants to come in and double the size of a commercial enterprise hat is going to feed a collective street that is or is not serviced by a needed bridge. What do they tell that person and that project? What do they say to the school district when they show up at the commission meetings and say deny this project or that project or impose some kind of special fee on the project because of the schools. That is the kind of thing that we need to get down to. Councilman Molina said he hoped that the commission could appreciate that the City is going through a reorganization. Fees are being looked at and staff will give Council a recommendation soon. The present Council has given more direction in the past six months, than the past council did in four years. Commissioner Moore said we should get down to what we need to do. The commis- sion needs the council ' s direction, they can't do anything without the Council. The commission can only make recommendations, and they don't know what the council wants. Councilman Molina said he is not an engineer or a consultant. The City is short handed and the Council has to wait on recommendations from the staff. Mayor Nelson said there may be a miscommunication on what the Council and Commission should be getting from each other. The Council expects the commis- sion to provide their best independent advice and to respect the Council ' s decisions once that advice is given. ayor Nelson said there is a need to strengthen the plan with respect to pro- iding greater detail for public facility needs to give direction for capital project requirements, reasonable development fees etc. A suggestion was made at the January 14th meeting that a bus tour of the community to critique the General Plan might be useful. Commissioner Moore said all the commission knows is what they read in the newspaper. The Council concerns are the police department. The commission does not know how the council feels about development fees. Mayor Nelson said the council does not have specifics on development fees right now either. The school district has made a request of the City and a joint committee has been appointed to work on the matter. Commissioner Moore said the commission is being asked about the Lewis Avenue Bridge. They need to know primarily if there is a need for the bridge and if so the commission will continue to put the clause in that says they will contribute. The commission needs to know if the council is considering it, and the commission needs to know to put the clause in to try to collect when it comes around. Mayor Nelson said he believes in the General Plan and it is an item in the General Plan that a bridge will be put in at Lewis Avenue. Commissioner Lilley asked if it is at all enforceable? In the permit process ,can you ask someone to open themselves up to a blank check and never hope to nforce it. If you find out that you can' t tag the Bank of America or Plaza el Camino for what they feel based on the council ' s policy is their fair share, then the commission is stuck. Then we have to go to other folks to provide for that bridge and other sources of revenue. That will cause a real -2- Study Session January 28 , 1985 Page unsettling situation in the community. Mayor Nelson said that the consulting city engineer is working on this matter and we will have some answers soon. Councilman Molina said that if it was Commissioner Lilley' s main concern, he should have asked for a legal opinion from the city' s legal department as to the legality of the use permit language. Commission Lilley said that the commission does not ask the legal department for a legal opinion. City Attorney, Allen Grimes, said that beginning with the formation of this City, the Council decided that the Planning Commission did not need any legal assistance to sit with it at its meeting. But it advised the Commission that it had a City Attorney in the city and if it had any legal problems it should ask for help. Commissioner Lilley said he recalls that Mr. Grimes stated that the City Attorney works for one client - and that is the City Council, not the depart- ment heads, not the Planning Commission, not the Recreation Department. Also any City Attorney who wants to be a city attorney for longer than two years will learn that rule or he will cease to be. Mayor Nelson said the City Attorney represents all components of the city. Commissioner Moore said that if she reads the Council right, what the comm* sion has done so far on the bridge is alright and we should stay on the course unless the council complains. Mayor Nelson said yes, new projects should be handled like the Bank of America until we have a specific formula. Commissioner Lilley said that the city is over due in proposing reasonable development fees. We need to make development fees that are reasonable. Mayor Nelson said he agrees that if developmental fees are too high, there goes low cost housing and things that we are trying to achieve in this commun- ity too. Commissioner Carroll said there is no to have both large lots and afford- able homes. You will have to foraive some of the General Plan dreams some- where to make affordable homes which means smaller lots. Hopefully we can get affordable, quality homes. Mayor Nelson said he believed the Council and Commission should meet at least two or three times 'a year. Commissioner Sherer said the Commission would appreciate having copies of the minutes of the Council for each of the commissioners. -3- Study Session January 28 , 1985 Page 4 0ayor Nelson said that the Parking Study - Phase Two is in the Planning Department and the staff will be working on it with the new Public Works Director and Downtown Improvement Association and as soon as they are finished it will be coming to the Commission. Commissioner Moore said she feels that a terrible mistake was make with the 200 lot size adjustment. It has become far more of a problem than had been anticipated. Take a harder look at it and come up with a consensus and maybe something can be done about it. Chairman Summers said that the staff has the expertise to determine whether or not the grading on a 30% slope is going to be detrimental to the property, instead of bringing it to the Planning Commission. Councilman Molina and Mayor Nelson agreed with Chairman Summers. Councilwoman Mackey said that is true but it still has to be watched. Chairman Summers said that we need to make sure that the staff has the right expertise in order to do the job. Councilman Molina said he belives that our zoning ordinance needs cleaning up in language. Henry Engen, Planning Director, said he agreed. It is too long and definitely *eeds to be tightened up. Mayor Nelson said it is the intent of the council at this time due to lack of funds to take a case-by-case basis as far as the drainage review policies/ drainage master plan. Commissioner Lilley said we could look to the county or the state for supple- mental funding for such an overall study because we inherited a lot of our problems. Mayor Nelson said that #8 Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Area is another problem that we have inherited. His personal opinion is that he would like to see it considered in the new 85-86 budget. Chairman Summers said the City should consider a zone of responsibility and an assessment district covering all areas within the watershed area. Councilman Molina said he would like to see that initiated by the property owners instead of the Council. Chairman Summers said you won' t get that because the people who aren' t being flooded aren' t going to want to participate. Mayor Nelson said it must be addressed and taken care of eventually. Is ouncilman Molina said it isn' t fair for all the citizens of Atascadero to ay for it. dreg Ellis from the audience stated he would like to discuss his concerns -4- Study Session January 28, 1985 Page 5 about the trend away from the General Plan, The people of Atasacadero did not give a mandate to substantially increase density and the issue of school over- crowding needs to be addressed. Take the issue to the people and see whaty really want. 1 0 Judy Young spoke regarding her concern for affordable housing for young people in our community and the resistance of neighborhoods to such proposals. Commissioner Lilley said that the General Plan does provide for a way to deal with this situation. That is through plan unit development. There is a great deal of misunderstanding either because of the way these things are reported or people just don't understand what is happening. To encourage planned unit development is not to encourage the reduction across the board of lot sizes. It is not to abandon the concepts of the General Plan. Commissioner Moore thanked the council for this meeting and said she doesn' t feel that the Council and Commission are that far apart. Mayor Nelson said he felt that constant communication is very important. He asked the Commission and Council members how they felt about the bus tour, and they all agreed that it would be a good idea. MEETING WAS RECESSED AT 7: 16 P.M. OUNCIL MFETING 2/22/85 AGENDA ITEM NO. : A - 3 M E M O R A N D U M • TO: CITY COUNCIL February 12, 1985 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30-84 LOCATION: 9755 San Marcos Road (Lot 32, Block 14) APPLICANT: Rodney Idler (Biathrow) REQUEST: To allow division of a 7.85 acre parcel into two lots of 3.9 acres each. On January 21, 1985, the Planning Commission conducted a public hear- ing on the above-referenced request unanimously certifying a Negative Declaration and approving the land division request subject to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report. There was brief discussion among the Commission concerning this • matter. John Jertson, resident on San Marcos Road, expressed concerns over any damage that would be done to the access easement on his property and the cost sharing arrangements with regard to easement improvements. Dorothy Webster , 9525 San Marcos Road, noted her concern over drainage and any possible grading that would adversely affect the drainage. Ellery Biathrow, representing the applicant, noted his concurrence with the staff recommendation and responded to the concerns addressed by the neighbors. No one else appeared on the matter . HENRY ENGERALPH H. DOWELL, JR. Planning Director U Acting City Manager ATTACHMENT: Planning Commission Staff Report - 1/21/85 • h City of Atascadero Item: B-1 STAFF REPORT FOR: City Planning Commission Meeting Date: January 21, 1985 BY: Doug Davidson, Assoc. Trainee File No: TPM 30-84 Project Address: 9755 San Marcos Road (Ptn. Lot 32, Block 14) SUBJECT: To allow the division of a 7.81 parcel into two lots of 3.9 acres each. BACKGROUND: This project was previously approved under Tentative Parcel Map AT 820712: 1. In September, 1984 , the applicant applied for a time exten- sion in order to comply with all the conditions. This could not be approved, however, because the proposal did not meet the lot size standards of the current Zoning Ordinance, adopted July, 1983. This application is a revision of the earlier submittal. Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on January ll, 1984 and copies of the notices were sent to all record property owners within 300 feet. A. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To allow the division of a 7 .81 acre parcel into two lots of 3.9 acres each. 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .Rodney Idler 3. Engineer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ellery Biathrow 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7.81 acres 5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .San Marcos is a local street with a 40 foot right-of-way. 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .RS (Residential Suburban) 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Single family residences. 8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RS, SFRs South: RS, SFRs East: RS, SFRs West: RS, SFRs ,1 I I Tentative Parcel Map0-84 (Idler) 9. General Plan n Desi ation. . . . .Suburban Residential Designation 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Level to steeply sloping- with - many large oak trees and natural grasses. J 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration. B SITE AND DEVELOPMENT DATA: 1. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 .81 acre 2. Required Minimum Lot Size Lot Size Factor Distance from center (7,000 ft) . 20 Septic Suitability (severe) 1.50 Average slope (26-30%) 2. 25 Condition of access (paved 15%) .40 General Neighborhood Character (1.82) .36 Minimum Lot Size: 3.71 acres 3. Proposed Lot Sizes. . . . . . . . . . .Parcel 1 3.9 acres Parcel. 2 3.9 acres 4. Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .San Marcos is a City-maintained local street. 5. Shape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Roughly triangular C. ANALYSIS In the RS (Residential Suburban) zone, the minimum lot size is 2 - and 1/2 acres to 10 acres depending on the performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Access The original tentative map proposed three lots of 2.5, 2.8 and 2. 5 acres. The major concern then was the feasibility of creating a new access off San Marcos and the validity of the existing ease- ments. With this revision to a two lot subdivision, the existing access easement can adequately serve both parcels. Development of Site Staff notes that Precise Plan review is necessary for grading on natural slopes over 20%, although it does not appear that the slopes on the undeveloped parcel are quite that steep. Likewise, if further contour analysis does reveal that the slopes are in excess of 20%, the septic system will need to be designed by a registered civil engineer. These parcels are outside the sewer improvement district. 2 Tentative Parcel Map 3.0--b-- (Idler) Overall, staff agrees that ti.,s project complies with the minimum lot size standards of the Z01A,vts Ordinance, as well as with the State Subdivision Map Acta D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of 'tentative Parcel Map 30-84 based on the findings and conditions of approval contained in Sx-hi,bit %A#. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Findings and Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C - Parcel Map DGD:ps 3 EXHIBIT A - Tentative Parcel Map 30-P'= Findings/Conditions of Approval January 21, 1985 ' FINDINGS: 1. The application as submitted together with the conditions which follow complies with the applicable zoning and subdivision regula- tions and conforms to the General Plan. 2. The application as submitted together with the conditions of ap- proval will not have a significant adverse effect upon the envir- onment, therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel or its public utility easement prior to recordation of the Final Map. 2. 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 easements, they shall be noted on the Final Map. 3. Drainage and erosion control plans, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Plan- ning Department prior to issuance of building permits in conjunc- tion with installation of driveways, access easements or structures. 4. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways and driveway easements shall be submitted at time of building permit for approval by the Planning and Public Works Departments in order to determine average grade and appropriate improvement requirements. 5. One fire hydrant is required, with the location and type to be determined by the Fire Department. 6. All conditions herein specified shall be complied with prior to filing of the Final Map. 7. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditinos set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. 4 " Tentative Parcel Map 0-84 (Idler) a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate by certificate on the final map that corners have been set or will be set by a date specific and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit- ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the Final Map. 8. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years from the date of Planning Commission approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expira- tion date. 5 _ AVE Et, - a.Ta'I �+'E.,.+'• - _ , - 4 aF a Y';.i '_ _ ,`'wa-! ^� -» 17 .M to 1�O 'Y• V o ~7 4•i 16 •'-�e t 9 4 mcg •'' - 7a r A t :: — it„SS 11 •ISat N O 'ham a 1 r. ♦• oo'fOr 45 S7n/7 r'r1a tva•,4}_.. wy -A£VISION DATE SY ^ rs9i��•` •M5O...�M, tib SC����`,, Z -�•i i4-1li i-L 9is l ylp yl i+e t � r: , ,�v�-� 3- ... _. ,•3 � .tLs .aYt .1 elw. T �• ` .. -��� z i '_ ; "`""•'sr..• - 7Zoo t>• ,y'a:1'1 t1t9 • sp. !,w aS.i 13 �L �; 'T•4''ta• _ _ g a:A, '” s )+sa-. .pa» 6 .� y.�. I�j.. 32S - 10.,.+ ,s s.• 7•A 6510^ ' 14 1 y 9373 A •A 8 . ,s`^�•h .-i. < _ �. q � 5 ,'.. 10•A tart-'555' w• t !.r ..'SCJ , j -•` • - < . 794 i „•p 12�,�0` ,311-A •-<. - l ! lE 4 Z 17•aw j 1 - Q .�-11 u v.aot _ • i,A .Tri :79r 1(J X413 haat /�.' tQ 3 ,c the a•A 91oc i; Io • LC IS .c rax_ 72 4 Tali KO t:.so z 14 loA '•'til tel u� 2�� 1 ��,. oy:; �0 0°� q2 aOJ 9j� 1� •IyNO D �`" h�%yQ•.4 j'pr '.k7� vy! / - L ^ , 107 �.y / '03 co•tvAg 12 5lSS 3110 . x0 /�'h� M.,• 1a ra+• =0 �' 'LSF.. 31 ?V 18PR. L 96 so.., � f: •m 5`503 i9a, 1 s � b !o e s 3 r/ ^�fl;hQ 3 'YS.n �� +�� 93 Zg OB'i5 EB SO�f �F C1b Oil•77 13 '81 94 v^'+•^ r•r .W�yy'• i.• >~t: ro ' J61• is 67 64 - M'•�' •D33 .s: �1••,f3t -*'' 34 $, JJTJ� I 14A 29 - 86 91 sa • d°„ pU• as '"87qj !6 aj°i+s• ,'c',b 3( I(A a'b 288 - 6s ai ts,sssG D g s e. go "' : :- M 31 -. o a6� a•� .as n 9 55 .� Sa 89 z7, ."9�y Ah h 0.y'. n 9i bxs z�y 3 ,,.,�a C� •a •�yt•• as .!,O N M _ •• z .� 54 88 98j ♦ � a 1 'rsL .. qO ` tT1S .H� 5J, NSiP nn:-vs• •� o - kO 11. ssso vL �1 R,5 .�� FH) b ti TPN\ 30 -511 . F 87.55 SAAV N1ARccS • 21 r•••• l e•+rTM sµ r , �r CITY OF ATASCADERO /./ a a 1 1< •tu•�•I M.1(Il f � +W eRly 4w•e�•y 4•i • .-----_------ �`�� Planning Department 1 � - �3-•Z7 nll•1 1 - _ \� -,�fl 4 �-�• { i.-��fa r�!- ,i��/ - i� y}a•. fl 1 t•1Ya1,• arr•v,h •'c' � 1 ` �l r �� o.,.l�uf!!l Sjt�L�..s�t+�n .J�'t+'�Lt..f�*�+ ):;i u�r�3[�l�.i'•'��-'-as'miw7.4'_� . _ .. � _ T"l,/"_""`�'-''``1`."Lw ��--."'�'�,•L_� -a.`• -dj - �1..•''1ri[L'i� ,d 71 fT. �.: TT... /� .. - u+�+v�•.ws......:L„r i:".'. .A. -� 1 t t t � r , Q I OR CL >G Q Z � tt i 1g � i o a OD ltrt�� In W;,. �' 1 a Qn gx . l a GSA CX i� Oz o�M OUNCI L MEETING : 2/12/85 AGENDA ITEM N0, A 4 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY COUNCIL February 12, 1985 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Acceptance of LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 15-84 LOCATION: 8800 Santa Rosa Road (Lots 17 and 18, Block 10) APPLICANT: George Molina (Kennaly Engineering) On January 14, 1985, the City Council approved tentative Lot Line Adjustment 15-84 (AT 84-286) , subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommendation of the Planning Commis- sion. The required conditions have been complied with and the final map is recommended for approval. HENRY ENGE RALPH H. DOWELL, JR. Planning Director Acting City Manager HE:ps qct °C � �Q 5 �1 CO .-- Z m�vV + ` o0 CU 514 ry f A y O cv W M 4 b a Z 5 OUNCIL MEETING : 2/12/85 ENDA ITEM NO, B - 2 MEM O R A N D U M • TO: CITY COUNCIL February 12, 1985 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1A-85 LOCATION: 8942 Palomar Road (Lot 160 , Block MC) - with an expanded study area to extend from the site west to El Camino Real' on both sides of Palomar , but not including the commercial area along E1 Camino Real. APPLICANT: John and Becky Bunyea REQUEST: To change the General Plan Land Use Element Map designa- tion from Moderate Density Single Family Residential to High Density Single Family Residential. On December 3, 1984, the Planning Commission conducted a public hear- ing on the subject request and unanimously recommended approval of the • application subject to the recommendation contained in the staff report. There was only brief discussion among the Commission. John Bunyea, applicant, noted his agreement with the recommendation. Lon Allen, 8891 Palomar , indicated he had no objection to the change in land use designation. No one else appeared on the matter . h C_ _7�� e_vn __ C . HENRY ENG4N RALPH H. DOWELL, JR. Planning Director Acting City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission minutes excerpt —12/3/84 Planning Commission staff report - 12/3/84 Planning Commission Resolution No. 8-84 Draft City Council Resolution No. 9 -85 • YLANNiiNG UUMM1SSiON MINUTES EXCERPT 12/3/34 Minutes - Planning Omision - December 3, 198410 contained in the staff report. • 4. Tentative Tract Map 27-84 : Request submitted by David Marazzo/Ben Gage (Kennaly Engin ng) to allow creation of a one lot condominium tract con,. t a�ning eight dwelling units. Subject property is located a ' 5319 Honda, also known as a portion of Lots 32 and 33 o BlocDA. Negative Declaration to the provision ' of CEQA i to be ce tified. The Planning Dir tor presented the report reco ending approva of the tract map a lication. John Kennaly advised -hat he was available or questions and tha the applicant is accept g the condition Z. MOTION Made by Commission Moore, econded by Wentzel, and carried unanimously to a rove Tentative Tract Map 27-8 subject to the findin nd conditions contained in th staff report. 5. Tentative Parcel Map -84: Request submitted by Doyle Dunham to allow the division o 9 .46 acres into three lots of 3.00, 3.00 and 3.46 acres each. Subject property is located at 9095 L Paz Lane, also known as Lot 20 o Block 66. Negative De aration to the provi sions Z is to be certified. (Apple ant has requested continDecember 17, 1984. ) Chairman Sudicated the applicant has reques ed a continu ance to e ble them time to research the possibilitie of a 20' lot size- reduction. There was no testimony from the p lic. MOT N: Made by Commissioner Lilley, seconded by Commissi neer Carroll, and carried unanimously to continue the hearing on Tentative Parcel Map 28-84 to the December 17th, 19,841 meeti na 6. General Plan Amendment 1A-85: Request submitted by John and Becky Bunyea to change the General Plan Land Use Element Map designation from Moderate Density Single Family Residential to High Density Single Family Residential. Subject site is located at 8942 Palomar Road, also known as Lot 160 of Block MC, with an expanded study area to extend from the site west to El Camino Real on both sides of Palomar , but not including the commercial area along E1 Camino Real. Negative Declaration to the provisions of CEQA is to be certified by City Council. Engen referenced the staff report indicating that the applicant owns a one and one half acre lot on Palomar , a neighborhood where lots are approximately 0. 33 acre. The zoning requires a minimum • lot size of one acre. The applicants are seeking a general plan amendment to enable them to possibly split their lot to a density that would still be more than that pre-existing in the area. 3 Minutes - Planning Ommision - December 3, 1980 Staff recommendation is for approval of the change from Moderate Density to High Density Single Family Residential for the study area along Palomar including the Bunyea' s property. John Bunyea, applicant, indicated he was in support of the staff recommendation. Lon Allen, 8891 Palomar, spoke and indicated no objection to the proposal. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Wentzel, seconded by Commissioner Carroll, and carried unanimously to approve General Plan Amendment 1A-85 subject to the recommendation contained in the staff report. General Plan Amendment 1C-85 and Zone Change 7-84: j Request submitted by Michael Yeomans and Joseph Lindsey to, (a) Change the General Plan Land Use Element Map designation C,om Moderate Density Single Family Residential to Low Den- sites` Multiple Family Residential; and (b) To rezot(e from RSF (Residential Single Family) to RMF (7) (PD) (R `sidential Mu1tip e Family, Planned Development Overlay (7 piits/acre) . Subject roperty is located at 8800 El Centro, lso known as Lot 24 of lock 4. Negative Declaration to th provisions of CEQA is to certified. In summarizing the m terials contained in the staff report, the Planning Director i icated there is a o-step process being proposed to change the neral Plan to the owest possible multi- ple family residential tegory and courrently rezone the site to RMF(7) (PD) to allow for. 0 single family units on a private loop street on 4.29 acres of acant lan . Engen referenced General Plan cr ' t `fia and noted appropriate loca- e tions for low density multiple f4mi y areas off of arterials and outlined the rationale for §1affsupport for both the general plan amendment and the PD rezoning. The public hearing was open d and applica , Michael Yeomans, in- dicated he preferredto <omment at the end of the public testimony Greg Bascom, 8890 Arc de, spoke in opposition 'to the project based on traffic congestion at E1 Camino Real, drainage problems, police fire, school servilce, and bussing of school children to Santa Margarita, and,-' the lack of compatibility with the City' s uniqueness. ' 0 David Mosher, 8895 El Centro, opposed the project and cited water problems/from the Lucky development, traffic, noise and indicatedi }there would be no benefit derived to any one in the area and that ; the City is not learning from. the previous mistakes made on Ell Cent�x`o. • 4 City of Atascadero Item: B-6 STAFF REPORT FOR: City Planning Commission Meeting Date: December 3 , 1984 BY: Doug Davidson, Assoc. Planner Trainee File No: GP 1A-85 Project Address: 8942 Palomar (Lot 160 , Block MC) SUBJECT: To change the General Plan Land Use Element Map designation from Mod- erate Density Single Family Residential to High Density Single Family Residential. BACKGROUND: This is a request to change the General Plan Land Use Element Map des- ignation from Moderate Density Single Family Residential to High Den- sity Single Family Residential. The site is presently developed with a single family residence and is zoned RSF-Y (Residential Single Fam- ily, minimum lot size one acre with sewer , one and one half acre with- out sewer) . The applicant is not requesting a zone change at this time. At . the October 15, 1984 meeting, the Planning Commission ap- proved staff' s recommendation to enlarge the study area for this ap- plication due to the lot sizes and uses in the surrounding area. This study area extends from the site west to El Camino Real on both sides of Palomar , but not including the commercial area along El Camino Real. A. LOCATION: 8942 Palomar (Lot 160 , Block MC) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To change the General Plan Land Use Element Map designation from Moderate Density Single Family Residential to High Density Single Family Residential (refer to Exhibit D) . 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .John and Becky Bunyea 3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The subject parcel is 1. 5 acres; expanded study area is approxi- mately 17 acres in size as shown on Exhibit B. 0 0 General Plan Amendment GPlA-85 (Bunyea) 4. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Palomar is a local street with a 40 foot wide public right-of- way. 5., Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Y (Residential Single Family minimum lot size being one acre with sewer and one and one half acre without sewer) 6. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . .Single family residence 7. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . North: RSF-Y, SFR to Entire Study Area South: CS, Commercial East LSF-X, SFR West: CS, Commercial 8. General Plan Designation. . . . .Moderate Density Single Family Residential 9. Terrain. . . . . . . .Gentle to steeply sloping with single family residences on both sides of Palomar . 10. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration to be certified. i C. ANALYSIS: The area under review contains approximately 39 parcels depending on the validity of some lot lines. The lots range in size from .17 acres to 1. 5 acres. The average lot size is .33 acre. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Land Use Map of the General Plan to change this study area from Moderate Density Sin- gle Family to High Density Single Family in order to allow a min- imum lot size of one-half acre. The applicant feels the current land use designation is inappropriate for the area since 38 out of 39 parcels are already under one-half acre. Staff notes that all lots , with the exception of the applicants, are, indeed, under the one-half acre lot size. The area is en- tirely serviced by sewer and since the area is fully developed with single family residences, there will be no significant fur- ther impact on the sewer system capacity. The applicant's lot is the only lot which could be subdivided since the other 38 parcels are currently under the proposed one half acre lot size. The applicants' parcel could potentially be split into three lots under this proposal. Staff agrees that this proposal conforms to the existing land use pattern and will be a better representation of the area. Further , the abutting lots along Arcade to the south of the study area are designated High Density Single Family on the General Plan Map and approval of this request would represent an extension of that designation to the Palomar frontage. 2 9 • General Plan Amendment GPlA-85 (Bunyea) D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of GP1A-85, based on the following Find- ings contained in Exhibit"A" to change the land use designation for the entire study area from Moderate Density Single Family Res- idential to High Density Single Family Residential. DGD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings for. Approval Exhibit B Location Map Exhibit C - General Plan Amendment Request i 3 General Plan Amendment GPlA-85 (Bunyea) EXHIBIT "A" - General Plan Amendment GP 1A-85 Findings for Approval December 3, 1984 1. The proposed land use mpa change results in a logical representa- tion of the existing residential area. 2. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. 3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environ- mental impacts. 4. The proposal is consistent with the policies of the General Plan. 4 ' r - 18 i •� V�CO'tr t.. .•' 'h, 1/ 2 .cn t�i�..,�t �.!t t t Y,. -AT-EO-St 'Ell S` r AT-16-135 :0- ,•..9, yA � � .i ,{ Z AT-TS-113 12 0/: l5 t::.;,E:,: ' d _ �T •+ a. -+Cs-3 W' et •; ,`w .tiS Ar AT 12-81Ar JC AT-81-183 12-fit J[ d ! ����` 4t a .� '�° ,:✓ l�/S '` AT SV ZSb SLS•BL ',< • 1., r• dc`° •••4t. sod ♦ a+'r Q - Sol h 7 •ti ZA 6,44 •►� S eta i + w P`O + tom° - REV ISIO:z DASF G.. e'� nor•� � � �4 3'` " ��`a•�• > RJr'—� r•�+•''+ eft �-^-^'ss` � 4' s"k'.r-1'•"^- � ... ti -1 ' .- +'`t - +,t,a Gg >-' "� u^ b d c1°'• --}moi J .:r - - - Y �y`• tL�l s�t.r."Vt tr. e+w _35`ri4T�_ }' y � 'V �"'-1 $J, 21 V - >0y.,• 1 ,.'� �� '•�• -y„y. �e,f .parr - -•_ 14 r0 ' Co 7FJlhfm 25.. Oe24Y12 Yti a to • ♦o 4 ��"e 27\e` +\� atp• PAY ai :1p ,2.8 Isy♦ • - - Og10\-a S` + .. 8 +./ ,.1 • .rte.} — 7 ua ''. +o - - •�, • 9\\\ .,-y. o .8 -..�}ins p�,�/ nis Jr.. so +;� •; - i a �'.�}' `.£tv •RSF 10 isI ?J a"p 'y ''.•' .Y•' "+y +. • ,J • � ,305 .. t � �° Ih 3S p '<r ♦ 16. �" J\ .• , moo,ra•1 G �g"'t' •,ase.' - - ~Jcv. ..°• I p a.•� � � PDSF- � � y� e 4 lJ >,1e;,t � M,•. ,• - - r690 - as i•y .+r ��' 4, c•n°-u. ''e Qg t''r�, •. T - ,. + r :RMF/ •�' e•4 ♦ C •� � ,rtz] •• \l id '��• , ..� yy,h --7 ! ♦ .V ,`'fi •' .--r t" oio 'V 3 '+••� .\\1a'g S - - ___ s — �, �. GIA `T ° .c� � :���,•• - :!� _ _' _ �+e\-. �� �.`'<. ^ �iy� s_ - o q�,o ff4, ` �^° ����k• > ti a/ s�i +S �I\ ° d . '+ a •"�h° �� ��A '1;�+' D•x`r°L `••'4 '� 17 .. ." • 1!i'o-•• 3 i0.[R 1b _ o-I,s u •o•. o 7. / re. �J <9• .. - �. •ra ve).r,4„ S .� � `-8 \fie?. a+w '• `d.� O � ns+ T L.L� ,a•ez a• 0..� Q• o 12 21 '4 22 * S(•?h le .sr' •'M3 \f �rlwW w>y.... R5F\-2Y •��:..-�• [ • + S, - V4t q-tw.<rt•o.,wuewt v W 1 M a•..�rw M_,. ' r 2014 •,•a - ?,r.1s+M2T z4!],] .u..• z,....•.+.•s .mn T.+N.FJi ' s1 �«r A /�\ \ f �•�'��c'�5��`.4. �F•'";,+ter` r ; 23 •, �. r 3� � •:. - YS w.z,a,..s,.a.arm•,.-r� 4 , � CITY OF ATASCADE Planning Depa,rtmez � t � + ■m■ ... qty �� f ro■ y s `J, • tatr■tl//■ /'ems'rIy r � \\\ rwrr/a■s■ �..w4uu � Hr\r/rrrr AIA■■ rr r' "� f .rrus■�Ar/a.�/rsr pNr - P 3 usreunea ■ s � ' I r • may.. , �► 1 ' r \ err-r////■-- ` 0 0 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSAL I am requesting for an amendment of the general plan with the recommendation to the planning department that they take into con- sideration to rezone my parcel and 38 other parcels from RSFY to RSFX or to extend from the adjacent 44 parcels which are currently zoned LSFX, because what is desired is the general plan. What is desired is enforced by the zoning map (the tool) . The zoning map does not reflect the actual demorgraphics of the area for what it is currently zoned (RSFY = residential single family with 1' acre without sewer or 1 acre with sewer; . When 38 parcels out of 39 parcels are less then acre and all are on sewer. How can the zoning map enforce the desired (the general plan) if the demoZraphics do not coincide with the desired nor the zon- ing map. My parcel is the only one thelconforms to the present zoning and the other 38 parcels do not conform and thier is no exception- al circumstance to support this current zoning. I feel that this blanket zoning ordinance as applied is niether fair or reasonable. If allowed to remain at its present zoning it remains detrim- ental to the private, civic and public sector because it is a misrepersentation of actual land use. Amendment by defintion is 1. A change for the better; improvement. 2. A correction of errors, faults, ect. I am asking for this amendent to the general plan so that the general plan coincides with the demorgraphics ( a change for the better and a correction of errors, faults, ect. in the zoning map) so that the zoning map can adequately enforce the general plan. Reference material: 1 . California Department of Real Estate reference book 1984• 2, Real Estate Law, California Department of Real Estate 1984. 3. New World Dictionary Second College Edition. RESOLUTION NO. 8-84 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ON PORTIONS OF PALOMAR FROM MODERATE DENSITY TO HIGH DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1A-85: BUNYEA) WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the subject matter on December 3, 1984; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65323 provides that a general plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission finds as follows: 1. The proposed land use map change results in a logical repre- sentation of the existing residential area. 2. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. 3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. 4. The proposal is consistent with the policies of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of General Plan Amendment GP 1A-85 (Bunyea) changing the 1980 Atascadero General Pian Land Use Map as shown on the attached Exhibit Map "A". On motion by Commissioner Wentzel and seconded by Commissioner Car- roll, the foregoing resolution is adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Wentzel, Carroll, Lilley, Moore and Chairman Summers NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners LaPrade and Sherer DATE ADOPTED: December 3, 1984 I Resolution No. 8-80 /Lz HIRLEY SUMM)RRS, Chairman ATTEST: HENRY ENGE , Plann:tg Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney 2 W Z Op Z. \ >Z. UKP UJ WZ `� �. / // &w wzOctIx Zm i JJJ \ / WWJQQ> DO \< .......... - !` Q fil LL1 L) : ........... ..... ..... .......... ....... .... ...... LU I n - 1'�7 j©� y � !+i Q a w O LUQ v I y. U _ �. t. �4 U W 0wa k C� a Ell ,l i � r. ":4Gni J Q U Q RR �! U(�( W Q W O a J f� TT�� � ....Q � V w�� Q a y � e' ::: .::ii:c _ _ ....... x -- .............. r: cr }}�.� - LL Q Ln LLj / - , UV)CLZZ = / . ©<'� �o ' \ E W / \- r ai LLCL u 11 LL LL J1- J J o-QQo =):5 j Z 0 Z C7 .........:. .......... ' it �1 0 ©noaQ WOWWWmU 2p OJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 r (A CL ................. . ::...... . i { _ :.. _� W. . 086 .. : ..... .. i r' 1 '4• ice• 1: I }' •r 1 ; t i .. ............ ::::: f : t:t,cc�c c �" it•c cooc• ` •-o o c c• RESOLUTION NO. 9 -85 RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP CHANGING DESIGNATIONS ON PORTIONS OF PALOMAR FROM MODERATE DENSITY TO HIGH DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1A-85: BUNYEA) WHEREAS, a request to amend the City of Atascadero General Plan has been received as follows: General Plan Amendment 1A-85 : Request submitted by John and Becky Bunyea to change the General Plan Land Use element Map designation from Moderate Density Single Family Residential to High Density Single Family Residential. Subject site is located at 8942 Palomar Road, also known as Lot 160 of Block MC, with an expanded study area to extend from the site west to E1 Camino Real on both sides of Palomar, but not including the commercial area along E1 Camino Real. Negative Declaration to the provisions of CEQA is to be certified. WHEREAS, this request was considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing held on December 3, 1984 and was recommended for ap- proval; and WHEREAS, such amendment to the General Plan was considered by the City Council during a public hearing; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65323 provides that a General Plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as follows: 1. The proposed land use map change results in a logical repre- sentation of the existing residential area. 2. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. 3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse en- vironmental impacts. 4. The proposal is consistent with the policies of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve to approve General Plan Amendment GP 1A-85 (Bunyea) making changes to the Atascadero General Plan Land Use Map as shown on Exhibit "A" . PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Atascadero, California, held on the — of AYES: • NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: CITY OF ATACADERO, CALIFORNIA By: ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RALPH H. DOWELL, JR. , Acting City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney i ♦\ , \ o o us 4f K(Y03 CD W Z 2 m WW JQ< . ........ MM Ocr 0:z<-C unou i C) t \ Q W l yy Z(_) DOW O J QH -� W Q 1 v Cr U w H CD WCL el1 to a a I ti Z El ii t / \ ... ...... 1�7 �„� J J U I� r4 -j a QUY :ai[t[itt........ci[tc" .:: .:..... :::: iiLL H U S W-oz w O -CL . ........ ....... .... .. 6,<.._j_j _ A pUU Naa �. l ) U_j W a W f"� QFa-�WOSp o"d V. LL LL LL Q DZZZZ p c W W W W W m DpODQ�J �\ �. •`� S3SQ�ma� � 1 pJ J (na- f fir z S S� o8raT c 0 0 c c 'N f ry r• v C Q•� : 1 .... ;�'ccyG c :•:cF• �c,Gcoe j < / ::'.�•.:ii` to c o �` \ \' � ' f�- �j• � ...... _.• ''�' . . . lnI.�' �� 1C \J•l :�:::.. � 4NUNCIL MFETING : 2/12/85 AGENDA ITEM NO. : B 3 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY COUNCIL February 12, 1985 FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1B-85 LOCATION: 1875 El Camino Real (Lot 31, Block 49) APPLICANT: H.L.S. Properties Ltd. (Associated Professions) REQUEST: To change the General Plan Land Use Element Map designa- tion from Suburban Single Family Residential to Retail Commercial (Neighborhood Commercial) . On December 3, 1984, the Planning Commission conducted a public hear • ing on the above referenced request. After discussion and review, the Commission denied the application with Commissioner Carroll dissent- ing (and with Commissioners LaPrade and Sherer absent) as referenced in the attached minutes excerpt. Toby Osgood with Associated Professions spoke in support of the re- quest and commented on the previous County commercial zoning. No one else appeared on the matter. HENRY ENGE RALPH H. DOWELL, JR. Planning Director Acting City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission minutes excerpt - 12/3/84 Planning Commission staff report - 12/3/84 Neighbor ' s 12/3/84 letter Planning Commission Resolution No. 9-84 Draft City Council Resolution No. 10 -85 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES EXCERPT 12/3/84 Minutes - Planning C�mision - December . 3, 19840 8. General Plan Amendment 1B-85: Request submitted by H.L.S. Properties Ltd. (Associated Pro- fessions, Inc.) to change the General Plan Land Use Element Map designation from Suburban Single Family Residential to Retail Commercial (Neighborhood Commercial) . Subject prop- erty is located at 1875 E1 Camino Real, also known as Lot 31 of Block 49. Negative Declaration to the provisions of CEQA is to be certified. Engen referenced the staff report with the recomendation to deny this request for additional 3.44 acres of Neighborhood Commercial zoning on the northern corner of El Camino Real and Del Rio Road. He noted that there are presently 12 acres zoned for neighborhood shopping in the area. The most neighborhood shopping centers are in the range of four to six acres in size and that there were num- erous other vacant commercial properties in the community, and that approval of the request would set up the area for future strip commercial zoning. In response to question from Commissioner Lilley, Engen indicated that locations such as this should encourage commercial nodes attracting trade from the south, primarily residential, side of the freeway. It was also noted that commercial development, as reflected in this request, would lead to scattered commercial uses and more traffic along other stretches of El Camino Real. Toby Osgood with Associated Professions, representing the appi cant, spoke in support of the request and commented on the prev- ious County commercial zoning. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Wentzel and seconded by Commis- sioner Moore to deny General 'Plan Amendment 1B-85 based on the Findings contained in the staff report. The motion carried with Commissioner Carroll dissenting. Conditional Use Permit 3-84: ',�Request submitted by Judy Young for a revision to1re use permit to alow a revision of the site plane a 95 unit congr gate.; housing project. Subject site i"Scated at 10165 E1 Camino Real also known as Lot 3 of ock 7. Negative Declaration to he.-provisions of CE s to be certified. Joel Moses reviewed the hist ry_Qxi.- his project wherein a 95 unit congregate housing project -Kdt'--been approved by the Commission in the form of five buildings. Subsequently, Farmers Home Admin- istration, the majgx- funding source for the-project, has mandated a change to angle building configuration white is supported by staff. .- Bruce-Frazier , architect, appeared and noted he was availab3'e for ._,' y questions. 7 City of Atascadero Item: B-8 STAFF REPORT FOR: City Planning Commission Meeting Date: December 3, 1984 BY: Doug Davidson, Assoc. Planner Trainee File No: GP 1B-85 Project Address: 1875 El Camino Real SUBJECT: To change the General Plan Land Use Element Map designation from Sub- urban Single Family to Retail Commercial (Neighborhood Commercial) . BACKGROUND: On October 15, 1984, staff presented this request from H.L.S. Proper- ties, Ltd. and Associated Professions, Inc. to change the General Plan Land Use Element Map designation from Suburban Single Family to Retail Commercial (Neighborhood Commercial) The site is presently undeveloped and is zoned RS (Residential Subur- ban) . The parcel was created under Tentative Parcel Map 15-84. The Planning Commission, at that time, and subsequently, the City Council determined not to expand the area under consideration. A public hear- ing notice was published in the Atascadero Newson November 23, 1984 and copies were sent to all record property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. A. LOCATION: 1875 El Camino Real (Ptn. Lot 31, Block 49) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To change the General Plan Land Use Element Map designation from Suburban Single Family to Retail Commercial (Neighborhood Commercial) 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H.L.S. Properties Ltd. 3. Engineer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Associated Professions, Inc. 4 . Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 44 acres 9 0 General Plan Amendment 1B-85 (H.L.S. Properties) 5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .El Camino Real is a major arter- ial with a 100 foot width right- of-way. 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban) 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RS, SFR South: CN, Commercial East: RS, SFR West: CN, Commercial 9. General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Single Family Residential 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Level to gently sloping 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. ANALYSIS: The applicant requests an amendment to the Land Use Element Map of the General Plan to change the designation of his property from Suburban Single Family Residential to Retail Commercial (Neighbor- hood Commercial) . The applicant has not requested a zone change at this time. The applicant contends that the proximity of the parcel to El Camino Real and the fact that property to the south and southwest is commercially zoned make the request a logical extension of the commercial area. Tentative Parcel Map 15-84 was approved to create two residential lots; one a 2. 65 acre lot with frontage on Obispo Road; and the other a 3.44 acre lot with frontage on E1 Camino Real. It is this latter parcel which the applicant desires to change to commercial use. Staff has the following concerns regarding this request: 1) Further intrusion into a residential area 2) No demonstrated need for more commercial, land in this area at the expense of residential property. Presently, there is a well-defined zoning boundary encompassing 12 acres between the present commercial area and the adjacent resi- dences. Commercial use of this lot would intrude into the resi- dential area and could invite similar requests from across El Cam- ino Real and adjacent parcels to the north leading to strip com- mercial development. 2 �, • • General Plan Amendment 1B-85 (H.L.S. Properties) Staff is also concerned over the need for additional commercial land. Atascadero currently has many acres of vacant commercial property along El Camino Real. The commercially zoned properties adjacent to this site are partially vacant themselves with one lot containing a nonconforming use (trucking yard) in a Commercial Neighborhood zone. The four corners at Del Rio Road and El Camino Real. are designated as Neighborhood Commercial in the General Plan, and staff feels that this amount of commercial land is suf- ficient to serve the community. No public good will be served by allowing more residential property to be converted to commercial land when there is no evidence that there is a lack of vacant com- mercially zoned ommercially- zonedland in the City. D. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the findings contained in Exhibit "A" , staff recommends denial of General Plan Amendment 1B-85. DGD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" - Findings for Denial Location Map General Plan Excerpt 3 j, • 0 General Plan Amendment 1B-85 (H.L.S. Properties) EXHIBIT "A" - General Plan Amendment GP 1B-85 Findings for Denial December 3, 1984 FINDINGS: 1. The proposed General Plan amendment would encourage development which is not consistent with policies set forth in the General Plan since it would not be compatible with surrounding land uses and densities. 2. The intensity of use which would occur from the proposed project is out of character with existing and proposed uses in the sur- rounding neighborhood. 3. Approval of this project would result in a loss of valuable resi- dential property without demonstrating the need for additional commercial land. 4 I P. 18'85 r.' L$-76 EL I.PrM t NO 9E-AL. ;Et : - y `x t� 3 f :+ - ... ..' ' :o• J �\ • } ....... . -/' � . : . ......../ 4 .� >� \i tt++ r' . O :. ff O .. ! _ t- • 1 ••.�• '-- -'y •• • r d .. tJ O fJ 3 . : < 3 O � •� - i • [ / / i p.•+'t :j - ' �� '' 3. Landscaping and a deliberate architectural quality and style would benefit merchants in the downtown area, as well as the community. :. 4. Some incompatible uses shall be given incentive to relocate into more compatible areas. 5. Of primary importance in the implementation of the Central Business District Commercial objectives is the need for more detailed study and a phased program that includes the following steps : - Detailed analysis (check with all owners about ideas, needs, economics , plans for expansions, etc. ) . - Formation of a Downtown Improvement Association. - Detailed study and design (goals and policies, alternative methods and phasing) . - Completion and adoption of a plan and a method of implementing it. - Initiation of a step-by-step implementation program. 6. The Atascadero Creekway Plan Scheme One shall be included as the basis of specific study of the Central Business District, and its proposals shall be implemented. Neighborhood Commercial These are retail businesses and services that supply the daily needs of the community. Usually, a grocery store anchors the neighborhood shopping center._ -Around it are . clustered convenience stores such as the drug store, the barber, laundromat, perhaps a service station, among others-. ; Neighborhood centers are best located at intersections of primary or secondary arterials, thus providing easy access for residents of adjacent neighborhoods for minor,- evervda_y shopping needs. Such land use is currently designated in two areas: 1. On the four corners of El Camino Real and Del Rio j Road. a 2. On the two western corners of Portola Road at 1114orro Road. Neighborhood Policy Proposals f s 1. In order to relieve traffic congestion alonq El Camino Real and reduce the number of daily trips downtown, ' l i r proposed convenience stores shall be encouraged to locate in neighborhood areas . 68 . __„„1 Al 41 '70, X- F,,5 F,,50 41 1"7 C/4(,-' I s 6-Ll IL ec i - J Z C`AA_' { P r ? f ]/ a ��ZC RESOLUTION NO. 9-84 iA RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AT 1875 EL CAMINO REAL FROM SINGLE FAMILY SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1B-85: H.L.S. PROPERTIES, LTD.) WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission conducted a public hear- ing on the subject matter on December 3, 1984; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65323 provides that a general plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission finds as follows: 1. The proposed General Plan amendment would encourage development which is not consistent with policies set forth in the General Plan since it would not be compatible with surrounding land uses and densities. 2. The intensity of use which would occur from the proposed project is out of character with existing and proposed uses in the sur- rounding neighborhood. 3. Approval of this project would result in a loss of valuable resi- dential property without demonstrating the need for additional commercial land. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero Planning Commis- sion does hereby recommend denial of General Plan Amendment GP 1B-85 (H.L.S. Properties, Ltd. ) changing the 1980 Atascadero General Plan Land Use Map as shown on the attached Exhibit Map entitled GP 1B-85, 1875 E1 Camino Real. On motion by Commissioner Wentzel and seconded by Commissioner Moore, the foregoing resolution is adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Wentzel, Moore, Lilley, Carroll and Chairman Summers NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners LaPrade and Sherer DATE ADOPTED: December 3, 1984 Resolution No. 9-8 • i r I EY SU711S , Chairman ATTEST L C"' HENRY ENG-N, Plagi ing Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney i 2 r ... _ ..:�............. EL C hm IMO RE L- .......... �r �m s A- �. i ............. — / .�.-- .. I .o t. . :: _ • I � :�: s`` ♦ F �. :! f � t 0 ......: I J r-. 3 O i {{ ;j O k c?a ;r I Y •� •t7 �. )l r a .i 0 �• i U _ 1\\ O F fl O >- O O� i . rY i P1, 1 ........... ................. ............ . ............. -411 ,r r ; RESOLUTION NO 10-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AT 1875 EL CAMINO REAL FROM SINGLE FAMILY SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1B-85, H.L.S. PROPERTIES, LTD. ) WHEREAS, a request to amend the City of Atascadero General Plan has been received as follows: General Plan Amendment 1B-85: Request submitted by H.L.S. Properties Ltd. (Associated Professions, Inc. ) to change the General Plan Land Use Element Map designation from Suburban Single Family Residential to Retail Commercial (Neighborhood Commercial) . Subject property is located at 1875 E1 Camino Real, also known as Lot 31 of Block 49 . Negative Declaration to the provi- sions of CEQA is to be certified. WHEREAS, this request was considered by the Planning Commission at a hearing held on December 3, 1984 and was recommended for denial; and WHEREAS, such amendment to the General Plan was considered by the City Council during a public hearing; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65323 provides that a General Plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as follows: 1. The proposed General Plan amendment would encourage development which is not consistent with policies set forth in the General Plan since it would not be compatible with surrounding land uses and densities. 2. The intensity of usewhichwould occur from the proposed project is out of character with existing and proposed uses in the sur- rounding neighborhood.. 3. Approval of this project would result in a loss of valuable resi- dential property without demonstrating the need for additional commercial land. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve to deny General Plan Amendment 1B-85 (H.L.S. Properties, Ltd. ) to change the 1980 Atascadero General Plan Land Use Map as shown on the attached Exhibit entitled GP 1B-85 , 1875 El Camino Real. 0 0 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Atascadero, California, held on the of , 1985. CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RALPH H. DOWELL, JR. , Acting City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney 2 r: .. ........ .... -76 EL CAM040 EL tLy VLT-W4W Ly tNTItL�CrJ=GJritfJC.��: t :: _ f wxx j a - 1 , ;/ .. _..----- . o: . - , 1. 'i i. :! t a ... ter• :�.. �. . J 0 a r' =� �. y� �' . •. .� r . Ir •Y �: 0 . :: •'J. t v O %J r O = O ............ O f• •r- t u.........../�-a, ,c.•" . . :�: �.,:�•:�_'.�• ��..II - .7�:='?:�:�:�':�t':�.=':. .. _.= .%.:.'Y;:;.��- . . ......../•►lam I� ONINCIL MFFTI PIG : 2/12/85 AGFfIDA ITEM NO. B - 4 M E M O R A N D U M • TO: CITY COUNCIL February 12, 1985 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1C-85 LOCATION: 8800 El Centro Avenue APPLICANT: Michael Yeomans and Joseph Lindsey REQUEST: To change the General Plan Land Use Element Map designa- tion from Moderate Density Single Family Residential to Low Density Multiple Family Residential, and to change the zoning from RSF-Y Single Family Residential to RMF(6) PD, Multiple Family Residential, Planned Development Over- lay (6 units to the acre) . On December 3rd and 17th, 1984, the Planning Commission conducted pub- lic hearings on the above referenced request. Considerable public testimony was heard -at both hearings as referenced in the attached minutes excerpts. There was also extensive discussion among the Commission with the final vote being 3:3 which constitutes a technical denial of the request. Therefore, resolutions providing the City Council with the alternative of either approving or denying the general plan amendment are attached. Should the amendment be ap- proved, the PD rezoning could be approved with staff directed to bring back an ordinance. tJ' 4 HENRY ENG N RALPH H. DOWELL, JR. Planning Director Acting City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission minutes excerpt - 12/17/84 Planning Commission minutes excerpt - 12/3/84 Planning Commission Staff Report - 12/17/84 Planning Commission Staff Report - 12/3/84 Sierra Club letter - 12/17/84 Neighborhood Petition - 12/3/84 Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-84 Draft City Council Resolution No. 11 -85 (approving) Draft City Council Resolution No. i-2 -85 (denying) J�i 0 • CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 12, 1985 Agenda Item B-4 : Additional material - Zone Change 7-84 (Yeomans) The accompanying proposed revision to this planned development rezoning request was received after the agenda was printed. Mr. Yeomans is proposing a re- vised site plan containing 24 dwelling units. The original project has 30 dwelling units and this was revised to 28 during the course of planning commission hearings. • i • h February 7, 1985 RECEIVED FEB - ? fSS , Mr. Henry. Engen Director of Planning City of Atascadero ATascadero, California 93422 Dear Henry: Attached please find a revision of the site plan for the Summer field proposal. The project request is being reduced to a total presently g q ' s 4; . . of 24. units. The overall densityresentl bean requested i 5. 06 ,units. per acre. Some minor adjustments with the site plan coupled with the re- duction in units has resulted in our being able to preserve more of the native trees population and increase the amount of open ; `spaces within the project. It is Our' hope that these amendments will 'make the project more palatable to those who have expressed concerns about the proposal. If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate "to contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, r THE YEOMANS-DILLON GROUP Michael P. Yeomans ' bj Attachment • o ' Q4 rip N C cc= ow N !kr • ti N � N r o c t � 0 o 1 y ' v 15 o 14 q PLAN14ING C014MISSION MINUTES EXCERPT 12/17/84 Minutes - Planning Commission - December 17, 198 MOTfON—Made by Commissioner Wentzel, seconded by C i-s` er Carroll anal carried unanimously to the request and to require cuui gu=tter a s3- iclewalk on the San Jacinto frontage of the �aa�jel`it�:--._ Commisaie Lilley took his seat back on the Commissi 4. General Plan Amendment 1C-85/Zone Change 7-84: Continued hearing on request submitted by Michael Yeomans and Joseph Lindsey to change the General Plan Land Use Element Map designation from Moderate Density Single Family Residen- tial to Low Density Multiple Family Residential, and also to change the zoning from RSF-Y` to RMF(7) (PD) . Subject property is located at 8800 El Centro, also known as Lot 24 of Block 4 in Eaglet #1. Negative Declaration to the provisions of CEQA is to be certified by City Council. The Planning Director referenced the staff report and noted that this matter had been continued from the December 3rd meeting. The nature of the request was reviewed which involves first, a general plan. amendment, and secondly, a planned development rezoning which would lock any future development into the configuration being proposed by the applicant. Three letters were reviewed which had been submitted since the last meeting. The first is from the ap- plicant, Michael Yeomans, in which he indicated a desire to revise the project to reduce the number of units from 30 to 28 to save a significant oak tree in the corner of the E1 Centro frontage and to provide on-site recreation space and save additional trees. A letter from the applicant' s engineer, Dan Lloyd, noted that they have re-calculated the land area and that they believe that they now have 4.74 acres which results in a new project density of 5.91 units per acre (5.43 units per acre being indicated as the density of the adjoining single family frontage on Arcade Road) . The third letter is from Dr. Avina from the School District indicating that in view of the crowded conditions occurring in the Santa Rosa School and other attendance areas, the District is requesting that any approvals for new construction within the City carry with it a condition calling for mitigation the impact on schools. Staff is recommending revisions to the original recommendation to 1) Change the PD rezoning being requested from RMF-7 (7 units per acre) to RMF-6 (six units per acre) . 2) Accept the applicant' s revision to the development plan (let- ter of December 12, 1984) and add the following language to the PD rezoning : " (b) Development shall be subject to any City-wide development fee schedule which may be adopted by the City Council to mitigate impacts on schools and other public facilities. " There being no further questions by the Commission of staff, . Chairman Summers opened the hearing to the public. 4 _f y� Minutes - Plannin �mmission - December 17 1104 9 , Mike Yeomans indicated he would prefer to speak at the end of public testimony. Jerry McCarthy, Assistant Superintendent of Schools, stated that the District was not anti-growth and they appreciated the approach being proposed by staff. Their situation is that they are 110 students over their current capacity, especially in the Santa Rosa School which is the largest elementary school in the County. 40 students are being bussed out of this attendance area to Santa Margarita School. Lewis Avenue is also an impacted school and there is discussion of eliminating libraries and cafeterias to provide future classroom space; in addition, double sessions. Dan Ross, Principal at Santa Margarita School, indicated their concern over maintaining the quality of the program which could be overwhelmed by students which number 370 - 60 over last year ' s. Gil Menand,' 8829 Arcade, spoke against the project stating he did not want a tract type development as typified in Paso Robles and Santa Maria, and stated it was a case of the people versus the developers. David Mosher, 8895 E1 Centro, stated that the last rain had lifted the storm drain grate and that this project would make things worse. Mary Cunningham, 8495 E1 Dorado, stated that they live on a 2 acre - rte: site and that this project would not be compatible with the other acreage parcels around the area. Greg Bascom, 8890 Arcade, noted there would be a direct impact on his back yard with lots that are effectively 3600 square feet in area compared with his 8000 square feet. He commented that the density figures portrayed by the applicant were not equivalent, expressed concern that a ten foot high retaining wall would be needed behind his house. Peggy Bascom also expressed her oppo- sition to the proposed project. Bill Remple, 8475 El Dorado, cited serious problems with respect to police, fire, flood problems, the loss of 2/3 of the oak trees, overtaxing services, cramped conditions, absence of recreation, a density within their fence line of 8. 64 units per acre compared to the densityonArcade presents a radical change. Fred Bush, of the Sierra Club, submitted a letter expressing con- cern over the environmental quality issues including zoning, den- sity development, removal of oaks, altering natural streams, and traffic. He stated a traffic analysis is needed. Mary Richichi, 8540 E1 Dorado, stated that the water that runs across her driveway is bad and that this project would make matters worse, and stated that at the time of incorporation, the residents were promised a 'rural environment. Charley Richich � indicated that 1/2 acre rezoning might be reasonable and noted the petition with 91 signatures in opposition to the project. 5 Minutes - Planning Commission - December 17, 1984 Jerry Ludwig, 8550 E1 Dorado, spoke against the project. • Charles Wilson, 8873 Arcade, stated he was appalled at the thought of 30 dwelling units, and felt that the location of trees had not been accurately portrayed in the applicant's submittal, and ex- pressed concern over the harm that would be done to the trees by the filling proposed to the rear of the parcel. He further ex- pressed concern with the fire service and adequacy of water pres- sure, as well as the traffic pattern down a narrow street. Monica Parker, 8883 Arcade Road, stated she had lived there for six years and felt there is a need for a traffic light on Arcade before any development is approved, and felt that policing and no parking along curbs is also needed. Claudia Tantum, El Dorado Road resident, stated she was a four year resident and noted her opposition to the project. She commented on detention basins that were rejected on the Lucky Shopping Center in favor of a drainage ditch. John McNeil, city resident, stated that it was appropriate for neighbors to speak first but that others such as himself feels that this project is inappropriate. He stated that more needs to be done to mitigate environmental impacts and that the project is not in the spirit of the General Plan for a rural community and is not compatible with surrounding development including larger lots to the east which are not shown on some exhibit. He refer- enced specific statements in the General Plan relative to a Targe lot community with private open space. Bob Schinske, 8530 El Dorado, stated that reasons for his opposi- tion have already been stated. Robert Cowens, 8990 Arcade, stated that the problem is that the problem is that the architect' s project is in the wrong place and questioned whether an eight inch sewer on Arcade could handle the project and expressed concern over the Fire Department's lack of review. Robert Nimmo, Bella Vista resident, indicated he had no personal interest in the project and felt there is merit to the proposal, and felt that if this project is denied, there could be a request for moratoriums on other projects. Ron Stewart, Arcade resident, agreed that some development on the site was appropriate but this project was too much. Bill Tortino, area resident, stated he had learned from past res- idences in Stockton and San Jose that the residents should get necessary services first and then let the builder- develop later. Alan Ross, Arcade resident, stated he was against such a project which would generate much noise within his back yard. 6 G Minutes - Planning 1110mmission - December 17, 104 Art Cunningham, 8495 E1 Dorado, felt that many issues had not yet; been answered and that an environmental study needs more data and he questioned the lack of description of the sewer with regard to the soil characteristics. He stated that if the Commission can ignore 91 people's concerns, that the City is in real trouble. Joe Malin, area resident, stated that although he lives on the other side of town, he is violently opposed to this project, and felt that 22 wide street is too narrow. Mike Yeomans, applicant, indicated he had tried to repond to the neighborhood concerns and generate their support but had failed in that effort. He noted he supported the development fee ap- proach proposed by the School District and stated that most towns have them. He further commented that there is a need to provide these facilities and that $700 is a reasonable average figure. The project attempts -to- provide affordable housing, not low or high income, and it is in conformance with the General Plan cri- teria for infilling. Mr. Yeomans stated he has attempted to save the oaks and indicated that staff had advised him early in his application that the project location had merit but that there would be neighborhood concerns and this proved to be so. The project does provide for one story homes and channels traffic away from the neighborhood; drainage is taken care of in a per- manent open space to be maintained by the project; landscape plan provides for buffering between adjoining properties; it is afford- able because smaller homes are wiser during these times. He fur- ther stated that adequacy was provided for in the manner in which windows were placed and side .yards are utilized for private open space; there is no other way of obtaining an RMF-6 type project in the City and the cost of RMF-16 land would mean that a project of this type would result in homes of $120,000, and that the proposed PD. rezoning provides for maximum control Chairman Summers asked for comments from the Commission. Commis- sioner Lilley indicated that since the last meeting, he has heard many of the public' s concern with the project and that he shares many of these concerns but would respond to some of them by stat- ing that the project cannot be discriminated against; and given the School District' s problems, that would be something to be worked out between the District and the City. He further stated that the state-mandated Housing Element directs communities to provide for affordable housing and other forms of housing such as those that exist on Arcade; and the Commission needs to respond to innovative solutions and problems such as drainage can be resolved through proper engineering, Commissioner Carroll felt it was a good project and the smaller type housing is needed and it will have to fit in some neighbor- hood. At this point, a representative from the School District sought clarification " that the District did support the planning staff' s recommendation for language looking for mitigation of their concerns. 7 �y • Minutes - Planning Commission - December 17, 1984 Commissioner Wentzel indicated he thought it was a good project and the location was a good one, and wished that there was more support from the neighborhood because he did not want to ignore the public testimony. Commissioner Sherer stated that while he missed the last meeting, he had listened to the tapes and reviewed the minutes of prior testimony, and felt the density might be a little too high and he would seek a compromise in this area. Commissioner LaPrade stated he, too, had familiarized himself with the files concerning the prior testimony and he advised that in his field of real estate, he sees a need for this type project which would provide for covenants, conditions and restrictions to assure better maintenance. He further stated that in addition to the neighbors, he also had a duty to represent 17, 000 other resi- dents in the City. Chairman Summers expressed concern over the density increase and stated that the problems had to be resolved before committing more density which would include circulation. She further stated that this project is precedent setting and the fact that it is a tract type of housing, she would expect more planned unit developments in the future, and would prefer the single family approach to the multiple family density. Chairman Summers noted she would prefer that there be a focused environmental impact report on this pro- ject dealing with drainage, public services and circulation. At this point, Engen advised of the process for general plan/zon- ing amendments and that the Commission's action is a recommenda- tion to the Council and that a public hearing will be scheduled before the Council. He also noted that should the project be approved, there would have to be either a precise plan filed or a subdivision map, both of which would entail a notice to abutting properties before any building permit could be issued. It would be, at this point, that detailed conditions to mitigate problems such as drainage, etc. , would be determined. MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner LaPrade, seconded by Com- missioner Lilley to approve the General Plan Amendment and PD Rezoning subject to the findings and conditions in the amended staff report. AYES: Commissioners LaPrade, Lilley, Wentzel NOES: Commissioners Sherer, Carroll and Chairman Summers Engen noted that a tie vote means a technical vote for denial. Commissioner Sherer raised the possibility of revising the project for fewer units. Mr. Yeomans indicated he would prefer the pro- ject go forward as a tie vote to the City Council. Chairman Summers called a recess at 10:15 p.m. 8 i\ Yl,A1V1V11 U UUiVM1551U1q iVi11VUTrlb t;AI:L;tC T 12/3/84 Minutes - Planning emmision December 3, 190 Staff recommendation is for approval of the change from Mod�er-ati Density�tto High Density Single Family Residential for the"`study area along `Palo�mar` including the Bunyea's property. John Bunyea, appliamt indicated he was in port of the staf i. recommendation. Lon Allen, 8891 Palomar , spoked '�cated: no objection to the proposal. MOTION: Made by--Commissioner Wentzel, seconded by ommissioner Carroll, and carried unanimously to approve neral Plan Amendment 1A-85 subject to the recommendation contsinedi in the staff re ort. 4 7. General Plan Amendment lC-85 and Zone Change 7-84: Request submitted by Michael Yeomans and Joseph Lindsey to (a) Change the General Plan Land Use Element Map designation from Moderate Density Single Family Residential to Low Den- sity Multiple Family Residential; and (b) To rezone from RSF-Y (Residential Single Family) to RMF(7) (PD) (Residential Multiple Family, Planned Development Overlay (7 units/acre) . Subject property is located at 8800 E1 Centro, also known as Lot 24 of block 4. Negative Declaration to the provisions of CEQA is to be certified. In summarizing the materials contained in the staff report, the Planning Director indicated there is a two-step process being proposed to change the General Plan to the lowest possible multi- 0 ple family residential category and. concurrently rezone the site to RMF(7) (PD) to allow for 30 single family units on a private loop street on 4.29 acres of vacant land. Engen referenced General Plan criteria and noted appropriate loca- tions for low density multiple family areas off of arterials and outlined the rationale for staff' s support for both the general plan amendment and the PD rezoning. The public hearing was opened and applicant, Michael Yeomans, in- dicated he preferred to comment at the end of the public testimony Greg Bascom, 8890 Arcade, spoke in opposition to the project based on traffic congestion at El Camino Real, drainage problems, police fire, school service, and bussing of school children to Santa Margarita, and the lack of compatibility with the City' s uniqueness. David Mosher , 8895 E1 Centro, opposed the project and cited water problems from the Lucky development, traffic, noise and indicated there would be no benefit derived to any one in the area and that the City is not learning from the previous mistakes made on El Centro: 4 i Minutes - Planning Ammision - December 3, 19840 Ruth Winan, 8440 E1 Dorado Road, indicated she purchased her home in 1983 and cited school and drainage problems with this project. Anthony Winan, 8440 E1 Dorado Road, expressed concern over drain- age problems, grading that would redirect water to his lot and felt this would be a Los Angeles basin type zoning change as it is his feeling that the City is already overburdened and does not need the project. Wayne Barnard, Arcade resident, spoke in support of retaining the rural atmosphere and noted that the visibility onto E1 Camino Real is poor now and he uses Cascada. Bill Rempel, 8475 El Dorado, noted the project looked like a trailer park and talked about. the site's drainage problems flooding onto El Dorado. He spoke on open space areas for Atas- cadero and felt the units were too narrow for the density pro- posed. He also commented on the number of trees - that would be removed as a result of the project. Charles Wilson, 8876 Arcade, noted his opposition to the project and spoke about environmental issues and safety hazards and felt that too many trees would be removed. Mary Cunningham, 8495 El Dorado, felt the City should stick to the present zoning laws and felt the project looked like a cheap trailer park without wheels. Diane Bernard, Arcade resident, spoke to protecting the natural beauty. Howard Franklin, Arcade resident, desires to maintain the area as it now exists and that the project would impact the area. Arthur Cunningham, 8495 El Dorado, presented a petition containing 91 names in oppositino of the project to Chairman Summers and com- mented on the problems that would result from this project. Statements in opposition to the proposed project were also heard from Jolean Rhodes, Bob West, Frank Buckley, Earl Peterson, Dick Hart, Bob Shinski, all area residents, who cited such im- pacts as concentrated population, circulation, access and drain- age problems. Michael Yeomans, applicant, commented he had approached the pro- ject with the knowledge of a previously applied for 90 unit project which had been denied in the past. He had researched the public record on that denial and had developed a plan with the neighborhood in mind. He noted the project would be established off a private loop road which would channel traffic through the . commercial area. He spoke on the one-story units to provide pri- vacy on the existing abutting homes. He felt that the proposed density would be allowed in a normal low density single family district. He commented that the drainage problem has -been recog- nized and been provided for with retention basins onsite. Mr . 5 Minutes - Planning emmision - December 3, 198 Yeomans also spoke on the neighborhood-wide drainage problems that would not be compounded by this project. With regard to the school problem, he noted his wife, who is, a school teacher, had to transfer to another school from Santa Rosa because of a develop- ment impact, but that people need new housing opportunities. Mr. Yeomans pointed out that the project is not a mobile home park and noted that a homeowners association would maintain the outside of the buildings and exterior lawns and stated this project would be primarily for families purchasing their first home. In response to question from Commissioner Moore, Mr. Yeomans noted the general price range he would anticipate would be from $70 ,000 to $85,000. Mr. Yeomans elaborated on some of the features pro- posed for the project which include_ fencing, landscaping, private street with no through traffic, homeowners maintenance of land- scaping. Commissioner Moore expressed support of trying to provide a dif- ferent type of housing needed for first time homeowners but wasn't sure of this location given neighborhood opposition, Commissioner Wentzel felt this type of project was better than some two-story condominium projects. Commissioner Carroll stated this type of housing is needed but could not support the project because of the density and the neighborhood opposition. Commissioner Lilley stated that businessmen such as Mr . Yeomans would be driven out of business if innovative type housing could be vetoed by every neighborhood. He stated that the PD request is quite a commitment on the part of the developer and can be a has- sle. The Housing Element mandates that we provide opportunities for all types of housing in the community. Only 10% of the people in the United States can afford 90% of the housing. Chairman Summers indicated this particular project was precedent setting in that it does take the form of tract development which has historically not typified the local area. Going from four dots to 30 is a dramatic increase and there is a great deal of undeveloped multiple family zoned in the community. It was noted in prior ,discussions that traffic needs along El Camino Real need to be discussed and she hoped that the future joint meeting be- tween the Council and Commission, that this could be reviewed. Commissioner Moore wondered how many people on Arcade Road could afford to purchase a home in today' s market. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Lilley, seconded by Commissioner Wentzel to continue the public hearing on General Plan Amendment 1C-85 and Zone Change 7-84 to the December 17th meeting. The motion carried with Commissioner Moore and Chairman Summers dissenting. 6 City of Atascadero Item: B-4 STAFF REPORT FOR: City Planning Commission Meeting Date: December 17, 1984 BY: Joel Moses, Associate Planner File No: GP 1C-85/ZC 7-84 Project Address: 8800 El Centro Avenue (initially 8555 E1 Centro and 8500 E1 Dorado) SUBJECT: Request to change the General Plan Land Use Element Map designation and to rezone from RSF-Y to RMF(7) (PD) . BACKGROUND: At the December 3, 1984 meeting, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on the above noted items. After reviewing the Staff report and considerable public testimony, the Planning Commission con- tinued consideration of this agenda item to the December 17, 1984 meeting. Two revisions have been made to the attached staff report: (1) including a negative environmental determination finding for the plan amendment proposal; and (2) revising the address to 8800 E1 Centro. ADDITIONAL MATERIAL: Following the December 3rd meeting, the enclosed letters were received from the School District, the applicant, and the applicant's engineer. The School District is seeking an additiona condition of any approval which provides for some form of commitment to mitigate school impacts (for this and any future housing projects) . The correspondence from Mr. Yeomans contains a proposed revision to the project description to modify the project to reduce the number of homes from 30 to 28 to provide for a recreation site and to save ad- ditional trees. Their engineer has also advised that recalculation of the site area indicates that they have 4.74 net acres (see attached) . With a reduction in units to 28, this translates into 5 .91 units per acre compared to the 6.99 units per acre indicated in the initial application. General Plan Amendment 1C-85/Zone Change 7-84jPeomans STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on modified findings in Attachments A and B of the December 3rd staff report, staff recommends: 1) That -the General Plan Land Use Map designation be changed from Moderate Density Single Family to Low Density Multiple Family. 2) That the official zoning map be changed from RSF-Y to RMF-6 (PD5) . 3) That the zoning text be changed to include the establishment of Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 5, as follows: 9-3.649. Establishment of Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 5 (PD5) The Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 5 is established as shown on the Official Zoning Maps (Section 9-1.102) . The following conditions of development are established: (a) Development shall conform to the approved Summerfield Development Plan as modified by applicant' s letter of December 12, 1984. (b) Development shall be subject to any City-wide develop- ment fee schedule which may be adopted by the City Council to mitigate impacts on schools and other pub- lic facilities. HE/JM/ps ATTACHMENTS: December 12, 1984 letter from Michael Yeomans December 11, 1984 letter from Dan Lloyd, project engin. December 10 , 1984 letter from Dr. Avina December 3, 1984 staff report 2 December 12, 1984 Mr. Henry Engen Planning Director City of Atascadero Atascadero, California 93422 Dear Henry: This letter serves as my notice to your Department and the City of Atascadero that I wish to delete two units from my "Summerfield proposal. My reason for making this request is twofold: 1. To provide an open space area which the home- owners association can use for a future park or childrens play area; and 2. To provide me with some latitude in my final site design so that I can save more of the significant trees on this site. The second unit to the right of the entry (see enclosure) has been nominated by us for elimination because located in the center of that unit is a magnificent oak tree. That tree will be saved, and hopefully, become the focal point of the open space park or childrens play area. I have not made a decision as to what other unit to elimi- nate, but will do so as I develop a final site map for "Summer- field. " In doing so, I intend to shift some units around in order to save as many of the significant oak trees as possible. f t Mr. Henry Engen December 12, 1984 Page Two This letter should not be construed as a promise by me than all of the trees can be saved. To make such a promise would be foolhardy and less than responsible. I will, however, strive to . save as many trees as I can for I believe these trees will be an asset to both my project and the community. Sincerely, MICHAEL P. EO S bj Enclosure C ` 97$ a \ r SEB 010 TWO a~ � O Brio/.d } I e I 1 � I b I a c I a ExTy 7X�E STA/N£D /��/'141/� TH/5 lJ.{//T fOR DP�IsSP�9� �P055�81 E G.yi�F:t/.� PGgY-9.�f�t) - r� 11 December 1984 Henry Engen Planning Director City of Atascadero P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 Subject: Yeomans/Lindsey General Plan Amendment Dear Henry: I recently had a discussion with Mike Yeomans regarding the Planning Commission hearing for his proposed General Plan amendment. It appears that several questions were raised during the meeting which need clarification. Some confusion exists regarding the actual acreage of the parcel. We have researched all of the existing maps related to the project and the general vicintiy and feel confident that the site contains 4.74 acres (not including streets). An actual field survey of the property is the only method of obtaining precise acreage but based on our research of available records, we have no reason to suspect the site is any different than 4.74 acres. An issue related to the site area is density. Mr. Yeomans has indicated to me that he intends to reduce his project proposal to 28 units. This equates to a new project density of 5.91 units/acre. As an added comparison, we calculated the density of the properties fronting Arcade Road between El Centro and E1 Dorado, adjacent to the site, as being 5.43 units to the acre. Drainage was another issue of concern expressed at the Planning Commission hearing. During our early design layouts of the site, we purposely left portions of the site open for detention basins. The intent of the basins is to capture all of the site runoff and release a smaller amount of water as determined by the City Engineer. This will effectively eliminate any increase in runoff from the site due to construction. Realistically this on-site design feature will reduce the downstream impact during peak storm periods because the outflow is regulated to a lesser design storm. Our design philosophy is to allow all storm water that travels over and through the site to continue unrestricted. We will, however, intercept the runoff that presently enters the properties on our southeast boundary. This will not effect the runoff currently flowing along E1 Centro and El Dorado. Henry Engen -2- 11 December 1984 We have made numerous visits to the site and are very familiar with the layout and design of the proposed subdivision. The issues of drainage, grading and road geometry have been thought out and we are very comfortable with the concept. If you have any questions related to items I have or have not covered, please give me a call. Sincerely, ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES Daniel R' LTay' dd I+ Ili � .:� � ,' Atascadero unified School District "Where students and their education are paramount" c 6800 LEWIS AVENUE ANTHONY AVINA, Ed.D. ATASCADERO,CA 93422 District Superintendent PHONE: (805) 466.0393 December 10, 1984 Mr . Henry Engen Planning Director City of Atascadero P. 0. Box 747 Atascadero , CA 93423 Dear Mr. Engen: Our Board of Education will be asked , at its meeting .of December 10th , to approve a resolution declaring our schools impacted . It is my understanding that , at the same time , the Planning Commission will be considering approval of a 30 unit housing proposal in the Santa Rosa School attendance area. Currently , Santa Rosa School is impacted and students are being transported to Santa Margarita , School . The school will not be able to accommodate any additional students, thus the District must ask for _mitigation from developers constructing homes--not only in the Santa Rosa attendance area , but in the rest of the District as well . Lewis Avenue , Monterey Road , Santa Rosa, and Creston Schools are at capacity at the present time . Since Creston is not in the City of Atascadero , it does not fall within your jurisdiction , but the other schools certainly do. Our high school is also at capacity . It is for that reason that we must ask that any approvals for new - construction in the City carry with them a condition calling for mitigating the impact on our schools . We hope the Commission will attach such a condition on any proposed developments in the City with those conditions to be clarified further with the school district . SiAcerely yours; < nthbny Ed .D. District erintendent AA : ejs cc : Mr . Ralph Dowell Carrisa Plains Elementary • Creston Elementary • Lewis Avenue Elementary • Monterey Road Elementary Santa Margarita Elementary • Santa Rosa Road Elementary • Atascadero Junior High School Atascadero Senior High School • Atascadero Adult School • Oak Hills Continuation High School City of Atascadero Item: B-7 STAFF REPORT FOR: City Planning Commission Meeting Date : December 3, 1984 BY: Michael Wixon, Planning Intern File No: GP 1C-85 / Zone Change 7-84 Project Address: 8555 El Centro and 8500 El Dorado SUBJECT: Request to change the General Plan Land Use Element Map designation and to rezone from RSF-Y to RMF (7) (PD) . BACKGROUND: The applicant, Michael Yeomans, is requesting a change in the General Plan Land Use Element Map designation from Moderate Density Single Family Residential to Low Density Multiple Family Residential. Con- current with the General Plan Land Use change, the applicant is pro- posing a zone change from RSF-Y to RMF-7 (PD) . Notice of public hear- ing was published in the Atascadero News on November 23, 1984 and copies of the notices were sent to record propertyowners within 300 feet of the subject property. A. SITUATION AND FACTS : 1. Request. . . . . . . . . .To change the General Plan Land Use Element Map designation from Moderate Density Single Family to Low Density Multiple Family. Also included in the request is a change in zoning from RSF-Y to RMF-7 (PD) . 2. Appicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Michael P. Yeomans 3.. Property Owner . . . . . . . . . . . . .Joseph Lindsey 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.29 acres 5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The site abuts El Dorado to the east and El Centro to the west. 6. General Plan Designation. . . . .Existing: Moderate Density Single Family Residential Proposed : Low Density Multiple General Plan Amendment 1C-85 (Yeomans/Lindsey) Famiy Residential 7. Zoning. . . . . . . . .Existing: RSF-Y , (Residential Single Family, 1 to 1. 5 acres minimum lot size) Proposed: RMF-7 (PD) (Residential Multiple Family-7 units to the acre-Planned Development overlay) 8. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 9. Adjacent General Plan Land Use Designations. . . . . . . . . . . . .North: High Density Single Fam. South: Moderate Density Single Family East: Moderate Density Single Family West: Heavy Commercial and Retail Commercial 10. Environmental Determination—Negative Declaration to be cer- tified by City Council. 11. Adjacent Zoning. . . • .North: LSF-X South: RSF-Y East: RSF-Y West: CS and CR B. ANALYSTS: The first step in reviewing this two part application is to review the proposed General Plan Land Use change with regard to General Plan policies. GENERAL PLAN Relevant land use policies in, the General Plan are highlighted in the attached excerpts The development proposal includes 30 single-story, single family homes on approximately 4. 20 acres, or 6.99 units per acre. The General Plan Land Use element divides multiple family residential uses into high or low density categories (see Page 60 of General Plan) The low density multiple family designation allows a max- imum of ten units per acre. Therefore, this development proposal would be properly classified as a low density multiple family land use. The existing land use policies are useful guidelines in evaluating the proposal. This site is within the Urban Services District and is also in a transition area between commercial and single family residential uses. Hence, the project acts as a "buffer" between high intensity commercial uses and high and moderate density_ sin- gle family uses. 2 _I 0 ! General Plan Amendment 1C-85 (Yeomans/Lindsey) Pertinent general plan policies relative to the form of multiple family housing proposed by this project include: "In keeping with the desired character of the low density residen- tial community, development of each multi-residential area in the future needs to be considered in the light of such specific fac- tors as the topography, the traffic circulation, drainage, fire protection and the general level of use intensity at that location. " The proposed site is in a transitional location to the rear of the Lucky shopping center and commercial zoning. Traffic would be directed onto E1 Centro —Cascada to E1 Camino Real. The site is flat and within the Urban Sercices Line. "Low Density - Shall be permitted in areas not adjacent to arterials and may be permitted adjacent to single family residential. May include duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes, but generally no more than five dwelling units per building. " The site does not have direct access to an arterial. The appli- cant - through the PD rezoning request - would limit units to one story, detached single family homes to be compatible with single family development which generally rear lots (Arcade Road) and side lots to this project site (El Centro and E1 Dorado) . The density proposed is lower than conventionally allowed (10 units per acre). The density of abutting residences on Arcade is ap- proximately 7 units per acre while lots to the south are approxi- mately .75 units/acre. ZONE CHANGE Should the General Plan Land Use Map Designation be changed to a low density multiple family use, the site could potentially be zoned for densities up to ten units per acre. However , the appli- cant is requesting a density of seven units per acre. This is allowable under Zoning Ordinance Section 9-3.175 (a) which states that lesser densities may be specified where warranted by certain site characteristics including, but not limited to, drainage, sewage disposal, etc. Given the site 's peculiar drainage and lo- cation, the reduction of density from RMF-10 to RMF-7 would be warranted. Included in the application is a PD (Planned Development) overlay request. Under Section 9-3. 641 of the Zoning Ordinance, the pur- pose of a PD overlay zone is to identify areas where development standards or processing procedures may be altered to promote and enhance orderly and harmonious development with best utilizes the special characteristics of an area. . The site development presented in the attachments would warrant the PD overlay zone in that the development standards for this zone could assure the single family character of the site plan presented. 3 General Plan Amendment 1C-85 (Yeomans/Lindsey) To simply rezone this site to a RMF-10 (Residential Multiple Fam- ily, 10 units per acre) would leave the owner the opportunity to change the development plan in a way that might be inconsistent with the adjoining single family lots. The plan, as provided, is now consistent with the area to the northin that the homes are single family detached homes at a density approaching seven units per acre. A Planned Development overlay zone for this area would hold the applicant to develop the property as the site plan shows. .However, four findings must be made before establishing a PD over- lay zone as per Section 9-3.644 of the Zoning Ordinance. Each re- quired finding is addressed individually as follows: 1. This Planned Development will promote orderly and harmonious growth in that plan would be compatible with the existing single family development pattern and that _higher density single family homes near commercial areas has inherent bene- fits, i.e. travel time, energy conservation (gas) , neighbor- hood support of commercial uses, etc. 2. The special characteristics of this site, including drainage and natural vegetation, have been addressed in a thoughful manner, i.e. open space area along the El Dorado frontage acts as a buffer to lower density single family homes and also acts as a water detention basin for drainage. 3. The development of this site may occur without the PD overlay zone-. However, as statedpreviously, with a PD overlay zone only the project as shown can be developed. 4. The primary redeeming feature of this project appears to be the compatibility of the density to the high density single family homes to the north and screening from larger lot single family areas. Traffic flow is also directed towards the more intensive commercial areas. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings in Attachment A and B, staff recommends: 1) That the General Plan Land Use Map designation be changed from Moderate Density Single Family to Low Density Multiple Family. 2) That the official zoning map be changed from RSF-Y to RMF-7 (PD5) . 3) The zoning text be changed to include the establishment of Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 5 as follows: 9-3.649. Establishment of Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 5 (PD5) The Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 5 is established as shown on the Official Zoning Maps (Sec tion 9-1. 102) . The following modifications to the develop- ment are established: 4 General Plan Amendment 1C-85 (Yeomans/Lindsey) (a) Development shall conform to the approved Summerfield Development Plan. MW:ps ATTACHMENT A - Findings - GP 1C-85 ATTACHMENT B - Findings - Zone Change 7-84 ATTACHMENT C - General Plan Designation ATTACHMENT D - Existing Zoning Map ATTACHMENT E - General Plan Policies ATTACHMENT F - Zoning Excerpt - PD Overlay ATTACHMENT G - Development Plan 5 General Plan Amendment 1C-85 (Yeomans/Lindsey) ATTACHMENT "A" General Plan Amendment GP 1C-85 Findings for Approval December 3, 1984 FINDINGS 1. A General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Multiple Family is consistent with the policies of the General Plan document. 2. The proposed General Plan Land Use designation is located within the Urban Services Boundary and will not have a significant effect upon the existing level of services. 3. The proposed general plan amendment will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment, and preparation of an Environ- mental Impact Report is not necessary. 6 General Plan Amendment 1C-85 (Yeomans/Lindsey) ATTACHMENT "B" - Zone Change 7-84 Findings of Approval December 3, 1984 FINDINGS: 1. The proposed zone change will amend the zoning map and text to be consistent with the Land Use Map and Text 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 land use pattern and zoning in the area. 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 effect upon the environment, and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 5. The following findings pertain to the establishment of a Planned Development Overlay Zone: a. Modification of development standards or processing require- ments is warranted to promote orderly and harmonious development. b. Modification of development standards or processing require- ments will enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area and will have a beneficial effect on the area. C. Benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be reasonably achieved through existing development standards or processing requirements. d. Proposed plans, if any, offer certain redeeming features to compensate for requested modifications. 7 Noe ow ]� / - \Y' a4 UV)Cro P ��-jmm, QaaonDU 12L mzw ix =wa ,I ) Jd � H 0 crow 'u w 0- -4 �Z4 � -' %J I ' ' I }+y J -J U li / a \ Qo' / \ -- wwoa X a z � i \ •' `'`^' �4J n L<L u-tai..tQL LQi.ZZZ Xn LL N N N �.� \ 4 a �a o c o c Z Z � (13 \\ uyf� : o c WwW n c < =3=o3:mm C fr s, `eQca 2 Q :w r F . ........... c c ..... ..... w c c;>cc < c <cyccec - cy c\ c c. t c c )i 7 �- r f ` e7f J. •• 18 WW t4• ° p�� :.� +o �' ;v •^- P° >f• ' ¢ , \fir,iJ •,c, '. Q n Z Z I 0V p0� ay5�`jarr=`` `•' - �\ ,�\ o�`� �:+� D '' 4 (•— •� i 9-4 LU ���''�7"`s\\ v Lu 10 A \ rak♦ e 5 as6s 6ti.1 j'S ` r`°i 6 •::\Qin cF �� ''! � ;est e5°'�' SITqpE � 3' Lo F � ��•� � ° t Z-t a-' �, brei• s s b 3 ��° • ~ {'' �" GQ j°��•�` \V" ,,o �.�,52� �`4? �� '. �'°'� z°B�4o",�_ BToo � _ tIPy 0 p grf., Z'+•`ss�`"t.� - ''},b 8770 an°o J yy .r'' - tLg4`� o Be- ,38 y r.2 e`sso j �i93X-5 _ q'F°, -J. DA D Ql�•r P: ��— evo '88f?+ +SQ4•-.t F•-- - 9< co 38 3 b =Q-7.4j—CC U . -. .. 9 34 I � �w7 BSO 4 .ppp 8951•• 1. v Q�� t6 904S �q.P @ e•*t"41� 9\5Fs`4. m 9Wo IDl rs 11� .9F o fi y i c tar9Ys s t�.�• ►3a r eql q1 ; C 9160 9120 GO T7'JY L 1 9155 k V } P.. ! •K\ 16 CO 7138791'0 szss 15' 25 a 19�' VL y�. 9500 ------------1 (Z 1 9275r 14 - ,\. � � �� N •Ip P:. AVE ras J4D `• • 1'Q,�O♦\\\` <m 6a\�-.i � 8 i�' A��D 95t, I 4�e 5 9� 9sos28 o`• \`\ �atwJ�\ \ �' °r's 2`;4'a ,S� � vN�o`� 10 \� C�j fig° q�6 RSF 10 31 C _13 Y ° 5 D�313`. : I.'f I .°O- h / a+t zt0° 9�gs'�,5 L ties 1 - i a i .+°°. /y�"�� .�;i z ,p .'�'6 b a 1 { ♦ 9 b " 'as Hwt 3 �yv yep ♦ 34 914305 r Z OP Petr ks°p �oS r rs e0o .�\rs•,•:.• •90 I6 `�' s �•� a P4 36i tl rr sc OnDS ILIS� OSP a� A / 4e0 1 E6 s8°°• SOF 1 4 m R ApU C0 co,Y-ts• 9905 �` •.<, it ,mi 1 .1 m� n10 - ! �� m• r z .D a 2 A 5 'vq raz3 v♦r+-fie .,. 9 7s'. ��r� m` 0,13..� i1'i- D•v s gi•I,A. 6 ga.\ '?1 1 .r ♦ A 10-a _ $:•6 P v- T o IO.A IRM R A .✓• -_!IOQi °' �J P ao•1°_'? o 'I 8 .r 9,9-ws I oDo. Nm ,• �^ AT-T-/*ctf ne_t4r „C- GF IC.-85 attc tZG 7-84 'CEOM,%r45/ L)NDSAY c. The Suburban Services Area GFENER L-Fr.4k.4 Poc_ac.i ES The Suburban Services Area consists of the remainder of the City, and the portion of the Eaglet Tract within e City boundaries. There are 16 ,539 acres of subd' ided 1a in this category, excluding the three periphe Agri ulture Preserves Services to be provided a e simila to the Urban Services Area, except for e exclusion of sewe_ and drainage. The major water dist bution system pr osed in the 1968 General Plan is dequate to serve the p oposed Suburban Services Area. The optimum popula 'on of 33, 388 people wa established by the Atascadero Advis ry Committee for th 7rban Reserve Area. It was developed by u ng the following rocedure Members of the Atascadero dvisory mmittee inventoried the Urban Reserve Area and eterm' ed that there are 6 ,424 lots zoned for some sort of sential occupancy. Of these 3,692 were vacant on October l 1975, at the time of the Special Census by the Adviso mmittee. The lots vary in size from one-fourth acre less o 300 acres. The distri- bution by lot size in ea zoning c tegory--R-1, R-2 , R-3, R-4, R-A, A and T--was etermined fro the Zoning Asap. This General Plan s pulates that in the rban Services Area no land division eating parcels of less han one-half acre should be allow except for unusual and co elling reasons. This one-half cre minimum lot size will be p mitted in High Density ingle Family Residential Areas on v. In the Suburban S vices Area lot sizes should be 22 ac s or greater, generall graded toward larger lots further from t Central Busines District. The egative correction allows for the fact that much o the a eage to the west lies in a region of slope greater tha • 0 per cent, shown in Map II-1, and in a region of landsli s,, shown in Map II-2. LAND USE POLICY PROPOSALS 1. The entire Atascadero Colony and the Eaglet Tract, less three peripheral agriculture preserves shall constitute the Urban Reserve Area of 20 , 253 acres. Urban and sub- urban development shall be recognized within this area according to appropriate use and density standards. 2. The type and extent of services provided. within the Urban Reserve Area shall depend on whether land is in the Urban or the Suburban Services Area. 3. Properties outside the Urban Services Line shall be evalu- ated for lot sizes based on the Suburban Residential range 2L (22 to 10 acres) until sewers are available. 57 . r 0 0 4. Large lots are a distinguishing characteristic of Atas- cadero. Proposed density standards shall preserve this feature and_ thus ensure "elbow room" for present and future inhabitants. 5. The keeping of domestic animals for pleasure and hobby is common in the community and shall be allowed in sub- urban and urban areas with adequate protection of public health and welfare. 6. High priority is placed upon public and private open space as a land use element. This includes the protec- tion and preservation of scenic areas , watercourses, hazard lands, hilltops, etc. that add much to the a_uality of the rural atmosphere in Atascadero. 7. It is an objective of this Plan to strongly support and encourage continuation of the County Agriculture Preserve program. 8. In the calculation of lot area for the purposes of con- sidering land divisions and in determining _permitted numbers and types of animals allowed, gross acreage shall be used. However, in determining permitted .densities for multiple family residential developments, net acreage (excluding land area needed for streets rights-of-way) shall be used. 9 . The Land Use Map of the General Plan isnot a specific diagram, especially in areas where there is a transition between different types of land uses, such as residential adjacent to commercial. Since, the transition will occur over a period of time and since it is desirable to pro- tect existing, generally less intensive uses while en- couraging newer, generally more intensive uses , the use of a concept known as the "wavy line" concept may be ap- propriate. This concept will encourage retention of the zoning for the less intensive use until demand dictates a change of zoning for the more intensive use while clearly supporting that future change when the time is appropriate. Factors to consider in the timing of these changes will include existing development, property ownership, devel- opment potential, access and related physical features, and compliance with zoning and General Plan standards and policies . (As an example, an area designated by the Gen- eral Plan for commercial use should be granted consistent zoning when contiguous property in the transition area is under the same ownership and can be developed in a compat- ible manner, but, when such property, although contiguous, is in another ownership and is developed with a less in- tensive use, such as a residence, or is vacant, zoning may be withheld until the time is right for the more intensive commercial use. ) 58 . n�� In much of Atascadero Colony, the original subdivision created �\ lots which are excessively long and narrow, as much as five times longer than wide. Many of these lots are rather small and located in areas destined for urban development. These lots are particularly difficult to maintain in their present form, and taking them down to more usable sizes is sometimes even more difficult. Special studies related to these areas must explore the most practical approach to their highest use, including the need for more stringent standards for re- view of lot splits . Single-Family Residential The existing and future distribution of single-family residen- tial uses can be partly interpreted from Table V-1. This table indicates that the largest number of developed single- family lots occurs in Octant NE-1 . This octant also has 424 vacant lots, most of which occur in residential categories. Growth potential, however, is greater in Octants NW-0 and SE-O . Octant NW-0 has 1, 353 vacant lots principally in low- density residential categories. Four classifications of single-family residential density are proposed in this Plan. The principal uses found in each clas- sification are proposed as follows :` ` = • Land uses shall be limited to single-family dwellings, acces sory buildings and uses, home occupations, public .parks and playgrounds, schools, libraries and board and care facilities. Minimum lot size for the creation of new lots shall be one- half acre. This is greater than the one-quarter to one-half acre recommended in the 1968 General Plan.. High Density Minimum lot size for the creation of .new lots shall be one-half acre. Moderate Density . Minimum lot size for the creation of new lots within the Urban Services Area shall be one acre if served by sewers and 12 acres if not served by sewers . Low Density Minimum lot sizes within the Urban Services area shall range from 12 to 22 acres while the minimum lot size outside the Urban Services Area shall be 22 acres . Deter- mination of appropriate lot sizes should be based on such �-- factors as slope of access road to the building site; availability of services, especially sewers ; distance from the center of the community; general character of neighboring lands; percolation and the area needed for access roads to the building site. _ 59 . Suburban Single-Family Residential iLan se shall be limited to single-family dw ings, accesso buildings and uses, home occupat' ns, truck gardening, chards and vineyards, restomes, public arks and la unds animal hos i -ls (large and P play � P ( g small animals) an rseries (pl ) Lot sizes shall be 2? acres or mor of sizes may be allowed in conjunction with plann residential developments provided that the overall den ty within the project 3.. y is consistent with a h'er density standards contained herein. Determination of appropria .lot sizes shall be based upon_sizch factors as slope of'-the access road to the building site, availability of servi`Cc?s, dis- tance from the center of the community, genera harac- ter neighboring lands, percolation and the area e�eded f access road to building site. \ Multiple-Family Residential The current distribution of multi-family residential lots is largely confined to the four octants closest to the center of town. These four octants, NE-I, SE-I, NW-I, and SW-I, contain 91 percent of the improved multi-family lots. In keeping with the desired character of the low density residential community, development of each multi- residential area in the future needs to be considered in the light of such specific factors as the topography, the Z traffic circulation, drainage, fire protection and the general level of use intensity at that location. The Multi-Family residential areas shall have the follow ing density and use characteristics: A minimum lot size of one-half acre providing sewers are available. Smaller lot sizes may-- be allowed in conjunction with planned residential developments, in- cluding planned mobile home developments and subdivi— sions, provided that the overall density within the project is consistent with other density standards contained herein. Structures shall be limited to two stories . Other uses compatible with multi-family residential use parks and playgrounds, accessory buildings and uses , convalescent homes , and mobile home parks . Multi-Family Residential shall be further divided into: i 60 . High Density Shall ermitted along arterials and may be pepal- along nolle s and local streets and mag ude apart- ments of five or dwelling units e maxir^um a'llow- able density shall neat ed welling units per acre although lesser densitie specified by zoning based on site chart ristics ; exc a density bonus may be allow nder certain circumstan .where adequate provi ' s are made to provide housing units a rdable to and moderate income persons. Low Density Shall be permitted in areas not adjacent ,to arterials and may be permitted adjacenttoSingle-Family Residential. May include duplexes , triplexes and fourplexes, but generally no more than five dwelling units per. building. New projects with more than four units per structure shall require specific design approval The maximum allowable density shall not exceed ten units per acre although lesser densities may be specified by zoning based on site characteristics; except, a density bonus may be allowed, under certain circumstances, where ade- quate provisions are made to provide housing units af- fordable to low and moderate income persons Mobile Home Parks Atas ero, with its rural setting, is ideally suited t e mobile h park. There are currently 10 mobile ho parks in the Colon roviding 448 spaces. Mobile home arks take up 71. 8 acres or . 31% of the Colony's total ea. Mobile home parks should e d in the future a ey continue to provide an alternative of low c residence. The designations of single-fa nd multiple-family resi- dential will allow mobile me parks a secondary use per- mitted by approval of evelopment plan ased on 'the loca- tion, character an agnitude of each propo project. Mobile home arks may be permitted in single-family siden- tial ar s at the same densities as if they were stick ' 1t str uses and may be permitted in multiple-family resident eas as a maximum of 11 dwellings per acre. Residential Policy Proposals 1. It is not in accordance with Atascadero 's development policy to fill up the core before the lands to the west and south are built upon 61. • 0 2. The ideal development pattern that shall be promoted is similar to that conceived by E.G. Lewis , i.e. , a popula- tion of 20,000 to 30 ,000 people living in some 7,000 over about 23,000- acres of the Colon homes scattered ov .Y Residential densities are proposed which create ,a devel- opment potential that will reach an ultimate population of about 34 ,000, 3. The residential densities proposed in this Plan automati- cally ensure considerable open space. 4 . Nigh density residential land uses shall serve as a buffer between commercial and single-family residential areas where appropriate. 5. Residential density shall decrease as one moves outward from the core, in order to maintain the rural atmosphere of the community. This can be accomplished by a graded increase in lot size and a graded decrease in the per- mitted density of population. 6 . Multi-family residential use areas shall have a minimum building site of one-half acre. Smaller lot sizes may be allowed in conjunction with planned residential dev- elopments, including planned mobile home developments and subdivisions, provided that the overall density within the project is consistent with other density standards contained herein. 7 . Multi-residential density areas shall be considered in light of such specific factors as topography, traffic circulation, drainage fire protection and general level of use intensity at that location. 8 . In keeping with a basic goal to retain the rural atmos- phere of Atascadero, appropriate dens-ties , minimum lot sizes, setbacks and other development standards for dom- estic animal raising shall be established in the Zoning Ordinance. 9. Hazard areas (geologic, land slide, flood, etc. ) shall have appronriate development standards 10. Lot splits shall be thoroughly evaluated and be in accordance with community plans and principles. Strict adherence to the lot sizes defined in this Plan is essential in order to retain the desired character of the community. Creation of lots smaller than those recommended must not be permitted if the maximum popu- lation of approximately 30, 000 is to be maintained. • 62 . 11. Attention shallbepaid to the aesthetic result of land division. Building sites shall be encouraged on natural slopes, with minimal disruption of native vegetation and watersheds, and efficient layout of access and utilities . 12. A program shall be developed to encourage the preservation of trees, watersheds and natural slopes and other natural amenities from abuse and destruction resulting from poor design and development practices. 13 Non-conforming uses located in residential areas shall be relocated. 14 . Where all factors are favorable, exclusive mobile home areas could satisfactorily be developed in designated neighborhood areas. 15. Where all factors are favorable, board and care facil- ities could satisfactorily be developed in designated neighborhood ureas. The use density shall not be per- mitted to exceed that of High Density Multiple Family use. 16 . New condominium projects, planned mobile home develop_ ments and stock cooperatives shall be reviewed on an individual basis as community housing needs, neighbor hood character, and site improvements will dictate. 17. To alleviate the problems arising from the conversion of existing rental units, the City may regulate con- dominium conversions. The Cite shall revise its zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance regarding condo- minium conversions in order to: (a) Establish criteria for the conversion of existing multiple rental housing to condominiums, community apartments, stock cooperatives, and­new or limited equity stock cooperatives . (b) Reduce the impact of such conversions on residents in rental housing who may be required to relocate due to conversion of apartments to condominiums , community apartments, stock cooperatives , and new or limited equity stock cooperatives by providing procedures for notification and adec_ruate time and assistance for such relocation. (c) Insure that the purchasers of converted housing have been properly informed as to the physical condition of the structure which is offered for purchase. (d) Insure that converted housing achieves high quality appearance and safety and is consistent with the goals of the City ' s general plan. 63 . r (e) Encourage opportunities for housing ownership of all types, for all levels of income and in a variety of locations. (f) Encourage a continuing supply of rental housing for low and moderate income persons and families. 18. In conjunction with residential project, a density bonus may be allowed, under certain circumstances , where ade- quate provisions are made to provide housing units afford- able to low and moderate income persons. Other bonus incentives , at the discretion of the City, may also be considered in lieu of the density bonus for such projects. COWIERCIAL USES shall be recognized that commercial land use represents im )rtant segment of the economic base. If commercial dev elop ent is not in scale with the community population, _e publi is inconvenienced, and the community lacks a ke in- gredien of a balanced economy. Atascadero 's commer ' al problems re common to many cities and include the llowing: TABLE V-1 LAND USE " LOT AND BY 0-TANT ALL LOTS IM. - OVED LOTS BY USE Imp S gle D4ul.t. Family Other Octant Total roved Vacant am' l'r R-2 R-3 R-4 Uses NE-I1, 432 1, 008 4 64 125 V 28 10 198 NE-0 403 307 96 283 0 8 5 11 NE-Q SE-I 903 6 271 389 30 4 153 SE-0 732 54 578 132 0 4 18 0 SE-Q SW-I 3 435 148 342 0 43 19 31 SW-0 407 165 242 159 0 0 0 6 SW-2 NW- 722 424 298 360 17 20 15 12 NWtitiT- 1, 718 365 1, 353 364 0 0 0 1 TOTALS 6 , 900 3, 490 3, 410 2 , 676 198 133 71 412 64 . • Yt,OMar�S� L1�tD54Y ADOPTED JUNE' 27 , 1984P EON rw,t:xc axppr- F0©vt�,.aY PD (Planned Development) Overlay Zone 9-3.641. Purpose: The Planned Development Overlay Zone identi- fies areas where development standards or processing procedures dif- ferent from those established by the underlying zoning district, Chapter 9-4 or Chapter 9-6, are deemed necessary to promote orderly and harmonious development and to enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area. 9-3. 642. Applicability of Planned Develop=ment Standards: The f Section 9-3. 645 et seq apply to all uses fo standards or which a zoning approval is required that are located in a Planned Development Overlay Zone. 9-3. 643. Minimum Development Standards and Processing Require- ments: The development standards, special use standards and pro- cessing requirements of the underlying zoning district shall apply in a Planned Development Overlay Zone unless specifically modified, to a greater or lesser extent, by a Planned Development Overlay Zone. The Planned Development Overlay Zone may be used as follows: (a) to modify setbacks; heights; parking and loading; landscap- ing, screening and fencing; signs; streets and frontage im- provements; and, other development and special use standards, set forth in Chapters 9-4 and 9-6; and (b) to modify processing procedures set forth by the underlying zoning district (Chapter 9-3) ; and (c) to establish other development standards or processing re- quirements; and (d) to modify minimum lot sizes or permitted density. 9-3.644. Required Findings: In approving the establishment of a Planning Development Overlay Zone, the following findings shall: be made: (a) Modification of development standards or processing require- ments is warranted to promote orderly and harmonious development. (b) Modification of development standards or processing require- ments will enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area and will have a beneficial effect on the area. 3-59 r. . ADOPTED JUNE 27, 190 • (c) Benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be reasonably . achieved through existing development standards or processing requirements. (d) Proposed plans, if any, offer certain redeeming features to compensate for requested modifications. 9-3. 645. Establishment of Planned Development Overlay Zone No. l PDl. Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 1 is established as s own on the Official Zoning Maps (Section 9-1.102) . The following modifi- cations to development standards and processing requirements are established: (a) A Master Plan of Development shall be approved prior to ap- proving a Plot Plan, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, or Tentative Parcel or Tract Map. The master Plan of Devel- opment shall be applied for and processed in the manner pre- scribed for a Conditional Use Permit (Section 9-2. 109) . (b) In approving a Master Plan of Development, the level of pro- cessing for subsequent projects or phases may be reduced to a Plot Plan provided that the Master Plan contains sufficient detail to support such a determination. (c) No subsequent Plot Plan, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Per- mit, or Tentative Parcel or Tract Map shall be approved unless found to be consistent with the approved MasterPlan of Development. Any amendment to a Master Plan of Develop ment, including conditions thereof, shall be accomplished as set forth in Subsection (a) of this Section. (d) A minimum front setback of twenty (20) feet shall be provided along the El Camino Real frontage of all parcels. Rear set- backs shall be a minimum of ten feet. (e) Plans shall make provision to develop an attractive appear- ance along Highway 101 through the use of landscaping, building and parking orientation and other means. (f) The number of driveways along El Camino Real shall be mini- mized to prevent potential traffic conflicts. (g) All utilities shall be installed underground. (h) Exterior building materials shall be reviewed for accepta- bility and shall exhibit compatible relationships between buildings on a particular site or parcel. 9-3 . 646 . Establishment of Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 2 PD2. Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 2 is established as shown on the Official Zoning Maps (Section 9-1. 102). The following modifi- cations to development standards are established: 3-60 i 1 a C � C� 0 t=� 10 o 93 go g � � 0 �p arm r. } 6 f 0 YAP pwv/r Q rp> DII (y a p u t OL1 r n — `r t IilllIl !1!111 Ii II II";IL III' I 'I;I . � Jill _ ---- =, 1j;, , _�� -_; IL� ;! � ;� ► ILII __ Q 1 I a ` p 2 n1 �•' --� iii :'I —� j�!Li;l� I�'11 ori pin �? ill ' II — 'il IIIIaI II'�III�I!I j 1i11!il� �� YD w ,w s— ' r�,�ii.IIIl. 1 _ I �L! ° rL. ,72 — '•'I 1111�1i1 �Inl. c� I'+1; 1 1j11 it I 11!1 (�� COI I VG I i 2 2 I I — �n� y r• ! •a"Q-O� � � �--At� Ii IicCe Rl�3� L "4 Q •I v � �s � v E i! b N fc LL- n w no �E 6 Q 00 jo oD 0 I L � arm t IT' on a g - OpUp � p0 Q d i 00 0 ir } J ,9 JIL. IL R o a ob � ( � m 0 � n 1 ! ' k& F � c.3 Q v O 6® a n - 9 q 0 aQ t5j C=3 vQ0 C �� b r y c t A v rt� IQ > Y go 0 at=3 Or �n.fi.,-.:-� �+.: a� --w--+•-..e+..-•-.+e..ea;`ri- sa=.�sr s..c.a.,,...�w ^' _ .. ., -- -. /� rT oa a ' � a 3 tit= � 0 0 O d I T ' f SIERRA CLUB SANTA LUCIA CHAPTER OVNO[D IN i893 985 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 . December 17 1984 Planning Commissioners City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Re: Summerfield Development Dear Commissioners; At the request of residents near the proposed Summerfield project on E1 Centro Avenue, the Sierra Club, Santa Lucia Chapter, has reviewed the planned zoning change and development application for this project. The following concerns are expressed following our review. First, the zoning change request to multi-family from single family would drastically increase the density from four homes to thirty homes, a seven fold intensification. Since only three acres of the 4.29 acre site is buildable, 60'x60' lots would be required to accomodate the thirty houses, contrasting greatly with the 50'x180' lots in the area. The proposed project would be in sharp contrast to the neighborhood and out of character with the general rural , large lot tradition of Atascadero. The project would be a questionable precedent for "tract home" construction in areas unsuited for such projects. Indeed, we understand that there are areas in the city zoned suitably for just such projects. Second, project plans call for the removal of from 50% to 66% of the mature oak trees on the property. This, too, seems out of character for a city that prides itself on its oak woodlands, even including the tree in its city logo. For any trees removed, proper mitigation should include an at least two for one replacement program. A mini neighborhood park preserving some of the oak trees is another alternative mitigation. A recent survey for the city of San Diego reported that the value of such open space is at least 9% added to the surrounding commercial and residential urban parcels. Third, the project plans to change the natural stream flow across the back of the property, raising questions about on-site drainage, street drainage, and downstream flooding issues. The increased impervious surfaces needed for thirty homes will accelerate flooding off-site. Is the retention basin sized to accomodate 100 year storm flows? Mitigation measures should include the use of permeable surfaces where possible and the retention of a larger open space in the swale area near E1 Dorado Avenue. Fourth, the project will certainly increase neighborhood traffic since planners usually calculate ten trips per day per housing unit. Access to and from E1 Camino Real will be made more difficult by these 300 trips, especially at peak hour travel . The project proposal needs to research the traffic impact with a traffic analysis, including cummulative impacts and possible mitigation measures, such as traffic signals at Santa Rosa Road and by Lucky's Market, *0%RECYCLED VAVER . . . To explore,enioy, and protect the nation's scenic resources 4�` Page 2: Sierra Club letter re: Sufrrerfield Development Fifth, the project would significantly impact local public services, such-as schools, police, fire, and water. How will the already over-crowded schools take in another 60 students from this project? Will another fire station be needed to cover the building going on in south Atascadero? The applicant does not address these issues and offers no contributions towards resolving them. In summary, our Chapter believes that the Summerfield project needs a focused EIR, or at least an expanded initial study, looking at density, traffic, drainage, tree protection, and public services. The Chapter recommends that the area be considered for development in keeping with the one unit per acre density assigned to it during the city's recent general plan hearings. This would be most in keeping with the neighborhood while avoiding land use conflicts. Sincerely, Frank Bush Chairperson Santa Lucia Chapter, Sierra Club 0 v7 Yage 1 of 6 pages ' 06 November 1984 We, the undersigned, being residents of the area bounded by Cascada, La Linia, Arcade , and E1 Dorado streets in the City of Atascadero are opposed to the re_zonin of Lot 24 of Block 4 5 known as 885en ro , City of �cadero , from RSF-Y, Moderate Density Single Family Residential to RIF (6) (PD) Low Density Multiple Family Residential. we are also opposed to any change in the General -elan relating to this project. NAME ADDRESS 2 ��v C 40 5 8. 9. 10. - 11. 12. 13 . 15 . 777 17 - 18. 1019 4 et 6+ t 19. rr 20 • i 1 " r Frage 2 of 6 page 26 november 2§184 We the undersi ned being residents of the area bounded • � g • g by Cascada# La Linia, Arcade, and El Dorado streets in the City of Atascadero are opuased to_-the rezoning, of Lot 24 of Block 4 known as 8855 E1 Centro , City of Atascadero , from RSF-Y , Moderate Y Density Single Family Residential to RIvIF (6) (FD) Low Density Multiple Family Residential. We are also opposed to any change in P Y the ueneral clan relating project. to this NAME A.1,DRESS 6. . . 9. f -' 10. j_ 12. 14. 1 353o !S,2 Jou-tCLt� /COJ a?ems„ 1602�. F 10 —W L",�et a6 J/64,2�A- 17 A • off' Y 26 November 1944 age 3 of 6 pages r • We the undersigned, being residents of the area bounded • g � g by Cascada, La Linia, Arcade, and El Dorado streets in the City of Atascadero are opposed to the rezoning of hot 24 of Block 4 known as 8855 ET-C-entro , City of Atascadero , from RSF-Y , Moderate Density Single Family Residential to RMF (6) (PD) Low Density Multiple Family Residential. We are also opposed to any change the Genera Plan o this project. in 1 relating t p � NAMIE A.1DRESS 1• ` 2 ._ .3 AJ 4. 5. c;- 6. 7• iL 13 , &II , 14 15 . 16 .- 17. 6 .17. 1:.;. ge- 10 Sp/s , / ' + 26 November 1 8 rage 4 Uf 6 pages 9 4 We , the undersigned, being residents of the area bounded by Cascada, La Linia, Arcade, and El Dorado streets in the City of Atascadero are opposed to the rezoning of Lot 24 of Block 4 known as 8855 E1 Centro , City of Atascadero , from RSF-Y , Moderate Density Single Family Residential to RMF (6) (PD) Low Density Multiple Family Residential. We are also opposed to any change in the General Plan relating to this project. NAME ADDRESS l. �j 2 . © o 4. 5. Vis- `?3 �,4.b t�' ?A 6. 7. 9 M'9A 10. 11 12. _ �''- -�-- _ 4'��(e t r �-n` --- -------- 1 15 . 16. 17. 1'J 10. 20. i- rage 5 Uf 6 pa8e6 2b ivovember 1984 We, the undersigned, being residents of the area bounded by Cascada, La Linia, Arcade, and E1 Dorado streets in the City of Atascadero oppo§ed to the rezonirA of Lot 24 of Block 4 known as 8855 El Centro , City of Atascadero , from RSF-Y , Moderate Density Single Family Residential to RMF (6) (PD) Low Density Wultiple Family Residential. We are also opposed to any change in the General Plan relating to this project. NAME A.)DRESS 4 8. 9. 7033 Lk i ,.,r 4a 10. 11. 12. C ..� - --------- -- 13. 14 J/ 04 a �7-r-- 1>. 16 17. I .� . l, . 20. .rage 6 Of 6 pagei � 26 November 1984 We, the undersigned, being residents of the area bounded by Cascada, La Linia, Arcade, and El Dorado streets in the City of Atascadero are opposed to the rezoning of Lot 24 of Block 4 known as 8855 El Centro , City of Atascadero , from RSF-Y , Moderate Density Single Family Residential to RMF (6) (PD) Low Density Multiple Family Residential, we are also opposed to any change in the ueneral Plan relating to this project NAME ADDRESS 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7 8. 1A ' 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14 15 . 16 . 17. 1.�, 10' . 20. n I RESOLUTION NO. 10-84 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNA- TION AT 8800 EL CENTRO FROM MODERATE DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (GP 1C-85: YEOMANS) WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission conducted public hearings on the subject matter on December 3 and 17, 1984; and WHEREAS, Government Corte Section 65323 provides that a general plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission, on a 3:3 vote, considered the following findings which results in a technical recommendation not to make the following findings 1. A General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Multiple Family is consistent with the policies of the General Plan document. 2. The proposed General Plan Land Use designation is located within the Urban Services Boundary and will not have a significant effect upon the existing level of services. 3. The proposed General Plan amendment will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment, and preparation of an Envir- onmental Impact Report is not necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of General Plan Amendment GP 1C-85 (Yeo- mans) changing the 1980 Atascadero General Plan Land Use Map as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" . On motion by Commissioner LaPrade and seconded by Commissioner Lilley, the foregoing resolution is adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners LaPrade, Lilley, and Wentzel NOES: Commissioenrs Carroll, Sherer and Chairman Summers ABSENT: Commissioner Moore DATE ADOPTED: December 17 , 1984 r IR EY SU RS; Chairman ATTEST: J-vl� r G"" HENRY ENGIN, Pla ing Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney i 1 >41 \ co �J OWMI SH 514 o w ix BZW I cr- J� cr E5 QWwa OCxUWJQ lu is I O a i 1 1 :.S z 1 = i 4 / � a a u"-, W J— � iW¢wdJ A ... •. u wEn- ao QUO. .... . .. r Jw¢wt-N G a a►—fwpoo cr i ; e�< _ LL IL LL OpZ(7ZG7 >p g Z Z Z Z VI Z Z V. f 4 Q�QO LIJ Z x y� � F � o© � C�ODOO�V r _ 1. ` _�=p�m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 orf% `�'_•• 1 1 •Y. ® T` C r 4 ` i �r L Z � r: y c Com: ziZ .`, G c'coC�• - •ter =�c c 0 c ccs-, �`�000:.oc. ,! :'• to 0 •.ate:.! �.•�..- .j- .o U o vco�o„ �•` RESOLUTION NO. 11-85 RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AT 8800 EL CENTRO FROM MODERATE DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (GP 1C-85: YEOMANS) WHEREAS, a request to amend the City of Atascadero' s General plan has been received as follows: General Plan Amendment 1C-85: Request submitted by Michael Yeomans and Joseph Lindsey to change the General Plan Land Use Element Map designation from Moderate Density Single Family Residential to Low Density Multiple Family Residential. Subject property is located at 8800 E1 Centro, also known as Lot 24 of Block 4. Negative Declaration to the provisions of CEQA is to be certified. WHEREAS, this request was considered by the Planning Commission at hearings held on December 3 and 17, 1984 with the Commission voting 3:3 on a motion to recommend approval with the result being a techni- cal recommendation for denial; and WHEREAS, such amendment to the General Plan was considered by the City Council during a public hearing; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65323 provides that a General Plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as follows: 1. A General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Multiple Family is consistent with the policies of the General Plan document. 2. The proposed General Plan Land Use designation is located within the Urban Services Boundary and will not have a significant effect upon the existing level of services. 3. The proposed general plan amendment will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment, and preparation of an Envir- onmental Impact Report is not necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve to approve General Plan Amendment GP 1C-85 (Yeomans) as shown on the at- tached Exhibit "A" . On motion by and seconded by , the amendment was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: c- NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By: ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney 2 W NQ 1, O� ♦ .// / a-J z \ �o .. . \ \♦' i w : ( z I Qr.! D w •....... .:: O �_ - ~ \ �WQ cr U tS ,' ULU Q cr . ........ W!� "Xixox .... 120 z _ �. ♦\ Lu w U J a �-a two vi wwon All! o 0 a rn LL N ' )1 ' « ratio oho Z ZzzQ k 0000wo00� i - O t{r =�=03(nC'n l' rr � r r� yy. SJS�_ttnn. F• .t < =�aCi _ 1� r mr �♦ �, ' _ . i :` i .�✓ t 1 CGS -. e 10 co`����p0`0 • RESOLUTION NO. 12-85 RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AT 8800 EL CENTRO FROM MODERATE DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (GP 1C-85: ' YEOMANS) WHEREAS, a request to amend the City of Atascadero's General plan has been received as follows: General Plan Amendment 1C-85: Request submitted by Michael Yeomans and Joseph Lindsey to change the General Plan Land Use Element Map designation from Moderate Density Single Family Residential to Low Density Multiple Family Residential. Subject property is located at 8800 El Centro, also known as Lot 24 of Block 4. Negative Declaration to the provisions of CEQA is to be certified. WHEREAS, this request was considered by the Planning Commission at hearings held on December 3 and 17, 1984 with the Commission voting 3:3 on a motion to recommend approval with the result being a techni- cal recommendation for denial; and WHEREAS, such amendment to the General Plan was considered by the City Council during a public hearing; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65323 provides that a General Plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as follows: 1. A General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Multiple Family is not consistent with the policies of the General Plan document. 2. The proposed General Plan Land Use designation is located within the Urban Services Boundary and will have a significant effect upon the existing level of services. 3. The proposed general plan amendment will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment, and preparation of an Envir- onmental Impact Report is not necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve to deny General Plan Amendment GP 1C-85 (Yeomans) as shown on the at- tached Exhibit "A" . On motion by and seconded by , the amendment was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED• CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By: ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor ATTEST ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney ` \ / zW Q� W> w �� >$ (Wj K1Y SAN>NO :c rcm wz zla .......- W W-J4 Q► \. F-h CO m' / \ / 0< V= Q D1' CrCr Oct Cr . . .:::.: . ... . LU I W 0 , • p .! �z ww V h PL4 O n a, \ ~ �Cr� I :. . :.... X 2 E-4 Q cr- � .. ... ......-.. , . w J d U Firs J d LL dUYULL V rrH11 E3CXCXLLoY LU -KL EL PA .. -- • c >JWdWh-l- �UII/ ]W d to u) d a O w o 3-> Wwoa. azz < r� LL ZZ �(A Vj Uj Uj \\ Z DQE'®Qer� Z W W W z CO / t W m[b . ........... ............i. 2 J S J tJ)CL 0861 :: e oce ::::: X .` � g/�• L 'l. r .r.:. l: l . a' f, I c j L fUNCIL MFFTING: 2/12/85 FNDA ITEM NO. : R - 5 TO: City Council February 28, 1985 FROM: Ralph H. Dowell, Jr. Acting City Manager SUBJECT: PROPOSED BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION FEE SCHEDULE The attached item is a continuation from the Council Meeting of January 28, 1985. As you recall, you reviewed the entire fee schedule; however, proper notice had not been accomplished, and therefore, no action was taken. This item has now been properly noticed and a public hearing is necessary prior to final Council action. RHD:kv • M E M O R A N D U M T �C , i cc�+�,,. � ���� O: City Council / February 12, 1985 VIA: Ralph H. Dowell, Jr . , Acting City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Planning Director RE: Proposed Fee Schedule for Building and Construction Permits BACKGROUND: The current fee schedule for activities undertaken under Title 8, Building and Construction Regulations of the City, was adopted on Nov- ember 14, 1983 and is some 13 pages long. Fees contained in the reso- lution are those recommended by the International Conference of Build- ing Officials. Many, of the fees are keyed to the value of building as established by the publication Building Standards. Title 8 adopting . Building Regulations enables the building official (i.e. planning director) to periodically establish the Building Standards chart as the basis of determining the valuation of projects being processed (see attached memorandum dated September 17, 1984) . ANALYSIS; The attached fee schedule is designed more for simplification than for generating additional revenues. Historically, the fees collected from building and construction permits more than paid for the services pro- vided by the city. Rather, the motivation in offering the attached schedule is to streamline the process which determines the fees nec- essary on a given project. This has been partly done recently in the department by requiring a deposit for permit applications which then permits staff time to determine actual fees which are based on a com- plex analysis of all the features of a given structure (see attached Resolution 40-83 for current fees) . Staff analysis has determined that the fees that are presently being derived may be obtained by using a flat percentage of construction approach to establishment of fees for building, electrical, mechanical plumbing, retaining wall- and solar permits, i.e. , valuation of the building project X .012. Consolidation with the same short cut ap- proach is being recommended on grading permits, sign permits, swimming pools, spas and hot tubs permits. In addition, per hour charges for special inspections are proposed based on actual hourly costs of 'ex- isting staff. It Proposed Fee Schedule for Building/Construction Permits SELF-CERTIFICATION ISSUE; Under Table 5 Miscellaneous Fees, we are providing for the option at City discretion-to limit the extent of City structural plan check- ing by accepting the design work performed by a licensed professional ("Self-Certification" at a lesser fee) Use of this approach has been controversial in the inspection profession, but appears worth a trial given the current volume of work and limited City resources. Impor- tantly, acceptance of a self-certified set of plans does not relieve an applicant of full compliance with the adopted codes and correction of errors and omissions may be required during the course of field inspection. STAFF RECOMMENDATION; Adoption of the attached Resolution No. 5-85. ATTACHMENTS; Draft Resolution No. 5--85 Resolution No. 40-83 Building Permit Fees Memorandum dated September 17, 1984 cc; Bunn Turnbow, North County Contractors Association i 2 ,� 0 RESOLUTION NO. 5-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING FEES FOR PERMITS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN PURSUANT TO BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS WHEREAS, the Government Code provides that fees may be collected to cover the costs of administering permit, plan review and inspection activities; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate to establish fees and deposits which cover the cost of providing the services requested; and WHEREAS, the International Conference of Building Officials has pre- pared standardized fee schedules which are in widespread use; based on their experience with permit, plan review and inspection activities; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department has prepared estimates based on its experience for building and construction regulation activities; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing to consider this mat- ter on February 12, 1985. NOW, THEREFORE, the Atascadero City Council does resolve to establish the following fee schedule for building and construction services. Table 1 Building, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Retaining Wall and Solar Permits Valuation* Permit Fee As determined by building official Valuation X .012 utilizing "Building Valuation Data" (Minimum fee=$30.00) from Building Standards Table 2 Grading Permits Includes Plan Check Volume Permit Fee 49 cubic yards or less $ 0.00 50 cubic yards to 999 cubic yards $ 50.00 1,000 cubic yards to 4,999 cubic yards $100.00 5,000 cubic yards or more $130.00 + $27 .00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. *A copy of any contract may be required by the building official to verify valuation. v Resolution No. 5-85 Table 3 Sign Permits Includes Plan Check Valuation* Permit Fee Valuation of sign (including any Valuation X .00987 electrical) Table 4 Swimming Pool, Spas, and Hot Tub Permits Includes Plan Check ' Valuation* Permit Fee Valuation of project cost (including Valuation X .00876 electrical, mechanical & plumbing) Table 5 Miscellaneous Fees Structural plan check Total permit fee (per Table 1) X .237 . 0 Self-certified plan check (The building Total permit fee (per official may waive city structural plan check Table 1) X .08 where plans are certified by a registered architect, building designer, or engineer thereby limiting plan review to affected City departments. ) Demolition (exclude Fire Department drills) $ 30.00 Compliance Survey $100.00 Building Relocation $350.00 Temporary Dwelling (including mobile home) $ 35.00 Mobile Home $200 .00 Inspection for which no fee is indicated $ 20.00/hr (portal-to-portal) Re-inspection (per Administrative Code $ 20.00/each Section) Inspections outside normal business hours $ 30.00/hr (portal-to-portal) Replacement of Inspection Record Card $ 10.00 Replacement of Job Copy of Approved Plans $ 15.00 *A copy of any contract may be required by the building official to verify valuation. 2 Resolution No. 5-85 l � Cross-Connection Actual Cost ($225. 00 deposit less $25.00 to be retained by City for its cost, with unused portion of cost billed by Health Department to be returned to the permittee) Driveway Encroachment $ 20.00 Appeal To Board of Appeals $ 50.00 To City Council $ 50. 00 Investigation Fee (for work commenced Equal to permit fee without permit) required by this Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does further resolve to rescind Resolution No. 40-83 establishing the City' s Build- and Construction fee schedule. On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety .on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ROLFE NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: r ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT RALPH H. DOWELL, JR. , Acting City Manager 3 RESOLUTION NO. 40-83 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL • ESTABLISHING FEES FOR PERMITS, PLAN REVIEWS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN PURSUANT TO BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS i WHEREAS, the Government Code provides that fees may be collected to cover the costs of administering permit, plan review and inspection activities; and 1• Is WHEREAS, it is appropriate to establish fees and deposits which provide for the user of services to pay for the cost of providing the services; and WHEREAS, the International Conference of Building Officials has prepared standardized fee schedules which are in widespreaduse, based on their experience with permit, plan review and inspection activi- ties- and WHEREAS, the Planning Department has prepared estimates based on its own experience for activities not included in the standardized fee schedules. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero City Council does hereby establish the following fees for permits, plan reviews, and other activities undertaken pursuant to building and construction regulations: Ij I I TABLE NO. 1 - BUILDING PERMITS VALUATION PERMIT FEE $1.00 to $500.00 $10 .00 $501.00 to $2,000.00 $10.00 for the first $500.00 plus $1. 50 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and includ- ing $2,000.00 $2,001.00 to $25, 000.00 $32. 50 for the first $2,000. 00 plus $6.00 for each additional $1,000 . 00 or fraction thereof, to and includ- ing $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $170. 50 for the first $25,000. 00 plus $4. 50 for each additional $1,000 .00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50 ,000 .00 lA tib �i Resolution No. 43 IF P $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $283.00 for the first $50,000.00 C plus $3.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to 4 !� and including $100,000.00 i $100,001.00 and up $433.00 for the first $100,000.00 i; plus $2.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof i TABLE NO. 2 - ELECTRICAL PERMITS i System Fee Schedule New Residential Buildings The following fees shall inlcude all wiring and elec- T trical equipment in or on each building, or other electrical equipment on the same premises constructed at the same time, ! , For new multifamily residential buildings (apartments and condominiums) -having three or more living units / not including the area of garages, carports and (� other noncommercial automobile storage areas con- structed at the same time, per square foot .02 For new single- and two-family residential buildings not including the area of garages, carports and other noncommercial automobile storage areas con- structed at the same time, per square foot . . . . . . . .025 Rt For other types of residential .occupancies and altera- tions, additions and modifications to existing residential buildings, use the UNIT FEE SCHEDULE. Private Swimming Pools For new private, residential, in-ground swimming pools for single-family and multi-family occupancies including a complete system of necessary branch ! circuit wiring, bonding, grounding, underwater lighting, water pumping and other similar eleccri- Li cal equipment directly related to the operation of a swimming pool, each . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.00 For other types of swimming pools, therapeutic whirl- pools, spas and alterations to existing swimming pools, use the UNIT FEE SCHEDULE. 1 � 2A � - Resolution No. 40--$3 • Carnivals and Circuses 0 Carnivals, circuses, or other traveling shows or exhi- t bitions utilizing transportable-type rides, booths, displays and attractions: 00 For electric generators and electrically driven rides, each . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 For mechanically driven rides and walk-through attrac- tions or displays having electric lighting, each 3.00 j For a system of area, and booth lighting, each . . . . . . . . . 3.00 For permanently installed rides, booths, displays and attractions, use the UNIT FEE SCHEDULE. i Temporary Power Services For a temporary service power pole or pedestal including all pole or pedestal-mounted receptacle outlets and appurtenances, each . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 For a temporary distribution system and temporary light- ing and receptacle outlets for construction sites, I 2 decorative light, Christmas tree sales lots, fire- j work stands, etc. , each . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . : . . . . 5.00 Unit Fee Schedule 25 ' Receptacle, Switch and Lighting Outlets For receptacle, switch, lighting or other outlets at which current is used or controlled, except ser- vices, feeders and meters: First 20, each . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 Additional outlets, each . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .30 NOTE: For multi-outlet assemblies, each 5 feet or frac- tion thereof may be considered as one outlet. Lighting Fixtures 0 For lighting fixtures, sockets or other lamp-holding devices: First 20, each . . .50 Additional fixtures, each . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 For pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures, each . 50 3A 7 Resolution No. 43 For theatrical-type lighting fixtures or assemblies, each .50 Residential Appliances For fixed residenti-al applicances or receptacle outlets ;i for same, including wall-mounted electric ovens; counter-mounted cooking tops; electric ranges; self- contained room, console, or through-wall air condi- tioners; space heaters; food waste grinders; dish- washers; washing machines water heaters, clothes dryers; or other motor-operated appliances not ex- ceeding one horsepower (HP) in rating, each . . . . .. 2.00 ;r NOTE: For other types of air conditioners and other , i motor-driven appliances having larger electrical ratings, j ! see Power Apparatus. ;i Nonresidential Appliances For residential applicances and self-contained factory- wired, nonresident-ial appliances not exceeding one horsepower (HP) , kilowatt (KW) , or kilovoltampere (KVA) , in rating including medical and dental de-- vices; food, beverage, and ice cream cabinets; illuminated show cases; drinking fountains; vending machines; laundry machines; or other similar types ofequipment, each . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.00 NOTE: For other types of air conditions and other motor- ' ! driven applicances having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus. f Power Apparatus For motors, generators, transformers, rectifiers, syn- chronous converters, capacitors, industrial heat- ing, air conditioners and heat pumps, cooking or baking equipment and other apparatus, as follows: l Rating in horsepower (HP) , kilowatts (KW) , kilo- volt-amperes (KVA) , or kilovolt-amperesreactive (KVAR) k Up to and including 1, each . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 00 Over 1 and not over 10 , each . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.06 Over 10 and not over 50 , each . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 .00 Over 50 and not over 100 , each . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • • 20 .00 Over 100, each . . . . . . . . . . . 30 00 NOTE: 1. For equipment or appliances having more than one motor , transformer, heater, etc., the sum of the j combined ratings may be used. i I 4A n Resolution No. 40-830 • 0 2. These fees include all switches, circuit breakers, contactors, thermostats, relays and other directly related control equipment. Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees For signs, outline lighting systems or marquees supplied from one branch circuit, each . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 For additional branch circuits within the same sign, 0 outline lighting system or marquee, each . . . . . . . . . 2.00 Services For services of 600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes in rating, each . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 12.50 For services of 600 volts or less and over 200 amperes to 1000 amperes in rating, each . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _25.00 For services over 600 volts or over 1000 amperes in rating, each . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 .00 Miscellaneous Apparatus, Conduits and Conductors )0 For electrical apparatus, conduitsandconductors for which a permit is required but for which no fee is herein set forth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.50 NOTE: This fee is not applicable when a fee is paid for one or more services, outlets, -fixtures, appliances, power apparatus, busways, signs or other equipment. TABLE NO. 3 MECHANICAL PERMITS 1. For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type furnance or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance, up to and including 100, 000 Btu/h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.00 2. For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or 00 gravity-type furnance or burner, including ducts and 00 vents attached to such appliance over 100, 000 Btu/h 7.50 00 3. For the installation or relocation of each floor furnace, 00 00 including vent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.00 4. For the installation or relocation of each, suspended heater , recessed wail heater, or floor-mounted unit heater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.00 5. For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance vent installed and not included in an appliance permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.00 5A r� Resolution No. 40-83 6. For the repair of, alteration of, or addition to each heating appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption., or j evaporative cooling system, including installation of con- trols regulated by the UMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.00 7. For the installation or relocation of each boiler or com- pressor to and including three horsepower, of each absorp- tion system to and including 100,000 Btu/h . . . . . . . . 6.00 8. For the installation or relocation of each boiler or com- pressor over three horsepower to and including 15 horse- power, or each absorption system over 100 ,000 Btu/h and including 500,000 Btu/h . . . . . .... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 11.00 9. For the installation or relocation of each boiler or com- pressor over 15 horsepower to and including 30 horsepower, or each absorption system over 500 ,000 Btu/h to and in- cluding 1,000,000 Btu/h . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.00 10. For the installation orirelocation of each boiler or com- pressor over 30 horsepower to and including 50 horsepower, or for each absorption system over 1, 000,000 Btu/h to and 3 including, 1,750,000 Btu/h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.50 11. For the installation or relocation of each boiler or refrigeration compressor over 50, horsepower, or each absorption system over 1,750 ,040 Btu/h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 .50 12. For each air-handling unit to and including 10,000 cubic feet per minute, including ducts attached thereto . . . . . 4. 50 1 NOTE: This fee shall not apply to an air-handling unit which is a portion of 'a factory-assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler or absorption unit for i' which a permit is required elsewhere in the UMC. I!' 13. For each air-handling unit over 10,000 cfm . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.50 1 14. For each evaporative cooler other than portable type . . 4. 50 15. For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct 4.50 �! 16. For each ventilation system which is not a portion of l any heating or air-conditioning system authorized by a permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 50 I i 17. For the installation of each hood which is served by me- chanical exhaust, including the ducts for such hood . . . 4.50 1 18. For the installation or relocation of each domestic-type incinerator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.50 19. For the installation or relocation of each commercial or industrial-type incinerator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 .00 6 A � Resolution No. 40-83, • { 20. For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by this code but not classed in other appliance categories, • or for which no other fee is listed herein . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 50 TABLE NO. 4 - PLUMBING PERMITS 1. For each plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap (including water, drainage piping, and backflow protection therefor) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.00 2. For each building sewer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 3. Rainwater systems-per drain (inside building) . . . . . . . . . 4.00 4. For each private sewage disposal system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 .00 5. For each water heater and/or vent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.00 i 6. For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor in- cluding its trap and vent, excepting kitchen-type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps 8.00 7. For installation, alteration, or repair of water piping and/or water-treating equipment, each . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 00 8. For repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each fixture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � . . 2.00 9. For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter, including backflow protection devices therefor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.00 10. For atmospheric-type vacuum breakers not included in Item 2: 1 to 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.00 Over 5, each . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.00 11. For each backflow protective device other than atmos- pheric-type vacuum breakers: 2 inches and smaller 5.00 Over 2 inches 10.00 12. For each gas piping system of one to four outlets . . . . . 2. 00 13. For each gas piping system of five or more outlets, per outlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .50 14. For each gas meter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.50 0 0 0 7A r. Resolution No. 40 TABLE NO. 5 ' GRADING PERMITS 50 cubic yards or less -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 51 to 100` cubic yards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.00 101 to 1000 cubic yards - $15.00 for the first 100 cubic yards plus $7.00 for each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 1001 to 10,000 cubic yards - $78.00 for the first 1,000 cubic . yards, plus $6.00 for each additional 1,004 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards - $132.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus $27.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. I 100 ,001 cubic yards or more $375.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards, plus $15.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. TABLE NO. 6 - SOLAR PERMITS For Collectors (including related piping and regulating I devices) Up to 1000 sq. ft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.00 Between 1,001 and 2,000 sq. ft. 5.00 More than 2,000 sq. ft. , $5.00 plus $1.00 per 1000 sq. ft. or fraction thereof over 2,000 sq. ft. For Storage Tanks (including related piping and regulating devices) - Up to 750 gallons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.00 Between 751 and 2,000 gallons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.00 More than 2,000 gallons, $3.00 plus $1.00 per 1,000 or fraction thereof over 2,000 gallons For Rock Storage - Up to 1500 cu. ft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.00 Between 1501 and 3000 cu. ft. . . 3.00 More than 3000 cu. ft. , $3.00 plus $1.00 per 1000 cu. ft. or fraction thereof over 3000 cu. ft. For each appliance or piece of equipment for which no fee is listed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.00 i 8 A n Via. f� Resolution No. 40-83• • { TABLE NO. '7 SIGN PERMITS 1 VALUATION PERMIT FEE $1.00 to $500.00 $10.00 $501.00 to $2,000.00 $10.00 for the first $500.00 plus I $1. 50 for each additional $100.00 j or fraction thereof, to and includ- ing $2,000.00 $2, 001.00 to $25,000.00 $32.50 for the first $2,000. 00 plus $6.00 for each additional $1,000. 00 ' or fraction thereof, to and includ- ing $25,000. 00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $170. 50 for the first $25,000.00 plus $4. 50 for each additional $1,000 .00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 $50, 001.00 to $100,000.-00 $283 .00 for the first $50 ,000.00 plus $3.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100 ,000.00 $100,001.00 and up $433.00 for the first $100,000.00 00 plus $2.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof a j TABLE NO 8 --SWIMMING POOL PERMITS For swimming pools and for spas and hot tubs not installed at the same time as a building or building addition: 0 0 VALUATION PERMIT FEE $1.00 to $500.00 $10.00 $501.00 to $2,000.00 $10.00 for the first $500.00 plus $1.50 for each additional $100.00 _ or fraction thereof, to and includ i0 ing $2,000.00 i0 $2, 001. 00 to $25, 000.00 $32. 50 for the first $2,000 .00 plus $6. 00 for each additional $1,000 .00 or fraction thereof, to and includ- ing $25,000.00 )0 $25,001.00 to $50,000 .00 $170 .50 for the first $25,000 .00 plus _$4.50 for each additional $1,000 .00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50 ,000. 00 9A Resolution No. 4003 $50 ,001.00 to $100,000.00 $283.00 for the first $50,000.00 plus $3.00 for each additional $1,000 .00 or fraction thereof, ,to and including $100,000.00 $100,001.00 and up $433.00 for the first $100,000.00 plus $2.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof For spas and hot tubs installed at the same time as a building or building addition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.00 For swimming pool, spa and hot tub equipment, use Table Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 as appropriate. TABLE NO. 9 - RETAINING WALL PERMITS VALUATION PERMIT FEE $1.00 to $500.,00 $10.00 $501.00 to $2,000.00 $10.00 for the first $500.00 plus $1.50 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and includ- ing $2,000.00 $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $32. 50 for the first $2,000.00 pl $6.00 for each additional $1,000. or fraction thereof, to and includ- ing $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50 ,000.00 $170.50 for the first $25,000 .00 plus $4.50 for each additional $1,000 .00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $283. 00 for the first $50,000.00 plus $3.00 for each additional $1,000 .00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00 $100,001.00 anrr up $433. 00 for the first $100,000. 00 plus $2. 50 for each additional $1,000 .00 or fraction thereof TABLE NO. 10 -- PLAN CHECKING For buildings or structures, signs, swimming pools or spas or hot tubs, and retaining walls: 65% of the permit fee as set forth in the appropriate Table ' i 10A _ E Resolution No. 40-830 0 J For buildings or structures, signs, swimming pools or spas or hot tubs, and retaining walls, which. have standard plan t4o approvals or approvals from other authorized agencies: $20. 00 or 65% of the permit fee as set forth ' 30 in the appropriate Table, whichever is less For electrical, mechanical, plumbing and solar if plans are not checked in conjuction with buildings or structures to be constructed at the same time: 25% of the permit fees as set forth in the appropriate Table For grading plan checking: 50 cubic yards or less . . No fee 51 to 100 cubic yards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 101 to 1000 cubic yards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. 00 1001 to 10 ,000 cubic yards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.00 10, 001 to 100,000 cubic yards — $20 ,00 for the first 10,000 0 as cubic yards, plus $10,00 for each additional 10,000 0 JO cubic yards or fraction thereof. Lud- 100,001 to 200 ,000 cubic yards- $110.00 for the first 100 ,000 cubic yards, plus $6 .00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. l Lud 200,001 cubic yards or more - $170 .00 for the first 200,000 cubic yards, plus $3.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. J For additional plan checking required by changes, additions, or to revisions to approved plans: $15.00 per hour, with a half-hour minimum charge J to TABLE NO. 11 - MISCELLANEOUS FEES Demolition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.00 )0 NOTE: Fee shall be waived by building official if building to be demolished is used for practice drills by Fire Department. Compliance Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 100 .00 Building Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350. 00 Mobilehome (other than temporary dwelling) . . . . . . . . . . . . 200.00 Temporary Dwelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.00 11A j 1 Resolution No. 40-83 Permit Issuance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Each permit. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . 00 Each supplemental permit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 00 Inspections outside of normal business hours (two hour minimum charge) 15.00/hr Reinspection (per AdministrativeCode Section) . . . . . . . . 15.00/ea Inspections for which no fee is indicated (one-half hour minimum charge) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. 00/hr Replacement of inspection record card . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 .00 Replacement of job copy of approved plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.00 Cross-connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (225.00 deposit with unused portion, less 25.00 , to to be retained by City for its cost, based on actual cost billing by Health Department to be returned to the permittee) jDriveway Encroachment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.00 Appeal ToBoard of Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 50 . 00 i 00 To City Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50. Investigation Fee (for work commenced without permit. . . Equal tJby permit fee re- quired th is Reolution NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the fees set forth in this Resolution shall take effect on the effective date of Ordinance No. 70. �. On motion by Councilman Wilkins and seconded by Councilman Stover , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Stover, Wilkins and Mayor Mackey NOES: Councilmen Molina and Nelson ABSENT: None ADOPTED: November 14 1983 1 12A Resolution No. 40-8 )27 MARJORIE/ MACKEY, Mayor )0U ATTEST: )/hr )/ea .� PATSY _ESTER, ,4eputy City Clerk )/hr j APPROVED AS T ORM: A ' ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MURRAY L WARDEN, City Manager J to t ' 3 by Res- :)n in ance 13 R , M E M O RAN D U M — - — — — — — -- September 17, 1984.10 TO: Planning Department Staff FROM: Planning Director At SUBJECT: Building Permit Fees The Administrative Code provides that the Building Official will establish the permit valuation (Title 8-1.104. Fees) . Until further notice, starting on September 24 1984, valuation shall be determined from the attached sheet entitled "Building Valuation Data", which is from the March - April 1984, issue of Building Standards. This supersedes the "Building Permit Fees" Memorandum of December 7, 1983. For structures not covered by the attachment, (i.e. swimming pools, signs, greenhouses, interior alterations, etc. ) the applicant shall provide an estimated cost for the project. Said estimated cost shall include all structural, electrical, mechanical, plumb- ing and related work (both materials and installation.) and any contractor' s profit (if applicable) A copy of any contract may be requested if deemed necessary to verify the valuation. In ad- dition, the following shall also apply: - Barns, stables, etc. shall be treated as garages or carports depending on the wall arrangements. - Covered patios, covered porches, etc. shall be treated as carports, unless enclosed, in which case they shall be treated as a room addition. - Decks (exceeding 30 in height) shall be charged at $4.00 per square foot. - Retaining walls shall be calculated at $8. 00 per sq. ft. It should be noted that a valuation is not required where that information does not affect the determination of permit fees (i.e. mechanical only, electrical only, grading, etc. ) HE/os/ph Attachment 0 Type 111-1-Hour........ 51.20 EQUIPMENT Type 111-N............. 48.80 AIR CONDITIONING: Type V-1-Hour........ 46.20 Commercial............ 2.80 5.CONVALESCENT HOSPITALS: Type V-N...... 44.00 Residential ............ 2.40 ' SPRINKLER SYSTEMS......... 1.30 *Type I or II F.R.... .. . 87.60 Type fil-1-Hour........ 70.85 V Type V-1-Hour........ 64.30 'Add 0.5 percent to total cost for each story over three. 6.DWELLINGS: ** Deduct 11 percent for mini-warehouses Type V-Masonry....... 59.50 44.10 VIEW Type V-Wood Frame ... 55.60 40.36 Basements- Finished............. 17.50 12.50 Unfinished........... 12.70 8.90 Regional Modifiers 7.HOSPITALS: The following modifiers are recommended for use in `Type I or 11 ER........... 104.50 conjunction with the Building Valuation Data.in addi- Type 111-1-Hour. 97.50 tion,certain local conditions may require further modifi- • Type V-1-Hour. 89.40 cations.To use these modifiers merely multiply the listed 8.HOTELS AND MOTELS cost per square foot by the appropriate regional modifier. 'T e I orlt ER.... 50 For example: YP To adjust cost of a Type V-N restaurant of average Type Ill-1-Hour........ 55.80 construction for the Texas area,select Regional Modifier Valuation Type 111-N............. 53.10 0.78 and unit costfrom Valuation Data,$50.50. Type V-1-Hour........ 47.20 Type V-N•••.......... 45.00 0.78 x $50.50 = $39.39 9.INDUSTRIAL PLANTS: (adjusted cost per square foot) Data Type I or 11 F.R........... 36.40 Type 11-1-Hour ........ 24.80 Eastern United States Modifier Type 11-(Stock)......... 23.60 Connecticut.................. 0.89 Type 111-1-Hour........ 28.40 Delaware .................... 0.86 Type 111-N............. 26.20 District of Columbia ........... 0.87 rX Tilt-up................. 18.40 Florida....................... 0.78 Type V-1-Hour........ 24.40 Georgia...................... 0.73 Type V-N............. 23.20 Maine....................... 0.82 10.MEDICAL OFFICES: Maryland .................... 0.81 'Type I or 11 F.R........... 78.50 Massachusetts ................ 0.88 Type 111-1-Hour. .....�c62.70 New Hampshire .............. 0.80 Type III-N...........: 59.70 New Jersey................... 0.93 Type V-1-Hour' 57.90 New York Type V-N ............ 55.10 New York City .......... 1.03 11.OFFICES: Other.................. 0.88 *Type I or 11 F.R........... 69.00 North Carolina................ 0.72 a Type III-1-Hour........ 48.80 Pennsylvania Type ill-N............. 46.50 Philadelphia............ 0.92 Type V-1-Hour........ 44.40 Other ........ 0.87 Type V-N............. 42.30 Rhode Island 0.89 Building Valuation Data 12.PRIVATE GARAGES: South Carolina 0.72 v Wood Frame........... 13.30 Vermont..................... 0.80 °C At the request of numerous building officials,Building MaSonr `� Standards offers the following building valuation data y...."'........ 17.40 Virginia. ... 0.75 1 Open Carports.......... 9.50 West Virginia................. 0.86 V representing average costs for most buildings. Because 13 PUBLIC GARAGES: a residential buildings are the most common for many *Type United States a cities,two general classes are considered for these,one Type I or II F.R........... 29.50 Alabama..................... 0.74 0 for "average" construction and the other for "good." Type 11-N............. 21.00 Arkansas..................... 0.74 Z Type 111-1-Hour........ 23.00 ))-- Adjustments should be made for special architectural or Illinois....................... 0.90 co structural features and location of the project.Often high- Type III-N`.........,,. 20.70 Indiana......................... 0.86 v er or lower unit costs may result. Type V-1-Hour........ 18.80 Iowa .. 0.85 Z The unit costs are intended to comply with the defini- 14.RESTAURANTS: Kansas... .... .. .. 0.79 tion of"valuation"in Section 423 of the Uniform Build Type 111-1-Hour........ 59.70 Kentucky. ....... 0.82 D ing Code and thus include architectural,structural,elec- Type 111-N............. 56.90 Louisiana .................... 0.80 co trical, plumbing, and mechanical work, except as Type V-1-Hour........ 53.00 Michigan .................... 0.87 23 specifically listed below.It also includes the contractor's Type V-N............. 50.50 Minnesota.................... 0.89 profit which should not be omitted. 15.STORES: Mississippi ................... 0.74 The determination of plan check fees for projects `Type I or II ER........... 52.60 Missouri ..................... 0.82 reviewed by the International Conference of Building Type III-1-Hour........ 40.00 Nebraska .................... 0.81 Officials will be based on valuation computed from Type III-N............. 38.10 North Dakota................. 0.85 these figures. Type V-1-Hour........ 31.70 Ohio..................:..... 0.88 Type V-N ............ 30.10 Oklahoma ............. 0.79 Cost per 16.SCHOOLS: South Dakota 0.83 January,1984 Square Foot Type I or II ER........... 75.40 Tennessee. 0.75 ............... Type 111-1-Hour........ 54. 0 Texas........................ 0.78 Occupancy and Type Good Average Type lll-N............. 52.110 Wisconsin.. 0.86 1.APARTMENT HOUSES: Type V-1-Hour........ 49.40 *Type I or II F.R........... $67.20 56.10 17•SERVICE STATIONS: Western United States Type V-Masonry Type II-N............. 46.80 Alaska.............-.......... 1.33 (or Type III)........... 51.60 42.00 Type 111-1-Hour........ 50.00 Arizona:,,"*...***'***....... 0.88 Type V-Wood Frame ... 44.60 37.00 Type V-i-Hour ........ 34.30 California Type I-Basement Garage 23.70 Canopies .............. 17.00 Los Angeles ............ 1.00 2.BANKS: 18.THEATERS: Lake Tahoe............. 1.01 *Type I or 11 F.R........... 94.40 Type I or II F.R........... 72.60 San Francisco............ 1.07 Type 111-1-Hour........ 76.70 Type II1-1-Hour........ 51.10 Other.................. 0.98 Type III-N............ 73.10 Type Ill-N............. 48.70 Colorado..................... 0.88 Type V-1-Hour........ 67.10 Type V-1-Hour........ 45.60 Hawaii ...................... 1.23 Type V-N............. 63.90 Type V-N....... Idaho........................ 0.86 43.40 3.BOWLING ALLEYS: """ Montana..................... 0.83 Type III-1-Hour........ 37.20 19.WAREHOUSES: `* Nevada...................... 0.91 Type 111-N............. 35.40 Type 1 or II F.R.....:..... 32.00 New Mexico.................. 0.80 Type V-I-Hour ........ 33.90 Type 11 or V-1-Hour .... 19.80 Oregon...................... 0.87 4.CHURCHES: Type II or V-N ......... 17.70 Utah ..................... 0.81 Type 111-1-Hour........ 22.00 Washington ............ 0.92 Type I or It F.R........... 61.80 Type 111-N............. 20.50 Wyoming................... 0.87 --- &UNICIL MFFTIhG: 2/12/85 AGUDA ITEM NO. : C 1 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY COUNCIL February 12, 1985 VIA: Ralph Dowell, Jr. , Acting City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Planning Director RE: Continued Hearing to Consider the Elimination of Hazardous Conditions at 4511-19 Mananita BACKGROUND: At the January 14th meeting of the City Council, the Council consid- ered the enclosed staff report and draft Resolution No. 4-85 which enabled directing the City Manager to cause the elimination of hazard- ous conditions on this site. Due to the fact that Mr. Vaughn had ac- cepted re-issuance of Permit No. 1814, the implementation of which would resolve the hazardous condition, the Council continued consider- ation of this matter to February 12th • STATUS: Mr. Vaughn has submitted signed agreements from abutting property own- ers to allow installation of a 42 inch pipe underground off his site to a point just short of the San Jacinto right-of-way, and has in- stalled the pipe and had inspections on the drainage component of the grading permit. RECOMMENDATION: That no action be taken on Resolution No. 4-85 in that Mr. Vaughn is proceeding under permit to resolve the drainage problem. HE:ps ATTACHMENT: January 14, 1985 Staff Report 1� M E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY COUNCIL January 14, 1985 VIA: Ralph H. Dowell, Jr. , Acting City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Planning Director RE: Hearing to Consider the Elimination of Hazardous Conditions at 4511-19 Mananita BACKGROUND On December 21, 1984 , the City Council held a special meeting to con- sider the appeal of Don Vaughn of the Planning Director ' s revocation of grading permit #1814 on this property. The action of the Council was to deny the appeal and adopt Resolution No.63-84 (see attached) . In addition to denying the appeal, the resolution established the Jan- uary 14, 1985 council meeting as a time for considering the Council' s declared intent to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Sec- tion 7004, the Uniform Building Code, "to authorize and direct the City Manager to cause the repair, construction, or other elimination of the aforesaid hazardous condition to be made and to cause the cost thereof to be levied, assessed, and collected as a special assessment to the property. " Attached to the staff report is the pertinent Section 7004-Hazards of the City' s Uniform Building Code. CURRENT STATUS On January 8, 1985, Mr. Vaughn accepted re-issuance of Permit No. 1814 which provides for on-site and off-site undergrounding of the 42 inch pipe to a point just short of San Jacinto. Implementation of this City-accepted plan would resolve the hazardous condition presently existing on the property. Building permits for two of the lots have been through initial plan check and two others have been applied for . A draft resolution has also been prepared which would direct the City to restore the site to its natural state and charge it to the land- owner . Re: 4511-19 Mananita STAFF RECOMMENDATION Following public testimony, continue consideration of this matter to the City Council' s February 12, 1985 meeting. Should the project be completed by that date, action on this matter would proposed to be dropped. ATTACHMENTS: Council Resolution 63-84 Uniform Building Code Excerpt Draft Resolution No. 4-85 2 y..i RESOLUTION NO. 63 - 84 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DENYING THE APPEAL OF DONALD K. VAUGHN TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING WITH RESPECT TO THE PREMISES AT 4511-4519 MANANITA AVENUE, ATASCADERO. WHEREAS, Donald K. Vaughn filed an appeal with the City Clerk on December 10, 1984 from the action of Henry Engen, Director of Planning, for the City of Atascadero in connection with the grading permit relative to 4511-4519 Mananita Avenue, Atascadero; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on said appeal has been scheduled before the City Council to consider said appeal at 3 : 30 P.M. on Friday, December 21, 1984 in the Rotunda Room of the Administration Building; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as follows: 1. The Planning Director, City Engineer, Consulting City Engineeer and other City staff have been working since August 27, 1984 with the appellant and his engineer to seek a solution to the improper grading conducted on appellant' s property on 4511-4519 Mananita Avenue, Atascadero; and 2. There have been numerous neighborhood complaints of erosion, siltation and property damage resulting from appellant' s grading fill activity. 3 . The granting of the original grading permit number 1814 was done in violation of the Atascadero Municipal Code provisions Title 8, Building Regulations, Chapter 1, -1- Section 303 (c) (d) , and (e) , of the Uniform Administrative Code in that such permit was issued on the basis of erroneous information submitted to the City Building Department. 4. Irrevocation of permits granted under Title 8 may be revoked pursuant to the aforesaid provisions of Title 8 as cited. 5. Said building permit number 1814 was revoked on October 12, 1984 in accordance with the aforesaid Section. 6. The City Council finds and determines that said grading permit was issued at variance from the requirements of the Municipal Code. 7. The appellant' s original grading permit granted on November 11, 1983 did not comply with the ordinance require- ments for completion of work. 8. That appellant did not seek timely relief as required by Section 1. 103 of the Municipal Code relating to appeals but that the Council granted appellant' s hearing nevertheless. 9. A revised grading permit number 1814-R has been awaiting appellant' s acceptance at the City Hall since October 22, 1984. 10'. The Planning Director did not exceed his authority in revoking grading permit number 1814 pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed appellant' s notice of appeal dated December 10, 1984, staff reports relating to the matter, supplementary materials, and public testimony before the City Council on this matter. -2- ` NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve as follows: Section 1. APPEAL DENIED. The appeal of Donald K. Vaughn to the action taken by Henry Engen, Director of Planning for the City of Atascadero, with respect to the condition of the grading and drainage on said property and his refusal to issue a permit for grading until a grading and drainage plan satisfactory to the Planning Department has been presented, is denied. Section 2. DECLARATION OF INTENTION. The Council hereby declares its intention to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 7004 of the Uniform Building Code, adopted by reference by the Atascadero Municipal Code, to authorize and direct the City Manager to cause the repair, construction, or other elimination of the aforesaid hazardous condition to be made and to cause the cost thereof to be levied assessed and collected as a special assessment to the property. Section 3. NOTICE OF TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING. Notice is hereby given that the 14th day of January, 1985, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. of said day, in the Council Chambers of the Administration Building in the City of Atascadero, is hereby fixed as the time and place for considering said matter, at which time and place any person having an interest in said property and having any objection to the proposed elimination of said hazardous condition may appear before the Council and show cause why such condition should not be corrected. Section 4. NOTICE. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this Resolution to be mailed by certified mail, postage prepaid, -3- to the owner of the property affected at his last known address, and to each holder of any security interest in the real property ` at least ten (10) days prior to the date above set for the hearing, all in conformity with said Section 7004 of theUniformBuilding Code PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Atascadero, California, held on the 21stda y of December , 1985 . CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA B � Y ROLFE N TIT SON, Mayor ATTEST: -11 QA /7- GEORGIA iMIREZ, beputy CAty Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RALPH H. , DOWELL, JR. , Acting City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: W�-� 1 ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney -4- , 1982 EDITION APPENDIX ' Chapter 70 EXCAVATION AND GRADING , ! ' Purpose Sec.7001.The purpose of this chapter is to safeguard life,limb,property and : the public welfare by regulating grading on private property. 1 Scope Sec.7002.This chapter sets forth rules and regulations to control excavation, grading and earthwork construction, including fills and embankments;estab- lishes the administrative procedure for issuance of permits; and provides for approval of plans and inspection of grading construction. Permits Required Sec. 7003. No person shall do any grading without first having obtained a ' grading permit from the building official except for the following: J 1. Grayling in an isolated,self-contained area if there is no danger apparent to private or public property. iI 2. An excavation below finished grade for basements and footings of a build- �I. ing,retaining wall or other structure authorized by a valid building permit.This : shall not exempt any fill made with the material from such excavation nor exempt any excavation having an unsupported height greater than 5 feet after the comple- tion of such structure. 3. Cemetery graves. 4. Refuse disposal sites controlled by other regulations. 5. Excavations for wells or tunnels or utilities. 6. Mining,quarrying,excavating,processing,stockpiling of rock,sand,grav- el,aggregate or clay where established and provided for by law,provided such operations do not affect the lateral support or increase the stresses in or pressure upon any adjacent or contiguous property. - 7. Exploratory excavations under the direction of soil engineers or engineering geologists. 8. An excavation which(a)is less than 2 feet in depth,or(b)which does not create a cut slope greater than 5 feet in height and steeper than one and one-half t .i horizontal to one vertical. 9. A fill less than 1 foot in depth and placed on natural terrain with a slope flatter than five horizontal to one vertical,or less than 3 feet in depth,not intended ; 1 to support structures,which does not exceed 50 cubic yards on any one lot and ' ' 4 does not obstruct a drainage course. i { Hazards Sec. 7004. Whenever the building official determines that any existing excavation or em a ment or fill on private vrooffLy has becow-a.hazaai to life an im ,or en angers property,or adversely affects the safety,use or stability of E_Lublic way or dramage c anne t e owner of the pol&rty urn-which-the- excavation or fill is located or other person or agent in control of said oroperty� 729 ; - "_ ... ........; --«.... .... ..: .:__•�..- a.-..<.-.J...-..:.+.`,....".:,..a sa. APPENDIX UNIFORM BUILDING CODE mon receipt of notice in writing from the building official,shall within the period s ci ie eretn re au or a irninate such excavation or embankment so as to✓ eliminate the hazard and be in conbrmance with the requirements of this code. Definitions Sec.7005. For the purposes of this chapter the definitions listed hereunder shall be construed as specified in this section. APPROVAL shall mean a written engineering or geological opinion con- ceming the progress and completion of the work. AS-GRADED is the extent of surface conditions on completion of grading. BEDROCK is in-place solid rock. BENCH is a relatively level step excavated into earth material on which fill is to be placed. BORROW is earth material acquired from an off-site location for use in grading on a site. CIVIL ENGINEER shall mean a professional engineer registered in the state to practice in the field of civil works. CIVIL ENGINEERING shall mean the application of the knowledge of the forces of nature,principles of mechanics and the properties of materials to the evaluation, design and construction of civil works for the beneficial uses of mankind. - COMPACTION is the densification,of a fill by mechanical means. EARTH MATERIAL is any rock,natural soil or fill and/or any combination thereof. ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST shall mean a geologist experienced and knowledgeable in engineering geology. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY shall mean the application of geologic knowl- edge and principles in the investigation and evaluation of naturally occurring rock - and soil for use in the design of civil works. _ EROSION is the wearing away of the ground surface as a result of the movement of wind,water and/or ice. EXCAVATION is the mechanical removal of earth material. FILL is a deposit of earth material placed by artificial means. k GRADE shall mean the vertical location of the ground surface. s. Existing Grade is the grade prior to grading. Rough Grade is the stage at which the grade approximately conforms to the approved plan. Finish Grade is the final grade of the site which conforms to the approved - plan. GRADING is any excavating or filling or combination thereof. KEY is a designed compacted fill placed in a trench excavated in earth material - beneath the toe of a proposed fill slope. SITE is any lot or parcel of land or contiguous combination thereof,under the 73© , s - RESOLUTION NO. 4 -85 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO CONFIRMING THE EXISTENCE OF HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS ON THE PREMISES AT 4511-19 MANANITA AVENUE ATASCADERO AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ELIMINATE SAID HAZARDOUS CONDITION WHEREAS, the City Council on December 21, 1984 considered the ap- peal of Don Vaughn of the revocation of his grading permit #1814; and WHEREAS, following said public hearing and consideration of public testimony, staff reports, appellant' s information and supplementary materials, did deny the appeal and pass Resolution No. 63-84; and WHEREAS, aforesaid resolution established a time and place for a hearing date before the City Council on January 14 , 1985 to consider abatement of hazardous conditions at 4511-19 Mananita; and WHEREAS, the. Council of the City of Atascadero pursuant to the provisions of Section 7004 of the Uniform Building Code, adopted by reference by the Atascadero Municipal Code, finds as follows: S1) Existing fill on this property has become a hazard to life and limb and endangers property, safety, use and stability of public ways and drainage channels and properties in the area. 2) Revised grading permit No. R-1814 is available for the appli- cant to accept and upon implementation, would rectify the problem and the hazardous conditions on the site. 3) As of the date of Council action on this Resolution, said acceptable alternative to eliminate the hazard on the site has not been exercised. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve _ as follows: Section 1. The City Manager is directed to cause the repair, construction or other elimination of the aforesaid hazardous condition to be made and to cause the cost to be levied, assessed, and collected as a special assessment to the property. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Atascadero, California, held on the of 1985. Resolution No. 4-85 CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor ATTEST ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVA AS TO CONTENT: RALPH H. DOWELL, JR. , Acting City Manager APPROVED AS T FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney 2 &UNKIL MFETING: 2/12/85 AGENDA ITEM NO. : C - 2 • TO: City Council February 12, 1985 FROM: Georgene Kreinberg Administrative/Personnel Analyst SUBJECT: FUND TRANSFER REQUEST, EXPENSES RELATED TO CITY MANAGER RECRUITMENT The Council, on January 25 , 1985, approved hiring Mr. Bill Avery (and payment of his out-of-pocket expenses) to provide specific services in connection with the City Manager recruitment. Council also approved the concept of payment, partial and/or full, of expenses incurred by candidates to be interviewed by full Council in the last phase of the selection process. Council delegated to the Selection Subcommittee, Mayor Nelson and Councilman Handshy, the authority to determine appropriate levels of candidate expense reinbursement. • Therefore, in order to pay for Mr. Aver ' s services, ex enses, and Y P candidate expenses, I am requesting a transfer of $3,500.00 from the contingency reserve fund to Line Item 01-05-2481, Special Recruitment, in the City Manager 's budget. The City' s agreement with Mr. Avery stipulates that charges for his services will not exceed $1,500. 00, and I anticipate that the maximum expense charges for Mr. Avery and the remaining candidates will not exceed $2,000.00. GK:kv • SbUNCIL MEETING: 2/12/85 AGENDA ITEM NO D _ 1 • TO: City Council February 28, 1985 FROM: Ralph H. Dowell, Jr. Acting City Manager SUBJECT: CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT This item was discussed at the prior Council Meeting of January 28, 1985, and continued to this meeting for final action. There has been no recommendation by name received by this office. RHD:kv • • 0 San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council err Atascadero, Grover City Morro Bay and Regional Transportation Planning Agency Paso Robles Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo County January 18, 1985 R E C E i �.�f f`y: �1 Ralph Dowell, Acting City Administrator � � i �9v - City of Atascadero CITY P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, California 93422 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO THE CITIZENS' 'TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Dear Mr. Dowell: This is to inform you that a vacancy exists for an interested individual to be appointed by you to serve on the Citizen's Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC). The CTAC is an advisory committee of the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council. Its membership is comprised of appointments from each supervisoral district and each incorporated city, as well as three appointments made by the Area Council to represent special interest groups concerned with transportation issues. A vacancy presently exists from your district. The committee is advisory to the Area Council and have been very helpful in assuring citizen input in the planning process. The committee normally meets on the second Wednesday of alternating months from 7 p.m. until approximately 9 p.m., in our conference room in San Luis Obispo. Please note, the California government Code, (Chapter 10, Section 54974) requires a special vacancy notice to be posted in the office of the Clerk and other places at least 10 working days prior to final appointment by your city. Attached is a sample copy of a vacancy notice as well as a copy of the committee by-laws. Also included is a flyer and an application form which may be copied, posted and distributed to interested persons. If you need additional information or assistance, please give me a call at 549-5714. Sincerely, 1 PAUL CRAWFORD, AICP Eputive Secretary RONALD DECARLI Administrative Planner PC/RD/hf/1037L County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 (805) 549-5710 CITY OF AMIL NOTICE OF UNSCHEDULED VACANCY - ON C 0 M M ITT E E JANUARY 18, 1985 Notice is hereby given, pursuant to Section 54974 of the California Government Code, that an unscheduled vacancy occurs on the following committee: NAME OF COMMITTEE: CITIZENS' TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE PURPOSE: The Citizen's Transportation Advisory Committee reviews and prepares recommendations to the San Luis Obispo County and Cities Area Planning and Coordinating Council, a regional transportation planning agency on all phases of their transportation planning program, including transit, streets and roads, bicycle facilities, airports, funding and plan preparation. MEETINGS: Meetings are generally held every other month on Wednesday evenings in San Luis Obispo from 7:00 p.m. to approximately 9:00 p.m. TERM: Discretion of the City Council. For further information, please contact: or Ron DeCarli, Transportation Planner City of San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council County Government Center San Luis Obispo, California 93408 (805) 549-5710 I State of California, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Vacancy was posted in accordance- with Section 54974 of the California Government Code on 19i I VACANCY OF: CITIZEN'S S TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT AUTHORITY: City of EFFECTIVE: DATE APPOINTMENT CAN BE MADE: ■ ■ WANTED' � ® vCandidates for appointment to the region's Citizens Transportation ■ Advisory Committee. ■ ■ WHAT IS THE CITIZEN'S'TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE?' ■ The Citizen's Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) is an advisory - committee-to the San--Luis- Obispo Area Coordinating--Council---(the-regio, ■ designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency). The functions of ■ CTAC include developing and forwarding recommendations on transportation ■ policies and implementation as well as the review and study of existing ■ transportation related affairs. ■ CTAC consists of sixteen regular members, each of whom are representing ■ ■ various interests concerned with transportation. Each member has full ■ ■ voting privileges and shall serve so long as their appointing bodies allow ■ ■ or until they shall resign. ■ ■ ■ HOW ARE DELEGATES APPOINTED TO CTAC? ■ The sixteen delegates are appointed to the committee by the Board of ■ Supervisors, the seven incorporated cities, and the San Luis Obispo Area ■ Coordinating Council as follows: ■ ■ One appointee from each city ■ ■ One appointee from-each -Supervisorial District ■ Four at-large appointees by the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council, with emphasis placed on appointments to assure a balanced representation of user groups. ■ WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO BE A CTAC CANDIDATE? ■ ■ Any person who is a resident of San Luis Obispo County is eligible to be a candidate for appointment to CTAC. ■ ■ PRESENT VACANCIES • ■ ■ ■ City of Atascadero ■ ■ City of Grover City ■ City of Pismo Beach ■ Fourth Supervisorial District (South County Area) Fifth Supervisorial District (SLO, Santa Margarita) ■ ■ OTHER INFORMATION • If you are interested or would like some additional information regarding CTAC, please contact one of the above bodies or San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council at 544-5714. r � a ■ APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT, TO CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Name of Applicant Residence Street Address City Zig Code Residence Telephone Number Business Telephone Number Business Street Address City Zip Code 1. Are you: a full-time paid officer or employee of local/state government (circle one)? NO YES If so, Where Position 2. Education: 3. Present occupation: 4. Membership in organizations 5. Please describe why you are interested in serving on this committee. (Use reverse side for any additional information--200 words maximum.) : 6. Please describe other community activities that-you have been involved in. 7. Signature of applicant: 8. Date: 0887E i ADOPTED: APRIL 18, 1984 ATTACHMENT A CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE BY-LAWS ARTICLE I FUNCTIONS The functions of the San Luis Obispo Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee are as follows: A. To develop and forward recommendations on transportation policies and implementation. B. To review and study existing transportation related "affairs. ARTICLE II MEMBERSHIP Section 1 Regular Members. Sixteen (16) regular members representing various interests concerned with transportation shall be appointed to the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee by the Board of Supervisors, incorporated cities and the San Luis Obispo County and Cities Area Planning and Coordinating Council as follows: One appointee from each city One appointee from each Supervisorial District Four at-large appointees by the San Luis Obispo County and Cities Area Planning and Coordinating Council with emphasis placed on appointments to assure a balanced representation of user groups. All regular members shall serve so long as their appointing . bodies allow or until they shall resign. Vacancies shall be filled in the same manner as the first appointee. Each member shall have full voting privileges. Section 2: Technical Advisory Members. Representatives of government agencies including, but not limited to the agencies on the list appended herein, shall be advisory members to the Committee and shall receive minutes and agenda and have full rights of committee membership, except that no Technical Advisory Member shall be permitted to vote on Committee matters. Section 3: Absences. Members shall be notified in writing after two con- secutive absences from regular Committee meetings. Section 4: Vacancies. Should a vacancy occur on the Committee by yeas of resignation, disability, or otherwise, the original appointing ent shall then appoint a member to fill the vacancy. ARTICLE III OFFICERS Section 1: Officers. The officers of the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee shall consist of a Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Section 2: Selection of Officers. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be chosen by majority vote of the regular Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee members. Secretarial services shall be provided by the San Luis Obispo County and Cities Area Planning and Coordinating Council. Section 3: Term of Office. All elected officers shall serve for a term of one year. No elected officer shall serve more than two (2) consecutive one-year terms in any office. Section 4: Vacancies. Vacated elected offices shall be filled by an election at the next regular meeting to follow such vacancy by a majority vot of the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee members. Section 5: Duties of Officers. A. Chairman: 1. To preside at all meetings of the Committee. 2. To call special meetings of the Committee in accordance with these By-Laws. 3. To see that all actions of the Committee are properly taken• 4. To appoint standing committees. B. Vice-Chairman: During absence, disability or disqualification of the Chaandbe subject Vice-Chairman shall exercise or perform all to all the responsibilities of the Chairman. C. Staff Secretary: 1. To keep the minutes of all meetings. 2. To give or serve all notices required by these By-Laws. 3. To prepare the agenda for all meetings. 4. To be custodian of Committee records. i • ARTI� CSV k MEETINGS Regular meetings o€ the Citizens Section 1: Regular -Mee tn s. gu be stating the time and place of Transportation Advisory . Committee sbelSent held at least prior to each Area Council meeting. Notice shalt the the meeting. A regular meeting may be cancelled or rescheduled by Committee at a prior meeting. Section 2: Special Meetings. The Chairman may call a Special Meeting of Transportation Advisory Committee provided written notice is the Citizens given- given all members at least 24 hours in advance and proper notice is g the Section 3• Quorum. A quorum shall consist o€ five CS) members a quorum, Committee. No formal action shall be taken ate,ln the absence of except to adjourn the meeting to a later d Section 4: &&ends. Items of business for the agenda shall be handed to Sec -:- may add matters of the Chairman by a member of the. saC(hist discretioseven (7y days in advance of the meeting. The Chairman, of the agenda for e urgent business to the agenda. A written copy meeting shall be given each regular and Technical Advisory member at least 48 hours in advance of a regular meeting. In all matters not. otherwise provided for Proceedin s Committee Section 5: __ -' Newly herein, all meetings of the citizens withT Robert is t Rules�of _Order, shall be conducted in accordance Revised. ARTICLE V SUB-COt KITTEES � The Chairman shall appoint the members and determine the Secttin 1: s needed. duties o€ Sub-Committees a Sub-Committees shall make and submit appropriateelaction.to the Section 2: Committee for full Citizens Transportation Advisory ARTICLE___.--- -VI EFFECTIVE DATE o into effect upon the date of adoption Section 1: These By-Laws shall g Committee. by the Citizens Transportation Advisory APPENDIX CITIZEN TRANSPORTATION ADIVSORY COMMITTEE: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ms/2177 lr�-1